United States ;
Environmental Protection
Agency
iOffidd of WateV
:4601 - : -
EPA-81?-R-96-001.
; June 1996:- •:••'-;%
National Water Quality Inventory
1- ^& ^^ m v^ _ _ • ^^ '- •" •'. •",': " '-"• .•.-"<•-••'•"'-•'::'-: •••VjisiiSift'SwsiSiitt^faaSl
994 Report to Congress f
Ground Water Chapters
__
-,.-- . .
R^fcycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Based Inks p;rJ Reoyeled Paper (20% Postoonsumer)
-------
-------
Preface
The National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress is the primary vehicle for informing
Congress and the public about general water quality conditions in the United States. It
summarizes information related to the quality of our Nation's water resources as reported by
States, Territories, and American Indian Tribes in their water quality assessment reports. The
Clean Water Act, Section 305(b), requires that the States and other participating jurisdic-
tions submit water quality assessment reports every 2 years. It also requires that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) summarize the reports submitted by the States and
other jurisdictions and provide the information to Congress every 2 years. Most of the
survey information in the 1994 Section 305(b) reports is based on water quality information
collected and evaluated by the States, Territories, and Tribes during 1992 and 1993.
in reviewing the data in this bulletin, it is important to remember that the States and other
participating jurisdictions that provided data for the report do not use identical survey
methods and criteria to rate water quality. The National Water Quality Inventory Report
to Congress must balance flexibility with the goal of obtaining comparable and consistent
data. In the past 6 to 8 years, EPA has sought to establish guidelines for data collection that
would lend consistency to the data collected, analyzed, and provided to EPA for this report.
Recent joint actions by EPA, States, and other agencies include implementing the recom-
mendations of the Intergovernmental Task Force for Monitoring Water Quality and refining
the Guidelines for Preparation of the 1996 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports).
The Task Force report recommends a strategy for nationwide water quality monitoring and
technical monitoring improvements to support sound water quality decision-making at all
levels of government and in the private sector. The 1996 guidelines for the 305(b) process
give the States much needed flexibility in selecting aquifers on which to focus their efforts in
assessing ground water quality and establishing baseline data requirements. The refinement
of these guidelines is expected to make comparison and interpretation of ground water
quality more meaningful in the 7 996 National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress.
The following bulletin focuses on our Nation's ground water resources. Using information
supplied by the States, Territories, and Tribes in their 1994 Section 305(b) reports, the two
chapters characterize our Nation's ground water quality, identify widespread ground water
quality problems of national significance, and describe various programs implemented to
restore and protect our ground water resources. The chapters summarize information
submitted by 48 States, 2 Territories, and 5 Tribes, and highlight additional subjects that
are important in ground water quality protection.
It is hoped that the reader recognizes the importance of ground water from this reading.
It is also important to note that national initiatives alone cannot clean up our waters; water
quality protection and restoration must happen at the local and State levels in conjunction
with State and Federal activities, funding, and programs. This bulletin alone cannot provide
the detailed information needed to manage a water quality program. However, this
information can be used, together with the individual State Section 305(b) reports, water
management plans, and other local documents, to assist in developing a ground water
management program.
-------
-------
Contents
Page
Preface i
Figures iv
Tables v
Acknowledgments vi
Ground Water Quality
Ground Water Use in the United States 1
Highlight: Vulnerability 4
Highlight: Examples of Surface Water Contaminated
by Contaminated Ground Water 6
Ground Water Quality 9
Ground Water Contaminant Sources 11
Ground Water Contaminants 14
Highlight: Frequently Detected Pesticide Residues in Ground Water ... 16
Highlight: A National Look at Nitrates 20
Ground Water Monitoring 22
Indicators of Ground Water Quality 27
Highlight: Ground Water Quality Indicators 28
Ground Water: What We Still Need to Know 31
Ground Water Protection Programs
State Programs :.. 33
Ground Water Protection Legislation 34
Ground Water Regulations 36
Ground Water Protection Plans 36
Ground Water Protection Standards 37
Ground Water Classification/Mapping Programs 38
Wellhead Protection Programs 40
Coordination of Protection Programs Among State Agencies . . 40
Ground Water Monitoring Programs 41
Federal Programs 44
Resource Protection 45
Pollutant Source Control 51
Pollution Prevention ,. 57
Highlight: Grass Roots Ground Water Protection 58
Highlight: Protecting Our Drinking Water: The EPA's Source Water
Protection Initiative 60
Highlight: Costs of Not Preventing Contamination of the Ground
Water Resource 62
Appendix A: Data Reported by Individual States, Tribes,
Territories, and Commissions - Ground Water A-1
in
-------
Figures
No.
Page
1 National Ground Water Use as a Percentage
of Total Withdrawals 2
2 Withdrawal and Discharge of Ground Water as a Percentage
of Contribution 2
3 Distribution of Ground Water Usage Across the Nation 3
4 Percent of Population Dependent on Ground Water
for Drinking Water, 1990 8
5 Contaminant Sources Prioritized by States 12
6 Ground Water Contaminants Prioritized by States 14
7 Ground Water Basin Map of Pennsylvania 23
8 Location of Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program
Background Network Wells in Florida 24
9 Kansas Ground Water Quality Monitoring Network 25
10 Ambient Ground Water Data from Ohio: Average Barium
Concentration in Well Stations 26
11 Ambient Ground Water Data from Ohio: Geographic
Barium Plot—Preliminary Averages 27
12 Percentage of Reporting States Having Implemented Programs
or Activities 3^
13 Ground Water Contamination in the Phoenix Active
Management Area 35
14 Aquifer Vulnerability to Surface Contamination in Michigan 39
15 Progress in Implementing the Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Program Approach 47
16 Status of Wellhead Protection Programs Across the U.S.
and Territories 48
17 States with National Rural Water Association Wellhead
Protection Programs 49
18 Project Reviews 51
19 Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 56
IV
-------
Tables
No. Page
1 Summary of Current State Ground Water Monitoring
Programs 42
2 Contaminants Most Frequently Reported in Ground
Water at CERCLA National Priority List Sites 57
-------
Acknowledgments
This bulletin is based primarily on water quality assessments submitted to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency by the States. The EPA wishes to especially thank the
authors of these State ground water assessments for the time and effort spent in preparing
these reports and reviewing the several drafts of this national assessment. Additional thanks
go to the water quality assessment coordinators from all 10 EPA Regions who work with the
States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions.
The project manager and chief editor of this document was A. Roger Anzzolin of the
Technical and Information Branch, Ground Water Protection Division, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water. Key contributions were also made by the following individuals:
Steve Ainsworth, Thomas Belk, Phil Berger, Ron Bergman, Harriet Colbert, Marilyn
Ginsberg, Jim Hamilton, Janette Hansen, Robin Heisler, Harriet Hubbard, Charles job,
William J. McCabe, Eliska Postell, and John Simons, Ground Water Protection Division;
John Heffelfinger, Office of Underground Storage Tanks; Anne E. Bonner, Ground Water
Management Section, Region 1; Terry Dean, Office of Groundwater Protection, Region 7;
Dennis R. Helsel and William M. Alley, USGS; Alden Henderson, Ph.D., and Edwin Kent Gray
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; William D, Ward, The Cadmus Group,
Inc.; and Rosa Wilson of the National Park Service.
Contractor support was provided under Contract 68-C3-0303 with Tetra Tech, Inc.
A subcontractor, Research Triangle Institute (RTI), provided the data analysis, technical
assistance, editorial support, design, typesetting, and graphics for the ground water
chapters. Key contributors for RTI are: Michael J. McCarthy, program manager; Mary T.
Siedlecki, task leader; Jennifer M. Lloyd, computer scientist; Kathleen B. Mohar, technical
editor; Laurie Godwin, computer graphics specialist; and Deborah Lee, typesetter.
vi
-------
-------
-------
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is a vital national
resource that is used for a myriad of
purposes. It is used for public and
domestic water supply systems, for
irrigation and livestock watering,
and for industrial, commercial, min-
ing, and thermoelectric power pro-
duction purposes. In many parts of
the Nation, ground water serves as
the only reliable source of drinking
and irrigation water. Unfortunately,
this vital resource is vulnerable to
contamination, and ground water
contaminant problems are being
reported throughout the country. In
their 1994 305(b) reports, States,
Tribes, and Territories identified
contaminant sources and the associ-
ated contaminants that threaten the
integrity of their ground water
resources. Controlling these sources
of contamination and preventing
further contamination of the
resource have become the focus
of numerous local, State, and Fed-
eral programs.
This section contains informa-
tion provided by 48 States, 2 Terri-
tories, and 5 Tribes in their 1994
305(b) reports. The 1994 305(b)
reports are based on guidelines,
developed by EPA, requesting that
each reporting agency characterize
the quality of its ground water
resources. Because few States and
Tribes possess the capability to char-
acterize ground water quality using
ambient monitoring data, EPA asked
them to provide available informa-
tion on specific contaminant sources
and associated contaminants
degrading ground water quality.
And, for the first time, EPA asked
States and Tribes to provide infor-
mation on selected parameters that
will be used in the future to provide
an indication of spatial and tempo-
ral trends in ground water quality.
This chapter presents an over-
view of ground water use in the
United States as well as a discussion
detailing State-identified sources of
contamination and contaminants
that are adversely impacting our
Nation's ground water quality. State
progress in the development of
ambient ground water monitoring
networks is highlighted. The
progress made in developing
ground water indicators is also
described.
Ground Water Use
in the United States
In 1990, ground water supplied
51% of the Nation's population
with drinking water—the highest-
priority use of water. Overall,
ground water supplied approxi-
mately 20% (80.6 billion gallons per
day [bgd] out of a total 408.4 bgd)
of all water uses in the United
States. These water uses include
public and domestic water supply,
irrigation, livestock watering, min-
ing, and commercial, industrial, and
thermoelectric cooling applications.
Figure 1 illustrates the distribution
of ground water use among these
categories. As shown, irrigation
-------
2 Ground Water Quality
Figure 1
National Ground Water Use as a
Percentage of Total Withdrawals
Irrigation ,63%
Thermoelectric 0.7%
Commercial 1 %
Livestock Watering 3%
Domestic 4%
Mining 4%
Industrial 5%
Public Drinking
Water Supply 19%
Source: Open-File Report 92-63, U.S. Geological Survey.
Figure 2
Withdrawal and Discharge of Ground Water
as a Percentage of Contribution
Thermoelectric 0.3%
Commercial 0.5%
Livestock Watering 1.4%
Mining 1.9%
Domestic 1.9%
Industrial 2.3%
Public Drinking
Water Supply 8.7%
Irrigation 29.0%
Stream Baseflow
Maintenance 54.0%
Source: Open-File Report 92-63, U.S. Geological Survey, and National Water Summary 1986,
Hydrologlc Events and Ground-Water Quality, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply
Paper 2325.
(63%) and public water supply
(19%) are the largest uses of
ground water withdrawals.
One of the largest and most
important contributions of ground
water is not presented in Figure 1.
The volume of ground water that is
naturally discharged to streams and
other surface waterbodies, thereby
maintaining streamflow during per-
iods of low flow or drought condi-
tions, was previously unrecognized
and unquantified. This volume,
492 bgd, is measured using special
instruments or estimated using
stream gaging and hydraulic gradi-
ent data. The importance of ground
water flow into streams and other
surface waters cannot be underesti-
mated. Ground water can transport
contaminants to streams and affect
surface water quality and quantity,
which may impact drinking water
supplies drawn from surface waters,
fish and wildlife habitats, swimming,
boating, fishing, and commercial
navigation. Modifications to the
quantity or quality of ground water
discharged into surface water eco-
systems can also have major eco-
nomic repercussions as a result of
adverse impacts on recreation, pub-
lic health, fisheries, tourism, and
general ecosystem integrity.
The importance of ground
water to stream baseflow mainte-
nance is illustrated in Figure 2,
which shows all of the major uses of
ground water in relation to stream
baseflow maintenance. Stream
baseflow maintenance accounts for
54% of ground water discharges.
The next highest use of ground
water is irrigation, which accounts
for 29% of national ground water
use. Figure 3 shows that ground
water use for drinking water supply,
agricultural supply, industrial/
-------
Ground Water Quality 3
commercial supply, and mining and
thermoelectric supplies varies in
different regions of the country. For
example, ground water is more
heavily used for drinking water and
industrial/commercial supplies in
eastern States and for drinking
water and agricultural supplies in
western States.
Despite the variation in usage
across the Nation, ground water
used for drinking water supply is
one of the most critical uses. Data
reported by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) were used to
estimate ground water statistics
related to public water supply (PWS)
and private wells on a State-by-State
basis. Specifically, the data v/ere
used to determine whether there
was an increase or a decrease in the
volume of ground water used for
PWS from 1970 to 1990; the per-
cent change in volume during the
same period; the ratio of the
change in ground water use from
1980 to 1990 to the change in
surface water use during the same
period for PWS; the percent of
population dependent upon ground
Figure 3
Distribution of Ground Water Usage
Across the Nation
Drinking Water Supply (Public and Domestic)
i i- Agricultural Supply (Irrigation and Livestock)
•• Industrial/Commercial Supply
Mining and Thermoelectric Supply
Source: Open-File Report 92-63, U.S. Geological Survey.
-------
4 Ground Water Quality
Vulnerability
Virtually all aquifers have some
inherent susceptibility to contamina-
tion. To determine the susceptibility
of aquifers to contamination from
shallow (Class V) injection wells, EPA
performed a nationwide assess-
ment.* The purpose of the assess-
ment was to determine ground
water vulnerability and aquifer sensi-
tivity for each of the 48 contermi-
nous States.
Ground water vulnerability is
dependent upon the geology of the
physical system. However, popula-
tion density and distribution are also
important as the greatest number of
shallow injection wells occur in areas
of high population density. Aquifer
sensitivity is related to the potential
for contamination to occur. Aquifers
that have a high degree of vulner-
ability and occur in areas of high
population density are considered to
be the most sensitive. The assess-
ment determined that 44% of the
shallow unconfined aquifers in the
continental United States are highly
susceptible to contamination, and
that 60% have some degree of
susceptibility.
Estimates of inherent susceptibil-
ity can be obtained through a vari-
ety of assessment methods that
consider different characteristics of
the aquifer and/or overlying materi-
als. The assessment method selected
depends on the goal of the assess-
ment. Because the goal of, and
method for, each assessment may
be different, multiple assessments
may yield different results. Such a
seeming discrepancy in results does
not detract from the benefits of
susceptibility assessments for ground
water management purposes,
because results are goal-specific.
Several States have performed
their own statewide aquifer suscepti-
bility assessments to address a high-
priority management concern. For
example, Georgia performed a
"DRASTIC" assessment of suscepti-
bility and determined that approxi-
mately 65% of the State was either
moderately or highly susceptible to
surface-applied sources of contami-
nation. These results are similar to
those obtained by Pettyjohn et al.
(1991)* in which it was estimated
* Pettyjohn, W.A., M. Savoca, and Dale Self, 1991, Regional Assessment of Aquifer Vulnerability
and Sensitivity in the Conterminous United States, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada,
Oklahoma, 319 pages.
-------
Ground Water Quality 5
that 62% of Georgia is susceptible
to shallow subsurface sources of
contamination.
Although high-priority concerns
differ among States, the results of
the nationwide assessment show
that a significant part of the Nation
is highly susceptible to at least some
type of contamination. That such a
significant portion of the Nation's
ground water is susceptible attests
to the need for contaminant
prevention.
-------
6 Ground Water Quality
V"1'1"1'"'1 ' ''.'ll" 'i'1" '"""i n"i ' "' » ' i1""1 'i" 'I1 - 1.1.',!' • 'I, ' jfroiwisjij 'ik •»,•••:•,!, 'i * l " * it '^ 1 1 ->,j il*,..? 4' ^i*^" * "" '£yx i^' ^^^^f^^f^\f^^t^^^r^nf^^'/^t^^?f^9^' ^^^ffC^iv^'-f^ C?*v* 's'^f^ft "^ ' %3?\t'r$tfy^''$'y^\^v'''*'s^' ? ^&™kj?&,'*f''
ff\ \ i\i " ' "'/:'-x-?''A'Vi^5t*:^
" HIGHLIGHff H MIGHT HIGHLIGHT - -''y^V^^^^
If, , " i ' ' " t"! 1 ,'M',
* H >
N i
"' i ill |* i
11 HI i il) , , . i »
1 l 1 t II II 111 1 1 1 H i
i .Hit
(1 I i" i i n i i
i
j iii l ill ii i i i i i
r t
i ' •>
s *
J 'i, |,i n, i ',-
HI 1 1 Illllll H ° ^~ N '
H l> 1 III 1 1 111 1)1 1 1'i 1 < '
T ' 1 > .
Il II III II Illlf 1 1 H
ri IM ii i i P inii1 ii ! m1 i i
i ii i i i i i i i ,
• I,
&
L 11^
r fi
^ l l i i l ii il hi l * ^ "H
g i Hi* i i' t
r ' mi i
1- _,._ , , , , yjjllliij, ,,»,,, ,' i»"
Examples of Surface Water
Contaminated by Contaminated
Ground Water
EPA's Chesapeake Bay Office Discharge to Surface Water,* which
estimates that 30% to 40% of the identified seven methods commonly
nitrates entering the Bay, the major used to estimate the quantity of
pollutant in the Bay, comes from ground water discharging to surface
ground water discharge. Agriculture water. Although these methods are
is the primary source of these well established, published research
nitrates because farming is common that describes loadings from ground
in the huge watershed draining into water for specific locations is not
the Bay. Along with nitrates, pesti- abundant. Nevertheless, a review of
cides also enter the Bay. Pesticides the scientific literature identified
are used to control pests on land more than 1 00 studies nationwide
and may be destroying beneficial in which contaminated ground
organisms in ground water as well. water was discharged into and
Thus, the benefit that these organ- contaminated surface water. For
isms provide in cleaning ground example,
water before it enters the Bay is lost.
To further exacerbate the problem, • ln the Missouri Valley watershed,
the forests that surround the shore- 9round water accounts for 84% to
line continue to be cleared as devel- 95% of tne nitrate Ioadin9 to
opment spreads. Research shows surface water.
that trees are effective in removing „ On the St johrVs Rjver/ F|orjda/
nitrates and other pollutants from about 2QO/0 of ch|oride |oadj
ground water before it discharges to comes from nd water s ,
surface water, and thus another into cana)s that drajn into the river
water cleaning mechanism is lost. In
addition, the development that • At the Mahantango Creek water-
removes the trees adds yet more shed in Pennsylvania, a link was
pollutant load to the watershed. observed between the intensity of
This general model, with minor corn production and concentrations
variations, is common throughout of atrazine in ground water. As corn
the country. production and the use of atrazine
EPA recently published A Review increased, higher concentrations of
of Methods for Assessing Nonpoint atrazine were observed in more
Source Contaminated Ground Water wells. Specifically, atrazine was
*U.S. EPA, 1991, Office of Water, EPA 570/9-91-010.
s£
-------
Ground Water Quality 7
detected at concentrations less than
EPA standards in 74% of all sampled
wells.
• In Rehoboth Bay, Indian River
Bay, and Little Assawoman Bay,
Delaware, over 75% of nitrogen
loading comes from ground water
discharge.
• In Key Largo Marine Sanctuary,
Florida, ground water discharge
showed numerous pesticide peaks
and heavy metal concentrations
100 to 10,000 times above sea
water levels.
• In Cedar River, Iowa, the pesti-
cides atrazine and deethylatrazine
were found in the river and 75%
was contributed from ground water.
• In the Indian River estuary in
Florida, dissolved reactive phosphate
was found and 99% came from
ground water discharge.
-------
8 Ground Water Quality
water for drinking water supplies in
1990; and the percent of ground
water used for private drinking
water supplies. Ground water statis-
tics are provided in Appendix A,
Table A-1. Figure 4 illustrates the
percentage of population depen-
dent upon ground water for drink-
ing water in 1990. As shown, New
Mexico, Mississippi, and Florida rely
on ground water for 90% or more
of their drinking water supply. Fol-
lowing is a brief summary of signifi-
cant trends.
For the period 1970 to 1990,
• Twenty-one States and one Terri-
tory increased ground water use for
Figure 4
Percent of Population Dependent on Ground
Water for Drinking Water
1990
•O American Samoa
•OGuarn
Source: Open-File Report 92-63, U.S. Geological Survey.
90-100%
70-89%
50-69%
30-49%
20-29%
0-19%
public water systems at a rate
greater than overall public water
use.
• Alaska, Arizona, California,
Florida, Kentucky, Missouri, and
Puerto Rico more than doubled
their use of ground water for public
supply.
• Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Mary-
land, Minnesota, Montana, Massa-
chusetts, New Mexico, North Caro-
lina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Wyoming nearly doubled their
use of ground water for public
supply.
For the period 1980 to 1990,
• For incremental drinking water
use, ground water supplied two of
every three additional gallons of
water supplied by public water
systems nationally.
In 1990,
• More than half of the national
population was dependent upon
ground water for drinking water.
• More than half of the population
(51% to 93%) in 30 States relied on
ground water for drinking water.
• Approximately 32% of the
national population dependent
upon ground water obtained their
drinking water from private wells.
• Ninety-five percent of the popu-
lation in rural areas relied on
ground water for their water supply.
• In Kentucky, Maine, North Caro-
lina, South Carolina, and West Vir-
ginia, 65% to 77% of the popula-
tion relied on ground water from
private wells.
-------
Ground Water Quality 9
• At least 40% of the population in
23 States and 1 Territory relied on
ground water from private wells.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water moves slowly, on
the order of less than an inch to
tens of feet per day. Consequently,
contaminants introduced into the
subsurface are less likely to be
diluted than those introduced into
more rapidly moving surface water.
The slow movement of ground
water often results in a delay in the
detection of ground water contami-
nation. In some cases, contaminants
introduced into the subsurface more
than 10 years ago are only now
being detected and affecting
ground water uses.
While the larger ground water
resource is of good quality, localized
areas of high demand and chemical
use can be affected by contamina-
tion. This situation exists because
locations of more productive
ground water yields are often places
that allow more infiltration and
recharge of aquifers, carrying con-
taminants more easily to ground
water. This vast resource remains
exceedingly vulnerable to contami-
nation by toxic compounds, bacte-
ria, viruses, and inorganic contami-
nants. In one study of five midwes-
tem States, the Ground Water
Protection Council* estimated that
between 15% and 48% of the land
area is underlain by highly vulner-
able aquifers.
Contamination of ground water
typically occurs in localized areas.
These incidents are frequently seri-
ous and often pose threats to
human health or result in increased
costs to consumers. Many locations
within every State have shown
water quality degradation that
constrains the use of ground water
resources. As ground water quality
is degraded, Americans are becom-
ing increasingly aware that contami-
nated ground water is both difficult
and expensive to clean up.
The following statistics help to
illustrate the prevalence of localized
ground water contamination
incidents:
• More than 85% of abandoned
hazardous waste disposal sites
(Superfund sites) have some degree
of ground water contamination.
Most of these sites impact aquifers
that are currently used or could
potentially be used for drinking
water.
• Of the contaminated! aquifers at
Superfund sites, 62% discharge into
surface waters. Of these aquifers,
38% are used to supply drinking
water. Nineteen percent of these
contaminated aquifers discharge to
sensitive ecological environments.
• At 49% of the Superfund sites
where cleanup costs are expected to
exceed $20 million, dealing with
large volumes of contaminated
ground water is a key factor
contributing to that cost.
• Currently, 418 land disposal
facilities are subject to ground water
monitoring requirements under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). Of these, an estimated
37% are undertaking measures to
clean up existing ground water
contamination. The EPA estimates
yS^jX ' *•?>•• V ** ' "1 •* *'J- '-i^?^ * '•"•4 * rf 'r '' "^#88
on, aselgroufid 5water%kf3?
\4t*,W?i?i,fi-:,'»•> U- Sif- •: 'Ji9S&'%
* Wayne A. Pettyjohn, Aquifer Vulnerability, Sensitivity, and Ground Water Quality in Selected States, Ground Water Protection Council, 1994,
94 pages.
-------
r
10 Ground Water Quality
that another 10% of the land
disposal facilities will detect ground
water contaminants in the next
2 years.
• EPA estimates that 1.2 million
federally regulated underground
storage tanks (USTs) are buried at
over 500,000 sites nationwide. An
estimated 139,000 USTs have
leaked and impacted ground water
quality.
• EPA estimates that the total num-
ber of leaking USTs could reach
400,000 in the next several years.
The EPA requested that States
provide information on the degra-
dation of ground water resources
used for public drinking water sup-
ply. As a result, 21 States reported
on the quality of ground water sup-
plied by a total of 20,294 public
water systems that serve approxi-
mately 52 million people. Among
these States:
• Nineteen reported incidents of
public water systems that use
ground water exceeding the Maxi-
mum Contaminant Level (MCL) for
at least one contaminant. These
exceedances occurred in 3% of the
ground-water-supplied public water
systems and affected drinking water
quality for 1.4 million Americans.
• Eleven reported incidents in
which ground water supplied by
public water systems exceeded the
MCL for nitrate. Barium, arsenic,
and fluoride were cited most
frequently among the other 12
inorganic contaminants reported to
have exceeded MCLs.
• Fifteen volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs) and eight pesticides
were noted to have exceeded MCLs
in ground-water-supplied public
water systems. Among the most
frequently cited of these com-
pounds were trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, and benzene.*
Atrazine, alachlor, and lindane were
the most frequently cited pesticides.
Sixteen States also reported on
the occurrence of ground water
contaminants at levels that are
approaching the MCL. The
concentrations of these contami-
nants in ground water do not yet
present human health hazards.
Nonetheless, they provide a clear
indication that future uses of
ground water may be impaired. Of
the 16 States reporting:
• Fourteen States detected nitrate
at a level between 50% and 100%
of the MCL in ground water sup-
plied by public water systems.
Among the 12 other inorganic con-
taminants reported to be approach-
ing the MCL, the most frequently
cited were cadmium, nickel, sele-
nium, and thallium.
• Fourteen VOCs and 13 pesticides
were reported at levels that
approached MCLs. The most
frequently cited of these com-
pounds were benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, and vinyl chloride.4"
Lindane, simazine, and aldicarb
were the most frequently cited
pesticides.
* Trichloroethylene is a carcinogen (i.e., cancer-causing substance) used in textiles, adhesives, and metal degreasers. Tetrachloroethylene is
a carcinogen used in dry cleaning and other solvents. Benzene is a widely used carcinogenic component of gasoline, pesticides, paints, and
plastics.
* Carbon tetrachloride is a carcinogenic component of solvents and their degradation products. Vinyl chloride is a carcinogen that may leach
from polyvinyl chloride pipe or be formed by the breakdown of other solvents.
-------
Ground Water Quality 11
Ground Water
Contaminant Sources
Ground water quality may be
adversely impacted by a variety of
potential contaminant sources. EPA
presented a list of potential
contaminant sources in the 1994
305(b) guidelines and requested
each State to identify and rank the
specific sources that threaten their
ground water resources. Ranking
was based on the best professional
judgment of the State ground water
officials and took into account the
number of each type of source in
the State, the location of the various
sources relative to ground water
used for drinking water purposes,
the size of the population at risk
from contaminated drinking water,
the risk posed to human health
and/or the environment from
releases, hydrogeologic sensitivity
(the ease with which contaminants
enter and travel through soil and
reach aquifers), and the findings of
the State's ground water protection
strategy and/or related studies.
Figure 5 lists potential ground
water contaminant sources ranked
according to the number of States
that identified each source as a
high, medium, low, or unspecified
priority. As shown, the greatest
number of States reported that leak-
ing underground storage tanks
(USTs) are a source of ground water
contamination with 41 States rating
USTs as a high-priority source of
ground water contamination in their
, 1994 305(b) reports. Montana indi-
cated that there have been 963
confirmed releases from USTs and
that half of these releases impacted
ground water resources. Leaking
USTs have also caused serious
ground water pollution problems in
Rhode Island with more than 511
leaking USTs identified in the State
since 1985. Many of these sites have
required active remediation of con-
taminated ground water. In several
cases, restoration of contaminated
ground water was deemed infea-
sible, and alternative measures had
to be taken to supply affected areas
with drinking water.
The primary causes of leakage in
USTs are faulty installation and cor-
rosion of tanks and pipeline:;. It is
estimated that, on a national basis,
139,000 tanks have leaked and
impacted ground water quality, and
reports of leaking USTs continue to
increase. Rhode Island indicated that
new reports of leaking UST sites
requiring investigation for potential
ground water contamination num-
bered 50 to 70 per year during
1992-1993. Montana indicates that
new reports of leaking USTs come in
at a rate of 20 to 30 per month.
This rise in the number of reports of
leaking USTs most likely reflects
increased awareness, stricter require-
ments on site assessments upon
closure of tanks, and monetary aid
to assist responsible parties to clean
up the contaminated sites. In addi-
tion, increased reporting of UST
leaks may reflect an increase in leaks
as older tanks corrode.
In general, most USTs are found
in the more heavily developed
urban and suburban areas of a
State. They are primarily used to
hold petroleum products such as
gasoline. Ninety-five percent of the
USTs in Texas contain petroleum
products. Rhode Island reports that,
of 255 active sites, approximately
75% involve motor fuels (gasoline
-------
12 Ground Water Quality
and diesel fuel). The majority of
these leaks at the active sites in
Rhode Island occurred at gasoline
service stations. North Carolina
reported that leaking USTs
accounted for 87% of the ground
water contamination incidents
occurring from October 1991
through September 1993. Of these
incidents, 86% were related to the
release of gasoline. Maine reports
that petroleum leakage has con-
taminated over 200 private wells
between 1990 and 1992.
Septic tanks and shallow injec-
tion wells were listed as the third
and eleventh most common sources
of ground water contamination,
respectively. Shallow injection wells
(classified as Class V wells in the
Underground Injection Control
Program) inject fluids into or above
Figure 5
Contaminant Sources Prioritized by States
Sources
Underground Storage Tanks
Pesticide Applications
Septic Tanks
Fertilizer Applications
Landfills (unpermitted)
Landfills (permitted)
Surface Impoundments
Aboveground Storage Tanks
Land Application
Animal Feedlots
Shallow Injection Wells
Mining and Mine Drainage
Road Salting
Urban Runoff
Transportation of Materials
Pipelines and Sewer Lines
Saltwater Intrusion
Waste Tailings
Irrigation Practices
Deep Injection Wells
High Priority
Medium Priority
Low Priority
D Unspecified Priority
_L
_L
_L
10 20 30 40
Number of State, Tribes, and Territories Reporting
50
52
48
48
46
46
45
42
40
34
33
31 •
28
28
25
25
24
24
23
22
20
Source: 1994 Section 305(b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, and Territories.
-------
Ground Water Quality 13
underground sources of drinking
water. They include dry wells, septic
systems, geothermal reinjection
wells, industrial and utility disposal
wells, and aquifer recharge wells.
New Jersey reports that in a four-
county study, including Passaic,
Somerset, Camden, and Ocean
Counties, subsurface discharges of
wastewater from industrial septic
systems, dry wells, and service
station drains are a major source of
drinking water contamination. One-
hundred and twenty-four private
wells and five municipal wells were
contaminated—half by subsurface
discharges.
Contamination of drinking
water from shallow injection wells
may take years to be detected in
nearby wells. A chemical company
in the Bethpage/Hicksville area of
New York disposed of industrial
wastewater containing a carcino-
genic compound—vinyl chloride—
into sumps. Two million gallons of
wastes were discharged each year
for 19 years. This led to extreme
contamination of the Magothy aqui-
fer. Fourteen wells, including five
municipal supply wells, were con-
taminated with industrial organic
wastes. An estimated 100,000
people were affected by the con-
taminated wells.
One obstacle in remediating
ground water contaminated by
shallow injection wells is determin-
ing the responsible parties. Three
wells were closed in Burlington,
Maine, due to trichloroethylene
(TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
contamination. The closure of the
wells affected 50% of the town's
primary well field and approximately
20,000 people. Two nearby manu-
facturing plants are unconfirmed
but suspected sources of contamina-
tion. Both facilities have dry wells
and septic systems that contain TCE
and PCE. The town continues to
supply water to residents using a
wellfield that previously served as a
backup water supply.
In severe cases, even when
responsible parties are required to
remediate the contaminated area,
costs are high—often too high for
the responsible party or parties to
afford. From the 1950s through
1981, a thermostat manufacturer in
South Cairo, New York, poured
wastes containing TCE and PCE
sludges down drains connected to
an abandoned septic system. As a
result, high levels of TCE and PCE
were detected in five privately
owned wells in the vicinity. A 1983
Consent Order required the manu-
facturer to clean up the site,, supply
bottled water, and install, monitor,
and maintain carbon filter systems
for the five affected homes. In 1985,
the manufacturer filed for
bankruptcy, and EPA has assumed
responsibility for maintaining the
carbon filter systems and monitor-
ing. EPA has also installed two new
carbon filtration units and an air
stripping system and drilled a new
well in an effort to provide clean
water. Future remedial action will
include the provision of an alternate
water supply through a pipeline at
estimated capital costs of
$2,270,000 and annual operation
and management costs of
$100,000.
A March 22, 1991, report
prepared for EPA entitled Drinking
Water Contamination by Shallow
Injection Wells estimated that shal-
low injection wells contaminated
the drinking water of approximately
-------
14 Ground Water Quality
1.3 million people at a cost ranging
from $30,000 to $3.8 million.
Ground Water
Contaminants
EPA also requested that States
identify and rank the contaminants
impacting their ground water
resources. This information was also
based upon the best professional
judgment of the State ground water
experts. Factors that were consid-
ered include the areal extent of
contamination, the location of
contamination relative to ground
water supplies used for drinking
water purposes, the size of the
population at risk from drinking
water threatened by the contami-
nant, the risk posed to human
health and/or the environment from
this contaminant, hydrogeologic
sensitivity, and findings of the
State's ground water protection
strategy or other reports.
As shown in Figure 6, the great-
est number of States cited petro-
leum compounds as a high-priority
contaminant in their ground water.
Petroleum compounds are generally
Figure 6
Ground Water Contaminants Prioritized by States
Sources
Petroleum Compounds
Nitrate
Metals
Other Organic Chemicals
Organic Pesticides
Bacteria
Radionuclides
Inorganic Pesticides
Brine/Salinity
Fluorides
Protozoa
Viruses
Other Inorganic Agricultural Chemicals
Other Organic Agricultural Chemicals
Total Dissolved Solids
• High Priority
• Medium Priority
• Low Priority
0 Unspecified Priority
L
0
I
I
I
_L
10 20 30 40
Number of States, Tribes, and Territories Reporting
50
48
47
46
46
44
42
32
32
31
22
16
13
13
10
9
Source: 1994 Section 305{b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, and Territories.
-------
Ground Water Quality 15
associated with underground and
aboveground storage tanks, and
their frequent detection in ground
water is consistent with the high
priority assigned by the States to
storage tanks as a contaminant
source.
Petroleum is a complex mixture
of more than 200 different com-
pounds. Studies have found that
four compounds (benzene, toluene,
ethyl benzene, and xylenes) make
up 95% of the compounds
detected in ground water impacted
by petroleum releases. It is generally
these compounds that are most
frequently detected in contaminated
ground water. Using this informa-
tion, Montana was able to relate
five incidents of benzene contami-
nation in public water supplies to
leaking USTs. ,
Nitrate was the second most
common ground water contaminant
cited in State 305(b) reports.
Twenty-four States indicated that
nitrate was a major concern. Ten of
these States indicated that nitrate
was the prime contaminant of
concern. High concentrations of
nitrate in drinking water can cause
serious human health problems,
especially in babies. Exposure to
high concentrations of nitrate (>10
mg/L) in drinking water causes
methemoglobinemia, or blue baby
syndrome, an inability to fix oxygen
in the blood.
Nitrate is soluble in water, and,
as a consequence, it is easily trans-
ported from the soil surface to
ground water. Nitrate is applied
extensively on agricultural fields,
residential lawns, and golf courses
to promote crop and lawn growth.
Sources of nitrate include fertilizer,
domestic wastewater and sludge,
and septic tanks. Natural
concentrations of nitrate in ground
water vary, but a concentration of
3 mg/L is often considered to be
typical outside of areas of naturally
high nitrate levels. Concentrations
measured above this level iare typi-
cally considered to be the result of
human activity. Elevated concentra-
tions of nitrate in ground water are
frequently considered to be an
important indication of the
degradation of ground water
resources. The EPA drinking water
standard for nitrate is 10 mg/L.
Following are highlights of
several State programs focusing on
nitrates.
Maine
The Maine Soil and Water Con-
servation Districts collected soil from
the plow layer of 249 corn fields as
part of a Manure Management
Project. Soil nitrate was found to be
twice the level needed to produce a
normal corn,crop, suggesting a
threat that the excess nitrate could
leach to ground water. In response,
the Maine Cooperative Extension
Service developed guidelines for
manure utilization that include
(1) the analysis of nitrate levels in
soils and plants prior to fertilization,
and (2) fertilization according to
realistic crop uptake rates.
South Dakota
The Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett
Rural Clean Water Program exam-
ined the impacts of agricultural
chemical practices on ground water
quality. A total of 114 monitoring
wells were installed at seven study
sites that represented both farmed
and unfarmed areas. The study
results showed that nitrate concen-
trations in ground water ranged
from less than 0.1 mg/L to more
-------
16 Ground Water Quality
/- — • ; : .:,'.- $*?*& '.t
1 ' ' •' s[
.. ' . '.
~ " H i I i ' ««'
fe.
:~
1
p.
•• IMP '> *"
<
> (-
,.M ' ' , ,, (
,
: • .1 ;' :
• h * * / *• .
Frequently Detected Pesticide
Residues in Ground Water
Ground water monitoring for (0.6%) yielded samples in which
agricultural chemicals during the atrazine levels exceeded the MCL.
past decade has shown that this Alachlor is the common name
vital resource is susceptible to con- of an herbicide that is commonly
tamination. The tabulated informa- applied to weeds in corn, cotton,
tion on the following pages shows soybeans, and peanuts. Alachlor has
the results of recent monitoring for a moderate potential to be trans-
pesticides in the ground water of ported to ground water and is the
some States. These studies indicate ninth most frequently detected pes-
that among the most frequently ticide residue listed in the Pesticides
detected pesticides are those with in Ground Water Database. Of the
active ingredients from the triazine 26,856 wells tested for alachlor
(atrazine, cyanazine, simazine, and residues in the past two decades,
prometon) and amide (alachlor, 543 (2%) contained detectable
metolachlor, and propachlor) herbi- levels of this herbicide. Alachlor
cide families. While a number of residues that exceeded the MCL for
pesticides have been detected in this compound were found in 1 01
ground water, however, very few wells (0.4%).
. are found at levels that exceed Simazine is the common name
health-based standards for drinking of an herbicide used primarily to
water. control weeds in corn, vineyards,
Atrazine is the common name citrus orchards, and other agricul-
of an herbicide that is frequently tural crops. Simazine has a moder-
used to control weeds in corn, ate potential to be transported to
sorghum, and other agricultural ground water. The Pesticides in
crops. Atrazine has a high potential Ground Water Database lists
to be transported to ground water, simazine as the tenth most fre-
and is the seventh most frequently quently detected pesticide residual
detected active ingredient tracked in found in ground water over the
the U.S. Environmental Protection past two decades. Simazine residues
Agency's Pesticides in Ground Water were found in 486 (2.2%) of the
Database.* Atrazine residues were 22,374 well samples that were
found in 1,512 (5.6%) of the reported from 1971 to 1991. Only
26,909 well samples that were 89 of the wells (0.4%) yielded
collected for studies conducted samples in which simazine levels
across the United States from 1 971 exceeded the MCL.
to 1 991 . Only 1 72 of the wells
*U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1 992, EPA Pesticides in Ground Water Database:
A Compilation of Monitoring Studies from 1971-1991, EPA 734-12-92-001, 182 pages.
*- ' i i ?"'"•> K - v <> * \ /*, ' r '*"'"„ %„ „„< °* >~ •>*( '"?•!
• .•: : J "^ " s 5 » V •> ,V% 4 '• f < v ' ; '<•! < " ^ , *•*/'" " " , '' ^v '' _ __ *|
-------
Ground Water Quality 17
Factors Affecting
Pesticide Occurrence
in Ground Water
In a study of the corn and
soybean producing region of the
midcontinental United States,
researchers sought to understand
the occurrence and distribution of
selected agricultural chemicals and
their degradation products in shal-
low aquifers.* The study region
included parts of Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.
Nearly 60% of the pesticides and
nitrogen fertilizers used in the
United States is applied to crops in
these 12 States. A total of 303 wells
were sampled during both the
preplanting and postplanting
seasons. Herbicides and metabolites
were detected in 24% of the
samples. None of the pesticides
were detected at levels that
exceeded the MCL
Many of the studies summa-
rized in the attached table sought
to discern relationships between the
occurrence of pesticides in shallow
ground water and specific aquifer or
land use conditions that rendered
the cropland particularly susceptible
to ground water contamination. In
a recent study of agricultural chemi-
cals in the ground water of
Nebraska,"1" the authors concluded
that the following factors may be
related to pesticide occurrence in
ground water:
• Nearly 70% of the atrazine
detections occurred in highly vulner-
able areas where nonpoint nitrate
contamination has also been docu-
mented.
• The dispersed pattern of alachlor
detections may suggest contamina-
tion that originated from misuse,
overuse, back siphoning, or spills at
mixing/loading areas, rather than
through normal agricultural applica-
tion.
• Some detections of propachlor in
ground water may be related to use
of the pesticide to control weeds
around the wellhead of unsealed
irrigation wells.
*Burkart, M.R., and D.W. Kolpin, 1993, Hydrologic and land-use factors associated with herbi-
cides and nitrate in near-surface aquifers, Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp.
646-656.
+Exner, M.E., and R.F. Spalding, 1990, Occurrence of Pesticides and Nitrate in Nebraska's Ground
Water, Water Center, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Nebraska,
Report WC1, 34 pp.
-------
18 Ground Water Quality
* Recent Monitoring Results for Pesticides in Ground Water / ' , ^ " <*,'"'' ''=''', ^ ^
i
I1;:;; State
California
j Colorado
Maryland
Nebraska
South Dakota
Study Purpose1
Evaluate ground water
quality for 1 5 major
ground water basins
in Southern California2
Summary of sampling
for pesticides in California
ground water from July 1 ,
1992, to June 30,1 9933
Summary of sampling for
pesticides in California
ground water from July 1 ,
1993, to June 30, 19944
Monitor South Platte
Alluvial Aquifer for presence
of commercial fertilizers and
pesticides in ground water5
Document statewide water
quality conditions and
establish basis for long-term
water quality monitoring6
Characterize the areal
distribution of agrichemicals
in ground water and
correlate occurrence with
parameters that enhance
leaching7
Assess presence of pesticides
and nitrogen-based fertilizers
in ground water in 1 9938
Evaluate effectiveness of BMPs
on reducing pesticides and
nitrate in the Big Sioux aquifer,
Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett project
area (1 0-year study)9
No. Wells
in Study
3,500
municipal
water supply
wells
Varies by
analyte
(from 393
to 1,271 wells)
Varies by
analyte
(from 261
to 1,328 wells)
96
Varies by
analyte
(from 7
to 38 wells)
Varies by
analyte
(from 35 to
2,260 wells)
44
73
Pesticides
(Percent of wells with pesticides detected below the MCL)
O
IN"
3
3
6
30
Alachlor
2
5
1
14
33
Atrazine
3
1
26
24
13
6
3
Bentazone
2
1
Chlordane
Chlorpyrifos
Cyanazine
5
1
1
4
0.
U
CO
a
IS
u
5
14
8
27
Dieldrin
4
6
|
5
3
4
•c
T3
£
j •» Detected at levels below the MCL. Number of wells unspecified.
;,, • 'The reader is referred to the footnoted studies for additional information concerning sampling strategies, detection limits, and more detailed data.
i i zAnderson, Usa,1 994, Groundwater Quality, A Regional Survey of Groundwater Quality in the Metropolitan Water District Service Area, Metropolitan
, Water District of Southern California, Report Number 991 .
'California Environmental Protection Agency, 1993, Sampling for Pesticide Residues in California Well Water, 1993 Update, Well Inventory Data Base,
Department of Pesticide Regulation.
1 4 California Environmental Protection Agency, 1994, Sampling for Pesticide Residues in California Well Water, 1994 Update, Well Inventory Data Base,
; Department of Pesticide Regulation.
i s Colorado Department of Health, Report to the Commissioner of Agriculture, Colorado Department of Agriculture, Ground Water Monitorina Activities,
', South Ptotte Alluvial Aquifer, 1992-1993.
ti 6Bolton, David W., A State-Wide Ground-Water Quality Network for Maryland: Network Design, Description of Sampling Sites, and Initial Ground-Water-
Quolity Data, Department of Natural Resources, Maryland Geological Survey, Prepared in cooperation with the United States Department of Interior
* Geological Survey, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the Maryland Department of the Environment.
;! 'Exner, Mary E., and Roy F. Spalding, 1 990, Occurrence of Pesticides and Nitrate in Nebraska's Ground Water, Water Center, Institute of Agriculture and
v Natural Resources, University of Nebraska.
ti 8 Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 1994, 7993 Pesticide and Nitrogen Sampling Program, prepared for the 1994 South Dakota
in Legislature, prepared by the Division of Environmental Regulation, Ground-Water Quality Program.
'Rural Clean Water Program, 1 991, South Dakota Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett, Project 20, Ten Year Report, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
r the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the Brookings, Kingsbury, and Hamlin Counties.
NOTE: Blank boxes indicate that data were not available.
sV: ;",V:"<:i: .,•::". ,;!•; !„ '.' • • •"."'' , ''!:... :, ^"'V ,• \:li > <\ ''^'^ J^ ^ ' , ;, ' ^y;:^^>^/^X>*'v^%i^^^£'^?^,/<^^^
-------
Ground Water Quality 19
Pesticides
(Percent of wells with pesticides detected below the MCL)
Fonofos
<1
10
t.
O
1
H
•
Heptachlor epoxide
•
Lindane
•
4
3
Methoxychlor
•
Metolachlor
•
5
1
13
16
Metribuzin
8
Picloram
2
4
Prometon
<1
<1
3
1
Propachlor
12
1
1
W
•
Simazine
•
3
2
5
8
Terbufos
<1
Toxaphene
•
Trifluralin
<1
10
Pesticides
(Percent of wells with pesticides
detected above the MCL)
0
4
(N-
0
Alachlor
1
0
Atrazine
3
Bentazone
<1
Chlordane
<1
0.
%
a
1
Heptachlor
<1
Heptachlor epoxide
<1
-------
20 Ground Water Quality
' /^v '•••• "• • ' : ; :-- •\^^'^i^^^^^^&^^^^^^
HIGHUGHU H I JJGHT HIGHLIGHT '' "..-..;' ^^^S^SSl^ ^Sj&^i&fSSi^ IISE®!
1 ^V ^jf ' ' '$• ^ ''<" 'f'-f'''~ ' ^ '""'•.'C'^ '^ ' ' ^' ^Iff\« «'/•*•''?•* ** ''>' 'V'":>"'V..V' '^v. ''•• ^sf*4,'1^f**^'^<3'*k^™/'?%Xs' ^/'tS'*' •&"'''"'$&&,& 'v ^'' ^
y^"*"**^ - -. ''V/-vN^;?^^^
^ .' •
t 1 II 1 kl M iMh h I (
' !
' ' if !
^
-
^ M
-
1 , 1
,
'' '
'
'~
, .. ., / '•'. .'.:.
-..'.••! "•:.'.'. • ••' ,' • ' ','•' ."- •-;'.
A National Look at Nitrates*
In addition to work being con- carbonate bedrock. It was shown
ducted by States, the U.S. Geologi- that nitrate concentrations were
cal Survey evaluated nitrate concen- highest in areas of sandy soil.
trations on a national basis. The U.S. The analysis indicated that
Geological Survey conducted an nitrate concentrations exceeding the
analysis of approximately 12,000 MCL were most frequently detected
water samples collected from wells in irrigation and stock wells (1 6%)
and springs in 1 8 of the 20 Study as opposed to private wells (9%)
Units of the National Water Quality and public water supply wells (1 %).
Assessment and five supplemental However, EPA still urges well owners
study areas. who know or suspect that their
The analysis indicated that wells are affected by nitrates to have
about 50% of the wells were the water tested. Because of the
characterized by elevated levels many factors that may influence the
of nitrate (levels that exceeded contamination of drinking water
3 mg/L, which is typically held as wells, EPA recommends an
the threshold indicating human approach that focuses on pollution
impacts). Nitrate concentrations prevention. Among the steps that
exceeded the EPA maximum con- should be considered to protect the
taminant level (MCL) of 1 0 mg/L in Nation's ground water resources are
approximately 21 % of the samples. appropriate applications of pesti-
Samples collected from agricultural cides and fertilizers, site-specific
areas had significantly higher nitrate assessments to accurately target and
concentrations than other land use protect vulnerable ground water
settings (for example, forest), with supplies, identification and protec-
1 6% of the samples exceeding the tion of ground water recharge areas
MCL The nitrate concentrations and wellhead areas, more careful
were generally highest in the North- use of flood irrigation, and contin-
eastern, Northern Plains, and Pacific ued efforts to identify problem
States. This reflects the fact that areas.
much of the agricultural land in
these regions of the country is
underlain by permeable, more well-
drained materials, such as unconsoli-
dated sand and gravel, or fractured
* From Nutrients in Croundwater and Surface Water of the United States - An Analysis of Data
Through 1992, Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4031, by O.K. Mueller, P.A.
Hamilton, D.R. Helsel, K.J. Hitt, and B.C Ruddy, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado,
1995.
•'•' :: " ;:: ••'•' "''" ' ' " ^ '•''1 ^ ' ;
-------
Ground Water Quality 21
Occurrence of Nitrate Concentrations Associated
with Hydrogeologic and Land Use Factors
Forest land had significantly
lower concentrations of nitrate
in ground water than other
land use settings.
22% of wells in agricultural areas
exceeded the MCL for nitrate.
9% of private wells and 1 % of
public supply wells exceeded the
MCL for nitrate.
16% of irrigation and stock wells
exceeded the MCL for nitrate.
At shallow depths, nitrate
concentrations were higher in
well-drained areas where the
water table was >5 feet deep.
Median nitrate concentrations
were highest in areas with
sandy soils.
Concentrations were greatest in
unconsolidated sand and gravel
and in fractured carbonate
bedrock aquifers.
Shallow wells (<100 feet)
typically reflect land use
effects.
Nitrate concentrations generally
decrease with depth (>100 feet),
as a function of soil and aquifer
characteristics.
-------
22 Ground Water Quality
than 70 mg/L. Fifteen percent of
the 3,092 samples exceeded the
EPA MCL of 10 mg/L. The highest
nitrate concentrations were found in
the top 20 feet of the aquifer, and
nitrate concentrations were signifi-
cantly higher at the farmed sites.
Arizona
Nitrate is one of the most com-
mon pollutants in Arizona's ground
water. Large portions of aquifers
within the Salt River Valley, includ-
ing areas within Glendale, Mesa,
Chandler, and Phoenix, contain
ground water with nitrate concen-
trations high enough to render the
water unfit for consumption. In
addition, high nitrate levels occur in
Marana, St. David, Quartzsite, Bull-
head City, and other areas. Septic
tank discharges are particularly
prevalent sources of nitrate in rural
areas and have often contaminated
drinking water wells.
As a consequence, the following
investigations are under way:
• Studies will be conducted in the
Bullhead City/Riviera, Fort Valley,
and Casa Grande areas to investi-
gate the impacts of septic tanks and
other nitrate contributions.
• Maps that reflect nitrate concen-
trations in Arizona's ground water
are being produced to target
prevention activities.
Georgia
The Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) sampled
over 5,000 shallow domestic drink-
ing water wells for nitrate/nitrite.
Results indicate that only 1 % of the
5,000 wells is characterized by
nitrate concentrations that exceed
the MCL of 10 mg/L for nitrate in
drinking water. Water from 97% of
the wells is characterized by nitrate
concentrations of less than 5 mg/L.
Although it does not appear that
nitrate is a widespread problem in
Georgia, the EPD observed a very
slight increase in average nitrate
concentrations in the recharge areas
of some Coastal Plain aquifers.
These increases may indicate a
future increase in nitrate in the
down-dip confined portions of the
aquifers. EPD will continue to moni-
tor changes in the aquifers.
Iowa
Agriculture, Iowa's largest indus-
try, is currently the primary source
of ground water contamination in
the State. One of the most signifi-
cant impacts is related to the appli-
cation of commercial fertilizers. An
estimated 30% to 50% of the nitro-
gen applied as fertilizer to Iowa
farm acres is volatilized and lost to
the atmosphere or is lost through
infiltration through the soil. Cur-
rently, approximately 18% of the
State's rural population is served by
water with nitrate concentrations in
excess of the MCL (10 mg/L as
nitrogen). However, only 10 out of
1,130 ground-water-based commu-
nity public water supplies have
levels of nitrate exceeding the MCL.
High levels of nitrate affect a rela-
tively low percentage of the popula-
tion of lowans served (0.3%).
Ground Water
Monitoring
Section 106(e) of the Clean
Water Act requests that each State
monitor the quality of its ground
water resources and report the
status to Congress biennially. The
most comprehensive approach to
-------
Ground Water Quality 23
determining overall ground water
quality is to use an ambient ground
water monitoring network. How-
ever, the expense associated with
installation and maintenance of such
a network is often high and,
depending upon State priorities, it
may be prohibitive. Despite this,
many States are taking the initiative
to develop programs designed to
evaluate the quality and vulnerabil-
ity of their ground water resources,
to identify potential threats to
ground water quality, and to
determine ways to protect their
ground water resources from degra-
dation. Thirty-three States indicated
that they have implemented state-
wide ground water monitoring pro-
grams that focus on one or more
contaminants. This is an increase of
four States from what was reported
in 1992. Additionally, six States
indicated that they are in the pro-
cess of developing similar programs.
Following is a brief description of
several State monitoring programs.
Pennsylvania - Fixed
Station and Ambient
Monitoring Programs
To improve the effectiveness of
its ground water resource protection
efforts, the Pennsylvania Bureau of
Water Quality Management devel-
oped two ground water quality
monitoring programs—the Fixed
Station Monitoring Network and the
Ambient Ground Water Quality
Survey Programs. These joint pro-
grams enable Pennsylvania to
(1) detect emerging ground water
problems, (2) evaluate the impacts
of unmonitored sources of pollution,
and (3) assess the overall
effectiveness of their regulatory
program.
Pennsylvania's Fixed Station
Monitoring Program was developed
following division of the State
into 478 ground water basins
(Figure 7). These basins were then
prioritized based on ground water
use, land use (potential unmoni-
tored sources of pollution), and
environmental sensitivity. The 50
highest ranking basins were selected
for inclusion in the Fixed Station
Monitoring Network Program.
To date, 537 ground water
monitoring stations have been
established in 20 basins covering
2,318 square miles. The average
ground water basin is 125 square
miles in size and includes 25 moni-
toring locations, which are selected
to represent the ambient ground
water quality of a 4-square-mile
area. Each ground water sample is
analyzed for 27 parameters.
Figure 7
Ground Water Basin Map of Pennsylvania
FSN Basin Established
Pilot Study Basin
Ambient Survey Completed
Source: 1994 Water Quality Assessment, 305(b) Report, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
-------
24 Ground Water Quality
Pennsylvania's Ambient Ground
Water Quality Survey Program was
initiated, in 1988 to obtain ground
water quality data in those basins
not covered by the Fixed Station
Program. Because these basins are
considered to be less vulnerable,
ground water samples are sched-
uled to be collected only two times.
Florida - Comprehensive
Monitoring Networks
Florida's Water Quality Assur-
ance Act required the establishment
Figure 8
Location of Ground Water Quality Monitoring
Program Background Network Wells in Florida
Background Network Wells
Department of Environmental Protection
Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program
1,919 wells sampled as of January 1993
Source: 1994 Florida Water Quality Assessment, 305(b) Report, Florida Department of Environ-
mental Protection.
of a ground water monitoring net-
work designed to (1) establish the
baseline water quality of the major
aquifer systems in the State,
(2) detect and predict changes in
ground water quality resulting from
the effects of various land use activi-
ties and potential sources of con-
tamination, and (3) disseminate to
local governments and the public
water quality data generated by the
network. The Florida Network has
three components: the Background
Network, the Private Well Survey,
and the Very Intense Study Area
Network.
The Background Network was
designed to help define background
water quality using a statewide grid
of wells that collectively tap all
major aquifers, including the
surficial, intermediate, Floridan, and
Claiborne aquifers (Figure 8). One-
third of the wells are sampled annu-
ally with a complete rotation of
wells every 3 years. Approved data
are available to the public on the
Florida Ground Water Quality Moni-
toring Network Electronic Bulletin
Board and in three State publica-
tions.
The Private Well Survey provides
an evaluation of water quality in
private drinking water wells serving
families in 67 Florida counties. The
survey calls for 50 private water
wells to be sampled in each indi-
vidual county. To date, sampling in
23 counties has been completed.
Twenty-three areas believed to
be highly susceptible to ground
water contamination based on
predominant land use and
hydrogeology are being studied as
part of the Very Intense Study Area
Network. A total of 461 wells make
up this network, which is designed
to monitor the effects of multiple
-------
Ground Water Quality 25
sources of contamination on water
quality within a segment of an aqui-
fer. The land uses represented are
urban, suburban, industrial, agricul-
tural, and mixed. Cumulative moni-
toring data will be compared to
similar parameters in the Back-
ground Network representing the
same aquifer segment to determine
the effects of land use and site
hydrogeology upon ground water
quality.
Kansas - Assessing
Temporal and Spatial
Trends
Kansas established a Ground
Water Quality Monitoring Network
in 1976 to procure long-term, state-
wide ground water quality data for
use in the identification of temporal
and spatial trends related to
(1) alterations in land use,
(2) application of land treatment
methods and other nonpoint source
best management practices, (3)
changes in ground water availability
or withdrawal rates, and (4) varia-
tions in climatological conditions
within the State. In addition, the
network is intended to assist in the
identification of ground water
contamination problems.
The network currently consists
of 242 wells (Figure 9), including
public water supply wells (71 %),
irrigation wells (14%), private
domestic wells (10%), multiple use
wells (3%), livestock watering wells
(1 %), and industrial supply wells
(1 %). During the period 1990-
1993, 599 samples were analyzed
for common inorganic chemicals
and heavy metals; 285 samples
were analyzed for pesticides; 110
samples were analyzed for volatile
organic chemicals; and 105 samples
were analyzed for radionuclides. In
evaluating the data, 103 instances
were found in which the chemical
quality of the raw ground water
samples exceeded Stab; drinking
water standards. Of these, 71 were
related to the presence of nitrate.
Wisconsin - Pesticide
Monitoring Program
Wisconsin developed a pesticide
monitoring program in response to
the detection of aldicarb in 1980 in
ground water near Stevens Point.
Initially the monitoring program
focused on aldicarb; however, it was
expanded in 1983 to include addi-
tional pesticides (e.g., atrazine), and
several studies were initiated to
determine the potential impact of
pesticide use on ground water
quality. Following are the results of
four studies:
Figure 9
Kansas Ground Water Quality
Monitoring Network
Source: 1994 Kansas Water Quality Assessment, 305(b) Report, Kansas Department of Health
and Environment.
-------
26 Ground Water Quality
Figure 10
• In 1985, the Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Trade, and
Consumer Protection installed moni-
toring wells at a number of farm
fields in susceptible geologic envi-
ronments. To date, atrazine was
detected at 25 of the 35 study sites
and alachlor was detected at 7 of
the 23 study sites.
• During the period between
August 1988 and February 1989,
well water from 534 Grade A dairy
farms was randomly collected by
the Wisconsin Department of Agri-
culture, Trade, and Consumer Pro-
tection and analyzed for 44 pesti-
cides. One or more pesticides were
detected in 71 wells.
• Sixty-nine of the 71 Grade A
dairy farm wells were resampled by
the Wisconsin Department of Natu-
ral Resources along with 212 wells
located in the areas of concern to
determine the possible extent of the
pesticide occurrences. One or more
Ambient Ground Water Data from Ohio:
Average Barium Concentration in Well Stations
Concentration (ng/L)
*Ba<10.00
10.01200.00
I
5 10 15 20 25
Number of Well Stations
30 35
•Detection Limit = 10 ug/L
Source: 1994 Ohio Water Resource Inventory, State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
pesticides were detected in 57 of
the 69 resampled wells and 63 of
the other 212 wells.
• To better understand pesticides
and nitrates in ground water, the
Wisconsin Department of Agricul-
ture, Trade, and Consumer
Protection sampled nearly 2,200
rural wells for atrazine and triazine
herbicides. Sixteen percent, or 351
of 2,187 wells, contained detectable
concentrations of triazine-class
compounds.
In response to concerns about
pesticides in ground water, Wiscon-
sin adopted an administrative rule
to regulate atrazine use starting with
the 1991 growing season. This rule
has been revised in each subsequent
year to account for additional
atrazine data. Application rates are
limited statewide based on soil
texture and former use. The use of
atrazine is prohibited in certain
areas of the State. Throughout the
rest of the State, a rate of applica-
tion is required that is more strin-
gent than Federal recommended
limits.
Arkansas - Ambient
Ground Water
Monitoring
The Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology has
established an ambient monitoring
program at various locations state-
wide that enables the State to
gather background ground water
quality data from various aquifers in
the State. Arkansas monitors water
quality in 100 wells and 10 springs
once every 3 years. The wells and
springs are monitored for specific
constituents likely to be found in
-------
Ground Water Quality 27
the respective areas. Monitoring
wells located at industrial or landfill
sites regulated by RCRA or the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) are monitored
at least annually, but only for indica-
tor parameters required by the
regulations.
Ohio - Tracking Ground
Water Quality Using CIS
The Ohio Environmental Protec-
tion Agency Division of Drinking
and Ground Waters is responsible
for characterizing Ohio's ground
water quality. The Division has col-
lected an extensive amount of
ground water quality data through
three monitoring programs: the
Ambient Network, the Pollution
Source Network, and the Nonpoint
Source Network. The Ambient
Network currently includes approxi-
mately 200 well stations at nearly
150 sites. Of the total sites, roughly
110 (70%) are public water systems
and roughly 40 (30%) are indus-
trial/commercial water suppliers.
Raw water samples are collected
semiannually and are analyzed for a
series of inorganic constituents.
Organic constituents are analyzed at
least annually.
Until recently, the ambient
ground water data were kept solely
in hard-copy files. However, during
the past 2 years, the data were
entered into a comprehensive data-
base system, and locational informa-
tion pertaining to each well station
was entered into a geographic infor-
mation system (CIS). In using the
CIS program, the Ohio EPA has
gained the ability to provide both
graphical and numerical summaries
of their monitoring data. Several
preliminary plots are presented in
Figures 10 and 11.
Indicators of Ground
Water Quality
Developing the ability to char-
acterize trends in ground water
quality over space and time was
one of the key recommendations of
EPA's 1986 Ground-Water Strategy.
However, data collection and orga-
nization varies among the States,
and a single data source for
Figure 11
Ambient Ground Water Data from Ohio:
Geographic Barium Plot - Preliminary Averages
• 0-50 u.g/L
* 50.1-IOOjig/L
A 100.1 -200 ng/L
• 200.1-500 p.g/L
+ 500.1-1,000 u,g/L
V 1,000.1-10,000 ng/L
•V County Lines
Source: 1994 Ohio Water Resource Inventory, State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
28 Ground Water Quality
^=^
/i I il ^N
HiGHLiGHif n MIGHT HIGHLIGH"
^^ — -^y
X^
: , • .'.' ' i "" '• : ' . ' :
, '•
,",
;
i
, [
; ' ill l| '' ::
III
'-
• ,• 'N: ,:' '<• ^t^f^^&yS!$&^^ >£54i
• • , (c /,'%• -,• ,- :, ,' 'W«°'iK-! •'•:<•• . • >*•?* W .; -i-K i $\v !•$•£? ,*$•£:*,'! w« &-^"rf'%%rJ? -•• ./£#q
r •:-.-. -se;;;:^|^
V -"••;' *'>,,>:,- ;,;,^{*;;;,V; ;'';"'v •:'-.'• f'f-fh'fi^'Af^'^<''f,. '•-, ti'^;"'l' •'•'"•^,'.f"' I'l/iif, '%£',':,'•>. 'y'':.fv'y-,f}^>f, "''•>.']
Ground Water Quality Indicators
EPA's 1 986 Ground-Water Strat- H Is the parameter an important
egy recommended that States "support variable" for interpreting
develop the ability to characterize the results of physical and chemical
trends in ground water quality over measurements (e.g., temperature,
time. To support this goal, EPA's specific conductance, major ion
Ground Water Protection Division balance, depth to the water table)?
has been involved in the Intergov-
ernmental Task Force for Monitoring • Is analysis of the parameter
Water Quality (ITFM), which has affordable using well-established
developed a set of environmental analytical methods at appropriate
indicators that EPA and the States minimum detection and reporting
may use to target monitoring efforts levels necessary to achieve the
and set priorities in ground water objectives of the study?
protection activities.
Selection of ground water indi- Due to regional differences in
cators by the ITFM was based on the relative importance of water
their relevance to important water quality issues and the potential for
quality issues, such as human health significant differences in the objec-
protection, monitoring objectives, tives of monitoring programs, no
and the existence of appropriate one set of indicators is suitable or
analytical methodologies. The fol- appropriate for all monitoring pro-
lowing criteria were considered in grams. However, the following table
the selection of indicator parameters provides examples of ground water
for ground water monitoring: monitoring parameters that could
be considered for monitoring in
• Is the indicator parameter poten- areas of differing land use and con-
tially toxic to human health and the taminant sources. The table focuses
environment, livestock, and/or on classes of contaminants, includ-
beneficial plants? ing volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), semivolatile organic com-
• Does the presence of the pounds (SVOCs), petroleum hydro-
parameter (e.g., hardness, iron, carbon compounds, pesticides, and
taste, odor, color) impair the suit- pathogens. The table does not
ability of the water for general use? include physical indicators such as
color, odor, pH, specific conduc-
• Is the parameter of concern in tance, temperature, or total
surface water and is it easily dissolved solids because these six
transported from ground water to indicator compounds are suggested
surface water? for each of the categories in the
table.
• - •' • ' - :'• -ViAV?yy •'•• •'"••'•••••'•^f/^T^f^ |:!' i 9, -ji Sg^iS?!
-------
Ground Water Quality 29
P'
in
u<
lo
in
re
w
P
m
P
sr
in
The abbreviated table below If not, the likelihood that that
•ovides a starting point for evaluat- parameter will be present in the
g the relationship between land ground water system must be deter-
;e patterns and likely contaminant mined. For example, whether
ading to ground water. Monitor- potential sources of the contami-
g agencies may tailor this list by riant exist in the area, whether the
viewing existing data to determine physical and chemical properties of
hat parameters are likely to be the indicator parameter are likely to
-esent in a given area. If docu- enhance mobility in the environ-
ented occurrences of a particular ment, and whether the aquifer sys-
arameter exist, that parameter tern is susceptible to contamination
lould be included in the monitor- must be considered.
g program.
Potential Indicator Parameters Based on Land Use
.Land Use •" «
Parameters
VOCs
PCE
TCE
1,1 -DCE
Vinyl
Chloride
SVOCs
PCP
PAHs
Dioxins
PCBs
Petroleum
Hydrocarbons
BTEX
Pesticides
Pathogens
Nitrate
Municipal
Land-
fill
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sewer/
Pipeline
•
•
•
Domestic
Storage
Tanks
•
•
•
•
, Commercial
Property
•
•
•
Agricultural
Animal
Feedlots
•
•
•
-------
30 Ground Water Quality
characterizing ground water quality
does not exist for purposes of this
report. To amend this problem, the
Office of Ground Water and Drink-
ing Water developed a set of indica-
tors to track progress and set priori-
ties in ground water protection
efforts. The initial (1992) set of
ground water indicators included
• MCL violations in public drinking
water systems supplied by ground
water, and the population at risk
from these violations
• Extent of ground water contami-
nation resulting from hazardous
waste sites, and the population at
risk from exposure to this contami-
nation
• Detections and levels of VOCs in
ground water
• Detections and levels of nitrates
in ground water
• Extent of leachable agricultural
pesticide use.
In its guidelines for preparation
of the 1992 State 305(b) reports,
EPA encouraged States to use one
or more of the above indicators to
characterize ground water quality.
As development of ground water
indicators progressed, more explicit
guidance was provided to the States
for preparation of their 1994 State
305(b) reports.
The 1994 guidelines focused on
four indicators specifically selected
to provide a relative indication of
the condition of ground water
resources. The selected indicators
were based on existing data and/or
data that could readily be collected
by the States over time. Where data
were available, the States were
encouraged to report the following:
• Number of MCL exceedances for
ground-water-based or partially
ground-water-supplied community
water systems
• Number of ground-water-based
or partially ground-water-supplied
community water systems with
reported MCL exceedances
• Number of ground-water-based
or partially ground-water-supplied
community water systems with
detections between 50% and 100%
of the MCLs
• Number of ground-water-based
or partially ground-water-supplied
community water systems that have
local Wellhead Protection Programs
in place.
Although this was the first time
EPA had requested information
specific to ground-water-based or
partially ground-water-supplied
public water systems, 21 States
were able to provide quantitative
data characterizing at least one of
the above indicator parameters.
States most frequently reported the
total number of samples analyzed
for metals, VOCs, pesticides, and
nitrates, along with the number of
exceedances in each category.
The above set of indicator
parameters is being refined so that,
over time, it can be used to detect
and predict changes in ground
water quality resulting from human
effects and to assess the overall
effectiveness of State ground water
monitoring programs.
-------
Ground Water Quality 31
Ground Water: What
We Still Need to
Know
We are continuing to learn a
great deal about the nature and
quality of our Nation's ground
water. Still, there is much we do
not yet know about how to most
effectively protect and preserve this
vast and often vulnerable resource.
While the importance of ground
water as a source of water in private
wells is recognized, the quality of
the water drawn from those wells is
largely unknown. There are indica-
tions that private wells are vulner-
able to contamination from micro-
organisms, nitrates, and pesticides.
The occurrence of viruses in ground
water and their impacts on private
drinking water wells are poorly
understood. Furthermore, the risks
associated with redirecting surface
water runoff into surface
impoundments and infiltration
ponds are frequently overlooked.
Whereas ground water protec-
tion measures are accepted as a
"good idea," the performance of
these measures in improving the
quality of vulnerable ground water
has not been tested. What are the
differential impacts of nonpoint
source best management practices
on ground water and surface water?
How effective are wellhead protec-
tion approaches in areas with frac-
tured bedrock, sinkholes, or areas
near surface water features? What
are the indicators that should be
, used to track ground water quality
and assess change over time?
We are only beginning to
understand the capacity of the land
to assimilate contaminants without
adversely affecting the use of the
ground water. Scientists have only
begun to explore the effectiveness
of natural ecosystems in processing
and degrading contaminants. Many
people are able to drink untreated
ground water because natural pro-
cesses improve water quality. Natu-
ral ground water systems may
remove contaminants that conven-
tional treatment does riot address,
such as pesticides, hea\/y metals,
and a variety of toxic chemicals
present at low concentrations.
Ground water organisms are
continually found and identified, yet
their function in contaminant degra-
dation and their impacts on ground
water quality are only beginning to
be understood. The interactions
between ground water and surface
water are known to be significant at
the local level, but we do not often
recognize the larger-scale implica-
tions on the quality of both
resources.
Our continued quest for high
quality and representative informa-
tion about the status of our ground
water resources will help to answer
these questions. Through a greater
understanding of how human activi-
ties have influenced the quality of
our waters, we can better ensure
the long-term availability of high-
quality water for future generations.
Alisha Batten, age 8, Bruner Elementary,
North Us Vegas, NV
-------
-------
-------
-------
Ground Water
Protection Programs
Fifty-one percent of the Nation's
population depended upon ground
water as a source of drinking water
in 1990 (U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1081, 1993). In addition to
providing much of our Nation with
drinking water, ground water is
used for agricultural, industrial,
commercial, and mining purposes.
The importance of our Nation's
ground water resources is evident.
Unfortunately, ground water is vul-
nerable to human contamination,
and, in the 1994 305(b) reports,
States identified 66 contaminant
sources that threaten the integrity of
ground water resources. Because it
is expensive and technologically
complex to remediate ground water
resources that have been adversely
impacted by human activities,
ground water protection has
become the focus of numerous
State and Federal programs.
This section presents an over-
view of ground water protection
programs and activities that have
been described by the States in
their 1994 305(b) reports and the
laws and programs instituted by the
Federal Government to provide a
framework for ground water protec-
tion for the States.
State Programs
In their 1994 State 305(b)
reports, States provided narratives
detailing legislation, statutes, rules,
and/or regulations dedicated to
ground water protection that are in
place, pending, or under develop-
ment. The narratives also high-
lighted major studies undertaken by
the States in the interest of ground
water protection, issues related to
ground water quality that are cur-
rently of concern or may be in the
future, and progress in developing
and implementing ground water
protection programs. The purpose
of these narratives was to provide
an indication of the comprehensive
nature of ground water protection
activities among the States.
Clearly, States are committed to
a number of activities to address
existing ground water contamina-
tion problems and to prevent future
impairments of the resource. These
activities include enacting legislation
aimed at the development of com-
prehensive ground water protection
programs and promulgating protec-
tion regulations; adopting and
implementing ground water protec-
tion strategies; adopting ground
water classification and mapping
programs; and establishing
-------
34 Ground Water Protection Programs
Wellhead Protection (WHP) Pro-
grams. Figure 12 presents the per-
centage of States, Territories, and
Tribes reporting on each of these
activities. As shown, States are mak-
ing excellent progress in developing
and implementing programs related
to ground water protection.
Ground Water
Protection Legislation
Forty-six of the 58 responding
States, Territories, and Tribes report
some form of current or pending
legislation geared specifically to
ground water protection. Generally,
legislation focuses on the need for
program development, increased
data collection, and public
education activities. In many States
and Tribes, legislation also mandates
strict technical controls such as
Figure 12
Percentage of Reporting States Having
Implemented Programs or Activities
Program/Activity
Legislation
Regulations
Protection Plans
Standards
Classification
Wellhead Protection
Coordination
Ground Water
Monitoring
J_
J
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Percentage
80 90 100
discharge permits, underground
storage tank registrations, and
protection standards. Additionally,
some States and Tribes have
enacted legislation establishing a
policy to restore and maintain
ground water quality and remediate
pollution that has occurred.
Minnesota passed the Ground
Water Protection Act (GWPA) of
1989 and continues to fund projects
such as ground water monitoring
and data management, increased
control of pesticides and fertilizers,
agricultural chemical cleanups, and
local water plans. The law also
states that ground water quality
should be maintained so that it is
continually free of human-induced
pollutants.
The Michigan Legislature
enacted the Environmental
Response Act to identify, prioritize,
and fund the cleanup of environ-
mentally contaminated sites in cases
where responsible parties do not
provide relief. The Michigan Depart-
ment of Natural Resources coordi-
nates the State program with the
Federal Superfund program. The
two programs are complementary
in their goals and objectives.
The primary legislation for
Illinois ground water protection, the
Illinois Groundwater Protection Act
(IGPA), was enacted in 1987. The
Act establishes the policy of the
State to "restore, protect and
enhance the ground waters of the
State, as a natural and public
resource."
Discovery of extensive contami-
nation in the State's ground water
prompted Arizona to develop strong
and comprehensive ground water
legislation. The 1980 Ground Water
Management Act promotes a
Source: Section 305{b) reports submitted by States, Tribes, and Territories.
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 35
strategy of preserving, enhancing,
and protecting current water qual-
ity; remediating, minimizing, and
preventing past, present, and future
discharges to aquifers; and prohibit-
ing discharges of toxic pollutants to
aquifers. This Act defines several
geographic areas in which ground
water supplies are threatened. The
State has designated these areas as
Active Management Areas (AMAs).
Figure 13 illustrates one AMA.
Areas in which there is a possible or
known threat to ground water
resources are marked with the
appropriate symbol. Management
plans in these areas address the
threats of both overdrafts and
contaminants.
In Hawaii, problems with the
quality and reliability of surface
water supplies have led to concern
over the protection of the State's
ground water. The 1987 State
Water Code protects ground water
by authorizing the prohibition,
control, and regulation of activities
in areas vulnerable to ground water
contamination. The State has
adopted a policy of antidegradation
and uses the authority established
by this legislation to require proof
that proposed activities will not
degrade ground water before
issuing a permit.
The Rhode Island legislature
passed the Ground-Water Protection
Act in 1985, establishing a
Figure' 13
Ground Water Contamination in the Phoenix Active
Management Area
— Streams
= Interstate Highways
"C" Radiological
& VOCs
© Major Cations & Anions
^ Metals
M Nitrate
O Pesticides (DSCP & EDB)
-fi Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Source: Arizona Water Quality Assessment 1994, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
-------
36 Ground Water Protection Programs
comprehensive ground water pro-
tection policy. Reenacted in 1991, it
emphasized restoring, enhancing,
and maintaining the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of
Rhode Island's ground water. The
legislature passed this law based on
the belief that ground water is a
critical renewable resource that
must be protected to ensure the
availability of drinking water.
Ground Water
Regulations
Of the 58 responding States,
Territories, and Tribes, 41 report
that they have established regula-
tions specifically geared toward
protection of ground water quality.
In general, State and Tribal ground
water protection regulations stipu-
late controls for the management of
specific sources of contamination
and standards for ground water
quality protection. These standards
may be used to apply limits on the
allowable discharges from contami-
nant sources and/or to set contami-
nant concentration targets or
threshold levels for ground water
cleanup.
Nevada has adopted statutory
authority and promulgated associ-
ated regulations to implement a
mining strategy that is widely con-
sidered to be a model for western
States in terms of both controls
placed upon the mining industry
and the explicit considerations of
impacts on ground water quality.
Regulations include several
requirements for the purpose of
protecting ground water by
minimizing or preventing discharges
from mining facilities.
The Florida Department of Envi-
ronmental Regulation (DER) has
established both general and spe-
cific permitting provisions for per-
mitting discharges to ground water.
The regulations require that all dis-
charges to ground water meet cer-
tain water quality conditions, such
as Florida's water quality standards.
South Carolina's ground water
regulations establish a ground water
classification system to protect pub-
lic health and maintain and enhance
ground water quality. They include
general rules and specific water
quality criteria to protect classified
and existing water uses. The regula-
tions also set forth narrative stan-
dards for classification and specific
numeric water quality standards for
ground water that is classified as a
source of drinking water.
Ground Water Protection
Plans
Fifty-five of the 58 responding
States, Territories, and Tribes have
adopted, or are in the process of
developing, ground water protec-
tion plans. The general content of
these plans includes: selection of
goals and objectives for ground
water problems identified in the
jurisdiction; development of a
ground water classification system;
program coordination mechanisms
for local, State, and Federal ground
water protection activities; public
education and/or involvement-
development of an interagency
ground water data collection sys-
tem; legislative recommendations
pertaining to the regulation of
contaminating sources; develop-
ment of a ground water monitoring
system; establishment of a WHP
Program; improvement of existing
ground water protection programs;
and development of statewide
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 37
standards for ground water quality.
These plans provide the basis for
their Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs
(CSGWPPs).
Texas outlines goals, needs, and
recommendations in six important
areas in its Ground Water Protection
Plan: interagency coordination, haz-
ardous and nonhazardous materials
management, public water supply,
rural water supply, research, and
legislation. Within these areas, each
of the following plan elements are
discussed: status of existing pro-
grams, gaps or inadequacies in
these programs, areas of currently
unaddressed ground water issues,
recommendations for changes or
improvements in existing programs,
and institution of new programs
where needed.
The Indiana Plan is an agenda
for State action to prevent, detect,
and correct contamination and
depletion of ground water
resources. The implementation plan
identifies key steps, schedules,
responsibilities, resources, outputs,
and contingencies to accomplish
the objectives of the plan. This plan
is to be adaptable to new Federal
requirements, responsive to emerg-
ing issues and proprieties, and sub-
ject to revision based on experience.
As of January 1994, 8 of the 23
Nebraska Natural Resource Districts
had developed local Ground Water
Protection plans, including
• Stated goal to maintain ground
water levels and quality at
predevelopment levels forever
• Development of Ground Water
Control areas with mandated
permitting, spacing, and reporting
requirements
• Development of Special Protec-
tion areas with required education,
monitoring, and regulatory pro-
grams to reduce nonpoint source
contamination
• Development of Ground Water
Management Plans
• Development of Ground Water
Quality Management Areas to man-
age nitrogen fertilizer application
and irrigation practices.
Ground Water Protection
Standards
Although many States and
Tribes use Federal drinking water
standards to direct their ground
water protection activities, a
number have tailored the standards
to meet their specific conditions.
State and Tribal ground water
protection standards may be either
narrative or numeric. Numeric
standards set health-based MCLs
for specific compounds in ground
water. Narrative standards are
adopted for contaminants for which
numeric standards have not been
adopted. Forty-one States, Territo-
ries, and Tribes reported the devel-
opment or implementation of
ground water protection standards.
All ground water in South Caro-
lina is classified as Class GB, which is
ground water that meets the defini-
tion of an underground source of
drinking water (USDW). All USDW
supplies must have contaminant
levels that are below MCLs set forth
in the South Carolina Primary Drink-
ing Water Regulations. Compounds
for which standards or proposed
MCLs do not exist are evaluated
individually.
-------
38 Ground Water Protection Programs
Arizona's Aquifer Water Quality
Standards are the cornerstone of the
State's ground water protection
program. All aquifers were initially
classified and protected for drinking
water use, and none has been re-
classified. Numeric Aquifer Water
Quality Standards were developed
and adopted by Arizona as enforce-
able standards for the maximum
permissible level of a parameter in a
•public water system. The Arizona
Department of Environmental Qual-
ity has also adopted narrative
aquifer water quality standards that
allow regulation of pollutant dis-
charges for which no numeric stan-
dards have been adopted.
Standards for ground water
quality in Nebraska are intended to
be the foundation for ground water
point source programs in the State.
Narrative standards deal primarily
with beneficial uses of ground
water. Beneficial uses of ground
water, hydrologically connected
ground waters, and surface waters
are all protected. Numeric standards
in the form of MCLs for various
parameters are also provided. Some
parameters listed are assigned
"reserved status." This means that
ground water standards have not
been adopted for these parameters
but will be in the future.
Ground Water
Classification/Mapping
Programs
Forty-two States, Territories, and
Tribes have developed or are devel-
oping ground water classification
systems to aid in the protection and
management of their aquifers.
Classification systems can be used as
a basis for the maintenance and
restoration of ground water quality,
the development of ground water
quality standards, and land use and
pollution source management and
regulation. Most ground water clas-
sification systems are based on the
understanding that some human
activities have the potential to
degrade ground water. The systems
are designed to restrict such activi-
ties to areas overlying aquifers con-
taining lower quality waters while
protecting the most vulnerable and
ecologically important ground water
systems. Most States and Tribes that
have classification systems apply
them to the permitting of dis-
charges or potential discharges to
ground water and the remediation
of contaminated ground water.
Some States may also use their
systems to guide the development
of new water supplies or to site
certain types of industries.
The first tiers of a State's classifi-
cation system are typically designed
to identify and protect water that is
currently used or has the potential
to be used as a source of drinking
water. The potential for drinking
water use is generally based on
water quality indicators, such as
salinity and total dissolved solids,
and potential yield. Some States
and Tribes also place ecologically
sensitive aquifers in the highest tiers
of their classification systems.
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 39
Aquifers that do not meet these
requirements or that are unsuitable
for use because of poor ambient
water quality or because of past
contamination are generally classi-
fied for other types of uses, such as
industrial processes or, in some
cases, waste disposal.
The New jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and
Energy has classified the State's
ground water on a regional basis
according to its hydrogeologic char-
acteristics and designated uses. The
State has applied a nondegradation
policy to the most sensitive ecologi-
cal area but allows minimal degra-
dation in some other areas, recog-
nizing that some human activities
will adversely affect ground water.
In 1992, Michigan State Univer-
sity Center for Remote Sensing
mapped aquifer vulnerability to
surface contamination for use in
siting facilities or activities with a
potential for ground water contami-
nation. The most vulnerable areas
constitute 31% of the State's land
area and are composed of highly
permeable soils over highly sensitive
glacial drift, principally composed of
sand and gravel (Figure 14). The
moderately and least vulnerable
areas make up 44% and 25% of the
State, respectively.
As part of the development of
a ground water classification system,
the recharge areas for major aqui-
fers in Rhode Island as well as
approximately 450 sources of
known and potential sources of
ground water contamination have
been mapped. The Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Man-
agement (DEM) has made extensive
use of the Rhode Island Geographic
Information System (CIS) in this
mapping. Maps can be produced
with the CIS at different scales, in
various formats, and with different
layers of information. DEM encour-
ages the use of these maps in local
ground water protection efforts.
The lack of a classification
system does not indicate a lower
priority for ground water protection.
Figure 14
Aquifer Vulnerability to Surface Contamination
in Michigan
Most Vulnerable
Moderately Vulnerable
I I Least Vulnerable
Source: Water Quality and Pollution Control, Michigan 305(b) Report: Volume 13, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources.
-------
40 Ground Water Protection Programs
The majority of States, Territories,
and Tribes that do not have explicit
classification systems apply the same
level of protection to all aquifers,
with either a statewide antidegra-
dation policy or the preservation of
all ground water for drinking water
use. For example, Minnesota does
not employ a classification system.
However, the State supports a
nondegradation policy, promoting
preventive measures to protect all
ground water from degradation by
human activities.
Wellhead Protection
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 Plan and
submit it to EPA for approval. By the
end of April 1995, a total of 39
States had EPA-approved WHP
Programs in place.
Six cases of benzene contamina-
tion were detected in public water
supplies in Louisiana in 1992.
Louisiana's WHP Program aided the
communities in locating the sources
of contamination and in the siting
of new wells. Case studies of these
communities prompted a coordi-
nated effort between the WHP Pro-
gram and the Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality Under-
ground Storage Tank Division to see
that all unregistered USTs are regis-
tered and all abandoned USTs
within a 1,000-foot radius of public
water supply wells are closed. This
restrictive radius will increase with
time.
Coordination of
Protection Programs
Among State Agencies
Historically, ground water pro-
tection programs have been over-
seen by many different agencies
within the States, Territories, and
Tribes, making coordination difficult
for those programs. Coordinating
the activities of these agencies to
ensure an efficient ground water
protection program has become a
top priority in many jurisdictions.
Fifty-one States, Territories, and
Tribes report having developed a
plan to coordinate ground water
protection programs among their
agencies.
The Illinois Ground Water Pro-
tection Act (IGPA) created the
Interagency Coordinating Commit-
tee on Groundwater (ICCG) to
direct efforts of State agencies and
expedite implementation of ground
water protection efforts. Ten State
agencies actively participate in the
ICCG. In order to direct overall
comprehensive ground water pro-
tection efforts, the ICCG established
the Governor-Appointed Ground-
water Advisory Council (GAC),
which is comprised of various inter-
est groups, including business,
industry, agriculture, regional plan-
ning, environmental, municipalities,
water well drillers, and public water
supplies.
Ground water protection in
Colorado is a shared responsibility
of many agencies at all levels of
government. Colorado authorized
four "implementing" agencies as
partners in ground water protection:
Mined Land Reclamation Board, The
Oil and Gas Commission, the State
Engineer (Division of Water
Resources), and the Hazardous
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 41
Materials and Waste Management
Division of the Health Department.
Each of the implementing agencies
has developed regulations to protect
ground water within the area of
authority with which each agency is ,
charged, and they annually report
their progress to the Water Quality
Control Division, the agency with
final authority for protecting the
resource.
Ground Water
Monitoring Programs
Two types of ground water
monitoring programs are used by
States to collect data on ground
water quality: ambient monitoring
and compliance monitoring. Ambi-
ent monitoring programs measure
background or existing water qual-
ity and are used to track long-term
trends in contaminant concentra-
tions. Compliance monitoring pro-
grams are required by Federal or
State regulations (e.g., ground
water monitoring at site cleanups
under CERCLA, detection monitor-
ing under RCRA, or community
water supply monitoring under
SDWA). Compliance monitoring
activities measure for specific con-
stituents to ensure that their con-
centrations in ground water are
below regulated levels. In addition
to ambient and compliance moni-
toring, States may also rely on
monitoring data collected by
Federal agencies, such as the USGS
National Water Quality Assessment
program, to assess basin ground
water quality.
Chemical or constituent-based
indicators are generally used as part
of a monitoring program to define
trends in ground water quality. The
constituent-based indicators used in
each State are typically selected
based on local or regional water
quality, contaminant use characteris-
tics, or previously observed contami-
nation patterns. By identifying
changes in the concentrations of
these constituents in ground water,
land uses affecting vulnerable aqui-
fers can be identified and corrected.
Administrative indicators are
another form of indicator parameter
that may be used by States. Admin-
istrative indicators assess the status
of potential sources of contamina-
tion, such as the number of hazard-
ous waste sites, the amount of
teachable pesticides applied to land,
the amount of toxic chemicals
released annually, the number of
abandoned water wells, or other
changes in regional land use prac-
tices. These administrative indicators
allow States to target their ground
water protection and monitoring
activities.
Table 1 summarizes the types of
indicators and monitoring programs
that States and Territories currently
use to measure ground water qual-
ity. Appendix A, Table A-2, presents
this information in greater detail.
Data were obtained from review of
305(b) reports, monitoring program
documentation, and contact with
State officials. For conflicting
sources, the most recent informa-
tion is presented and the source is
cited.
Virtually all of these States
engage in some type of ground
water quality monitoring program.
Specifically, 23 States report active
ambient monitoring programs. In
addition, Colorado and Nevada
have proposed ambient monitoring
programs. Sixteen of these States
-------
42 Ground Water Protection Programs
Table 1. Summary of Current State Ground Water Monitoring Programs
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Floridab
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Constituent-Based
Indicators
Not applicable
Not applicable
(pesticides, VOCs,
ions, metals,
hydrocarbons,
radionuclides,
bacteria)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
(pH, nitrate,
specific conductivity,
inorganics)
(organics, chlorides)
(radionuclides, pesticides,
ions, bacteria, VOCs) *
Not applicable
(bacteria)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
(pH, alkalinity,
ion-specific conductance)
(specific conductance,
TOC, COD, ionic balance)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Administrative
Indicators
Not applicable
Administrative3
Not applicable
Administrative3
(pesticide residues)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
(pesticides, VOCs,
metals, nitrates,
trihalomethanes)
(land use)
Not applicable
Administrative3
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Administrative3
Administrative3
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Administrative3
Administrative3
Not applicable
Monitoring
Compliance; Ambient
Compliance
Ambient; Federal
Compliance; Ambient; Federal
Compliance; background monitoring for pesticides
Compliance; Ambient proposed
Compliance; past monitoring for pesticides
Compliance; periodic ambient studies; Federal
Compliance; Ambient; Federal
Ambient
Not applicable; Federal
Ambient
Ambient
Not applicable; periodic ambient studies
Compliance; Federal
Ambient
Compliance
Compliance; Federal
Not applicable
Ambient; Federal
Compliance
Compliance
Ambient; Federal; Compliance
Compliance; Federal
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 43
Table 1 1 Summary! of Current State Ground Water Monitoring Programs (continued)
: 1 • ; ! !
State
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas"
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Constituent-Based
Indicators
(nitrate)
Not applicable
(pesticides, nitrate)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
(alpha particle activity)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Constituent
(bacteria)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
(many)
Not applicable
(specific conductivity,
gross alpha,
nitrate, pesticides)
(many)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Administrative
Indicators
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Administrative3
Not applicable
(public supply
vulnerability)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
(maximum allowable
limit [MAL] violations)
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Administrative3
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Administrative3
Administrative3
Administrative3
Not applicable
Administrative3
Not applicable
Monitoring
Not applicable; Federal
Compliance
• Compliance; periodic ambient studies; Federal
Not applicable; proposed Ambient
Not applicable
Compliance
Compliance
Compliance; Federal
Compliance
Ambient
Ambient
Compliance; Ambient
Compliance
Ambient
Compliance; Federal
Compliance; Ambient
Compliance; Federal
Not applicable; Federal
Compliance; Ambient
Compliance
Compliance
Ambient
Compliance; periodic ambient studies
for agricultural chemicals;
Federal; proposed Ambient
Ambient; Federal
Compliance; Ambient
Compliance
a Indicators suggested by EPA in the guidance document for the 305(b) report.
b State relies on programs below State level for ground water data.
NOTE: Although all States have federally mandated compliance monitoring programs, this table reports those States that use their
compliance monitoring data to evaluate ground water quality.
-------
44 Ground Water Protection Programs
report using specific constituent-
based indicators to track trends in
ground water quality statewide.
Florida has focused the set of
parameters monitored under their
ambient program based on their
understanding of local water quality
patterns and contaminant sources.
In regions of high agricultural land
use, Florida focuses on nitrate and
chloride levels in ground water.
Similarly, Florida analyzes for certain
trace metals (e.g., arsenic, barium,
cadmium, chromium, copper,
mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc) in
regions of industrial land use. South
Carolina has established a network
of 114 public and private water
supply wells that draw water from a
single aquifer and are known not to
be impacted by contaminants in
order to assess ambient ground
water quality statewide. South
Carolina tests for 39 individual
parameters once every 5 years on a
rotating basis. Several States are also
pursuing the use of indicators to
screen for certain sets of water qual-
ity parameters in their monitoring
programs. For example, Idaho is
developing the use of immunoas-
says to assess the presence of pesti-
cides in ground water. Idaho uses
the immunoassay methods to ana-
lyze specifically for 2,4-D, alachlor,
carbamate, carbofuran, cyanazine,
metalachlor, and triazines.
In addition to ambient monitor-
ing, 31 States report that they also
use data from compliance monitor-
ing activities to assess trends in
ground water quality, and 18 use
Federal monitoring data.
A total of 18 States use adminis-
trative indicators to track potential
sources of contamination. Of these
18 States, 13 use indicators that
were suggested by EPA in its
guidance document for the 305(b)
Water Quality Report to Congress.
These indicators include MCL viola-
tions, point sources of pollution
(e.g., underground storage tanks,
military bases, RCRA, CERCLA, and
other hazardous waste sites), nitrate
contamination, and pesticide use.
Federal Programs
The Federal Government has
instituted laws and programs to
provide a framework to States, Terri-
tories, and Tribes for protection of
our Nation's ground water
resources. These include Federal
statutes that mandate certain
ground water protection activities
and EPA programs that deal
specifically with the control of con-
taminant source activities conducted
under the authority of Federal stat-
utes. Federal statutes include the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean
Water Act, the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act, the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, the
Toxic Substances Control Act, the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rotenticide Act, and the Pollution
Prevention Act.
Under these Acts, the EPA is
responsible for 20 programs related
to ground water protection. Most of
these are regulatory programs that
restrict or prevent specific activities
from introducing contaminants onto
the land, into the subsurface, or
into ground water resources. The
rest are nonregulatory and provide
national guidance and technical
assistance to jurisdictions to identify
and protect their vulnerable ground
water resources and integrate exist-
ing ground water protection
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 45
programs. Both types of programs
are key components of EPA's suc-
cessful ground water protection
strategy when building partnerships
with other EPA programs, Federal
agencies, State and local govern-
ments, industry, environmental
groups, and the regulated commu-
nity. Several concepts fundamental
to this approach to ground water
protection are based on EPA's guid-
ing principles: ecosystem protection,
environmental justice, pollution
prevention, strong science and data,
partnerships, and compliance. They
are:
• Review regulations for opportuni-
ties to get better environmental
results at less cost; improve new
rules through increased coordina-
tion.
• Actively promote pollution pre-
vention as a standard business prac-
tice and a central ethic of environ-
mental protection.
• Make it easier to provide, use,
and publicly disseminate relevant
pollution and environmental infor-
mation.
• Assist companies that seek to
obey but exceed legal requirements
and consistently enforce the law
against those that do not
• Change permitting so that it
works more efficiently, encourages
innovation, and creates more op-
portunities for public participation.
• Give industry the incentives and
flexibility to develop innovative
technologies that meet and exceed
environmental standards while cut-
ting costs.
Highlights of a number of Fed-
eral ground water protection pro-
grams are presented according to
the following protection categories:
resource protection, pollutant source
control, and pollution prevention.
Resource Protection
The protection of the Nation's
ground water resources is addressed
under the Clean Water Act and the
Safe Drinking Water Act. The Clean
Water Act (CWA) encourages
ground water protection, recogniz-
ing that ground water provides a
significant proportion of the base
flow to streams and lakes. Ground
water protection afforded by the
SDWA is focused on waters that
supply public water systems, and
through implementation of the
Wellhead Protection and Under-
ground Injection Control Programs.
Clean Water Act
In the CWA (Public Law 92-500)
of 1972 and in the CWA Amend-
ments of 1977 (Public Law 95-217),
Congress provided for the regula-
tion of discharges into all navigable
waters of the United States. Ground
water protection is addressed in
Section 102, providing for the de-
velopment of Federal, State, and
local comprehensive programs for
reduction, elimination, and
prevention of ground water
contamination.
As part of the CWA, a process is
established that allows for the gen-
eration of information concerning
the quality of our Nation's ground
water resources and the reporting of
this information to EPA and the U.S.
Congress. The requirements for this
process are found in Sections 106(e)
-------
46 Ground Water Protection Programs
and 305(b) of the CWA. Section
305(b) mandates that States
develop a program to monitor the
quality of their waters and report
the status in this biennial National
Water Quality Inventory Report to
Congress. This process, referred to
as the 305(b) process, is the princi-
pal means by which the EPA, Con-
gress, and the public evaluate water
quality, the progress made in main-
taining and restoring water quality,
and the extent to which problems
remain.
Unfortunately, information
reported on the quality of our
Nation's ground water resources has
not always provided a complete and
accurate picture of overall ground
water quality. This is due, in part, to
the expense involved in collecting
ground water monitoring data, the
complex spatial variations of aquifer
systems across the Nation, and the
differing levels of sophistication
among State programs. Recognizing
this problem, EPA worked with
States to develop guidelines for the
comprehensive evaluation and
reporting of ground water quality.
Appreciating that data collec-
tion and organization vary among
the States and that a single data
source for evaluating ground water
quality does not exist, EPA
suggested several different sources
of data that may be used by States
to evaluate their ground water qual-
ity. EPA then encouraged States to
use available data that they believe
reflects the quality of the resource.
EPA also focused on allowing States
to report information for aquifers or
hydrogeologic settings that are a
State priority due to high ground
water demand or vulnerability.
Using these guidelines, States will be
able to provide a more meaningful
interpretation of ground water qual-
ity-
Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Program
Under the authority of the CWA
Section 102, many States are devel-
oping Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs tailored
to their goals and priorities for the
ground water resource. CSGWPPs
will guide the future implementa-
tion of all State and/Federal ground
water programs and provide a
framework for States to coordinate
and set priorities for all ground-
water-related activities. Each
CSGWPP consists of six strategic
components: a goal, a priority-
setting mechanism, roles and
responsibilities, management
measures, information collection
and management, and public
participation.
The EPA is committed to work-
ing with States in developing and
carrying out the CSGWPP approach.
A State with an EPA-endorsed
CSGWPP works in partnership with
the EPA to further improve State
ground water protection activities,
develop a vision of integrated,
resource-focused ground water
protection, and identify ways that
the Federal Government can
support State ground water protec-
tion efforts.
Figure 15 shows the progress
in implementing the CSGWPP
approach. As of 1994, the EPA had
approved four State CSGWPPs, and
EPA endorsement is anticipated for
an additional six States in 1995.
Another 29 States are expected to
submit CSGWPPs for EPA approval
by the end of fiscal year 1996.
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 47
Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA was passed by
Congress in 1974 and amended in
1986. Under this Act, EPA sets
national limits on contaminant levels
in drinking water to ensure that the
water is safe for human consump-
tion. The principal ground water
protection afforded by the SDWA
comes through the enforcement of
these limits through State and
Federal supervision of public water
systems. The SDWA also contains
programs to implement the Well-
head Protection Program, the Sole
Source Aquifer (SSA) Program, and
the Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program, described below.
Approximately 93% of all PWSs
(177,589 systems serving nearly 114
million people) obtain their water
from a ground water source. These
include systems that supply year-
round water to households (46,880
Community Water Systems); sys-
tems that provide water to places
such as schools, factories, and hos-
pitals (23,221 Nontransient
Noncommunity Water Systems);
and systems that supply water to
transitory customers such as camp-
grounds, motels, and gas stations
(107,488 Transient Noncommunity
Water Systems). Private, domestic
wells are not regulated under the
SDWA.
Drinking Water Standards
EPA, under the SDWA, seeks to
ensure that public water supplies
are free of contaminants that may
cause health risks and to protect
ground water resources by prevent-
ing the endangerment of under-
ground sources of drinking water.
EPA has pursued a twofold
approach: (1) protecting drinking
water at the tap, and (2) preventing
contamination of ground water
sources of drinking water supplies.
The 1986 Amendments to the
SDWA provided for an expanded
Federal role in protecting drinking
water, mandating changes in
nationwide safeguards, and new
responsibilities to enforce them in
the event of State inaction.
EPA has also focused on the
prevention of contamination of
Figure 15
Progress in Implementing the Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection Program
Approach
DC
Guam
American Samoa
Northern Mariana Islands
Palau
r"s"i PR
i VI
Endorsed Core CSGWPP
Endorsement Expected FY'95
Submittal Expected in FY'95
Submittal Expected in FY'96
-------
48 Ground Water Protection Programs
vulnerable ground water resources
by assisting States in the develop-
ment and implementation of com-
prehensive ground water protection
plans. These plans address both the
full range of actual and potential
sources of ground water contami-
nation and provide for local well-
head protection programs in the
areas around public water wells. In
addition, EPA has targeted specific
activities to protect drinking water
sources from the harmful effects of
injection of wastes and other fluids.
Utilizing authorities provided by the
DIG, EPA is increasing emphasis on
the vast number of diverse shallow
(Class V) injection wells by develop-
Figure 16
Status of Wellhead Protection Programs
Across the U.S. and Territories
•O American Samoa
•
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 49
the States with active and pending
NRWA Wellhead Protection
programs.
EPA is also funding Wellhead
Protection workshops for local deci-
sionmakers. Eighty-eight of these
workshops were held in 26 States.
These workshops were attended by
approximately 4,400 people.
In 1991, EPA funded a 2-year
cooperative agreement with NRWA
to promote ground water protec-
tion. This agreement was extended
for an additional 2 years. At the
conclusion of the first 4 years, over
2,000 communities in 26 States
were actively involved in protecting
their water supplies by implement-
ing wellhead protection programs.
These 2,000 communities represent
3,985,000 people in the rural areas
of the United States who will have
better-protected water supplies.
EPA also funded a 3-year
cooperative agreement with the
League of Woman Voters (LWV) to
develop and test models of commu-
nity outreach in 18 communities.
Based on the experience in those
communities, a guidebook entitled
Protect Your Groundwater: Educating
for Action was developed. The
popularity of this guidebook led to
a national videoconference of the
same name. Broadcast in April 1994
to over 150 sites, the video-
conference directly reached approxi-
mately 3,000 persons. Videotapes
were made of the conference and
distributed to LWV chapters across
the country. The success of this
videoconference has led to further
cooperation with LWV to bring
WHP to even more communities.
According to State 305(b)
reports, WHP Programs have taken
varying forms in the different States.
Among the stages of WHP Program
development reported by States are
• Grants to communities to explore
and tailor WHP approaches to their
needs
• Mapping of sensitive ground
water protection areas
• Establishment of mandatory WHP
programs to protect public water
supply wells
• Establishment of public education
and outreach program:;
• Establishment of specific protec-
tion criteria for wells tapping con-
fined aquifers and more stringent
protection criteria for wells tapping
unconfined aquifers.
Figure 17
States with National Rural Water Association
Wellhead Protection Programs
DC
•OPR
•^ American Samoa
O Guam
Currently Implemented Programs
-------
50 Ground Water Protection Programs
Sole Source Aquifer Program
The Sole Source Aquifer protec-
tion program was established under
Section 1424(e) of the SDWA of
1974. The program allows commu-
nities, individuals, and organizations
to petition EPA to designate aquifers
as the "sole or principal" source of
drinking water for an area. Since
the first SSA designation in 1975—
the Edwards Aquifer in the area
around San Antonio, Texas—64
designations have been made
nationwide. Seven petitions were
evaluated for possible designation at
the end of 1994.
If the sole-source designation is
approved for an aquifer, EPA is then
authorized to review all Federal
financially assisted projects to deter-
mine if, as a result of the project,
the potential exists for adverse
impacts to public health due to
aquifer contamination. If the Federal
financially assisted project is
approved by EPA, the project may
be implemented as planned with
commitment of Federal financial
assistance; however, if the potential
exists for aquifer contamination,
modifications to the project may be
necessary prior to commitment of
Federal financial assistance. Federal
funds may be used to make these
modifications to ensure that
projects will not contaminate the
aquifer.
Federal financially assisted
projects undertaken in SSA areas
may include a variety of activities
involving several agencies. For
instance, approximately 50% of the
reported activities were initiated by
Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) through Community Devel-
opment Block Grants. These include
the construction of nursing homes,
repair and construction of firehouses
to avoid hydrocarbon runoff from
equipment from entering the
ground water, and installation of
septic systems using proper non-
polluting drainage construction. The
Department of Agriculture Farmers
Home Administration has invested
in construction and preplanned
siting programs for residential areas
and ancillary facilities on a large
scale.
The Department of Transporta-
tion assists in funding construction
of roads, highways, mass transit,
and certain railroad and airport
facilities. This type of construction
requires that the proper disposal of
surface water runoff be dispersed
rather than concentrated on the
ground surface and avoid the flood-
ing of local aquifers by runoff from
salting stations, hydrocarbons from
highway spills and general traffic
use, including airports and hangar
areas.
Designation helps project spon-
sors by providing a set of guidelines
for aquifer quality review and
ground water protection techniques.
It also allows individuals, agencies,
and States and Tribes the opportu-
nity to develop strategies beyond
the SSA program to protect drinking
water aquifers, such as adopting
Wellhead Protection Programs.
Figure 18 illustrates the number
of projects reviewed, approved,
and modifed for fiscal years 1990
through 1994. Only five projects
were not approved during this same
period: four projects in 1991 and
one in 1992. There were no other
unapproved projects after 1992.
This curtailment is an indication that
SSA project sponsors have adjusted
to the ongoing SSA ground water
protection program objectives.
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 51
Review of Figure 18 indicates
the following:
• A total of 1,039 projects were
reviewed over the 5-year period.
Of these, 838 were approved and
74 were modified.
• Review of project modifications
indicates that ground water protec-
tion was achieved through changes
in drainage and spill containment,
clear identification of SSA bound-
aries, more focused pre- and
postconstruction activity monitoring,
and review of initial project designs.
• For fiscal years 1992, 1993, and
1994, project modifications
decreased by approximately 64%
over previous years. This decrease
reflects the maturing of the SSA
program as a community ground
water protection tool. Project spon-
sors and designers acknowledge
that proper aquifer protection is
required up front in the design
phase and that incorporation of
proper aquifer protection will expe-
dite designations.
Pollutant Source Control
Four principal programs control
pollutant sources under four differ-
ent laws: underground storage
tanks and solid and hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal are
regulated under RCRA; underground
injection of waste fluids is regulated
under SDWA; abandoned waste is
regulated under CERCLA; and
nonpoint sources are controlled
under CWA.
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (Public Law 94-580)
was passed by Congress in October
1976, amending the 1965 Solid
Waste Disposal Act to address the
problem of safe disposal of the huge
volumes of solid and hazardous
waste generated nationwide each
year. This Act authorizes a regula-
tory program to identify and man-
age wastes that pose a substantial
hazard to human health or the envi-
ronment. RCRA is a part of EPA's
comprehensive program to protect
ground water resources. Protection
is achieved through the develop-
ment of regulations and methods
for handling, storing, and disposing
of hazardous material and through
the regulation of underground stor-
age tanks.
Poorly managed or poorly
located municipal landfills rank high
Figure 18
300
Project Reviews
1200
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
| Projects Reviewed
H Projects Approved
L~H Projects Modified
Projects Reviewed (cumulative)
Projects Approved (cumulative)
-------
52 Ground Water Protection Programs
Kings Park Elementary, 3rd Grade, Springfield, VA
among State ground water con-
tamination concerns. Of the quarter
million solid waste disposal facilities
in the United States, about 6,000
are municipal solid waste facilities.
Approximately 25% of these
municipal facilities have ground
water monitoring capabilities.
As of September 1994, there
were 418 land disposal facilities
subject to ground water monitoring
requirements under RCRA. Approxi-
mately 221 of these facilities are
conducting detection monitoring,
42 are conducting compliance
monitoring, and 155 are undertak-
ing corrective action.
Solid and Hazardous Waste
RCRA has evolved from a rela-
tively limited program dealing with
nonhazardous solid waste to a far-
reaching program that also encom-
passes the handling, storage, and
disposal of hazardous waste. Haz-
ardous waste generators, transport-
ers, and owner/operators of treat-
ment, storage and disposal facilities
(TSDFs) constitute the RCRA-
regulated community. On Novem-
ber 8, 1984, Congress passed the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amend-
ments (HSWA) to RCRA, thereby
greatly expanding the nature and
complexity of activities covered
under RCRA.
The goals of RCRA, as set forth
by Congress, are
• To protect human health and the
environment
• To reduce waste and conserve
energy and natural resources
• To reduce or eliminate the
generation of hazardous waste as
expeditiously as possible.
RCRA also requires the promul-
gation of standards related to
underground storage tank systems
for both chemicals and petroleum
products.
In 1990 and 1991, RCRA pro-
grams continued to emphasize the
preparation of risk assessment docu-
ments and development and
evaluation of tests and procedures
for conducting risk assessments.
Health and Environmental Effects
Documents, Reference Doses, and
technical evaluations are provided
to support the RCRA waste listing,
permitting, and land disposal restric-
tion programs. The 1990 program
emphasized the development of
health and environmental effects
documents for the listing/delisting
programs and reference doses for
the land disposal restriction pro-
gram. In addition, techniques for
determining soil gas concentrations
and constituents and for determin-
ing ground water contamination
potential were evaluated under field
and laboratory conditions. Guide-
lines for monitoring ground water
around RCRA Subtitle D landfill
facilities are being developed.
Underground Storage Tank
Program
One of the primary goals of this
program is to protect the Nation's
ground water resources from
releases by underground storage
tanks containing petroleum or cer-
tain hazardous substances. The EPA
works with State and local govern-
ments to implement Federal require-
ments for proper management of
USTs. The EPA estimates that about
1.2 million federally regulated USTs
are buried at over 500,000 sites
nationwide. Nearly all USTs contain
petroleum; about 30,000 USTs hold
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 53
hazardous substances covered by
the Federal regulations.
In 1988, EPA issued regulations
setting minimum standards for new
tanks (those installed after Decem-
ber 22, 1988) and existing tanks
(those installed before December
22, 1988). By December 1998,
existing USTs must be upgraded to
meet minimum standards or be
replaced with new tanks or be
closed properly. Since 1988, more
than 900,000 old USTs have been
closed, thus eliminating a significant
number of potential sources of
ground water contamination. Of the
remaining 1.2 million USTs, about
400,000 have already been
upgraded or replaced.
New and existing USTs comply-
ing with EPA's standards can pre-
vent leaks caused by spills, overfills,
corrosion, and faulty installation.
USTs complying with the leak
detection requirements can identify
releases quickly, before contamina-
tion spreads. Corrective action
requirements secure responsible and
timely cleanup of contaminated
sites.
As of January 1995, more than
278,000 UST releases had been
confirmed. The EPA estimates that
about half of these releases have
reached ground water. Over
110,000 contaminated sites have
been cleaned up, and cleanups are
under way at 100,000 more sites.
EPA estimates that the total number
of confirmed releases could reach
400,000 in the next several years,
primarily due to releases discovered
during the closure or replacement
of old USTs. After this peak, EPA
expects fewer releases as USTs
comply with leak prevention re-
quirements.
Congress created the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
Trust Fund in 1986 to provide
money for overseeing corrective
action taken by a responsible party
and to provide money for cleanups
at UST sites where the owner or
operator is unknown, unwilling, or
unable to respond or that require
emergency action. Since 1986,'
$469 million has been dispersed to
State UST programs for State
officials to use for administration,
oversight, and cleanup work.
UST owners and operators must
also meet financial responsibility
requirements that ensure they will
have the resources to pay for costs
associated with cleaning up releases
and compensating third parties. The
amount of coverage required ranges
from $500,000 to $1 million,
according to the type and size of
the UST business. Many States have
provided financial assurance funds
to help their UST owners meet the
financial responsibility requirements.
These State funds raise over $1 bil-
lion annually for use on UST
cleanups.
The Agency recognizes that,
because of the large size and great
diversity of the regulated commu-
nity, State and local governments
are in the best position to oversee
USTs. EPA encourages States to seek
State program approval so they may
operate in lieu of the Federal
program. To date, 20 States have •
received State Program Approval. All
States have UST regulations and
programs in place. The Agency also
has developed a data management
system that many States use to
track the status of UST facilities,
including their impact on ground
water resources. EPA also has nego-
tiated UST grants with all States and
provided technical assistance and
guidance for implementation and
enforcement of UST regulations.
-------
54 Ground Water Protection Programs
Safe Drinking Water Act
Pollutant source control is
addressed under the SDWA through
the UIC program.
Underground Injection Control
Program
EPA's UIC program was devel-
oped to regulate underground injec-
tion wells and thereby ensure that
underground sources of drinking
water are protected. Injection wells
are classified as follows:
• Class I: Wells used to inject haz-
ardous substances or industrial and
municipal waste beneath the lower-
most formation containing a source
of drinking water. There are 159
hazardous waste wells at 61 facilities
and 350 nonhazardous waste wells
at 197 facilities controlled by strin-
gent design, construction, and oper-
ating requirements. The hazardous
waste management facilities inject 9
billion gallons of fluids each year.
This volume represents 89% of all
Wells as Conduits of Contamination
Although anecdotal cases abound of wells serving as conduits that
allow contaminants to enter an aquifer, few occurrences are docu-
mented. However, the publication Drinking Water: Safeguards Are Not ,
Preventing Contamination From Injected Oil and Cas Wastes (GAO, 1989)"
provides a table of 23 documented cases of contamination, of an
underground source of drinking water via Class II oil and-gas injection
wells. Fourteen of these cases resulted from wells that were improperly
plugged or constructed and/or had leaky casings. Nine other cases,
were the result of deliberate injection into an aquifer before its designa-
tion as an underground source of drinking water. What is particularly °
noteworthy in these cases is the enormous cost of cleanup. In one of
the cases, the State (Kansas) authorized $300 million to begin cleanup
because the contamination threatened a major municipal well fiejd. In ,
18 of the other cases, no cleanup is intended because it is either
Impractical or too costly. * , , •
hazardous waste that is land
disposed.
• Class II: Wells used to inject
fluids in the process of oil or natural
gas production. More than 160,000
disposal and enhanced recovery
wells inject brines into geologic
formations. These wells inject
approximately 3 billion gallons of
produced brine and enhanced
recovery fluids every day.
Together Class I and II injection
wells dispose of a larger volume of
hazardous waste into deep bedrock
formation than all the other RCRA
hazardous waste disposal facilities by
a factor of eight.
• Class 111: Wells used to inject
fluids for the purpose of in situ
mineral extraction.
• Class IV: Wells used to dispose of
hazardous or radioactive waste into
or above an underground drinking
water source. These wells are
banned.
• Class V: Class V injection wells
are generally shallow wastewater
disposal wells, stormwater, and agri-
culture drainage systems or other
devices that can release nutrient and
toxic fluids into the ground and
eventually into water table aquifers.
EPA estimates that more than 1
million Class V wells currently exist
in the United States. A majority of
Class V wells may pose little or no
risk to human health. Others, how-
ever, may inject fluids containing
bacteria, viruses, nitrate-nitrogen,
and toxic chemicals that can con-
taminate the habitat and food sup-
ply of fish and wildlife species, the
base flow for surface waterbodies,
and the public drinking water sup-
ply. These wells include more than
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 55
100,000 shallow injection wells such
as those used to dispose of waste
from automotive service bays.
Currently, all shallow injection
wells that do not endanger under-
ground sources of drinking water
are allowed; however, because of
the diversity in the risks posed by
Class V wells and the size and
nature of the regulated community,
EPA encourages a nontraditional
regulatory approach to addressing
these wells. A large proportion of
the Class V wells are owned by
small businesses. To effectively
address the unique challenges
posed by the Class V universe, EPA
is implementing a comprehensive
strategy for the management of
Class V injection wells. The strategy
involves a carefully tailored combi-
nation of guidance, education, and
outreach and enhancing the use of
existing regulatory authorities
through some minor changes to the
UIC regulations. The goal of the
strategy will be to speed up the
closure of potentially endangering
Class V wells using current authori-
ties and to promote the use of best
management practices to ensure
that other Class V wells do not
endanger USDWs.
Grants allotted under Sections
1443(b) and 1451 of the SDWA
may be used to support UIC activi-
ties to protect ground water
resources. State and Federal UIC
programs include permitting and
review of permits to ensure that
wells meet requirements for well
construction, operation, monitoring,
plugging, and abandonment, and
financial responsibility to ensure that
underground sources of drinking
water are not endangered. Section
1422 provides EPA with authority to
grant primary enforcement authority
(primacy) to States to administer a
UIC program in their States. Section
1425 allows an alternative test for
EPA to use to approve a State's UIC
program for Class II brine disposal
wells.
EPA and States currently admin-
ister 57 UIC programs to maintain
regulatory coverage of the almost
one-half million underground injec-
tion wells. The majority of these
programs are State-administered, as
depicted in Figure 19. State agen-
cies with primary enforcement
authority respond to UIC violations.
If a response cannot be made in a
timely manner, EPA takes enforce-
ment action.
In 1992 and 1993, EPA contin-
ued to review "no migration" peti-
tions for hazardous waste injection
wells to ensure conformance with
RCRA and UIC provisions. EPA has
targeted specific enforcement, out-
reach, and regulatory activities to
protect drinking water sources from
the harmful effects of injections of
wastes and other fluids through the
vast number of diverse Class V
injection wells. The Class V rule has
significant implications for the dis-
posal of industrial wastes. EPA also
plans to propose "area of review"
requirements for all Class II wells.
EPA Regional offices administer-
ing UIC programs in nonprimacy
States continue to review permit
applications for injection wells and
continue oversight of State primacy
programs to ensure that: UIC per-
mits issued meet program require-
ments. Regional offices also
continue to review petitions from
operators of hazardous waste
injection wells seeking exemptions
from the injection well ban.
-------
56 Ground Water Protection Programs
Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Act
The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the
Superfund Amendments and Reau-
thorization Act of 1986 created
several programs operated by EPA,
States, Territories, and Tribes that
act to protect and restore contami-
nated ground water. Restoration of
contaminated ground water is one
of the primary goals of the Super-
fund program. As stated in the
National Contingency Plan, EPA
expects to return usable ground
Figure 19
Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program
State Program
EPA
I", I Split EPA/State Program
Guam and Northern
Mariana Islands
American Samoa, Palau,
and Virgin Islands
waters to their beneficial uses,
wherever possible, within a time
frame that is reasonable given the
particular circumstances of the site.
Following are statistics related to
Superfund restorations:
• In the absence of Superfund,
11.9 million people could be
exposed to carcinogenic risk greater
than 1 in a million, and 9.9 million
people could be exposed to noncar-
cinogenic effects above health-based
standards at National Priority List
(NPL) sites.
• At 94% of NPL sites where
ground waters were classified (426
of 453), the ground water is cur-
rently used or potentially usable as
a source of drinking water. This
suggests that only 6% of NPL sites
involving ground water contamina-
tion are classified as nonusable aqui-
fers (e.g., saline or nonpotable).
• Of the 622 NPL sites reporting
ground water contamination near
the site, the ground water is cur-
rently used for private water sup-
plies at 42% of the sites and for
public supplies at 27% of the sites.
• At the 67% of NPL sites where
ground water is currently used for
drinking water purposes, the
ground water is potentially threat-
ened by a migrating contaminant
plume.
• Organic compounds are the pre-
dominant ground water contami-
nants for 89% of the sites for which
remedies for ground water contami-
nation have been selected. Table 2
lists the most frequently detected
organic and inorganic constituents
reported at NPL sites.
• Ground water contamination is
associated with 63% of the sites for
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 57
which remedies have been selected
(702 of 1,121).
• Generally, ground waters that are
currently used or are potentially
usable for drinking water supply are
being cleaned to MCLs authorized
under the SWDA. However, in some
cases, more stringent State stan-
dards are used. At least 12 States
have promulgated cleanup stan-
dards for ground water, including
Massachusetts, West Virginia, Illinois,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico,
Texas, Iowa, Nevada, South Dakota,
Wyoming, and Washington.
Pollution Prevention
The Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 was enacted by Congress to
promote pollution prevention and
environmental protection goals.
Under this Act, the EPA Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Cooperative State Research Service
have worked cooperatively to lead
the Nation in the development of
environmentally sound agricultural
policies. The Agriculture in Concert
With the Environment Program
promotes the use of sustainable
agriculture and the integrated man-
agement of nutrients, pesticides,
resources, and wastes to reduce the
risks of environmental pollution.
Grants allotted under this Act may
be used to fund outreach projects
involving education, demonstration,
and training in sustainable agricul-
tural practices that emphasize
ground water protection and reduc-
ing the excessive use of nutrients
and pesticides.
Grants are also available under
this Act to support State and local
pollution prevention programs that
address the reduction of pollutants
across all environmental media: air,
land, surface water, ground water,
and wetlands. These grants may be
used to promote and coordinate
existing State pollution prevention
activities that focus on specific
media, to develop new multimedia
pollution prevention programs, to
develop mechanisms to measure
progress in multimedia pollution
prevention, and to conduct educa-
tion and outreach programs.
Table 2
: i
. Contaminants Most Frequently Reported in
Ground Wate}- at CER'CLA National Priority
Rank
List Sites j ,
Contaminants Number of Sites
Organic Compounds
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethylene
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethene
Benzene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylene
Ethylbenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Phenol
Methylene chloride
1,2-Dichloroethane
Pentachlorophenol
Chlorobemsne
DDT
336
167
167
163
160
155
138
107
103
94
81
76
69
68
61
58
56
52
46
35
Inorganic Constituents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Lead
Chromium ion and related species
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper ion and related species
Mercury
Zinc ion and related species
Nickel ion and related species
Barium
Cyanides and associated salts
306
213
149
126
83
81
75
45
41
38
-------
58 Ground Water Protection Programs
, , « i jj;s 'Vpji^^il^lpH^
, , y^|7i^\ '" ' ' '*'^"*''^;-*^^. ^^
;,. HIGHUGH|ff"j JJJGHT HIGHLIGHT - '- W^^;}^^
Irr"^
=-
S_. '
fr
^
!-
i .: | 1 ' f >
= ' ' •".*,
_ •
i '
r '
* ' ' ,
-7
7-
:-
t5""'
-
':
Grass Roots
Ground Water Protection
As the impacts of ground water catalog potential threats to their
contamination become more widely drinking water. The State estimated
known, volunteers and grass roots that the volunteer effort saved
ground water protection initiatives approximately $35,000, and
are becoming common in commu- resulted in the identification of
nities across America. The programs approximately 20,000 potential
range from volunteer-driven efforts sources of pollutants near the water
to protect vital drinking water sup- wells.
plies through Wellhead Protection The El Paso pollution source
Programs, to volunteer-sponsored inventory formed the backbone of
well water quality testing and public the El Paso Wellhead Protection
education on the sources of our Program and resulted in a city ordi-
drinking water. nance concerning the storage of
hazardous materials within the vicin-
"TJig £| PasO 'ty °f tne Public water wells. The
_ . effort has recently been expanded •
experience jnt0 Mexico, since the residents of
-,~™ , T- ,., the adjacent Mexican city of Ciudad
In ate 1989, the Texas Water JuarezJa!so rely on drinking water
Comm,ss,on targeted the city of El f rom ^ ^ ^ers.
Paso, Texas, for a pilot project to
protect the city's ground water. This rxiwinn'* Vnli mtPPr
pilot project marked the beginning Uregon S VOIUnieer
of an innovative, volunteer-driven Well Water Nitrate
Wellhead Protection Program. A Tf^tinn Proiprt
team of dedicated volunteers was ' caui '=* UJC<-L
coordinated through the El Paso The o n Department of
Retired Senior Volunteer Program. Environmental Quality sponsored a
Over a 3 /2-day period, the ject to encourage residents to
23 senior citizen volunteers surveyed test tnejr weM water for nitrate
possible sources of ground water Ieve,s Tne -ect was conducted
contamination around all 1 38 public from ^ 991 to n 993 and resu|ted in
water wells that provide drinking volunteers testing a total of 1 ,600
water to the city of El Paso. They wdls The Oregon Cround Water
reviewed historical records, inter- Community Involvement Program
viewed area residents, and was initiated to continue the nitrate
conducted door-to-door surveys to testj program- Tne program
'
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 59
provides volunteer training, resource
materials and nitrate test kits and
promotes public education through
nitrate testing events and ground
water forums.
League of Women
Voters Ground Water
Education Programs
The League of Women Voters
(LWV) has sponsored a number of
volunteer-led ground water educa-
tion programs. The LVW in Rock-
ford, Illinois, surveyed residents con-
cerning their knowledge of water
supply and ground water contami-
nation concerns. Similar surveys
were conducted by the LWV in Red
Wing, Minnesota, and Salt Lake
City, Utah. The LWV of Enid, Okla-
homa, organized volunteers to con-
duct pollution source inventories
around the city's five water well
fields. Other LWV chapters have
developed videos, brochures, and
other educational materials concern-
ing ground water protection and
potential threats to ground water
quality.
-------
60 Ground Water Protection Programs
!iii' i "Xi
"i" »| iiS1,
W ..Kl''^'^!','! 'I,': !:jii|ll!in:l!
t JilfiiASIiBM^ IK
Protecting Our Drinking Water:
The EPA's Source Water
Protection Initiative
Americans have long enjoyed
the luxury of safe, affordable drink-
ing water. A rising awareness of
water pollution incidents, however,
has caused people to be concerned
about drinking water quality. Many
communities have recognized that
preventing the pollution of lakes,
rivers, streams, and ground water is
the key to ensuring the long-term
safety of drinking water. This com-
mon sense approach is known as
source water protection.
The Safe Drinking Water Act
emphasizes monitoring and treat-
ment to protect drinking water
safety. However, protection based
on monitoring and treatment alone
is not sufficient. Nearly all groups
interested in drinking water safety
see a need for stronger efforts to
prevent pollution from entering
drinking water sources rather than
relying solely on water treatment to
reduce health threats.
The EPA encourages this preven-
tion-oriented approach and is
actively promoting the development
of grass roots source water protec-
tion activities. As part of the Source
Water Protection Initiative, the EPA
hopes to
• Restore the public's rights and
responsibilities to protect their
drinking water
• Raise public confidence in the
safety and quality of their drinking
water supply
• Reduce the costs of providing
safe drinking water.
Wellhead Protection
Programs
Many States and communities
are currently promoting source
water protection, in Wellhead Pro-
tection (WHP) programs. The 1986
Amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act established the Wellhead
Protection Program to aid commu-
nities in protecting their drinking
water quality. Through wellhead
protection, communities identify the
land areas that contribute ground
water to public water supply wells.
They then develop plans to manage
the potential sources of contamina-
tion in those vulnerable areas,
thereby reducing the likelihood of
polluting the drinking water source.
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 61
By the end of December 1994,
a total of 37 States and Territories
had EPA-approved WHP Programs
in place. In addition, thousands of
local WHP initiatives have been
undertaken in communities across
the Nation. As of 1993, approxi-
mately 3,800 communities that are
dependent on ground water for
drinking water had complete WHP
programs.
Expanded Source
Water Protection
Goals
The idea of wellhead protection
can apply to surface water supplies
as well. The EPA is encouraging
stronger watershed protection pro-
grams, through approaches avail-
able under the Federal Clean Water
Act, to protect surface waters used
for drinking water supplies. Source
water protection, for both ground
water and surface water, may offer
significant advantages to both drink-
ing water purveyors and consumers.
The EPA is planning a National
Source Water Protection Workshop
in 1996. This workshop will provide
communities with the tools and
information needed to establish
source water protection programs.
The workshop will be televised and
will target communities that have
delineated their source water pro-
tection areas and carried out source
identification. The workshop will
also assist communities in moving
toward source management.
The EPA has also set the follow-
ing source water protection goals:
• By 1997, establish a core network
of 10,000 communities with active
and comprehensive local WHP
programs in place.
• By 1997, incorporate source
water protection and source
management as priority objectives
in projects requiring financial assis-
tance from other Federal programs.
• By 1997, begin to expand source
water protection approaches to
communities reliant on surface
water for drinking water.
• By 2005, have 50% of all
community water supplies, covered
by active and comprehensive local
source water protection programs.
-------
62 Ground Water Protection Programs
: HIGHLIGnfrlyGHT HIGHLIGHT ; '^ S^SjI'tf
in * tt
,?, ' " '
i| « 1 1 if 1 lib1 I * f f S ^ (
1 IMflilll «i t f " B * * & T
i ' iiillti i1< fi" " ff*
1 •*
.I1,;;, : ;:*:;".
jtt *, ' r, s i
i1 i n1 iiiiifti it;/, fcj'i,p
"C p>* ' "•
•_ |||l, , 1, ' 1 r\ ^
1 i «!
,1 * *
JL 1 III) «' .
i1 p, ;', „"" ' ^
; "in i i"
.,; 1 1 HI III IMlllllll'ltllll \H ltV**l
i, , ,, , >,
; *
t- i mi i • '!
!; Ml" « " i " < »! {
•" (1
;"' ', , ' ,
i i n * i ' • i , <
! . 'j *
• , '
i i i i i i il ill 1111111 inn>" i <1 ^
'^- 1 1 1 1 ( ll -
F '!"
-- J ;
1 /
1 !
f 4H h » ft *l
' " f I II 1 l ^
j, ll-lj ill M [(>, ,>
t '"hi ll'lilih!"v'i|IJf<
|; ,j ! n, '">,"
il'i , ,
Costs of Not Preventing
Contamination of the Ground
Water Resource
The sage adage that "An ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of
cure" is being borne out in the field
of ground water protection. Three
separate efforts to look at the cost
of prevention versus remediation
have found that there can be real
cost advantages to promoting
prevention of ground water con-
tamination in the public and private
sectors.
The analysis of prevention in
Maine found that, for six large
municipal water systems with con-
tamination from salt storage, gaso-
line, landfill leachate, and industrial
solvents, costs for well replacement,
emergency supplies, water treat-
ment, and/or remediation ranged
from $500,000 to $1,500,000. Of
the 2,000 small water systems in the
State, perhaps as many as 70 are
contaminated. For six small systems,
remedial costs ranged from $6,000
to $1 55,000. Costs for preventing
contamination in these cases were
estimated to be 1/1 Oth to 1/1 00th
of the costs of remediation for the
large systems and 1/5th to 1/1 Oth
for the small systems. Although
remediation is thus more costly than
prevention, whether prevention is
: \ , ' '-7 •*', x ^^'f^^^'jV ^'£f<*'*^~f?&y*'--rf]4'£'
"• ";'i'"^'i'1' ) 3 „•. * f'\$' *' %lSj''' *''*'* lS<-'-$'{/'S','?''' •'••' CT-^fyf'*/' $£'
' '\ ,'•'?••'•, ! >',''*^!S'?',J v*>^5°v4'?3.'--t<*t$*?'^«
/ ' v, " •_ ,-; /.V'v'^V^fJ^ ^i'-fe^t^fc^'l-fll^
i , ;«a^v^£:<{K;;^;;t$fe ^^l^^fl?*
more cost-effective in any particular
instance depends on the risk that a
water system without a particular
type of preventive measure would
need remediation and when any
costs of remediation would be
incurred.
The State of Washington's Well-
head Protection Program found
that, in a sample of small communi-
ties ranging in size from 300 to
5,000 people affected by such
contaminants as ethylene dibromide
(an agricultural fumigant), gasoline,
and trichloroethylene (TCE, a sol-
vent), costs for cleanup and/or a
new water supply ranged from
$40,000 to $1,800,000, with costs
continuing to be incurred. For a
larger city— Tacoma— where TCE
and other contaminants were found
in a wellfield in concentrations more
than 1 0 times the health standard,
costs over the expected 1 8-year
cleanup period are estimated to be
$25 million.
Washington's Wellhead Protec-
tion Program catalogued the types
of costs associated with contami-
nated public water supplies and
found that they included
•
°;^S?v^«*^P¥^-'^
''I*// *sf*/jt''$'fi£f' &'<>$'•*> ^,'£'>'^''$i$i,ffi'$''^'} f,st£,£'j['i '•>'"> "^''^•^J"' 'IA' y* 0'j
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 63
• Provision of emergency water
supplies
• Construction and operation of
water treatment facilities at the
wellhead
• Well replacement
• Transmission line construction
• Hydrogeologic studies
The Freshwater Foundation
report, Economic Implications of
Groundwater Contamination to
Companies and Cities (1991), indi-
cates that costs to 17 Minnesota
cities for remediating ground water
contamination was over $30 million,
with seven cities reporting costs
Remedial measures at or near the over $1 million and two reporting
contamination source including soil impacts in the $10 to $20 million
removal, soil capping, and the
installation and operation of "pump
and treat" systems
Additional administrative costs
range. Fourteen cases of ground
water contamination involving cor-
porations found that most busi-
nesses spent over $1 million, with
Public information and education five spending from $5 million to
• Legal proceedings.
Intangible costs included
• Increased health risks
• Decreased ability to provide
adequate volumes of Water, espe-
cially in emergencies, such as fires
• Reduced consumer confidence
• Economic impairment
• Lost opportunity costs in spend-
ing funds for cleanup rather than
other community needs
• Consumer hysteria and over-
reaction
• Disposal of wastewater from
pump and,treat facilities.
nearly $10 million. In addition to
the technical and engineering reme-
dial costs, a major corporate cost
was legal fees.
-------
-------
Appendix A
Data Reported by Individual
States, Tribes, Territories,
and Commissions - Ground Water
-------
A-2 Appendix A Data Reported by Individual States, Tribes, Territories, and Commissions - Ground Water
Table A-1. Ground Water Source Used for Drinking Water ;
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total US.
Ground Water for Public
Water Supply- 1970-1990
MOD 1990
224
34
401
119
3,260
83
73
33
1,700
234
221
173
444
274
234
176
55
275
21
76
179
261
290
282
185
51
235
104
34
396
241
550
137
32
396
80
105
427
13
79
52
269
1,270
305
19
69
434
43
294
41
80
1
15,000
% Increase
1970-1990
124
42
111
68
104
5
(15)
10
124
23
84
80
(38)
30
30
35
129
96
5
81
5
13
81
76
101
96
57
28
6
16
85
20
71
33
24
11
57
71
(28)
44
24
68
84
103
36
(7)
50
19
34
71
135
61
Ground Water to' Surface
Water Ratio for MajginaT
Change in Public Supplied
Water- 1980-1990
2.8
0.4
2.2
0.2
3.8
1.3
18
0.8
10.9
0.02
20.5
1.9
<0
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.1
1.3
1.0
0.1
<0
0.3
4.0
>32
725
>1
2.5
0.1
<0
<0
4.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.03
0.2
>187
<0
0.3
0
0.6
>340
0
>2
<0
>134
0
0.2
>14
0.2
2.1
2.1
Po'pulatlon Supplied *
' . by Ground Water for
Drinking Water -1990
} ^Population'
- (thousands)
1,819
282
2,457
1,451
16,453
670
1,130
435
11,710
2,880
1,076
864
4,650
3,510
2,142
1,290
1,341
2,447
701
4,781
6,016
9,395
4,375
2,573
5,117
799
1,578
1,202
1,109
7,773
1,517
1 7,990
6,629
639
10,847
3,146
2,842
11,882
1,003
2,055
545
2,498
8,047
1,723
563
6,187
4,867
1,793
4,892
454
3,522
101
128,902
%
45
51
67
62
55
20
34
65
91
44
97
86
41
63
77
52
36
58
57
31
42
35
79
93
49
52
86
33
64
47
90
36
43
61
45
39
37
50
19
59
78
51
47
58
72
34
60
51
69
59'
25
14
51
% of Ground
Water Supplied „-
t<5 Population
by Private, '
Wells'- 1990,-,
20
55
12
39
17
37
55
32
15
46
4
28
29
44
32
19
75
25
77
57
25
51
42
28
41
47
28
20
58
25
23
32
66
40
36
40
52
46
37
67
26
36
11
5
57
70
31
65
44
41
48
32
Source: Geological Survey: Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1971,1975,1980,1985, and 1990; Circular 676,1972; Circular 765,1977; Circular 1001,
1983; Circular 1004,1988; Circular 1081,1993.
-------
Appendix A Data Reported by Individual States, Tribes, Territories, and Commissions - Ground Water A-3
-------
A-4 Appendix A Data Reported by Individual States, Tribes, Territories, and Commissions - Ground Water
Table A-2. Summary of State Ground Water Protection Programs
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Indicator Parameters*
Administrative
/*
/*
/
(pesticide
residues)
/
(pesticides,
VOCs, metals,
nitrates,
trihalomethanes)
/
(land use)
/*
/*
J*
Constituent
/
(pesticides, VOCs,
ions, metals,
hydrocarbons,
radionuclides,
bacteria)
/
/
(pH, nitrate,
specific
conductivity,
inorganics)
/
(organics,
chlorides)
/
(radionuclides,
pesticides, ions,
bacteria, VOCs)
/
(bacteria)
/
(color, pH,
alkalinity, ions,
specific
conductivity)
Monitoring8
Ambient
/
/
/
/"
/"
/
/
/
/
periodic
/"
/
/"
/"
/
Compliance
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Federal
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
" ,' Classification „ :• , ' / ,
Classification
Levels
under development0
none"
2
3
systems are regional —
use categories include:
domestic, agricultural,
industrial service, and
industrial process1"
5
4
no formal system— goal of
protection of all water for
beneficial useb
4
no formal system —
variable protection based
on ground water value,
vulnerability, existing quality,
current use, and potential
future useb
3
3
4
none
noneb-c
3
none
domestic use
2
3
Basis'"
use
relationship to ecologically sensitive
ecosystems and potential use
as drinking water source
beneficial use
use
use and water quality (suitability
for use as a drinking water
source without treatment)
use, total dissolved solids,
ambient water quality, and
level of natural protection
antidegradation goal
hydrogeology, geology,
existing use, salinity,
total dissolved solids,
replaceability, vulnerability
to contamination,
and ecological importance
ecological sensitivity,
use as drinking water source1
beneficial use
natural mineral quality
use
regulation, hydrogeology,
water quality
• Indicators suggested by EPA in the guidance document for the 305(b) report.
Sources: * "Summary Table of Current State Ground Water Monitoring and Use of Ground Water Quality Indicators," January 1994!
bBenjamln, S., and Belluck, D., State Groundwater Regulation: Guide to Laws, Standards, and Risk Assessment, The Bureau of National Affairs, Washington, DC, 1994.
e "Summary of State Ground Water Classification Systems," December 1992.
dState 30S(b) Reports.
-------
Appendix A Data Reported by Individual States, Tribes, Territories, and Commissions - Ground Water A-5
Table A-2. (continued)
Classification (continued) ,
Used in
Permittingc
Restricted Activities*1
Certain industries must have Aquifer Protection Permits, which control and limit discharges
Activities that may affect water quality: restrictions vary across the State
No discharge of wastewater other than domestic sewage or animal wastes in areas containing the two highest classes
of ground water; only areas containing the lowest class of ground water (unsuitable for development of a public water
supply) may be used for waste treatment processes
Permitting based on nondegradation policy—polluting activities can be prohibited
Activities restricted in areas vulnerable to ground water contamination—all potentially polluting activities are controlled
Regulation of activities threatening ground water quality
Wastewater discharges regulated through permitting
(continued)
-------
A-6 Appendix A Data Reported by Individual States, Tribes, Territories, and Commissions - Ground Water
Table A-2. (continued)
State
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Indicator Parameters"
Administrative
/*
/*
/*
/
(public supply
vulnerability)
/
(Maximum
Allowable Limit
(MAL) violations)
/*
/*
Constituent
/
(specific
conductivity,
TOC, COD, ionic
balance)
/
(nitrate)
/
(pesticides,
nitrate)
/
(alpha particle
activity)
/
/
(bacteria)
/
Monitoring3
Ambient
/d
/
/"
/"
/"
/"
proposed
/"
/"
/
/
/
/
/a
/
/d
/
developing"
Compliance
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Federal
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
,, . Classificatfo'n , /
Classification
Levels
3
none — believe all aquifers
should have equal protection11
none— nondegradation goal
for all ground water15
none — goal of preservation
for domestic useb
no formal system —
antidegradation policy for
all usable ground water;
classes can be assigned by
regulation and water quality13
4
3
none — antidegradation policy
for all ground water
4
3
2"
3
3
2
none— no differential
protection of aquifers
3 (proposed)
none — antidegradation
policy for all ground water
none— nondegradation
goal for all ground water
4
3
2
under development
4
7
4
Basis"
most sensitive use
specific conductance
regulation
potential as a drinking
water source
hydrogeologic characteristics
and designated uses
total dissolved solids
total dissolved
solids and salinity
use and mineral content
total dissolved solids and
regulation under the State
UIC program
ecological sensitivity,
hydrogeologic characteristics,
total dissolved solids,
and potential use
potential use and water quality
(e.g., suitability for drinking water
use without treatment)
hydrogeologic characteristics
and potential use
total dissolved solids
total dissolved solids
ecological importance,
presence of contaminants,
total dissolved solids,
and potential use
potential use and exposure
to risk of contamination
-------
Appendix A Data Reported by Individual States, Tribes, Territories, and Commissions - Ground Water A-7
Table A-2. (continued)
Used In
Permitting0
Restricted Activities6
Antidegradation policy, especially in areas of high water quality. Regulated contaminant sources include chemical and fuel storage,
agricultural chemical use, waste treatment and disposal areas, water wells and unrestricted test holes, industrial facilities, and
hazardous material transportation spills and leaks
Local protection and State corrective and prevention efforts targeted in top two tiers of classification system
Discharge permits are required—designed to protect Class I ground waters
Standards regulate discharges to each class of ground water
Sewage, industrial, or other wastes cannot be placed where they may cause pollution to any source of ground water
Human activities are regulated and/or prohibited within vulnerable ground water areas
(continued)
-------
A-8 Appendix A Data Reported by Individual States, Tribes, Territories, and Commissions - Ground Water
Table A-2. (continued)
State
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Indicator Parameters"
Administrative
/*
/*
/*
Constituent
/
(specific
conductivity,
gross alpha,
nitrate, pesticides)
/
Monitoring*
Ambient
/
proposed
/
/
Compliance
/
/
/
Federal
/
/
Classification y ,f
Classification
Levels
none— antidegration policy
for all ground water6
none— antidegradation policy
for all ground water
none— preservation of all
ground water for beneficial use
none— antidegradation goal
for all aquifers; preserve all
as drinking water sources'1
9 (including subclasses)
Basis'1
regulation, existing use,
total dissolved solids,
ambient water quality
-------
Appendix A Data Reported by Individual States, Tribes, Territories, and Commissions - Ground Water A-9
Table A-2. (continued)
Used in
Permitting0
Restricted Activities*
No discharge unless all known, available, and reasonable methods of treatment have been applied
No discharge unless all known, available, and reasonable methods of treatment have been applied
No discharges to first five classes that impair ambient ground water quality; no discharges to classes 6 and 7 that impair water
for use suitability; no substances released to any class in excess of standards or that contribute to any hazardous effect on natural
biota
-------
-------
OMB Control No. 2090-0019
Expires on 10/31/97
What Do You Think About This Report?
EPA constantly seeks to improve the content and presentation of information in the National Water
Quality Inventory Report to Congress. Your response to the following questions specific to the ground
water chapters will help EPA tailor the content and presentation of future reports to address your needs.
Please pull out this page and return your comments to the address on the reverse. Thank you for taking
the time to respond.
1. Are there additional topics that you would like to see covered
in this document?
Please list topics: .
YES
n
NO
D
2. Are there topics that should be removed from this document?
Please list topics:
D
3. Was the organization of the report adequate?
How could the organization be improved?
4. In general, were the figures and graphics easy to understand?
Which figures were most effective at conveying information to you?
D D
5. Were there any figures that were difficult to understand?
Please list figures:
D
6. Do you have any other suggestions for improving the content
and presentation of information in this Report to Congress?
-------
— second fold —
A. Roger Anzzolin
305(b) Coordinator-Ground Water Quality
U.S. EPA (4602)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
first fold
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Offices
For additional information about water quality in your Region, please contact your EPA
Regional Section 305(b) Coordinator listed below:
Diane Switzer
EPA Region 1 (EMS-LEX)
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA 02173
(617)860-4377
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine,
New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
Jane Leu
EPA Region 2 (SWQB)
290 Broadway, 25* Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
(212)637-3741
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Margaret Passmore
EPA Region 3 (3ES11)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-6149
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, District of
Columbia
David Melgaard
EPA Region 4
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, CA 30365
(404)347-2126
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
Dave Stoltenberg
EPA Region 5 (SQ-14J)
77 West Jackson Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-5784
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Russell Nelson
EPA Region 6 (6W-QT)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214)665-6646
Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Texas
Robert Steiert
EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7433
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Phil Johnson
EPA Region 8 (8WM-WQ)
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
(303)312-6275
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming
Janet Hashimoto
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-1933
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
. Nevada, American Samoa, Guam
Curry Jones
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)553-6912
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington
U.S. EPA Regions
•y P~~l Virgin Islands
^ EU Puerto Rico
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
f;?i rss^nr
O ffi 2!
-* CXI
2g
I? ='
3- CD
< co
S. w
CD
CO
CD
=3'"-"' g
•§' 12
I
o
O
O5
O
CD ^
2. JD
£B CO
a
O
CQ
(D
I
------- |