United States
Environmental Protection
Agency . :
Office of Water
(4606)
Washington, DG
-EPA-816-R-98-011
August 1998
N atio n a I Water Quality
Inventory
1996 Report to Congress
Groundwater Chapters
; : , Internet Address (URL) •http://www.epa.gqv '
• Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based inks on Recycled Paper (20% Postconsurrier)
-------
Cover Photo by A. Roger Anzzolin
Prince William County, VA
-------
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 summa-
rizes 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 jurisdictions 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
1996 Section 305(b) reports is based on water quality information collected and evaluated by
the States, Territories, and Tribes during 1994 and 1995.
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 the water quality. The National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress
must balance flexibility with the goal of obtaining comparable and consistent data. In the last
8 to 10 years, EPA has sought to establish guidelines for data collection that would lend consis-
tency to the data collected, analyzed, and provided to EPA for this report. Joint actions by EPA,
States, and other agencies included implementing the recommendations of the Intergovern-
mental 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 recommended 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 introduced the concept of assessing ground water quality and
establishing baseline data requirements for selected aquifers or hydrogeologic settings within a
State. The focus on specific aquifers or hydrogeologic units is expected to make comparison and
interpretation of ground water quality more meaningful in the future National Water Quality
Inventory Reports to Congress.
This bulletin focuses on our Nation's ground water resources. Using information supplied by
the States, Territories, and Tribes in their 1996 Section 305(b) reports, the two chapters that
comprise this bulletin characterize our Nation's ground water quality, identify common ground
water quality problems of national significance, and describe various programs implemented to
restore and protect our ground water resources.
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; source water
quality protection and assessment must happen at the local and State levels in conjunction with
State and Federal activities, funding, and programs. This bulletin also does not provide the
detailed information needed to manage a ground-water quality program. However, this infor-
mation can be used together with the individual State Section 305(b) reports, water manage-
ment plans, and other local environmental protection programs to implement an integrated
ground-water management program.
-------
-------
Contents
Page
Preface i
Figures iv
Tables v
Acknowledgments vi
Ground Water Quality
Ground Water Use in the United States 2
Highlight: Ground Water Use 4
Ground Water Quality 7
Highlight: Ground Water/Surface Water Interactions 8
Highlight: Ground Water Along Our Nation's Coasts 12
Ground Water Contaminant Sources 13
Underground Storage Tanks 15
Highlight: Frequently Considered Factors 16
Landfills 19
Septic Systems 21
State Overview of Contaminant Sources 23
Ground Water Assessments 24
Diversity of Reporting Units 25
Extent of Coverage 31
Ground Water Quality Data Sources 31
Parameter Groups/Analytes 32
Ground Water Quality Data 33
Conclusion 40
Ground Water Protection Programs
Primary Drinking Water Protection Programs 43
Clean Water Act 44
Highlight Alabama's Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program 46
Safe Drinking Water Act 49
Highlight: Illinois' Source Water Protection Program 50
Highlight: Costs of Remediation versus Prevention 54
Highlight: Senior Volunteers and Ground Water Protection 56
Other Control Programs and Activities 63
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 64
Underground Storage Tank Program 65
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act 67
Conclusion 69
in
-------
Figures
No. Page
1 Distribution of Water on Earth's Surface 2
2 National Ground Water Use as a Percentage of Total
Withdrawals 2
3 Withdrawal and Discharge of Ground Water as a Percentage
of Contribution 7
4 Ground Water Contamination as a Result of Petroleum
Spillage 10
5 Sources of Ground Water Contamination 11
6 Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination 14
7 Ground Water Contamination as a Result of Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks 15
8 Number of Private Drinking Water Supply Wells Contaminated
by Leaking Underground Petroleum Storage Facilities
(1986-1993) 19
9 Changes in the Makeup of the Maine UST Population 19
10 Ground Water Contamination as a Result of Unlined
Landfill Disposal 20
11 Ground Water Contamination as a Result of Commercial
Septic Systems 22
12 Summary of How Ground Water Data Were Reported 26
13 Locations and Descriptions of Very Intense Study Areas
(VISA) in Florida 27
14 Arkansas Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Program 27
15 Idaho's Hydrogeologic Subareas 28
16 Arizona Watersheds 29
17 Alabama Physiographic Provinces 30
18 Sources of Ground Water Data 31
19 Aquifer Monitoring Data 32
20 States with Core CSGWPP 45
21 What Actions Are Needed to Complete a Local Source
Water Assessment? 52
22 WHP Approval Status as of May 1, 1997 53
23 Project Reviews 59
24 Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 60
25 Injection Well Relationship to Underground Sources
of Drinking Water 61
26 Growing Number of Cleanups 66
27 CERCLA Process 67
iv
-------
Tables
No. Page
1 Summary of Contaminant Source Type and Number 24
2 Summary of Parameter Groups/Constituents Reported
by States in 1996 33
3 Nitrates 34
4 VOCs 35
5 SVOCs 36
6 Pesticides 37
7 Metals 38
8 Bacteria 39
9 Nevada's Draft Minimum Sets of Data Elements 49
10 Summary—Fiscal Year Post Designation Project Reviews
(1990-1996) 59
11 Cases of Contamination Resulting from Onsite Wastewater
Disposal Systems 63
12 Contaminants Most Frequently Reported in Ground Water
at CERCLA National Priority List Sites 69
-------
Acknowledgments
This bulletin is based primarily on the 7996 305(b) State Water Quality Assessments submitted
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by States, Territories, and American Indian
Tribes. 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 the
EPA regional offices that work with the States, Tribes, and other jurisdictions.
The project manager and chief editor of this document was A. Roger Anzzolin of the Infor-
mation Management Branch, Implementation and Assistance Division (IAD), Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water. Key contributions also were made by the following IAD individuals:
Steve Ainsworth, Thomas Belk, James Hamilton, Harriet Hubbard, William J. McCabe, Kevin
McCormack, Janice Shubert, Roy Simon, and John Simons. Greg Helms of the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response; John Heffelfinger of the Office of Underground Storage Tanks;
Judy Long of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds; and Calvin Terada of U.S. EPA
Region 10 also contributed to this report.
Special appreciation goes to the 305(b) Ground Water Focus Group which included the
following individuals: John Barndt (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control); Rick Cobb (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency); John Dyer (Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality); Erik Galloway (New Mexico Environment Department);
David Jennings (Washington Department of Health); Jill D. Jonas (Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources); Markell M. Lanpher (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency); Diana Marsh
(Arizona Department of Environmental Quality); David McMillan (Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency); Kelly Mills (Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission); Susan
Kiernan (Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management); Steve Smaller (Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control); and Fred Van Alstyne (New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation).
Contractor support was provided under Contract No. 68-C3-0303 with Tetra Tech, Inc.
Research Triangle Institute (RTI), a subcontractor to Tetra Tech, 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;
MaryT. Siedlecki, Task Leader; Jennifer M. Lloyd, Computer Scientist; Kathleen B. Mohar,
Technical Editor; Shari B. Lambert, Computer Graphics Specialist; and Deborah Lee, Typesetter.
vi
-------
-------
-------
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is a vital national
resource that is used for myriad
purposes. It is used for public and
domestic water supply systems, for
irrigation and livestock watering,
and for industrial, commercial,
mining, and thermoelectric power
production purposes. Jn many parts
of the Nation, ground water serves
as the only reliable source of drink-
ing and irrigation water. Unfortu-
nately, this vital resource is vulnera-
ble to contamination, and ground
water contaminant problems are
being reported throughout the
country.
To ascertain the extent to which
our Nation's ground water resources
have been impacted by human
activities, Section 106(e) of the
Clean Water Act requests that each
State monitor ground water quality
and report the findings to Congress
in their 305(b) State Water Quality
Reports. Evaluation of our Nation's
ground water quality is complex
and early efforts to provide a
National assessment of ground
water quality relied on generalized
overviews presented by the State
resource managers. These overviews
were most frequently based on
known or suspected contamination
sites and on finished water quality
data from public supply systems.
Unfortunately, these early assess-
ments did not always provide a
complete or accurate representation
of ambient ground water quality
conditions. Nor did they provide an
indication of the extent and severity
of ground water contamination
problems.
EPA recognized that an accurate
representation of our Nation's ambi-
ent ground water quality conditions
required developing a set of guide-
lines that would ultimately yield
quantitative data for specific hydro-
geologic units within a State. EPA, in
partnership with interested States,
developed guidelines for assessing
ground water quality that took into
account the complex spatial varia-
tions in aquifer systems, the differing
levels of sophistication among State
programs, and the expense of col-
lecting ambient ground water data.
It was these guidelines that were
used by States for reporting the
1996 305(b) ground water data.
The most significant change for
1996 was the request that States
provide ground water information
for selected aquifers or hydrogeo-
logic settings (e.g., watersheds)
within the State. The focus on
specific aquifers or hydrogeologic
settings provides for a more quanti-
tative assessment of ground water
quality than was possible in previous
reporting cycles.
State response to the revised
ground water guidelines was excel-
lent. Forty States, one Territory, and
two Tribes used the new guidelines
to assess and report ground water
quality data in 1996. Each of these
reporting entities (hereafter referred
to as States) used the data that was
available to them and, as a conse-
quence, there was wide variation
in reporting style. This variation
was anticipated by EPA and States
involved in developing the
guidelines as it is a direct reflection
-------
2 Ground Water Quality
Figure 1
Distribution of Water on Earth's Surface
Fresh Water
Available for Use
0.52%
Ice Caps and Glaciers 1.97%
Other 0.01%
Surface Water 4%
Figure 2
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.
of the administrative, technical, and
programmatic diversity among our
States. This variation is expected to
decrease in future 305(b) reporting
cycles as many States have indicated
they are developing plans to
improve their data management to
provide better coverage. Still other
States indicated that the 1996
Guidelines provided incentive to
modify their ground water programs
to enhance their ability to provide
more accurate and representative
information.
Despite variations in reporting
style, the 1996 305(b) State Water
Quality Reports represent a first step
in improving the assessment of State
ambient ground water quality. For
the first time, States provided quan-
titative data describing ground
water quality. Furthermore, States
provided quantitative information
pertaining to contamination sources
that have impacted ground water
quality. This chapter presents the
results of data submitted by States
in their 1996 305(b) Water Quality
Reports.
Ground Water Use
in the United States
Although 75% of the earth's
surface is covered by water, less
than 1 % is fresh water available for
our use. It has been estimated that
approximately 96% of the world's
available fresh water reserve is
stored in the earth as ground water.
Figure 1 helps put these numbers
into perspective.
In the United States, ground
water is used for agricultural,
domestic, industrial, and commercial
purposes. Ground water provides
-------
Ground Water Quality 3
water for drinking and bathing, irri-
gation of crop lands, livestock water-
ing, mining, industrial and commer-
cial uses, and thermoelectric cooling
applications. Figure 2 illustrates how
ground water is used among these
various categories. As shown, irriga-
tion (63%) and public water supply
(19%) are the largest uses of ground
water withdrawls.
In 1990, the United States
Geological Survey reported that
ground water supplied 51% of the
Nation's overall population with
drinking water. In rural areas of the
Nation, ground water supplied 95%
of the population with drinking
water. So our Nation's dependence
on this valuable resource is obvious.
In their 305(b) Water Quality
Reports, States emphasized the
importance of ground water as a
drinking water resource.
Idaho is one of the top
five States in the coun-
try for the volume of
ground water used.
Idahoans use an aver-
age of 9 billion gallons
per day of ground water. Sixty per-
cent of this water is used by agricul-
ture for crop irrigation and stock
animals. Thirty-six percent is used by
industry, and 3% to 4% is used for
drinking water. Even though the vol-
ume of ground water used for drink-
ing water is relatively small in com-
parison to total ground water use,
more than 90% of the population in
Idaho rely on ground water for their
drinking water supply. Currently,
approximately 70% of the State's
population is served by public
systems regulated under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (see description
in Ground Water Protection
Programs); the remaining 30%
obtain their drinking water through
private systems typically represented
by private wells.
Approximately 95% of
the 11.5 million people in
Illinois rely on public
water supplies as a source
of drinking water. About
4.1 million people use
ground water as a source of public
water supply. Furthermore, an
estimated 400,000 residences in
Illinois are served by private wells.
Kansas relies on
ground water
resources for public,
rural-domestic,
industrial, irrigation, and livestock
water supplies. Over 90% of all
water used within Kansas is supplied
by ground water. Although irriga-
tion continues to be by far the
largest user of ground water,
ground water provides approxi-
mately 85% of the drinking water in
rural areas. A total of 637 communi-
ty public water supplies are depen-
dent on ground water, either solely
or in combination with surface
water sources. These supplies serve a
total of 1,717,464 people.
South Dakota is
heavily dependent
on ground water to
meet the needs of
its population. More than 75% of
the population use ground water for
domestic needs. Over 80% of the
State's public water supply systems
rely on ground water and virtually
everyone not supplied by the public
water supply systems is dependent
on ground water.
.ground"•water, supplied, ';_• iv",,;',-1;;''J,
population with drin'Kmg •",'", L>;'
* *,„...._,.... , __ ~ „ _ „ j. „, , ~t s^n =-,-{,'^--t-,',L n,- : :'
•Nation,
"95°?o
dependence on (Fits 'VatiiaBje-, ;•;;
resource is •opyiousttn-tKefc - i-1 -'";';'
-------
4 Ground Water Quality
jlllillMliMilll'lllll Illl'l lll'llll&lllll 'llililli'l'i'1 '"Illllli lli'liillllll'iiy' I'iri'illlli'J'i lhll|llli ll'i 'iv1
• •;---•• v-";
"* "''* "'' "" ' '1""
^^ iltili!li!!:iJ!jl
i9^^^^^^ ««M iJtpiiiiJi iietiiiftM
*™''^^ 'l,;*;1!1,11!'"!1!;1!11!^^!!''!
'i
HT HIGHLIGHT
l|il! ,.|, ..... , ":: -Nil ..... ><;
•ill ..... '! ..... fl|J ..... i1 ;iiN: rittlnl ..... n,;i ...... I ..... Blii1™.1 ................. nil .......... |M ......... MI .....
^ 'ii<
-------
Ground Water Quality 5
State
Indiana
Maine
Uses of Ground Water
Specific to Drinking Water
Other Uses
Nearly 60% of the population
uses ground water for drinking
water and other household
purposes; approximately 50%
of the population served by
public water supplies depends
on ground water; over 0.5
million homes have private
wells
Industry withdraws an average
190 million gallons/day;
irrigation consumes 200 million
gallons/day during the crop
production season; and live-
stock depend on an average
of 45 million gallons/day
Kentucky Approximately 14% of the
population (500,000 people)
rely on private wells for drinking
water; there are 362 public water
supply systems using ground
water as principal, partial, or
supplemental supplies
Large ground water with-
drawals (>10,000 gallons/day)
increased from 37.8 million
gallons/day in 1980 to
320 million gallons/day
in 1995
More than 60% of all households
draw their drinking water from
ground water supplied from
private or public wells; ground
water is the source of approxi-
mately 98% of all water used by
households with private supplies
Nearly 60% of water needed
for livestock is supplied by
ground water; ground water
also supplies more than 60%
of industrial needs
Maryland Ground water supplied 450
public water supply systems in
1995, serving a population of
960,000
Missouri Ground water is the main source
of drinking water in the Ozarks
and Southeast Lowlands for both
public and private supplies; the
cities of Independence, Columbia,
and St. Charles use ground water
adjacent to the Missouri River
-------
Ground Water Quality
Uses of Ground Water
Specific to Drinking Water
IU'S
,:.i' i, :*;'til' J 'inn. !'1*1^1 "ikui!Jiii".ii4te
!',' it:1";-: ;S'ii: rifjilfii
LI
lUMlfli'i .:;
i. Sjiiiijii"11
Bit lias-
'.:li!ite^^^^^^ 'fiMti J1"!!!'!1:,:!!;1''S'WlBJ1:'lW!nll'511|! i,VH\> :iB.iBfii"iril "i,ii.'.ma,iH!,iijipi
,. t • • t ::• I '!- ' ill- It Unl.,'|(|L,,.il| f Ji "II'H I ! jf'tUJf U,t Jii^Hiii^HJIJ^ia
Approximately 6,000,000 people
use ground water as a source of
drinking water; 50% of these people
are on Long Island and the remainder
are in upstate New York
South Carolina
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Ground water is a source of drinking
water for more than 60% of the
population
Tennessee More than 50% of the population
relies on ground water for drinking
water supplies (one in five of these
households relies on a private well
or spring); community public water
systems withdraw approximately
243 million gallons/day
About 41 % of municipal water
is derived from ground water
resources
In 1992, approximately 56%
of the water used for domestic,
municipal, industrial, and agri-
cultural purposes was derived
from ground water
Ground water is a major source
of public drinking water supplies
with almost 67% of the popula-
tion dependent upon this
resource
Vermont Approximately 60% of the popu-
lation depend on ground water
to meet their drinking water needs;
in rural communities, ground water
dependence is nearly 100%
Ground water is used solely or in
part to supply 80% of the popu-
lation with drinking water
Ground water accounts for
approximately 22% of the
water used exclusively for
hydroelectric and thermo-
electric purposes
Wisconsin Ninety-seven percent of Wiscon-
sin's villages and cities use
ground water for drinking water,
and 70% of the State's residents
rely on ground water for their
water supply
-------
Ground Water Quality 7
Ground water is the
source of drinking
water for 60% to
70% of the popula-
tion of Washington State. In large
areas east of the Cascade Mountain
Range, 80% to 100% of available
drinking water is obtained from
ground water resources. As a whole,
over 95% of Washington's public
water supply systems use ground
water as their primary water source.
Ground water is also often
directly connected to rivers, streams,
lakes, and other surface waterbod-
ies, with water flowing back and
forth from one resource to the
other. In some areas of the country,
ground water contributes signifi-
cantly to the water in streams and
lakes.
The volume of ground water
that is discharged to surface water-
bodies, thereby maintaining stream-
flow during periods of low flow or
drought conditions, was previously
unrecognized and unquantified. This
volume, estimated at 492 billion
gallons per day, is measured using
special instruments or estimated
using stream gaging and hydraulic
gradient data. When ground water
contributing to stream baseflow
maintenance is included with the
other ground water uses, it becomes
evident just how important it can
be. As shown in Figure 3, stream
baseflow maintenance accounts for
54% of ground water discharges.
This baseflow contributes to main-
taining healthy aquatic habitats in
surface water.
With ground water playing such
an important part in maintaining
water flow in streams and lakes, the
quality of the ground water can
have an important effect on the
overall condition of the surface
water. Surface waters can become
contaminated if the ground water
serves as a means to transport con-
taminants to the surface water (and
vice versa). This could affect drink-
ing water supplies drawn from sur-
face water, fish and wildlife habitats,
swimming, boating, and fishing.
Thus, it is evident that ground
water is a very important natural
resource. Preserving the quality of
our ground water resources ensures
that our needs as a Nation will be
met now and into the future.
Ground Water
Quality
The evaluation of our Nation's
ground water quality is complex.
In evaluating ground water quality
Figure 3
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,
Hydrologic Events and Ground-Water Quality, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Supply
Paper 2325.
-------
8 Ground Water Quality
i! iSip^
11!, i 'il ! |ii'l! F III i, ! ! 1 ,!,! II! 911 til!1 1 If" i 'If 1,111 j'!!!'!!!!'1!!!1 ' 'l|l|| \%r" • • JM
|Hj,|,i| p ij jili i" j|j jiin j in in j ill jj i||li|,i i - j ' j,j iijiiiiinl^^^^y
m iw i'1 ' i' "ji ! L'i,,'ii'
"hi! "i'liiiiii^iii1" iMArir.'L-iii i"' i* ',; A" '>li v! ;i,i r^\ iiii iiifl i [l ,'|iijii' n" li .,$• i, -liip.^^;
11 , ' ! ' • • -• '•
i I,,1 ''In ' ' ' , : •' ''J|! i • ' :: : " .;••';-'' ;! -!
illii.i Jiiiiiii mlimu' Ilillliiiil illiinli i'lil'!i|i!ii ' lilil'i' "jji,,,!,1 ,'i« « i iii li| ,<,ii|j| i ii'iiill ii MI ,i jjl'-'i'-'iituni ,i'.'i\:-'.-
l'|' ' , .II1'." 1 '!,' ''1 ' ' „' ,1" ' '' 1' V |!''« " •' " •' "J" ' l| • "1 ' "l| "
lli"'1"!!!"'1!',1! i'!',""!!ll|.|!!,'l|l'i,,' ''", .! i"" ," 'i ",,„' i „'' !'""!'i 'Jli!1!!!'1! !' ' '''I'llll' '• '!l,,"!ii':l''''i-"i '!!'i' Iii ' "
|!jin^ ,,,i!!|l!l|; '! Si !!i!']ii, 7! I*..,;!'! I.!1!,*!' ' ds"! 'I1'!"!' Hi, |i:.i|; 'i.HII'illl' i J!,sii"!|' ill; i:' |
i&:|4rti*''f"ll!! f! ii'iii'i;ii|| "iiiiLJ''"'! li' ii'.ji ; > i;: i.ij*fii>i'i' ;llj|£i |. ||Hir"i' lijjnii i l^i i j: i; -\\:\\- \
lii^i?
I1!1,,/11!1!!1!'1,! ii'iNi!!!',1',,11!1!1!1' .''J11 i ill .14'" i'"' ',. ' \\\' \\ . i11 " , !!'r:i: " ''. '"in! ;ii.;
iill'ir1;,1!' 'lii, I'inl'il lilill!,llill',l:,'<|i|| < "'<»,„„„- '«',„„ if,!, .mi..^'.^!/.^:!";;;!!
•ffifflffiS^
llllliiS
Ground Water/Surface Water
Interactions
Nationwide, many water quality
problems may be caused by ground
water/surface water interactions.
Substantial evidence shows that it is
not uncommon for contaminated
ground water to discharge to and
contaminate surface water. In other
cases, contaminated surface water is
seeping into and contaminating
ground water. In their most recent
reports on water quality, several
states reported ground water/surface
water interactions leading to conta-
mination of one medium by the
other. A few examples follow:
• The Arkansas Department of
Health (ADH) is investigating cases
of ground water contaminated by
microscopic organisms normally
found in surface water. Because sur-
face water carries disease-causing
protozoa and other organisms resis-
tant to the chlorination used to dis-
infect most public wells, the ADH
must determine if public drinking
water wells are supplied by sources
of ground water under the direct
influence (GWUDI) to surface water.
The ADH has developed an objective
method to determine if a well is
supplied by GWUDI. Water quality
information is used to determine the
potential for contamination and
then possible pathways of contami-
nation are identified by evaluating
i.irr.lf.^.:,!" si! M i' » ';..' H:11^:^ j.j^n •- ' .-wv \' \\,-\''\\ r' iiiii li-'i^litiJ liii::H ' f ili'l fl/l i ' ', ^U iji'il: ^ ,HUi'i j!''« Ml" n!-"i '»!'"''i fif^lH1-' "f i!!-1' H',^wJj!'p3tIIl^W
"»"| " "'"" ""• ! •' "'T'l ' I'll 'i-i|,n|i"i m,,!!Ni|!,-| HrinjiKi , i N|'»V LJ. il,"/, ",';,',).ir '%, .,,'jM'i^ '^^TiSI'.Mmi'l't'i^
E^'?S ?:£••:•.?;"" "'l^^if'!;!::^!^11 :::;Si:^
the well's conformance to estab-
lished construction standards. Two
primary defects in well construction
that provide possible pathways for
surface water contamination are:
(1 ) unsuitable below-ground con-
struction, particularly shallow casings
and insufficient grout; and (2) well
sites characterized by poor drainage,
high soil infiltration rate, and highly
permeable outcrops.
Arkansas has more than 1,700
public drinking water supply wells.
In the 3 years since the GWUDI
program began, the ADH has used
the above method to determine that
900 of these wells are not supplied
by sources of ground water under
the influence of surface water. For
many of the wells evaluated, the
ADH has recommended simple,
above-ground construction repairs
or site maintenance procedures that
effectively closed the pathways of
surface water contamination.
• In South Carolina, ground water
serves to recharge most of the
streams; thus, contaminated ground
water impacts surface waters more
often than surface waters impact
ground water. In the State's Ground
Water Contamination Inventory, 79
cases of contaminated ground water
discharging from surficial aquifers to
surface water have been noted.
I ir;"ili" i !,i,H if ' ,'
-------
Ground Water Quality 9
Detailed information on contami-
nant concentrations in both the
aquifer and surface water is not
available. However, in most of these
cases, dilution of the contaminated
ground water by uncontaminated
surface water reduces the contami-
nant concentrations in the surface
water to low or not detectable
levels.
• No single program addresses the
water quality concerns that arise
from ground water/surface water
interactions in Maine. However,
contamination, or potential contami-
nation, of surface water through
baseflow of contaminated ground
water is being evaluated at several
locations. At an egg production facil-
ity in Turner, Maine, past practices
that included excessive land spread-
ing of chicken manure, hen carcass
disposal, and septage disposal
resulted in nitrate contamination of
large areas of a sand and gravel
aquifer. The majority of the shallow
ground water at the site discharges
to streams on the east and west
sides of the property. Monitoring
points have been established on
these streams to evaluate the effects
of past practices and current waste-
water disposal on surface water
quality. To date, surface waters with-
in the property and along the prop-
erty boundary show evidence of
nitrate contamination.
• A similar situation occurs in
Delaware. Past land-use practices,
such as high septic system density
and poultry houses, have con-
tributed to nitrate contamination of
ground water. This nitrate-contami-
nated groundwater discharges into
the Rehoboth and Indian River bays
contributing to eutrophication and
algal bloom problems. In fact, it is
estimated that certain subbasins
within the Indian River Bay water-
shed contribute, through direct
ground water discharge, almost
50% of the total nitrogen load that
enters the bay. Furthermore, poultry-
producing subbasins were found to
be the source of greater nitrate load-
ing than non-poultry-producing
basins.
lil
-------
10 Ground Water Quality
under Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act, our goal is to assess if the
resource has been adversely impact-
ed or degraded as a result of human
activities.
Not too long ago, it was
thought that soil provided a protec-
tive "filter" or "barrier" that immobi-
lized the downward migration of
contaminants released on the land
surface and prevented ground water
resources from being adversely
impacted or contaminated. The dis-
covery of pesticides and other con-
taminants in ground water demon-
strated that ground water resources
were indeed vulnerable to contami-
nation resulting from human activi-
ties. The potential for a contaminant
to affect ground water quality is
dependent upon its being intro-
duced to the environment and its
Figure 4
Ground Water Contamination as a Result
of Petroleum Spillage
*!! :"'"; f. - -
§ i'!111';1! r:1!1' if1'1"!' firw11! f 1:1 ' v"111;1! its'I1!1;;
, L '' ; , :" " ' l.i ' ',I1111!'':II!
ability to migrate through the over-
lying soils to the underlying ground
water resource. Figure 4 illustrates a
petroleum spill onto the ground
surface and the subsequent migra-
tion of the petroleum through the
soils to the underlying ground
water.
Ground water contamination
can occur as relatively well defined,
localized plumes emanating from
specific sources such as leaking
underground storage tanks, spills,
landfills, waste lagoons, and/or
industrial facilities (Figure 5).
Contamination can also occur as a
general deterioration of ground
water quality over a wide area due
to diffuse nonpoint sources such as
agricultural fertilizer and pesticide
applications, septic systems, urban
runoff, leaking sewer networks,
application of lawn chemicals,
highway deicing materials, animal
feedlots, salvage yards, and mining
activities. Ground water quality
degradation from diffuse nonpoint
sources affects large areas, making it
difficult to specify the exact source
of the contamination.
Ground water contamination is
most common in highly developed
areas, agricultural areas, and indus-
trial complexes. Frequently, ground
water contamination is discovered
long after it has occurred. One
reason for this is the slow move-
ment of ground water through
aquifers, which, for finer-grained
aquifers may be less than 1 foot per
day. Contaminants in the ground
water do not mix or spread quickly,
but remain concentrated in slow-
moving, localized plumes that may
persist for many years. This often
results in a delay in the detection
of ground water contamination. In
-------
Ground Water Quality 11
some cases, contaminants intro-
duced into the subsurface more
than 10 years ago are only now
being discovered. This also means
that the practices of today may have
affects on water quality well into the
future.
Shallow, unconfined aquifers are
especially susceptible to contamina-
tion from surface activities. Ground
water contamination in the surficial
aquifers can also affect ground
water quality of the underlying con-
fined aquifers. Confined aquifers are
most frequently susceptible to cont-
amination when low-permeability
confining layers are thin or absent,
thus enabling the unretarded down-
ward migration of contaminants.
Recent studies in southern New
Castle County of Delaware have
demonstrated the long-term suscep-
tibility of the underlying aquifers to
contamination. In Delaware, stream
channels have cut down through
confining layers at periods of low
sea level. When sea level rose, the
stream channels were filled with
sand and gravel. These highly
permeable channels can act as
conduits for contaminant migration.
Ground water contaminant
problems are frequently serious and
can pose a threat to human health
and/or result in increased costs to
consumers. In the 1996 Guidelines,
States were asked to indicate the
major uses (e.g., public water sup-
ply, private water supply, irrigation,
industry, livestock watering) for
water withdrawn from aquifers or
hydrogeologic settings within the
State. States were also asked to
relate water use to uses that may
have been affected by ground water
contamination.
Although this information was
considered optional, 20 States
Figure 5
^^^^•^^•••^^^•••^^^••^^^^^^H
Sources of Ground Water Contamination
->• Ground Water Movement
->• Intentional Input
->• Unintentional Input
-------
12 Ground Water Quality
HT HIGHLIGHT
•^
illiSilllljl! li(|iiil|||i!l!tlt'!|. r
:"i:"" ::"' "" "'''"' "'"' '••''~':'- '"::;" ::::::""'::"'- l!'':!;:::'"i:'p||:Jl
: :
l^'if'^llliaffllilBllllUMUll..!^^!!^^]!
!«;l;^^^ '" ' IJ"' '"
1 ^
tsssti
„ i lf .s,,,,,,,,,!;,,,!,,,!,, jljlli.!..;.!!!:,,,:.!,,!,:!! |J| h|L|| ijlj |!||;:I|.I|||,||M| l^lrJIJIullj, Kw
iiit ...... PH iiiii
^
I"';'-- •'- i ..... |rf il
...... •
i ..... liliHii IN ...... NnrtirHiili; ; v»i "n 'i,« N 'r, r M; i|; >;r
;^^^^^
Ground Water Along
Our Nation's Coasts
Communities along the U.S.
coast have been attracting new resi-
dents and more industry at an ever-
rising rate during the past two or so
decades. This growth has been
beneficial for the economy and tax
base of these areas. However, now
we are seeing the beginning of what
could be unwelcome, even danger-
ous, effects on these communities
and the environment. In fact, coastal
communities may face critical water
supply issues within the decade if
ground water protection and
conservation are not aggressively
pursued.
EPA is forming a partnership
between its internal Offices of
Ground Water and Drinking Water
and Wetlands, Oceans, and Water-
sheds, the Ground Water Protection
Council, and the State of Florida to
begin a water supply study in
Florida. The results of this study will
form the basis of research to charac-
terize current national water quality
and quantity in coastal areas.
The problem will be framed in
terms of current drinking water
needs, human health, and economic
impact. EPA plans to share the
results of this research with coastal
communities through public out-
reach. Beginning with the most
affected localities and in partnership
with local and community organiza-
tions, EPA will inform coastal
communities about the possible
problems coming their way and
how to avoid them. EPA will develop
methods to help communities pro-
tect their source waters and drinking
water and provide assistance to
communities in putting these
methods in place.
The problems of protecting
coastal source water and drinking
water have been neglected for too
long—so long that real problems are
arising. EPA hopes this project will
significantly benefit ground water
and drinking water quality all along
the coast through improved charac-
terization of ground water in coastal
areas and better watershed manage-
ment. Public education about prob-
lems in the coastal environment and
how to solve them will encourage
public involvement. Better manage-
ment of resources—environmental,
financial, and human—will lead to
new and needed environmental
improvements.
-------
Ground Water Quality 13
responded with information for a
total of 66 aquifers or hydrogeologic
units. Of these, 43 units reportedly
supplied water for PWS, 45 units
supplied water for private use, and
32 units supplied water for irriga-
tion. Other important uses of the
water included commercial (12
units), livestock (19 units), and
industry (10 units).
When evaluating the different
uses for ground water that have
been affected by water quality prob-
lems, water supply for public and
private use were the most frequently
affected. Water supply to PWS was
affected in 19 units (almost 45%)
and water supply to private wells
was affected in 23 units (>50%).
Irrigation, commercial, livestock, and
industry uses were less frequently
affected. This may reflect lower
water quality standards for these
uses.
Ground Water
Contaminant Sources
Ground water quality may be
adversely impacted by a variety of
potential contaminant sources. EPA
developed a list of potential contam-
inant sources for the 1996 305(b)
Guidelines and requested each State
to indicate the 10 top sources that
potentially threaten their ground
water resources. The list was not
considered comprehensive and
States added sources as was neces-
sary based on State-specific con-
cerns. Factors that were considered
by States in their selection include
the number of each type of source
in the State, the location of the vari-
ous 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. For
each of the indicated contaminant
sources, States were also asked to
identify the contaminants impacting
ground water quality.
Thirty-seven States provided
information related to contaminant
sources. As requested in the 1996
Guidelines, most States indicated
the 10 top contaminant sources
threatening ground water quality. In
some cases, they not only specified
the 10 top sources, but provided
additional information on sources of
lesser, but still notable, importance.
In a few other cases, they provided
information on the majority of
sources threatening ground water
quality within the State.
Figure 6 illustrates the sources
most frequently cited by States as a
potential threat to ground water
quality. As shown, leaking under-
ground storage tanks (USTs) were
specified by 35 out of 37 States as
one of the top 10 potential sources
of ground water contamination.
Two other States noted that leaking
USTs were a source of ground water
contamination. Landfills, septic
systems, hazardous waste sites, and
surface impoundments were the
next most frequently cited sources
of concern.
-------
14 Ground Water Quality
Figure 6
Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination
Sources
Storage Tanks (underground)
Landfills
Septic Systems
Hazardous Waste Sites
Surface Impoundments
Storage Tanks (above ground)
Industrial Facilities
Spills
Fertilizer Applications
Pesticide Applications
Pipelines and Sewer Lines
Agricultural Chemical Facilities
Shallow Injection Wells
Salt Water Intrusion
Animal Feedlots
Land Application
Mining
Urban Runoff
Hazardous Waste Generators
Salt Storage and Road Salting
Irrigation
Wastepiles
Historic
Waste Tailings
Agricultural Activities
Oil and Gas Activities
Abandoned Wells
Natural Sources
Deep Injection Wells
Material Transfer Operations
Material Stockpiles
Transportation of Materials
Federal or State Superfund
Manufacturing/Repair Shops
Injection Wells
Dry Cleaners
Illegal Dumping Sites
Land Applications
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Effluent
Number Reporting on Top Ten
Contaminant Sources
Number Reporting on Contaminant
Sources in Addition to the Top Ten
inn
H
m
37
35
34
27
25
20
18
20
18
19
15
15
14
13
12
15
14
10
9
11
6
7
4
4
4
4
3
3
5
4
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
10 15 20 25 30
Number of States, Tribes, and Territories Reporting
35
-------
Ground Water Quality 15
Underground Storage
Tanks
Leaking USTs were cited as the
highest priority contaminant source
of concern to States in 1996 (Figure
6). The high priority assigned to
leaking USTs in 1996 is consistent
with information reported by States
during previous 305(b) cycles.
Although USTs are found in all
populated areas, they are generally
most concentrated in the more
heavily developed urban and sub-
urban areas of a State. USTs are
primarily used to hold petroleum
products such as gasoline, diesel
fuel, and fuel oil. Because they are
buried underground, leakage can be
a significant source of ground water
contamination that can go
undetected for long periods of time
(Figure 7).
States report that the organic
chemicals associated with petroleum
products are one of the most com-
mon ground water contaminants.
Petroleum-related chemicals have
adversely affected ground water
quality in aquifers across the Nation.
The most significant affects generally
occur in the uppermost aquifer,
which is frequently shallow and
often used for domestic purposes.
Petroleum-related chemicals threat-
en the use of ground water for
human consumption because some
(e.g., benzene) are known to cause
cancer even at very low concentra-
tions.
The primary causes of leakage in
USTs are faulty installation and cor-
rosion of tanks and pipelines. As of
March 1996, more than 300,000
releases from USTs had been con-
firmed. EPA estimates that nationally
60% of these leaks have impacted
ground water quality and, in some
States, the percentage is as high as
90%.
In general, the threat from USTs
was determined primarily based on
the sheer number of leaking USTs.
• There were almost 61,000 facili-
ties containing 155,308 registered
USTs in Texas in 1994. During that
same year, 4,894 cases of ground
water contamination were docu-
mented as being under enforcement
by the Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission. Fifty-two
percent of the contamination cases
are within the 10 most populous
Figure 7
Ground Water Contamination as a Result
of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
-------
16 Ground Water Quality
ipHnfiiiiiPiiiiiii'ii''!!
Iflii'iiiiliijiiiihhl
HIGHLIG
HT HIGHLIGHT
,, "!"' •! 'aliF'li", lI'lil'LIf I ililli'i „!!!!'!!! i!" !• , Sif i:'!!!niri i; i"i!••', l-ililllliii1• JT" i 'v
fltjl1 V'i «» • "
l|n; J ;
ivjuHUiULiiuwiiiiiu i 11
«!f|1Ji i1'
rtlif
Frequently Considered Factors
When identifying a contaminant • Risk posed to human health
source as a potential threat to and/or the environment from
ground water quality, States may releases
consider a number of different
factors such as • Hydrogeologic sensitivity (the
ease with which contaminants enter
• Number of each type of source in and travel through soil and reach
the State aquifers)
• Location of various sources • Findings of the State's ground
relative to ground water used for water protection strategy and/or
drinking water purposes related studies. States were asked in
the 7 996 Guidelines to specify the
• Size of the population at risk from factors tney considered in reporting
contaminated drinking water contaminant sources.
• Number of States Reporting a Contaminant Grouping : ^^^^1
in Association with the Specified Source : ^^^^1
Source
Petroleum
Compounds
Halogenated
Solvents
Organic
Pesticides
Metals
Nitrate
Bacteria
Inorganic
Pesticides
Protozoa
Viruses
Leaking
USTs
31
9
5
3
Landfills
18
19
12
20
8
10
10
5
Septic
Systems
5
22
17
9
15
-------
Ground Water Quality 17
Unquestionably, human health
and the environment, the number
and/or size of the contaminant
sources, and the location of a source
relative to a drinking water source
were the most important factors
considered. These three factors are
reflected in the high priority
assigned to leaking USTs, landfills,
and septic systems (see Figure 6-7 of
this report). Large numbers of each
of these three contaminant sources
have been documented in the
States. Adverse impacts to drinking
water as a result of releases from
these three sources have also been
reported. Releases are frequently
known to be hazardous to human
health.
The table shows the contami-
nants that States specified in associa-
tion with leaking USTs, landfills, and
septic systems. As shown, petroleum
compounds were most frequently
associated with leaking USTs.
Nitrate, bacteria, and protozoa were
most frequently cited in association
with septic systems. The variability in
contaminants associated with land-
fills reflects the diversity in disposed
materials.
•~*P:
Jesse Xiong, 1st grade, Estes Hills Elementary, Chapel Hill, NC
p",i'4,s
-------
18 Ground Water Quality
counties in Texas. Furthermore, leak-
age from storage tanks has been
documented in 223 of 254 counties
in the State and either has affected,
or has the potential to affect,
virtually every major and minor
aquifer in the State.
• As of August 1996, the State of
Arizona was tracking approximately
8,960 facilities having 30,000 USTs.
Of these 30,000 USTs, 5,935 have
reported leaks and 917 have or may
have contaminated ground water.
• In the State of Delaware, there
are over 9,000 regulated USTs
(3,516 of which are currently in use)
located at over 2,000 facilities. Over
the period 1994-1995, 586 sites had
confirmed releases with 80 having
confirmed ground water releases.
• As of December 31, 1995, a total
of 41,795 USTs have been registered
at approximately 14,000 facilities in
the State of Kentucky. Approxi-
mately 400 of these registered sites
have ground water contamination
at levels above the maximum conta-
minant levels for drinking water. On
average, about 20 new USTs per
year manifest ground water contam-
ination above allowable limits.
The "registered USTs" and
"facilities" described above repre-
sent tanks used for commercial and
industrial purposes. Hundreds of
thousands of household fuel oil USTs
are not included in the numbers
presented above. Many of these
household USTs, installed 20-to-30
years ago as suburban communities
were developed across the country,
have reached or surpassed their nor-
mal service Itfespans. Some of these
tanks are undoubtedly leaking and
threatening ground water supplies.
Because household tanks are not
regulated as commercial facilities
are, however, it is not possible to
determine the extent to which
ground water quality is threatened
by them. In addition, since the cost
of replacing leaking USTs would be
borne by the homeowner, there is
little incentive for the homeowner to
investigate the soundness of his/her
home oil tank.
Recognizing the need to
address and control the leaking UST
situation, States across the Nation
have taken action. One excellent
example is Maine. In 1985, the
Maine Legislature passed a law to
regulate all underground petroleum
storage tanks. This law required that
all tanks be registered with the
Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) by May 1, 1986,
regardless of size, use, or contents.
This law also established procedures
for abandonment of tanks and pro-
hibited the operation, maintenance,
or storage of petroleum in any stor-
age facility or tank that is not con-
structed of fiberglass, cathodically
protected steel, or other noncorro-
sive material.
To date, approximately 39,850
tanks have been registered, with
only an estimated 4,000 tanks pend-
ing registration. Since 1986, approx-
imately 27,750 inactive or old tanks
have been removed from the
ground. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate
the effectiveness of this program. In
Figure 8, the number of drinking
water supply wells contaminated by
leaking USTs has dropped dramati-
cally. At the same time, as shown in
Figure 9, the number of noncon-
forming USTs has decreased while
-------
Ground Water Quality 19
the number of protected replace-
ment USTs has increased. It is esti-
mated by the Maine DEP that $3
of cleanup and third-party damage
claim costs are avoided for every
$1 spent on preventive measures.
Landfills
Landfills were cited by States as
the second highest contaminant
source of concern in 1996 (Figure
6). Landfills have consistently been
cited as a high-priority source of
contamination by the States. Land-
fills may be used to dispose of sani-
tary (municipal) and industrial
wastes.
Municipal wastes, some indus-
trial wastes, and relatively inert
substances such as plastics are
disposed of in sanitary landfills.
Resulting contamination may be in
the form of high dissolved solids,
chemical and biochemical oxygen
demand, and some volatile organic
compounds.
Industrial landfills are site spe-
cific as to the nature of the disposed
material. Common materials that
may be disposed of in industrial
landfills include plastics, metals, fly
ash, sludges, coke, tailings, waste
pigment particles, low-level radio-
active wastes, polypropylene, wood,
brick, cellulose, ceramics, synthetics,
and other similar substances. Con-
tamination from these landfills may
be in the form of heavy metals, high
sulfates, and volatile organic com-
pounds. States indicated in their
1996 305(b) Water Quality Reports
that the most common contami-
nants associated with landfills were
metals, halogenated solvents, and
petroleum compounds. To a lesser
extent, organic and inorganic
pesticides were also cited as a conta-
minant of concern.
Landfills of all types have long
been used to dispose of wastes. In
the past, little regard was given to
the potential for ground water con-
tamination in site selection. Landfills
were generally sited on land consid-
ered to have no other uses. Unlined
Figure 8
Number of Private Drinking Water Supply Wells
Contaminated by Leaking Underground Petroleum
Storage Facilities in Maine (1986-1993)
120 n
£ 100 - ••
lll-»»a»
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
Year
Figure 9
Changes in the Makeup of the Maine
UST Population
E3 Number of Protected
Replacement USTs
H Number of Nonconforming
USTs Closed - Cumulative
• Total Number of
Nonconforming USTs
94
-------
20 Ground Water Quality
abandoned sand and gravel pits,
old strip mines, marshlands, and
sinkholes were often used. In many
instances the water table was at, or
very near the surface, and the
potential for ground water contami-
nation was high (Figure 10).
Although regulations involving the
siting, construction, and monitoring
of landfills have changed dramatic-
ally, past practices continue to cause
a threat to ground water quality.
For example, although there are
no currently active or operational
solid waste disposal sites in the
District of Columbia, historic records
indicate that about 80 sites within
the District of Columbia had been
used as either a landfill or an open
dump. Historic landfill sites continue
to be discovered during routine
environmental assessments and con-
struction excavations. The exact
location and materials disposed of
are frequently unknown. Landfill
sites that remain undiscovered have
the potential to continue affecting
Figure 10
Ground Water Contamination as a Result
of Unlined Landfill Disposal
Unlined Landfill
ground water quality. Past handling
and disposal practices cause concern
because soil properties in the District
of Columbia are unfavorable for use
as a landfill. Specifically, soils are
characterized by a relatively high
permeability. In addition, the
shallow depth to bedrock, high
seasonal ground water level, and
susceptibility to flooding make the
area even more unsuitable.
To better govern municipal
landfills, the State of Texas estab-
lished a regulatory program in 1969
and began permitting new sites in
1975. From 1977 to 1981, pre-
viously existing landfills were either
closed, permitted as grandfathered
sites, or considered illegal/unautho-
rized sites. Records indicate from
1981 until 1994, 1,343 previously
existing landfills (dumps), 1,810 per-
mitted and grandfathered landfills,
and 2,549 illegal/unauthorized sites
have been closed. As a rule, ground
water monitoring is not required at
these 5,702 sites. In 1994, there
were 360 active landfills operating
under the jurisdiction of the Texas
Natural Resource Conservation
Commission. Of these sites, 196
were conducting ground water
monitoring, 27 of which had docu-
mented ground water contamina-
tion.
A total of 391 municipal landfills
have been identified in the State
of Maine. As of December 1995,
206 landfills have been closed and
capped. Seventeen landfills are
partially closed with 168 yet to be
closed. Of these 168 landfills, 45 are
currently active sites and 123 are
inactive sites that are no longer
receiving solid waste. In all:
-------
Ground Water Quality 21
• 184 landfill sites are situated on
sand and gravel aquifers and
ground water contamination has
been documented at 46 of these
sites
• 60 other sites have contaminated
surface water and/or ground
water and are considered to be
substandard; 37 of these sites have
serious ground water contamina-
tion.
• Hazardous substances in the
ground water are confirmed or sus-
pected at 41 municipal landfills.
Public or private water supplies are
threatened at 13 of these sites.
Public water supplies appear to be
threatened by hazardous contami-
nants at three sites. Contaminants at
the remaining 10 sites appear to
threaten private water supplies.
Recognizing the problems asso-
ciated with old, inactive landfill sites,
States are taking action to ensure
that current and future landfills are
less of a threat. In the State of
Maine, active landfills are required
to be licensed by the Department of
Environmental Protection. Currently
57 landfills are licensed to operate in
Maine. Eight of these are licensed to
accept municipal solid waste only;
22 are licensed to accept special
wastes (nonhazardous waste gener-
ated by sources other than domestic
and typical commercial establish-
ments), and 27 are approved to
accept only construction and demo-
lition debris. The landfills licensed to
accept municipal solid waste and/or
special wastes are secure landfills
with leachate collection systems and
treatment, thereby greatly reducing
the risk of ground water contamina-
tion.
Septic Systems
As shown in Figure 6, septic
systems were cited by 29 out of 37
States as a potential source of
ground water contamination. States
based their decisions most heavily
on three factors, including the loca-
tion of septic systems relative to
sources of drinking water, the large
number of residential septic tank
systems, and human health. These
findings are consistent with previous
305(b) reporting cycles in which
septic systems were consistently
ranked among the top five sources
of ground water contamination.
Septic systems include buried
septic tanks with fluid distribution
systems or leachfields. Septic sys-
tems are designed to release fluids
or wastewaters into constructed
permeable leach beds, if present,
and then to the shallow soil. Waste-
waters are then expected to be
attacked by biological organisms in
the soil and/or degraded by other
natural processes over time. Ground
water may be contaminated by
releases from septic systems when
the systems are poorly designed
(tanks are installed in areas with
inadequate soils or shallow depth to
ground water); poorly constructed
or sealed; are improperly used,
located, or maintained; or are
abandoned.
A variety of wastewaters are
disposed of in septic systems and, as
a consequence, a variety of different
chemicals may be present in the
system. States stressed that one of
the more common uses is for dis-
posal of domestic sewage and liquid
household wastes. Typical contami-
nants from household septic systems
include bacteria, nitrates, viruses,
phosphates from detergents, and
-------
22 Ground Water Quality
other chemicals that might originate
from household cleaners.
Septic systems are generally
found in rural areas of the Nation.
For example, Vermont is character-
ized by a large rural population. Due
to the rural setting, homes and
industries outside municipal service
areas lack access to sewers. Septic
systems are now and probably will
remain a significant nonpoint source
of contamination with approxi-
mately 220 indirect discharge sites.
These sites represent discharges to
the subsurface of over 6,500 gallons
of sewage per day.
American households dispose of
an estimated 3.5 billion gallons of
liquid waste into these systems each
day. Although the use of domestic
septic systems is difficult to control,
many States are initiating permitting
processes. In addition, the local sale
of products that pose a threat to
ground water quality may be dis-
couraged. Support of local collec-
tion programs may be encouraged
through the increase in public
awareness.
Although States most frequently
cited domestic septic systems as a
threat to ground water quality,
Figure 11
Ground Water Contamination as a Result of Commercial Septic Systems
Septic Tank
l
Drainfield
/ ^
Cesspool
Source: U.S. EPA, 1997. Groundwater Bulletin.
Storm Drain
Septic Tank
t
Dry Well
Storm Sewer
-------
Ground Water Quality 23
similar systems are also used by
commercial and industrial facilities
to dispose of process wastewaters
(Figure 11). The most misused
septic systems are those used by the
automotive repair/service businesses
that dispose of engine fluids, fuels,
and cleaning solvents. As much as
4 million pounds of waste per year
are disposed of by commercial sites
into septic systems that have affect-
ed the drinking water of approxi-
mately 1.3 million Americans. The
costs needed to clean up the conta-
mination and supply new sources of
drinking water have ranged from
$30,000 to $3.8 million. States are
currently enforcing waste manage-
ment programs requiring businesses
to properly dispose of their chemical
waste.
State Overview of
Contaminant Sources
For the first time in 1996, States
were asked to provide information
on the types and numbers of con-
taminant sources within a specified
reporting area. Reporting contami-
nant source information for specific
areas within States is new and not
all States track this information in an
easily accessible format. Of the
States that do, 29 provided this
information. The information is
tabulated on a nationwide basis in
Table 1.
Requesting this type of informa-
tion served two purposes. First, it
was possible to determine what
contaminant sources have the great-
est potential to impact ground
water quality based on the sheer
number of such sites in a given area.
Second, it was possible to determine
how many of these sites actually
impacted ground water quality.
As shown in Table 1, leaking
USTs represent the highest number
of potential sources. Over 100,000
leaking UST sites have been identi-
fied in 80 different areas of the
Nation. Of these, over 17,000 have
confirmed releases of ground water
contamination. The next big cate-
gory of potential contaminant
sources are septic systems. States
reported the presence of 10,656
sources in a total of eight areas.
Of these, 10,594 have confirmed
releases. The next highest category
were State sites, with a total of
2,614 confirmed ground water
contamination incidents.
-------
24 Ground Water Quality
Ground Water
Assessments
For the first time in 1996,
States were asked to report data
for aquifers or hydrogeologic set-
tings (e.g., watersheds) within the
State. Reporting data for specific
aquifers or hydrogeologic settings
within States is new. EPA recog-
nized that not every State would
be able to report ground water
data on an aquifer-specific basis.
EPA also anticipated that there
would be wide variation in report-
ing style. The information reported
by States in their 1996 State Water
Quality Reports reflects the diver-
sity of our Nation's individual
ground water management
programs.
Due to the diversity in
reported data, evaluation of
ground water quality on a national
basis for 1996 is not possible at
this time. However, the positive
Table 1. Summary of Contaminant Source Type and Number 1
Source Type
Leaking UST
UST Sites (no releases found)
Septic Systems
State Sites
Underground Injection
CERCLIS (non-NPL)
RCRA Corrective Action
MN Dept of Agriculture
DOD/DOE
Miscellaneous
Nonpoint Sources
NPL
Landfills
Wastewater Land Application
Units for
Which
Information
Was Reported
80
21
8
65
49
54
74
1
77
55
17
63
4
21
Sites
Reported
Nationwide
100,921
2,210
10,656
7,017
5,006
2,399
2,114
600
404
229
171
167
149
116
Sites Listed
and/or with
Confirmed
Releases
Nationwide
40,363
—
10,594
5,751
1,077
1,332
283
164
234
905
190
250
78
—
Sites with
Confirmed
Ground Water
Contamination
Nationwide
1 7,827
—
—
2,614
911
645
289
50
166
514
62
204
74
24
Site
Investigations
Nationwide
22,362
—
—
5,348
116
1,154
54
119
115
72
32
57
136
24
Sites that are
Stabilized or
with Source
Removed
Nationwide
9,367
—
—
2,935
62
374
37
—
53
40
27
22
3
—
CERCLIS « Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
DOD/DOE = Department of Defense/Department of Energy
MN » Minnesota
NPL = National Priority List (or Superfund)
RCRA ~ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
UST » Underground Storage Tank
— * Not available
-------
Ground Water Quality 25
response from States showed they
welcomed the changes made in
1996 and are developing and
implementing plans to report more
aquifer-specific information in the
future.
Diversity of Reporting
Units
Thirty-three States reported
data summarizing ground
water quality. In total, data were
reported for 162 specific aquifers
and other hydrogeologic settings.
States that were unable to report
ground water quality data for
specific aquifers assessed ground
water quality using a number of
different hydrogeologic settings
or "reporting units," including
statewide summaries, reporting
by county, watershed, basin, and
sites or areas chosen for specific
reasons such as potential vulner-
ability to contamination.
Sites with
Corrective
Action Plans
Nationwide
6,143
—
—
791
32
41
37
— •
26
12
3
25
—
7
Sites with
Active
Remediation
Nationwide
6,301
—
—
1,216
28
21
79
—
22
5
21
38
—
5
Sites with
Cleanup
Completed
Nationwide
19,379
— -
—
3,166
204
49
52
—
39
32
36
24
0
0
-------
26 Ground Water Quality
Ffgure 12
Figure 12 presents an overview of
the States that were able to pro-
vide ground water quality data for
specific or "differentiated hydro-
geologic units" within the State. A
brief description of several ground
water assessment methods and
their rationale follows.
Florida - Very Intense
Study Area
Florida's Very Intense Study
Area (VISA) Network, consisting of
about 450 wells, began operating
in 1990. The VISA Network moni-
tors the effects of various land uses
on ground water quality in specific
aquifers in selected areas. The
major land uses represented are
Summary of How Ground Water
Data Were Reported
• DC
-Hawaii
American Samoa
hi yti.i
Puerto Rico
1 996 305(b) Ground Water Report Not Provided
Differentiated Into Hydrogeologic Units Within the State
Not Differentiated, Reported on a Statewide Basis
Tabulated Ground Water Monitoring Data Not Provided
intensive agriculture, mixed urban/
suburban, industrial, and low
impact. The VISAs were chosen
based on their relative susceptibil-
ity to contamination. Currently,
Florida has data on 23 VISAs and is
in the process of analyzing the
results of the first two rounds of
sampling.
Wells in the VISA and Florida's
background networks are sampled
in the same year for various water
chemistry indicators and groups of
contaminants. By comparing VISA
and background results in the
same aquifer system, lists of con-
taminants commonly associated
with different kinds of land use can
be developed. This process helps
Florida to plan for and regulate
land uses that are a threat to
ground water quality.
For the 1996 report, Florida
chose to present information for
the North Lake Apopka VISA
(Figure 13), which consists of
36 square miles in the Lake Apopka
Basin. The vulnerability to contami-
nation of the surficial and Floridian
aquifers and Lake Apopka was an
important consideration in choos-
ing the study area. Because land
use in the Lake Apopka Basin is
over 50% agricultural, this VISA
helps Florida evaluate the impacts
of intensive agricultural growing,
processing, and packing on
ground water quality.
-------
Ground Water Quality 27
Arkansas - Ambient
Ground Water Monitoring
Program
The Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology ini-
tiated an Ambient Ground Water
Monitoring Program in 1986 in
order to gather background,
ground-water quality data from
various aquifers in the State.
Samples are collected every 3 years
and analyzed for general water
quality indicators, including metals,
petroleum hydrocarbons, and
pesticides. Three rounds of
sampling and analysis have been
completed in some areas since
inception of this program.
For 1996, Arkansas presented
information for the nine currently
active monitoring areas (Figure
14). The areas are in different
counties covering the diverse geo-
logic, hydrologic, and economic
regimes within the State. Each area
was chosen for a particular reason
and with particular objectives in
mind. For example, one area is
characterized by the largest
community using ground water to
meet all of its needs and one
objective of the monitoring pro-
gram is to monitor water quality
within an area of the underlying
aquifer that is affected by public
and commercial well use.
Figure 13
Locations and Descriptions of Very Intense
Study Areas (VISA) in Florida
Urban/Suburban Areas
Industrial Areas
Agricultural Areas
Mixed Land Uses
Figure 14
Arkansas Ambient Ground Water
Monitoring Program
mini am Existing Monitoring
Areas
Proposed Monitoring
Areas
Existing monitoring areas include Ouachita (1), Lonoke (2), Pine Bluff (3), Omaha (4),
El Dorado (5), Jonesboro (6), Brinkley (7), Chicot (8), and Buffalo River Watershed (9).
Expansion areas will include Hardy (10) and Athens Plateau (11).
-------
28 Ground Water Quality
Wyoming - County
Summary
In 1992, the Wyoming Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality,
Water Resources Center and the
State Engineer's Office imple-
mented a prioritized approach for
assessing aquifer sensitivity and
ground water vulnerability at the
county level on a statewide basis.
Goshen County was selected as
a pilot project area based on
(1) the existence of recent studies
and reports on ground water
quality and aquifer characteristics;
(2) Federal, State, and local interest
in ground water and wellhead
protection programs; and (3) the
Figure IS
Idaho's Hydrogeologic Subareas
Subarea Boundaries
Major Aquifers
Hydrogeologic Subareas
1. North Idaho
2. Palouse
3. Clearwater
4. Long Valley/Meadows
5. Weiser
6. Payette
7. Boise Valley-Shallow
8. Boise Valley- Deep
9. Mountain Home
10. North Owyhee
11. Salmon
12. Central Valley
13. Snake River Plain Alluvium
14. Snake River Plain Basalt
15. Twin Falls
16. Cassia Power
17. Portneuf
18. Upper Snake
19. Bear River
20. Boise Mountains
21. Central Mountains
22. Southwestern Owyhee
Note: Boise Valley Shallow overlies Boise
Valley Deep. Snake River Plain Alluvium
(SRP) overlies SRP Basalt.
amount of related data and
information available to complete
sensitivity and vulnerability maps.
Goshen County also ranked fourth
out of 23 counties in overall vul-
nerability to contamination from
pesticides. For 1996, Wyoming
focused ground water assessment
on the North Platte River alluvial
aquifer located in Goshen County.
Indiana - Hydrogeologic
Setting
To avoid the evaluation of
ground water quality data across
similar political boundaries, Indiana
developed a system that allows for
data to be analyzed according to
similar surface and subsurface envi-
ronments. This was achieved by
first producing a document that
describes all the hydrogeologic
settings found in Indiana. These
hydrogeologic settings provide a
conceptual model to interpret the
sensitivity to contamination of
ground water in relation to the
surface and subsurface environ-
ments. For ground water quality
data for 1996, the State of Indiana
selected five hydrogeologic
settings considered to be highly
vulnerable to contamination (i.e.,
principally outwash deposits or
fans of glacial origin) and occur-
ring in largely populated areas
(i.e., areas of greatest water
demand).
-------
Ground Water Quality 29
Idaho - Hydrogeologk
Subareas
The State of Idaho is divided
into 22 hydrogeologic subareas
(Figure 15) for Statewide moni-
toring purposes. These subareas
represent geologically similar areas
and generally encompass one or
more of the 70 major ground
water flow systems identified
within the State. Each flow system
includes at least one major aquifer,
with some systems being com-
prised of several aquifers that may
be interconnected.
Idaho reported ground water
quality data for 20 of the 22
hydrogeologic subareas. Subareas
21 and 22 were not included in
1996 because the ground water in
these subareas is used by few
people and the aquifer systems are
isolated from other major aquifers.
Arizona - Watershed Zone
Arizona presented ground
water quality data for all 10
"watershed zones" within the State
(Figure 16). The watershed zones
are delineated along USGS Hydro-
logic Unit boundaries and corre-
spond to the State's 13 surface
water basins. A few surface water
basins were combined and one
was split to form the 10 watershed
zones. Each watershed zone is
characterized in terms of several
features, including size, population
base, hydrologic provinces, eco-
regions, ground water basins,
hydrology, and geology. Investi-
gations of potential ground water
contamination problems have led
to site remediation efforts through
various State and Federal
programs.
Figure 16
Arizona Watersheds
-------
30 Ground Water Quality
Alabama - Tuscumbia Fort
Payne Aquifer
Alabama provided ground
water quality data for the Tuscum-
bia Fort Payne Aquifer outcrop area
located in northern Alabama adja-
cent to the Tennessee River (Figure
17). This area is underlain by the
Tuscumbia Limestone and the Fort
Payne Chert geologic formations.
It is considered to be a unique
karst area that is highly susceptible
to contamination from surface
sources. Surface and ground water
interaction is fairly rapid due to
recharge through sinkholes and
other karst features. Because the
Figure 17
Alabama Physiographic Provinces
Tuscumbia Fort
Payne Aquifer Outcrop
area is heavily farmed and pesti-
cides associated with farming are
used, the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management has
accumulated ground water moni-
toring data for this area.
Texas - Trinity and Dockum
Aquifers, Rio Grande
Alluvium, and Laredo
Formation
Ambient ground water quality
monitoring is conducted continu-
ously and extensively throughout
the State of Texas. As a conse-
quence, boundaries and various
characteristics of all the State's
major and minor aquifers have
been identified, including water
availability, recharge, and geologic
formation. In addition, major enti-
ties using ground water have been
identified within each river basin
and the aquifer(s) used, the quality
of water being developed, and the
quantity of water needed for a
50-year planning period.
For 1996, Texas selected the
Trinity and Dockum Aquifers, Rio
Grande Alluvium, and Laredo
Formation for assessment. These
selections represent one major, one
minor, and two undifferentiated/
local aquifers, respectively. The
main selection criterion was to
select a range of recently moni-
tored aquifers and to develop an
initial methodology for the assess-
ment of the aquifers. The refine-
ment of the assessment method-
ology for subsequent 305(b)
reporting cycles is of primary
importance.
-------
Ground Water Quality 31
Extent of Coverage
States were encouraged to
report ground water data for
selected aquifers or hydrogeologic
settings as part of the 1996 305(b)
reporting cycle. EPA recognized
that this was not always plausible
and as a consequence, recom-
mended that State ground water
resources be assessed incrementally
over time.
The extent of State coverage
will increase as individual States
develop and implement plans to
assess ground water quality on an
aquifer-specific basis. Greater
quantities of ground water moni-
toring data will also become avail-
able as States complete source
water delineations and source
inventory/susceptibility analyses for
public water supplies under the
Source Water Assessment Program
(see Ground Water Protection
Programs).
Ground Water Quality
Data Sources
EPA recognizes that data
collection and organization varies
among the States, and that a
single data source for assessing
ground water quality does not
exist for purposes of the 7996
Report to Congress. As a conse-
quence, EPA suggested several
types of data that could be used
for assessment purposes (e.g.,
ambient ground water monitoring
data, untreated water from private
or unregulated wells, untreated
water from public water supply
wells, and special studies).
States were encouraged to use
available data that they believe
best reflects the quality of the
resource. Depending upon data
availability and the judgment of
the State ground water profession-
als, one or multiple sources of data
were used in the assessments. The
majority of the States opted to use
multiple sources of data. As shown
in Figure 18, States used data
collected from ambient monitoring
networks, public water supply
systems, private and unregulated
Figure 18
Sources of Ground Water Data
a DC
A—o Virgin Islands
> Puerto Rico
jJHawaii
American Samoa
A Finished Water from PWS Wells
• Untreated Water from PWS Weils
• Ambient Monitoring Networks
>{» Other Ground Water Monitoring Data
^ Untreated Water from Private or Unregulated Wells
Special Studies
Facility Monitoring Wells
1996 305(b) Ground Water Report Not Provided
Tabulated Ground Water Monitoring Data Not Provided
*
T
-------
32 Ground Water Quality
wells, facility monitoring wells, and
special studies.
Finished water quality data
from public water supply systems
were the most frequently used
source of data (Figure 19).
Ambient monitoring networks and
untreated water quality data from
private and unregulated wells were
the next frequently used sources of
data.
States used a variety of data
sources to report on ground water
quality. Although there was a
strong reliance on finished water
quality data from public water
supply systems, these data were
frequently reported in conjunction
with other sources of data to
provide a more meaningful assess-
ment of ground water quality than
was possible in previous reporting
cycles.
Parameter
Groups/Analytes
The primary basis for assessing
ground water quality is the com-
parison of chemical concentrations
measured in ground water to
water quality standards. For 1996,
EPA suggested that States consider
using maximum contaminant lev-
els (MCLs) defined under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. In general,
most States used the MCL concen-
trations for comparison purposes.
Exceptions occurred when State-
specific standards were available.
It was not possible for States to
sample and analyze ground water
for every known constituent. For
ease of reporting, EPA suggested
that the ground water quality data
be summarized into parameter
groups. Parameter groups
Figure 19
Aquifer Monitoring Data
Ambient Monitoring Network
Untreated Water from PWS
Untreated Water from Private
or Unregulated Wells
Finished Water Quality Data
from PWS Wells
Special Studies
Not Specified
J_
J_
I
I
I
I
10 20 30 40 50 60
Percentage of States
52
24
36
61
6
21
70
Note: Percentages based on a total of 33 States submitting data. Some States utilized multiple
data sources.
-------
Ground Water Quality 33
recommended in the 1996 Guide-
lines include volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs), semivolatile organ-
ic compounds (SVOC), and nitrate.
These three groups were recom-
mended because they are generally
indicative of contamination origi-
nating as a result of human activi-
ties. States were also encouraged
to report data for any other
constituents of interest.
Nationally, more States report-
ed data for VOCs, SVOCs, nitrates,
and metals than any other con-
stituent or group of constituents.
Parameter groups and individual
constituents identified by States in
their 1996 305(b) reports are
summarized in Table 2.
As shown, States reported data
for a wide variety of constituents.
Organic as well as inorganic and
microbial constituents were
included in the ground water
assessments depending upon State
interests and priorities. Although
the greatest quantity of data was
reported for nitrate and VOCs, it
was clear that States were also
concerned with SVOCs, pesticides,
metals, and bacteria.
Ground Water
Quality Data
Ground water quality data
reported by States in 1996 repre-
sent different sources, often with
different monitoring purposes.
As a consequence, national
comparisons are not appropriate.
Rather, ground water quality
assessments are performed using
comparable data groupings. Data
most closely approximating actual
ground water quality conditions
(e.g., untreated ground water) are
given special consideration in these
assessments. Specifically, this
report focuses on nitrate, VOCs,
SVOCs, pesticides, bacteria, and
metals. These parameter groups/
constituents were selected as they
are indicative of ground water
degradation as a result of human
activities.
Table 2. Summary of Parameter Groups/Constituents
Reported by States in 1996
Nitrate
VOC
SVOC
Bacteria
Pesticides
Radioactivity
Metals
Arsenic
Iron
Manganese
Barium
Selenium
Cadmium
Chromium
Inorganics
Chloride
Fluoride
TDS
Alkalinity
Calcium
Other
Nutrients
Lead
Antimony
Beryllium
Nickel
Thallium
Cobalt
Molybdenum
Magnesium
Potassium
Aluminum
Bromide
Lithium
Orthophosphorpus
Mercury
Copper
Zinc
Strontium
Vanadium
Silver
Sodium
Boron
Hardness
Silica
Bicarbonate
Specific Conductivity
TOC
-------
34 Ground Water Quality
Nitrate
States reported data for nitrate
more frequently than for any other
parameter or parameter group. It
was the second most frequently
cited ground water contaminant
after petroleum compounds.
Twelve States specifically refer-
enced nitrate as a widespread and
significant cause of ground water
contamination in their 1996 State
Water Quality Reports.
The focus on nitrate as a
ground water contaminant is justi-
fied. It is soluble in water, and
consequently, is easily transported
from the soil surface to the under-
lying ground water resource.
Extensive application of nitrate in
fertilizer to agricultural lands, resi-
dential lawns, and golf courses has
resulted in widespread degradation
of ground water resources. The
misuse of septic systems and
improper disposal of domestic
wastewater and sludge have also
caused ground water contamina-
tion. At exposures greater than 10
milligrams per liter, its presence in
water can lead to methemoglo-
binemia or "blue-baby syndrome"
(an inability to fix oxygen in the
blood). It is also an environmental
concern as a potential source of
nutrient enrichment in coastal
waters.
Table 3 presents ground water
quality information for nitrate. As
shown, 15 States reported nitrate
data for ambient monitoring net-
works. Nitrate was measured at
concentrations exceeding the MCL
of 10 milligrams per liter in 8 of
the 15 States for a total of 26 units
and 267 wells impacted by nitrate.
Thus, approximately 50% of the
reporting States indicated elevated
levels of nitrate in ground water
collected from ambient monitoring
TableS. Nitrates j
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Untreated
Water from
PWS
Untreated
Water from
Private/Unregu-
lated Wells
Finished Water
from PWS
Special
Studies
States
Reporting
15
7
10
18
2
States
Reporting
MCL
Exceedances
8
5
9
11
2
Units
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
26
5
10
18
4
Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
267
85
2,233
230
309
Highest
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
81
out of 681
38
out of 346
2,000
out of
250,000
101
out of 2,806
288
out of 9,000
Average
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
10
17
23
13
No
meaningful
average
-------
Ground Water Quality 35
networks. This percentage is even
higher for States reporting data for
untreated water from PWS and
from private/unregulated wells
(i.e., nitrate levels exceeding the
MCL were reported by five out of
seven States for untreated water
from PWS
and by nine out of ten States for
untreated water from private/
unregulated wells).
VOC/SVOCs/Pesticides
VOCs and SVOCs (including
pesticides) were cited by States as
among the top five contaminants
of concern. This is not unexpected
given that the number of identified
man-made organic compounds
totaled near 2 million in 1977 and
was believed to be growing at a
rate of about 250,000 new formu-
lations annually.*
Organic compounds can be
released to the environment
through a number of different
avenues. Generally, organic com-
pounds are released to ground
water via pesticide applications,
disposal practices, and spills. As
reported in their 1996 State Water
Quality Reports, it was disposal
practices that generated the most
concern among States. Disposal
practices that were cited as having
the potential to adversely impact
ground water quality included
landfills, hazardous waste sites,
surface impoundments, and
shallow injection wells.
*Ciger, W., and P.V. Roberts. 1977. Characterization of refractory organic carbon. In Water
Pollution Microbiology, Volume 2, Ralph Mitchell (ed.). New York: Wiley-lnterscience.
Table 4. VOCs ,:
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Untreated
Water from
PWS
Untreated
Water from
Private/Unregu-
lated Wells
Finished Water
from PWS
Special
Studies
States
Reporting
10
6
3
17
1
States
Reporting
MCL
Exceedances
7
5
2
6
1
Units
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
16
5
5
13
2
Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
30
77
96
152
19
Highest
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
5
out of 1 1 3
51
out of 80
52
out of 80
114
out of 603
9
out of 720
Average
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
2
15
20
12
5
-------
36 Ground Water Quality
The organic compounds that
pose the greatest threat to ground
water quality are those that are
relatively soluble, not easily con-
verted to the vapor state, and not
subject to chemical or biological
degradation. Their presence in
ground water is becoming increas-
ingly pervasive and a cause for
national concern due to the car-
cinogenic effects of many of the
organic compounds.
Tables 4 through 6 present
data related to VOCs, SVOCs, and
pesticides. As shown, more States
reported information for VOCs
than for either SVOCs or pesti-
cides. This is consistent with the
fact that VOCs are the most fre-
quently detected class of organic
priority pollutants and they are the
most frequently detected individ-
ual compounds impacting ground
water quality at RCRA and CERCLA
sites.*
Based on the information
presented in Tables 4 through
6, it appears that ground water
contamination by VOCs is indeed
more prevalent than either SVOCs
or pesticides. Seventy percent of
the reporting States (i.e., 7 out of
10 States) indicated that VOCs
were measured at levels exceeding
MCL values in ground water col-
lected from ambient monitoring
networks as opposed to 43%
(3 out of 7 States) for SVOCs and
25% (2 out of 8 States) for pesti-
cides. Furthermore, VOCs were
* Plumb, R.H. 1985. Disposal site monitoring data: observations and strategy implications. In
Proceedings: Second Canadian/American Conference on Hydrogeology, Hazardous Wastes in Cround
Water A Soluble Dilemma, June 25-29,1995, Banff, Alberta, Canada.
Tables. SVOCs I
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Untreated
Water from
PWS
Untreated
Water from
Private/Unregu-
lated Wells
Finished Water
from PWS
Special
Studies
States
Reporting
7
4
3
14
0
States
Reporting
MCL
Exceedances
3
3
1
3
0
Units
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
3
3
2
3
0
Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
5
10
4
18
0
Highest
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
3
out of 27
7
out of 305
2
out of 27
14
out of 1 0,985
0
Average
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
2
3
2
6
0
-------
Ground Water Quality 37
measured at levels exceeding MCL
values in a total of 16 units and 30
wells. Again, this can be compared
to SVOCs impacting three units
and five wells and pesticides
impacting two units and five wells.
As was noted with nitrates,
elevated levels of VOCs were found
more frequently in untreated
ground water collected from PWS
and private/unregulated wells.
Although VOCs were measured at
levels exceeding MCL levels in
ground water collected from PWS
and private/unregulated wells in
only five and two States, respec-
tively, a total of 77 and 96 wells
were impacted (Table 4). The same
pattern was not observed for
SVOCs (Table 5). Although elevat-
ed levels of pesticide were mea-
sured in untreated ground water
collected from private/unregulated
wells, these data include one area
known to have been heavily conta-e
minated by pesticide usage (Table
6).
Metals
States identified metals as the
fourth highest contaminant of con-
cern with respect to ground water
degradation. As shown in Table
7, metals comprise a broad catego-
ry of individual constituents that
may be present in ground water
singularly or in combination,
depending on the contaminant
source. Although normal back-
ground ground water conditions
may be characterized by elevated
metal concentrations in some parts
of the Nation (e.g., southwestern
United States), metals are generally
considered an indicator of ground
Table 6. Pesticides
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Untreated
Water from
PWS
Untreated
Water from
Private/Unregu-
lated Wells
Finished Water
from PWS
Special
Studies
States
Reporting
8
2
5
1
1
•M
States
Reporting
MCL
Exceedances
2
1
4
0
1
^M
Units
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
2
1
4
0
1
^^m
Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
5
2
101
0
0
••
Highest
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
3
out of 26
2
out of 353
76
out of 330
0
1
out of 42
mim
Average
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
3
2
25
0
1
-------
38 Ground Water Quality
water contamination resulting from
human activities.
Metals are present in numer-
ous commercial and industrial
process and waste streams.
Depending on handling and dis-
posal practices, metals can be
released to the environment and
can impact ground water quality.
Because metals are not easily
broken down, they tend to be
persistent and can affect ground
water quality for long periods of
time.
Ground water contamination
by metals most frequently occurs
as a result of improper operation
and/or inappropriate design of
landfills, disposal of liquid or solid
mining wastes or tailings, or
ineffective containment of nuclear
wastes. States cited landfills,
hazardous waste sites, surface
impoundments, shallow injection
wells, land application, industrial
facilities, and mining as prime
sources of metal contamination in
ground water.
Table 7 presents the informa-
tion reported by States for metals.
Metals were most frequently tested
and detected in ground water
collected from ambient monitoring
networks. Eleven States reported
metal data for ambient monitoring
networks. Metals were measured at
concentrations exceeding MCL
values in 7 of the 11 States for a
total of 33 units and 195 wells
impacted by metal contamination.
Thus, approximately 65% of the
reporting States indicated elevated
levels of metals in ground water
collected from ambient monitoring
networks.
Table 7. Metals
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Untreated
Water from
PWS
Untreated
Water from
Private/Unregu-
lated Wells
Finished Water
from PWS
Special
Studies
States
Reporting
11
2
1
6
0
States
Reporting
MCL
Exceedances
7
2
1
4
0
Units
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
33
4
3
10
0
Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
195
100
13
175
0
Highest
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
42
out of 419
88
out of 272
7
out of 26
135
out of 706
0
Average
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
6
25
4
17
0
-------
Ground Water Quality 39
Metals were less frequently
tested in ground water collected
from either PWS or private/unregu-
lated wells. Still, a total of 100
wells were found to exceed MCL
values for metals in untreated
ground water collected from PWS
wells.
Bacteria
The sixth most common
ground water contaminant cited in
the 1996 State Water Quality
Reports was bacteria. One of the
most common sources of bacteria
in ground water is septic systems.
Other important sources include
landfills, animal feedlots, surface
impoundments, and pipelines and
sewers.
High concentrations of disease-
causing bacteria in ground water
may be a source of human health
problems. The most common dis-
eases spread by these pathogenic
bacteria are related to the con-
sumption of contaminated drink-
ing water (e.g., gastroenteritis,
campylobacteriosis, and hepatitis).
For purposes of their 1996
State Water Quality Reports, States
focused less on bacteria than on
other contaminant groupings. Still,
one out of the three States report-
ing data on bacteria indicated lev-
els that exceeded MCL values. As
shown in Table 8, ground water
was impacted by bacteria in 10
ambient monitoring wells. In a
special study conducted in the
Boise River Valley by the State of
Idaho, total coliform bacteria were
detected at levels exceeding MCL
values in 95 out of 720 samples.
Table 8. Bacteria
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Untreated
Water from
PWS
Untreated
Water from
Private/Unregu-
lated Wells
Finished Water
from PWS
Special
Studies
States
Reporting
3
1
1
3
1
States
Reporting
MCL
Exceedances
1
1
0
3
1
Units
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
1
1
0
3
2
Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceedances
10
1
0
404
101
Highest
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
10
out of 27
1
out of 102
0
381
out of 3,854
95
out of 720
^••^^^^^•••i^^^^^^BBHH
Average
Number of
Wells That
Exceeded
the MCL
within a
Single Unit
10
1
0
Mean-
ingless
50
-------
40 Ground Water Quality
This study focused on some of the
more densely populated areas in
Idaho and documented the threat
to shallow ground water resources
from historic and current land and
water use practices.
Conclusion
Assessing the quality of our
Nation's ground water resources is
no easy task. An accurate and rep-
resentative assessment of ambient
ground water conditions ideally
requires a well planned and well
executed monitoring plan. Such
plans are expensive and may not
be compatible with State adminis-
trative, technical, and program-
matic initiatives. As a consequence,
EPA and interested States devel-
oped guidelines for the assessment
of ground water quality that took
into account the complex spatial
variations in aquifer systems, the
differing levels of sophistication
among State programs, and the
expense of collecting ambient
ground water monitoring data.
The newly developed guidelines
incorporated the flexibility neces-
sary to accommodate differences
in State programs.
State response to the new
guidelines was excellent. Thirty-
three States reported ground water
quality data for 162 aquifers and
other hydrogeologic settings. From
this response, it was evident that
States welcomed the changes
made in 1996. It was also evident
that the flexibility purposely incor-
porated into the 1996 Ground
Water Assessment Guidelines
yielded a diversity in reported data.
This diversity presented a challenge
in assessing ground water quality.
Some of the more challenging
aspects were highlighted in this
report. Following are changes that
are expected to occur over time to
improve our picture of ground
water quality:
• State reporting styles varied
significantly in 1996. Although this
variability was expected, final data
interpretation was challenging
because data compilations required
the use of a single defined data
structure. When State data did not
exactly conform to this structure,
some interpretation on the part of
EPA was necessary. With more spe-
cific directions and definitions in
the Guidelines, States' ability to
respond in a more structured
reporting style will improve and
the need for outside interpretation
will lessen.
• As the direction and focus
of ground water assessments
becomes clearer, State response
will grow and more accurate
characterization of ground water
quality will be possible.
• Because ground water monitor-
ing is expensive, few States have
access to ambient ground water
quality data. EPA suggested a num-
ber of data sources that could be
used in the absence of ambient
ground water monitoring data.
Although finished water quality
data from PWS were one of those
sources, these data do not provide
the most accurate representation
of ground water quality. As States
continue to develop new sources
of ground water data, the reliance
on finished water quality data
will decrease. Furthermore, it is
-------
Ground Water Quality 41
expected that the variability in
data sources and types will decease
as States continue program devel-
opment.
As the direction and focus of
ground water assessment in the
305(b) program becomes clearer,
State response will grow and more
accurate characterization of
ground water quality will result.
The 1996 305(b) State Water
Quality Reports were the first step
toward that goal.
-------
-------
Ground Water
Protection Programs
Eighty-nine percent of public
water supply systems in the Nation
depend either fully or partially on
ground water to meet consumer
demand. 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
vulnerable to human contamination,
and, in their 1996 305(b) reports,
States identified 79 contaminant
sources that threaten the integrity
of ground water resources. Once
ground water resources have been
compromised by contamination,
experience has shown that it is both
difficult and expensive to restore
them to their former condition. In
many cases, they will never be fully
restored. The following chapter
discusses the laws and programs
that are being implemented by
States and the Federal government
to provide a framework for the
protection of our ground water
resources.
Primary Drinking
Water Protection
Programs
The protection of our Nation's
ground water resources is addressed
under both the Clean Water Act
(CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA). The CWA encourages
ground water protection, recogniz-
ing that ground water provides a
significant proportion of the base
flow to streams and lakes. In the
CWA (Public Law 92-500) of 1972
and in the CWA Amendments of
1977 (Public Law 95-217), Congress
provided for the regulation of
discharges into all navigable waters
of the United States. Ground water
protection is addressed in Section
102, providing for the development
of Federal, State, and local compre-
hensive programs for reduction,
elimination, and prevention of
ground water contamination. Two
very important aspects under the
CWA are the development of State
Comprehensive Ground Water
Protection Programs and the
measurement of national progress
in achieving State and Tribal water
quality standards.
The SDWA was passed by
Congress in 1974 and amended in
1986 and 1996. Under the SDWA,
EPA is authorized to ensure that
water is safe for human consump-
tion. One of the most fundamental
ways to ensure consistently safe
drinking water is to protect the
source of that water (i.e., ground
water). Source water protection is
achieved through four programs:
the Wellhead Protection Program,
the Sole Source Aquifer Program,
the Underground Injection Control
Program, and, under the 1996
Amendments, the Source Water
Assessment Program.
The, adrnirtstratdr •sniaif'1; ?•;'
•-r prepate<^dev:elaS=* :." :\ ",:
I (-„__ _ ' ' j" ,-,(, | , :,;•,,;,{ |t ,"
Corn prebensive,proigrams;
or eliminating the pdllutiori
"-',-- " • " ... ,P" ,- ' ,' ,,l n,,;' ,!-„'-
'pf the: na vigabte
ground .water
-' surface, arid .uhdergrounid!;;!?!
•-" -waters.,! * ™«- -,-• ^ r! K- ;„".,'
-------
44 Ground Water Protection Programs
Clean Water Act
One of the goals of the CWA is
to achieve an interim water quality
level that protects the desirable uses
that water quality should support.
These "beneficial" uses include
drinking water as well as primary
contact recreation, fish consump-
tion, and aquatic life support.
Under the authority of the CWA
Section 102, States are developing
Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs (CSGWPPs)
tailored to their goals and priorities
for the protection of ground water
resources. One of the primary pur-
poses of a CSGWPP is to provide a
framework for EPA to give greater
flexibility to a State for management
and protection of its ground water
resources. CSGWPPs guide the
future implementation 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.
Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection
Programs
EPA is committed to working
with States in developing and carry-
ing out the CSGWPP approach.
Guidance issued by EPA in 1992
fosters a "State-focused," "resource-
based" approach to ground water
protection that relies on a State's
continuous efforts to evolve from a
"Core" CSGWPP to an eventual
"Fully Integrating" CSGWPP.
The evolution is a three-stage
process. The first stage focuses on
the States, which must develop a
Core CSGWPP and submit it to
EPA Regional Offices for review
and endorsement. The Core
CSGWPP represents a State's initial
commitment to working jointly with
EPA. It provides a framework for
States to demonstrate their potential
to be the primary decision-makers in
ground water protection efforts.
Although a Core CSGWPP need only
include one ground water protec-
tion or remediation program to
demonstrate whether the State's
approach is consistent with the
guidance, each Core CSGWPP
must meet adequacy criteria for six
Strategic Activities, including:
• Establishment of a ground water
protection goal
• Establishment of priorities based
on characterization of the resource,
identification of sources of contami-
nation, and programmatic needs
• Definition of authorities, roles,
responsibilities, resources, and coor-
dinating mechanisms across relevant
programs
• Implementation of necessary
efforts to accomplish the ground
water protection goal
• Coordination of information
collection and management
• Improvement of public education
and participation in all aspects of
ground water protection.
The six Strategic Activities foster
more efficient and effective protec-
tion of ground water through
enhanced cooperation, consistency,
and coordination of all relevant
Federal, State, Tribal, and local
programs within a State. Attainment
of a Core CSGWPP marks the point
at which all six Strategic Activities
first emerge as a cohesive program.
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 45
As shown in Figure 20, six States
have achieved EPA-endorsed Core
CSGWPPs. An additional 10 States
are awaiting EPA review and
approval.
Following EPA endorsement of
a Core CSGWPP, the second stage
involves joint discussions between
States and EPA to develop a multi-
year planning agreement for incor-
porating additional State and EPA
programs into the CSGWPP, thereby
leading to a Fully Integrating
CSGWPP. The Core CSGWPP pro-
vides the basis for the multiyear
planning discussions.
The third stage, attainment of a
Fully Integrating CSGWPP, means
that ground water protection efforts
are coordinated and focused across
all Federal, State, Tribal, and local
programs. The Fully Integrating
CSGWPP is based on a State's
understanding of and decisions
regarding the relative use, value,
and vulnerability of its ground water
resources, including the relative
threat of all actual or potential con-
tamination sources. The six Strategic
Activities fundamentally influence
and support the day-to-day opera-
tions of all ground-water-related
programs in a Fully Integrating
CSGWPP.
EPA recognized that fundamen-
tal changes within its own programs
were just as much a prerequisite to
achieving a Fully Integrating
CSGWPP as were the Strategic
Activities that a State must under-
take. EPA documented its willingness
to change in the 1995 document
entitled EPA's Commitments to
Support Comprehensive State Ground-
Water Protection Programs. This doc-
ument identified specific actions that
EPA has already taken, will take, or
will evaluate for future action to
support CSGWPPs. The focus of the
commitments is to provide the
States enhanced flexibility for setting
their own priorities and promoting
greater State- and community-based
decision-making. The 1995 commit-
ments reflect only the first set of EPA
actions to support States developing
CSGWPPs. EPA will continue to
review proposals for future actions
and program changes that could
improve comprehensive ground
water protection.
Coordination of Protection
Programs Among State
Agencies
Historically, ground water
protection programs were overseen
by many different agencies within
Figure 20
States with Core CSGWPP
DC
°-£> Hawaii
American Samoa
•& Virgin Islands
States with Core CSGWPP Endorsed by EPA
as of March 1997
States with Core CSGWPP Submitted to EPA
as of March 1997
Puerto Rico
-------
46 Ground Water Protection Programs
liliiiJiii niihiNiiiiln
S'l*!'! llSlt!^^^
l;,!1! •U.-.iltltiJ^t-: •!:.!,*. s ;:• JB'lit i W i 'tiiill!' • i lt Jiillii: lri'iiij; !|:!i|
IjiiU
E 'i ife^ Hj'liifiii
uiiiiipijiliH ii ii
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 47
coordination between ground water
interests of other State and Federal
agencies and to allow for public
input into program development.
The Ground Water Advisory Com-
mittee meets at least twice a year.
One meeting deals with coordina-
tion issues between agencies and
the other addresses more general
program development related
topics.
An area of active program devel-
opment is a comprehensive ground
water database that would encom-
pass all ground water data received
or generated by the Department.
Efforts are also in progress for devel-
opment of a Geographic Informa-
tion System that would include loca-
tion of public water supply wells
with respect to industrial facilities
and areas of known contamination.
m
. .-
• Ml k- V <
, JU/,1} IBjijli
Megan Collins, 1st grade, Estes Hills Elementary, Chapel Hill, NC
!: .Iff I
rf1' t;
-------
•48 Ground Water Protection Programs
the States, making coordination
difficult for those programs. In
recent years, many jurisdictions have
begun coordinating the activities of
these agencies to ensure that effi-
cient ground water protection pro-
grams have become a top priority.
Within the six Strategic Activities
identified by EPA as prerequisite for
an "adequate" Core CSGWPP,
interagency coordination is a recur-
ring theme. Consistent with the
CSGWPP inter-agency approach,
many States, Territories, and Tribes
have established, or are establishing,
an integrated, interagency approach
to ground water protection. Thirty-
five States reported on the status of
establishing interagency coordina-
tion in their 1996 305(b) reports.
Of these, 15 have fully established
interagency coordination. Twenty
States are continuing efforts toward
that goal.
Methodologies used by States
to develop interagency coordination
vary. Alabama is currently planning
and programming a comprehensive
ground water database that will link
existing databases wjthin the Ala-
bama Department of Envifonmental
Management and will eventually
incorporate a Geographic Informa-
tion System (CIS). In contrast, the
State of Washington does not intend
to develop a single "mega" data-
base system, but rather to establish
common data definitions in order to
make data transfer a useful exercise.
Several agencies in Washington have
begun parallel processes to establish
common data formats.
Maine found that most of their
ground water quality data are col-
lected as a result of permit condi-
tions, enforcement agreements, or
impact assessments. These data are
scattered in a number of different
State agencies in paper or computer
files. Although much of the data are
potentially useful, it is not easily
accessed by either the public or by
companion agencies. This access
problem is the subject of a three-
phase study of ground water
data management. The first phases
have been completed. Phase II
resulted in specific and detailed
recommendations for a more
efficient and accessible system.
Recognizing the importance
of coordinating data management
across agency boundaries, the
Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection (DEP) actively coordinates
with several other State agencies in
order to utilize the ground water-
related data collected by those
agencies. The DEP and other State
water agencies also maintain open
and regular communications with
several Federal agencies. This inter-
agency data sharing has been bene-
ficial. One of the first steps com-
pleted was the compilation of a data
directory summarizing the data
types collected and managed by
each agency. The next step in facili-
tating data-sharing between agen-
cies is to define data elements that
might be used by all agencies.
Nevada is in the process of adopting
minimum sets of data elements for
ground water-related data. DEP
ground water and CIS work groups
and the Ground Water Protection
Task Force have discussed this issue,
particularly with respect to spatial
data. Table 9 shows draft minimum
sets of data elements consistent with
EPA recommendations.
State response in the 1996
305(b) reports show that data shar-
ing is an important component in
the coordination of protection
programs. Although methodologies
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 49
to achieve data sharing vary, many
States are moving forward to this
common goal.
Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA was passed by
Congress in 1974 and amended in
1986 and in 1996. The 1986 and
1996 Amendments to the SDWA
provide for an expanded Federal
role in protecting drinking water
and mandating changes in nation-
wide safeguards.
Source Water Assessment
The SDWA Amendments of
1996 were signed by President
Clinton in August of 1996. The
Amendments contain a significant
number of new provisions for EPA,
the States, water suppliers, and the
public. These provisions are
expected to bring substantial
change to the national drinking
water program. These changes
should resolve today's challenges
and help EPA, States, and water
system suppliers prepare for the
safety of future drinking water
supply.
In particular, the Amendments
establish a strong new emphasis on
preventing contamination problems
through source water protection
and enhanced water system man-
agement. As part of the source
water protection initiative, States
will develop programs for delineat-
ing source water areas for public
water systems and assessing the
susceptibility of the source waters
to contamination. Assessment
programs may also use data from
other, related watershed-type survey
activities. For example, the design
of State source water protection
programs builds on components of
existing State Wellhead Protection
(WHP) Programs, including source
water area delineation, contaminant
source inventories, management
measures, and contingency plan-
ning. Currently, 43 States and two
Territories have EPA-approved WHP
Programs in place and 7 States are
continuing their efforts to develop
an approved WHP Program.
In August 1997, EPA published
guidance for States for the develop-
ment of State Source Water Assess-
ment Programs (SWAPs). As shown
in Figure 21, SWAPs must (1)
delineate the boundaries of the
areas providing source waters for
public water systems, (2) identify, to
the extent practical, the origins of
regulated and certain unregulated
contaminants in the delineated
areas, and (3) determine the suscep-
tibility of public water systems to
such contaminants. Assessments
must be completed for all public
water systems within two years of
EPA approval of the State's pro-
grams. Many localities have already
begun to delineate Source Water
Protection Areas (SWPAs) through
their WHP Programs.
lithe l^^mindnijeS1"".;'';?!.!;'''*
[ that
fj^
'""'
vulhera bility d:! id rj fiklnq '.'iHC.
= -'= ~ i 3 =,-<•? ZaJT^S- Z.-i'lS 3 t "-"i^" -T =''"«- «"" " . ,» in [ nitl'i imi
- v^atirtp,^nteiT^1n^&n,_/^i::i:
^Swnce"^
: '"''
, jsavingi -'j
safe '
Table 9. Nevada's Draft Minimum Sets of Data Elements
For all Spatial Data
Unique identification number
Facility name
Type of facility/well
Latitude
Longitude
Accuracy of latitude and longitude
Altitude
Accuracy of altitude
Method used to measure altitude
State and County FIPS code
Data source (agency/program
with contact person)
For Ground Water Quality Data
(in addition to that listed for all spatial data)
Total depth of well •
Screened/open interval
Well log type
Well log data source
Water quality sample identification number
Depth to water
Water quality parameter measured
Water quality parameter value
Water quality parameter value qualifier
Water quality parameter method of detection
Method detection limit
Quality assurance indicator
-------
50 Ground Water Protection Programs
HT HIGHLIGHT
JSI'I-'""!!1!'!1'! -liiliiiFijIiiji jiiHIi'jfij; l:>;j;i ilji »i—I', iii.^..'^^^.^^.^^!,!!
i!i"H|i!.nii':4fl|iwHfiN ilEiitfiTit ^
l
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 51
• A minimal risk of contamination
• Implementation of wellhead
protection programs
• A favorable monitoring history.
The waiver program relies on
wellhead/source water protection
measures to reduce the risk of con-
tamination. Monitoring waivers were
approved or conditionally approved
for 79% of the CWS applicants.
Consequently, 435 communities
have developed full wellhead protec-
tion programs and 91 are in the
process of so doing.
Implementation of the local
wellhead protection programs has
prevented: deterioration in drinking
water quality and quantity;
decreased health risks; increased
water rates for alternative water
suppliers; diminished home sales or
commercial real estate sales; loss to
tax base; consulting and legal fees;
and remediation costs.
Illinois' source water protection
program provides technical assis-
tance to CWSs in the form of CIS
mapping and planning. Section 319
funding is being provided to the
Regional Groundwater Protection
Planning Committees, county exten-
sion or other farm service organiza-
tion to implement a cost share finan-
cial assistance to farmers with CWS
well recharge areas. Four projects '
will occur in the next 2 years with
emphasis on nutrient and pesticide
management plans, integrated pesti-
cide management, soil testing,
enhanced recordkeeping, scouting,
buffer strips, and winter cover crops.
^*i£2&F?rfa?
A** ^ A i A i 14 A A~[/*
r-»MJ|V-'23ttn
Protection Status
0 Source Water Protection Plans
Under Development
A Full Service Water Protection
— Illinois State Boundary
.= Illinois County Boundaries
Sources: Facility locations obtained from the ISWS. Facility status
data compiled by the IEPA. Map compiled by the IEPA,
Division of Public Water Supplies, Ground Water Section.
-------
52 Ground Water Protection Programs
Figure 21
What Actions Are Needed to Complete a Local
Source Water Assessment?
& 0 ^
Delineation
Delineation of a source
water protection area
(e.g., wellhead or
surface water or ground
water/surface water
(e.g., fixed radius, TOT,
topographic watershed
or watershed area)
Establish Delineation
Policy with Best
Available Data
Inventory
Identify significant
potential sources of
contamination, to the
extent practical
- Identify contaminants
- Inventory sources of
those contaminants
- Map significant
potential sources
Establish Inventory
with Best Available Data
Susceptibility
Analyses
Hydrological and
hydrogeologic analysis
of the source water
protection area (e.g.,
depth to water, water
flow rates)
[No monitoring or
modeling required]
Do Analyses with Best
Available Data
Why Is Wellhead Protection Important?
No degree of monitoring or treatment can protect against man-made
contamination as reliably as preventing the contamination in the first place.
WHP is a pollution prevention approach to preserving our Nation's ,-", ,
ground water resources, thereby ensuring adequate future supplies of drink-!
Ing water. By defining a WHP area and conducting a potentiaUontamlnant
source inventory, a water supplier can identify the contaminant sources that
pose a threat to the water supply. The water supplier can then work in coop-
eration with Federal, State, and local regulatory agencies to: ," ,
• Develop management strategies specific to the potential contaminant
sources and ensure that they are implemented.
• Ensure that cleanup measures are given high priority in the event '-,, |
of a contaminant release. ; !i !,;,!,,
• Ensure that the water system is given sufficient warning of any'
impending contaminant releases. j ,,
• Ensure that proposed activities that could pose a threat to the water
supply are restricted or banned within the WHP area. , > „
Wellhead Protection
The 1986 Amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act established
the Wellhead Protection (WHP)
Program. Under Section 1428 of the
SDWA, each State must develop a
WHP Program to protect wellhead
areas from contaminants that may
have an adverse effect on human
health. Protection is achieved
through (1) the identification of
areas around public water supply
wells that contribute ground water
to the well, and (2) the manage-
ment of potential sources of
contamination in these areas to
reduce threats to the resource.
Although States are given the
freedom to develop WHP programs
that best meet their needs and par-
ticular regulatory and hydrogeologic
environment, the SDWA stipulates
that WHP plans must have EPA
approval. For EPA approval to be
granted, State WHP programs must
contain specific elements addressing
the roles and responsibilities of state
and local governments; delineation
of wellhead protection areas; poten-
tial contaminant source inventory
procedures; contaminant source
management and control proce-
dures; contingency plans for alter-
native water supplies; new well/well
siting standards; and public partici-
pation.
As of May 1, 1997, almost 87%
of the States and Territories have
developed and implemented WHP
programs. Specifically, 43 States and
two Territories have EPA-approved
WHP Programs in place and 7 States
are continuing their efforts to devel-
op an approved WHP Program
(Figure 22). Most of these State
WHP Programs are based on
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 53
existing ground water and drinking
water protection programs.
EPA's Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water is supporting
the development and implementa-
tion of WHP Programs at the local
level through many efforts. For
example, EPA-funded support is pro-
vided through the Ground Water/
Wellhead Protection programs of
the National Rural Water Association
(NRWA). Currently, these State Rural
Water Association programs are
being implemented voluntarily in
48 States. In each of these States a
ground water technician works with
small and rural communities to assist
them in developing and implement-
ing WHP plans. These plans are inte-
grated with the WHP Program so
that they meet State requirements.
Only Alaska and Hawaii are not
included in the program at this
time.
This effort with NRWA began in
March 1991. As of December 31,
1996, over 2,600 communities had
become involved in developing local
WHP plans. These 2,600 commu-
nities represent over 6,000,000
people. Over 1,600 of these com-
munities have completed their plans
and are managing their wellhead
protection areas to ensure the com-
munity that their water supplies are
protected.
EPA has also funded Wellhead
Protection workshops for local
decision makers. Over 150 of these
workshops have been held in 32
States. The workshops have been
attended by 5,200 people. Cur-
rently, an additional 93 workshops
are planned for 31 States.
Since 1991, the League of
Women Voters Education Fund has
been working to educate communi-
ties on the importance of protecting
sources of drinking water through
wellhead protection. In 1991, the
League conducted 18 volunteer-led
community education programs
nationwide. The efforts of the local
organizations ranged from conduct-
ing contaminant source inventories
around wellhead protection areas
to the development of videos,
brochures, and other educational
materials.
In 1994, the League sponsored
a national teleconference focusing
on ground water policy issues that
was broadcast to approximately 200
downlink sites nationwide. More
recently, in 1997, the League spon-
sored a second videoworkshop
aimed at community implementa-
tion of wellhead/source water
protection programs. With its focus
on how to undertake specific
Figure 22
WHP Approval Status as of May 1, 1997
Hawaii
> 5/26/95
•Q American Samoa
li/19/90
3/17/90
12/5/91
5/10/90
'6/17/91
'12/17/92
a DC
9/30/93
^ Virgin Islands
•Ci Puerto Rico
4/5/91
^> Guam and Northern
Mariana Islands
Approved 8/16/93
Pending Approval/Continuing Efforts
-------
54 Ground Water Protection Programs
i'''1 '11 ''' ""™ ...... " " ' ' '" ""1" ' '" ' "" ' ' "'' ''llilHl''l''ll''''':-'"*f'^
l'liilMlilMMm'1 'mini11 ill ''T'i ""MM™- ...... iiili" i "ll ' IT'! '" iii ""lihiiiiil1" ' t ! '" ' ! "" ! ' ' "i'i'Sm '',ii!llil;i,|Hlt'1'il!'Ml!'lM|r[li'i|!'''!!':]
i_,;:I,;j!:Lj_:i>;:;i;j,i;,:i, IE;
r!j !1:,,j« I1;!"*!if F!!la!!"^^ lij'yi:1!!1!1!"1!::!1!]1 i Spi! pllfflvlfl'SjIililtiiMrillilJi.^ Cipi'
! '•! iii:li;Hta^ 11 li liLI i i^l! Ililll! i 5 !iii''' i' '''
!li«
'ii !lviinvr|i)(nwi itxiiiiniiirjiiniiiai'liiiliit
,».,...,.,,
I \, !J,, •.:':•>!!:' '. '{• :',''' '"'' .'"'•'!', ' S'B'l" I'li
IjiH , ., fir!; :»! !IMiH
l|l. 1.11,1 Ill,I , .,!...; ,1
HI " ; i "I ' "i :'!';r
-•:4- -SI- • "•:!•:' • ''•:
', '' 'i'l '
tK ......
....... Mil' < iiwii iii : niiij I ..... li iiiiij i 'si/ : i ijiii | : i»i |jj | : i-i iij i i j Si I i 4j«-i i ' j jijt. .< M-I I
;!
' ' ' ! , ."..'• "i !";v:' 's'lli'li'n'il'iftllL'^TiiJ
I; IS "II"; I
jiPiiiiiiiliiH', iiiiii'liilniiiiniiiiiiiriiiii'D'iiiiiiii.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii,
31
I'liipiirin,:
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 55
leaked. Total cost of the remedial
effort was $657,000—costs for a
WHP Plan were estimated to be
These examples clearly show
that if WHP principles had been
adopted by these water systems,
approximately $20,000. If the com- costly ground water remediation or
munity had initiated WHP activities water system replacement may have
prior to the development of the area been avoided. However, develop-
around the well, the zoning officials ment and implementation of a WHP
would have recognized the potential Plan will not protect ground water
threat to drinking water supplies. supplies alone. The water supplier
must continuously work with the
Federal, State, and community regu-
latory agencies and the facilities.
-------
56 Ground Water Protection Programs
lfflKsK!lf!Bs!Sl!lwl!i™ffll!ffllii
'Si fiSiiS^^^ "S"5^^ iiipiiSi^™^
I'1'1'!'!! 'I"!1'1'11!!!!"'!!]'!!!'!'1 'I11!"!!!!! !'!!"!,"'!'i'™" n,"1;1]™1!1'1!'"1!/!!! iT'i'i1''! iiir||ii™ rj'M IJ""IS»I;I™F!FPN- |i'|i'»!j'-''"!:ri>rijH^ir
ijii^^ iiiiiiiiiii^ • •
i iiiii.!; t !! iii • ii«ii|ii> linn MlflWWiiiill|i'Nii|{i{HpiH|lilfll|t|'
;!:,ii^^ tiii>i%|:vi.» ;
' ' "" ^J;I"!":];:"I:"|:*"|"|?:!]I!I|!LI!N
'
1 1:"!!"!!:"!!1!!1!'!'! !:|!|! :• S! i! h,1!'i! "
Senior Volunteers and
Ground Water Protection
When the Texas Water Com-
mission (now the Texas Natural
Resources Conservation Commis-
sion) worked with the city of El Paso
on the development of its wellhead
protection program in late 1989,
there was no indication that a
nationwide movement would start.
To assist the city in conducting the
contaminant source inventory for
the wellhead protection program, a
team of 23 retired citizens was
recruited by the El Paso Retired and
Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP).
Over a 3^/2 -day period, the senior
volunteers surveyed potential
sources of ground water contamina-
tion around all 138 public water
wells that provide drinking water to
El Paso and identified more than
2,000 potential sources of contami-
nation.
The State estimated that the
volunteers saved the city more than
$35,000. This inventory formed the
backbone of the El Paso wellhead
protection program and resulted in
a city ordinance relating to the stor-
age of hazardous materials in the
vicinity of public water supply wells.
Eight years later, a core group of
these volunteers is still actively work-
ing to ensure the safety of drinking
water in El Paso and in the unincor-
porated communities (i.e., colonias)
along the border between the U.S.
and Mexico. Their effort also was
expanded across the border into
Ciudad Juarez, El Paso's sister city,
which shares the same underground
water supply.
The success of the El Paso effort
motivated EPA to test the model
developed there elsewhere in the
United States. In a cooperative effort
with the National Senior Service
Corps, of which RSVP is one compo-
nent, pilot projects were funded in
12 communities: Anaheim, Cali-
fornia; Eugene, Oregon; Steuben
and Chemung Counties, New York;
Tallahassee, Florida; Owensboro,
Kentucky; Maricopa County,
Arizona; Rockford, Illinois; Lincoln
County, Nevada; Clay County, Iowa;
Callaway County, Missouri; Thurston
County, Washington; and Stokes
County, North Carolina. These proj-
ects, too, achieved significant suc-
cesses in their communities, docu-
menting the high degree of accep-
tance and respect given to senior
volunteers within their own commu-
nities. Further testimony to this can
be found in the example of Rock-
land County, New York, where the
RSVP was awarded a grant by the
local water supplier (United Water,
New York) to recruit and train senior
volunteers to conduct the contami-
nant source inventory.
In turn, the success of the RSVP
pilot projects has led to yet another
set of pilot projects to protect
sources of drinking water—this time
a partnership among EPA and a
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 57
number of other national, State,
and local organizations. Called the
Source Water Protection (SWP)
Mentor Project, this effort focuses
op augmenting the assistance that
can be provided to communities
through the State Rural Water
Associations. Since 1990, the Office
of Ground Water and Drinking
Water (OGWDW) and Regional
Office staffs have been working in
partnership with State Rural Water
Associations to provide one-on-one
technical assistance to communities
that want to develop and imple-
ment wellhead protection programs.
More than 48 States now are
involved in this program.
Under the SWP Mentor Project,
retired professionals, county and
town officials, and other interested
local citizens are being recruited and
trained to serve as auxiliary ground
water technicians, or "Mentors," to
help their communities to develop
and implement drinking water
protection programs. This project
emphasizes the importance of local
responsibility for protecting local
resources and builds on the success
of OGWDW's previous efforts with
RSVP. In the SWP Mentor Project,
senior volunteers from larger
geographic areas (e.g., counties and
regions) are being recruited and
trained to work in teams to provide
a broad range of assistance to a
number of communities, including
helping the communities make
progress through the five basic steps
of protecting community drinking
water supplies.
The SWP Mentor Project is
designed to be a partnership among
EPA and several community-oriented
organizations such as the National
Rural Water Association (NRWA), the
Groundwater Foundation, the
National Association of Towns and
Townships (NATaT), the Environ-
mental Alliance for Senior Involve-
ment (EASI), the Retired and Senior
Volunteer Program (RSVP), state
environmental agencies, and nation-
al and state agricultural programs
such as the Natural Resources Con-
servation Service and the Extension
Service. Because many community
drinking water wells are located in
rural areas, it is particularly impor-
tant that representatives from the
agricultural community actively par-
ticipate in this effort. Each of these
partners has specific roles to play,
from informing local officials to
developing the training program
and coordinating the efforts of the
Mentors.
The SWP Mentor Project is
being piloted in 15 States, begin-
ning with Texas, Washington,
Oregon,, Kentucky, Wyoming,
Illinois, Missouri, Maryland, Pennsyl-
vania, and Utah. Five additional
states are expected to be added by
the end of FY97.
-------
58 Ground Water Protection Programs
protection activities presented by a
panel of experts, this videoworkshop
attracted a broad audience of
community officials and concerned
citizens at more than 700 downlink
sites nationwide.
Sole Source Aquifer
Protection Program
The Sole Source Aquifer (SSA)
Protection Program was established
under Section 1424(e) of the SDWA
of 1974 and reauthorized as part of
the August 1996 Amendments to
that Act. The program allows com-
munities, individuals, and organiza-
tions 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—
67 designations have been made
nationwide. Three petitions are
under evaluation for possible desig-
nation at the end of 1996.
Once an aquifer is designated,
EPA has the authority to review and
approve Federal financially assisted
projects that may have the potential
to contaminate the aquifer so as to
create a significant hazard to public
health. If the proposed project is
approved by EPA, then the project
may be implemented as planned;
however, if the potential for
contamination of the aquifer exists,
then modifications to the project are
recommended to minimize the
potential impacts that may affect
ground water quality.
EPA coordinates project reviews
with other EPA programs as well as
other Federal, Tribal, State, and local
agencies that may have a role
and/or responsibility for ground
water quality protection. Projects
that occur in SSA areas may include
a variety of activities by the Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment and the Department of
Agriculture, Rural Development.
These include the construction of
senior citizen/community centers,
the repair and construction of multi-
ple housing unit facilities, and
improvements to water and waste-
water systems. The types of activities
within these projects that may
impact ground water quality include
the improper treatment or disposal
device for storm surface water
runoff, the improper location of
large community onsite septic sys-
tems, and the identification and
removal of underground storage
tanks.
The Department of Transporta-
tion assists in funding construction
of roads, highways, mass transit,
and certain railroad and airport
facilities. The major impacts to
ground water quality from transpor-
tation type construction activities
include the improper disposal
and/or lack of treatment of storm
and surface water runoff, fuel or
petroleum underground storage
tanks, the improper containment
of large equipment/truck refueling
stations, hazardous material spills,
and improper disposal and contain-
ment of aircraft deicer compounds.
Designation helps the petitioner,
public, other ground water protec-
tion organizations, States, and local
environmental and public health
agencies, and the Tribes to become
more aware of the importance of
protecting ground water resources.
The awareness and stewardship that
is built from coordination gives
these groups the opportunity to
develop strategies beyond the SSA
Protection Program to protect the
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 59
community's drinking water aqui-
fers, such as adopting Wellhead
Protection Programs and evaluating
and instituting Source Water Protec-
tion Programs.
Figure 23 illustrates the number
of projects reviewed, approved,
and modified for fiscal years 1990
though 1996. Only 11 projects were
not approved during this period;
four projects in 1991, one in 1992,
and three each in the years 1995
and 1996. The relatively low
number of unapproved projects
reviewed over 7 years (approxi-
mately 8% of total project reviews)
is an indication that the SSA project
sponsors have adjusted to the
ongoing SSA ground water protec-
tion program objectives.
Table 10 reflects an annual ,
summation of SSA project review
information for fiscal years 1990
through 1996. In certain instances
Table 10 underestimates the dollar
amounts or degree of review activity
that occurred during a fiscal year
because the data were not available
to the Region at report time and
could not be summarized.
Review of Figure 23 and
Table 10 indicates the following:
• A total of 1,342 projects were
reviewed over the 7-year period.
Of these, 1,095 were approved
without modification, 117 were
modified, and 11 projects were
either not recommended or were
disapproved. Remaining projects
were withdrawn.
• Sole Source Aquifer post-designa-
tion reports indicate that the drink-
ing water of over 10 million persons
was affected by construction proj-
ects proposed during 1996.
Figure 23
300
Project Reviews
1200
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
H Projects Reviewed
U Projects Approved
D Projects Modified
Projects Reviewed (cumulative)
Projects Approved (cumulative)
Table 10. Summary — fiscal Year Post Designation Project Reviews
(1990-1996)
Fiscal
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Total
Number of
Projects
Revieweda
159
152
214
275
239
153
150
1,342
Funds
Affected
($)
571,748,000
570,886,000
1,818,665,000
2,078,266,000
1,173,545,000
307,153,000
1,756,535,000
8,276,798,000
Number of
Projects
Approved
136
117
186
231
168
130
127
1,095
Number of
Projects
Modified
20
25
6
13
10
20
23
117
Number of
Projects
Disapproved
or Not
Recommended
0
4
1
0
0
3
3
11
aDifferences in annual totals by category are due to projects "under review" at year's end.
-------
60 Ground Water Protection Programs
Injection wells are used to
discharge or dispose of fluids
underground. They dispose
of approximately 11 % of our
Nation's fluid waste.
When properly sited,
constructed, and operated,
injection wells can be an
effective and environmentally
safe means of fluid waste
disposal. There are many
different types of injection
wells, but they are all similar
in their basic function.
• Review of project modification
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 post-
construction activity monitoring,
and review of initial project designs.
• For the two most recent fiscal
years (i.e., 1995 and 1996), project
modifications remained at approxi-
mately 14%. The level of project
modifications after 7 years of SSA
reviews totals 8% of total reviews,
acknowledging that proper protec-
tion is required up front in the
design phase and that incorporation
Figure 24
Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program
State Program
EPA
Split EPA/State Program
Guam and Northern
Mariana Islands
American Samoa, Palau,
and Virgin Islands
of proper aquifer protection will
expedite project approvals. It also
reflects a program in which project
planners and reviewers need to
analyze and recommend a variety
of plans to provide workable ground
water protection strategies.
Underground Injection
Control Program
Federal regulation of under-
ground injection began under the
SDWA of 1974, which called for EPA
to establish minimum requirements
for States to regulate underground
injection wells used for fluid dispos-
al. The SDWA establishes joint
Federal and State roles in regulating
injection wells. States with EPA-
approved Underground Injection
Control Programs have primary
enforcement responsibility (primacy)
under the Act.
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 pro-
grams are State-administered, as
depicted in Figure 24. 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.
Figure 25 illustrates four of the
five classes of injection wells regu-
lated under the Underground Injec-
tion Control (UIC) Program. A
description of Classes I through V is
provided below.
Class I wells are technologically
sophisticated wells that inject large
volumes of hazardous and nonhaz-
ardous wastes into deep, isolated
rock formations that are separated
from the lowermost source of
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 61
Figure 25
Injection Well Relationship to Underground Sources of Drinking Water
Class I wells inject
hazardous or nonhazardous
wastes into geological
formations that are capable
of confining the fluids.
Class II wells inject waste
fluids associated with
the production of oil
and natural gas.
Class III wells inject fluids
to extract minerals from
underground.
Class V wells are wells that
are not included in the
previous three classes and
inject nonhazardous fluids into
or above an underground
source of drinking water.
-------
62 Ground Water Protection Programs
drinking water by many layers of
impermeable clay and rock.
Although most hazardous waste
fluids are treated and released to
surface waters, Class I wells account
for 89% of the hazardous waste
fluid disposed of on land. As of
December 1994, there were 413
operating Class I wells located in 21
States. One hundred eighteen of
these wells were used to inject haz-
ardous wastes. Class I wells consti-
tute less than 1 % of all injection
wells in the country.
Class II wells are used to inject
fluids associated with the production
of oil and natural gas or to store
hydrocarbons. Most of the injected
fluid is brine that is produced when
oil and gas are extracted from the
earth. As of December 1994, there
were more than 171,000 Class II
wells in the United States, most of
which are located in the Gulf Coast
and Great Lakes States and Cali-
fornia. They constitute approxi-
mately 41 % of injection wells.
Class III wells are used for
special purposes, such as mining
minerals. They are used to inject
super-hot steam or water into min-
eral formations, dissolving or loosen-
ing the minerals, which are then
pumped to the surface and extract-
ed. Generally, the fluid is treated
and reinjected into the same forma-
tion. More than 50% of the salt and
80% of the uranium extracted in the
United States is produced this way.
Class III wells constitute 8% of injec-
tion wells.
Class IV wells were used in the
past to dispose of hazardous or
radioactive wastes into or above an
underground drinking water source.
These wells have since been
banned.
Class V wells include all other
waste injection wells that do not fit
into the other four categories. Class
V wells generally include shallow
wastewater disposal wells, septic sys-
tems, storm water, and agricultural
drainage systems or other devices
that can release nutrient and toxic
fluids into the ground and eventual-
ly into water table aquifers. EPA esti-
mates that more than 1 million
Class V wells currently exist in the
United States. This accounts for
approximately 50% of all injection
wells.
The majority of Class V wells
pose little or no risk to human
health; however, wastewater dispos-
al practices are of concern because
the disposed waste may contain
toxic chemicals. This is of particular
concern for certain types of busi-
nesses, such as automobile service
stations, dry cleaners, electrical com-
ponent or machine manufacturers,
photo processors, and metal platers
or fabricators. Such businesses are
often found in strip malls, industrial
parks, and many areas that are not
served by municipal sewer systems.
Without access to sewer systems,
these businesses may rely on Class V
wells (e.g., septic systems, dry holes)
to get rid of their wastes. The
environmental consequences of this
form of wastewater disposal, how-
ever, can be great.
Class V wells introduce the
wastes directly into the ground.
These wells are not designed to treat
industrial wastes and the harmful
chemicals contained in some indus-
trial wastes can percolate into the
ground and contaminate ground
water and drinking water supplies.
Over the past decade, many com-
munities in the United States have
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 63
had to address the contamination
resulting from waste disposal prac-
tices of local businesses. The few
examples presented in Table 11
show some of the costs associated
with cleaning up ground water
contamination. These are just a few
of the cases of ground water con-
tamination nationwide that can be
attributed to Class V disposal wells.
Other Control
Programs and
Activities
Two other principal programs
control pollutant sources under
different laws. Underground storage
tanks and solid and hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal are
regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and abandoned waste is
Table 11. Cases of Contamination Resulting from Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems
Location
Incident
Remediation
Financial Impact
Exton,
Pennsylvania
Solvents used to clean engines
at an automotive repair facility
contaminated an onsite water
supply well and threatened the
water supply of 77,000 persons
living within 3 miles of the site.
EPA placed the site on the National
Priorities List of Superfund sites
and issued a Record of Decision
in September 1995.
Remediation is expected to cost
approximately $10,967,000. It will
include carbon filtration, the excavation
and offsite disposal of contaminated
soils, and air stripping to treat ground
water.
Boulder,
Colorado
A manufacturer of printed circuit
boards used its septic system to
dispose of process wastewater
containing chlorinated solvents,
primarily trichloroethane. A plume
of volatile organic chemicals
contaminated area drinking water
wells.
Long-term remediation plans
include connecting affected
residences to the Boulder
municipal water system. Bottled
water is being supplied in the
interim.
Residents sued the manufacturer and
were awarded $4.1 million ($3 million
for neighborhood cleanup; $750,000
for a new water supply; $225,000 for
medical monitoring; and $165,000 for
loss of use and enjoyment of property).
Vancouver,
Washington
An electroplating company
discharged hexavalent chromium
into a dry well, which contaminated
local ground water. A well field that
serves 10,000 residents is threatened.
The selected remedial action
includes the installation of
extraction wells to remove
chromium from the ground
water by ion exchange.
The remedial action is expected to cost
approximately $3.8 million.
South Cairo,
New York
A thermostat manufacturer poured
trichloroethylene and tetrachloro-
ethylene sludges into drains that led
to an abandoned septic system. As a
result, the community's drinking
water source was contaminated.
Remediation includes cleanup
of ground water using spray
aeration and air stripping, while
at the same time, supplying the
affected community with an
alternative water supply.
The remedial action, which includes the
installation of a new well and pipeline,
is expected to cost $2.3 million. Annual
operation and maintenance costs will
run $10,000.
Corvallis,
Oregon
An electroplater disposed of floor
drippings, washings, and product
rinse in a dry well, contaminating
soil and ground water.
The selected remedial action
includes the installation of wells
to extract chromium-contami-
nated ground water for treatment,
and the excavation and removal
of contaminated soil.
Capital costs of remediation are expected
to run approximately $1.6 million.
Annual operation and maintenance
costs are expected to be approximately
$261,000.
-------
64 Ground Water Protection Programs
regulated under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (1976) amended the
Solid Waste Disposal Act. In 1984,
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) were passed
by Congress, which greatly
expanded the scope of the RCRA
Program. Statutorily, the RCRA pro-
gram has four major components.
Subtitle D - Solid Waste Program
Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste
Program
Subtitle I - Underground
Storage Tank
Program
Subtitle J - Medical Waste
Program (Federal
program expired*)
The intent of RCRA is to protect
human health and the environment
by establishing a comprehensive
regulatory framework for investigat-
ing and addressing past, present,
and future environmental contami-
nation. This is done by identifying as
hazardous those wastes that may
pose hazards if improperly man-
aged, and establishing requirements
for waste treatment and manage-
ment to ultimate disposal. Specific
goals of RCRA are as follows:
• To protect human health and the
environment
• To reduce waste and conserve
energy and natural resources
• To reduce or eliminate the gener-
ation of hazardous waste as expedi-
tiously as possible.
To ensure that the RCRA
program is current in its mission to
protect human health and the envi-
ronment from hazards associated
with waste management, the
Agency has recently completed or
has ongoing several activities that
focus primarily on protection of
ground water:
• Final Universal Treatment Stan-
dards (UTS) regulations. Under these
rules, any hazardous constituent in
hazardous wastes must be treated to
reduce its toxicity or mobility in the
environment before the waste can
be finally disposed of on the land,
thereby minimizing potential
impacts to ground water quality.
• The Hazardous Waste Character-
istic Scoping Study. A comprehen-
sive review of hazardous waste char-
acteristics regulations had the goal
of identifying potential program
gaps and follow-on activities. Key
topics included review of the com-
prehensiveness and adequacy of the
Toxicity Characteristic rules and the
Toxic Characteristics Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) test.
• Ongoing development of the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR) for Contaminated Media
(HWIR-media). The proposed rule
*The Federal medical waste tracking program no longer exists (Subtitle J). It was a 2-year pilot
program in response to the ocean washup of medical instruments along the East Coast during
the summer of 1988. Several States have implemented their own medical waste tracking
programs.
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 65
re-examines many of the RCRA
Subtitle C treatment and manage-
ment standards that apply to reme-
diation wastes and contaminated
media, such as contaminated soils
and ground water. EPA anticipates
that the final rule will accelerate
cleanups and reduce overall costs by
addressing some of the biggest
causes of problems and delays in
cleanup.
• Ongoing development of the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR-waste). This rule is supported
by cutting-edge risk assessment
modeling work that addresses the
fate and transport of contaminants
in the ground water environment
through the use of a more acccurate
ground water model (as well as
assesses risks posed by other release
pathways). These models were used
in the December 1995 HWIR-waste
proposal to evaluate risks from
approximately 200 hazardous waste
constituents.
• Ongoing hazardous waste
listings. Regulations for petroleum
refinery wastes are proposed.
• Development of guidance for
managing industrial nonhazardous
waste. EPA's Office of Solid Waste
and the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials (ASTSWMO) are jointly
developing a voluntary decision-
makers guide for facility managers,
State agency staff, and the public.
This guide will provide comprehen-
sive recommendations for protective
management of industrial solid
waste in surface impoundments,
landfills, waste piles, and land appli-
cation units.
Underground Storage
Tank Program
The Underground Storage Tank
Programs falls under RCRA. One of
the primary goals of this program is
to protect the Nation's ground
water resources from releases by
underground storage tanks (USTs)
containing petroleum or certain haz-
ardous substances. The EPA works
with State and local governments to
implement Federal requirements for
proper management of USTs. The
EPA estimates that about 1 million
federally regulated USTs are buried
at over 400,000 sites nationwide.
Nearly all USTs contain petroleum;
about 25,000 USTs hold hazardous
waste covered by the Federal regula-
tions.
In 1988, EPA issued regulations
setting minimum standards for
new tanks (those installed after
December 22, 1988) and existing
tanks (those installed before
December 22, 1988). By December
1998, existing USTs must be
upgraded to meet minimum stan-
dards, be replaced with new tanks,
or be closed properly. Since 1988,
more than 1.1 million old USTs have
been closed, thus eliminating a
number of potential sources of
ground water contamination. Of the
remaining 1 million USTs, about
450,000 are in compliance with the
1998 deadline requirements. EPA
expects a substantial increase in
compliance as UST owners meet the
December 1998 deadline for replac-
ing, upgrading, or closing USTs.
-------
66 Ground Water Protection Programs
New and existing USTs comply-
ing with EPA's standards can prevent
leaks caused by spills, overfills, corro-
sion, and faulty installation. USTs
complying with the leak detection
requirements can identify releases
quickly, before contamination
spreads. Corrective action require-
ments ensure responsible and timely
cleanup of contaminated sites.
As of September 1997, almost
341,800 UST releases had been
confirmed. The EPA estimates that
about half of these releases have
reached ground water. Ground
water impacts include the presence
of well-documented contaminants,
such as benzene, toluene, ethylben-
zene, and xylene (BTEX). Also,
ground water contamination from
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE)
has become a documented concern
recently. Remediation decisions
involving MTBE can differ from
those involving BTEX, often
Figure 26
350,000
Growing Number of Cleanups
300,000 -
| 250,000-
ra
u
*S 200,000-
1 150,000-
100,000-
50,000
0
Confirmed Releases
- - Cleanups Started
— Cleanups Completed
--- Cleanups Awaiting
Action
90 91
92 93
Year
94 95
96
requiring more expensive and
extensive cleanups.
About 162,000 contaminated
sites have been cleaned up, and
cleanups are in progress at 115,000
more sites (Figure 26). EPA estimates
that the total number of confirmed
releases could reach 400,000 in the
next few years, primarily releases
discovered during the closure or
replacement of old USTs. After this
time period, EPA expects a relatively
small number of new releases as
USTs increasingly comply with leak
prevention requirements.
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 which require
emergency action. Since 1986,
$563 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 that 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 per occurrence, accord-
ing 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 $1.3 billion in
1997 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
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 67
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 pro-
gram. So far 24 States have received
State Program Approval. All States
have UST regulations and programs
in place. The Agency also has devel-
oped 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 negotiated
UST grants with all States and pro-
vided technical assistance and guid-
ance for implementation and
enforcement of UST regulations.
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation,
Figure 27
and Liability Act and the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 created several
programs operated by EPA, States,
Territories, and Tribes that act to
protect and restore contaminated
ground water. Restoration of con-
taminated ground water is one of
the primary goals of the Superfund
program. As stated in the National
Contingency Plan (NCP), EPA
expects to return usable ground
waters to their beneficial uses, wher-
ever possible, within a time frame
that is reasonable given the particu-
lar circumstances of the site.
As shown in Figure 27, the
CERCLA process involves a series of
steps:
Preliminary Assessment -
As a screening process, the EPA will
perform a preliminary assessment
(PA) of a site (often a review of data
without an actual site visit) to
CERCLA Process
Activities
Documents
QBWOU: Quarry Bulk Waste Operable Unit
CPOU: Chemical Plant Operable Unit
QROU: Quarry Residuals Operable Unit
GWOU: Ground Water Operable Unit
Post
ROD
Changes
C
Remedial
Design/
Remedial
Action
t t
POU QBWOU
GWOU QROU
Source: WSSRAP Home Page
-------
68 Ground Water Protection Programs
determine if further study is neces-
sary.
Site Inspection - A site inspec-
tion (SI) is an onsite investigation to
find out whether there is a release or
potential release and to determine
the nature of the associated threats.
The purpose is to augment the data
collected in the PA and to generate,
if necessary, sampling and other
field data to determine if further
action or investigation is necessary.
If deemed necessary, the site is
scored using the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS). Any site that receives
a score of 28.50 or above on the
HRS will be included on the
National Priorities List (NPL).
Remedial Investigation -
A remedial investigation (Rl) is a
process undertaken by the lead
agency to determine the nature and
extent of the problem presented by
the release. The Rl emphasizes data
collection and site characterization
and is generally performed
concurrently and in an interactive
fashion with the feasibility study.
Feasibility Study - A feasibility
study (FS) is undertaken by the lead
agency to develop and evaluate
options for remedial action. The FS
emphasizes data analysis, using data
gathered during the Rl. The Rl data
are used to define the objectives of
the response action, to develop
remedial alternatives, and to under-
take an initial screening and detailed
analysis of the alternatives.
Proposed Plan - The Proposed
Plan outlines the nature and extent
of contamination at the site, the
alternatives evaluated and the
preferred approach to remediation.
Input from the general public is
received during this step.
Record of Decision - Once the
RI/FS is completed, the EPA selects
the appropriate cleanup option,
following principles set forth in the
CERCLA Cleanup Standards and
the revised NCP. This selection is
described in a public document
called the Record of Decision.
Remedial Design - The reme-
dial design is the technical analysis
and procedures that follow the
selection of a remedy for a site and
results in a detailed set of plans and
specifications for implementation of
the remedial action.
Remedial Action - The reme-
dial action follows the remedial
design and involves the actual
construction or implementation of
a cleanup.
Following are statistics related to
Superfund cleanups:
• 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 sug-
gests that only 6% of NPL sites
involving ground water contamina-
tion are classified as nonusable
aquifers (e.g., saline or nonpotable).
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 69
• Of the 622 NPL sites reporting
ground water contamination near
the site, the ground water is current-
ly used for private water supplies at
42% of the sites and for public sup-
plies 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 threatened 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 12
lists the most frequently detected
organic and inorganic constituents
reported at NPL sites.
• Ground water contamination is
associated with 63% of the sites for
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.
Conclusion
We are continuing to learn a
great deal about the nature and
quality of our Nation's ground water
resources. Still, there is much we do
not yet know about how to most
effectively protect and preserve this
vast and often vulnerable resource.
Our continued quest for high quality
and representative information
about the status of our ground
water resources will help us learn
how best to approach ground water
protection. Through a greater
understanding of how human activi-
ties influence the quality of our
waters, we can better ensure the
long-term availability of high-quality
water for future generations.
Table 12.
Contaminants Most Frequently Reported in
Ground Water at CERCLA National Priority List
Rank
Sites
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
Inorganic
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
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
Chlorobenzene
DDT
Constituents
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
336
167
167
163
160
155
138
107
103
94
81
76
69
68
61
58
56
52
46
35
306
213
149
126
83
81
75
45
41
38
-------
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
Randall Young
EPA Region 2 (2WMD-SWQB)
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 637-3847
New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands
Mark Barath
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
100 Alabama Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 562-9265
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, SouOi Carolina,
Tennessee
Dave Stoltenberg
EPARegion5(SQ-14J)
77 West Jackson Street
Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-5784
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Paul Koska
EPA Region 6 (6W-QT)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214)665-8357
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
Jill Minter
EPA Region 8 (8WM-WQ)
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 312-6084
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
^ n~n Virgin Islands
•^ EZ3 Puerto Rico
------- |