United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA 813-K-95-001
May 1995
Office Of Water
(4602)
Why Do Wellhead
Protection?
Issues and Answers in Protecting
Public Drinking Water Supply Systems
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
Why Do Wellhead
Protection?
Issues and Answers in Protecting
Public Drinking Water Supply Systems
Ground Water Protection Division
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Acknowledgments:
This document was prepared under the direction of Barbara Elkus,
Director, Ground Water Protection Division (GWPD), and written and
designed by GWPD Project Manager Kevin McCormack.
-------
What is Wellhead Protection?
ellhead protection
may be broadly defined as a program that reduces the
threat to the quality of ground water used for drinking water
by identifying and managing recharge areas to specific
wells or wellfields. Wellhead protection measures may
A Wellhead Protection (WHP)
range from simple practices involving basic housekeeping
Program protects the quality of
procedures around rural farmsteads, to extensive and
public drinking water supplies...
comprehensive land use planning and restrictions in major
cities, towns, and communities. A Wellhead Protection
(WHP) Program protects the quality of public drinking water
supplies by means of a phased approach which includes
development of the program, submittal to EPA for approval,
and implementation of the approved Program.
1
-------
Is There a Legal Requirement for WHP?
Aside from the obvious human health and welfare reasons for protecting ground water
through wellhead protection, a legal mandate exists for the development and implementation
of WHP Programs. The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
established the WHP Program. Under SDWA Section 1428, each State must prepare a
WHP Program and submit it to EPA for approval. Although the law requires that every
WHP Program must contain specific elements. EPA allows States considerable flexibility
in tailoring Program details to best suit their individual needs. Accordingly, States then
have a legal obligation to develop and implement WHP Programs.
EPA Policy Integrates WHP with
State Programs
Protection of public water supply wells through WHP activities is also considered an
important component of a Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program
(CSGWPP). In 1991, EPA established a set of ground water protection principles which
recognizes that the primary role for ground water protection should be vested with the
States. These principles also call for the development and implementation of CSGWPPs
as a focal point for all programs related to ground water protection. Through its efforts to
support the development of CSGWPPs, EPA is providing funds to States to undertake
necessary WHP activities and programs as a critical component of a CSGWPP.
How Many States Have Approved
WHP Programs?
By the end of September, 1994, a total of 35 States and territories had approved WHP
Programs. An additional 10 States are expected to submit programs for approval by the
end of 1995. EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is currently working with 5
other States in developing their programs for submittal and approval. This demonstrates
that the process of developing an EPA-approved WHP Program at the State level is
expanding. Working with Regional Water Management and EPA Headquarters Staff, these
States have successfully developed programs that are custom-designed to meet their
individual needs.
Arizona, Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Tennessee, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin all have EPA-approved WHP Programs in place.
The broad geographic dispersion and the diverse climate, topography, and hydrogeology
which were taken into account in designing, developing, and implementing these programs
are indicative of the successful application of the basic principles of WHP in satisfying the
uniquely local requirements of protecting public drinking water supply systems.
-------
Puerto Rico
L
-------
Issues and Answers on the Wellhead Protection Program
EPA
first began efforts to implement the WHP Program on a national level by working
directly with States through EPA's ten Regional offices. Seminars, workshops, individual
meetings, and training sessions were held throughout the country. In the process, a
number of central issues surfaced that illustrate the need for WHP Programs at the State
level. Listed below are some of the issues and answers encountered during the process.
CHANGING TRENDS IN EPA'S GROUND WATER PROTECTION POLICY
ISSUE
It's well known that EPA has
revised its overall Ground
Water Protection policy over
the last few years to
incorporate WHP as a key
principle affecting ground
water regulation, but what
has EPA specifically done to
enhance integration of the
WHP Program with other
programs at the State level,
where responsibility for
implementation really lies?
A number of changes in EPA's regulatory program are
being implemented or evaluated for adoption, including:
• Under the WHP Program, a State having authority for
carrying out federal drinking water regulations can use its
EPA-approved WHP Program for contingency planning
for public water supplies drawn from ground water
reserves in the event of a water service emergency;
• A local WHP Program can contribute to completing a
watershed control program as a step in avoiding
filtration requirements for public water supply systems;
• WHP is identified as one of the complementary means
of achieving levels of total coliform contamination
below the established drinking water standards;
• States with potential Superfund (abandoned,
uncontrolled hazardous waste) sites may receive
additional points for these sites in priority ranking for
federal funds if they are in or near WHP areas;
In addition to the above, EPA is considering use of the survey
of potential contaminant sources and differential
management approaches used in WHP Programs as a
possible ranking factor in States' applications to waive
certain monitoring requirements for synthetic organic
chemicals, which could save localities time and money by
conducting one assessment and potentially avoiding
monitoring for these chemicals if their wells are adequately
protected.
-------
ISSUE
In States where the federal
government operates or
maintains large facilities or
areas of land, how is the
subject of compliance with
the WHP Program addressed
in terms of federal versus
State authority?
Under the SDWA Amendments of 1986, any
department or agency of the federal government having
jurisdiction over any potential source of contaminants
within a wellhead protection area (WHPA) identified
by a State WHP Program is subject to, and must
comply with, all requirements of the State's Program.
This includes the payment of reasonable charges and
fees levied in connection with the management or
remediation of potential sources of ground water
contamination within WHPAs.
ISSUE
Because comprehensive
ground water protection
(CGWP) programs are so
broad, why do you need a
WHP component?
WHP focuses on limited geographic areas within
aquifers which may be managed through a broader
scheme;
Wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) are at high risk
because sources or activities within WHPAs may
contribute to potential contamination of wells,
depending on time of travel (TOT) of contaminants to
the well. Differential management of these sources
and activities within WHPAs addresses these concerns.
Wellhead protection areas account for more than 10%
of the geographic areas defined in CGWP programs
aimed at protecting current and potential sources of
ground water used for drinking water.
ISSUE
EPA seems to be the only
federal agency offering any
incentives to State and local
participation in the WHP
Program. Are any other
agencies interested enough
in WHP to assist the States
and locals in actively
participating in the
program?
One agency is taking a major role: the US Department
of Agriculture, under the 1990 Farm Bill, provides
assistance to farmers and ranchers in adopting
practices to reduce risks to ground water from
agricultural chemicals or livestock production activities
that might pose a threat to public drinking water
supplies. Under the Farm Bill, USDA plans to
encourage participation in WHP Programs as part of
this assistance.
-------
The USDA also plans to target farmers in WHP areas
for participation in the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP). Under the CRP, farmers are asked to remove
land from production for the control of soil erosion and
off-site pollution. In exchange for discontinuing
agricultural production, producers receive an annual
rental payment from the federal government. Some
States have "sweetened" the federal payment to
encourage greater participation in the CRP in sensitive
areas, such as WHP areas.
In addition to the CRP, USDA is also implementing a
new program that provides incentive payments and
cost share payments to farmers to implement farm-
level water quality protection plans. Producers
participating in the program also receive technical
assistance for implementing water quality protection
practices; this program is targeted to WHP areas.
-------
GROUND WATER-PROTECTION
ISSUE
Doesn't the soil's natural
filtration capacity eliminate
all but the most persistent
organic contaminants from
reaching ground water?
Not really; for many years, it was believed that public
water supply systems which relied on ground water for
drinking water supplies enjoyed a type of built-in
"immunity" from contamination, because it was thought
that multiple layers of soil, sand and rock acted as
filters, trapping contaminants before they reached
ground water reserves used for drinking water Within
the past 20 years, however, reported cases of ground
water related disease outbreaks and associated
illnesses have risen dramatically, and contamination
plumes have been detected in areas and soil types
not expected to be conducive to transport of ground
water pollutants, based on past hydrogeologic
assumptions.
ISSUE
If our community relies on
deep aquifers with the
"natural protection" of
confining layers, might we
also need WHP?
Layers previously thought to be highly confining may
contain natural (e.g. fractures) or manmade (e.g.,
boreholes), which are highly transmissive pathways
that permit the introduction of contaminants into the
underlying aquifer. Such a phenomenon may be the
cause of contamination recently found in aquifers in
New York (Long Island), New Jersey, Louisiana,
Hawaii, California, and Nebraska. A WHP Program is
needed to assess the actual "protectiveness" of these
confining layers, and to prioritize attention to sources
of contamination located near these openings.
PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION
ISSUE
Municipalities usually do a
good job of monitoring
potential ground water
threats to their drinking
water supplies, and most of
these have worked well over
time. Aren't these efforts
sufficient to protect the
public health?
In many cases, they are not. For example, despite
the existence of an aquifer protection boundary and
an underground storage tank (UST) overlay district in
place since 1984, the town of Oak Bluffs, on Martha's
Vineyard, MA, discovered a previously unknown and
abandoned UST leaking petroleum fuel less than 500
feet from a wellfield containing five public water supply
wells in 1986. This case of undetected prior UST
location and condition could have been prevented by
a thorough contaminant source inventory as part of a
WHP Program, followed by appropriate removal
activities.
-------
In a survey conducted by EPAto estimate the occurrence
of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in drinking water,
analysis of finished water samples from 945 suppliers
using ground water as a drinking water source showed
that over 10% of the sources sampled showed levels of
VOC contamination. The results of this survey are
especially significant because the States participating
in the survey were encouraged to choose water supplies
for the nonrandom samples for which no prior VOC data
were available. These samples were known to have a
higher than normal probability of contamination by
VOCs, based on the State agency's knowledge of local
conditions (e.g., proximity to landfills, industrial and
agricultural activity, etc.). Thus, the State agency's
prediction that VOC contamination could occur from
these sources was confirmed, even though no prior VOC
data were available.
Public Drinking Water Systems monitored for compliance
with Maximum Contaminant Levels established by EFA's
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water for chemical
and bacterial contamination showed that contamination
above these limits occurs on a widespread scale in
Public Water Supply Systems. In 1992, of the 47,898
active community ground water systems reporting, 4,179
had 1 or more MCL violation(s). In 1993, out of 46,880
reporting, 4,435 had 1 or more violation(s).
States reported in 1991 that 14,000 drinking water wells
were either closed or restricted, an 87% increase since
1987.
COST OF PREVENTION VERSUS COST OF REMEDIATION
ISSUE
The cost of cleanup in
ground water contamination
incidents is usually high,
but the routine cost of
preventive measures often
overburdens a municipality
in terms of capital outlay.
Are these "fail-safe"
measures really justified?
In late 1977, gasoline leaking from a USTin Truro, MA,
on Cape Cod, forced the immediate closure of nearby
Proviricetown's South Hollow Wellfield to prevent
contamination of the town's drinking water supply.
Emergency aboveground water pipes were installed
and an on-site treatment plant was constructed. The
aquifer rehabilitation program initally was funded by
$1.9 million in State grants, with Provincetown
spending over $1 million in direct expenses and
borrowed funds in the undertaking. Now, over 16 years
and $4 million later, State and local officials are in the
last stages of testing to determine whether continued
treatment is still necessary. Even if treatment is no
longer necessary, daily monitoring may be required
-------
ISSUE
In cases of documented con-
tamination, can't affected
users simply have new wells
installed or be hooked-up to
existing suppliers?
following the completion of the aquifer rehabilitation
program. The "Truro Spill" as it has come to be known,
has focused attention on the regulatory, institutional,
and educational programs needed to ensure the lasting
usefulness of the aquifer in the face of intensified
growth pressures and land-use activities, and the need
to monitor threats which may originate outside one
town's jurisdiction but threaten another's drinking water
supply. In this instance, financial commitment and
cooperation between local jurisdictions in developing
Wellhead Protection Programs for protection of adjacent
ground water reserves used for drinking water would
have been time and money well spent when compared
with the clean-up costs.
In contamination cases where the only feasible
alternative is drilling new wells, installing new distribution
systems, or connecting users to existing PWSSs, the
cost is substantial. Records of Decision (RODs) for
cleanup of 40 Superfund Sites where public water
supplies were affected showed that in cases where these
alternatives were necessary, costs ranged from $70
thousand to over $2.3 million, depending on extent of
contamination and population served. In addition, given
the current hydrogeologic studies necessary, the cost of
installing, developing, and connecting to service a new
PWSS well now represents one of the most costly line-
item expenses of any municipality.
-------
BENEFITS OF TARGETING RESOURCES IN WHP
ISSUE
What advantages does WHP
have over the normal
exercise of State and local
funding initiatives for
protection of PWSSs?
WHP provides a structured, organized means of
focusing federal, State, and local government
resources, which are usually limited, on areas of
greatest concern in providing for public drinking water
supplies, An effective WHP Program clearly sets forth
the real purpose of the Program, helps identify gaps
n management roles and duties of participating
agencies, provides technical assistance in delineating
wellhead protection areas, suggests differential
management strategies for dealing with contaminant
sources, provides guidance in inventorying
contaminant sources within these areas, helps develop
contingency planning for water supply contamination
or disruption, assists in the decision making process
for siting new public water supply wells, and offers
comprehensive opportunities for public participation
m the development and implementation of wellhead
protection programs at the State and local level.
ISSUE
If a WHP Program is put into
place, where will the "teeth"
in the implementation phase
come from? Won't those
persons not interested in
WHP just ignore it?
Effective implementation of a WHP Program under
these elements can be greatly facilitated by exercising
existing municipal authorities, such as inspections,
permitting, enforcement, zoning, and land use
restrictions. By exercising these authorities and
controls at the local level, a community serves notice
that WHP is a "real" program that makes good common
sense, and that persons responsible for sources or
activities within WHPAs which may be potential threats
to grouno water based drinking water supplies may be
held accountable in managing these sources and
activities effectively. WHP can benefit the municipality
on a broad scale in terms of safeguarding the public
health as well as ensuring economic viability for the
community on a long-term basis through a preventive
approach to protecting public drinking water supplies.
10
-------
«x::x::x::x::x::x::x::x::x:::
¥x::x::x::x::x::x::x::x.;!;!;!;!;!;!;!; !|!;!:x"
11
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
ISSUE
Do any indicators exist that
show that the essential
elements of a WHP Program
are being used to prevent
contamination of our ground
water-based public drinking
water supplies at the local
level?
ISSUE
What action can industry
take to embrace pollution
prevention techniques to
protect public drinking
water supplies?
Yes - there is currently a trend in the direction of new
light industrial and residential development towards
protecting ground water from pollution. Protection of
public drinking water supplies is becoming an issue
at the mayoral and county supervisor level. Current
trends in area "Master Plans" for projected municipal
growth continue to show incorporation of the basic
concepts of wellhead protection in plans designed to
safeguard public drinking water supplies. For example,
signs announcing entry into wellhead, ground water,
and drinking water protection areas are being erected
along local roads and interstate highways. Highway
materials (salt and other inorganics) are being
relocated away from wells and wellfields. In the long
term, these planning and management decisions
actually help attract business and industry to these
areas, creating more jobs and an expanding tax base.
Process modification, waste minimization, monitoring
and recycling are encouraged under WHP Programs
as part of EPA's "Common Sense Initiative." This
industry-by-industry approach introduces a new policy
of protecting human health and the environment by
12
-------
setting tough goals for industry, while at the same time
encouraging flexibility and innovation in how these
goals are met. The "Common Sense Initiative"
encourages the development of new or modified
manufacturing or operating strategies for industries
that want to locate, or to continue operating in, WHFfts.
AVOIDING THE HIGH COST OF REGULATION
ISSUE
What advantages can the
WHP Program really offer
the PWSS operator and the
consumer?
ISSUE
Usually, documented cases
of drinking water supply
contamination are cleaned
up to predetermined federal
or State levels before ser-
vice is restored to the
consumer. Why would WHP
make any difference in the
ultimate price tag?
PWSS rates are more frequently being affected by
increasingly stringent drinking water monitoring
requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Compliance with these requirements costs the PWSS
operator money, which is ultimately passed on to the
consumer in higher water rates. Participation in WHP
Program can help the PWSS operator reduce the cost
and frequency of monitoring.
Regulatory authorities implemented under RCRA and
Superfund to clean up ground water contamination and
render public drinking water supplies usable afterwards
characteristically carry a high price tag in terms of unit
cost increases to PWSS users. A review of RODs for
50 Superfund sites threatening public water supply
systems concluded that the average costs of cleaning
up ground water are $5.9 million to $7.3 million per
site. The National Research Council estimated that
$" trillion will be spent over the next 30 years to clean
up ground waters at contaminated sites. The
preventive aspects of WHP are designed to preclude
the need for such costly remediation measures, saving
the users money in the long run.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
ISSUE
Aside from catastrophic
pollution incidents such as
New York's Love Canal and
Times Beach, Missouri, what
real effect does "normal"
industrial pollution, gener-
ated as a result of routine
industrial procedures, have
on the nation?
Ground water contamination resulting from industrial
pollution is a real and present threat to the economic
viability of States and individual communities. In the
State of Minnesota alone, a survey of 21 cities and 18
companies yielded a conservative estimate of the true
dollar value of this reality: a total of $24,045,500 spent
m 17 cities, and $43,026,500 expended by 18
13
-------
S S U E
Can't the remedial costs of
these periodic incidents be
handled as they always have
in the past; combined State,
federal, and municipal
assistance?
companies in coping with ground water contamination.
They can, but the dollar cost of the cleanup and
remediation is only the tip of the iceberg. The
increasing liability and high costs associated with
ground water cleanup and remediation stresses
municipal resources to the point of effecting changes
n the pattern of business development within the State
or municipality. The costs and problems associated
with ground water contamination diminishes the
attraction of these localities for redevelopment and
reuse by outside interests, and encourages
businesses to abandon such sites. Relocation to
another city or State means a long-term loss to the
area in terms of jobs and tax base.
14
-------
How Can I Find Out More About WHP?
I he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
in Washington, DC, and all ten of EPA's Regional offices (listed below) provide technical
assistance in the development and implementation of State WHP Programs.
For More Information Contact:
Ms. Jane Downing
Ground Water Management Sec.
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building (WGT-445)
Boston, MA 02203
617-565-3600
Ms. Dore LaPosta
Ground Water Management Sec.
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 842
New York, NY 10278
212-264-5635
Ms. Virginia Thompson
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
215-597-2786
Ms. Mary Kay Lynch
Ground Water Protection Branch
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
404-347-3379
Ms. Jerri-Anne Garl
Ground Water Protection Branch
Water Division
U.S. EPA, Region V
230 S. Dearborn St. (5WG-TUB8)
Chicago, IL 60604
312-353-1441
Ms. Erlece Allen
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue (6-W)
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
214-655-6446
Mr. Robert Fenemore
Office of Ground Water Prot.
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
913-551-7745
Ms. Patricia H. Denham
Ground Water Branch
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region VIII
999 18th Street (8WMGW)
Denver, CO 80202-2405
303-294-1164
Ms. Doris Betuel
Source Water Protection Sec.
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street (W-6-3)
San Francisco, CA 94015
415-744-1835
Mr. Roger Mochnik
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue (WD-139)
Seattle, WA 98101
206-553-1216
15
-------
-------
Appendix: State and Territory
Wellhead Protection Agencies
Alabama
Delaware
AL Department of Environmental Management
1751 Congressman W.L Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
Alaska
AK Department of Environmental Conservation
P.O. Box 0
Juneau, AK 99811-1800
Arizona
AZ Department of Environmental Quality
Groundwater Monitor Unit
2005 North Central, Room 202-A
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Arkansas
AR Department of Health
4815 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
California
Ground Water Unit
CA State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 944213
Sacramento, CA 95814
Colorado
Water Quality Control Division
CO Department of Health
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, CO 80220-3716
Division of Water Resources
Ground-Water Management Section
DE Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Contamination
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
Florida
FL Department of Environmental Regulations
Bureau of Drinking Water and
Ground-Water Research
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Georgia
GA Geologic Survey, EP
Department of Natural Resources
Room 400,19 Ml. King, Jr. Drive, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30334
Hawaii
Groundwater Protection Program
HI Department of Health
5 Waterfront, Suite 250
500 Alamoana Boulevard
Honolulu, HI 96813
Idaho
Water Quality Bureau
ID Division of Environmental Quality Statehouse
ID Department of Health and Welfare
450 West State Street
Boise, ID 83720
Connecticut
Illinois
Bureau of Water Management
CT Department of Environmental Protection
Room 117, State Office Building
165 Capital Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
ILEPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Indiana
Drinking Water Branch Chief
IN Department of Environmental Management
105S. Meridian/P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
-------
Iowa
IA Department of Natural Resources
Henry Wallace Office Building
900 East Grand
Des Moines, IA 50319
Kansas
KS Department Health and Environment
Landon State Office Building, 9th Floor
900 S.W. Jackson
Topeka, KS 66612-1290
Kentucky
Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Water
Ground Water Branch
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 44066
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Maine
Drinking Water Program
Division of Health Engineering
ME Department of Human Services
State House Station 10
Augusta, ME 04333
Maryland
Water Supply Program
MD Department of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Massachusetts
Division of Water Supply
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
Michigan
Ml Department of Public Health
P.O. Box 30035
Lansing, Ml 48909
Ml Department of Natural Resources
Stevens T. Mason Building
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml 48909
Minnesota
MN Department of Health
P.O. Box 59040
Minneapolis, MN 55459
Missouri
Public Drinking Water Program
MO Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176 •
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Mississippi
Ground-Water Quality Branch
MS Bureau of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
Montana
Water Quality Bureau
MT Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences
Cogswell Building, Room A206
Helena, MT 59620
Nebraska
NE Department of Environmental Control
Statehouse Station
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509-8922
Nevada
Ground-Water Protection Program
NV Division of Environmental Protection
123 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
-------
Appendix: State and Territory
Wellhead Protection Agencies (continued)
New York
Oklahoma
NY Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Water, Room 306
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-0001
New Jersey
Bureau of Water Supply, Planning and Policy
NJ Department of Environmental Protection
CN029
Trenton, NJ 08625-0029
New Hampshire
Ground-Water Protection Bureau
NH Department of Environmental Services
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03301
New Mexico
NM Health and Environment Department
1190 St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87503
North Carolina
Ground-Water Section
NC Department of Environmental Health and
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
North Dakota
Environmental Health Section
ND Department of Health
P.O. Box 5520
Bismarck, ND 58502-5520
Ohio
Division of Ground Water
OH EPA
1800 Water Mark Drive/Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43266-0149
Pollution Control Coordination Board
OK Department of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 53504
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
Oregon
Water Quality Division
OR Department of Environmental Quality
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-1334
Pennsylvania
Division of Water Supplies Bureau of Community
Environmental Control
PA Department of Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 2357
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2357
Rhode Island
Rl Department of Environmental Management
291 Promenade Street
Providence, Rl 02908-5767
South Carolina
Bureau of Water
Supply and Special Programs Department of SC
Natural Resources and Community Development
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
South Dakota
Division of Environmental Regulation
SD Department of Water and Natural Resources
Joe Foss Building
523 E. Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501
Tennessee
TN Department of Health and Environment
Division of Water Supply
150 Ninth Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37219-5404
-------
Texas
TX Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street
Austin, TX 78756
TX Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087, Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711-3087
Utah
Burea of Drinking Water and Sanitation
UT Department of Health
288 North 1460 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116-0690
Vermont
Division of Environmental Health Water
Supply Program
VT Department of Health
60 Main Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Virginia
Ground Water Program Manager
VA Water Control Board
P.O. Box 11143
Richmond, VA 23230-1143
Washington
LD-11
WA Department of Health
Olympia, WA 98504
West Virginia
Environmental Engineering Division
WV Office of Environmental Health Services
Capital Comp. Building 3, Room 550
1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East
Charleston, WV 25305
Wisconsin
Wyoming
WY DEQ - Water Quality Division
Herschler Building, 4th Floor
122 West 25th
Cheyenne, WY 82002
American Samoa
American Samoa EPA
Office of the Governor
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799
Guam
Guam EPA
Government of Guam
Harmon Plaza Complex Unit D107
130 Rojas Street
Harmon. Guam 96911
Mariana Islands
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
Division of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 1304
Saipan. Mariana Islands 96950
Palau
Palau Environmental Quality Protection Board
P.O. Box 100
Koror, Palau 96940
Puerto Rico
Water Quality Area
PR Environmental Quality Board
Box 11488
Santurce, PR 00910
Virgin Islands
VI Department of Planning and Natural Resources
179 Altonaand Welgunst
St. Thomas, VI 00820
Division of Environmental Standards
Wl Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707
------- |