&EPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency	
               Office of
               The Administrator
               (WH-55QG)
EPA 100-R-93-001
December 1992
Final Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection
Program Guidance
            Public
          Participation
                                 esponsibilities
                     Implementation
    Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
              United States Environmental Protection Agency
       EPA Ground Water
        Policy Committee

     Martha G. Prothro (Chair)
      Patrick M. Tobin (Chair)
       Richard J. Guimond
         Victor J. Kimm
         Daniel C. Esty
        Edward J. Hanley
         John H. Skinner
       William J. Muszynski
         William W. Rice
         James R. Elder
        Henry L. Longest II
        Sylvia K. Lowrance
          Margo T. Oge
        David W. Ziegele
        Susan H. Wayland
         David G. Davis
         Jim McCormick
         Alvin R. Morris
        Harry Seraydarian
        Susan G. Lepow
        Frederick F. Stiehl
         Phyllis A. Reed
        Christopher P. Hoff
        Christian H. Rice
         Paul N. Guthrie
    Robert W. Barles
    Ronald W. Bergman
   EPA State Programs
Implementation Workgroup

 E. Ramona Trovato (Chair)
       Lisa C. Lund
    Stephen L. Johnson
    Geoffrey H. Grubbs
    Devereaux Barnes
    Matthew A. Straus
 James William Gunter, Jr.
    Connie A. Musgrove
      Rick C. Garman
      Carl B. Reeverts
    Fredric D. Chanania
      Robert W. Barles
    Francoise M. Brasier
      Louise P. Wise
    William G. Painter
       Dov Weitman
     Jerome J. Healey
      Stuart Kerzner
      Beverly Houston
      Jerri-Anne Garl
   Michael F. Gearheard
        Ron Milulak
       Doris Betuel
    Virginia Thompson
      William Mullen
       Robert Adler
      Donna M. Harris
      Bruce Wilkinson
        Rick Parkin
      Stuart S. Tuller
      Michael D. Muse
    Sandy B. German
       Linda Strauss
    Kenneth A. Lovelace
    Rodges K.E. Ankrah
      Laurie R. Ford
    Lourdes Maria Bufill
      Jane McConathy
      Susan J. Sladek
    Guy A. Tomassoni
      Floyd L.  Galpin
       Helga Butler
      Pamela J. Harris

       Staff Support
Roy A. Simon
Elizabeth J. Corr
   EPA Ground Water
   Regulatory Cluster

   Charles A. Job (Chair)
    Joseph D. Retzer
  Jacqueline M. Tenusak
      Ellen M. Brown
   Fredric D. Chanania
   Kenneth A. Lovelace
     Arden A. Calvert
    Katherine H. Nam
   Rodges K.E. Ankrah
     Carl B. Reeverts
       Vivian Daub
   Ronald W. Bergman
    Burnell W. Vincent
    Margaret J. Burnett
    Lourdes Maria Bufill
    Natalie A. Ellington
   Matthew Hagemann
Steven Y. Ainsworth
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
&EPA
          United States
          Environmental Protection
          Agency	
               Office of
               The Administrator
               (WH-55QG)
EPA -R-93-001
December 1992
Final Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection
Program Guidance
            Public
          Participation
                                 esponsibilities
                     Implementation
    Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS


PART I:    GUIDANCE TO STATES

1.    INTRODUCTION  	 1-1

     1.1   GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION IS A NATIONAL
         CONCERN	 1-3
         Threats to Ground Water	 1-4
         Importance of Ground Water	 1-4

     1.2  WIDE-RANGING RESPONSES OVER THE LAST TWO
         DECADES  	  1-5
         Ground Water as a Focus of Environmental Action	 1-5
         Possible New Initiatives Focusing on Ground Water	 1-6

     1.3  WHAT EPA AND THE STATES HAVE LEARNED	 1-10

     1.4  CSGWPP AS THE FOCUS OF A NEW
         FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL PARTNERSHIP IN GROUND
         WATER PROTECTION	 1-14

     1.5  WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A COMPREHENSIVE STATE
         GROUND WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM 	 1-18

     1.6  THE CSGWPP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: THE NEW
         PARTNERSHIP  IN ACTION	 1-20
         From "Core" CSGWPP to "Fully-Integrating" CSGWPP	 1-21
         Steps for States to Take 	 1-24
         Steps EPA Has Taken and will Continue to Take to
         Assist the States	 1-25

     1.7  OPPORTUNITIES PRESENTED BY THE NEW
         PARTNERSHIP  AND THE CSGWPP APPROACH 	 1-26

     1.8  WHAT THIS GUIDANCE CONTAINS	 1-28

2.    THE SIX STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES AND ADEQUACY CRITERIA OF A
     COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM	2-1

     2.1   BENEFITS OF THE CORE CSGWPP 	2-1
     Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)


     2.2   THE ADEQUACY CRITERIA: CORE AND FULLY-
          INTEGRATING CSGWPPs  	2-1

     2.3   OTHER GENERAL GUIDANCE	 2-2

     2.4   THE SIX STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES AND THEIR
          ADEQUACY CRITERIA	2-3

          1. Establish a Common Ground Water Protection Goal  	 2-5
          2. Establish Priorities to Direct all Relevant Programs  	2-7
          3. Define Authorities, Roles, and Resources	2-9
          4. Implement Efforts to Accomplish the State's Goal	 2-11
          5. Coordinate Information Collection and Management	 2-15
          6. Improve Public Education and Participation  	 2-17

3.      DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS	 3-1

4.      LINKAGE TO EPA AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS	 4-1

          4.1   COORDINATION OF EPA PROGRAMS  	4-1

          4.2   LINKAGE TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS	4-4

               Providing Technical Assistance 	4-6
               Utilizing States' Ground Water Protection Priorities
               in Non-Regulatory Efforts	4-7
               Deferring to States' Ground Water Protection
               Policies, Objectives, and Standards	4-8

APPENDIX A:     DEFINING GROUND WATER PROTECTION GOALS	  A-1

          A.1   HISTORICAL TYPES OF GROUND WATER
               PROTECTION GOALS	  A-1

          A.2   EPA'S GROUND WATER PROTECTION
               GOAL	  A-3

          A.3   EPA'S POLICY TOWARD ENDORSING
               CSGWPP GOALS	  A-6
     Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
APPENDIX B:
      TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

DEFINING VALUABLE GROUND WATER
RESOURCE USES AND BENEFITS,
INCLUDING REASONABLY EXPECTED
SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER 	
                                                                       B-1
          B.1
GROUND WATER VALUES	  B-1
Current Use Value 	  B-1
Future or Reasonably Expected Use Value	  B-1
Intrinsic Value	  B-2
          B.2   DEFINING REASONABLY EXPECTED USES
               OF GROUND WATER	
                                                        B-2
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
HOW THIS GUIDANCE WAS DEVELOPED	  C-1

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS	  D-1
PART II:        LINKAGE TO EPA AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY
               PROGRAMS

          1.    LINKAGE TO EPA PROGRAMS 	  1-1
                    Wellhead Protection Program	  1-3
                    Pesticides State Management Plan Program	  1-5
                    Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program  	  1-9
                    RCRA Subtitle C Program	  1-11
                    RCRA Subtitle D Program	  1-13
                    Underground Storage Tank Program	  1-15
                    Superfund Program 	  1-17
                    Oil Pollution Act 	  1-19
                    Underground Injection Control Program	  1-21
                    Public Water Supply Supervision Program	  1-23
                    Nonpoint Source Program 	  1-25
                    NPDES and Industrial Pretreatment Program	  1-27
                    Storm Water Program  	  1-29
                    Sewage Sludge Program	  1-31
                    Coastal Zone Management Program	  1-33
                    Toxic Substances Control Program 	  1-35
                    Radiation Program	  1-37
                    Wetlands Program	  1-39
                    Watershed Protection Approach  	  1-41
                    Pollution Prevention Program	  1-43
     Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
     2.       LINKAGE TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS  	2-1
               United States Department of Agriculture 	2-3
               United States Department of Defense	2-9
               United States Department of Energy  	  2-13
               United States Department of Interior  	  2-17
               United States Department of Transportation 	  2-23
               United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission	  2-27
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
1.    INTRODUCTION

      Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs) are the focal point
for a new partnership between EPA, the States, Native American Tribes,1 and local governments to
achieve a more efficient, coherent, and comprehensive approach to protecting the nation's ground
water resources. CSGWPPs are also an important step in implementing  EPA's ground water
protection goal and principles.

      EPAs overall goal is to prevent adverse effects to human health and the environment and to
protect the environmental integrity of the  nation's ground water. This goal calls for CSGWPPs that
ensure protection of drinking water supplies and maintenance of the environmental integrity of
ecosystems associated with ground water. In addition, EPA's goal statement note that "in
determining appropriate prevention and protection strategies, EPA will also consider the use,
value, and vulnerability of the resource, as well as social and economic values." Given the lessons
learned over the last several  years regarding the extensive use and high  value of ground water, its
vulnerability to contamination, and the social and economic consequences of such contamination,
EPA will pursue the following three-tiered hierarchy of preferred ground  water protection
objectives:2

      •    Prevention of contamination whenever possible. In order to meet the Agency's
            goal of preventing adverse effects to human health and the  environment and
            protecting environmental  integrity,  prevention of contamination must be the first
            priority of the CSGWPP approach.

      •    Prevention of contamination based on the relative vulnerability of the resource,
            and where necessary the ground water's use and value. While prevention of
            contamination whenever  possible must be the first priority of a CSGWPP, EPA also
            recognizes that basic human activity has impacts on ground water. Prevention of all
            discharges to all ground water is not possible. This should not be construed as
            allowing ground waters to be"written-off." Rather, EPA believes that some level of
            protection should be considered for all ground-water resources.

            Other factors may need to be taken into account when making ground water
            protection decisions. The relative vulnerability3 of the ground
   1 Except where necessary to reflect differences between States and Native American Tribes, the balance of
this Guidance uses "State" to refer to both State and Tribes.

   2See Appendix A for a more detailed discussion of EPA's ground water goal and its relationship to State
programs.

   3EPA defines ground water vulnerability as the relative ease with which a contaminant introduced into the
environment can migrate to an aquifer under a given set of management practices, contaminant
characteristics, and aquifer sensitivity conditions. Ground water vulnerability assessment methods assess
hydrogeologic characteristics, contaminant characteristics, and management practices related to
contaminants.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                            1-2

            water should help determine the level of source control measures necessary to
            prevent contamination. As an additional preventive measure, the relative use, value,
            and vulnerability of ground waters at different locations should be considered in
            decisions regarding the siting of facilities or activities. Also, due to limited government
            personnel and financial resources, the relative use, value, and vulnerability of ground
            waters should  be  key factors in setting priorities for day-to-day operations of relevant
            programs  (e.g. which permits to write first, which inspections to do first, which
            clean-ups to begin first).

            Finally, in some cases, EPA is required  by statute to base regulation on
            consideration of the risks and the benefits of activities that may pose health or
            environmental concerns. Such consideration could result in targeting prevention
            measures to those areas where  ground waters are considered to have certain uses
            and values that, if not protected and conserved, would pose an unreasonable risk to
            human health or the environment now or for future generations. While under these
            federal statutes EPA and the States will  need to ensure protection of ground waters
            with certain uses and values, States are encouraged to pursue prevention whenever
            possible.

      •     Remediation based on relative use and value of ground water. Although the
            focus of ground water  protection should be on the prevention of contamination,
            remediation must  be pursued as a final option when prevention fails or where
            contamination  already exists. EPAs goal is to remediate all aquifers to meet their
            designated uses. Given the expense of cleaning up ground water contamination and
            the need to focus  more effort and resources on prevention, EPA and the States must
            take a realistic approach to restoration based upon the actual and reasonably
            expected uses of the resource as well as on social and economic values. EPA, the
            States, and other federal agencies must work together to ensure consistent
            approaches to determining clean-up objectives.

      EPA is seeking to make  the Comprehensive Program  approach the catalyst for fundamental
change in the development and implementation of ground water protection programs at the federal,
State, and local levels. To achieve this end, CSGWPPs will further empower States with the
primary role in coordinating  all ground water-related programs and will expedite this coordination
based on a State-directed, resource-based approach. The CSGWPP approach will effect the
changes  required for realization of the principles by meeting the following objectives:

      •     Provide States with greater flexibility in directing their ground water protection
            activities across the various EPA programs, sources of
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           1-3

            contamination, and geographic areas to achieve comprehensive resource-based
            ground water protection;

      •     Eliminate the potential for ground water-related programs to be at cross-purposes,
            resulting in confusion and inefficient expenditure of efforts;

      •     Demonstrate the States' effectiveness in ground water protection to better justify
            additional funds for program development and implementation and additional flexibility
            from EPA and other federal agencies;

      •     Recognize and further delineate the appropriate roles for federal, State, and local
            governments as partners in ground water protection;

      •     Establish a forum for a better understanding and recognition of the interrelatedness
            of ground water quantity and  quality concerns;

      •     Improve public understanding of ground water protection concerns in each State and
            provide a broader context for public participation; and

      •     Build a consensus across all levels of government on the need for comprehensive
            protection and on the basic structure of comprehensive programs.

      Many of these objectives are already being met at the State level. However, additional effort
is necessary at both the federal and State levels to ensure comprehensive ground water protection.
To achieve the changes necessary to implement the CSGWPP approach, EPA and the States
need to commit jointly to the CSGWPP approach as the focus of a long-term process for effecting
both improvement in existing State programs and fundamental changes in the operation of federal
programs related to ground water. This Guidance describes the cooperative process that States
and EPA will use in developing and implementing the CSGWPP approach. It clarifies why this is
the best approach to protection, given current or threatened contamination and the wide ranging
responses to contamination over the past two decades, as well as  the future legislative, regulatory,
and other federal initiatives on the horizon.

      1.1    GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION  IS A NATIONAL CONCERN

      Until the late 1970s, ground water was generally considered to be  a pristine resource. Both
experts and the public believed that the subsurface waters were naturally protected by layers of
soil and earth and were self-cleansing. Contamination,
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           1-4

where it occurred, was thought to be primarily localized and the result of septic systems
operations.

      Threats to Ground Water

      In the late 1970s and early 1980s, releases from waste sites such as Love Canal and
the'Valley of the Drums," pesticide incidents such as releases of EDB and widespread discoveries
of DBCP and Aldicarb in ground water and increased reports of drinking water well closures slowly
focused the public's attention on ground water contamination. Through further research, news
reports,  and studies, we are now aware that there are many threats to ground water: man-made
chemicals of many kinds and uses, including synthetic organic compounds; fertilizers; pesticides;
wastes from mineral and petroleum exploration, production, transportation, storage, and use; and
human and animal wastes, among others. Over 30 major categories of sources of ground water
contamination have been identified. They include underground storage  tanks,  surface
impoundments,  municipal and other landfills, active and inactive  hazardous waste management
sites, pesticide storage, mixing, and application sites, septic tanks, underground injection wells and
a variety of other sources.

      Importance of Ground Water

      At the same time as these threats to ground water began to be more clearly recognized, the
importance of protecting ground water also became clearer,  not only as a source of drinking water
but also for its other beneficial uses and ecological roles. About 50 percent of the population of the
United States receives its drinking water from ground water. While ground water supplies about 35
percent of the drinking water used in urban areas, it supplies close to 95 percent of the drinking
water in rural areas. Several states depend on ground water for over 90 percent of their drinking
water.

      Ground water is also critical for other beneficial uses such  as agriculture and industry.
Ninety percent of the ground water withdrawals in Arkansas, Colorado,  Kansas and Nebraska are
for agricultural activities. In the eastern and mid-western industrial states, 30 percent of the ground
water withdrawn is used in industrial processes.

      Ground water also has important ecological functions. Ground water and surface water are
interconnected.  The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 40 percent of the annual average
streamflow in the United States is derived from ground water, or baseflow. (U.S. Geological
Survey, 1988, National Water Summary -1986, USGS Water Supply Paper 2325, p. 3) In some
places, particularly humid zones, over 90 percent of the stream flow is from ground water. Recent
research findings point to intrinsic ground water ecology, i.e., numerous species living in ground
water, as being  another reason to be concerned about the quality of ground water. Clearly, ground
water is important, in  maintaining ecosystems  and habitats.

      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-5

      1.2   WIDE-RANGING RESPONSES OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES

      From the mid-1970's to the present, the federal government, State and local governments,
and the private sector have responded to incidents of ground water contamination with a diverse
array of actions and studies. Additional actions are likely in the near future.

      Ground Water as a Focus of Environmental Action

      Federal Laws. Regulations, and National Guidances. Many of the federal environmental
statutes enacted in the past two decades had as their primary objective the protection or
remediation of ground water. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which at
their initial enactments already contained major ground water protection components, were both
reauthorized in the mid 1980's with provisions that increased their emphasis on ground water
protection. The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act (HSWA) to RCRA added tight
restrictions on land disposal of hazardous waste,  additional technical requirements for hazardous
waste management facilities,  new requirements for municipal landfills, new restrictions on surface
impoundments, and a new program to address underground storage tanks. In addition,  new
corrective action requirements for cleanup of earlier contamination at existing  hazardous waste
management facilities were imposed by HSWA and may ultimately involve thousands of sites. The
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act  in 1986 (SARA) placed  new emphasis on
remediation of abandoned hazardous waste sites and gave new specificity to the cleanup
requirements.

      The 1988 Federal  Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) amendments
modified  pesticide registration and re-registration processes, which enhance the Agency's ability
to regulate leachable products. In 1986, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was amended by a
new provision requiring each State to develop and implement a Wellhead Protection Program to
serve as a mechanism for States and local governments to protect the recharge areas of public
drinking water wells. The  1986 Amendments to the SDWA also strengthened EPA's regulatory role
in protecting ground water from underground injection control wells and in protecting current
underground sources of drinking water from contaminants.

      States' Efforts.  State activities to  protect ground water in the 1980's and early 1990's have
been extensive. Studies by the National  Conference of State Legislatures indicated that all fifty
States enacted legislation with ground water management provisions during the calendar years
1985-1991.  This legislation included statements of State-wide ground water policies, establishment
of ground water classification  systems, definition of ground water quality standards, establishment
of ground water protection funds, and/or numerous efforts to control sources of contamination.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           1-6

      At the same time, EPA has provided nearly $80 million since 1985 under the Clean Water
Act to all the States to develop State-wide Ground Water Strategies. With this funding, each of the
50 States developed a Strategy and implemented significant ground water management efforts
pursuant to it. Since 1987, States have been working to control non-point sources of ground water
and surface water contamination under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. From FY 1990 to FY
1993, EPA will spend about $180 million under ง319 grants, with at least $20 million devoted to
ground water protection. In addition, the States developed and are implementing many regulatory
and non-regulatory programs under State statutes to address sources of ground water
contamination not addressed by the federal government, such as diffuse sources like septic tanks.

      Private Sector Activities.  The private sector has also been influenced by the trend toward
greater attention to ground water. Industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up
ground water at Superfund sites and to protect ground water at RCRA hazardous waste sites.
Environmental audits are now routinely undertaken by industry to identify and address ground
water contamination problems before they become unmanageable. Such environmental audits are
also becoming a common practice  in commercial real estate transactions to ensure that land being
sold is clear of any ground water contamination or other environmental problems.

      Coordination Efforts.  Beginning in the late 1980's, EPA and many other federal agencies
embarked upon a  number of actions to pull together the disparate strands of ground water
protection  and to undertake new initiatives. In 1991 EPA developed and released a Strategy for
ground water that  established EPAs policy of promoting a comprehensive federal/State
partnership in ground water protection. EPA also published the Pesticides and Ground Water
Strategy addressing a specific threat to ground water. EPAs RCRA, Superfund, and Radiation
Programs  are also working to develop new approaches to protect ground water that will encompass
a more comprehensive partnership with the States. Other federal agencies have been working with
EPAs programs as well as refocusing their programs or starting new initiatives to protect ground
water.

      Possible Now Initiatives Focusing on Ground Water

      A new set of responses to ground water issues, ranging from possible legislation to
regulatory and policy initiatives, could occur in the next few months or years.

      Legislation in the 103rd Congress.  There will likely be efforts to reauthorize many of the
laws that currently address ground water, including the Safe Drinking  Water Act, which includes
the Wellhead Protection Program and the Underground Injection Control Program; RCRA Subtitles
C and D and the Underground Storage
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                            1-7

Tank Program Superfund, including the criteria for the National Priorities List; and FIFRA. Bills
also may be submitted dealing with above-ground storage tanks, wastes from oil and gas
exploration and production, and fertilizers.

      National Regulations and Guidances over the next five years. EPA is likely to promulgate
regulatory changes and issue new national guidelines affecting ground water under the current
statutes, whether there are legislative changes or not. These new initiatives include: actions
affecting RCRA requirements for corrective action, municipal landfills and State/Tribal
implementation, definition of hazardous waste, and requirements for ground water monitoring;
revisions to the Superfund National Priorities List; the FIFRA Restricted-Use Rule for Ground
Water Protection; the SDWA Underground Injection Control rule on Class V wells; new rules on
sewage sludge use and disposal; requirements for stormwater management; and rules on ground
water disinfection.  EPA is also reviewing policy options for addressing ground water ecological
concerns.  Table 1-1 on the following pages provides a list of some of EPAs upcoming actions
relating to ground water.

      Other Federal Agencies. Several federal agencies are implementing new initiatives relating
to ground  water protection. USDA is implementing a Water Quality Initiative; DOI is reorienting the
Federal/State Cooperative Program to implement a national assessment of ground water quality,
taking steps to begin implementing a new mapping program nationwide in cooperation with the
State geologists, and engaging in joint activity with the Bureau of Reclamation on the High Plains
Aquifer Study; action by the Department of Energy is underway to implement a massive effort to
clean up radioactive nuclear sites; action by the Department of Defense has begun to implement a
massive effort to convert facilities to civilian use by cleaning up the sites to be transferred; and the
Department of Transportation is working to develop new means of ensuring safe interstate
transport of hazardous materials. These are only some of the initiatives by other federal agencies
that will have an impact on ground water. Detailed descriptions of these agency's ground
water-related programs are provided in Part II, Section 2.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        1-8
                                     Table 1-1
             Upcoming EPA Regulatory and Guidance Actions Relating to
                                   Ground Water

 Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS):

              Guidance to. States: on developing Pesticide State Management Plans;
              SMP Rule Workgroup;
              Restricted Use Classification for Groundwater Contaminating Pesticides;
              Aldicarb Special Review;
              Storage and Disposal of Pesticides Residues;
              OPTS Annual Operating Guidance;
              FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance;
              PCB Disposal Amendments; and
              Pesticide Data Requirements.

 Office of Air and Radiation (OAR):

       •     Ground Water Protection for Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings Sites;
       *     Land Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes; and
       •     Disposal of High-Level Transuranic Radioactive Wastes.

 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency  Response (OSWER):

       •     Corrective Action for Releases from Solid Waste Management Units;
       •     Ground Water Monitoring Rule;
       •     Ground Water Amendments;
       *     Mining Waste Program Rule;
       *     Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, State/Tribal Implementation Rule;
       ป     Liners and Leak Detection for Hazardous Waste Land
              Disposal Units;
       •     Standards for the Location of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
              Storage, and Disposal Facilities;
       •     Ground-Water Monitoring Analytes;
       *     Disposal of Containerized  Liquids in Hazardous Waste
              Landfills;
       •     Modification of Mixture/Derived From Rule;
       •     Toxicity Characteristics Rule Suspension for Oil Spill
              Cleanups;
       •     Use of Ground Water Data in Hazardous Waste Delisting
              Decisions;
       •     Corrective Action Stabilization Strategy and Guidance;
       *     Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Restrictions "Third-Thirds"
              Rule Implementation Guidance;
       ป     Land Disposal Restrictions: Treatment Standards for Newly
              Identified and Listed Wastes & Contaminated Soils;
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                       1-9
                              Table 1-1 (continued)
             Upcoming EPA Regulatory and Guidance Actions Relating to
                                  Ground Water
 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) (continue):

       •      Revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous Pollution
              Contingency Plan;
       ป      OERR Strategic Plan for Addressing Ground Water
              Contamination at  Superfund Sites;
       •      Guidance on Remedial Action for Contaminated Ground
              Water at Superfund Sites;
       *      Superfund/RCRA Technical Impracticability Waiver/Guidance;
       •      Multi-Source Groundwater Guidance;
       •      Preliminary Assessment Guidance for HRS;
       •      Data Useability for Site Assessment for HRS;
       ซ      Site Investigation Guidance, for HRS; and
       •      HRS Guidance Document for Commonly Encountered HRS
              Scoring Questions.

 Office of Water (OW):

       *      National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Contaminants
              from First Drinking Water Priority List (Phase VI);
              Ground Water Disinfection Rule;
              DIG Class V Well  Regulation;
              Technical Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage
              Sludge;
              Guidance for 106  funds;
              Guidance for 319  funds;
              Guidance for 319  State Management Plans; and
              Naturally Occurring Radioactive Nuclides.

 Office of Enforcement. (OE):

       •      Guidance for State-EPA Enforcement Agreements.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-10

1.3   WHAT EPA AND THE STATES HAVE LEARNED

      The activities focused on protecting and cleaning up ground water for the past twenty years
have been marked by both successes and failures and have led States and EPA to conclude that:

      •     A greater emphasis on prevention of ground water contamination is needed.
            Preventing a problem before it starts or gets worse is generally sound public policy.
            Prevention of ground water contamination is usually much less costly than cleaning
            up after contamination has occurred.

            One way to demonstrate the high costs of contamination is to consider the cost of
            well replacement. For example, at Prices Landfill in New Jersey, a Superfund site, a
            municipal well field of ten wells was abandoned due to contamination and a new
            wellfield was established at a cost of about $5 million, or about $500,000 per well. In
            most cases, the costs of cleaning up ground water contamination are also extremely
            high. A 1988 study of 153 Superfund sites showed that projected ground water
            remediation costs, at about a quarter of these sites, were over $10 million per site,
            with the most expensive site being $120 million.

            Prevention, in contrast, usually costs significantly less. Communities with small water
            supply systems serving hundreds to thousands of consumers have implemented
            Wellhead Protection Programs at a cost of about 5 to 10 percent of the capital costs
            of well installation. Economies of scale in larger wellfields, such as South Florida,
            have led to a cost of protection as low as 1  percent of the capital costs required for
            facilities to  treat drinking water supplies that have been contaminated.

            In 1991, the U.S. General Accounting Office, looking at these cost differences,
            concluded  that a "shift of emphasis between prevention and remedial programs is
            warranted to help states implement preventive groundwater protection programs more
            effectively." GAO recommended  that EPA work with the States to develop ways to
            reorient some of their existing ground water programs to provide greater emphasis on
            preventive  activities. ("More Emphasis Needed on Prevention in EPA's Efforts to
            Protect Groundwater," U.S. General Accounting Office, December 1991,
            GAO/RCED-92-47)

            Even if the costs of prevention and cleanup were roughly equivalent, prevention
            provides the only feasible means of addressing certain problems. We are
            increasingly finding  that current ground water cleanup technologies cannot always
            succeed in removing certain categories of contaminants to the degree desired,
            especially non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs and DNAPLs) from aquifers.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                     1-11

•     Remediation should be based on differential protection. While prevention of
      contamination will be promoted to the extent possible, decision-making concerning
      the appropriate level of remediation will need to be based, in part, on the relative use
      and value of the contaminated ground water. Cleanup of contaminated ground water
      is both time and resource intensive. Because of the need to attend to other
      environmental and societal issues in a time of limited resources, choices will have to
      be made about where to focus remedial actions and the extent of the remediation to
      be sought.

•     A local understanding of the resource is needed to establish
      priorities. The number and variety of potential threats to ground water and the unique
      hydrological features of the resource vary extensively from one location to another.
      The total impact on the resource of all sources of contamination in a particular area,
      taking into consideration  the unique features of the ground water, must be considered
      in establishing priorities and appropriate strategies for prevention and/or remediation.

      Thus, we must use the knowledge base held by State and  local governments and
      private and non-profit organizations. Indeed, the technical experience of State and
      local personnel is a very important component of ground water protection. Because
      Statewide programs, including all component local efforts,  must address ground water
      protection efforts in the field on a day-to-day basis,  State and local personnel  have
      gained useful insights into problems and remedies.

•     Flexibility in setting and addressing priorities at the State and local level is
      needed.  EPA, through extensive discussions with the States, has come to know more
      about inconsistencies and rigidities among federal ground water-related programs,
      which result in inefficient expenditures of efforts and less cost effective protection
      from a total resource-based perspective. EPA also has come to realize that the
      federal rigidity may be largely a result of ignorance or misconceptions regarding
      State ground water protection capabilities as well as State needs, priorities, and
      approaches.

•     Additional coordination of ground water-related programs and authorities is
      needed.  The current patchwork of ground water-related programs and efforts (See
      Figure 1-1) is not fully effective in protecting the resource. Federal source control
      programs, which provide the authority for many State efforts, focus on contamination
      that, in
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                             1-12
Different
  Goals
                           Different
                        Approaches
                               t
                          State Laws and
                            Strategies
                           Different
                         institutions
Different
Priorities
 Figure 1-1. Coordination of the patchwork of programs and efforts is difficult.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                     1-13

      aggregate, presents significant risks on a national basis, but may not represent the
      most important threats at specific locations to either drinking water supplies or ground
      water discharge to aquatic ecosystems.

      Many small, dispersed, or nonpoint sources of contamination remain unaddressed.
      Commercial, residential, and industrial development frequently occurs with little or no
      recognition of the long-term impacts on the quality of ground water. The programs
      that address particular threats are not always consistent in their approaches or
      requirements. In some cases, duplication of effort may occur, while in others gaps in
      coverage for a resource-based, perspective may exist. The programs address
      different goals with differing priorities, and the institutions and levels of government
      that implement them can differ from  program to program.

•     A resource-based perspective needs a better understanding and recognition of
      the interrelatedness of ground water quantity and quality. EPA is exploring the
      linkage between ground water quantity and quality through a study of the western
      States. At the urging of many groups involved in protecting ground water, EPA wants
      to work with States to further explore the interrelatedness of ground water quantity
      and quality. In the future, States may need to address methods that they will use to
      minimize the impacts of ground water withdrawals on ground water quality, to ensure
      that both aspects of ground water are considered. EPA continues to maintain that
      States have the primary role in ground water quantity policy.

•     Broad public education and participation  is necessary. Because the ground
      water resource is faced with such a broad array of potential threats, the best means
      for protection often will be derived from public education and support. The
      effectiveness of such an approach has already been demonstrated by Wellhead
      Protection activities, in which local programs successfully achieve protection of the
      ground water resource through public outreach and education.

•     More flexible funding at all levels of government is needed. While a clear need
      may exist for all levels of government to increase the total amount of staff and grant
      resources devoted to ground water,  much could be accomplished by removing some
      of the constraints to resource allocation for ground water at all levels of government.
      Existing resources need to be more  flexible to address varying State priorities. Some
      of this flexibility can be provided by reducing the potential for programs to be at
      cross-purposes and avoiding inefficient expenditure across related programs.  There
      also is a need to bring the federal
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-14

            agencies to a better understanding of each other's programs and State programs and
            to provide additional federal flexibility to each of the States based upon their identified
            priority needs. Finally, there is a need to increase both the availability, quantity and
            quality of technical assistance to the States to set priorities and to implement
            programs to address those priorities.

      •     A consensus on the nature of a comprehensive state ground water protection
            program is needed. Missed opportunities have arisen from the lack of agreement
            about what constitutes a comprehensive State ground water protection program and
            the absence of a current vehicle for. communicating the details of State capabilities
            and needs to other federal programs. Given the strong and highly-varied presence of
            the federal government in ground water protection issues (i.e., EPA regulatory
            programs, other agencies' regulatory programs, federal facilities, and federal
            assistance to States and local governments), such a situation is problematic even for
            those States that believe they have, or could accomplish, a comprehensive program
            alone.
1.4   CSGWPPS AS THE FOCUS OF A NEW FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL
      PARTNERSHIP IN GROUND WATER PROTECTION.

      CSGWPPs are intended to build on what we have learned about ground water protection
and remediation efforts over the past two decades and to provide a national consensus on what
actually comprises comprehensive ground water protection. Consequently, this Guidance and the
CSGWPP approach incorporate many of the lessons learned directly into CSGWPP activities.
When existing federal and State laws limit the successful incorporation of these lessons, the
CSGWPP approach will help serve as the catalyst for the necessary changes in existing and
emerging laws, regulations, and policies necessary to address the remaining lessons.

      Therefore, CSGWPPs will have the following aspects:

      •     Prevention. A State's goal must, at least, be  based on preventing ground water
            contamination whenever possible. EPA encourages each State to determine what is
            "possible" explicitly and through adequate public participation.

            EPA recognizes that preventing all discharges to all ground waters in the State is
            unrealistic. Therefore, States are encouraged to consider the relative vulnerability of
            ground water in determining necessary prevention  measures and to consider the
            relative use and value, as well as, vulnerability, of ground waters when deciding
            where to site potential contamination sources or activities. EPA recognizes that the
            economic

      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                     1-15

      and social impacts of prevention measures may need to be weighed against the use
      and value of specific ground water resources. As described, in Appendix A, EPA
      believes that such balancing should be done primarily at the State level, often through
      representative government processes, except when federal statutes (e.g., FIFRA) or
      certain conditions call for a stronger federal role. However, EPA believes that
      prevention and reduction of contamination must be the first priority of each State's
      CSGWPP and that some level of protection should be considered for all ground
      waters in a State.

      Where appropriate, the State should allow local governments to make decisions
      concerning what, is "possible" in regard to. preventing ground water contamination.
      Federal law will still need to be followed when prescribing what is possible. A State's
      goal must be at least as stringent as EPA's goal for prevention. A State's goal may be
      more stringent than EPA's, and may include a goal  based on non-degradation or
      anti-degradation. This does not mean that EPA expects a State to prevent all
      discharges to ground water.  EPA recognizes that the need will occasionally arise for
      realistic balancing of the economic and social costs of prevention against the
      underlying ground water's use and value. Such decisions, however, need to be based
      on an understanding of the current and reasonably expected uses of the ground
      water and a desire to conserve resources for future generations.

      Remediation. A State's goal must, at a minimum, be based on both current and
      reasonably expected uses of ground water, as well as ground waters that are closely
      hydrologically connected to surface waters (See Appendix B). For drinking waters,
      the attainment of Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established under the Safe
      Drinking Water Act (SDWA) should be the remediation goal. For ground waters
      closely hydrologically connected to surface waters, the goal should be to reduce
      contamination so that its discharge to surface water does not exceed water quality
      standards established under the Clean Water Act. A State's goal for cleanup of
      contaminated ground water could also be based on "relative risk to human health
      and/or the environment" or on "remediation to the extent practicable." However, the
      cleanup  levels resulting from these alternative approaches should be at least as
      stringent, and could be more stringent, as levels resulting from the methods described
      above.

      State-directed, resource-based priority setting.  Under a CSGWPP, States are
      encouraged to set priorities for overall ground water management efforts based on a
      local understanding of the relative use, value, and vulnerability of the underlying
      ground water and potential contamination threats. Because resources are limited,
      States cannot
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                     1-16

      focus their ground water efforts (prevention, siting, and remediation) everywhere.
      Therefore, priorities need to be set across these activities.

•     State flexibility. Flexibility will be provided to a State based on the State's meeting
      adequacy criteria. EPA is using the CSGWPP approach to catalyze further State
      flexibility while increasing the consistency among individual programs of the
      adequacy criteria that States must meet. At a minimum, the approach is intended to
      reduce the burden on the States in meeting numerous program criteria  from several
      different programs. EPA's intention is that this integrated approach will  provide a
      broader decision-making framework for States across programs, sources of
      contamination, and geographic areas. EPA also will use the CSGWPP  approach as a
      basis for suggesting appropriate changes to existing federal statutes and regulations
      to allow States greater flexibility to achieve comprehensive resource-based ground
      water protection.

•     Program coordination. The CSGWPP approach will help to ensure that programs
      work toward the same goal in a coordinated manner.  Currently, the actions of the
      numerous programs that affect ground water, either directly or indirectly, can  be at
      cross-purposes, resulting in confusion and inefficient expenditure of efforts. By
      integrating all programs and activities through a State-directed,  resource-based
      approach, a CSGWPP will significantly reduce or eliminate such situations (See
      Figure  1-2). States will have a key role side-by-side with EPA in designing and
      implementing programs to protect the resource. States also will have greater flexibility
      in implementing each Agency program related to ground water protection  based on
      the States' understanding of the relative use, value, and vulnerability of  their ground
      water resources.

•     Increased Recognition of the Interrelationship between Ground Water Quantity
      and Quality.  Under their CSGWPPs, States are encouraged to coordinate their
      ground water quality and quantity objectives, particularly with regard to  maintaining
      aquatic habitats.

•     Increased Public Participation and Support. Another objective of the CSGWPP is
      to improve public understanding of the ground  water protection concerns  in each
      State and to provide a broader context for public participation. This will  enhance
      understanding of choices for addressing those concerns and the social and
      economic as well as the environmental implications and trade-offs of those choices.
      The CSGWPP emphasis on public participation will help gain public support for State
      ground water protection decision-making.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                       1-17
                                 Resource-Based
                                 Decision Making
    Figure 1-2. By centering all programs on a core of resource-based State goals and
priorities, and integrating all programs, coordination will be significantly enhanced and the
                             resource better protected.
     Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-18

      •     More flexible funding. Through increased program coordination, States with
            Comprehensive Programs will be able to better coordinate the expenditure of their
            limited resources under each relevant program. More importantly, because the
            CSGWPP approach recognizes the need to set priorities to manage ground water
            resources, it allows for a greater focus of financial resources and personnel for a
            variety of functions (i.e., site clean-ups, permitting, inspection activities) on the most
            critical human health and environmental risks within the statutory constraints
            presented by ground water protection laws such as RCRA, FIFRA, and CERCLA.

      •     Consensus and future direction. This Guidance provides the vehicle for
            establishing the needed consensus on the nature of a CSGWPP. In turn, this
            CSGWPP approach will help EPA, the States, and other federal agencies to further
            recognize, delineate, and coordinate their appropriate roles across ground
            water-related activities. Chapter 4 and Part II  of this document describe how the
            CSGWPP approach can benefit specific ground water-related programs. For
            example, States working with EPA through the CSGWPP approach, will identify
            where their capacity for ground water protection allow for increased flexibility under
            specific programs (e.g., RCRA, FIFRA) to better tailor protection efforts.  These
            benefits will be realized as a result of CSGWPP development and implementation,
            which include a long-term strategy by EPA to adopt the CSGWPP approach in new
            and existing regulations, as well as program operational changes laid out in State
            negotiations with EPA Regional Offices. This Guidance, therefore,  cannot be a
            comprehensive catalog of the benefits that eventually will be realized through the
            CSOWPP.

1.5   WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A COMPREHENSIVE STATE GROUND WATER
      PROTECTION PROGRAM?

      A Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program consists of a set of six Strategic
Activities (Figure 1-3), which foster more efficient and effective protection of ground water through
more cooperative, consistent, and coordinated operation of all relevant federal, State, and local
programs within a State. The six Strategic Activities are:

      •     Establishing a ground water protection goal to guide all relevant federal, State, and
            local programs operating within the State;

       •    Establishing priorities, based on characterization of the resource, identification of
            sources  of contamination, and programmatic  needs, to guide all relevant federal,
            State, and local programs and activities in the State toward the most efficient and
            effective means of achieving the State's common ground water protection goal;


      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                1-19
        Public
    Participatio
Priorities
      Information
                          Implementation
    Figure 1-3. The six Strategic Activities of a CSGWPP are dynamic and
     inter-related; improvements in one activity lead to improvements in
                            the other five.
Word~searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-20

      •     Defining authorities, roles, responsibilities, resources, and coordinating mechanisms
            across relevant federal, State, tribal, and local programs for addressing identified
            ground water protection priorities;

      •     Implementing all necessary efforts to accomplish the State's ground water protection
            goal consistent with the State's priorities and schedules;

      •     Coordinating information collection and management to measure progress,
            re-evaluate priorities, and support all ground water-related programs; and

      •     Improving public education and participation in all aspects of ground water protection
            to achieve support of the State's  protection goal, priorities, and programs.

      While planning is necessary in developing and implementing these Strategic Activities, a
plan does not by itself constitute a CSGWPP. The Comprehensive Program focuses on the
coordinated and consistent implementation of the six Strategic Activities across all ground
water-related programs. The Strategic Activities of a CSGWPP are meant to influence all ground
water-related programs within the State, including those of EPA and, where appropriate, other
federal programs in a way that results in fundamental changes  in their overall approach to ground
water protection. Such influence should result in greater integration and efficiency of all program
efforts through its attention to State-directed, resource-based protection priorities.

1.6   THE CSGWPP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: THE NEW  PARTNERSHIP IN
      ACTION

      While many States have made enormous strides in ground water protection,  EPA
recognizes that significant gaps in ground water protection remain  in most States in achieving a
Fully-integrating CSGWPP. More importantly, the Agency understands that movement towards a
State-directed, resource-based comprehensive approach to ground water protection will also
require fundamental changes in a number of federal programs, particularly  in terms of regulatory
policy and federal financial support to the States. EPA expects the development of CSGWPPs that
achieve all the benefits of the approach to take place over the next several years. States will have
the lead in developing and implementing their CSGWPPs. However, EPA and the States need to
commit jointly to the CSGWPP approach as the focus of a long-term process for effecting-bath
improvements in existing State programs and fundamental changes in the operation of federal
programs.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                            1-21

      From "Core" CSGWPP to "Fully-integrating" CSGWPP

      A key aspect of the process envisioned by EPA for achieving a State-directed,
resource-based approach to ground water protection relies on a State's continuous improvement
from a "Core" CSGWPP to an eventual "Fully-Integrating" CSGWPP as is illustrated in Figure 1-4.
To parallel the States' efforts to  improve their six Strategic Activities of a CSGWPP, EPA will
undertake self-assessments of its own programs and will work with other federal agencies and the
Congress to tailor new programs or modify existing programs so they are  flexible and capable of
adopting the ground water protection goal and priorities of each State's CSGWPP. Improvements
in a State's CSGWPP Strategic Activities will both catalyze and be energized by changes in 9
federal programs to achieve a State-directed, resource-based comprehensive approach to ground
water protection, i.e., a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP (Figure 1-5).

      The eventual goal - attainment of a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP - means that ground water
protection efforts are coordinated and focused across all federal, State, and local programs based
on a State's understanding  and  decisions regarding the relative use, value, and vulnerability of its
ground water resources, including the relative threat of all actual or potential contamination
sources. A Fully-Integrating CSGWPP addresses all of the adequacy criteria for each of the six
Strategic Activities of a CSGWPP described in Chapter 2 of this Guidance. The adequacy criteria
for a Fully-integrating CSGWPP provide considerable flexibility in what each State's Fully-
Integrating CSGWPP will actually encompass. Thus, a State can tailor its Fully-Integrating
CSGWPP to emphasize those decision-making responsibilities it believes are most suitable to its
own purposes. EPA is committed to working with each State in a joint effort to gain additional
decision-making responsibilities under various federal programs and achieve a Fully-Integrating
CSGWPP.

      A "Core" CSGWPP represents a State's initial commitment to working jointly with EPA to
move toward a Fully-Integrating  CSGWPP. A Core CSGWPP provides the means for States to
demonstrate, and for EPA to endorse, the State's potential to be the primary decision-maker  in
ground water protection efforts. A State will attain a Core CSGWPP  when it has met the Core
adequacy criteria for each of the six Strategic Activities, which are also described in Chapter 2.
EPA will assist a State in attaining the Core CSGWPP by contributing to the development and
review of program submissions  and  either endorsing4 the State's Comprehensive Program as
having achieved the Core level or recommending changes and improvements.
      4 EPA's Ground Water Protection Strategy stated that EPA would "concur" on a State's determination
that it had obtained a CSGWPP. Comments from State officials suggest that this term does not characterize
the State/EPA partnership necessary to the CSGWPP approach correctly, but instead implies program
delegation as usual. Because this program is meant to be fundamentally cooperative and consensual, the term
"endorse" has now been adopted to better indicate the intended relationship. Endorsement is a means for EPA
to bring recognition to a State's success in initiating a more comprehensive approach to protecting its ground
water resources.

      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                              1-22
  Continual
  Improvement
  in the Six
  Strategic
  Activities
                                                          Fully -
                                                          Integrating
                                                          CSGWPP
                                                 Core CSGWPP
 Figure 1-4. Continuous Improvements in each of the six interrelated Strategic
Activities move a State from a "Core" program to a "Fully-Integrating" CSOWPP.
 Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                    1-23
             Continual
             Improvement
             in the Six
             Strategic
             Activities
                                                        Fully-Integrating
                                                        CSGWPP
                                  Stato-Diracted
                                  Rtsourca-BaMd
                                  Decision Making
                                                        Core CSGWPP
Figure 1-5. Improvement in a State's CSGWPP will both catalyze and be energized
by changes in leading programs leading to more coherent ground water protection.
  Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           1-24

      Steps for States to Take

      The development process for both a Core and Fully-Integrating CSGWPP involves, as
noted above, meeting adequacy criteria under the six Strategic Activities. The development
process should build on the often extensive ground water protection efforts already being
conducted within a State. States will have the lead in developing and implementing their Core
and Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. The starting point is a State's ground water protection
strategy5 and its recent profile of current ground water programs and activities. The
development process entails the following four general steps, which a State may undertake in
combination or separately:

      •     Based on  a State's ground water strategy and profile, this Guidance, and
            negotiations with the appropriate EPA Regional Offices, each State should
            establish a more specific vision for what its Fully-Integrating CSGWPP will
            ultimately  comprise in  order to reflect not only its unique environmental and
            institutional circumstances, but also what roles and responsibilities the State
            wants, and believes itself capable of undertaking, in ground water protection
            decision-making. Because this vision sets the State's long-term direction for its
            CSGWPP, all relevant programs within the State, as well as the public, need to
            be involved  in its formulation.

      •     Each State should compare its more specific CSGWPP vision to the information
            it collected during profiling to develop a written assessment of the activities the
            State must undertake  to achieve, first,  a Core CSGWPP and, eventually, a
            Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. A State in working with  the Regions may document
            that it has already achieved a Core CSGWPP. For many States,  the written
            assessment will be the documentation describing their Core CSGWPP and no
            other document will be needed. States should have  a continuous  dialogue with
            EPA Regional Offices, so that the EPA can assist States when possible and
            provide direction for each of the ground water-related programs.

      •     States will attain EPA's formal endorsement of their Core CSGWPPs. Formal
            EPA endorsement of a State's achievement of a Core CSGWPP  will provide the
            Agency, the States, other federal agencies, the Congress and State legislatures
            with a foundation for understanding State capabilities and, thereby, gain further
            support for the movement toward a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. Demonstration of
            a State's tangible commitment to comprehensive ground water protection through
            its endorsed Core program will be key to bringing relevant federal programs and
            agencies to the table to negotiate a Multi-Year Program
   5 All States have completed a draft ground water protection strategy. However, a number of these strategies are
several years old, not finalized, or no longer operational.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-25

            Agreement. Each State is expected to obtain a Core CSGWPP as early as
            possible, but no later than the end of 1995.

      •     Following EPA endorsement of its Core CSGWPP, each State should co-develop
            with EPA a written Multi-Year Program Agreement. This Agreement should
            describe how the State will further implement and over time improve the Strategic
            Activities of its  Core CSGWPP and identify the specific actions EPA will take to
            support the State's efforts across all relevant programs, including milestones for
            increased  program flexibility.

      •     The annual State/EPA agreements or all program workplans relevant to ground
            water protection currently used by EPA  and  the States will be the focus for
            implementing the multi-year CSGWPP program agreements. Each completed
            yearly workplan will outline specific activities to be accomplished in that year to
            move the State towards implementing comprehensive protection of the ground
            water resource.

      The emphasis of the CSGWPP  development process is on inclusion and coordinated
action. While including all  affected parties in the process may take longer, EPA believes that it
is necessary for coordinated action based on State-directed, resource-based priorities. States
will develop CSGWPPs with participation from appropriate State and federal  agencies and
Tribal and local governments to the extent possible. Indian Tribes or consortia that choose to
develop CSGWPPs will  include all relevant State agencies, federal programs, and  local
governments.

      EPA understands that the status of each State or Tribal ground water  protection effort is
different and that each State or Tribe will have an individual starting point for  developing its
CSGWPP. In addition, EPA recognizes and is encouraged that some States, given their
history of effort in ground water protection, have already met many of the adequacy criteria
outlined in this Guidance.

      Steps EPA Has Taken and Will Continue to Take to Assist the States

      EPA has already taken and will  continue to take several steps indicating  its commitment
to the CSGWPP  approach and the long-term process for  eventually achieving
Fully-Integrating CSGWPPs. These steps include:

      •     Issuing EPA's 1991 Ground Water Protection Strategy, which makes a strong
            Agency policy statement  supporting the State-directed, resource-based
            CSGWPP  approach;

      •     Investing, over the last eight years, more than $80  million under Clean Water Act
            ง106 in building States' general ground  water protection capacity  and planning to
            continue such grants;

      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                         1-26

      •     Incorporating the CSGWPP approach in emerging Agency strategies, regulations,
            and national guidances (e.g., Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy, RCRA
            Subtitle D rulemaking);

      •     Gathering support for the CSGWPP approach in the Executive Branch of the
            federal government, including discussions with the White House and the Office of
            Management and Budget, and holding a forum with other federal agencies;

      •     Establishing a Ground Water Regulatory Cluster Workgroup to examine all new
            relevant Agency regulations to incorporate the CSGWPP approach, including
            increased flexibility to the States;

      •     Testifying before Congress, in oversight hearings, explaining the CSGWPP
            approach and its utility as part of emerging regulations under a variety of
            programs;

      •     Establishing a Ground Water Coordinating Committee in each EPA Region to
            oversee implementation of ground water policy in the Regions. These
            Committees will be the focus for implementing the CSGWPP approach;

      •     Conducting a series of Roundtables with many State and Tribal officials to
            discuss how the CSGWPP approach could best address State and local needs
            and concerns;

      •     Supporting a Ground Water Subcommittee to the State/EPA Operations
            Committee to provide on-going State input into EPA's efforts to further the
            CSGWPP approach;

      •     Developing this Guidance in close consultation with State representatives; and

      •     Issuing  this Guidance, which furthers the concept of the CSGWPP approach and
            reflects  a mufti-program Agency effort. Of particular note, Chapter 4 and Part II of
            this Guidance provide an initial overview of all EPA ground water-related
            programs, which EPA and the States can now build upon to further define and
            develop the relationships between these programs and the CSGWPP approach.

1.7   OPPORTUNITIES PRESENTED BY THE  NEW PARTNERSHIP AND THE
      CSGWPP APPROACH

      As the catalyst for fundamental changes in the development and implementation of ground
water protection programs at the federal, State, and local
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           1-27

levels, the CSGWPP approach provides unique opportunities for the successful
implementation of State-directed, resource-based ground water protection programs,
including:

      •     Addressing federally unregulated sources: Presently unregulated sources of
            ground water contamination may be addressed by State programs. As each State
            integrates its ground water protection programs through a CSGWPP, it will be
            able to identify gaps that may exist in ground water protection efforts (e.g., oil and
            gas; industrial pits, ponds and lagoons; fertilizers) and specify where additional
            federal/State efforts are needed.

      •     Funding:  By endorsing Core CSGWPPs in the States and moving  toward a
            Fully-Integrating CSGWPP, EPA and the States will be better able to
            demonstrate their effectiveness in protecting ground water and thereby justify
            additional investment in ground water program development and implementation.

      •     Legislation: This Guidance and the joint implementation efforts of the EPA and
            States will build a constituency for ground water legislation that will assist the
            States in  setting ground water protection priorities and using federal resources to
            achieve them. Successful CSGWPP implementation should help ensure that
            State capabilities for ground water protection and needs are considered in any
            new ground water-related legislation.

      •     EPA Reaulations:  Development and implementation of the CSGWPP approach
            by the States will affect at least 50 pending EPA regulatory efforts (See Table 1-1
            on page 1-8) that will impact different aspects of ground water protection or
            remediation efforts. EPA will establish a  multi-program ground water regulatory
            agenda to set priorities for appropriate changes to existing regulations to allow
            States greater flexibility to achieve comprehensive  State-directed,
            resource-based ground water protection.

      •     Other Federal efforts:  Joint EPA and State implementation of the CSGWPP
            approach will affect other federal agencies and their pending federal regulatory
            and non-regulatory efforts. EPA is currently working with  other federal agencies to
            make the CSGWPP approach the centerpiece of rational, consistent, and
            meaningful coordination across all federal ground water protection  activities. EPA
            will encourage  other federal agencies to  enter into the planned Multi-Year
            Program Agreements that EPA will be undertaking with States that have Core
            CSGWPPs. (See  Part II Section 2 for descriptions of how USDA, DoD, DOE,
            DOI, DOT,  and NRC could coordinate programs with CSGWPPs.)
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           1-28

      •     EPA Regional operations: EPA's Regions will be reviewing all their programs in
            Fiscal 1993 to assess where opportunities exist for operational flexibility across
            all EPA ground water protection and remediation programs.

      •     Technical Support:  EPA is developing numerous documents to assist the States
            with ground water protection efforts, including a Resource Assessment Technical
            Assistance Document to assist States in setting priorities and an Inter-Federal
            Agency Directory of Technical Specialties to assist States in identifying and using
            federal technical assistance for ground water protection programs. The Agency is
            also developing a technical guidance on how to delineate areas with ground
            water and surface water interfaces important to aquatic ecosystems. EPA will
            also assist States in the development and submission of their ground water
            protection profiles and  Core CSGWPP determinations.

      EPA's commitment to pursuing these opportunities will lead to significant and
fundamental change in EPA operations relating to ground water protection. EPA is committed
to the CSGWPP approach and to working with the States in the long-term process for
achieving Fully-Integrating CSGWPPs.
1.8   WHAT THIS GUIDANCE CONTAINS

      This Guidance is divided into the following chapters and appendices:

      •     This Chapter, the introduction, provides a short description of the CSGWPP
            approach.

      •     Chapter 2, Strategic Activities, describes the six activities that constitute the
            CSGWPP approach. In addition, this Chapter outlines the other activities that
            States and Tribes should consider in the development of their Comprehensive
            Programs.

      •     Chapter 3, Development and Review Process, describes the process that EPA
            and the States are to follow to develop each State's CSGWPP.

      •     Chapter 4, Linkage with Other Federal Programs, describes the linkages between
            the CSGWPP and the various EPA and other federal programs related to ground
            water.

      •     Appendix A describes various ground water protection goals and clarifies EPA's
            policy on this issue.

      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                    1-29

•     Appendix B describes the Agency's policy on the definition of reasonably
      expected uses of ground water.

•     Appendix C describes the process followed in the development of this Guidance.

•     Appendix D provides a glossary of acronyms used in the Guidance.

•     Part II of this document supplements Chapter 4. It provides a detailed description
      of each of the major EPA programs affecting ground water and the ways in which
      that program might interact with the CSGWPP approach. It also provides a
      description of the programs implemented by six other federal agencies -
      Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Transportation, and the Nuclear Regulatory
      Commission - and the ways in which those programs could interact with the
      CSGWPP approach.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        1-30
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
2.    THE STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES AND ADEQUACY CRITERIA OF A
      COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM

      A Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program consists of a set of six
Strategic Activities. These six Strategic Activities foster more efficient and effective protection
of ground water through more cooperative, consistent, and coordinated operation of all
relevant federal, State, Tribal, and local programs within a State. Attainment of a  Core
CSGWPP marks the point at which all six Strategic Activities first emerge as a cohesive
program which is clearly identifiable, although not identical, across States. Continuous
improvement in the implementation of a State's Core CSGWPP will eventually lead to the
attainment of a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. A Fully-Integrating CSGWPP occurs when the
Strategic Activities fundamentally influence and are supported  by the day-to-day operations of
all ground water-related programs within the State,  including those of EPA, and, where
relevant, other federal programs (See Figure 1-3).

      2.1    BENEFITS OF THE CORE CSGWPP

      EPA recognizes that fundamental changes in its own and other federal agency
programs are just as much a prerequisite to achieving a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP as the
Strategic Activities that a State needs to undertake. However, to initiate or accelerate these
federal program changes, there needs to be both an initial tangible commitment and a
catalytic mechanism. EPA believes its joint support  with the States of Core CSGWPPs will
meet both  needs, better enabling the States to  leverage increased support from numerous
federal programs that involve ground water quality concerns.

      The Core CSGWPP will also serve as a distinct benchmark to assist EPA and the
States in communicating the aggregate achievements of States to Congress. As Congress
proceeds with reauthorizations of various ground water-related statutes over the next several
years, the existence of Core CSGWPPs will provide an additional basis for meaningful
dialogue regarding States' capabilities and needs for both flexibility and resources. Similarly,
an individual State's Core CSGWPP could serve to enhance the State  legislature's
understanding of current-ground water protection accomplishments, ongoing efforts, and
remaining challenges.

      2.2   THE ADEQUACY CRITERIA: CORE AND FULLY-INTEGRATING
            CSGWPPs

      EPA and the States, in consultation with other federal agencies,  have established
adequacy criteria for each of the six CSGWPP Strategic Activities. These adequacy criteria
have been chosen to provide a balance between ensuring accountability for effective ground
water protection and providing each State with the flexibility necessary to tailor its programs to
its unique circumstances. States are, however, encouraged to work with adjacent States to
achieve consistency in how adequacy criteria are met to facilitate resolution of inter-State
ground water protection issues.

      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                            2-2

      Adequacy criteria are presented for both the Core and Fully-Integrating levels of a
CSGWPP. Each of the adequacy criteria for the Fully-Integrating CSGWPP is reflected in the
Core CSGWPP. The primary differences in the adequacy criteria at these two levels relate to
the scope of the activity, the degree of sophistication, and the timing and degree of influence
on all relevant operating programs and activities within the State. Generally, development of
an approach, initiationof efforts, or implementation within at.least one program are all that  is
required to meet the adequacy criteria of a Core CSGWPP, whereas at the Fully-Integrating
CSGWPP level approaches and activities are expected to be fully developed and influencing
all ground water protection programs and efforts operating in the State. In some instances, the
adequacy criteria at both levels are the same.

      Although the overall level of effort necessary to achieve a Core CSGWPP is
significantly less than is needed for a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP, the intended scope of a
Core CSGWPP must be comprehensive and  reach beyond  a planning  exercise. Initial
implementation of the Strategic Activities must be evidervt by their influence on at least one
ground water-related program operating within the State. Also, the State must intend that the
Strategic Activities eventually will  influence all  ground water programs operating within the
State, although such an objective may require several years of programmatic changes at the
federal, State, and local levels. These specific thresholds of implementation at the Core level
will be key to energizing the partnership between a State and EPA's ground water-related
programs.

      EPA recognizes and is encouraged that some States, given their history of effort in
ground water protection, appear to have already met many of the adequacy  criteria outlined in
this Guidance. Indeed, EPA anticipates that the majority of States will have Core programs
within the next one to two years.

      2.3   OTHER GENERAL GUIDANCE

      The term "sufficient" is used in a number of adequacy criteria for a Fully-Integrating
CSGWPP as one of the general indicators for where specific agreements between EPA and a
State must occur. What is considered "sufficient" will depend on the level of flexibility a State
is seeking from EPA. (The need to develop specific agreements for flexibility may also arise
with respect to adequacy criteria  which do not include the term "sufficient" in the
Fully-Integrating description.)

      The term "sufficient" is not included in  any Core adequacy criteria because the criteria
as presented are intended to describe only the initial threshold of activity needed to obtain
EPA's endorsement. However, after the Core  CSGWPP is endorsed and the State undertakes
improvements, the level of flexibility available over time will be linked to the degree to which
the State is implementing the adequacy criteria.

      As policy evolves in this area, EPA will  take steps to ensure that  negotiations (between
the Agency and the States) are based on consistent, policy across all ten of

      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-3

EPA's Regional Offices. EPA will undertake case studies and work with the States and other
federal agencies to provide examples of what should be included in a CSGWPP at both
levels.

      In addition to adequacy criteria,  EPA has indicated additional factors to be considered
in developing and implementing  CSGWPPs. These factors have been developed to serve as
a guide to States in developing and implementing ground water protection activities under the
CSGWPP framework. These factors are not adequacy criteria, but EPA believes that these
considerations, are relevant in developing and implementing a CSGWPP.

      A State, in order to elicit EPA's endorsement of its Core CSGWPP, will indicate in
writing how it has fulfilled all of the Core adequacy criteria under each of the Strategic
Activities. (For a more detailed discussion of the CSGWPP review and development process,
please see Chapter 3 of this Guidance.)

      2.4  THE SIX STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES AND THEIR ADEQUACY CRITERIA

      The following section lists the specific adequacy criteria under each of the six Strategic
Activities for both a Core CSGWPP and a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. The language in bold
print indicates the specific differences between the criteria at the Core level and the
Fully-Integrating level.

      The Strategic Activities and adequacy criteria are as follows:
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                         2-4
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           2-5
                                 STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 1

            ESTABLISHING A GROUND WATER PROTECTION GOAL TO GUIDE
                        ALL RELEVANT PROGRAMS IN THE STATE
 FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA

 1.   A State ground water protection goal is
     established through adequate public
     participation.1
 2.   The State's ground water protection goal is:

         No less protective than EPA's overall
         ground  water  protection   goal  of
         preventing adverse  effects  to  human
         health  and   the   environment  and
         protecting the environmental integrity of
         the nation's ground water resources2.

      -  Integrated with its other water quality and
         environmental goals.
 3.   The State's ground water protection goal
     guides all federal, State and local ground
     water-related programs operating within
     the State which address potential
     sources of contamination, including
     federally-unregulated sources3
   CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA

Same.
Same.
The State's ground water protection goal
guides at least one key State's ground
water-related program.
                   ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED
 1.   The State is encouraged to incorporate water supply goals and objectives, including support of
     valuable ecological systems and other beneficial uses, into its ground water protection goal.
   1A ground water goal adopted by State statute or a public participation process equivalent to the objectives
defined and employed by EPA in 40 CFR Part 25 will be considered to have been established with adequate
public participation. (See the description of Public Process in Appendix B.)

   2See Appendix A for a detailed discussion of EPA's policy regarding ground water protection goals.

   3EPA is working to have the State's goal guide all ground water-related federal programs operating to the
   extent possible under federal law.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                         2-6
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           2-7

                                 STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 2

    ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES, BASED ON CHARACTERIZATION OF THE RESOURCE,
        IDENTIFICATION OF SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION, AND PROGRAMMATIC
         NEEDS, TO DIRECT ALL RELEVANT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES IN THE
           STATE TOWARD THE MOST EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE MEANS OF
                      ACHIEVING THE STATE'S PROTECTION GOAL
 FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA
 1.   The State has established basic definitions
     and approaches for a coherent priority-
     setting process and is applying them in a
     consistent manner across all federal,
     State, and local ground water-related
     programs operating within the State.
 2.   A State's ground water priority-setting
     process is based on sufficient
     consideration of varying ground water
     characteristics such as, but not limited to,
     those listed on Figure 2-1 on Page 2-18.
 3.   The State has sufficient contamination
     source inventories and assessments to
     support its process for identifying all
     significant potential sources of
     contamination (including federally-
     unregulated sources) and to consistently
     determine its ground water protection
     priorities based on the relative threats of
     these sources to the resource.

 4.   The State has sufficient technical
     capabilities to support its priority-setting
     process and determinations.

 5.   The State has formally adopted measures
     of ground water protection (e.g.,
     performance standards, quality standards,
     reference points, etc), which are sufficient
     to support consistent program priority
     setting and the measurement of progress.4
   CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA
The State has established basic definitions
and approaches for a coherent priority-
setting process and is applying them in at
least one key ground water-related
program.

A State's ground water priority-setting
process is based primarily on
consideration of varying ground water
characteristics such as, but not limited to,
those listed on Figure 2-1 on Page 2-18.
The State is systematically implementing
a plan to add to its contamination source
inventories and assessments to support its
process for identifying all significant
potential sources of contamination
(including federally-unregulated sources)
and to consistently determine its ground
water protection priorities based on the
relative threats of these sources to the
resource.
The State is systematically implementing
a plan to further develop its technical
capabilities to support its priority-setting
process and determinations.
The State is systematically implementing
a plan to formally adopt measures of
ground water protection (e.g., performance
standards, quality standards, reference
points etc.) To support consistent program
priority setting and the measurement of
progress.4
   4Such measures need to be consistently applied and must not discriminate against federally-financed
remediation activities.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                             2-8
 FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA

 6.  Protecting public water supplies is among
     the State's highest priorities and controlling
     sources in wellhead protection and
     recharge areas and basins of drinking
     water aquifers is a priority.

 7.  The State is sufficiently coordinating its
     ground water protection priorities with its
     surface water quality and other
     environmental priorities.

 8.  State priorities sufficiently incorporate and
     support a process of ongoing review and
     improvement of the six Strategic Activities
     of the State's CSGWPP.
        CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA
8.
    Same.
The State is coordinating its ground water
protection priorities under its Core
CSGWPP with its surface water quality and
other environmental priorities.

State priorities incorporate and support a
process of ongoing review and
improvement of the six Strategic Activities
of the State's CSGWPP.
                        ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED

1.   For stability, the State is encouraged to make its priorities long-term in nature and change them
    only in the face of compelling now information or needs.

2.   The State is encouraged to include in its ground water characterization effort:

         Detailed mapping and assessment to address the State's highest priority needs at an
         appropriate scale as determined by a coordinated State effort;

         A comprehensive well inventory that includes private and municipal production wells,
         monitoring and test wells, and injection wells;  and

         A system for utilizing and integrating State and federal (e.g., USGS, USDA-SCS) ground
         water assessment and mapping programs.

3.   The State is encouraged to have its formally adopted measures of ground water protection
    include an integrated set of direct measures such  as MCLs, State water quality standards, and
    indirect measures such as BMPs, technology standards, siting criteria, and construction
    standards.

4.   The State is encouraged to consider deployment of new and alternative technologies for
    improved pollution prevention as a priority.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                         2-9

                                STRATEGIC ACTIVITY

        DEFINING AUTHORITIES, ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, RESOURCES, AND
         COORDINATING MECHANISMS ACROSS RELEVANT FEDERAL, STATE,
       TRIBAL, AND LOCAL PROGRAMS FOR ADDRESSING IDENTIFIED GROUND
                          WATER PROTECTION PRIORITIES
FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA
1.    All agencies and programs responsible for
     addressing  the  State's  priorities  are
     identified  and  a primary point of contact
     (e.g., lead agency, coordinating committee,
     Governor's  staff,   etc.)   with  EPA  is
     established  for the  development  and
     implementation of  CSGWPPs across all
     involved agencies.
2.    A coordinating mechanism is operating that
     includes all State agencies and programs
     with ground water  responsibilities and all
     programs' expertise is brought to bear on
     the  State's   ground  water  protection
     priorities.

3.    Sufficient legal authorities and resources
     are available to address the State's ground
     water protection needs requirements, and
     priorities under its CSGWPP.
4.    Relevant federal agencies, operating within
     the State, are sufficiently consulted in the
     development  and  implementation  of  the
     CSGWPP.
5.    Neighboring  Tribal  officials  and  States
     sufficiently  consult  each other  in  the
     development  and implementation of their
     joint or independent CSGWPPs.
6.    The State has established capabilities and
     mechanisms for inter-State coordination of
     ground water protection issues.
   CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA
Same.
A coordinating mechanism is operating that
includes all  State agencies and  programs
with ground water responsibilities  and more
than one program's expertise is brought to
bear on the State's ground water priorities.

Legal  authorities  and  resources  are
available  to  address  the State's  ground
water protection needs, requirements,  and
priorities under its Core CSGWPP and the
State  has  identified  the   gaps  in
authorities and resources for achieving
a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP.
Relevant federal agencies, operating within
the  State,  are notified of  and  given
opportunity to comment on the  State's
decisions   in  the  development   and
implementation of the Core CSGWPP.
Neighboring  Tribal  officials  and  States
consult each other in the development and
implementation  of their joint or independent
CSGWPPs.

Same.
     Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-10

 FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA
 7.   Local governments are sufficiently
     included in the development and
     implementation of the CSGWPP and the
     State is sufficiently implementing
     coordination, guidance, or oversight
     mechanisms where local governments
     have authorization to address State ground
     water-related objectives and priorities.
7.
   CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA

Local governments are notified of and
given opportunity to comment on the
State's decisions in the development and
implementation of the Core CSGWPP.
                      ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED

1.  The State is encouraged to adopt a coordinating mechanism that is capable of influencing
   the movement of human and financial resources to target joint efforts valuable to more than
   one State program.

2.  The State is encouraged to provide a field management presence to ground water of
   priority concern either by supporting local government efforts to protect ground water or
   establishing special districts, boards, or other similar institutional arrangements.

3.  The State is encouraged to consider assessing fees for various activities that pose
   potential threats to ground water to augment funds for prevention of ground water
   contamination as well as for remediation activities.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-11

                                STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 4

  IMPLEMENTING ALL NECESSARY EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THE STATE'S GROUND
    WATER PROTECTION GOAL CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE'S PRIORITIES AND
                                      SCHEDULES
 FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA

Prevention of Contamination

1.  Programs with measurable objectives aimed at
   prevention and control of contamination are being
   implemented to the degree sufficient for
   attaining the State's ground water protection
   goal and addressing the priorities of the State's
   CSGWPP.5

2.  For site-specific or area-specific prevention
   measures, characterization and assessment of
   the ground water resource's vulnerability and,
   where appropriate, the ground water's use and
   value, sufficiently supports rational
   decision-making.

       Definitions and approaches for ground
       water characterization and vulnerability
       assessment are applied in a consistent
       manner.

       Factors considered include intrinsic
       sensitivity, geologic/hydraulic parameters
       and local hydrogeologic settings, and
       potential sources of contamination.; when
       necessary, other ground water
       characteristics such as, but not limited to,
       those listed in Figure 2-1 on Page 2-18 are
       considered.

       The State has sufficient technical
       capabilities to support its decision-making.
      CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA

Prevention of Contamination

1.  Programs with measurable objectives
   aimed at prevention and control of
   contamination are being implemented to
   address the priorities of the State's Core
   CSGWPP.5
2.  For site-specific or area-specific prevention
   measures, characterization and
   assessment of the ground water resource's
   vulnerability and, where appropriate, the
   ground water's use and value, support
   rational decision-making.

       Same.
       Same.
       The State is systematically
       implementing a plan to further
       develop its technical capabilities to
       support its decision-making.
   5This includes programs aimed at reducing or eliminating potential environmental releases that may
adversely impact ground water, by controlling contamination sources through permitting authorities,
performance standards, enforcement and compliance activities, land use regulations, facility siting, and other
regulatory and non-regulatory activities.
     Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           2-12
FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA

3.  The State is sufficiently implementing an
   EPA-approved Wellhead Protection Program
   (as called for under Section 1428 of SDWA).
   (Required)

4.  The State is sufficiently carrying out across
   all programs an Integrated strategy to:
       Implement a variety of prevention
       measures in the absence of actual
       detection of contamination;
   -   Implement additional controls necessary
       if contamination is detected or increasing
       towards a concentration considered as a
       reference point for the State's protection
       goal; and
       Take immediate action to prevent further
       contamination if contamination has
       reached  or exceeded a concentration
       considered as a reference point for the
       State's protection goal.
Remediation and Facility Siting
5.  Programs with measurable objectives aimed
   at remediating ground water contamination
   are being implemented to the degree
   sufficient for attaining the State's ground
   water protection goal and addressing the
   priorities of the State's CSGWPP.

6.  For site-specific remediation measures and
   facility siting, characterization and assessment
   based on the use, value, and vulnerability of
   the ground water resource sufficiently
   support rational decision-making.

   -   Definitions and approaches for ground
       water characterization and assessment
       are applied in a consistent manner.
   -   Ground water characteristics such as, but
       not limited to, those listed in Figure 2-1
       on Page 2-18 are considered.

   -   The State has sufficient technical
       capabilities to support its decision-
       making.


     Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
        CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA
3.  (Optional)
4.  The State is carrying out in at least one key
   program an integrated strategy to:
       Same.
       Same.
       Same.
   Remediation and Facility Siting
5.  Programs with measurable objectives aimed at
   remediating ground water contamination are
   being implemented to address the priorities of
   the State's Core CSGWPP
6.  For site-specific remediation measures and
   facility siting, characterization and assessment
   based on the use, value, and vulnerability of the
   ground water resource support rational
   decision-making.

       Same.
       Same.
       The State is systematically
       implementing a plan to further develop
       its technical capabilities to support its
       decision-making.

-------
                                           2-13
FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA

7.  Provisions are in place and are being
   implemented across all programs to avoid
   cross-media contamination during
   remediation activities.
        CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA

7.  Provisions are in place and are being
   implemented in at least one program to avoid
   cross-media contamination during remediation
   activities.
                      ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED

1.  The State is encouraged, as part of its efforts to address potential sources of ground water
   contamination which are not federally regulated, to consider the following items:

   -   Certification programs for drillers, pump installers, and test samplers;

       A plan for addressing abandoned and poorly constructed wells (i.e., problem wells) that is
       consistent with the State priorities and objectives;

   -   Legally enforceable standards for well construction, abandonment, and testing, and a
       compliance program that ensures that the driller community is complying (Note: For disposal
       wells, these standards must be consistent with the regulatory requirements under the SDWA's
       Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program);

       Other efforts to control sources of ground water protection not addressed by federal statutes or
       regulations.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        2-14
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-15

                                 STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 5

          COORDINATING INFORMATION COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT TO
                MEASURE PROGRESS, RE-EVALUATE PRIORITIES, AND
                SUPPORT ALL GROUND WATER-RELATED PROGRAMS
FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA

1.  The State collects, coordinates, and manages
   information, including record-keeping,
   monitoring, and, other necessary information,
   within, and across all programs to re-evaluate
   priorities, measure progress toward meeting
   the State's ground water protection goal and
   priorities, and support all related program
   activities.
2.  The State is using relevant data from local
   governments and other State and federal
   programs (i.e., Wellhead, Public Water
   Supply, etc.)

3.  The State has defined a sufficient set of data
   elements to facilitate efficient data sharing and
   cross media analyses and provide users with
   consistent and comparable data, and is using
   it in all ground water-related programs.

4.  The State monitoring program scope and
   design reflect the State's ground water
   priorities and contain sufficient QA/QC plans
   for data acquisition and analysis based on
   sound scientific protocols.
        CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA

1.  The State has developed a systematic
   process to collect, coordinate, and manage
   information, including record-keeping,
   monitoring, and-other necessary information,
   within and across all programs to re-evaluate
   priorities, measure progress toward meeting
   the State's ground water protection goal and
   priorities, and support all related program
   activities and is using it in at least one
   program.

2.  Same.
3.  The State has defined a set of data elements to
   facilitate efficient data sharing and cross media
   analyses and provide users with consistent and
   comparable data, and is using it in at least
   one key ground water-related program.

4.  The State monitoring program scope and
   design reflect the State's ground water
   priorities and contain QA/QC plans for data
   acquisition and analysis based on sound
   scientific protocols.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-16
                      ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED


1.  The State is encouraged to computerize Its data bases and use geographic information systems
   (GIS) technology to better integrate data in a manner most useful to comprehensive ground water
   decision-making.

2.  The State is encouraged to use EPA's Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground Water Quality,
   which EPA programs are required to use for new ground water information systems or when
   modernizing old ones.

3.  The State is encouraged to use EPA's location  policy to assign latitude/longitude positions of
   Public Water Supplies and sources of ground water contamination in its ground water-related
   information systems.

4.  The State is encouraged to participate with EPA in the development of one or more environmental
   Indicators that will help provide a national picture of ground water protection progress and needs.
   The State is encouraged to use the indicator(s), once developed, as part of its own efforts to
   measure progress and needs.

5.  The State is encouraged to establish and track environmental indicators to measure progress in
   protecting its ground water resources.
     Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        2-17

                                STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 6

        IMPROVING PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN ALL ASPECTS OF
               GROUND WATER PROTECTION TO ACHIEVE SUPPORT OF
            THE STATE'S PROTECTION GOAL, PRIORITIES, AND PROGRAMS
FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA

1.  Public participation in the development and
   implementation of a CSGWPP is equivalent to
   the objectives defined and employed by EPA
   in 40 CFR Part 25. (See the description of
   Public Process in Appendix B.)

2.  An active public education program exists that
   addresses the key issues in decisions on the
   goal, objectives, priorities, and progress of the
   State's CSGWPP.

3.  The State is implementing:

       A mechanism to provide information to
       those responsible for implementing
       ground water protection measures; and

       An outreach process for making ground
       water monitoring data and information
       available to the public.

4.  The State is implementing a public education
   program to:

       Enable citizens to better manage
       common practices and activities that
       contribute to ground water contamination
       (e.g., private well construction, septic
       tanks, etc) that are not now regulated;
       and

       Promote methods for protecting the
       ground water quality supplying
       individuals' private wells.
        CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA
1.  Same.
2.  Same.
3.  Same.
4.  The State has developed a public education
   program to:

   -   Same.
   -   Same.
                     ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED
1.  The State is encouraged to undertake a Farm-A-Syst program in cooperation with USDA's
   Extensive Service, the Soil Conservation Service, and EPA.
     Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                     2-18
                                   FIGURE 2-1

 Ground water characteristics such as, but not limited to, the following are to be used in
 setting priorities, determining appropriate remediation methods, and making siting
 decisions:

       -     Intrinsic sensitivity, hydrogeologic regimes and flow patterns
             (recharge/discharge areas), geologic/hydraulic parameters and local
             hydrogeologic setting;

       -     Quantity and potential yield;

       -     Ambient and/or background ground water quality as determined by
             monitoring;

       -     Potential for remediation where contamination already exists;

       -     Current use;

       -     Reasonably expected future use based on demographics, land use,
             remoteness, quality,  and availability of alternative water supplies;

       -     Values attributed to ground water resources (See Appendix B);

       -     The interactions and potential contamination impacts between surface and
             ground water and the value of ground water quality to the maintenance of
             ecosystem integrity;  and
       -     Inter-jurisdictional characteristics.
       Please see Attachment I for a description of how a State's definitions of current
       and/or reasonably expected future ground water uses and benefits will be
       employed by EPA's regulatory programs (e.g., RCRA, CERCLA, FIFRA and
       Radiation).
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
3.    DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

      This chapter describes the process that will be followed for development of each State's
Core CSGWPP and Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. The CSGWPP process is flexible and allows
each State to develop its program according to its unique hydrogeologic, demographic, and
institutional characteristics.

      Development of both CSGWPP levels should build on the often extensive ground water
protection efforts already being conducted within a State. The starting, point should be a State's
existing ground water protection strategy and the recent profile developed by EPA and the State.
that describe the current ground water programs and activities within the State.1 The development
process entails the following  six general steps, which may be undertaken in combination or
separately:

      •     Establishing a State-Specific "Vision" or "Template": Based on a State's ground
            water strategy and profile, this Guidance, and negotiations with the appropriate EPA
            Regional Offices, each State should establish a more specific "vision" or "template"
            for what its Fully Integrating CSGWPP will ultimately comprise. This will reflect not
            only its unique environmental and institutional circumstances, but also what roles and
            responsibilities the State wants, and  believes itself capable of undertaking, in ground
            water protection decision-making. Because this vision sets the State's long-term
            direction for its CSGWPP, all relevant programs within the State, as well as the public,
            need to be involved  in its formulation.

      •     Assessing:  Each State should compare its  more specific CSGWPP vision to the
            information it collected during profiling to develop a written assessment of, the
            activities the State must undertake to achieve, first, a Core CSGWPP and, eventually,
            its vision or template for a Fully Integrating CSGWPP. A State, in working with the
            Region, may document in its written assessment that it already has achieved a Core
            CSGWPP. States should have a continuous dialogue with EPA Regional Offices so
            that the EPA can assist States, when possible, and  provide direction for each of the
            Agency's ground water-related programs. The State's vision and assessment will
            comprise a single document. The assessment will be organized to clearly show what
            the State has done or needs to do to meet each of the Core adequacy criteria for all
            six Strategic Activities.  Descriptions of how the State has met  Core adequacy criteria
            will be included.
   1Because Native American Tribes have not yet developed profiles, EPA will be exploring options with Tribes and with
agencies such as BIA and IMS or assisting them in describing their ground water protection programs and activities on
Indian lands.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                     3-2

•     Achieving a Core CSGWPP: For many States, the written assessment is likely to be
      the document describing their Core CSGWPP. In this case, no other documentation
      will be needed. If a State is unable to demonstrate a Core CSGWPP through its
      assessment, the State will submit an updated document to demonstrate that the
      remaining Core adequacy criteria have been met. There will be flexibility in how
      States meet each adequacy criterion; specific approaches are to be worked out in a
      negotiated partnership between a State and its EPA Regional office. EPA will formally
      endorse a State's achievement of a Core CSGWPP. Formal EPA endorsement will
      provide EPA, the States, other federal agencies, the Congress, and State legislatures
      with a foundation for understanding State capabilities and, thereby, gain further
      support for the movement towards a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. Demonstration of a
      State's tangible commitment to comprehensive ground water protection, as evidenced
      by its endorsed Core program, will be key to bringing relevant federal programs and
      agencies to the table to negotiate a Multi-Year Program Agreement, described below.

      It is expected that each State will attain an EPA endorsed Core CSGWPP as early as
      possible, but no later than the  end  of 1995.

•     Developing A Multi-Year Program Agreement: Following EPA endorsement of its
      Core CSGWPP, each State should co-develop with EPA a written multi-year program
      agreement that describes how the State will further implement and over time improve
      the Strategic Activities of its Core CSGWPP. It will also identify the specific actions
      EPA will take to support the State's efforts across all relevant programs, including
      milestones for increased program flexibility. In establishing the multi-year program
      agreement, EPA and the State will utilize the State's assessment, described above,
      and EPA's Regional program reviews and multi-program ground water regulatory
      agenda described in Chapter  1 of this Guidance. Other federal agencies, including
      federal land management agencies and federal facilities,  will be encouraged to join in
      making commitments through  the agreement to support the State's CSGWPP. Finally,
      through the Ground Water Subcommittee of the State/EPA Operations Committee,
      EPA will seek State review and feedback on EPA's efforts to support the CSGWPP
      approach.

      EPA and each State will negotiate the contents of the multi-year program agreement
      and specific milestones based on the State's unique circumstances. The program
      agreement will serve as the basis for yearly workplan agreements for all ground
      water-related activities under the Agency's various programs. The completed
      multi-year program agreement should guide all State and federal programs related to
      ground water in more fully meeting the adequacy criteria of the Strategic
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           3-3

            Activities, and in supporting the achievement of a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. The
            multi-year program agreement should include as many specific implementation
            milestones for ground water efforts as possible.

      •     Implementing Yearly Work plans: The annual State/EPA agreements or all program
            work plans relevant to ground water protection currently used by EPA and the States
            will be the primary vehicles for implementing the multi-year, CSGWPP program
            agreements. Yearly work plans should include a description of the mechanism
            established  to coordinate authorities and  programs under State and federal statutes,
            and should include implementation activities that move a State toward meeting
            milestones in its multi-year program agreement. Each completed yearly work plan will
            outline specific activities to be accomplished in that year to move the State towards
            implementing comprehensive protection of the ground water resource. EPA will
            specify the increased flexibility being afforded to the State in any given year based
            on individual program requirements and progress toward achieving a Fully-Integrating
            CSGWPP.

      •     Achieving a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. EPA and each State will negotiate through
            yearly workplans how to fill the gaps in a  State's CSGWPP and how to provide
            additional federal program flexibility to the State. Achievement of a Fully-Integrating
            CSGWPP will be negotiated by EPA and each State  in consultation with other federal
            agencies. A Fully-Integrating CSGWPP occurs when all federal, State, and local
            ground water protection efforts are coordinated and when all decision-making is
            based on a  State's understanding of the ground water resource, all actual or potential
            contamination sources, and the State's comprehensive ground water protection  goal,
            priorities, and approaches. EPA and each State will negotiate the milestone of
            achieving a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP in the yearly  workplan process. While each
            State's Fully Integrating CSGWPP will be different, all Fully-Integrating CSGWPPs will
            meet all  of. the Fully-Integrating adequacy criteria outlined in Chapter 2.

      Figure 3-1 is a  schematic outlining the processes for the development and EPA
endorsement of a State's Core CSGWPP and for moving from a Core to a Fully Integrating
CSGWPP. Given the fundamental importance of individual ground water-related programs, EPA
will ensure that all relevant Agency programs (e.g., solid and hazardous waste, pesticides,
underground storage  tanks, nonpoint sources, etc.) are involved in all plan developments,
agreements, reviews  and endorsements. EPA will also encourage other federal agencies to
examine the State's CSGWPP to determine where they may provide flexibility or a decision-
making role to the State.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
      National
      Guktone*
                                                                                                   Increasing State Ftoxfcitty
                                                                                                   and Program Integration
      Slat*
      Strategy
State Vision and
 Assessment
   of Gaps
Description
of Cora
CSOWPP
Subtnitttd
to EPA
      Profit*
      of State
      Program
EPA
EndoreM
Cora
CSQWPP
                                                                                                     Annual Workplans
Co-Develop
State/EPA
MuW-Year
Program
Agraomant
Fully
Integrating
CSGWPP
                                                           AddKtonal
                                                           Dซvak)pmซnt
                             Figure 3-1. Development of Core and Fully Integrating CSGWPPs
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
4.    LINKAGE TO EPA AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS

      The primary benefit of the CSGWPP approach will be even more effective protection of the
Nation's ground water resources based on a resource-oriented decision-making process. The
other principal benefit to the States of the CSGWPP approach is that it provides a significant
catalyst for increased State flexibility and decision-making under numerous federal programs. This
allows States to tailor protection efforts to meet their unique  ground water protection needs and
priorities. The CSGWPP approach will achieve these benefits by linking other federal programs
into a partnership with the States by having:

      •     CSGWPPs provide a framework within which  all ground water protection efforts and
            activities (federal, State and local) can be coordinated. This coordination will reduce
            unnecessary duplication of effort and foster synergistic use of program resources to
            address ground water protection needs within the State.

      •     CSGWPPs provide the foundation for State-directed, resource-based priorities
            consistently applied across all federal and State ground water related programs within
            the State. This occurs when a State's knowledge of its ground water resources (e.g.,
            vulnerability, uses, benefits) is being employed to determine the objectives, priorities,
            and approaches for ground water protection programs operating within the State.

Both of these linkages result in greater efficiency and effectiveness in managing ground water
protection programs so that EPA's ground water protection goal will be realized. EPA will work with
other federal agencies to adopt a  consistent approach for federal deference to State ground water
decision-making across all relevant federal programs and regulations. While this effort will lead to
incremental increases in State flexibility under the various individual federal programs, it is only
through pursuit of a CSGWPP that a State will achieve the full, consistent, and integrated flexibility
to address its ground water protection priorities across all relevant programs. This Chapter's
primary focus is to describe how CSGWPPs put States in the lead position of making resource-
oriented decisions concerning ground water protection efforts.

      4.1   Coordination of EPA Programs

      EPA continues to implement its own intra-Agency approach to comprehensive ground water
protection. To promote coordination within the Agency, EPA established the Ground Water Policy
Committee. The Policy Committee works to coordinate the Agency's  ground water activities and to
resolve issues of overlapping  or inconsistent regulation. It has established two workgroups, the
State Programs Implementation Workgroup and the Ground Water Cluster. The State Programs
Implementation Work group developed this CSGWPP Guidance and provides
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           4-2
implementation support to States. The Ground Water Cluster works to incorporate EPA's ground
water protection principles and the CSGWPP approach into regulations, guidances, and policies.

      EPA is committed to eliminating duplicative or inconsistent regulatory requirements. The
Ground Water Cluster is developing a ground water regulatory agenda which will be a profile of
EPAs ground water activities. Similar to the profiles that States recently completed, EPAs ground
water regulatory agenda will identify overlaps  and inconsistencies in existing ground water-related
regulations and national guidances, and will ensure that these regulations will be reviewed and
revised if necessary to reflect EPA's ground water principles and support the CSGWPP approach.
Through the Ground Water Policy Committee and  the Ground Water Cluster, EPA's program
offices are seeking new ways to promote State resource-based decision making in  their programs
through increased flexibility and assistance.

      EPA is working through the Ground Water Policy Committee to make the CSGWPP
approach the centerpiece of rational, consistent,  and meaningful priority decision-making in two
ways:

      •     Through the CSGWPP Strategic Activities and adequacy criteria. EPA is
            encouraging States to establish consistent and rational priorities by focusing on the
            relative status an future prospects for their ground waters across geograghic areas.
            Other factors for priority setting are also important, but it is the emphasis on
            State-directed resource-based decision-making that gives CSGWPPs  a unique and
            powerful role in ground water protection. A State should not put off setting ground
            water protection priorities until comprehensive ground water assessments covering
            the whole state are completed. Most States should be in the position of using a basic
            understanding of their ground water to begin applying a systematic and consistent
            approach to setting priorities on an "as needed" basis (e.g., when there is a facility
            siting issue).

      •     By introducing the CSGWPP concept into all emerging Agency regulations and
            guidances relevant to ground water. EPA is providing States with the opportunity to
            influence fundamental operational decisions of all of EPA's ground water-related
            programs based on  priorities derived from a State's understanding of its resources.
            Appendix B of this Guidance describes one important aspect of State ground water
            resource information - i.e., State determinations of "reasonably expected uses of
            ground water" - which will be incorporated into emerging EPA regulations. EPA is
            also working to provide similar opportunities for States across relevant federal
            programs operated by other agencies as States move toward full CSGWPP
            implementation.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                            4-3

      Operationally, the benefits of the CSGWPP's State-directed, resource-based,
decision-making approach are best illustrated by several examples:

      •     Siting of Facilities/Operations: Many facilities and operations offering social and
            economic benefit are potential or actual sources of ground water contamination. Even
            when they are subject to. exacting and best available technical and engineering
            requirements, some risk of release to ground water remains. These risks to human
            health and the environment can be further minimized by the State by determining
            where to locate such facilities based first on prevention, and then on factors such  as
            use, value, and vulnerability of the  resource. One example is the draft RCRA Subtitle
            D State and Tribal Implementation  Rule, which will allow a State the flexibility to adjust
            certain permitting criteria for municipal  landfills based in part on the State's
            assessment of the underlying aquifer's vulnerability.

      •     Permitting. Monitoring, and Inspecting: Most States will not be able to pursue these
            activities to maximum levels at all possible sites; there are not enough resources to
            allow this. The prevention approach allows monitoring, permit limits, and inspection
            schedules to be tailored based on vulnerability first and then use and value where
            necessary. One example is the Public Water Supply Supervision Program, which
            currently allows States to work toward flexible federal monitoring requirements.

      •     Coordination and Targeting: Program capacity could be significantly increased
            through a CSGWPP's coordination and targeting of "same facility" inspections across
            programs. An example would be coordination of inspections of underground storage
            tanks and underground injection control wells at gasoline service stations.

      •     Remediation Efforts: For some remediation programs the  use, value, or vulnerability
            of underlying ground waters can dictate the necessary degree  of clean-up. Such
            flexibility allows for greater focus of funds and personnel on sites with the most critical
            human health and environmental risks. An example is the Superfund Program, which
            gives a higher score through  the Hazard Ranking System to sites that are located
            within a Wellhead Protection  Area.

      •     Reference Points: Ground water contamination control priorities and ground water
            remediation measures should be based on the level of contamination present in the
            ground water and on the designated uses for the ground water (referred to as
            "Reference Points" in the Ground Water Protection Strategy for the 1990s). Although
            there is considerable uncertainty in correlating contamination control or remediation
            measures with a particular  level of contamination, the use of reference  points can
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           4-4

            help provide a State with the basis for judging one contamination problem against
            another and establishing priorities. Even when prevention of any release at a facility
            is a program objective, reference points will be useful should such measures fail and
            decision-makers are faced with implementing more drastic measures to prevent
            further contamination (e.g., immediate closure of a facility).

      Other examples, specific to individual programs, appear in Part II. Generally speaking,
these examples demonstrate that comprehensive protection of the ground water resource means
rational, efficient, effective, priority-based management of ground water quality.

      The CSGWPP approach will be implemented within the bounds set by statutory and
regulatory mandates. Nevertheless, a review of relevant federal programs suggests that significant
opportunities exist, within the boundaries set by federal statutes and regulations, for State flexibility
to set ground water  protection priorities and tailor protection measures.  EPA is working to ensure
that the conditions a State must meet to gain flexibility under the variety of federal programs related
to ground water are  consistent across those programs. In addition, when new legislation or
reauthorizations are being considered, EPA will encourage Congress to provide States with the
key decision-making role based on conditions consistent with the CSGWPP approach.  EPA's task
will be made easier to the extent that States have moved aggressively to implement the CSGWPP
approach and are achieving the intended effective and efficient protection of the nation's valuable
ground water resources.

      Part II, Section I, provides a detailed  program-by-program discussion of the linkages
between  the CSGWPP approach and each  EPA program that potentially affects ground water.
Twenty programs are described in terms of how the program would make use of CSGWPP
resource-based priority setting and how CSGWPPs could promote program coordination. Finally,
for programs that provide grants to States, a brief discussion addresses how those grants could be
used to support the development and implementation of CSGWPPs.

      4.2    Linkage to Other Federal Agency Programs

      Several federal Agencies in addition to EPA are involved in activities that directly or
indirectly affect the quality of ground water in the States. A central premise of the CSGWPP
approach is that the activities of these other agencies also should be included within a coordinated
framework. This section describes some of the linkages between other federal programs and the
CSGWPP approach. Section II of Part II discusses and identifies opportunities for coordination
between  CSGWPPs and the activities relating to ground water of six federal agencies.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           4-5

      The States themselves strongly recommended in EPA/State Roundtables that EPA discuss
the CSGWPP approach with other federal agencies. The States' interest focused on three broad
points:

      •     Providing Technical Assistance: Many federal agencies manage programs which
            provide significant technical and financial assistance to State ground water protection
            activities. This assistance should be focused on supporting the development and
            implementation of CSGWPPs.

      •     Utilizing States' Ground Water Protection Priorities in Non-Regulatory Efforts:
            Non-regulatory efforts should be targeted such that geographic and programmatic
            priorities outlined in the CSGWPP are supported. Examples of these non-regulatory
            activities include demonstration projects, public education and outreach,
            implementation of BMPs, and other similar activities.

      •     Utilizing State Ground Water Protection Policies. Objectives, and Standards: Some
            ground water contamination  concerns are assigned by law to federal agencies and
            cannot be delegated to the States (e.g., high-level radioactive waste disposal) or
            require a national perspective to balance national, State, and local interests. In other
            situations, federal agencies should, to the degree possible, align their ground water
            protection and remediation efforts with State priorities as outlined in CSGWPPs.

      In order to engage the federal agencies in a discussion of these points, EPA held a Federal
Agency Roundtable in the early Spring  of 1992. The following federal agencies, in addition to
EPA, were represented at this  Roundtable discussion:

            Department of Agriculture
            Department of Defense
            Department of Energy
            Department of  Interior
            Department of Commerce
            Department of Health and  Human  Services
            Department of Housing and Urban Development
            Department of Justice
            Department of Transportation
            Federal Emergency Management Agency
            Nuclear Regulatory Commission
            Tennessee Valley Authority
            Office of Management and Budget
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          4-6

      The Roundtable resulted in some concrete suggestions for integrating the activities of these
departments and agencies into the CSGWPP approach. Those suggestions are described in this
section of the Guidance and in Part II. Because the Roundtable was mainly an introductory forum
in which to acquaint the federal agencies with the CSGWPP concept, the federal agencies have
not yet committed to specific actions in conjunction with the CSGWPP approach.  EPA is working
with each agency and department to further define and finalize their support of and involvement in
the CSGWPP approach. This will result in each agency or department developing specific
program guidances, guidance memos, and/or similar materials outlining its support of the
CSGWPP approach; where discrepancies between this Guidance document and those specific
program guidances exist, the specific guidances will prevail.

      The remainder of this section focuses on the specific suggestions made by the other federal
agencies. Each of the overarching topics outlined above is addressed in the paragraphs that
follow.

      Providing Technical Assistance

      Federal agencies, other than EPA, provide a broad range of technical  assistance activities
that could help States develop and implement their CSGWPPs. This federal agencies have
indicated a willingness to target these activities based on the geographic and  programmatic
priorities outlined in each State's  CSGWPP. Examples of the  types of activities contemplated
include:

      •     The USDAs  land grant university system, through cooperative extension services,
            can provide direct technical assistance to implement CSGWPP  prevention activities
            in the field.

      •     Other federal agencies such as DoD and DOE provide significant funding to
            universities for research and development activities related to ground water, and to
            develop technical assistance materials; these funds could be targeted based on a
            State's priorities as outlined in a CSGWPP and could  be coordinated with other
            grant- or contract-funded projects within the context of the CSGWPP framework.

      •     USGS's ground water assessment and mapping activities, funded by the agency's
            cooperative agreement program, could be coordinated with other assessment and
            characterization activities within the framework of the CSGWPP.

      •     Ground water data collected by all federal agencies could be coordinated within the
            CSGWPP framework.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           4-7

      •     The Bureau of Reclamation could target its technical assistance funding devoted to
            ground water based on CSGWPPs.

      •     All federal agencies could work together to develop a common GIS database which
            would support resource-based decision making.

      In order to elaborate on these ideas, the federal Agencies agreed to work together to
develop a federal clearinghouse or manual on all potential ground water- related technical
assistance opportunities. This manual would help federal agencies coordinate their activities and
would assist States in gaining access to available technical assistance as they develop and
implement their CSGWPPs. The federal agencies also suggested that they be given some role in
the review and concurrence of CSGWPPs and CSGWPP development plans.

      Utilizing States' Resource-based Protection Priorities in Non-Regulatory
      Efforts

      A CSGWPP provides a framework that is intended to ensure that all ground water protection
activities occurring under State,  local, and federal laws within a State are based on a consistent
understanding of the characteristics of a State's ground water, priority geographic areas, priority
contaminants, and other similar  parameters. Some examples of non-regulatory activities that other
federal agencies  have underway, or may consider, that could fit into the CSGWPP framework
include the following:

      •     DoD and DOE remediation  demonstration projects could be adjusted to reflect State
            ground water protection priorities.

      •     USDAs water quality demonstration projects could be targeted and implemented
            based on the priorities in a State's CSGWPP.

      •     The Public Health Service can target educational material on contaminants or
            contaminating sources of concern as defined by a State's CSGWPP.

      •     Agencies such as the Soil Conservation Service and the Cooperative Extension
            Service provide direct assistance to farmers and others with best management
            practices implementation in the field; these services could  be targeted and tailored
            based on CSGWPP geographic and programmatic priorities.

      •     DOJ could target litigation support based on State CSGWPPs.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           4-8

      In order for these activities to take place, EPA and the States must open up lines of
communication with other federal agencies. Other federal agencies must have an early
understanding of State ground water priorities so that those priorities can impact agency planning
and budgeting.

      Utilizing States' Ground Water Protection Policies, Objectives, and
      Standards

      This is the most difficult and challenging arena within which to link other federal agencies to
the CSGWPP approach. Just as is the case with EPA programs, other federal agencies are
concerned about limiting factors such as specific statutory  mandates and long-standing agency
regulations. Nevertheless, there are broad areas that warrant additional study and which may
ultimately allow for consistent and rational deference to States within the context of CSGWPPs.
These include the following:

      •     Land management agencies such as  DOI's Bureau of Reclamation and USDAs,
            Forest Service could work more closely with the States to assure that policies on
            federal lands do not lead to contamination of aquifers designated by the States as
            highly valuable or vulnerable.

      •     Federal facilities that will be required to clean  up hazardous waste sites could change
            their priorities for clean up and protection to make them consistent with CSGWPPs.

      •     Federal programs could participate in  the development and implementation of
            CSGWPPs so that facility-specific ground water management plans become integral
            to overall CSGWPPs.

      Priorities under the CSGWPP should be based on the resource and not on federal facility
ownership. In general, federal facilities and land managers are concerned that States will apply
priorities differentially based on land or facility ownership rather than based on the characteristics
of the ground water. This could lead to significant discrepancies in ground water quality
management policies from site to site. Federal agencies are very interested in participating with
EPA and the States in the development and implementation of CSGWPPs in order to assure that
this will not occur.

      Part II, Section II describes the ground water-related programs of six selected federal
agencies. For each of these agencies' ground water-related programs, the Section discusses how
the State and the respective agency would benefit from CSGWPP resource-based priority setting
and coordination of efforts through State CSGWPPs.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
APPENDIX A:   DEFINING GROUND WATER PROTECTION GOALS

      A.1   HISTORICAL TYPES OF GROUND WATER PROTECTION GOALS

      Under Strategic Activity 1, a State is asked to establish an overarching ground water
protection goal. Historically, ground water protection goals have fallen into five general types:

      •     Non-Degradation. This goal is considered the most stringent of possible ground
            water protection goals because it defines all contamination as unacceptable. To
            achieve such a goal, all activities that would potentially contaminate ground water
            would need to be eliminated or controlled. Furthermore, all presently contaminated
            ground water would need to be restored. While the relative vulnerability of ground
            water could be a factor in determining needed prevention measures, the relative use
            and value of the ground water would not be factors in determining either prevention or
            remediation measures.

            Critics argue that from a prevention standpoint, a non-degradation goal is impossible
            to enforce because many basic human activities (e.g. crop production, resource
            extractions, septic systems, etc.) would require unrealistic prohibitions to eliminate
            their potential to cause some level of ground water pollution. And, from a remediation
            standpoint, a non-degradation goal would often  be  economically, if not
            technologically, beyond our society's reach. Critics further contend that technological
            advances in water quality monitoring can now reveal minute levels of substances -
            the presence of which in ground water would constitute degradation but whose
            environmental health impact may be minimal or non-existent.

            As a practical matter, non-degradation is viewed more often as a general policy aim
            rather than as a day-to-day operational criterion or objective.

      •     Anti-Degradation. For the purposes of this document, this goal applies the above
            non-degradation objective to only the prevention side of the ground water protection
            issue; i.e., its intent is to avoid making ground water contamination worse. The goal
            does not provide a reference for remediation activities other than to avoid further
            degradation of ground waters that are already contaminated.

      •     Prevention. Reduction or Remediation of Contamination to the Extent Possible.
            This goal requires the consideration of certain pragmatic factors in determining what
            ground water protection measures are "possible." In determining what is "possible",
            technological feasibility or the availability of technology would need to  be considered.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                     A-2

      Social or economic considerations may also enter into determinations of what is
      "possible." For specific source controls, these other factors are often considered and
      balanced, either explicitly or implicitly, in a context of competing interests. Legislation
      at the federal or State levels or ordinances at local levels may specify explicitly that a
      regulatory agency must take into account certain social or economic factors in
      determining appropriate ground water protection measures. For example, prevention
      measures established by EPA under RCRA Subtitle D are to "take into account the
      practicable capability of a municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF)." EPA, therefore,
      considers the cost impacts to MSWLFs in determining which measures to prevent
      ground water contamination are "possible."

      Legislation at the federal and State levels and ordinances at local levels can also
      implicitly incorporate social and economic considerations into what protection
      measures are "possible". Society's preference for what is "possible" can be revealed
      where the processes of representative government have resulted in prescribing
      performance, design, operational or zoning requirements for ground water protection.
      For example, a local zoning  ordinance allowing one residential dwelling per ten  acres
      in order to limit ground water contamination from septic systems has implicitly
      incorporated social and economic development considerations in what is "possible" in
      protecting ground water.

      Critics of this goal suggest that it is "source-specific" and, therefore, does not provide
      a unifying approach to protecting the ground water resource. Other critics are
      concerned that such a goal can often lead to ground water degradation where
      determination of what is "possible" in ground water protection is bounded by social
      and economic considerations. Furthermore, the approach raises the issues of who
      decides what is "possible" and of whether these decisions reflect an informed societal
      choice.

•     Differential Protection Based on Relative Risks to Human Health or the
      Environment. This goal takes into account the relative risks to human health or the
      environment posed by ground water contamination. Under this goal, a decision-maker
      must first determine what risks to human health and the environment would result if
      ground water contamination  takes place. The decision maker must then weigh these
      risks against some benchmark to determine appropriate prevention or remediation
      measures. Such  benchmarks can be set at a particular level of risk (e.g., a one in a
      million chance  of cancer incidence over a 70-year life-span) or vary according to
      other factors such as technological feasibility and social/economic impacts.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           A-3

            As described above in the previous goal discussion, these other social, economic,
            and technical factors can be incorporated, either explicitly or implicitly, in legislation
            or ordinances at the federal, State or local levels. For example, "FIFRA requires EPA
            to weigh the risks against the benefits of a pesticide's use before taking regulatory
            measures, including those aimed at ground water protection.

            Critics of this goal claim that it is often difficult to determine accurately all risks
            associated with ground water contamination and, therefore, the total impact of
            contamination will not be factored into protection decisions. Critics are concerned
            that such a goal can often  lead to ground water degradation where decisions attempt
            to balance ground water protection against the social and economic impacts of such
            protection. Furthermore, the approach raises the issues of who decides what "risks"
            are acceptable and whether these decisions represent an informed societal choice.

      •     Differential  Protection Based on Relative Use and Value of the Groundwater.
            Because it is usually difficult to ascertain actual risks, this goal relies on information
            about the relative use and value (See Appendix B) as well as the vulnerability of
            underlying ground water in determining the degree of protection to be afforded. The
            decision-maker is still faced with determining what benchmark will be used to
            determine the level of protection afforded to a particular use. Such a benchmark can
            be set as a particular concentration of a contaminant for a particular ground water
            use or value (e.g., the MCL for current or reasonably expected drinking water) or can
            vary according to social and economic factors as described above for previous
            goals.

            Critics of this goal claim that it leads to "writing-off' of ground water resources where
            the use  and value of the resource are not clear or are not considered significant
            relative to the social and economic costs of remediation or prevention. Furthermore,
            this approach also raises the issues of who decides the beneficial use and value of
            ground water resources and whether these decisions reflect informed societal
            choice.

      A.2   EPA's  GROUND WATER PROTECTION GOAL

      EPA's ground water goal is to prevent adverse effects to human  health and the environment
and protect the environmental integrity of the nation's ground water resources. Several reviewers
of an early draft of this Guidance commented that this goal does not, by itself,  provide sufficient
operational direction.  In part, this is a result of the EPA goal not fitting into any one of the five
traditional goals described above.  They recommended that the Agency provide clarification of its
goal so States can
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                            A-4

determine if their own protection goal is at least as stringent as EPA's - as required by CSGWPP
adequacy criteria.

      EPA's goal also states that "in determining appropriate prevention and protection strategies,
EPA will also consider the use, value and vulnerability of the resource, as well as social and
economic values." Given the lessons learned over the last several years ( see Section, 1.3)
regarding the extensive use and high value of ground water, its vulnerability to contamination, and
the social and  economic consequences of such contamination, EPA will pursue the following
three-tiered hierarchy of preferred ground water protection objectives:

      •     Prevention of contamination whenever possible. In order to meet the Agency's
            goal of preventing adverse effects to human health and the environment and
            protecting environmental  integrity, prevention of contamination must be the first
            priority of the CSGWPP approach.

      •     Prevention of contamination based on the relative vulnerability of the resource,
            and where necessary the ground water's use and  value. While prevention of
            contamination whenever  possible must be the first priority of a CSGWPP, EPA also
            recognizes that basic human activity has impacts on ground water. Prevention of all
            discharges to all ground water is not possible. This should not be construed as
            allowing  ground waters to be "written-off." Rather, EPA believes that some level of
            protection should be considered for all ground water resources.

            Other factors may need to be taken  into account when making ground water
            protection decisions. The relative vulnerability1 of the ground water should help
            determine the level of source control  measures necessary to prevent contamination.
            As an additional preventive measure, the relative use, value, and vulnerability of
            ground waters at different locations should be considered in decisions regarding the
            siting of facilities or activities. Also, due to limited government personnel and financial
            resources,  the relative use, value, and vulnerability of ground waters should be  key
            factors in setting priorities for day-to-day operations of relevant programs (e.g. which
            permits to write first, which inspections to do first, which clean-ups to begin first).

            Finally, in some cases, EPA is required  by statute to base regulation on
            consideration of the risks and the benefits of activities  that may pose
   1EPA defines ground water vulnerability as the relative ease with which a contaminant introduced into the
environment can migrate to an aquifer under a given set of management practices, contaminant
characteristics, and aquifer sensitivity conditions. Ground water vulnerability assessment methods assess
hydrogeologic characteristics, contaminant characteristics, and management practices, related to
contaminants.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           A-5

            health or environmental concerns. Such consideration could result in targeting
            prevention measures to those areas where ground waters are considered to have
            certain uses and values that, if not protected and conserved, would pose an
            unreasonable risk to human health and the environment now or for future
            generations. While under these federal  statutes EPA and the States will need to
            ensure protection  of ground waters with certain uses and values, States are
            encouraged to pursue prevention whenever possible.

      •     Remediation based on relative use and value of ground water. Although the
            focus of ground water protection should be on the prevention of contamination,
            remediation must  be pursued as a final option when prevention fails or where
            contamination already exists. EPA's goal  is to remediate all aquifers to meet their
            designated uses. Given the expense of cleaning up ground water contamination and
            the need to focus  more effort and resources on prevention, EPA and the States must
            take  a realistic approach to restoration based upon the actual and reasonably
            expected uses of the resource as well as on social and economic values. EPA, the
            States, and other federal agencies must work together to ensure consistent
            approaches to determining clean-up objectives.

      As noted above in Section A.1, certain social/economic as well as technologic factors can
be considerations  in determining what are "possible" measures for preventing ground water
contamination. Similar factors can come into play in determining what level of remediation should
be achieved for ground water considered to have a particular use or value. It is EPA's position that
determinations of what factors will be employed should be explicit and  done through considerable
public education and participation — often perhaps through representative governmental
processes. Furthermore, such decisions should be made, to the extent possible, at the
governmental level closest to the people most  affected.

      In general, States and local governments should play the prominent role in
such decision-making. This is especially appropriate when: a) the  activities of concern are
numerous (e.g., 23 million septic tanks) or highly localized (e.g., vary in impact and number from
State to State) and nationally present a low to medium  risk potential; b) when land-use
management is the principal protection approach; and c) when technologies currently exist or are
easily developed to address the problem.

      The federal government  may need to take the primary  role in these decisions when: a) there
is a need to establish national regulatory consistency (e.g., to limit significant adverse impacts  on
interstate commerce); b) when  the scope of the effort
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           A-6

requires national resources (e.g., research, expertise for technically complex environmental
problems); c) when State-by-State efforts would create unwarranted and inefficient duplication;
and d) when national security is involved (e.g., disposal of high-level radioactive waste).

      A.3   EPA's POLICY TOWARD ENDORSING CSGWPP GOALS

      Under Strategic Activity 1, a State's goal must be no less protective than EPA's goal.
Therefore, for:

      •     Prevention. A State's goal must, at least, be based on preventing ground water
            contamination when ever possible. A state is encouraged to determine what is
            "possible" explicitly and through adequate public participation - State legislation may
            often be the best vehicle for such policy determinations. Where appropriate, the
            State should also allow local governments, which are closest to those most affected,
            to make these decisions. States and local governments will, however, need to follow
            federal laws where they prescribe what is "possible."

            A State's goal must be just as, or more stringent than, EPA's goal for prevention. A
            State's goal could, therefore, be based on "non-degradation" or "anti-degradation" as
            well as prevention whenever possible. However, EPA recognizes the need will arise to
            balance the economic and social costs of prevention with the underlying ground
            water's use and value. Therefore, while a State is encouraged to pursue prevention
            whenever possible, a State or its localities may have statutes, regulations, or
            ordinances that operate under a less stringent standard. State and local approaches
            must,  however,  be in compliance with any applicable federal statute or regulation.

      •     Remediation. A State's goal must, at least, be based on protecting ground water
            currently used, or reasonably expected to be used, as a source of drinking water as
            well as ground waters that are closely hydrologically connected to surface waters.
            For drinking waters, the attainment of Maximum Contaminant  Levels (MCLs)
            established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) should be the remediation
            goal. For ground waters closely hydrologically connected to surface waters, the goal
            should be to reduce contamination so that its discharges to surface water does not
            exceed water quality standards established under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

            A State's goal can be more stringent than EPA's goal for remediation. A State's goal
            could, therefore, be based on "non-degradation." A State's goal could also be based
            on either "remediation to the extent possible" or "differential protection based on
            relative risks to human health and the
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                      A-7

      environment." However, the resulting State clean-up objectives need to at least as
      stringent, and consistently applied, as the standards described above.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
               o f0j\[ - UOISJM
8-V

-------
APPENDIX B:  DEFINING VALUES AND REASONABLY EXPECTED USES OF
                 GROUND WATER
      B.1   GROUND WATER VALUES

      As described in Appendix A, a State's perception of the value of its ground water is a key
factor in determining remediation objectives or in siting facilities that have a potential to
contaminate. Value, as discussed in Strategic Activity 2, is a key factor in assigning priorities for
ground water protection  or remediation activities. The States are given the flexibility to define their
own ground water values through the CSGWPP.

      Recent studies indicate that people value ground water for many different reasons, each
of which should be considered by States. EPA held a Ground Water Valuation Conference on
October 20, 1992, to provide a common  base of knowledge on the types of ground water
values. Experts were invited to discuss their recent studies on this topic. The description of values
described below was derived from this conference and previous EPA reports.

      Ground water is valued in three ways:

      •     For its current uses;
      •     For its future or reasonably expected uses; and
      •     For its intrinsic values.

            B.1.1       Current Use Value

      Persons most commonly value ground water for its many uses, and pay a price to use it -
the use value of ground water. The value of the ground water depends on its use. However, not all
of the uses of ground water are easily quantifiable. For example, ground water has great value for
maintenance of streamflow and lake levels and their associated ecosystems, particularly during dry
seasons. Also, the value of the ground water may vary depending on the availability of alternate
sources and vulnerability to contamination. In locations where many competing uses are
withdrawing ground water faster than it is recharged, the cost to produce, and therefore the value
of ground water, may be rising as the resource becomes scarce.

            B.1.2      Future or Reasonably Expected Use Value

      There is also a value given to the future use of ground water, known as option value.
Option value is the value people place on ground water that they don't currently use, but want to
have the option to use in the future.  Reasonably expected use is a subset of this option use
value -it is ground water that not only has the
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           B-2

potential for use in the future, but is expected to be used. The value will depend on the expected
use.

            B.1.3       Intrinsic Value

      Society places an intrinsic value on ground water, separate from any thought of using the
resource, called non-use value (value other than for its specific uses). Studies have shown that
Americans are willing to pay for the knowledge that clean ground water exists. Existence value is
the value that individuals place on simply knowing that clean ground water exists independent of
any use.  Bequest value is the value the current generation places on the ability to pass clean
ground water on to future generations. These values are difficult to quantify,  and  require the use
of survey data. EPA's draft report "Methods for Measuring Non-Use Values:  A Contingent
Valuation Study of Ground Water Cleanup" also indicated that individuals are willing to pay just to
know that clean ground water exists. This willingness to pay becomes a significant amount when
added up over the population of a city, county, or State.
      B.2         DEFINING REASONABLY EXPECTED USES OF GROUND
                  WATER

      EPA recommends that States use the process described in this Appendix to define
reasonably expected uses of ground water. The priority-setting and program implementation
components of a CSGWPP (i.e., Strategic Activities 2 and 4) both rely on a State's resource
characterization efforts. This characterization could be done through an interactive process.  An
important application of State resource characterizations will be to identify reasonably expected
uses of ground water so that those uses which  have particular value or benefit to the State can be
afforded greater attention using a differential management approach. These uses may include
ecological support and drinking water, as well as other purposes. States may also want to consider
other principal uses and factors, such as for agriculture and industry. It is left to States to
determine relative priorities among  the uses.

      The approach described below allows each State to tailor resource based priority-setting to
its own institutions. First, a public process is described for defining the reasonably expected  uses
of ground water.  Second, factors are identified for States to consider in defining ground waters
reasonably expected to be used for ecological purposes and drinking water. Third, an EPA default
definition for Federal program purposes will  be applied to the extent needed to implement
regulatory programs in States choosing not to define these uses.

(1)   Public Process. To obtain the operational flexibility through the CSGWPP, the State's  public
      process to determine reasonably expected uses should (a) maximize public input, and (b)
      have its results consistently applied across programs.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                            B-3

      (a)    The State should utilize a public participation process with objectives as defined in 40
            CFR Part 25. State laws designating ground water uses are considered adequate for
            this purpose. States are encouraged to keep their ground water use designations
            current. The objectives of 40 CFR Part 25 are to:

                  Ensure that the public has the opportunity to understand official  programs and
                  proposed actions;

                  Ensure that the government decision defining reasonably expected uses
                  includes consulting interested and affected segments of the public;

                  Ensure that the government action is as responsive as possible to public
                  concerns;

                  Encourage public involvement in implementing environmental laws;

                  Keep the public informed about significant issues and proposed project or
                  program changes as they arise;

                  Foster a spirit of openness and mutual trust among EPA, States, sub-state
                  agencies, and the public; and

                  Use all feasible means to create opportunities for public participation and to
                  stimulate and support participation.

      (b)    The State should consistently apply its definitions of ground water uses across all
            prevention and remediation decisions over which the State has control. For example,
            (i) the State should use a consistent definition regardless of waste type (e.g.,  sewage
            sludge or municipal solid waste) in determining facility requirements, and (ii) a State's
            definition would apply similarly to State and Federally funded remediation. As another
            example, application  of a State's definition, which would require remediation
            programs to create an "island of clean" within a larger region of previously
            contaminated ground water, could be considered an inconsistent application.
(2)    Defining Reasonably Expected Uses for Ecological Support and Drinking Water

      While States are expected to consider all uses, this section focuses on support of ecological
systems and drinking water, because most laws that EPA implements focus on human health and
the environment.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                     B-4

(a)    For Ground Water Supporting Surface Water Ecosystems: EPA's 1991 Ground
      Water Protection Strategy emphasizes protection of ground water closely
      hydrologically connected to surface waters to ensure ecosystem integrity. EPA
      considers the following factors important indicators of ground water hydrologically
      connected to surface water. A State may choose to use other factors. States should
      negotiate with the EPA Regions which factors are most appropriate for their
      respective circumstances.

            Relative ground water travel time from potential contaminant sources;

            Relative contribution of ground water to quantity and quality (chemical and
            physical) of surface water;

            Biota living in or dependent on ground water/surface water ecosystems;

            Climatic or seasonal variations; and

            Attainment of water quality standards to support designated use of surface
            water.
(b)    For A Reasonably Expected Source of Drinking Water:  EPA considers the
      following factors to be important in evaluating the future use of ground water. EPA
      expects States to consider or dismiss, with a sound rationale, from consideration
      these factors when determining a reasonably expected drinking water source. The
      State may also use other factors.  States should negotiate with  EPA Regions which
      factors are most relevant to their respective circumstances.

            Hydrologic characteristics,  including water quality and quantity;

            Availability and cost of alternative  water supplies;

            Demographics, including future growth and population patterns;

            Remoteness from likely areas of residential or other development;

            Land use planning;

            Remediation technology for, and  practicality of, remediation;



Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           B-5

                  Cost of prevention and remediation; and

                  Inter-jurisdictional considerations (Tribes, federal government, other States).


(3)    EPA's Definition of "Reasonably Expected Uses of Ground Water."

            In the absence of State definitions, EPA's definitions of "Ground Water Supporting
      Surface Water Ecosystems" and "A Reasonably Expected Source of Drinking Water" will
      apply.

      (a)    Ground Water Supporting Surface Water Ecosystems: EPA's definition for
            ground water closely hydrologically connected to surface water and supporting its
            ecosystems is ground water which, if its availability or quality are affected, would
            result in surface water not meeting the water quality standards  required to support its
            designated use. (This definition reflects the current state of information on ground
            water - surface water interaction. This definition may change as more information
            becomes available.)

      (b)    A Reasonably Expected Source of Drinking Water: EPA's definition for a
            reasonably expected source of drinking water is ground water that is available in
            sufficient quantity for its intended use and contains fewer than  10,000 mg/l total
            dissolved solids.  This definition derives from the Safe Drinking Water Act, Part C -
            Protection of Underground Sources of Drinking Water, Section 1421. EPA has
            developed this  definition to be as protective as possible of future ground water uses;
            however, EPA  recognizes that this definition may be more comprehensive than a
            State may wish to be.

      EPA's Assistance to States. EPA realizes that a  State may find it useful to have the benefit
of EPA's views on how best to define ground water supporting surface water ecosystems and
ground water that is a reasonably expected source of drinking water. To provide this guidance,
EPA is developing a technical  assistance document on resource assessment.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
               o f0j\[ - UOISJM
9-a

-------
APPENDIX C:         HOW THIS GUIDANCE WAS DEVELOPED
      This Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program Guidance was developed
using a deliberative process involving federal and State agencies as well as the public.
Development began in the Summer of 1989, when EPA Administrator Reilly formed a Ground
Water Task Force to review and coordinate EPAs policy on ground water protection. The Task
Force, which consisted of senior Agency managers from all offices with ground water-related
responsibilities, issued its final report in July 1991. The report, Protecting the Nation's Ground
Water: EPA's Strategy for the 1990s, describes the Agency's policy of engaging in an aggressive
and comprehensive approach to protecting the nation's ground water resources.  The Strategy:

      •     Sets forth principles to ensure the protection of ground water resources;

      •     Identifies States as having primary responsibility for ground water protection; and

      •     Introduces methods for improving EPA's coordination of ground water-related
            activities.

      The Strategy outlines the CSGWPP approach that is the primary vehicle through which
many of the Strategy's policies and objectives will be met. During the preparation of the Strategy,
the Task Force sought comment and input from States, other federal agencies, and numerous
public and private organizations on all facets of the initial  development of the CSGWPP approach.

      Preparation of this guidance on implementation of  the CSGWPP approach followed the
release of the Strategy and also involved a high level of State and public input. Between December
1991 and February 1992 a series of Roundtable discussions involving EPA and State and Tribal
officials from agencies with ground water responsibilities  were held throughout the country. The
Roundtables were organized to provide a forum for State and Tribal views on four key subjects:
(1) what are the necessary elements of a  successful CSGWPP;  (2) what are the criteria for
determining the adequacy of each CSGWPP element; (3) what can prevent successful
implementation of a CSGWPP; and (4) what EPA can do to help  the States and Tribes implement
CSGWPPs successfully.

      The Roundtable Discussion approach introduced a new and  innovative dimension to
program guidance development. Thirteen separate Roundtables, with a total of over 700 State and
Tribal participants, were held around the country. Comments, opinions, and questions from the
Roundtables have been used to inform EPA decision making and have influenced the development
of the draft CSGWPP Guidance in many ways. For example, the number of CSGWPP elements
was reduced and revised to six Strategic Activities to reflect views expressed in the Roundtables;
specific adequacy criteria were included or excluded based  on State
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           C-2

reduced and revised to six Strategic Activities to reflect views expressed in the Roundtables;
specific adequacy criteria were included or excluded based on State and Tribal arguments; and
certain procedures associated with the CSGWPP process were revised. In particular, EPA initially
planned on providing a State with increased flexibility only when the State had a fully implemented,
EPA-concurred-upon CSGWPP. However, Roundtable participants suggested instead that
increased program-specific flexibility should occur as specific milestones are met in the
progressive implementation of each State's CSGWPP. This Guidance adopts that approach.

      In July 1992, EPA published the draft CSGWPP guidance and carried out a broad range of
outreach activities to ensure that the draft CSGWPP guidance document was reviewed by all
States' agencies involved in ground water protection, numerous federal agencies, tribes, national
organizations of State and local governments, national environmental organizations, business
groups, EPA Regions and other entities committed to adequately protecting ground water
resources. EPA published a notice on July 7,  1992, in the Federal Register that the draft guidance
was available for distribution to the public. Simultaneously, EPA distributed copies of the draft
guidance, accompanied by a letter from EPA's Deputy Administrator, F. Henry Habicht II, that
requested commenters to address specific questions concerning  the guidance and the
Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program (CSGWPP) approach, to a large number
of State officials. EPA  supplied about 4,000 copies of the draft guidance to the public.

      During the 60-day comment period, EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Radiation Programs, and Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response  met with national associations of State and local governments,
environmental organizations, States, local government officials, and five federal agencies
(Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Interior, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to obtain additional views.

      EPA Headquarters, in an effort to build a new partnership with its sister federal agencies,
held a Federal Interagency Roundtable in March 1992. In addition, EPA held meetings with other
involved federal agencies this summer to discuss the draft guidance and to develop plans for more
active efforts at programs coordination. As a follow-up to these meetings, EPA Headquarters, at a
staff level, has approached the other federal agencies with several ideas to forge ahead into this
new partnership, which has resulted in the descriptions of these efforts in Part II, Section II.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          C-3

      As of October 15, 1992, a total of 96 comments had been received on the draft guidance,
primarily from the following groups:
            State Agencies (64 from 44 States)
                  Environmental (30)
                  Health (9)
                  Agriculture (12)
                  Natural Resources (13)

            Business and Trade Groups (8)

            Environment Groups (2)

            Local Governments (4)

            Citizen Groups (1)
•     Federal Agencies (6)

•     Universities (1)

•     National Organizations of
      State and Local
      Governments (4)

•     EPA HQ Offices (4)

•     EPA Regions (13 from 8
      Regions)
      This guidance document represents a significant reexamination of the concepts and
approaches outlined in the draft guidance based on the numerous comments received.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                         C-4
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
APPENDIX D:  GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
ACP:
ADID:
ARAR:
ARS:
ASCS:
BIA
BLM:
BMP:
CERCLA:
CSRS:
CWA:
CZM:
CZMA:
DASD (E):
DERP:
DNAPLs:
DoDs:
DOE:
DOI:
DOT:
USDA Agricultural Conservation Program
Advanced Identification (under CWA ง404)
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement
USDA Agricultural Research Service
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Act
DOI Bureau of Indian Affairs
DOI Bureau of Land Management
Best management practice
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
USDA Cooperative State Research Service
Clean Water Act
Coastal Zone Management
Coastal Zone Management Act
DoD Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
DoD Defense Environmental Restoration Program
Dense non-aqueous phase liquids
US Department of Defense
US Department of Energy
US Department of the Interior
US Department of Transportation
DSMOA:          DoD Defense and State Memoranda of Agreement
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
DSMOA:
ECAP:
EM:
EPA:
ERS:
ES:
FIFRA:
FS:
GOA:
GIS:
MRS:
HSWA:
lAGs:
IMS:
IRP:
MCL:
NAPLs:
MASS:
NEPA:
NOAA:
NPDES:
NPL:
NPS:
                       D-2
DoD Defense and State Memoranda of Agreement
DoD Environmental Compliance Achievement Program
DOE Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
US Environmental Protection Agency
USDA Economic Research Service
USDA Extension Service
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
United States Forest Service
US General Accounting Office
Geographic Information System
Hazard Ranking System
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 to RCRA
Interagency Agreements
DOI Indian Health Service
DoD Installation Restoration Program
Maximum Contaminant Level
Non-Aqueous phase liquids
USDA Agricultural Statistic Service
National Environmental Protection Act
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Priority List
Nonpoint Source
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
NRC:
OAR:
OE:
OERR:
OHWP:
OPA:
OPPTS:
OSD:
OSM:
OSWER:
OW:
PA/SI:
PCBs:
POTW:
PWS:
PWSS:
QA/QC:
RAD:
RASA:
RCRA:
RCRAC:
RCRAD:
Reclamation:
                        D-3
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
EPA Office of Air and Radiation
EPA Office of Enforcement
EPA Office Emergency and Remedial Response
DoD Other Hazardous Waste Program
Oil Pollution Act of 1990
EPA Office Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances
Office of the Secretary of Defense
DOI Office of Surface  Mining
EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
EPA Office of Water
Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Publicly owned treatment works
Public water supply
Public water supply system
Quality assurance/quality control
Radiation
Regional Aquifer-System Analysis
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle D
DOI Bureau of Reclamation
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
RFA:
SARA:
SCS:
SDWA:
SMCRA:
SMP:
SRPA:
SNC:
SSA:
TOP:
TSCA:
UIC:
UMTRCA:
USDA:
USGS:
UST:
VOCs:
WHP:
WQIP:
                        D-4
RCRA Facility Assessment
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
USDA Soil Conservation Service
Safe Drinking Water Act
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
State Management Plan to prevent ground water contamination from pesticides
Small Reclamation Projects Act
Significant noncompliance
Sole Source Aquifer
Technology Development Program
Toxic Substances Control  Act
Underground Injection Control
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Geological Survey
Underground Storage Tank
Volatile Organic Compounds
Wellhead Protection
Water Quality Incentive Practices
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
             NOTE TO THE READER:

                 This Final Comprehensive State Ground Water
                 Protection Program Guidance is a statement of
                 Agency policy and principles. It does not establish
                 or affect legal rights or obligations.The guidance
                 document does not establish a binding norm and is
                 not finally determinative of the issues addressed.
                 Agency decisions in any particular case will be
                 made by applying the law and regulations to the
                 specific facts of the case.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                  Part II:
  LINKAGE TO EPA AND OTHER FEDERAL
           AGENCY PROGRAMS
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                    Page
       LINKAGE TO EPA AND OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS
PART II:

SECTION 1:  LINKAGE TO EPA PROGRAMS	 1-1

            Wellhead Protection Program  	 1-3
            Pesticides State Management Plan (SMP) Program 	 1-5
            Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program	 1-9
            RCRA Subtitle C Program  	 1-11
            RCRA Subtitle D Program  	 1-13
            Underground Storage Tank Program	 1-15
            Superfund Program	 1-17
            Oil Pollution Act	 1-19
            Underground Injection Control Program  	 1-21
            Public Water Supply Supervision Program	 1-23
            Nonpoint Source Program	 1-25
            NPDES and Industrial Pretreatment Program	 1-27
            Storm Water Program 	 1-29
            Sewage Sludge Program 	 1-31
            Coastal Zone Management  Program	 1-33
            Toxic Substances Control Program	 1-35
            Radiation Program	 1-37
            Wetlands Program	 1-39
            Watershed Protection Approach  	 1-41
            Pollution  Prevention Program  	 1-43

SECTION 2:  LINKAGE TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY
            PROGRAMS	 2-1

            United States Department of Agriculture	2-3
            United States Department of Defense	2-9
            United States Department of Energy 	 2-13
            United States Department of the Interior  	 2-17
            United States Department of Transportation  	 2-23
            United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission  	 2-27
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
      1.     LINKAGE TO EPA PROGRAMS

      This section provides a program-by-program discussion of the linkages between the
CSGWPP approach and each EPA program that potentially affects ground water. For each
program, a brief description of how CSGWPP-supported resource-based decision-making would
benefit the program is provided. For most programs, this is followed by a discussion of how the
CSGWPP affords greater beneficial coordination to the program. Finally, for programs that
provide grants to States, a brief discussion of how those grants can be used in a coordinated
fashion to support the development and implementation of CSGWPP follows. The material
described below is not meant to take the place of any specific program guidance or regulation,
and, where seeming discrepancies might exist, the information in the most current
program-specific guidance or regulation must prevail. EPA is  in an on-going process to align and
update all of its programs related to ground water protection with the CSGWPP approach.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                         1-2
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-3


                       WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision-Making

      An EPA-approved State Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program will be a required and integral
part of the Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. A CSGWPP will emphasize that wellhead protection areas,
recharge areas, and basins of drinking water aquifers are to be afforded extra management focus
across all programs within the CSGWPP framework.

      In addition to being an integral part of the priority-setting portion of the CSGWPP, wellhead
protection programs will benefit by other activities that make up a CSGWPP. For example,
characterization and mapping will aid in  delineating actual wellhead protection areas and recharge
zones.

Coordination with Other Programs

      Many programs use the wellhead protection areas to identify areas of priority concern.
USDAs Conservation Reserve Program, for example, provides incentives to farmers not to
conduct practices that may impact ground water in sensitive areas. Other programs use wellhead
protection areas as a tool in program management schemes, such as the Public Water Supply
(PWS) Supervision Program for vulnerability assessments and sanitary surveys. The vulnerability
assessment completed under a WHP Program will meet the requirement of the PWS Program as a
first step for a PWS to apply to the State to waive monitoring. The CSGWPP will become the
vehicle to further demonstrate the utility of State WHP Programs and ensure that WHP-related
activities are carried out consistently across programs.

Coordinating Grants

      To date, grant funding under the Safe Drinking Water Act for State Wellhead Protection
Programs has not been appropriated. However, State ground water assessment and
characterization activities and other wellhead protection activities are supported by EPA with CWA
ง106 grants, and wellhead protection is referenced as a viable and valuable activity in the grant
guidances of other EPA ground water-related programs (e.g., CWA ง319 and RCRA). Within the
CSGWPP framework, all of these grants would be coordinated so that the maximum number of
wellhead protection areas are established.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                         1-4
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           1-5

           PESTICIDES STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP) PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision-Making

      EPA's Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy released in October 1991 offers States the
flexibility to continue the use of a pesticide that EPA would otherwise cancel due to ground water
contamination concerns. States will gain this flexibility by developing and implementing State
Management Plans (SMPs), which are designed to ensure that each State can sufficiently
manage,  control, and enforce pesticide use to protect valuable and vulnerable ground water. EPA
will coordinate its efforts with USDA and with State agricultural agencies to alleviate redundancies
and ensure consistent regulatory requirements.

      Figure 11-1 demonstrates that the specific components and adequacy criteria of
a Pesticide SMP are closely aligned with those of a CSGWPP. This close alignment means that
implementation of a Generic Pesticide SMP1  will meet the general condition of many of the
adequacy criteria for a Core CSGWPP that the State's intended comprehensive approach be
adopted or implemented by at least one operating program within the State.2 Obviously, however, a
Pesticide SMP, even at the Generic level, will require more specificity on pesticide management
measures than would be found in a CSGWPP. An SMP should be viewed as a more program-
specific version of the more general, but broader scope CSGWPP.

      The Pesticide SMP approach fully adopts the Agency's overall ground water protection goal
and the tiered hierarchy of preferred protection objectives outlined in this CSGWPP Guidance.
Under an SMP, States are encouraged to pursue prevention of ground water contaminant
whenever possible. However, protection of the nation's currently and reasonably expected sources
of drinking water supplies, both public and private, is a required SMP priority. Further, ground
water that is closely hydrologically connected to surface water must receive priority protection to
ensure the integrity of associated ecosystems.
   1According to EPA's draft Pesticide SMP Guidance, a Generic SMP is the State's primary source document
which provides the overarching policies and approaches from which Pesticide-Specific SMPs will be derived, if
necessary, to address unique concerns for individuals pesticides.

   2A State needs to demonstrate, however, that its comprehensive approaches are intended to eventually
encompass all ground water protection programs within the State.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
     GSGWPP Strategic Activities
                                             1-6
         Establish • Common Ground Water
             Protection Goal Across
             all Relevant Programs
           Establsh Priorities, Based on
          Characterization of the Resource,
       Identification of Sources of Contamination,
         arrf Programmatic Needs to Direct
         ai Relevant Program and Activities
       Define Roles, Authorities, ResponstoffiUes.
       Resources, and Coordinating Mechanisms
          for Addressing Identified Priorities
         Implement Necessary Activities to
           Accomplish the State's Goal
          Consistent with State Priorities
                and Schedules
         Conduct Information Collection and
         Management to Measure Progress,
         Re-evaluate Priorities, and Support
              ai Related Programs
           Improve Public Education and
           Participation k> an Aspects of
             Ground Water Protection
      SMP Components
     State's Philosophy and Goal
                                                          Basis for Assessment and Planning
Roles and Responsibilities of State Agencies
                                                                 Legal Authority
            Resources
                                                                Prevention Actions
       Response to Detections
                                                              Enforcement Mechanisms
        Records and Reporting

                                                               Information Dissemination
                                                           Public Awareness and Participation
Figure 11-1. Relation of the Six Strategic Activities of a CSGWPP to the
        12  Components of a Pesticides State Management Plan.
 Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-7

    PESTICIDES STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP) PROGRAM (continued)

Coordination with Other Programs

      Examples of how CSGWPPs will contribute to coordinating or promoting consistency
between key activities of SMPs and other ground water-related programs include:

      •     Coordination and priority-setting under CSGWPPs will promote better integration of
            the regulatory and non-regulatory prevention measures called for by an SMP, such
            as those available under FIFRA and the CWA's Nonpoint Source Program, as well as
            needed monitoring information, available from a number of programs.

      •     CSGWPP efforts to define roles, responsibilities, and coordinating mechanisms will
            further clarify and build on foundations laid under SMPs to define roles, and promote
            coordination between agricultural agencies with primary pesticides management
            responsibilities and water, environmental, or health agencies with primary ground
            water resource responsibilities.

      •     Efforts under CSGWPPs to promote State legal authorities and to form coordinated
            enforcement strategies for ground water protection will also strengthen legal and
            enforcement capacity to protect ground water from pesticides.

      •     Coordination mechanisms developed under CSGWPPs should establish links at the
            State level  to other federal agencies with ground water protection responsibilities.
            These links should facilitate the targeting of non-EPA federal water quality projects to
            address a State's SMP priorities.

Coordinating Grants

      CSGWPPs will help coordinate CWA, SDWA, CERCLA, and RCRA, as well as FIFRA
funding for activities that will help meet the adequacy criteria of both CSGWPPs and SMPs. For
example, money from ง106 of the CWA could support State efforts  to assess and identify the
areas most vulnerable to ground water contamination by pesticides  as a basis for establishing
priorities for protection. FIFRA funding would be available for tailoring pesticides management
practices to certain critical areas and for
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-8

    PESTICIDES STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP) PROGRAM (continued)

outreach to the agricultural community. State agriculture agencies would work with State water
quality agencies to utilize their expertise and facilities for monitoring, assessments of aquifer
sensitivity, data management, and other activities necessary for SMP development. Under the
CSGWPP approach, SDWA funding of PWSS monitoring, enforcement, and vulnerability
assessments could also be coordinated to provide significant information to a State for developing
and improving its SMP. Finally, the coordination mechanisms developed under CSGWPPs also
have the potential to facilitate the targeting of grants from other federal agencies, such as USDA,
to support SMP activities or to get the State agencies involved in SMP implementation in the
selection of federally-funded water quality projects.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           1-9

                SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER PROTECTION PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision-Making

      The Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) Protection Program is a resource-oriented ground water
contamination prevention program. It is one of many tools that should be utilized in a CSGWPP to
increase public awareness of the value of ground water as a resource and to prevent
contamination from federal financially-assisted projects.

      The SSA Protection Program's objectives and activities correspond to the Strategic
Activities of a Comprehensive Program. Common management measures in both programs include
resource assessment, identification of important resources for setting priorities, development of
management options, and involvement of State and local governments.

      The CSGWPP approach should provide the framework for increased State participation and
improved EPA decision-making in determining priority SSA designations and project reviews.
State and local prevention, control, and remediation efforts within SSA designated areas should be
prioritized and managed through a CSGWPP.

Coordination with Other Programs

      Under coordination efforts of a CSGWPP, SSA protection activities should significantly
support the development and implementation of other ground water-related programs in the
following ways:

      •     Contributes valuable aquifer characterization and assessment information to assist
            States in setting priorities;

      •     Assists States in establishing priority ground water protection areas based on use
            and value of the resource;

      •     Implements a pollution prevention program for reducing or eliminating pollution in
            SSA areas;

      •     Uses a broad range of education, voluntary, and regulatory techniques to protect the
            resource; and

      •     Provides opportunities for monitoring, data collection and data analysis of the nature
            and quality of ground water.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        1-10
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-11

                           RCRA SUBTITLE  C PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making

      The FY 1992 RCRA Implementation Plan indicates that the RCRA program is implementing
a cooperative strategic framework with the States which is designed to: (1) identify regional and
State-wide environmental priorities among all facilities in the RCRA universe, and (2) use these
priorities to select the most appropriate allocation of  resources for RCRA permitting and cleanup
activities. One factor in setting these priorities will be the use, value, and vulnerability of the ground
water. Since CSGWPPs encourage States to develop systems that allow resource-based priority
setting, the CSGWPP approach should serve as an  integral part of the efforts the States and
RCRA are undertaking to implement this strategy for setting  RCRA priorities.

      An adequate characterization of a State's ground water  resources developed as part of the
implementation of a CSGWPP could supply much useful information that may be useful in
implementing current and future RCRA-related activities. RCRA corrective actions to cleanup
releases of hazardous waste and constituents are conducted on a site-specific basis, and take into
account ground water protection as a major factor in selecting  cleanup remedies. The information
generated as part of a CSGWPP will help to ensure that site-specific decision  making will be
conducted in the  context of the regional ground water resources. In addition, future regulation on
location standards for RCRA facilities is likely to be integrated with regional ground water
resources identified and characterized as part of a State's CSGWPP.

Coordination with Other Programs

      Subtitle C  permits should be coordinated with UIC, NPDES, and Wetlands (ง404) permits.
When these and  other ground water-related  programs are all implemented within the CSGWPP
framework, consistency among priorities and pollution prevention measures will be significantly
enhanced. Overall implementation will be more efficient and effective.

      Some commentators noted that RCRA's requirements on the handling of pesticide wastes
were burdensome. The Office of Solid Waste will explore this problem with the Office of Pesticide
Programs.

Coordinating Grants

      RCRA implementation grants can  be used, in  part, to support general assessment and
infrastructure building, as long as the activities funded demonstrably aid in implementing RCRA.
Because of RCRA's emphasis on State-led, priority-based decision making, activities such as
assessment, mapping, and characterization of ground water resources would  fit this criterion.
These activities are also key in other programs and are essential to developing and implementing a
CSGWPP. As such,
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        1-12

                    RCRA SUBTITLE C PROGRAM (continued)

the RCRA grants should be coordinated with funds from a variety of programs. The CSGWPP
supplies the coordinating framework which ensures that no unnecessary duplication of effort exists
across programs, thus assuring that grants from RCRA and all other programs provide maximum
overall benefit.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           1-13

                            RCRA SUBTITLE D PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making

      Under the Subtitle D program regulations on municipal landfill criteria, States have the
opportunity to adjust certain aspects of the EPA-promulgated standards concerning landfill design,
monitoring, siting and corrective action. To gain this flexibility, States must have EPA-approved
municipal solid waste landfill permitting programs. When an approved State makes a site-specific
permit decision on landfill design or monitoring requirements, it may do so  based, in part, on the
relative vulnerability of the ground water. For corrective action requirements, decisions can be
based, in part, on the underlying ground waterDs use, value,  and vulnerability. Assessment and
characterization carried out under the strategic activities of the CSGWPP can be used to help
demonstrate to the EPA Regional Administrator that their Municipal Waste Programs adequately
incorporate Subtitle D federal guidelines.

      Other Subtitle D programs for solid waste (e.g., mining, oil and gas, and industrial wastes)
are just beginning to be developed  at this time. EPA expects these Subtitle  D industrial programs to
incorporate the CSGWPP approach and allow States to make decisions on aspects of landfill
design, monitoring requirements, or corrective action requirements based,  in part, on the  use,
value, and vulnerability of the ground water.

Coordination with Other Programs

      The RCRA Subtitle D program already has developed ground water monitoring requirements
for municipal solid waste landfills. These requirements allow the use of a sampling and analysis
program that accurately represents the ground water quality at a particular site. A CSGWPP could
ensure the development of a consistent monitoring program applicable to both Subtitle D facilities
and to other programs such as the LIST program that may affect ground water.

      A number of industrial facilities and operations likely to be covered under future RCRA
Subtitle D regulations for industrial  solid waste also will require NPDES permits for surface water
discharges, for sewage sludge facilities, or for industrial pretreatment permits from POTWs and
also may be subject to the SDWA  Underground Injection Control Program, particularly Class V
regulations. The CSGWPP will provide a framework for better coordination  of these programs to
avoid  cross-purposes in objectives  and approaches. EPA will also work to coordinate these
regulatory activities through the Agency's Ground Water Cluster.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                         1-14

                    RCRA SUBTITLE D PROGRAM (continued)

Coordinating Grants

      Grants given to States to develop an understanding of the characteristics of their ground
water will be coordinated with grants from other programs so that duplication is avoided when a
State implements certain functions such as monitoring. (See also the discussion under RCRA
Subtitle C.)
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-15

                   UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision-Making

      Under EPA's LIST Program, minimum federal standards are set and a State is allowed to be
more stringent or different if the State's program is no less stringent and provides for adequate
enforcement of compliance. Because the program's size often overwhelms the ability of the States
to staff the program, EPA encourages States to implement LIST programs and achieve compliance
through a variety of State-specific management measures and mechanisms.

      The LIST program offers States flexibility in  the following ways:

      •     The LIST program encourages States to set enforcement priorities and do multimedia
            enforcement.

      •     The federal LIST program defines minimum standards and allows States to set more
            stringent or different (but no less stringent) standards for prevention and detection of
            releases from USTs, for site characterizations, soil and ground water cleanup
            investigations, and remedial action for releases from USTs.

      Maximum flexibility is realized when a State is authorized to implement its UST in lieu of the
federal program. To be approved, the State must demonstrate that it has additional funding
sources, adequate staff, authorities that are no less stringent than the  federal UST program in
scope and regulation, and capacity and willingness to enforce the program.

      The ground water assessment and characterization efforts carried out under the priority
setting Strategic Activity of a CSGWPP will help a State better determine its UST program priorities
in regard to inspection and enforcement actions and program resource allocations. Information
provided by the  CSGWPP approach on the relative use and value of ground water resources also
will assist in UST program decision-making regarding cleanup investigations and corrective
actions.

Coordination with Other Programs

      Because  the UST program seeks to regulate potential sources of ground water
contamination (i.e., underground storage tanks), there are several specific links between a State's
UST program and its CSGWPP. For example, the UST program requires all UST owners to notify
the State of existing underground storage tanks. This inventory will assist the States in cataloging
and assessing one potential source of contamination.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-16

            UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM (continued)

      A number of facilities and operations with underground storage tanks may also be subject to
requirements by other ground water-related programs, such as SDWA underground injection
controls or RCRA hazardous waste or solid waste management. The CSGWPP will provide a
management focal point for a State to establish more coordinated inspections and enforcement
schemes across ground water-related programs. Presently many States' LIST programs barely
have enough personnel to meet their enforcement needs. Through the integration provided by the
CSGWPP, State personnel from other programs may be trained to look for LIST violations or to
take enforcement actions.

      Facilities with underground storage tanks often are located in an area where ground water
remediation efforts are being considered. Knowledge of the presence of underground storage
tanks  in such areas may be crucial information in determining the source  and  responsibility for an
area's contamination and means for successful remediation. Under the LIST program, owners are
required to notify the State of existing underground storage tanks. Inclusion of such information in
the CSGWPP strategic activity of coordinated ground water data bases within the State could
greatly assist other programs' field personnel  in determining appropriate actions.

Coordinating Grants

      The federal  LIST program provides grants to States to prevent, detect, and correct leaks
from underground storage tanks containing petroleum and other hazardous substances. As a
result, LIST grant funding, which supports the development and implementation of an LIST
regulatory program, also can support the following corresponding CSGWPP activities: identifying
sources of contamination; establishing a comprehensive remediation program that sets priorities
according to risk; defining federal, State, and  local enforcement authorities; conducting
monitoring, data collection, and data analysis; and improving public participation.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-17

                               SUPERFUND PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making

      The Superfund program was created by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. The Superfund program is designed to respond to
contamination at sites with uncontrolled hazardous substances. Sites that are candidates for
Superfund response action first undergo a Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation (PA/SI)
in order to quantify the human health and environmental risk posed by the site. Sites are then
evaluated under a number of risk related and other factors set out in the Hazard  Ranking System
(MRS) to determine if the site is a priority for possible remedial action and inclusion on the National
Priority List (NPL). A CSGWPP may influence this process  in the following areas.

      Priorities for conducting MRS assessments and for taking short-term removal actions are
determined by the threat that potential contamination may pose. A State's ability  to demonstrate,
through a CSGWPP, that it understands the use, value, and vulnerability of its ground water could
be an important factor in setting priorities for PA/SI and MRS listing evaluations or other actions.
By helping to establish high priority candidate sites, the State can influence which  of its sites
ultimately get on the NPL, and become eligible for longer term remedial action.

      Once on  the NPL, the Superfund policy is to address  the worst sites and worst problems at
sites first, based on an assessment of risk to human health and the environment. Thus, a
CSGWPP can assist in determining which studies and sites will receive priority Superfund
attention.

      EPAs goal for long-term cleanup of NPL sites includes returning usable ground waters to
their beneficial uses within a reasonable period of time, wherever practicable. When selecting a
remedy and determining remediation requirements for long-term cleanup at a site, EPA considers
both the anticipated uses of ground water and established State standards. A clear understanding
of ground water resources in the State, demonstrated through consistent  application of a
CSGWPP,  can  help inform these site-specific decisions.

      The Superfund Program is currently working to develop a more integrated approach for its
site remediation program, and to identify opportunities for adopting innovative approaches to
restoration and management of hazardous waste sites. Superfund will also be looking for ways to
increase State participation in the remedial decision process, where allowed by statute.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-18

                        SUPERFUND PROGRAM (continued)

Coordination with Other Programs

      Superfund remedial actions are required to comply with (or justify a waiver of) applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of State environmental laws that are promulgated,
timely identified, and consistently applied in similar situations. ARARs pertinent to ground water
remedial actions include standards established by various State and Federal environmental
statutes. Ground water cleanup levels are determined for each Superfund site based on ARARs
and/or on acceptable human health and environmental risk levels for all potential exposure
pathways. ARARs and risk levels are determined for both current and reasonably expected future
use of the ground water. Other EPA programs, such as  RCRA Corrective Action, use a similar
approach for setting cleanup levels for contaminated ground water. Under the CSGWPP
approach, current and reasonably expected uses would  be determined by a State and would be
consistently applied to all State and Federal programs. Where a CSGWPP is in  place, the
Superfund program may provide flexibility to focus more intensive long-term remedial efforts at
sites where ground water is more highly valued by the State and  less intensive efforts (i.e., longer
restoration time periods) in other areas.

Coordinating Grants

      A State or Indian Tribe may enter into a Core Program Cooperative Agreement to build and
enhance its capabilities to respond to uncontrolled hazardous substance sites and to promote more
effective State participation in the Superfund program. The  Core  Program focuses on assisting a
State to develop its ability to support or implement emergency and long-term response under the
Superfund program. The Core Program Cooperative Agreement may enable EPA Regional Offices
to fund appropriate ground water tasks that contribute to the recipients ability to implement
Superfund and also are useful to comprehensive ground water management in a State. Examples
might include development of ground water sampling protocols or design of risk assessment
criteria and procedures, and  other similar components that  also could support a framework for a
CSGWPP.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-19

                                OIL POLLUTION ACT

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making

      The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) provides EPA (and the Coast Guard) with expanded
authorities to address discharges of oil that pose substantial threats to public health or welfare and
natural resources. Section 311 of the Clean Water Act, which is implemented through the National
Contingency Plan like CERCLA, empowers EPA to arrange for the removal of oil discharges or to
mitigate or prevent the substantial threat of the discharge that threatens public health or welfare.

      A comprehensive assessment of a State's ground water resource carried out as part of a
CSGWPP will support speedy and effective actions under Section 311 by better identifying the
ground waters, and surface waters closely  hydrogeologically connected to ground waters, that
could be affected by a discharge of oil, and by identifying reasonably expected sources of
drinking water that could be threatened. This will  help to determine when removal actions are
necessary.
Coordination with Other Programs

      The ARARs pertinent to removal actions involving oil discharges into ground water that
threaten surface waters will, under the CSGWPP approach, be based on an understanding of the
ground water resource and its use, value, and vulnerability that is common to all programs in the
State.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        1-20
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-21

                UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making

      CSGWPP resource-based priority setting will help make permitting, inspection, and
enforcement actions for all classes of underground injection wells more effective and efficient. The
overall CSGWPP framework will  supply the States with an important understanding of the use,
value and vulnerability of their ground water resources that will be useful in UIC programs involving
all classes of wells.

      UIC Class I hazardous waste injection wells (deep industrial disposal wells), for example,  are
permitted under the SDWA and by rule under RCRA Subtitle C. Before operation such wells must
be determined not to endanger human health or the environment. Comprehensive assessment of
the ground water resource will expedite the identification of all potentially threatened ground waters
and confining layers, and will help to ensure complete and accurate monitoring and identification
of potential migration in the subsurface. The requirements currently being developed for UIC Class
V wells (shallow drainage and miscellaneous wells) also demonstrate how CSGWPPs will support
resource-based decision making. Under the regulations and guidance being developed by the UIC
program, the most environmentally harmful Class V wells (e.g., service station drains, industrial
waste disposal wells, etc.) will be controlled by permits; other Class V wells will be controlled by
general rules supplemented by guidance or proper practices to comply with those rules. Although
the controls placed on these wells will be tied to the level of contamination being injected, the use
and value of the underlying ground water resources could be a key consideration in the setting of
priorities under this approach.

Coordination with Other Programs

      The UIC program, and particularly the Class V component, will benefit from being linked to
other ground water programs within the CSGWPP. Other programs, such as the WHP program,
will assist in identifying Class V wells that have not been inventoried. Under the WHP program,
sources of contamination within WHP areas must be identified. Any Class V wells identified during
the WHPP inventory can be added to the Class V inventory. Similarly, any Class V wells identified
during RCRA Facility Assessments (RFAs) or CERCLA Preliminary Assessments and Site
Investigations (PA/SIs) could be added to the Class V inventory.

      Efficiencies involving the UIC program and other programs will also be created through the
CSGWPP. The UST program, for example, will be able to benefit from joint inspections at gasoline
stations that address both Class V wells and underground storage tanks. Pesticide SMPs can
include UIC Class V measures to avoid ground water contamination caused  by disposal of
residues from mixing or washing  in shallow drainage wells.  UIC Class V inventories will be useful
sources of information in RFAs and PA/SIs.

      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                       1-22

         UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM (continued)

Coordinating Grants

     States can use UIC grants for activities such as mapping, inventorying, and data
management. For these activities, grant guidances among all programs allowing funds to be used
for these purposes could be coordinated to insure synergies and to reduce unnecessary
duplication among programs.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-23

                PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SUPERVISION PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision-Making

      The protection of public water supplies (PWS) is a high priority for Comprehensive
Programs. This is evident by the CSGWPP adequacy criteria requiring implementation of an
EPA-approved State Wellhead Protection Program (WHP) for a Fully-integrating CSGWPP. A
State's WHP, coupled with other CSGWPP efforts, will provide information on the "vulnerability" or
susceptibility of source waters of individual PWS systems to contamination. Under the Public
Water Supply System Program, States have the flexibility within the Program to:

      (1)    Work toward flexible federal monitoring requirements for individual water supply
            systems with less burdensome PWS monitoring requirements;

      (2)    Offer water suppliers opportunities for obtaining waivers from monitoring
            requirements for certain contaminants, if their systems are not vulnerable to
            contamination;

      (3)    Use PWSS enforcement actions to support development and implementation of local
            wellhead protection programs. CSGWPPs can  provide data and information upon
            which to initiate enforcement actions, (i.e., SDWA ง1431 emergency orders);

      (4)    Allow more flexibility in the application of the "timely and appropriate" enforcement
            criteria for violations of the SDWA,  particularly PWSs that are in significant
            noncompliance SNC, if a State can demonstrate that an enforcement action, based
            on data from a wellhead protection program or other ground water activities, can
            appropriately address and mitigate the violations;

      (5)    Set the phase in schedule (beginning in 1993) for monitoring under the new
            "standardized monitoring framework," implementing a three year compliance period.
            Setting priorities  for targeting when systems would be phased in may be based in
            part on the use, value, vulnerability of ground waters and extent of data  available.
            Making determinations using these factors would be greatly enhanced by the
            coordination achieved and data developed under a CSGWPP; and

      (6)    Enhance Sanitary surveys where use of wellhead protection area delineations and
            contaminant source surveys, pesticide application information and a pesticide
            management plan, and other information could  be used.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-24

         PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SUPERVISION PROGRAM (continued)

Coordination with Other Programs

      Given the high priority of protecting PWS under a CSGWPP, a StateDs PWSS Program will
benefit significantly from the CSGWPPEs objective of coordinating and targeting the numerous
ground water protection efforts of federal, State, and local programs. Coupled with Wellhead
Protection Programs, the source inventory and characterization efforts of numerous
source-specific programs (e.g., UIC, LIST, Pesticides SMPs, NPS, etc.) should assist the PWSS
Program in determining the "vulnerability" or susceptibility of water supply systems to different
potential contaminants. Furthermore, these programs should significantly assist the PWSS
Program in achieving permanent solutions to contamination by focusing on preventing or mitigating
source water contamination rather than often costly treatment by individual PWS systems.

      In addition to receiving benefits from the CSGWPP approach, the PWSS Program has
much to add. For example, the ability of the PWSS Program to take civil action on an emergency
basis to address contamination of underground sources of drinking water (Section 1431 of
SDWA) should be integrated under the Comprehensive Program approach with other programsD
regulatory and non-regulatory efforts to provide a broader array of tools to address ground water
concerns.

      Also, under a  CSGWPP coordination objective, the monitoring data collected by PWS
systems should be integrated with  other programsD information (e.g., source inventory and
characterization data) to derive better understanding of the environmental fate and movement of
contaminants. Greater accessibility of environmental data across programs also would allow
vulnerability assessments to be done by automated processes rather than solely by expensive field
investigations, facilitating the issuance of monitoring waivers. In addition, some States would  not be
able to support a waiver program without a coordinated information program mechanism  in place
to increase confidence in waivers.

      Finally, the PWSS  laboratory certification programs should be better coordinated,  under the
CSGWPP approach, with other programsD monitoring efforts to help ensure more accurate
information across all ground water-related programs.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-25

                          NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making

      Authorized under ง319 of the CWA, the Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program provides grant
funds for implementing control activities and institution-building activities based on a StateDs
federally-approved NPS Assessment and Management Program. The program focuses on both
ground water and surface water, with a minimum of 10 percent of the grants going for ground
water-related activities. On average, the States devote more than 10 percent, with 30 percent going
towards ground water-related funding in FY 91.

      A State must have an EPA-approved NPS  Management Program to be eligible to receive
NPS grants. Section 319 requires State NPS Management Programs to identify, among other
things, best management practices and measures to be implemented to reduce NPS pollutant
loadings, to set up a schedule for implementing the measures, and to define authorities. Only
priority ground water protection activities identified in an approved management plan are eligible
for ง319 grant funding, either by direct identification in the NPS Management Plan or by reference
to the CSGWPP. Therefore, the ground water protection priorities established by a CSGWPP
should have a direct link to the priorities of the StateDs NPS Program. This link should focus ง319
NPS efforts on the most valuable and vulnerable ground waters.

Coordination with Other Programs

      Because CSGWPPs require that States define roles and coordination points between and
among ground water-related programs, the CSGWPP will provide a means by which the NPS
program will have information about all of the other ground water-related programs. This should
decrease unnecessary duplication and increase efficiency in the ง319 program. For example,
coordination afforded by a CSGWPP should promote better integration of NPS prevention
activities and prevention measures under EPADs Pesticide State Management Plan (SMP)
approach for protecting ground water from pesticides contamination. Integration between the NPS
Management ProgramDs requirements and those  of upcoming Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Class V regulations and guidance, particularly for agricultural  drainage wells, can also be
facilitated by the CSGWPP approach. At a minimum, a CSGWPP should ensure that these major
national programs are not working at cross-purposes within the State.

Coordinating Grants

      The bulk of ง319 grants must be used for implementing NPS control activities for either
surface water or ground water quality concerns. Considerable and wide-ranging ground water
protection efforts  have been undertaken through these NPS


      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-26

                    NONPOINT SOURCE  PROGRAM (continued)

grants, including abandoned well plugging, agricultural drainage well siting and closure, installment
of best management practices in the field, and improved septic tank maintenance. Many of these
activities would meet the objectives of other EPA programs (e.g., Coastal Nonpoint Programs, UIC,
UST, Pesticides, RCRA). CSGWPP coordination of the NPS efforts with the control efforts
supported by other programs will provide a vehicle for establishing and focusing joint efforts on
highest ground water priority concerns.

      EPADs Section 319 grant guidance requires  that at least 10% of a StateHs work program be
devoted to addressing priority ground water nonpoint source activities. However, where the
requisite information to establish State implementation priorities is lacking, the State is encouraged
to use Section 319 grants to further its assessment and characterization of ground water
resources and to establish a  basis for identifying priority protection  needs prior to undertaking any
site-specific measures.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-27

              NPDES AND INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making

      Under the Clean Water Act, EPA and the States regulate facilities that either discharge
wastewaters directly to surface waters or discharge to municipal wastewater treatment systems.
Direct discharges are covered under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES), whereas industrial discharges to municipal treatment systems are covered by
pretreatment requirements. The primary objective of these regulatory programs is to ensure the
attainment of the  "designated uses" (e.g., fishable, swimable) of receiving surface waters.

      While a number of States have incorporated ground water discharges into their NPDES
permits and pretreatment requirements, there is no national requirement to do so. States might
consider surface water recharge to valuable ground waters as a designated use for surface water
and issue specific NPDES permit requirements designed to assure attainment of that designated
use and,  thereby, indirectly protect inter-connected high priority ground waters. States could use
the resource assessment, source evaluation and priority setting mechanism of CSGWPPs to
identify high-priority ground waters that are subject to contamination from closely hydrologically
connected surface waters.

Coordination with Other Programs

      CSGWPPs can provide  a central coordination point for surface water regulators to
coordinate with ground water officials from a wide  variety of ground water-related programs. For
example, a number of facilities  with required NPDES or pretreatment permits for surface water
protection are also likely to be subject to future RCRA D and SDWA Underground Injection Control
Class V Well requirements. The CSGWPP can help a State make integrated environmental
management decisions across  both ground and surface waters. In other words, States can use
their ground water protection authorities in conjunction with the NPDES permitting process to
ensure that specific requirements in NPDES permits do not result in unintended contamination of
sensitive  ground water from practices such as the  use of surface impoundments.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        1-28
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-29

                             STORM WATER PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making

      Industrial storm water discharges to surface waters and discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems serving populations greater than 250,000, are regulated through National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Storm water management can affect
ground water in a number of ways - some storm water management practices may be designed to
recharge ground water in urban areas as an important means for water supply storage; other
storm water controls focus on pollution prevention controls which reduce  risks to both surface and
ground water; and in some industrial and agricultural situations, storm water collection devices or
best management practices (BMPs) may transfer contaminants to underlying ground waters. In
any of these cases, this water may eventually re-enter the surface water again as ground water
discharges to streams and lakes.

      Given the possible inter-connection between  storm water management and ground water, it
is important to consider potential ground water impacts, particularly where this underlying resource
is highly valuable or closely hydrogeologically linked to surface water quality. To address the
potential for ground water contamination, storm water BMPs should be developed to reflect States'
CSGWPP resource protection objectives and priorities.

Coordination with Other Programs

      Coordination within the CSGWPP framework among the NPDES program, UIC Class V
program, the NPS program, and the Wellhead Protection Program will help focus efforts to
manage cross-media impacts and avoid having major national programs working at
cross-purposes within the State.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        1-30
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-31

                           SEWAGE SLUDGE PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making

      Requirements to protect public health and the environment from the adverse effects of
pollutants that may be contained in sewage sludge are authorized by Section 405 of the Clean
Water Act. The CWA Sewage Sludge Program has proposed regulations for the final use and
disposal of sewage sludge. Requirements already exist under RCRA for sewage sludge that is
determined to be hazardous. Sludge determined to be hazardous under RCRA must be managed
in RCRA Subtitle C facilities. Sludge disposed in municipal solid waste landfills, which frequently
receive sludge from POTWs, must be managed in facilities that satisfy the RCRA Subtitle D
regulatory requirements. Both the Subtitle C and D requirements include location standards and
ground water monitoring and remediation, if necessary. Some commentators were concerned
about possible duplicative regulation. The Sewage Sludge Program and the RCRA Program will
coordinate their efforts to alleviate excessive duplication.

      Proposed rules on management of sludge under the CWA Sewage Sludge Program in
landfills limited to sewage sludge monofills are expected to set limits on concentrations of certain
pollutants in sludge placed in monofills so as not to exceed ground water MCLs or contaminate an
aquifer with nitrogen. Proposed rules on land application of sludge are expected to include both
management practices and national pollutant limits, including pathogen requirements and
limitations on the concentrations of certain metals.  Sludge application rates also should minimize
the amount of nitrogen that passes below the root zone to the ground water. A comprehensive
ground water assessment carried out under a CSGWPP will assist the implementation of these
requirements by ensuring accurate and timely information about the condition of the ground water
resources.

Coordination with Other Programs

      The development of priorities through the CSGWPP process will help to coordinate the
sewage sludge program with other programs in the State in several ways.  Decisions about
capacity and siting of RCRA Subtitle D facilities, for example, will affect how sludge  is managed.
Similarly, decisions concerning discharges into POTWs may affect whether sludge can be used in
land application or must be managed in RCRA Subtitle C facilities.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        1-32
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-33

                    COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making

      The Costal Zone Management Act (CZMA) authorizes and supports State programs for
protecting the Nation's coastal waters. Amendments to the CZMA in 1990 established a significant
initiative to control non-point source pollution to coastal areas.  Each State with a federally
approved Coastal Zone Management Program must submit a Coastal Nonpoint Program containing
the following: 1) provisions for implementing management measures to protect coastal waters; 2)
identification of land uses which may cause or contribute significantly to coastal waters
degradation; 3) identification of critical coastal areas adjacent to coastal waters which are
impaired or threatened by NPS pollution; 4) provisions for implementing additional management
measures for land uses or critical coastal areas as necessary  to achieve and maintain water
quality standards; 5) programs to provide technical assistance to local governments and the public;
6) public participation opportunities in all aspects of the program; 7) modification of coastal zone
boundaries as  necessary to implement NOAA's recommendations; and 8) enforceable policies and
mechanisms to implement the  management measures. EPA plays a critical role in this initiative by
having the responsibility to develop guidance  specifying management measures for controlling the
various nonpoint sources in coastal areas.  In  addition, both EPA and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) must approve State Coastal Nonpoint Programs.

      CSGWPPs have a primary function  of identifying ground waters of high  use, value, and
vulnerability, which would include those ground waters that are closely hydrogeologically linked to
coastal waters and which are capable of carrying contaminants to sensitive coastal waters. The
Comprehensive Program can assist State Coastal Nonpoint Programs by identifying where ground
waters play a significant role in coastal waters protection.

Coordination with Other Programs

      Strong potential linkage exists between State Coastal  Nonpoint Programs and CSGWPPs.
For example, in many coastal areas, which include estuaries,  ground water nutrient contribution
(especially nitrogen) is contributing significantly to eutrophication problems of coastal waters.
Sources of this ground water contamination can include septic tanks from coastal developments or
fertilizer use in agricultural areas adjacent to coastal land.

      The CSGWPP can also assist in coordinating a number of other EPA programs (e.g.,
RCRA, CERCLA, Pesticides) to reduce coastal water impacts from toxic chemicals by protecting,
as a  priority, ground water closely linked to coastal waters.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        1-34
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           1-35

                    TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making

      EPA is interested in applying its capabilities and authorities under the Toxic Substances
Control Act to address local environmental needs and problems. CSGWPP priorities provide an
immediate context in which EPA and States can test the geographically-specific applications of
certain TSCA authorities. Presently, a number of TSCA authorities can support the Strategic
Activities of a CSGWPP, including:

      •     EPA toxicity determinations, exposure determinations, and risk assessment
            capabilities under TSCA could support CSGWPP priority-setting. For example,
            various EPA capabilities, such as  testing authorities, Graphic Exposure Modeling
            Systems, and others, could provide information to assist States in identifying
            risk-based geographic priorities for ground water protection and in establishing
            ground water protection priorities  across contamination sources.

      •     EPA risk reduction decision-making capabilities could support the pollution prevention
            components of a CSGWPP. EPA could perform Substitute Analyses,  Cost/Benefit
            Analyses, and Pollution Prevention Technical assessments to assist with States'
            efforts to reduce or eliminate potential environmental releases that may adversely
            affect ground water quality. These EPA capabilities  could be directed towards
            differential management of ground water under a State's CSGWPP by focusing  on
            activities that are located in geographic proximity to the State's most valuable and
            vulnerable ground waters.  These capabilities could also be used to assist a State in
            implementing pollution prevention priorities across sources.

      •     EPA risk management capabilities could also be used to support CSGWPP
            contaminant control efforts. TSCA Section 6(a) provides EPA with the authority to
            regulate chemicals that present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the
            environment. EPA could use this authority to address chemicals of concern in
            targeted geographic areas which encompass a State's high priority ground waters.
            TSCA Section 6(a) offers a wide range of possible actions to prevent pollution from
            prohibiting the manufacture, sale,  or use of a chemical to recordkeeping and labeling
            requirements which could  be selectively applied in specific geographic areas to
            protect high priority ground waters.

      At this time, EPA's efforts to apply TSCA capabilities to local problems will take the form of
pilot projects. States need to work with EPA Regional Offices to identify opportunities within the
CSGWPP framework which would test the TSCA approach.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        1-36
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-37

                                RADIATION PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making

      EPA is responsible for development of federal guidance on radiation protection and
promulgates standards and regulations for exposure to radionuclides. In particular, EPA provides
support to States in radiation monitoring, research, training, and other forms of technical
assistance; develops standards for cleanup, management, and disposal of uranium and thorium
mill tailings and high-level, low-level, and transuranic radioactive wastes; and assists in the
promulgation of standards for the control of radionuclides in drinking waters and in all types of
wastes. EPA's standards cover activities of other federal agencies, including DOE and DoD, and
activities regulated by NRC.

      Resource assessment, source evaluation, and priority setting mechanisms developed
through CSGWPPs should be used by States and other federal agencies to implement the ground
water protection and remediation standards contained in EPA regulations involving radionuclides.
For example, EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 192 on uranium tailings management at active
uranium processing facilities call for evaluation of the hydrogeology of the site, including
determination of background ground water quality,  rate and direction of migration of contaminated
ground water, and extent of the contamination. The regulation calls for remedial action decisions to
be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, among other things, present and future
use of the aquifer and the degree to which human exposure is likely to occur. NRC implements
requirements for active uranium processing sites that incorporate ground water protection
standards that are comparable to requirements developed under RCRA Subtitle C. A
comprehensive characterization and assessment of the resource will facilitate decision-making
affecting ground water for such sites.

Coordination with Other Programs

      Regulatory authority over some possession and use of  radionuclides, with some exceptions,
such as commercial nuclear power reactors and high level radioactive waste disposal facilities, has
been relinquished by agreement between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the States to
over half the States (Agreement States). In such States, siting of facilities involving radionuclides
and design and operational requirements established by facility licenses are controlled and
directed by the States. In States where NRC retains primacy,  regulatory limits for some types of
licensed nuclear facilities (e.g.,  uranium mill tailings impoundments) set specific design and
operational criteria for licensed facilities to protect ground water and maximum limits are
established for ground water contamination. Facilities in Agreement and non-Agreement States are
subject to  standards issued by EPA under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act and the
Atomic Energy Act and implemented by Agreement States or by NRC in non-Agreement States.
Implementation of a CSGWPP will  enable States to begin to coordinate implementation of such
standards and

      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        1-38

                        RADIATION PROGRAM (continued)

requirements more completely and efficiently by ensuring that they address a consistent ground
water goal and priorities and share a common assessment of the resource.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           1-39

                                WETLANDS PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making

      Because wetlands act as natural pollutant filters and as a source of aquifer recharge, they
often are closely linked to the quality and quantity of ground water resources. Wetlands occurring
along rivers and streams probably are the most important types of wetlands for ground water
recharge. This recharge occurs most often in the wet portions of the year during overbank
flooding.  Ground water, in turn, may be discharged back to the wetlands and river bed during dry
years. The Everglades are a good example of the linkage between a river and a  wetlands system
and its underlying ground water, the Biscayne aquifer. Florida is acquiring approximately 41,000
acres of partially drained wetlands in the Everglades and restoring  them to regain their water
quality and recharge benefits.

      Several EPA programs are aimed at protecting and restoring wetlands. In some cases,
ground water resources are considered when establishing wetland program priorities. For
example, EPA is assisting States with the development of water quality standards for wetlands
which include methods for designating wetlands uses based on function and value.  Currently the
State of Michigan is considering designating  wetlands as Outstanding Natural Resource Waters if
the wetlands are connected to a municipal ground water  supply.

      Knowledge of State ground water resource priorities would be useful to the wetlands
program  in administering its responsibilities under CWA ง404. For example, under ง404, EPA has
regulatory responsibility for reviewing permits for the discharge of dredge or fill materials into
waters of the  United States, including wetlands. The presence of high-priority ground water
resources could be a consideration in review of these permits. Also under ง404, EPA participates
in Advance Identification (ADID) studies to identify waters as possible disposal sites and to identify
areas that are likely to be unsuitable for disposal. The results of these studies provide the public
and regulated community with an  indication of whether a ง404 permit will likely be received.
Recently, in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, ground water withdrawal and its impact on local water
quality was identified as one of the key factors that prompted an ADID.

      Ground water protection also can be enhanced by identification and protection of wetlands
that recharge and protect ground  water.  For  example, if such wetlands are identified as part of the
CSGWPP, their characteristics will be known for wellhead protection programs.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        1-40
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          1-41

                      WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making

      The Watershed Protection Approach is a resource-oriented framework supported by EPA
for focusing and integrating current efforts and for exploring innovative methods to achieve
maximum efficiency and effectiveness in water quality protection. The term watershed refers to a
geographic area in which water, sediments, and dissolved materials drain to a common outlet - a
point on a larger stream, a lake, an underlying aquifer, an estuary, or an ocean. An aquifer or part
of an aquifer, such as a wellhead  protection area, can be a watershed. The Watershed Protection
Approach is  not a new "program," but an effort to target appropriate tools and resources from
existing programs to the needs within a particular watershed. The Watershed Protection Approach
is built on three main principles: risk-based  geographic targeting, stakeholder involvement, and
integrated solutions. Presently a number of state projects and programs using the Watershed
Protection Approach have been implemented.

      The ground water assessment and characterization efforts carried out under the priority
setting Strategic Activity of a CSGWPP provide a framework for States to target aquifers or
portions of aquifers for the Watershed Protection Approach.  In  addition, watershed efforts aimed
at surface water protection can benefit from information developed under a CSGWPP on those
ground waters  that are closely hydrogeologically linked to the targeted surface waters. Such
information will assist in determining the influence of ground waters on these watershed protection
areas.

Coordination with Other Programs

      Both the Watershed Protection Approach and CSGWPP are intended to focus the efforts of
several programs on protection of high-priority water bodies. CSGWPPs should be considered as
an important tool in the Watershed Protection Approach. CSGWPPs will focus those programs
with primary  ground water protection responsibilities on protection of important watershed areas,
whether they are aquifers, portions of aquifers, or surface water bodies that are closely
hydrologically linked to ground waters.

      The 1992 Agency Operating Guidance states that EPA will focus actual protection and
restoration activities in specific watersheds, and several programs have recognized the importance
of a watershed approach in their guidance documents. This emphasis will be compatible with and
supportive of CSGWPP implementation efforts. For example, in the Region 3 Mill Creek Pequea
Creek Watershed, nonpoint source resources have been made available to farmers to implement
BMPs to  reduce nutrient, bacteria, and pesticide contamination of surface waters and ground
water.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        1-42
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           1-43

                        POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM

Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision-Making

      Priority setting within the CSGWPP will provide a means for targeting specific geographic
environments for the implementation of pollution prevention techniques, technologies and work
practices. Focusing pollution prevention efforts in high risk, high value areas will yield the greatest
benefits to States as they work to protect their ground water resources.

Coordination with Other Programs

      The Ground Water Protection Strategy and the CSGWPP focus on protecting ground water
from contamination. One of the most effective means of protecting ground water supplies is
through pollution prevention. EPA's Pollution Prevention program has an vital role to play in the
CSGWPP as States establish priorities and begin to integrate various ground water protection
efforts.

      Pollution Prevention programs focus primarily on preventing  risks rather than addressing
pollutants after they have been created and emitted to the environment. While some large
industries have been quick to seize upon the  pollution prevention concept, many small, local
businesses are still relatively unaware of how pollution prevention practices can benefit them. The
CSGWPP will encourage broader industry and public participation in pollution prevention activities
through State priorities that emphasize the role of pollution prevention in protecting ground water
quality.

      The CSGWPP will foster greater emphasis on pollution prevention at the State and local
levels and will also help Pollution Prevention programs and activities to be coordinated with other
ground water protection programs. As  States  establish priorities and goals, they will work to
coordinate the efforts of ground water protection programs and build the pollution prevention
concept into them.  This process will also be driven by the on-going  interest in promoting pollution
prevention in media-specific grant guidance.

Coordinating Grants

      The federal Pollution Prevention grants program "Pollution Prevention Incentives for States"
provides grants to States to support State, Tribal, and local pollution prevention programs that
address the reduction of pollutants across all  environmental media: air, land, surface water, ground
water and wetlands. This grant funding could  be used  to support the following CSGWPP activities:
defining roles and responsibilities of  key participants of proposed projects and promoting
coordination with pollution prevention activities already underway in the State; developing and
implementing prevention programs for reducing or eliminating pollution; collecting and analyzing
data; developing mechanisms to measure progress in  pollution prevention; and

      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        1-44

                POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM (continued)

conducting public education and outreach. Grants may also be used to initiate demonstration
projects that test and support innovative pollution prevention approaches and methodologies which
may eventually be integrated into prevention programs.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
      2.    LINKAGE TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS

      This section provides an agency-by-agency discussion of the linkages between the
CSGWPP approach and the ground water-related programs of six federal agencies. For each
agency, a brief description of the agency's program is followed by a discussion of ways in which
that agency could support or make use of the CSGWPP approach.

      This section discusses the programs of selected agencies that work either to protect or to
restore ground water quality, but does not include all agencies with ground water-related activities.
There are no descriptions yet for the other federal agencies involved in ground water. These
agencies include:

            United States Department of Agriculture;
            United States Department of Defense;
            United States Department of Energy;
            United States Department of the Interior;
            United States Department of Transportation; and
            United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The descriptions are arranged alphabetically.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                         2-2
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           2-3

                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Programs Related to Ground Water Protection

      The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is actively involved in a
coordinated, government-wide initiative addressing water quality. This initiative focuses on
nonpoint source pollution concerns identified by States under requirements of Section 319 of the
Water Quality Act (See Discussion on EPA's Nonpoint Source Program). One of the main
objectives of the Water Quality Initiative is to provide farmers, ranchers, and other land managers
with information necessary to voluntarily adopt improved, environmentally-sound management
practices which do not sacrifice profitability. This initiative is under the leadership of the USDA
and includes EPA, USGS, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). The central objectives of the initiative include the following:

      •     Protecting the Nation's ground water resources from contamination by fertilizers and
            pesticides without jeopardizing the economic vitality of U.S.  agriculture;

      •     Developing technically and economically effective agrichemical and  agricultural
            production strategies that enhance or protect the quality of our water resources; and

      •     Inducing the adoption of enhancement or protection strategies at significant levels in
            problem areas.

      Of the 36 operating entities within the USDA, ten share responsibilities for
implementing the President's Water Quality Initiative. Of these entities, eight USDA agencies are
particularly relevant for CSGWPPs and are discussed below.

      The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) plays a central role in
transfer of payments for USDA commodity support programs. Starting with the 1985 Food Security
Act, cross-compliance provisions require recipients of certain USDA assistance programs to
prepare and implement conservation plans, whose water quality protection features have become
steadily more important. The ASCS also administers the Water Quality Incentive Projects (WQIP)
authorized by the 1990 Farm Bill. The WQIP provides both technical and financial assistance for
producers to implement management systems to reduce nonpoint source agricultural problems.

      The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) administers fundamental and applied research
that addresses a wide range of agriculture-related issues, including the conservation of soil, water,
and air. For example, ARS has developed a number of fate and transport models that focus on
pesticides in ground water.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           2-4

                U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (continued)

      The Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) funds research through the State
Agricultural Experiment Stations for the advancement of science and technology in support of
agriculture. CSRS funds  a number of special research  programs, including a ground water
research program, a low-input agricultural program, and a competitive grant program in natural
resources, water quality,  ecosystems, and wetlands. CSRS also is responsible for developing a
forum for coordination between the State Agricultural Experiment Stations, the USDA, and other
federal agency scientists.
      The Extension Service (ES) is the education bureau of the USDA and serves as the federal
partner in the Cooperative Extension System. More specifically, the ES coordinates its activities
with State land grant universities and local county extension offices to conduct educational and
outreach programs.

      The National Agricultural Library (NAL), through its Water Quality Information Center,
identifies, acquires, and organizes information related to agriculture and ground water quality. The
center facilitates access to this information through various outreach mechanisms, such as the
Water Information Network (WIN), an electronic bulletin board system.

      The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) provides leadership and administers
programs to help people conserve natural resources and the environment. SCS is expanding and
improving technical assistance for water quality utilizing local soil and water conservation districts.
As part of USDA's Water Quality Initiative, SCS is providing  increased technical assistance for
selected agricultural water sheds or aquifer-recharge areas called "Nonpoint Source Hydrologic
Units Areas" (HUAs). These address agricultural nonpoint pollution concerns identified by states
under Section 319 of the Water Quality Act of 1987. SCS is also increasing technical  assistance
to ongoing interagency regional Water Quality programs and designated estuaries of national
significance. SCS provides assistance to State agencies in developing both surface and ground
water practices, programs, and policies.

      The Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS) work with State departments of agriculture to gather estimates on production
characteristics for major farm commodities.  Currently, the ERS and NASS are carrying out a new
program to  gather data on the use of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. As this program
expands, it  should provide a more direct means of estimating agricultural pesticides use patterns in
a State.

      The United States Forest Service (FS) is the national leader in forestry through  its
management of the National Forest System. A key objective of the FS is to promote natural
resource conservation through cooperative efforts with other federal, State, and local agencies.
The FS also provides technical assistance to State forestry programs in order to protect and
improve the quality of air, water,  and soil resources.

      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           2-5

                U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (continued)

Potential for Coordination of USDA Programs with Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs

      The ASCS's ongoing Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) provides cost-share
assistance for implementing a variety of water-quality oriented best management practices
(BMPs). These cost-share funds can be used by States or local agencies to address priorities
established in CSGWPPs. In addition, coordination of projects funded by USDA through a State's
CSGWPP can result in the most effective and efficient use of these funds. Other relevant ASCS
programs include the Wetland Reserve, Water Bank, Conservation Reserve, and Forestry
Incentives programs.

      ASCS's cost sharing programs also seek to provide financial assistance to producers in the
hydrologic unit and demonstration project areas. This financial assistance is tied to education and
technical assistance to encourage adoption of environmentally sound practices and the
improvement and protection of water quality within a targeted area. For example, the Water Quality
Incentives Projects provides technical and financial assistance for farm level planning to reduce
the use of fertilizer, other crop nutrients, and pesticides in order to achieve water quality
objectives, such as ground water protection. In addition, testing of rural domestic wells  and record-
keeping on tillage, pesticide use, and nutrient use are eligible for WQIP funding. CSGWPPs could
help  USDA by providing ground water priority areas for targeting and by helping to facilitate
transfer of data on agricultural practices from ASCS to State agencies that implement SMPs, NPS,
WHP, and PWS programs. Farmers participating in this effort receive incentive  payments from
USDA to compensate them for additional production costs and/or the value  of foregone production.

      The 1990 Farm Bill authorizes USDA to provide financial incentives to farmers for enrolling
land  that includes vulnerable ground and surface waters into the Conservation  Reserve  Program.
To the extent that funds are available, the program will be used to enroll areas such as wellhead
protection areas, and other areas that would contribute  to water quality in permanent cover (grass
or trees). States may be able to work with USDA to include geographic priorities identified in their
CSGWPPs under the Conservation  Reserve Program's water quality related criteria. Farmers then
could address ground water contamination through the  removal of lands from production in
exchange for financial incentives.

      ARS and CSRS could support research that focuses on the reduction of pesticides and
nitrates in ground water and other agricultural-related ground water protection  projects.  All States'
CSGWPPs could benefit from such  fundamental ground water protection research. Efforts in this
areas could also be coordinated with the Pesticide State Management Plan  approach. In addition,
CSRS's efforts to coordinate related research could be  used to ensure that  unnecessarily
duplicative research projects are not being funded and that research is disseminated to other
interested groups and State ground water managers.


      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           2-6

                U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (continued)

      Through the ES and the State cooperative extension offices, USDA could work to
disseminate the new methods, techniques, and practices designed to reduce the potential for
agriculture-related contamination of water resources (i.e., biological controls, integrated pest
management, and improved methods of pesticides application). A State's CSGWPP could assist
ES and State offices in setting priorities for the education of farmers, ranchers, and other land
managers based on the use, value, or vulnerability of the resource.

      Like the ES, the SCS could work to disseminate information and best management
practices to ensure adequate protection of ground water resources from agricultural
contamination based on priorities established under a State's CSGWPP. The SCS also develops
standards and specifications for proper pesticide use practices. This  information could be of
considerable benefit in developing CSGWPPs and in educating farmers and other land use
managers. SCS could geographically target technical assistance efforts in certain areas in
coordination with a States CSGWPP.

      NAL-produced bibliographies, covering various aspects of ground water and agriculture,
could be used by state CSGWPPs to locate information from throughout the country  (and world)
that may  be useful in guiding the direction of state programs. State CSGWPPs could help
strengthen NAL's ground water quality  collection and bibliographic database by providing copies of
state documents that address agriculture and ground water quality issues.

      ERS's and  NASS's data collection and analysis efforts focus on  identifying the economic
consequences of changes in the use of pesticides and fertilizers and the implementation of
alternative farming practices. Such research efforts could assist a State in identifying, developing
and implementing the most cost effective protection and preventive measures associated with
pesticides and agricultural chemicals possible in its CSGWPP.

      Through its outreach efforts, the FS could  contribute to forestry education and technical
assistance aimed  at protecting ground  water resources from pesticides and silvicultural practices.
These efforts could be coordinated and targeted using the priorities established under a State's
CSGWPP. FS also conducts a number of activities that must be managed carefully to avoid
adversely impacting the ground water resources in a State. For example, clear cutting in National
Forests by the FS could result in increased runoff and  siltation of nearby surface water bodies that
can be linked to ground water. Proper and timely reforestation of these  lands can significantly
reduce run off and the potential for contamination of water resources. When such activities are
planned,  FS could coordinate activities through a State's CSGWPP to address priorities for
protection of water resources within the State. The FS  could also use the priorities established in a
State's CSGWPP  to make land use decisions in National Forests.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-7

                U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (continued)

      Currently, successful coordination between USDA and EPA and several States is beginning
to occur with the development and implementation of Pesticides State Management Plans to limit
pesticide contamination of ground water (See Discussion on EPAs Pesticides State Management
Plan Program). Coordination  efforts to protect ground water under the SMP program include
conducting basic research, coordinating of data collection and analysis, transferring appropriate
technologies, and providing financial assistance.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                         2-8
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           2-9

                          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Programs Related to Ground Water Protection

      The Department of Defense (DoD) has its environmental goal to plan, initiate, and execute
all actions and programs to minimize adverse effects on the quality of the environment without
impairing the defense mission. Several components of the DoD are  currently responsible for
guiding and promoting these activities.

      The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environment) (DASD(E)), Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD), sets the overall direction for environmental activities by developing
policy guidance on environmental protection and regulatory compliance. The May 1992 Report on
Environmental Requirements and Priorities prepared by DASD(E) summarizes DoD's principal
policy thrusts, which include the following: compliance with existing laws and regulations;
remediation of formerly and presently used DoD sites; increased efforts devoted to pollution
prevention; development of an inventory of, and conservation and protection plans for, natural and
cultural resources; development of outreach efforts; augmentation of the frequency and scope of
self-policing activities to ensure timely and effective compliance and protection of human health
and the environment; development of an enhanced environmental ethic  across all DoD activities;
development of ways to increase DoD's role as a model for environmental compliance and
protection; and development of productive cooperative partnerships both domestically and
internationally.

      Implementation of environmental activities is largely carried out by the four military services
- the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines - as well as by the defense  agencies, particularly the
Defense Logistics Agency. Two centrally funded environmental programs are the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), involving the assessment and cleanup of
contamination at  DoD installations and formerly used defense sites,  and the Legacy Program,
involving improved management of natural resources on DoD lands.

      The Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) has two principle components -
the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) and the Other Hazardous Waste Program (OHWP). The
IRP investigates and, as necessary, performs site  cleanup at DoD installations and at properties
formerly owned or used by DoD. The IRP conforms to the requirements of the CERCLA National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.  Under IRP, activity is occurring at 94
DoD installations with sites on the National Priorities List (NPL). Water-related activity at these
sites includes ground water treatment (63 activities), long-term monitoring (52 activities), and
provision of alternate water supplies/treatment (33 activities). The OHWP addresses waste-related
issues that do not involve CERCLA cleanups.

      Current DoD programs that address threats to ground water include the development of
unique water treatment processes for uniquely military materials; and developing new methods of
treating explosives-contaminated soils, improving

      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-10

                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (continued)

wastewater treatment plants, upgrading storage areas for materials that could leach to ground
water, updating plans to deal with spills, replacing or retrofitting underground storage tanks, and
closing and removing abandoned tanks. A current focus of DoD is on pollution prevention.

      Each of the services has implemented programs to address environmental issues. The
Army, for example, through its Environmental Compliance Achievement Program (ECAP), seeks to
identify and eliminate obstacles to environmental compliance, institute programs to determine
compliance problems, and ensure that corrective  actions are implemented. The Army ECAP will
address compliance  through  environmental assessments at Army facilities, a profile and
mechanism to measure progress toward compliance, and integrated management of all
environmental programs.

      Each service,  in its environmental activities, carries out programs involving, among others,
water quality management, drinking water, and underground storage tanks, but none of the
services has singled  out ground water protection  as a separate program area. The Army's current
program for water quality management, however, does call for control or elimination of all sources
of surface and ground water  pollution. Approximately 85 Army installations within the U.S. obtain
some or all of their water supply from ground water wells, and 51 % of the Army's drinking water
comes from ground water sources. The Army therefore maintains a Water Resources
Management Program to sample and analyze water supplies and ground water monitoring
programs and to evaluate aquifer quality and identify potential drinking water quality problems. The
Army also participates in the Wellhead Protection Program. The Navy's Drinking Water
Management Program likewise seeks to protect ground water resources, especially those with the
potential to be used as a potable water supply, at on shore Naval installations. Similarly, the Air
Force and Marines address ground water in the context of drinking water sources.

Potential for Coordination of DoD Programs with Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection  Programs

      DoD's May 1992 Report to Congress on Environmental Planning and Priorities notes that an
important future goal  will be development of a common understanding across DoD about how to
measure requirements and determine overall priorities. DoD plans to work with EPA and other
agencies "to define risk-based priority setting methods to supplement the  current judgmental
approaches and provide a more analytic foundation to assist in environmental decision making."
(p. 1-19) As States develop priorities for ground water protection and remediation in  CSGWPPs,
DoD could begin  to take these priorities and  priority-setting mechanisms into account.

      Development of CSGWPPs could enable DoD components such as the Defense Logistics
Agency, which is  responsible for environmental compliance and restoration
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-11

                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (continued)

at a number of major and tertiary level logistics installations, to control its costs by working with
State and local jurisdictions. Because DLA is also responsible for disposal of hazardous materials
through its Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service, siting of certain facilities, and similar
duties, DLA has been particularly concerned by what it has seen as a "trend toward more
regulation by State or local jurisdictions." (p. 6-4) Coordination and integration of State and local
programs through locally-based priority setting in CSGWPPs may provide a more focused and
consistent set of environmental, requirements pertinent to DoD components.

      In an effort to  identify ways of improving federal-State coordination of environmental
response actions, and streamlining  cleanup at bases to be closed or realigned, the Defense
Environmental Task Force recommended eliminating overlapping regulatory requirements and
adoption of measures for improving coordination among federal and State decision makers. These
recommendations parallel the CSGWPP approach. In  addition, as each service addresses issues
of environmental  compliance at its facilities, the existence of a CSGWPP in the host State could
enable the service and the facility to address a more consistent and coherent set of State
requirements for  ground water protection.

      CSGWPPs also could provide a source of coordinated input on the part of the
States into the Interagency Agreements (lAGs) with other federal and State agencies that DoD
must negotiate under SARA ง  120.  These lAGs establish comprehensive installation-specific
arrangements for proceeding with DoD's waste cleanup activities under the Installation Restoration
Program. lAGs, which are subject to public review and comment, provide a strong management
tool for resolving  issues arising from overlapping or conflicting jurisdictions. The IAG negotiation
process involves  personnel from the applicable DoD Component, the EPA Regional Office, and
State environmental authorities. IAG negotiation could  be an appropriate forum for negotiating the
implementation of CSGWPP as it relates to cleanup of DoD installations. DoD emphasizes the
involvement of State agencies  in the IRP process. As of June 1992, DoD had entered into Defense
and State Memoranda of Agreement (DSMOA) with 40 States. Through  the DSMOA, almost $18
million was provided to State agencies in FY92 to allow States to participate in the evaluation and
oversight of IRP activities, including those related to water resource management. In the future,
CSGWPPs could help  provide a focus and set priorities for State input into the IRP process.

      Finally, DoD is in the process of creating regional environmental coordination offices that
could serve as points of contact for the State CSGWPP  primary points  of contact. These offices
are intended to serve a number of coordinating functions among the  military services and DoD
installations. The areas served by these offices will correspond to the EPA Regional Offices. Such
offices could provide a focus for DoD involvement in State  CSGWPPs.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        2-12
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-13

                          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Programs Related to Ground Water Protection

      Department of Energy (DOE) Orders, DOE's internal system of regulation,
require compliance with all applicable environmental requirements at all DOE sites and facilities,
and set forth overall DOE policy for ensuring and enhancing such compliance. Regarding, ground
water protection, Order DOE 5400.1, entitled "General Environmental Protection Program,"
requires that each DOE site have a Ground Water Protection Management Program (GWPMP) in
place. The GWPMP is a management tool for ensuring effective compliance with Federal and
State ground water protection requirements, sitewide coordination of all ground water protection
and remediation activities, and long-term -ground water protection planning to prevent future
contamination. Order DOE 5400.1 also requires that a sitewide Ground Water Monitoring Plan be
developed to ensure that monitoring programs are designed to meet regulatory requirements and
to provide a system of environmental surveillance to prevent future contamination threats.

      Order DOE 5400.5, "Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment," addresses
DOE operations involving radioactive materials that may not be addressed by RCRA, CERCLA,
TSCA, or other EPA-administered regulatory programs. DOE 5400.5 requires use of a Best
Available Technology treatment evaluation process to ensure that liquid wastes containing
radionuclides ate treated to "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) levels to prevent ground
water contamination. The Order also contains numerical concentration guides for a wide range of
radionuclides. These guides may be  used to assess potential doses from exposure through various
routes including ingestion of drinking water.

      In addition to the Order requirements, DOE is currently developing a Ground Water
Protection Policy to provide a framework within which technical and regulatory compliance issues
can be addressed throughout the Department in a coordinated and consistent manner to enhance
ground water protection. The Policy,  when finalized, will apply to all DOE and DOE contractor
activities, and will provide direction for implementing the ground water protection requirements of
existing DOE Orders.

Programs Related to Environmental Restoration

      DOE's Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (EM) was created to
address environmental problems through corrective activities, waste management, pollution
prevention, environmental restoration, and technology development. The overall EM strategy
focuses on three approaches:

      •     First, where risk assessment shows an actual or potential threat to human health and
            safety -  do immediately whatever is possible to reduce, mitigate, stabilize, and
            confine the threat;
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           2-14

                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (continued)

      •     Second, where no one knows how to solve a problem - act decisively to develop
            technology and methods to correct the problem; and

      •     Third, where compliance and cleanup must proceed with or without next-generation
            technologies - plan, with affected parties and within the  provisions of Interagency
            Agreements, the, work to be accomplished and its schedule.

      EM's corrective activities are aimed at bringing all DOE facilities and sites into compliance
and operating them in accordance with applicable laws  and regulations designed to protect public
health and the environment. Corrective, activities range from instituting programs to reduce or
eliminate polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to the removal of leaking underground storage tanks.
The efforts to bring all facilities into compliance are driven by a number of federal and State
statutes, regulations, and DOE orders. In order to comply with the multiple environmental statutes
and regulations governing DOE environmental activities, DOE often enters into negotiation with
federal and State regulators with the  intent of reaching agreement on activities for achieving and
maintaining compliance with applicable regulations.

      EM's waste management objective is to "treat, store, and dispose of hazardous, radioactive,
and mixed waste in an environmentally sound and effective manner." The Waste Operations
Program is now focusing on ensuring adequate, permitted storage capacity for existing waste and
an developing  new storage, treatment, and disposal facilities. In addition, EM is constructing and
testing new facilities for treatment and disposal of wastes.

      DOE is also moving forward with its pollution prevention program. A variety of programmatic
and technical activities are occurring throughout DOE facilities and sites. In addition, DOE is
working to minimize the generation of new waste.  Currently, DOE is working to establish
reasonable quantitative waste minimization goals, improve field office reporting, and issue
guidance to promote waste minimization throughout its operations.

      The objective of DOE's Environmental Restoration Program is to "contain known
contamination at inactive sites and vigorously assess the uncertain nature and extent of
contamination at other sites to enable realistic planning, scheduling, and budgeting for cleanup."
The goal of each environmental restoration activity is to  ensure that the risks to the environment
and to human health and safety posed by  inactive and surplus facilities are either eliminated or
reduce to prescribed, safe levels.  Currently, EM is emphasizing the assessment of the extent  and
nature of contamination. Closures and interim remedial  actions will also -be undertaken in the short
term. Following these assessment activities, full remediation will occur with site monitoring
continuing after cleanup.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-15

                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (continued)

      DOE recognizes that a significant impediment to achieving its environmental management
goal is created by the constraints and limitations associated with available technology. As a result,
EM is focusing on the development and implementation of "innovative, cost-effective technologies
to facilitate compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and agreements and to minimize the
generation of waste." The Technology Development Program (TOP) is designed to ensure that new
technologies are available to the Environmental Restoration and Waste Operation Programs. In the
restoration area, the TOP focuses in the near term on providing technologies for site investigation
and the study of remediation alternatives.

Potential for Coordination of DOE Programs with Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs

      DOE's environmental management strategy recognizes the importance of managing
environmental resources based on unique regional considerations and emphasizing activities that
prevent future contamination. For each facility, DOE develops a ground water plan that assesses
and characterizes the ground water resource  in and around the facility. These ground water plans,
in addition to risk assessments, assist DOE facilities in developing and  setting priorities to reduce,
mitigate, stabilize, and confine the threat associated with the treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous or radioactive materials and the clean-up of contaminated sites. Such an approach to
setting priorities is consistent with the overall CSGWPP approach, although DOE's priorities
address only those sites within a DOE installation.

      DOE is currently in the process of bringing all operating facilities into compliance with
applicable laws and regulations and completing the cleanup of the 1989 inventory of contaminated
inactive sites and facilities by the year 2019. This process involves coordination with EPA, other
federal agencies, and several States, and includes addressing the requirements of several federal
and State laws, regulations, and programs (including RCRA Subtitles C and D, CERCLA, SDWA
UIC, SDWA WHP, CWA, UMTRCA, FIFRA, TSCA, NEPA, and others). For DOE  sites on the
CERCLA National Priorities List, DOE coordinates CERCLA and RCRA cleanup p activities
through site-specific Interagency Agreements (lAGs) with EPA and the affected State. A State's
CSGWPP could outline and document coordination across State and EPA programs. Such an
understanding of the relationship between these authorities could allow  DOE, a State,  and EPA to
more efficiently and effectively negotiate lAGs and meet all applicable environmental regulations.

      DOE collects and manages a significant amount of ground water data that could be useful to
a State in developing and implementing its CSGWPP. For example,  DOE undertakes an
assessment and charactetization of ground water resources for each facility. Following remedial or
corrective actions, DOE monitors the ground water to determine contaminant levels. Each DOE
site prepares an Annual Site Environmental Report containing ground water monitoring data and
descriptions of the


      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-16

                   U.S. DEPARTMENT OF  ENERGY (continued)

monitoring network design, which DOE provides to  State and federal agencies. DOE could
coordinate its ground water data with other State and federal agencies. Even though DOE's
information will relate to a limited geographic area of a State, the State could use the maps to infer
hydrogeologic settings for nearby areas that may have few or no data points.

      DOE is actively investigating new technologies for waste management, waste minimization,
and environmental restoration. DOE will develop these improved technologies at facilities around
the country. These new technologies will benefit ground water protection and CSGWPPs as they
become available for other protection and remediation activities. DOE could work with a State to
demonstrate the application of these new technologies to ground water management. For example,
DOE's Savannah River Facility has successfully installed and is operating an integrated
demonstration for remediation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the vadose zone. This
technology works through a combination of airstripping and directional drilling technologies and
makes VOC removal faster and cheaper. DOE expects savings in the millions of dollars from this
particular technology. All States and the CSGWPP  approach will eventually benefit from the
development of such improved technologies.

      While DOE supports the general ground water protection principles outlined in EPA's
Ground Water Strategy for the 1990s, the Department believes that States should base
ground-water protection priorities on the characteristics of the ground water, rather than on facility
ownership. Such an approach would ensure consistent ground water quality management policies
from site to site. DOE expects that the CSGWPP approach will provide a coherent and consistent
approach to ground water protection, based on the  resource value, and can provide a mechanism
by which DOE can incorporate State ground water  priorities  into sitewide ground water protection
activities.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           2-17

                       U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Programs Related to Ground Water Protection

      The Department of the Interior (DOI) is charged with conserving and managing nationally
owned public lands and natural and cultural resources, including water resources. DOI directly
sets policy and management priorities for these resources. As the manager of water resources on
public lands, as well as through its responsibilities for conservation and development of water and
mineral resources,  DOI implements reclamation of and lands in the West through irrigation, and
trust responsibilities for Indian and other lands. Also, DOI influences how States and other federal
agencies set resource-based priorities through direct example and cooperative decision making.

      Several organizational units within DOI directly or indirectly influence the management and
use of ground and surface water resources. The organizational units within DOI are involved with a
wide array of activities that influence how other federal agencies and States manage water
resources. These activities range from investigative research to program planning and data
management.

      The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collects, evaluates, and disseminates information on
the availability, quantity, quality, and use of the Nation's surface and ground water resources and
conducts water-resources investigations and research. Much of the work of the USGS is
conducted in cooperation with over 1,000 State and local cooperating agencies through more than
200 field offices. The  USGS routinely gathers information on ground water levels from more than
35,000 wells, and ground water quality information from more than 9,000 wells each year through
its Hydrologic Data Collection program. This  information is used to meet the needs of federal,
State, and local governments, the private sector, academia, and the general public. Studies
include characterizing aquifers, modeling their  behavior under different patterns of stress,
mapping recharge areas, studying the interactions between surface water and ground water, and
estimating ground water use.

      In addition to its intensive State-oriented hydrologic investigations, the USGS also has
several nationwide investigative programs that seek to provide a national perspective on
water-resource conditions. The National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, which
began in 1986, seeks to describe the status and trends in the quality of the Nation's ground water
and surface water,  and to provide a sound understanding of the natural and human factors
affecting the quality of these resources. Investigations of regional stream-aquifer systems covering
thousands to several tens of thousands of square miles are being conducted on a rotational basis,
for 60 key areas  located throughout the United States. A wide array of water-quality information
that will benefit ground water protection efforts will be  provided by the NAWQA program. This
includes the regional and national extent and severity of contamination of the Nation's ground water
quality, and a determination of the relative
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-18

                U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (continued)

contribution of point and nonpoint sources to regional ground water contamination in different land
use and hydrogeologic settings.

      The Regional Aquifer Systems Analysis (RASA) program is a systematic study of the
Nation's major aquifers. The program has assembled large amounts of information about 25
regional aquifers and developed models to stimulate their behavior under historic conditions and
forecast future pumping patterns.  Much of the  information collected by the RASA program is being
summarized in a new ground water atlas of the United States. The atlas is extensively illustrated
with maps showing the location and extent of major aquifers, their thickness, water levels, water
quality, and water use. The Toxic Substances Hydrology program develops methods for study and
basic understanding of the movement and fate of hazardous substances from point and nonpoint
sources of contamination.

      The USGS has compiled information on ground water in its National Water Summary
reports - ground water quantity (1984), ground water quality (1986), and water use (1987). These
reports, which provide State-by-State and national water information, assist policy makers to better
understand the condition of water resources as they formulate water policies, legislation and
management strategies.

      The U.S.  Bureau of Mines overall mission  is to help ensure that the United States has an
adequate and dependable supply  of minerals to meet its defense  and economic needs at
acceptable social, environmental and economic costs. By developing new mineral technologies
and providing reliable information as a basis for sound minerals policies, the Bureau works to solve
the country's  mineral problems. The Bureau conducts hydrological research  on constructed or
engineered wetlands and on acid mine drainage, it evaluates the  impacts of mining on  both ground
and surface water, conducts studies on the impact of coal mining on municipal water well
production, and  studies the hydrologic impacts associated with in-situ leaching.

      The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) implements the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), particularly with respect to surface coal mining. As a regulatory
program implemented through  the States,  OSM activities involve ensuring that society and the
environment are protected from the adverse effects of surface coal mining while ensuring that
surface coal mining can be done without permanent damage to land and water resources. OSM
oversees mining and reclamation  in States with primary responsibility and regulates mining and
reclamation in States that have chosen not to assume primary responsibility.

      The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is responsible for providing the arid and semiarid
lands of the 17 contiguous Western States with a secure, year-round water supply for irrigation.
Reclamation has a planning program  that  examines the potential for water resource development in
the western United States. Planning studies address both surface and ground water quality and
quantity issues,  including

      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-19

                U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (continued)

conservation, system management, and institutional changes. Reclamation emphasizes
coordination of planning activities with State and other federal agencies, local entities, and the
public to avoid duplicating efforts and to ensure that the most needed and beneficial projects will
be developed. Reclamation has implemented programs for cooperative research and development
for water conservation  technologies. Reclamation also provides technical assistance and data to
other government and  private entities on ground  water hydrology and water quality.

      The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for the management of more than
270 million acres of public lands. BLM also is responsible for subsurface resource management of
an additional 300 million acres where mineral rights are owned by the federal government. BLM
manages such resources as timber, oil and gas, minerals, rangeland, land use, watersheds, and
recreation.

      The National Park Service (NPS) seeks to perpetuate surface and ground waters as integral
components of park aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems by managing the consumptive use of
water, and by protecting or restoring the quality and availability of surface and ground waters in
accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. In addition, NPS
manages its own programs and park uses to avoid impairment of aquatic, wetland, and floodplain
resources and values.

      The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for the conservation and management of
biologically  productive  wetland areas. Wetlands form the backbone of the Service's 90-million-acre
National Wildlife Refuge System, which was established primarily for the enhancement of
migratory waterfowl. Wetlands also help control flooding and improve water quality. Of the 215
million acres of wetlands that once existed in the U.S., more than half have  been drained or filled
and converted to agricultural or other forms of development. The Service attempts  to stem this loss
by acquiring wetlands for the national Wildlife Refuge System. Under federal law, the Service also
advises other federal agencies involved in water development projects as to how impacts on wildlife
might be lessened. In addition, the Service is responsible for restoring inland and anadromous
fisheries.

      The mission of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is to encourage and assist Indian and
Alaska Native people in managing their own affairs and in utilizing the skill and capabilities of
Indian and Alaska Native people in the management of programs for their benefit.  BIA can work to
coordinate educational and planning opportunities to Native Americans on ground water protection
activities. DOI also maintains liaison and coordination between the Department and other federal
agencies that provide funding or services to Indians.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-20

                U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (continued)

Potential for Coordination of DOI Programs with Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Plans

      Data and information from USGS programs could be useful to federal, State, and local
agencies in the development of comprehensive ground water protection programs. Collectively,
these data represent a substantial pool of information that need not be "reinvented" by other
federal and State agencies. The data will assist States in the characterization of their ground water
resources and provide support for resdurce-based priority setting. In addition, programs that
support research into water-related issues also could assist the resource characterization effort
under CSGWPPs. The Federal-State Cooperative program is a partnership involving the 50-50
cost sharing of water resources investigations between USGS and over 1,000 State and local
agencies. The program is unique in that cooperating agencies must contribute at least half of the
cost of investigations but the USGS does  most of the work. Areas of technical assistance include
comprehensive aquifer system assessment, aquifer mapping, monitoring, data collection and data
analysis to determine the extent of contamination, and water use inventories. The State Water
Resources Research Institutes program supports 54 Water Research Institutes at land-grant
educational institutions. Data obtained from all of these programs could be utilized  by States in
CSGWPP activities.

      OSM  has recently been involved in a series of rulemakings designed to allow States and
operators greater flexibility in the means by which they comply with the  SMCRA. These regulations
are related to a number of water resource issues, including wetlands management and ground
water research. SMCRA is a State-implemented  act. Recognizing that there are many factors  that
a State must consider when considering the possibility of assuming a regulatory program, OSM
endeavors to provide all States with the assistance and flexibility they require to implement the
provisions of the act. OSM could consider extending flexibility to States, based on  priorities
established under CSGWPPs, in development of ground water monitoring requirements, and might
vary reclamation and restoration requirements in particular situations based on State prioritization.

      OSM  provides research funding to  universities in support of many initiatives. Recently
included among these initiatives was an investigation and assessment of aquifer response to
mining activity, methods for improving the quality of constructed wetlands, and leachate generation
from overburden. Coordination of these grant activities with those of other federal and State
agencies will facilitate the efficient development of ground water protection programs.

      The Small Reclamation Projects Act (SRPA), administered by Reclamation,  gives direct
responsibility to local organizations for developing water and land resource projects. Examples of
cooperative use of SRPA funds related to the CSGWPP include
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-21

                U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (continued)

ground water recharge projects (e.g., High Plains States Groundwater Demonstration Program)
and wastewater reclamation (e.g., Monterey County).

      Many individual units of the National Park System have surface and ground water data that
will be useful to those responsible for developing  or managing comprehensive ground water
protection programs in a region containing such units. GIS systems are operating in many of
these units that will facilitate the interpretation and availability or transfer of such data. Also, the
Water Resources Division (WRD), located in Fort Collins, Colorado, assists parks and Regions in
water resource data collection, interpretation, and management, and in resource management
decisions, such as  locating and testing surface and ground water sources, designing inventory
and monitoring studies, quantifying and acquiring, park water rights, conducting floodplain and
flood hazards delineation, and preparing park-specific surface and ground water resource
management plans.

      BLM has emphasized coordinating its activity with States in the preparation of water quality
management plans prepared pursuant to Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. This coordination
allows BLM to utilize a part of Section 319 resources to promote implementation of State
CSGWPPs.

      Finally, activities of the BIA in support of actions by Native American organizations could
assist in the development of Tribal comprehensive ground water protection plans.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        2-22
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                           2-23

                     U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Programs Related to Ground Water Protection

      The Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for critical programs to ensure safe,
efficient, and accessible transportation. The duties of several DOT programs directly or indirectly
involve protecting ground water.

      The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides for a national airspace and air traffic
control system, promotes a national airport system, conducts research and regulates aviation
safety, while complying with federal environmental regulations. FAA administers a program of
federal grants to airports for airport development and reviews airport lay out plans for public
airports to ensure that airport development meets safety standards. Airports, through runway and
aircraft maintenance and deicing operations, fuel storage and other airport operations, have the
potential to cause ground water contamination.

      The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) manages the Federal-Aid Highway Program to
assist States in development of transportation infrastructure, in compliance with federal
environmental requirements.  Federal surface transportation legislation establishes federal
assistance for a national highway system of roads that are most important to interstate travel,
national defense, and intermodal connections. It also establishes a surface transportation program
for other federal-aid roads and transit capital projects. The FHWA research program develops and
provides technical guidance to States on highway construction and maintenance, and funds State
research. The National Highway Institute provides training to federal, State, and local transportation
personnel. Highway construction, maintenance, and operation activities can contribute to ground
water contamination. Deicing compounds, pesticides, and spilled hazardous materials are potential
contaminants.

      The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) coordinates cross-modal
research throughout DOT. RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is responsible for the safe
transportation of hazardous liquids (petroleum) by pipeline. Spills of hazardous materials from
pipelines may contaminate ground  water.

      RSPA's Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation (OHMT) directs programs to ensure
that hazardous materials are transported safely to protect human health and environment. OHMT
promulgates regulations implementing the federal legislation relating to hazardous materials
transportation, including the packaging, documentation, and State routing of hazardous materials.
OHMT also provides technical guidance and assistance programs to States on response planning,
training of response personnel, and enforcement activities. FAA regulates the transportation of
hazardous materials by aircraft. The Federal Railroad Administration is responsible for regulating
the safe operation of railroads. It promulgates regulations for safe rail transportation of hazardous
materials.  RSPA, FAA, FRA, and the FHWA Office of Motor Carrier Safety are responsible for
enforcement of various hazardous materials regulations.

      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-24

              U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (continued)

      The Coast Guard's responsibilities include preparing for and responding to marine pollution
incidents and coordinating public and private response efforts. Included in this responsibility is
regulation of onshore marine transportation facilities.

Potential for Coordination of DOT Programs with CSGWPPs

      The FAA has the potential to assist in coordination of CSGWPPs for ground water
contamination prevention, evaluation, and remediation efforts With airport operators. Such
coordination could aid FAA in considering ground water protection when developing standards and
technical guidance for airport master planning, development, and operation. Through the NEPA
process, ground water issues can be considered in connection with proposed airport development.
FAA directives make  recommendations for controlling pollutants associated with aircraft and
airfield maintenance.  Airports are treated as sources of industrial stormwater, and airport
operators are developing plans for compliance with industrial stormwater permit requirements.

      The FHWA/FTA could assist in coordination of ground water protection efforts with State
departments of transportation and other transportation agencies. Through  the NEPA, process,
ground water issues are considered in connection  with proposed highway and transit projects.
When warranted, mitigation  of adverse impacts to  aquifers can be funded. The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Assistance Act provides that ten percent of allocated Surface Transportation
Program funds for each State must only be used for transportation enhancement activities. Eligible
activities include mitigation of water pollution due to highway stormwater runoff. Another provision
of ISTEA allows States to use federal-aid funding for participation in State-wide and regional
wetland conservation and mitigation planning efforts.  The FHWA research and training programs
could benefit from interagency coordination to further consideration of ground water protection in
those programs.

      The RSPA OPS could work with States and  other federal agencies to improve ground water
protection through improved procedures  for responding to spills. Regulations are being developed
to require facility response plans, under the Oil Pollution Act. The OPS could promote knowledge
of information linked to ground water protection through its pipeline accident and operator data
program, and through its training program for industry personnel, federal and State inspectors.

      OHMT's activities seek to ensure that hazardous materials are transported  to avoid spill
incidents and subsequent ground water contamination. OHMT could cooperate with implementing a
State's CSGWPP. For instance, the ground water  protection priorities established in a State's
CSGWPP could be considered in
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                         2-25

                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (continued)

programming technical assistance efforts within that State. In addition, OHMT and States could
work to coordinate information and efforts on emergency response activities through CSGWPPs.
The Coast Guard could provide information on response plans of onshore marine transportation
facilities.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                        2-26
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-27

                    U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Programs Related to Ground Water Protection

      The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ensures adequate protection of public health
and safety, the national security, and the environment in the civilian use of nuclear materials.
NRC's scope of responsibility includes regulation of nuclear power plants, fuel cycle plants, and
the medical,  industrial, and research uses of radioactive materials. Ground water protection
activities in the NRC occur within four primary program areas: the Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Standards (NMSS), which is responsible for the licensing, inspection, and regulation of
facilities and materials associated with the use, processing, transport, and handling of nuclear
materials,  the disposal of nuclear waste, and uranium recovery facilities; the Office  of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation (NRR), which carries out the licensing and inspection of nuclear power
reactors, test reactors, and research reactors; and the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
(RES), which plans and conducts the Commission's research and technical and regulations
development program; and the Office of State  Programs, which administers the State Agreements
Program and maintains liaison with States, local governments, other Federal agencies, and Indian
Tribal organizations. Regional Offices implement regulatory programs originating in  the
Headquarters Office.

      Ground water issues may arise in many different NRC program areas, including NRC
licensing and regulatory oversight of nuclear materials and  waste management,  licensing and
regulatory oversight of nuclear reactor operations, research and standards development, and
inspection and enforcement, under the jurisdiction of the Offices described  above. Certain of
these responsibilities may be assumed by States through the NRC Agreement State programs;
other programs and responsibilities are assigned to the Federal government by statute (e.g., NRC
licensing of commercial nuclear power reactors and repositories for the disposal of high-level
radioactive waste) and may not be assumed by States. Twenty-nine States (Agreement States)
have formal agreements with the NRC  by which the State assumes regulatory authority over
byproduct and  source materials and small quantities of special nuclear  material. Under the Atomic
Energy Act, as amended, the programs of Agreement States must be "compatible" with those of
the Commission. NRC designates particular regulatory requirements as matters of strict
compatibility. The Commission is currently evaluating generic implications of compatibility issues.

      NRC generally provides for ground water protection  through regulations and  licensing
actions that require detection, correction, and prevention of ground water contamination. NRC
programs  emphasize prevention through requirements of design, siting, operation, and inspection
of nuclear facilities, encouragement of processes that reduce or eliminate potential  sources of
contamination, and through recovery and recycling. Monitoring and corrective action are also
sometimes required. Although NRC emphasizes protection of ground water from radiological
contaminants, the
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-28

             U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (continued)

effects of NRC's protective measures address nonradiological impacts on ground water to the
extent that the radiological impacts are controlled.

      NRC's protection of ground water is frequently implemented through site-specific license
conditions, such as upper control limits for concentrations of contaminants in ground water,
monitoring requirements, and, if necessary, corrective action and restoration requirements. In
some cases, EPA standards have been applied on a site-specific basis to the remediation of
contaminated sites to ensure adequate protection of ground and surface water resources.

Potential for Coordination of NRC Programs with Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs

      NRC program offices, particularly NMSS and Research, and the Office of State Programs
may be able to make use of enhanced State capabilities for resource-based decision making and
coordination of State programs under CSGWPPs in a number of ways. In the development and
implementation of requirements for handling and  disposal of mixed waste, for example, additional
flexibility in the siting and licensing of mixed waste facilities might be considered in States that have
evaluated the status of their ground water resources and established priorities affecting facility
siting, resource protection, and remediation. In decommissioning facilities that have been licensed
to possess nuclear materials, State priority-setting under a CSGWPP could be considered in  the
assessment of whether a site has been decommissioned to levels of radioactivity that allow release
for unrestricted use. Pending codification of radiological criteria for decommissioning, NRC
applies a variety of guidance and criteria to determine whether sites have been sufficiently
remediated so that they may be released for unrestricted use. These criteria are applied  on a
site-specific basis, with emphasis, as  appropriate, to ensure that residual  contamination levels are
"as low as is reasonably achievable" (ALARA). State groundwater priorities under CSGWPPs
could be considered by NRC in its ALARA determinations.  NRC also could assess how CSGWPPs
might enhance the ability of Low Level Radioactive Waste Compacts to site low level radioactive
waste disposal facilities by creating consistent systems of prioritization of ground water resources
in States. CSGWPPs also could affect ground water monitoring requirements and procedures for
uranium milling facilities and requirements for reclamation activities at such facilities.

      NRC, and  particularly NMSS, also could provide for flexibility and resource-based  decision
making in the development of license conditions, particularly where NRC references EPA
standards or methodologies for ground water protection and where EPA is building such flexibility
into its regulatory requirements. For example, NRC could adopt differential ground water
management approaches tied to a State's adoption of a CSGWPP for ground water monitoring
requirements and schedules at licensed facilities. Increased levels of monitoring could be required
at facilities located in areas that the State's CSGWPP had  identified as high priority ground water
areas;
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          2-29

             U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (continued)

lower levels of monitoring could be required at areas of lower priority according to the State's own
priority setting.

      For Agreement States, NRC could consider the extent to which Agreement State
compatibility can allow for flexible approaches to ground water-related issues under a CSGWPP.
In the future, as States develop CSGWPPs, NRC and the States could seek to reflect the State's
capacity for resource-based decision making in the agreement between NRC and the State. In
addition, the Commission has begun a process to ensure early and substantial involvement of the
Agreement States in rulemakings and other regulatory efforts. A CSGWPP could provide a focus
for State/NRC interaction on ground water issues.

      As States develop priorities for resource-based management through Core or Fully
Integrating CSGWPPs, NRC could utilize such priorities directly in developing site-specific license
conditions. Finally, the NRC Five Year Plan calls for NRC to take a more active role in fostering
better cooperation and communication between NRC and State and local governments and Indian
Tribes. The existing communication links between State Liaison Officers and NRC Regional State
Liaison Officers could serve as a  means of information transfer concerning the implementation of
CSGWPPs in those programs in which States may assume regulatory priority.
      Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
      NOTE TO THE READER:
            This Final Comprehensive State Ground Water
            Protection Program Guidance is a statement of
            Agency policy and principles. It does not
            establish or affect legal rights or obligations. This
            guidance document does not establish a binding
            norm and is not finally determinative of the
            issues addressed. Agency decisions in any
            particular case will be made by applying the law
            and regulations to the specific facts of the case.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------