905R92011
Part II:
LINKAGE TO EPA AND OTHER FEDERAL
AGENCY PROGRAMS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART II: LINKAGE TO EPA AND OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS
SECTION 1: LINKAGE TO EPA PROGRAMS 1-1
Wellhead Protection Program 1-3
Pesticides State Management Plan (SMP) Program 1-5
Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program 1-9
RCRA Subtitle C Program 1-11
RCRA Subtitle D Program 1-13
Underground Storage Tank Program 1-15
Super-fund Program 1-17
Oil Pollution Act 1-19
Underground Injection Control Program 1-21
Public Water Supply Supervision Program 1-23
Nonpoint Source Program 1-25
NPDES and Industrial Pretreatment Program 1-27
Storm Water Program 1-29
Sewage Sludge Program 1-31
Coastal Zone Management Program 1-33
Toxic Substances Control Program 1-35
Radiation Program 1-37
Wetlands Program 1-39
Watershed Protection Approach 1-41
Pollution Prevention Program 1-43
SECTION 2: LINKAGE TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY
PROGRAMS 2-1
United States Department of Agriculture 2-3
United States Department of Defense 2-9
United States Department of Energy 2-13
United States Department of the Interior 2-17
United States Department of Transportation 2-23
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2-27
-------
1. LINKAGE TO EPA PROGRAMS
This section provides a program-by-program discussion of the linkages
between the CSGWPP approach and each EPA program that potentially affects
ground water. For each program, a brief description of how CSGWPP-supported
resource-based decision-making would benefit the program is provided. For most
programs, this is followed by a discussion of how the CSGWPP affords greater
beneficial coordination to the program. Finally, for programs that provide grants to
States, a brief discussion of how those grants can be used in a coordinated fashion to
support the development and implementation of CSGWPP follows. The material
described below is not meant to take the place of any specific program guidance or
regulation, and, where seeming discrepancies might exist, the information in the most
current program-specific guidance or regulation must prevail. EPA is in an on-going
process to align and update all of its programs related to ground water protection with
the CSGWPP approach.
-------
1-3
WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision-Making
An EPA-approved State Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program will be a required
and integral part of the Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. A CSGWPP will emphasize that
wellhead protection areas, recharge areas, and basins of drinking water aquifers are
to be afforded extra management focus across all programs within the CSGWPP
framework.
In addition to being an integral part of the priority-setting portion of the
CSGWPP, wellhead protection programs will benefit by other activities that make up a
CSGWPP. For example, characterization and mapping will aid in delineating actual
wellhead protection areas and recharge zones.
Coordination with Other Programs
Many programs use the wellhead protection areas to identify areas of priority
concern. USDA's Conservation Reserve Program, for example, provides incentives to
farmers not to conduct practices that may impact ground water in sensitive areas.
Other programs use wellhead protection areas as a tool in program management
schemes, such as the Public Water Supply (PWS) Supervision Program for
vulnerability assessments and sanitary surveys. The vulnerability assessment
completed under a WHP Program will meet the requirement of the PWS Program as a
first step for a PWS to apply to the State to waive monitoring. The CSGWPP will
become the vehicle to further demonstrate the utility of State WHP Programs and
ensure that WHP-related activities are carried out consistently across programs.
Coordinating Grants
To date, grant funding under the Safe Drinking Water Act for State Wellhead
Protection Programs has not been appropriated. However, State ground water
assessment and characterization activities and other wellhead protection activities are
supported by EPA with CWA §106 grants, and wellhead protection is referenced as a
viable and valuable activity in the grant guidances of other EPA ground water-related
programs (e.g., CWA §319 and RCRA). Within the CSGWPP framework, all of these
grants would be coordinated so that the maximum number of wellhead protection
areas are established.
-------
1-5
PESTICIDES STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP) PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision-Making
EPA's Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy released in October 1991 offers
States the flexibility to continue the use of a pesticide that EPA would otherwise cancel
due to ground water contamination concerns. States will gain this flexibility by
developing and implementing State Management Plans (SMPs), which are designed to
ensure that each State can sufficiently manage, control, and enforce pesticide use to
protect valuable and vulnerable ground water. EPA will coordinate its efforts with
USDA and with State agricultural agencies to alleviate redundancies and ensure
consistent regulatory requirements.
Figure 11-1 demonstrates that the specific components and adequacy criteria of
a Pesticide SMP are closely aligned with those of a CSGWPP. This close alignment
means that implementation of a Generic Pesticide SMP1 will meet the general
condition of many of the adequacy criteria for a Core CSGWPP that the State's
intended comprehensive approach be adopted or implemented by at least one
operating program within the State.2 Obviously, however, a Pesticide SMP, even at
the Generic level, will require more specificity on pesticide management measures
than would be found in a CSGWPP. An SMP should be viewed as a more program-
specific version of the more general, but broader scope CSGWPP.
The Pesticide SMP approach fully adopts the Agency's overall ground water
protection goal and the tiered hierarchy of preferred protection objectives outlined in
this CSGWPP Guidance. Under an SMP, States are encouraged to pursue prevention
of ground water contamination whenever possible. However, protection of the
nation's currently and reasonably expected sources of drinking water supplies, both
public and private, is a required SMP priority. Further, ground water that is closely
hydrologically connected to surface water must receive priority protection to ensure
the integrity of associated ecosystems.
According to EPA's draft Pesticide SMP Guidance, a Generic SMP is the State's primary source
document which provides the overarching policies and approaches from which Pesticide-Specific
SMPs will be derived, if necessary, to address unique concerns for individuals pesticides.
2A State needs to demonstrate, however, that its comprehensive approaches are intended to
eventually encompass all ground water protection programs within the State.
-------
1-6
CSGWPP Strategic Activities
SMP Components
Establish a Common Ground Water
Protection Goal Across
all Relevant Programs
State's Philosophy and Goal
Establish Priorities, Based on
Characterization of the Resource,
Identification of Sources of Contamination,
and Programmatic Needs to Direct
all Relevant Programs and Activities
Basis for Assessment and Planning
Define Roles, Authorities, Responsibilities,
Resources, and Coordinating Mechanisms
for Addressing Identified Priorities
Implement Necessary Activities to
Accomplish the State's Goal
Consistent with State Priorities
and Schedules
Conduct Information Collection and
Management to Measure Progress,
Re-evaluate Priorities, and Support
aB Related Programs
Improve Public Education and
Participation in all Aspects of
Ground Water Protection
Roles and Responsibilities of State Agencies
Legal Authority
Resources
Prevention Actions
Response to Detections
Enforcement Mechanisms
Records and Reporting
Monitoring
Information Dissemination
Public Awareness and Participation
Figure II-.1. Relation of the Six Strategic Activities of a CSGWPP to the
12 Components of a Pesticides State Management Plan.
-------
1-7
PESTICIDES STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP) PROGRAM (continued)
Coordination with Other Programs
Examples of how CSGWPPs will contribute to coordinating or promoting
consistency between key activities of SMPs and other ground water-related programs
include:
• Coordination and priority-setting under CSGWPPs will promote better
integration of the regulatory and non-regulatory prevention measures
called for by an SMP, such as those available under FIFRA and the
CWA's Nonpoint Source Program, as well as needed monitoring
information, available from a number of programs.
• CSGWPP efforts to define roles, responsibilities, and coordinating
mechanisms will further clarify and build on foundations laid under SMPs
to define roles, and promote coordination between agricultural agencies
with primary pesticides management responsibilities and water,
environmental, or health agencies with primary ground water resource
responsibilities.
• Efforts under CSGWPPs to promote State legal authorities and to form
coordinated enforcement strategies for ground water protection will also
strengthen legal and enforcement capacity to protect ground water from
pesticides.
• Coordination mechanisms developed under CSGWPPs should establish
links at the State level to other federal agencies with ground water
protection responsibilities. These links should facilitate the targeting of
non-EPA federal water quality projects to address a State's SMP
priorities.
Coordinating Grants
CSGWPPs will help coordinate CWA, SDWA, CERCLA, and RCRA, as well as
FIFRA funding for activities that will help meet the adequacy criteria of both CSGWPPs
and SMPs. For example, money from §106 of the CWA could support State efforts to
assess and identify the areas most vulnerable to ground water contamination by
pesticides as a basis for establishing priorities for protection. FIFRA funding would be
available for tailoring pesticides management practices to certain critical areas and for
-------
1-8
PESTICIDES STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN (SMP) PROGRAM (continued)
outreach to the agricultural community. State agriculture agencies would work with
State water quality agencies to utilize their expertise and facilities for monitoring,
assessments of aquifer sensitivity, data management, and other activities necessary
for SMP development. Under the CSGWPP approach, SDWA funding of PWSS
monitoring, enforcement, and vulnerability assessments could also be coordinated to
provide significant information to a State for developing and improving its SMP.
Finally, the coordination mechanisms developed under CSGWPPs also have the
potential to facilitate the targeting of grants from other federal agencies, such as
USDA, to support SMP activities or to get the State agencies involved in SMP
implementation in the selection of federally-funded water quality projects.
-------
1-9
SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER PROTECTION PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision-Making
The Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) Protection Program is a resource-oriented
ground water contamination prevention program. It is one of many tools that should
be utilized in a CSGWPP to increase public awareness of the value of ground water as
a resource and to prevent contamination from federal financially-assisted projects.
The SSA Protection Program's objectives and activities correspond to the
Strategic Activities of a Comprehensive Program. Common management measures in
both programs include resource assessment, identification of important resources for
setting priorities, development of management options, and involvement of State and
local governments.
The CSGWPP approach should provide the framework for increased State
participation and improved EPA decision-making in determining priority SSA
designations and project reviews. State and local prevention, control, and remediation
efforts within SSA designated areas should be prioritized and managed through a
CSGWPP.
Coordination with Other Programs
Under coordination efforts of a CSGWPP, SSA protection activities should
significantly support the development and implementation of other ground water-
related programs in the following ways:
• Contributes valuable aquifer characterization and assessment information
to assist States in setting priorities;
• Assists States in establishing priority ground water protection areas
based on use and value of the resource;
• Implements a pollution prevention program for reducing or eliminating
pollution in SSA areas;
• Uses a broad range of education, voluntary, and regulatory techniques
to protect the resource; and
• Provides opportunities for monitoring, data collection and data analysis
of the nature and quality of ground water.
-------
1-11
RCRA SUBTITLE C PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making
The FY 1992 RCRA Implementation Plan indicates that the RCRA program is
implementing a cooperative strategic framework with the States which is designed to:
(1) identify regional and State-wide environmental priorities among all facilities in the
RCRA universe, and (2) use these priorities to select the most appropriate allocation of
resources for RCRA permitting and cleanup activities. One factor in setting these
priorities will be the use, value, and vulnerability of the ground water. Since
CSGWPPs encourage States to develop systems that allow resource-based priority
setting, the CSGWPP approach should serve as an integral part of the efforts the
States and RCRA are undertaking to implement this strategy for setting RCRA
priorities.
An adequate characterization of a State's ground water resources developed as
part of the implementation of a CSGWPP could supply much useful information that
may be useful in implementing current and future RCRA-related activities. RCRA
corrective actions to cleanup releases of hazardous waste and constituents are
conducted on a site-specific basis, and take into account ground water protection as
a major factor in selecting cleanup remedies. The information generated as part of a
CSGWPP will help to ensure that site-specific decision making will be conducted in the
context of the regional ground water resources. In addition, future regulation on
location standards for RCRA facilities is likely to be integrated with regional ground
water resources identified and characterized as part of a State's CSGWPP.
Coordination with Other Programs
Subtitle C permits should be coordinated with UIC, NPDES, and Wetlands
(§404) permits. When these and other ground water-related programs are all
implemented within the CSGWPP framework, consistency among priorities and
pollution prevention measures will be significantly enhanced. Overall implementation
will be more efficient and effective.
Some commentators noted that RCRA's requirements on the handling of
pesticide wastes were burdensome. The Office of Solid Waste will explore this
problem with the Office of Pesticide Programs.
Coordinating Grants
RCRA implementation grants can be used, in part, to support general
assessment and infrastructure building, as long as the activities funded demonstrably
aid in implementing RCRA. Because of RCRA's emphasis on State-led, priority-based
decision making, activities such as assessment, mapping, and characterization of
ground water resources would fit this criterion. These activities are also key in other
programs and are essential to developing and implementing a CSGWPP. As such,
-------
1-12
RCRA SUBTITLE C PROGRAM (continued)
the RCRA grants should be coordinated with funds from a variety of programs. The
CSGWPP supplies the coordinating framework which ensures that no unnecessary
duplication of effort exists across programs, thus assuring that grants from RCRA and
all other programs provide maximum overall benefit.
-------
1-13
RCRA SUBTITLE D PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making
Under the Subtitle D program regulations on municipal landfill criteria, States
have the opportunity to adjust certain aspects of the EPA-promulgated standards
concerning landfill design, monitoring, siting and corrective action. To gain this
flexibility, States must have EPA-approved municipal solid waste landfill permitting
programs. When an approved State makes a site-specific permit decision on landfill
design or monitoring requirements, it may do so based, in part, on the relative
vulnerability of the ground water. For corrective action requirements, decisions can
be based, in part, on the underlying ground water's use, value, and vulnerability.
Assessment and characterization carried out under the strategic activities of the
CSGWPP can be used to help demonstrate to the EPA Regional Administrator that
their Municipal Waste Programs adequately incorporate Subtitle D federal guidelines.
Other Subtitle D programs for solid waste (e.g., mining, oil and gas, and
industrial wastes) are just beginning to be developed at this time. EPA expects these
Subtitle D industrial programs to incorporate the CSGWPP approach and allow States
to make decisions on aspects of landfill design, monitoring requirements, or corrective
action requirements based, in part, on the use, value, and vulnerability of the ground
water.
Coordination with Other Programs
The RCRA Subtitle D program already has developed ground water monitoring
requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. These requirements allow the use of a
sampling and analysis program that accurately represents the ground water quality at
a particular site. A CSGWPP could ensure the development of a consistent monitoring
program applicable to both Subtitle D facilities and to other programs such as the
UST program that may affect ground water.
A number of industrial facilities and operations likely to be covered under future
RCRA Subtitle D regulations for industrial solid waste also will require NPDES permits
for surface water discharges, for sewage sludge facilities, or for industrial pretreatment
permits from POTWs and also may be subject to the SDWA Underground Injection
Control Program, particularly Class V regulations. The CSGWPP will provide a
framework for better coordination of these programs to avoid cross-purposes in
objectives and approaches. EPA will also work to coordinate these regulatory
activities through the Agency's Ground Water Cluster.
-------
1-14
RCRA SUBTITLE D PROGRAM (continued)
Coordinating Grants
Grants given to States to develop an understanding of the characteristics of
their ground water will be coordinated with grants from other programs so that
duplication is avoided when a State implements certain functions such as monitoring.
(See also the discussion under RCRA Subtitle C.)
-------
1-15
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision-Making
Under EPA's UST Program, minimum federal standards are set and a State is
allowed to be more stringent or different if the State's program is no less stringent and
provides for adequate enforcement of compliance. Because the program's size often
overwhelms the ability of the States to staff the program, EPA encourages States to
implement UST programs and achieve compliance through a variety of State-specific
management measures and mechanisms.
The UST program offers States flexibility in the following ways:
• The UST program encourages States to set enforcement priorities and
do multimedia enforcement.
• The federal UST program defines minimum standards and allows States
to set more stringent or different (but no less stringent) standards for
prevention and detection of releases from USTs, for site
characterizations, soil and ground water cleanup investigations, and
remedial action for releases from USTs.
Maximum flexibility is realized when a State is authorized to implement its UST
in lieu of the federal program. To be approved, the State must demonstrate that it has
additional funding sources, adequate staff, authorities that are no less stringent than
the federal UST program in scope and regulation, and capacity and willingness to
enforce the program.
The ground water assessment and characterization efforts carried out under the
priority setting Strategic Activity of a CSGWPP will help a State better determine its
UST program priorities in regard to inspection and enforcement actions and program
resource allocations. Information provided by the CSGWPP approach on the relative
use and value of ground water resources also will assist in UST program decision-
making regarding cleanup investigations and corrective actions.
Coordination with Other Programs
Because the UST program seeks to regulate potential sources of ground water
contamination (i.e., underground storage tanks), there are several specific links
between a State's UST program and its CSGWPP. For example, the UST program
requires all UST owners to notify the State of existing underground storage tanks.
This inventory will assist the States in cataloging and assessing one potential source
of contamination.
-------
1-16
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM (continued)
A number of facilities and operations with underground storage tanks may also
be subject to requirements by other ground water-related programs, such as SDWA
underground injection controls or RCRA hazardous waste or solid waste management.
The CSGWPP will provide a management focal point for a State to establish more
coordinated inspections and enforcement schemes across ground water-related
programs. Presently many States' LIST programs barely have enough personnel to
meet their enforcement needs. Through the integration provided by the CSGWPP,
State personnel from other programs may be trained to look for LIST violations or to
take enforcement actions.
Facilities with underground storage tanks often are located in an area where
ground water remediation efforts are being considered. Knowledge of the presence of
underground storage tanks in such areas may be crucial information in determining
the source and responsibility for an area's contamination and means for successful
remediation. Under the LIST program, owners are required to notify the State of
existing underground storage tanks. Inclusion of such information in the CSGWPP
strategic activity of coordinated ground water data bases within the State could greatly
assist other programs' field personnel in determining appropriate actions.
Coordinating Grants
The federal LIST program provides grants to States to prevent, detect, and
correct leaks from underground storage tanks containing petroleum and other
hazardous substances. As a result, UST grant funding, which supports the
development and implementation of an UST regulatory program, also can support the
following corresponding CSGWPP activities: identifying sources of contamination;
establishing a comprehensive remediation program that sets priorities according to
risk; defining federal, State, and local enforcement authorities; conducting monitoring,
data collection, and data analysis; and improving public participation.
-------
1-17
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making
The Superfund program was created by the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. The Superfund
program is designed to respond to contamination at sites with uncontrolled hazardous
substances. Sites that are candidates for Superfund response action first undergo a
Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation (PA/SI) in order to quantify the human
health and environmental risk posed by the site. Sites are then evaluated under a
number of risk related and other factors set out in the Hazard Ranking System (MRS)
to determine if the site is a priority for possible remedial action and inclusion on the
National Priority List (NPL). A CSGWPP may influence this process in the following
areas.
Priorities for conducting MRS assessments and for taking short-term removal
actions are determined by the threat that potential contamination may pose. A State's
ability to demonstrate, through a CSGWPP, that it understands the use, value, and
vulnerability of its ground water could be an important factor in setting priorities for
PA/SI and MRS listing evaluations or other actions. By helping to establish high
priority candidate sites, the State can influence which of its sites ultimately get on the
NPL, and become eligible for longer term remedial action.
Once on the NPL, the Superfund policy is to address the worst sites and worst
problems at sites first, based on an assessment of risk to human health and the
environment. Thus, a CSGWPP can assist in determining which studies and sites will
receive priority Superfund attention.
EPA's goal for long-term cleanup of NPL sites includes returning usable ground
waters to their beneficial uses within a reasonable period of time, wherever practicable.
When selecting a remedy and determining remediation requirements for long-term
cleanup at a site, EPA considers both the anticipated uses of ground water and
established State standards. A clear understanding of ground water resources in the
State, demonstrated through consistent application of a CSGWPP, can help inform
these site-specific decisions.
The Superfund Program is currently working to develop a more integrated
approach for its site remediation program, and to identify opportunities for adopting
innovative approaches to restoration and management of hazardous waste sites.
Superfund will also be looking for ways to increase State participation in the remedial
decision process, where allowed by statute.
-------
1-18
SUPERFUND PROGRAM (continued)
Coordination with Other Programs
Superfund remedial actions are required to comply with (or justify a waiver of)
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) of State environmental
laws that are promulgated, timely identified, and consistently applied in similar
situations. ARARs pertinent to ground water remedial actions include standards
established by various State and Federal environmental statutes. Ground water
cleanup levels are determined for each Superfund site based on ARARs and/or on
acceptable human health and environmental risk levels for all potential exposure
pathways. ARARs and risk levels are determined for both current and reasonably
expected future use of the ground water. Other EPA programs, such as RCRA
Corrective Action, use a similar approach for setting cleanup levels for contaminated
ground water. Under the CSGWPP approach, current and reasonably expected uses
would be determined by a State and would be consistently applied to all State and
Federal programs. Where a CSGWPP is in place, the Superfund program may
provide flexibility to focus more intensive long-term remedial efforts at sites where
ground water is more highly valued by the State and less intensive efforts (i.e., longer
restoration time periods) in other areas.
Coordinating Grants
A State or Indian Tribe may enter into a Core Program Cooperative Agreement
to build and enhance its capabilities to respond to uncontrolled hazardous substance
sites and to promote more effective State participation in the Superfund program. The
Core Program focuses on assisting a State to develop its ability to support or
implement emergency and long-term response under the Superfund program. The
Core Program Cooperative Agreement may enable EPA Regional Offices to fund
appropriate ground water tasks that contribute to the recipients ability to implement
Superfund and also are useful to comprehensive ground water management in a
State. Examples might include development of ground water sampling protocols or
design of risk assessment criteria and procedures, and other similar components that
also could support a framework for a CSGWPP.
-------
1-19
OIL POLLUTION ACT
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making
The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) provides EPA (and the Coast Guard) with
expanded authorities to address discharges of oil that pose substantial threats to
public health or welfare and natural resources. Section 311 of the Clean Water Act,
which is implemented through the National Contingency Plan like CERCLA, empowers
EPA to arrange for the removal of oil discharges or to mitigate or prevent the
substantial threat of the discharge that threatens public health or welfare.
A comprehensive assessment of a State's ground water resource carried out as
part of a CSGWPP will support speedy and effective actions under Section 311 by
better identifying the ground waters, and surface waters closely hydrogeologically
connected to ground waters, that could be affected by a discharge of oil, and by
identifying reasonably expected sources of drinking water that could be threatened.
This will help to determine when removal actions are necessary.
Coordination with Other Programs
The ARARs pertinent to removal actions involving oil discharges into ground
water that threaten surface waters will, under the CSGWPP approach, be based on an
understanding of the ground water resource and its use, value, and vulnerability that is
common to all programs in the State.
-------
1-21
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making
CSGWPP resource-based priority setting will help make permitting, inspection,
and enforcement actions for all classes of underground injection wells more effective
and efficient. The overall CSGWPP framework will supply the States with an important
understanding of the use, value and vulnerability of their ground water resources that
will be useful in UIC programs involving all classes of wells.
UIC Class I hazardous waste injection wells (deep industrial disposal wells), for
example, are permitted under the SDWA and by rule under RCRA Subtitle C. Before
operation such wells must be determined not to endanger human health or the
environment. Comprehensive assessment of the ground water resource will expedite
the identification of all potentially threatened ground waters and confining layers, and
will help to ensure complete and accurate monitoring and identification of potential
migration in the subsurface. The requirements currently being developed for UIC
Class V wells (shallow drainage and miscellaneous wells) also demonstrate how
CSGWPPs will support resource-based decision making. Under the regulations and
guidance being developed by the UtC program, the most environmentally harmful
Class V wells (e.g., service station drains, industrial waste disposal wells, etc.) will be
controlled by permits; other Class V wells will be controlled by general rules
supplemented by guidance or proper practices to comply with those rules. Although
the controls placed on these wells will be tied to the level of contamination being
injected, the use and value of the underlying ground water resources could be a key
consideration in the setting of priorities under this approach.
Coordination with Other Programs
The UIC program, and particularly the Class V component, will benefit from
being linked to other ground water programs within the CSGWPP. Other programs,
such as the WHP program, will assist in identifying Class V wells that have not been
inventoried. Under the WHP program, sources of contamination within WHP areas
must be identified. Any Class V wells identified during the WHPP inventory can be
added to the Class V inventory. Similarly, any Class V wells identified during RCRA
Facility Assessments (RFAs) or CERCLA Preliminary Assessments and Site
Investigations (PA/SIs) could be added to the Class V inventory.
Efficiencies involving the UIC program and other programs will also be created
through the CSGWPP. The UST program, for example, will be able to benefit from
joint inspections at gasoline stations that address both Class V wells and underground
storage tanks. Pesticide SMPs can include UIC Class V measures to avoid ground
water contamination caused by disposal of residues from mixing or washing in shallow
drainage wells. UIC Class V inventories will be useful sources of information in RFAs
and PA/SIs.
-------
1-22
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM (continued)
Coordinating Grants
States can use UIC grants for activities such as mapping, inventorying, and
data management. For these activities, grant guidances among all programs allowing
funds to be used for these purposes could be coordinated to insure synergies and to
reduce unnecessary duplication among programs.
-------
1-23
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SUPERVISION PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision-Making
The protection of public water supplies (PWS) is a high priority for
Comprehensive Programs. This is evident by the CSGWPP adequacy criteria requiring
implementation of an EPA-approved State Wellhead Protection Program (WHP) for a
Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. A State's WHP, coupled with other CSGWPP efforts, will
provide information on the 'Vulnerability" or susceptibility of source waters of individual
PWS systems to contamination. Under the Public Water Supply System Program,
States have the flexibility within the Program to:
(1) Work toward flexible federal monitoring requirements for individual water
supply systems with less burdensome PWS monitoring requirements;
(2) Offer water suppliers opportunities for obtaining waivers from monitoring
requirements for certain contaminants, if their systems are not vulnerable
to contamination;
(3) Use PWSS enforcement actions to support development and
implementation of local wellhead protection programs. CSGWPPs can
provide data and information upon which to initiate enforcement actions,
(i.e., SDWA §1431 emergency orders);
(4) Allow more flexibility in the application of the "timely and appropriate"
enforcement criteria for violations of the SDWA, particularly PWSs that
are in significant noncompliance SNC, if a State can demonstrate that an
enforcement action, based on data from a wellhead protection program
or other ground water activities, can appropriately address and mitigate
the violations;
(5) Set the phase in schedule (beginning in 1993) for monitoring under the
new "standardized monitoring framework," implementing a three year
compliance period. Setting priorities for targeting when systems would
be phased in may be based in part on the use, value, vulnerability of
ground waters and extent of data available. Making determinations
using these factors would be greatly enhanced by the coordination
achieved and data developed under a CSGWPP; and
(6) Enhance Sanitary surveys where use of wellhead protection area
delineations and contaminant source surveys, pesticide application
information and a pesticide management plan, and other information
could be used.
-------
1-24
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SUPERVISION PROGRAM (continued)
Coordination with Other Programs
Given the high priority of protecting PWS under a CSGWPP, a State's PWSS
Program will benefit significantly from the CSGWPP's objective of coordinating and
targeting the numerous ground water protection efforts of federal, State, and local
programs. Coupled with Wellhead Protection Programs, the source inventory and
characterization efforts of numerous source-specific programs (e.g., UIC, LIST,
Pesticides SMPs, NPS, etc.) should assist the PWSS Program in determining the
"vulnerability" or susceptibility of water supply systems to different potential
contaminants. Furthermore, these programs should significantly assist the PWSS
Program in achieving permanent solutions to contamination by focusing on preventing
or mitigating source water contamination rather than often costly treatment by
individual PWS systems.
In addition to receiving benefits from the CSGWPP approach, the PWSS
Program has much to add. For example, the ability of the PWSS Program to take civil
action on an emergency basis to address contamination of underground sources of
drinking water (Section 1431 of SDWA) should be integrated under the
Comprehensive Program approach with other programs' regulatory and non-
regulatory efforts to provide a broader array of tools to address ground water
concerns.
Also, under a CSGWPP coordination objective, the monitoring data collected by
PWS systems should be integrated with other programs' information (e.g., source
inventory and characterization data) to derive better understanding of the
environmental fate and movement of contaminants. Greater accessibility of
environmental data across programs also would allow vulnerability assessments to be
done by automated processes rather than solely by expensive field investigations,
facilitating the issuance of monitoring waivers. In addition, some States would not be
able to support a waiver program without a coordinated information program
mechanism in place to increase confidence in waivers.
Finally, the PWSS laboratory certification programs should be better
coordinated, under the CSGWPP approach, with other programs' monitoring efforts to
help ensure more accurate information across all ground water-related programs.
-------
1-25
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making
Authorized under §319 of the CWA, the Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program
provides grant funds for implementing control activities and institution-building
activities based on a State's federally-approved NPS Assessment and Management
Program. The program focuses on both ground water and surface water, with a
minimum of 10 percent of the grants going for ground water-related activities. On
average, the States devote more than 10 percent, with 30 percent going towards
ground water-related funding in FY 91.
A State must have an EPA-approved NPS Management Program to be eligible
to receive NPS grants. Section 319 requires State NPS Management Programs to
identify, among other things, best management practices and measures to be
implemented to reduce NPS pollutant loadings, to set up a schedule for implementing
the measures, and to define authorities. Only priority ground water protection
activities identified in an approved management plan are eligible for §319 grant
funding, either by direct identification in the NPS Management Plan or by reference to
the CSGWPP. Therefore, the ground water protection priorities established by a
CSGWPP should have a direct link to the priorities of the State's NPS Program. This
link should focus §319 NPS efforts on the most valuable and vulnerable ground
waters.
Coordination with Other Programs
Because CSGWPPs require that States define roles and coordination points
between and among ground water-related programs, the CSGWPP will provide a
means by which the NPS program will have information about all of the other ground
water-related programs. This should decrease unnecessary duplication and increase
efficiency in the §319 program. For example, coordination afforded by a CSGWPP
should promote better integration of NPS prevention activities and prevention
measures under EPA's Pesticide State Management Plan (SMP) approach for
protecting ground water from pesticides contamination. Integration between the NPS
Management Program's requirements and those of upcoming Underground Injection
Control (DIG) Class V regulations and guidance, particularly for agricultural drainage
wells, can also be facilitated by the CSGWPP approach. At a minimum, a CSGWPP
should ensure that these major national programs are not working at cross-purposes
within the State.
Coordinating Grants
The bulk of §319 grants must be used for implementing NPS control activities
for either surface water or ground water quality concerns. Considerable and wide-
ranging ground water protection efforts have been undertaken through these NPS
-------
1-26
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM (continued)
grants, including abandoned well plugging, agricultural drainage well siting and
closure, installment of best management practices in the field, and improved septic
tank maintenance. Many of these activities would meet the objectives of other EPA
programs (e.g., Coastal Nonpoint Programs, UIC, LIST, Pesticides, RCRA). CSGWPP
coordination of the NPS efforts with the control efforts supported by other programs
will provide a vehicle for establishing and focusing joint efforts on highest ground
water priority concerns.
EPA's Section 319 grant guidance requires that at least 10% of a State's work
program be devoted to addressing priority ground water nonpoint source activities.
However, where the requisite information to establish State implementation priorities is
lacking, the State is encouraged to use Section 319 grants to further its assessment
and characterization of ground water resources and to establish a basis for identifying
priority protection needs prior to undertaking any site-specific measures.
-------
1-27
NPDES AND INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making
Under the Clean Water Act, EPA and the States regulate facilities that either
discharge wastewaters directly to surface waters or discharge to municipal wastewater
treatment systems. Direct discharges are covered under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), whereas industrial discharges to municipal
treatment systems are covered by pretreatment requirements. The primary objective
of these regulatory programs is to ensure the attainment of the "designated uses"
(e.g., fishable, swimable) of receiving surface waters.
While a number of States have incorporated ground water discharges into their
NPDES permits and pretreatment requirements, there is no national requirement to do
so. States might consider surface water recharge to valuable ground waters as a
designated use for surface water and issue specific NPDES permit requirements
designed to assure attainment of that designated use and, thereby, indirectly protect
inter-connected high priority ground waters. States could use the resource
assessment, source evaluation and priority setting mechanism of CSGWPPs to identify
high-priority ground waters that are subject to contamination from closely
hydrologically connected surface waters.
Coordination with Other Programs
CSGWPPs can provide a central coordination point for surface water regulators
to coordinate with ground water officials from a wide variety of ground water-related
programs. For example, a number of facilities with required NPDES or pretreatment
permits for surface water protection are also likely to be subject to future RCRA D and
SDWA Underground Injection Control Class V Well requirements. The CSGWPP can
help a State make integrated environmental management decisions across both
ground and surface waters. In other words, States can use their ground water
protection authorities in conjunction with the NPDES permitting process to ensure that
specific requirements in NPDES permits do not result in unintended contamination of
sensitive ground water from practices such as the use of surface impoundments.
-------
1-29
STORM WATER PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making
Industiral storm water discharges to surface waters and discharges from
municipal separate storm sewer systems serving populations greater than 250,000,
are regulated through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits. Storm water management can affect ground water in a number of ways --
some storm water management practices may be designed to recharge ground water
in urban areas as an important means for water supply storage; other storm water
controls focus on pollution prevention controls which reduce risks to both surface and
ground water; and in some industrial and agricultural situations, storm water collection
devices or best management practices (BMPs) may transfer contaminants to
underlying ground waters. In any of these cases, this water may eventually re-enter
the surface water again as ground water discharges to streams and lakes.
Given the possible inter-connection between storm water management and
ground water, it is important to consider potential ground water impacts, particularly
where this underlying resource is highly valuable or closely hydrogeologically linked to
surface water quality. To address the potential for ground water contamination, storm
water BMPs should be developed to reflect States' CSGWPP resource protection
objectives and priorities.
Coordination with Other Programs
Coordination within the CSGWPP framework among the NPDES program, UIC
Class V program, the NPS program, and the Wellhead Protection Program will help
focus efforts to manage cross-media impacts and avoid having major national
programs working at cross-purposes within the State.
-------
1-31
SEWAGE SLUDGE PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making
Requirements to protect public health and the environment from the adverse
effects of pollutants that may be contained in sewage sludge are authorized by
Section 405 of the Clean Water Act. The CWA Sewage Sludge Program has
proposed regulations for the final use and disposal of sewage sludge. Requirements
already exist under RCRA for sewage sludge that is determined to be hazardous.
Sludge determined to be hazardous under RCRA must be managed in RCRA Subtitle
C facilities. Sludge disposed in municipal solid waste landfills, which frequently receive
sludge from POTWs, must be managed in facilities that satisfy the RCRA Subtitle D
regulatory requirements. Both the Subtitle C and D requirements include location
standards and ground water monitoring and remediation, if necessary. Some
commentators were concerned about possible duplicative regulation. The Sewage
Sludge Program and the RCRA Program will coordinate their efforts to alleviate
excessive duplication.
Proposed rules on management of sludge under the CWA Sewage Sludge
Program in landfills limited to sewage sludge monofills are expected to set limits on
concentrations of certain pollutants in sludge placed in monofills so as not to exceed
ground water MCLs or contaminate an aquifer with nitrogen. Proposed rules on land
application of sludge are expected to include both management practices and national
pollutant limits, including pathogen requirements and limitations on the concentrations
of certain metals. Sludge application rates also should minimize the amount of
nitrogen that passes below the root zone to the ground water. A comprehensive
ground water assessment carried out under a CSGWPP will assist the implementation
of these requirements by ensuring accurate and timely information about the condition
of the ground water resources.
Coordination with Other Programs
The development of priorities through the CSGWPP process will help to
coordinate the sewage sludge program with other programs in the State in several
ways. Decisions about capacity and siting of RCRA Subtitle D facilities, for example,
will affect how sludge is managed. Similarly, decisions concerning discharges into
POTWs may affect whether sludge can be used in land application or must be
managed in RCRA Subtitle C facilities.
-------
1-33
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making
The Costal Zone Management Act (CZMA) authorizes and supports State
programs for protecting the Nation's coastal waters. Amendments to the CZMA in
1990 established a significant initiative to control non-point source pollution to coastal
areas. Each State with a federally approved Coastal Zone Management Program
must submit a Coastal Nonpoint Program containing the following: 1) provisions for
implementing management measures to protect coastal waters; 2) identification of
land uses which may cause or contribute significantly to coastal waters degradation;
3) identification of critical coastal areas adjacent to coastal waters which are impaired
or threatened by NPS pollution; 4) provisions for implementing additional management
measures for land uses or critical coastal areas as necessary to achieve and maintain
water quality standards; 5) programs to provide technical assistance to local
governments and the public; 6) public participation opportunities in all aspects of the
program; 7) modification of coastal zone boundaries as necessary to implement
NOAA's recommendations; and 8) enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement
the management measures. EPA plays a critical role in this initiative by having the
responsibility to develop guidance specifying management measures for controlling
the various nonpoint sources in coastal areas. In addition, both EPA and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) must approve State Coastal
Nonpoint Programs.
CSGWPPs have a primary function of identifying ground waters of high use,
value, and vulnerability, which would include those ground waters that are closely
hydrogeologically linked to coastal waters and which are capable of carrying
contaminants to sensitive coastal waters. The Comprehensive Program can assist
State Coastal Nonpoint Programs by identifying where ground waters play a
significant role in coastal waters protection.
Coordination with Other Programs
Strong potential linkage exists between State Coastal Nonpoint Programs and
CSGWPPs. For example, in many coastal areas, which include estuaries, ground
water nutrient contribution (especially nitrogen) is contributing significantly to
eutrophication problems of coastal waters. Sources of this ground water
contamination can include septic tanks from coastal developments or fertilizer use in
agricultural areas adjacent to coastal land.
The CSGWPP can also assist in coordinating a number of other EPA programs
(e.g., RCRA, CERCLA, Pesticides) to reduce coastal water impacts from toxic
chemicals by protecting, as a priority, ground water closely linked to coastal waters.
-------
1-35
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making
EPA is interested in applying its capabilities and authorities under the Toxic
Substances Control Act to address local environmental needs and problems.
CSGWPP priorities provide an immediate context in which EPA and States can test the
geographically-specific applications of certain TSCA authorities. Presently, a number
of TSCA authorities can support the Strategic Activities of a CSGWPP, including:
• EPA toxicity determinations, exposure determinations, and risk
assessment capabilities under TSCA could support CSGWPP priority-
setting. For example, various EPA capabilities, such as testing
authorities, Graphic Exposure Modeling Systems, and others, could
provide information to assist States in identifying risk-based geographic
priorities for ground water protection and in establishing ground water
protection priorities across contamination sources.
• EPA risk reduction decision-making capabilities could support the
pollution prevention components of a CSGWPP. EPA could perform
Substitute Analyses, Cost/Benefit Analyses, and Pollution Prevention
Technical assessments to assist with States' efforts to reduce or
eliminate potential environmental releases that may adversely affect
ground water quality. These EPA capabilities could be directed towards
differential management of ground water under a State's CSGWPP by
focusing on activities that are located in geographic proximity to the
State's most valuable and vulnerable ground waters. These capabilities
could also be used to assist a State in implementing pollution prevention
priorities across sources.
• EPA risk management capabilities could also be used to support
CSGWPP contaminant control efforts. TSCA Section 6(a) provides EPA
with the authority to regulate chemicals that present an unreasonable risk
of injury to human health or the environment. EPA could use this
authority to address chemicals of concern in targeted geographic areas
which encompass a State's high priority ground waters. TSCA Section
6(a) offers a wide range of possible actions to prevent pollution from
prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or use of a chemical to recordkeeping
and labeling requirements which could be selectively applied in specific
geographic areas to protect high priority ground waters.
At this time, EPA's efforts to apply TSCA capabilities to local problems will take
the form of pilot projects. States need to work with EPA Regional Offices to identify
opportunities within the CSGWPP framework which would test the TSCA approach.
-------
1-37
RADIATION PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making
EPA is responsible for development of federal guidance on radiation protection
and promulgates standards and regulations for exposure to radionuclides. In
particular, EPA provides support to States in radiation monitoring, research, training,
and other forms of technical assistance; develops standards for cleanup,
management, and disposal of uranium and thorium mill tailings and high-level, low-
level, and transuranic radioactive wastes; and assists in the promulgation of standards
for the control of radionuclides in drinking waters and in all types of wastes. EPA's
standards cover activities of other federal agencies, including DOE and DoD, and
activities regulated by NRC.
Resource assessment, source evaluation, and priority setting mechanisms
developed through CSGWPPs should be used by States and other federal agencies
to implement the ground water protection and remediation standards contained in
EPA regulations involving radionuclides. For example, EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part
192 on uranium tailings management at active uranium processing facilities call for
evaluation of the hydrogeology of the site, including determination of background
ground water quality, rate and direction of migration of contaminated ground water,
and extent of the contamination. The regulation calls for remedial action decisions to
be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, among other things, present
and future use of the aquifer and the degree to which human exposure is likely to
occur. NRC implements requirements for active uranium processing sites that
incorporate ground water protection standards that are comparable to requirements
developed under RCRA Subtitle C. A comprehensive characterization and
assessment of the resource will facilitate decision-making affecting ground water for
such sites.
Coordination with Other Programs
Regulatory authority over some possession and use of radionuclides, with
some exceptions, such as commercial nuclear power reactors and high level
radioactive waste disposal facilities, has been relinquished by agreement between the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the States to over half the States (Agreement
States). In such States, siting of facilities involving radionuclides and design and
operational requirements established by facility licenses are controlled and directed by
the States. In States where NRC retains primacy, regulatory limits for some types of
licensed nuclear facilities (e.g., uranium mill tailings impoundments) set specific design
and operational criteria for licensed facilities to protect ground water and maximum
limits are established for ground water contamination. Facilities in Agreement and
non-Agreement States are subject to standards issued by EPA under the Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act and the Atomic Energy Act and implemented by
Agreement States or by NRC in non-Agreement States. Implementation of a CSGWPP
will enable States to begin to coordinate implementation of such standards and
-------
1-38
RADIATION PROGRAM (continued)
requirements more completely and efficiently by ensuring that they address a
consistent ground water goal and priorities and share a common assessment of the
resource.
-------
1-39
WETLANDS PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making
Because wetlands act as natural pollutant filters and as a source of aquifer
recharge, they often are closely linked to the quality and quantity of ground water
resources. Wetlands occurring along rivers and streams probably are the most
important types of wetlands for ground water recharge. This recharge occurs most
often in the wet portions of the year during overbank flooding. Ground water, in turn,
may be discharged back to the wetlands and river bed during dry years. The
Everglades are a good example of the linkage between a river and a wetlands system
and its underlying ground water, the Biscayne aquifer. Florida is acquiring
approximately 41,000 acres of partially drained wetlands in the Everglades and
restoring them to regain their water quality and recharge benefits.
Several EPA programs are aimed at protecting and restoring wetlands. In
some cases, ground water resources are considered when establishing wetland
program priorities. For example, EPA is assisting States with the development of
water quality standards for wetlands which include methods for designating wetlands
uses based on function and value. Currently the State of Michigan is considering
designating wetlands as Outstanding Natural Resource Waters if the wetlands are
connected to a municipal ground water supply.
Knowledge of State ground water resource priorities would be useful to the
wetlands program in administering its responsibilities under CWA §404. For example,
under §404, EPA has regulatory responsibility for reviewing permits for the discharge
of dredge or fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The
presence of high-priority ground water resources could be a consideration in review of
these permits. Also under §404, EPA participates in Advance Identification (ADID)
studies to identify waters as possible disposal sites and to identify areas that are likely
to be unsuitable for disposal. The results of these studies provide the public and
regulated community with an indication of whether a §404 permit will likely be
received. Recently, in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, ground water withdrawal and its
impact on local water quality was identified as one of the key factors that prompted an
ADID.
Ground water protection also can be enhanced by identification and protection
of wetlands that recharge and protect ground water. For example, if such wetlands
are identified as part of the CSGWPP, their characteristics will be known for wellhead
protection programs.
-------
1-41
WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision Making
The Watershed Protection Approach is a resource-oriented framework
supported by EPA for focusing and integrating current efforts and for exploring
innovative methods to achieve maximum efficiency and effectiveness in water quality
protection. The term watershed refers to a geographic area in which water,
sediments, and dissolved materials drain to a common outlet -- a point on a larger
stream, a lake, an underlying aquifer, an estuary, or an ocean. An aquifer or part of
an aquifer, such as a wellhead protection area, can be a watershed. The Watershed
Protection Approach is not a new "program," but an effort to target appropriate tools
and resources from existing programs to the needs within a particular watershed. The
Watershed Protection Approach is built on three main principles: risk-based
geographic targeting, stakeholder involvement, and integrated solutions. Presently a
number of state projects and programs using the Watershed Protection Approach
have been implemented.
The ground water assessment and characterization efforts carried out under the
priority setting Strategic Activity of a CSGWPP provide a framework for States to target
aquifers or portions of aquifers for the Watershed Protection Approach. In addition,
watershed efforts aimed at surface water protection can benefit from information
developed under a CSGWPP on those ground waters that are closely
hydrogeologically linked to the targeted surface waters. Such information will assist in
determining the influence of ground waters on these watershed protection areas.
Coordination with Other Programs
Both the Watershed Protection Approach and CSGWPP are intended to focus
the efforts of several programs on protection of high-priority water bodies. CSGWPPs
should be considered as an important tool in the Watershed Protection Approach.
CSGWPPs will focus those programs with primary ground water protection
responsibilities on protection of important watershed areas, whether they are aquifers,
portions of aquifers, or surface water bodies that are closely hydrologically linked to
ground waters.
The 1992 Agency Operating Guidance states that EPA will focus actual
protection and restoration activities in specific watersheds, and several programs have
recognized the importance of a watershed approach in their guidance documents.
This emphasis will be compatible with and supportive of CSGWPP implementation
efforts. For example, in the Region 3 Mill Creek Pequea Creek Watershed, nonpoint
source resources have been made available to farmers to implement BMPs to reduce
nutrient, bacteria, and pesticide contamination of surface waters and ground water.
-------
1-43
POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
Resource-Based Priority Setting in Decision-Making
Priority setting within the CSGWPP will provide a means for targeting specific
geographic environments for the implementation of pollution prevention techniques,
technologies and work practices. Focusing pollution prevention efforts in high risk,
high value areas will yield the greatest benefits to States as they work to protect their
ground water resources.
Coordination with Other Programs
The Ground Water Protection Strategy and the CSGWPP focus on protecting
ground water from contamination. One of the most effective means of protecting
ground water supplies is through pollution prevention. EPA's Pollution Prevention
program has an vital role to play in the CSGWPP as States establish priorities and
begin to integrate various ground water protection efforts.
Pollution Prevention programs focus primarily on preventing risks rather than
addressing pollutants after they have been created and emitted to the environment.
While some large industries have been quick to seize upon the pollution prevention
concept, many small, local businesses are still relatively unaware of how pollution
prevention practices can benefit them. The CSGWPP will encourage broader industry
and public participation in pollution prevention activities through State priorities that
emphasize the role of pollution prevention in protecting ground water quality.
The CSGWPP will foster greater emphasis on pollution prevention at the State
and local levels and will also help Pollution Prevention programs and activities to be
coordinated with other ground water protection programs. As States establish
priorities and goals, they will work to coordinate the efforts of ground water protection
programs and build the pollution prevention concept into them. This process will also
be driven by the on-going interest in promoting pollution prevention in media-specific
grant guidance.
Coordinating Grants
The federal Pollution Prevention grants program "Pollution Prevention Incentives
for States" provides grants to States to support State, Tribal, and local pollution
prevention programs that address the reduction of pollutants across all environmental
media: air, land, surface water, ground water and wetlands. This grant funding could
be used to support the following CSGWPP activities: defining roles and responsibilities
of key participants of proposed projects and promoting coordination with pollution
prevention activities already underway in the State; developing and implementing
prevention programs for reducing or eliminating pollution; collecting and analyzing
data; developing mechanisms to measure progress in pollution prevention; and
-------
1-44
POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM (continued)
conducting public education and outreach. Grants may also be used to initiate
demonstration projects that test and support innovative pollution prevention
approaches and methodologies which may eventually be integrated into prevention
programs.
-------
2. LINKAGE TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS
This section provides an agency-by-agency discussion of the linkages between
the CSGWPP approach and the ground water-related programs of six federal
agencies. For each agency, a brief description of the agency's program is followed
by a discussion of ways in which that agency could support or make use of the
CSGWPP approach.
This section discusses the programs of selected agencies that work either to
protect or to restore ground water quality, but does not include all agencies with
ground water-related activities. There are no descriptions yet for the other federal
agencies involved in ground water. These agencies include:
United States Department of Agriculture;
United States Department of Defense;
United States Department of Energy;
United States Department of the Interior;
United States Department of Transportation; and
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The descriptions are arranged alphabetically.
-------
2-3
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Programs Related to Ground Water Protection
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is actively involved in a
coordinated, government-wide initiative addressing water quality. This initiative
focuses on nonpoint source pollution concerns identified by States under
requirements of Section 319 of the Water Quality Act (See Discussion on EPA's
Nonpoint Source Program). One of the main objectives of the Water Quality Initiative
is to provide farmers, ranchers, and other land managers with information necessary
to voluntarily adopt improved, environmentally-sound management practices which do
not sacrifice profitability. This initiative is under the leadership of the USDA and
includes EPA, USGS, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). The central objectives of the Initiative include the following:
• Protecting the Nation's ground water resources from contamination by
fertilizers and pesticides without jeopardizing the economic vitality of U.S.
agriculture;
• Developing technically and economically effective agrichemical and
agricultural production strategies that enhance or protect the quality of
our water resources; and
• Inducing the adoption of enhancement or protection strategies at
significant levels in problem areas.
Of the 36 operating entities within the USDA, ten share responsibilities for
implementing the President's Water Quality Initiative. Of these entities, eight USDA
agencies are particularly relevant for CSGWPPs and are discussed below.
The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) plays a central
role in transfer of payments for USDA commodity support programs. Starting with the
1985 Food Security Act, cross-compliance provisions require recipients of certain
USDA assistance programs to prepare and implement conservation plans, whose
water quality protection features have become steadily more important. The ASCS
also administers the Water Quality Incentive Projects (WQIP) authorized by the 1990
Farm Bill. The WQIP provides both technical and financial assistance for producers to
implement management systems to reduce nonpoint source agricultural problems.
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) administers fundamental and applied
research that addresses a wide range of agriculture-related issues, including the
conservation of soil, water, and air. For example, ARS has developed a number of
fate and transport models that focus on pesticides in ground water.
-------
2-4
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (continued)
The Cooperative State Research Service (GSRS) funds research through the
State Agricultural Experiment Stations for the advancement of science and technology
in support of agriculture. CSRS funds a number of special research programs,
including a ground water research program, a low-input agricultural program, and a
competitive grant program in natural resources, water quality, ecosystems, and
wetlands. CSRS also is responsible for developing a forum for coordination between
the State Agricultural Experiment Stations, the USDA, and other federal agency
scientists.
The Extension Service (ES) is the education bureau of the USDA and serves as
the federal partner in the Cooperative Extension System. More specifically, the ES
coordinates its activities with State land grant universities and local county extension
offices to conduct educational and outreach programs.
The National Agricultural Library (NAL), through its Water Quality Information
Center, identifies, acquires, and organizes information related to agriculture and
ground water quality. The center facilitates access to this information through various
outreach mechanisms, such as the Water Information Network (WIN), an electronic
bulletin board system.
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) provides leadership and administers
programs to help people conserve natural resources and the environment. SCS is
expanding and improving technical assistance for water quality utilizing local soil and
water conservation districts. As part of USDA's Water Quality Initiative, SCS is
providing increased technical assistance for selected agricultural water sheds or
aquifer-recharge areas called "Nonpoint Source Hydrologic Units Areas" (HUA's).
These address agricultural nonpoint pollution concerns identified by states under
Section 319 of the Water Quality Act of 1987. SCS is also increasing technical
assistance to ongoing interagency regional Water Quality programs and designated
estuaries of national significance. SCS provides assistance to State agencies in
developing both surface and ground water practices, programs, and policies.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Agricultural Statistics
Service (NASS) work with State departments of agriculture to gather estimates on
production characteristics for major farm commodities. Currently, the ERS and NASS
are carrying out a new program to gather data on the use of pesticides and other
agricultural chemicals. As this program expands, it should provide a more direct
means of estimating agricultural pesticides use patterns in a State.
The United States Forest Service (FS) is the national leader in forestry through
its management of the National Forest System. A key objective of the FS is to
promote natural resource conservation through cooperative efforts with other federal,
State, and local agencies. The FS also provides technical assistance to State forestry
programs in order to protect and improve the quality of air, water, and soil resources.
-------
2-5
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (continued)
Potential for Coordination of USDA Programs with Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs
The ASCS's ongoing Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) provides cost-
share assistance for implementing a variety of water-quality oriented best management
practices (BMPs). These cost-share funds can be used by States or local agencies to
address priorities established in CSGWPPs. In addition, coordination of projects
funded by USDA through a State's CSGWPP can result in the most effective and
efficient use of these funds. Other relevant ASCS programs include the Wetland
Reserve, Water Bank, Conservation Reserve, and Forestry Incentives programs.
ASCS's cost sharing programs also seek to provide financial assistance to
producers in the hydrologic unit and demonstration project areas. This financial
assistance is tied to education and technical assistance to encourage adoption of
environmentally sound practices and the improvement and protection of water quality
within a targeted area. For example, the Water Quality Incentives Projects provides
technical and financial assistance for farm level planning to reduce the use of fertilizer,
other crop nutrients, and pesticides in order to achieve water quality objectives, such
as ground water protection. In addition, testing of rural domestic wells and record-
keeping on tillage, pesticide use, and nutrient use are eligible for WQIP funding.
CSGWPPs could help USDA by providing ground water priority areas for targeting
and by helping to facilitate transfer of data on agricultural practices from ASCS to
State agencies that implement SMPs, NPS, WHP, and PWS programs. Farmers
participating in this effort receive incentive payments from USDA to compensate them
for additional production costs and/or the value of foregone production.
The 1990 Farm Bill authorizes USDA to provide financial incentives to farmers
for enrolling land that includes vulnerable ground and surface waters into the
Conservation Reserve Program. To the extent that funds are available, the program
will be used to enroll areas such as wellhead protection areas, and other areas that
would contribute to water quality in permanent cover (grass or trees). States may be
able to work with USDA to include geographic priorities identified in their CSGWPPs
under the Conservation Reserve Program's water quality related criteria. Farmers then
could address ground water contamination through the removal of lands from
production in exchange for financial incentives.
ARS and CSRS could support research that focuses on the reduction of
pesticides and nitrates in ground water and other agricultural-related ground water
protection projects. All States' CSGWPPs could benefit from such fundamental
ground water protection research. Efforts in this areas could also be coordinated with
the Pesticide State Management Plan approach. In addition, CSRS's efforts to
coordinate related research could be used to ensure that unnecessarily duplicative
research projects are not being funded and that research is disseminated to other
interested groups and State ground water managers.
-------
2-6
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (continued)
Through the ES and the State cooperative extension offices, USDA could work
to disseminate the new methods, techniques, and practices designed to reduce the
potential for agriculture-related contamination of water resources (i.e., biological
controls, integrated pest management, and improved methods of pesticides
application). A State's CSGWPP could assist ES and State offices in setting priorities
for the education of farmers, ranchers, and other land managers based on the use,
value, or vulnerability of the resource.
Like the ES, the SCS could work to disseminate information and best
management practices to ensure adequate protection of ground water resources from
agricultural contamination based on priorities established under a State's CSGWPP.
The SCS also develops standards and specifications for proper pesticide use
practices. This information could be of considerable benefit in developing CSGWPPs
and in educating farmers and other land use managers. SCS could geographically
target technical assistance efforts in certain areas in coordination with a States
CSGWPP.
NAL-produced bibliographies, covering various aspects of ground water and
agriculture, could be used by state CSGWPPs to locate information from throughout
the country (and world) that may be useful in guiding the direction of state programs.
State CSGWPPs could help strengthen NAL's ground water quality collection and
bibliographic database by providing copies of state documents that address
agriculture and ground water quality issues.
ERS's and MASS'S data collection and analysis efforts focus on identifying the
economic consequences of changes in the use of pesticides and fertilizers and the
implementation of alternative farming practices. Such research efforts could assist a
State in identifying, developing and implementing the most cost effective protection
and preventive measures associated with pesticides and agricultural chemicals
possible in its CSGWPP.
Through its outreach efforts, the FS could contribute to forestry education and
technical assistance aimed at protecting ground water resources from pesticides and
silvicultural practices. These efforts could be coordinated and targeted using the
priorities established under a State's CSGWPP. FS also conducts a number of
activities that must be managed carefully to avoid adversely impacting the ground
water resources in a State. For example, clear cutting in National Forests by the FS
could result in increased runoff and siltation of nearby surface water bodies that can
be linked to ground water. Proper and timely reforestation of these lands can
significantly reduce run off and the potential for contamination of water resources.
When such activities are planned, FS could coordinate activities through a State's
CSGWPP to address priorities for protection of water resources within the State. The
FS could also use the priorities established in a State's CSGWPP to make land use
decisions in National Forests.
-------
2-7
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (continued)
Currently, successful coordination between USDA and EPA and several States
is beginning to occur with the development and implementation of Pesticides State
Management Plans to limit pesticide contamination of ground water (See Discussion
on EPA's Pesticides State Management Plan Program). Coordination efforts to protect
ground water under the SMP program include conducting basic research,
coordinating of data collection and analysis, transferring appropriate technologies, and
providing financial assistance.
-------
2-9
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Programs Related to Ground Water Protection
The Department of Defense (DoD) has its environmental goal to plan, initiate,
and execute all actions and programs to minimize adverse effects on the quality of the
environment without impairing the defense mission. Several components of the DoD
are currently responsible for guiding and promoting these activities.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environment) (DASD(E)), Office of
the Secretary of Defense (OSD), sets the overall direction for environmental activities
by developing policy guidance on environmental protection and regulatory
compliance. The May 1992 Report on Environmental Requirements and Priorities
prepared by DASD(E) summarizes DoD's principal policy thrusts, which include the
following: compliance with existing laws and regulations; remediation of formerly and
presently used DoD sites; increased efforts devoted to pollution prevention;
development of an inventory of, and conservation and protection plans for, natural and
cultural resources; development of outreach efforts; augmentation of the frequency
and scope of self-policing activities to ensure timely and effective compliance and
protection of human health and the environment; development of an enhanced
environmental ethic across all DoD activities; development of ways to increase DoD's
role as a model for environmental compliance and protection; and development of
productive cooperative partnerships both domestically and internationally.
Implementation of environmental activities is largely carried out by the four
military services ~ the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines - as well as by the defense
agencies, particularly the Defense Logistics Agency. Two centrally funded
environmental programs are the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP),
involving the assessment and cleanup of contamination at DoD installations and
formerly used defense sites, and the Legacy Program, involving improved
management of natural resources on DoD lands.
The Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) has two principle
components - the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) and the Other Hazardous
Waste Program (OHWP). The IRP investigates and, as necessary, performs site
cleanup at DoD installations and at properties formerly owned or used by DoD. The
IRP conforms to the requirements of the CERCLA National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. Under IRP, activity is occurring at 94 DoD
installations with sites on the National Priorities List (NPL). Water-related activity at
these sites includes ground water treatment (63 activities), long-term monitoring (52
activities), and provision of alternate water supplies/treatment (33 activities). The
OHWP addresses waste-related issues that do not involve CERCLA cleanups.
Current DoD programs that address threats to ground water include the
development of unique water treatment processes for uniquely military materials; and
developing new methods of treating explosives-contaminated soils, improving
-------
2-10
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (continued)
wastewater treatment plants, upgrading storage areas for materials that could leach to
ground water, updating plans to deal with spills, replacing or retrofitting underground
storage tanks, and closing and removing abandoned tanks. A current focus of DoD is
on pollution prevention.
Each of the services has implemented programs to address environmental
issues. The Army, for example, through its Environmental Compliance Achievement
Program (ECAP), seeks to identify and eliminate obstacles to environmental
compliance, institute programs to determine compliance problems, and ensure that
corrective actions are implemented. The Army ECAP will address compliance through
environmental assessments at Army facilities, a profile and mechanism to measure
progress toward compliance, and integrated management of all environmental
programs.
Each service, in its environmental activities, carries out programs involving,
among others, water quality management, drinking water, and underground storage
tanks, but none of the services has singled out ground water protection as a separate
program area. The Army's current program for water quality management, however,
does call for control or elimination of all sources of surface and ground water
pollution. Approximately 85 Army installations within the U.S. obtain some or all of
their water supply from ground water wells, and 51 % of the Army's drinking water
comes from ground water sources. The Army therefore maintains a Water Resources
Management Program to sample and analyze water supplies and ground water
monitoring programs and to evaluate aquifer quality and identify potential drinking
water quality problems. The Army also participates in the Wellhead Protection
Program. The Navy's Drinking Water Management Program likewise seeks to protect
ground water resources, especially those with the potential to be used as a potable
water supply, at on shore Naval installations. Similarly, the Air Force and Marines
address ground water in the context of drinking water sources.
Potential for Coordination of DoD Programs with Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs
DoD's May 1992 Report to Congress on Environmental Planning and Priorities
notes that an important future goal will be development of a common understanding
across DoD about how to measure requirements and determine overall priorities. DoD
plans to work with EPA and other agencies "to define risk-based priority setting
methods to supplement the current judgmental approaches and provide a more
analytic foundation to assist in environmental decision making." (p. 1 -19) As States
develop priorities for ground water protection and remediation in CSGWPPs, DoD
could begin to take these priorities and priority-setting mechanisms into account.
Development of CSGWPPs could enable DoD components such as the Defense
Logistics Agency, which is responsible for environmental compliance and restoration
-------
2-11
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (continued)
at a number of major and tertiary level logistics installations, to control its costs by
working with State and local jurisdictions. Because DLA is also responsible for
disposal of hazardous materials through its Defense Realization and Marketing
Service, siting of certain facilities, and similar duties, DLA has been particularly
concerned by what it has seen as a "trend toward more regulation by State or local
jurisdictions." (p. 6-4) Coordination and integration of State and local programs
through locally-based priority setting in CSGWPPs may provide a more focused and
consistent set of environmental requirements pertinent to DoD components.
In an effort to identify ways of improving federal-State coordination of
environmental response actions and streamlining cleanup at bases to be closed or
realigned, the Defense Environmental Task Force recommended eliminating
overlapping regulatory requirements and adoption of measures for improving
coordination among federal and State decision makers. These recommendations
parallel the CSGWPP approach. In addition, as each service addresses issues of
environmental compliance at its facilities, the existence of a CSGWPP in the host State
could enable the service and the facility to address a more consistent and coherent
set of State requirements for ground water protection.
CSGWPPs also could provide a source of coordinated input on the part of the
States into the Interagency Agreements (lAGs) with other federal and State agencies
that DoD must negotiate under SARA §120. These lAGs establish comprehensive
installation-specific arrangements for proceeding with DoD's waste cleanup activities
under the Installation Restoration Program. lAGs, which are subject to public review
and comment, provide a strong management tool for resolving issues arising from
overlapping or conflicting jurisdictions. The IAG negotiation process involves
personnel from the applicable DoD Component, the EPA Regional Office, and State
environmental authorities. IAG negotiation could be an appropriate forum for
negotiating the implementation of CSGWPP as it relates to cleanup of DoD
installations. DoD emphasizes the involvement of State agencies in the IRP process.
As of June 1992, DoD had entered into Defense and State Memoranda of Agreement
(DSMOA) with 40 States. Through the DSMOA, almost $18 million was provided to
State agencies in FY92 to allow States to participate in the evaluation and oversight of
IRP activities, including those related to water resource management. In the future,
CSGWPPs could help provide a focus and set priorities for State input into the IRP
process.
Finally, DoD is in the process of creating regional environmental coordination
offices that could serve as points of contact for the State CSGWPP primary points of
contact. These offices are intended to serve a number of coordinating functions
among the military services and DoD installations. The areas served by these offices
will correspond to the EPA Regional Offices. Such offices could provide a focus for
DoD involvement in State CSGWPPs.
-------
2-13
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Programs Related to Ground Water Protection
Department of Energy (DOE) Orders, DOE's internal system of regulation,
require compliance with all applicable environmental requirements at all DOE sites and
facilities, and set forth overall DOE policy for ensuring and enhancing such
compliance. Regarding ground water protection, Order DOE 5400.1, entitled "General
Environmental Protection Program," requires that each DOE site have a Ground Water
Protection Management Program (GWPMP) in place. The GWPMP is a management
tool for ensuring effective compliance with Federal and State ground water protection
requirements, sitewide coordination of all ground water protection and remediation
activities, and long-term ground water protection planning to prevent future
contamination. Order DOE 5400.1 also requires that a sitewide Ground Water
Monitoring Plan be developed to ensure that monitoring programs are designed to
meet regulatory requirements and to provide a system of environmental surveillance to
prevent future contamination threats.
Order DOE 5400.5, "Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment,"
addresses DOE operations involving radioactive materials that may not be addressed
by RCRA, CERCLA, TSCA, or other EPA-administered regulatory programs. DOE
5400.5 requires use of a Best Available Technology treatment evaluation process to
ensure that liquid wastes containing radionuclides are treated to "As Low As
Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) levels to prevent ground water contamination. The
Order also contains numerical concentration guides for a wide range of radionuclides.
These guides may be used to assess potential doses from exposure through various
routes including ingestion of drinking water.
In addition to the Order requirements, DOE is currently developing a Ground
Water Protection Policy to provide a framework within which technical and regulatory
compliance issues can be addressed throughout the Department in a coordinated and
consistent manner to enhance ground water protection. The Policy, when finalized,
will apply to all DOE and DOE contractor activities, and will provide direction for
implementing the ground water protection requirements of existing DOE Orders.
Programs Related to Environmental Restoration
DOE's Office of Environmental Restoration and Waste Management (EM) was
created to address environmental problems through corrective activities, waste
management, pollution prevention, environmental restoration, and technology
development. The overall EM strategy focuses on three approaches:
• First, where risk assessment shows an actual or potential threat to
human health and safety - do immediately whatever is possible to
reduce, mitigate, stabilize, and confine the threat;
-------
2-14
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (continued)
• Second, where no one knows how to solve a problem -- act decisively to
develop technology and methods to correct the problem; and
• Third, where compliance and cleanup must proceed with or without next-
generation technologies -- plan, with affected parties and within the
provisions of Interagency Agreements, the work to be accomplished and
its schedule.
EM's corrective activities are aimed at bringing all DOE facilities and sites into
compliance and operating them in accordance with applicable laws and regulations
designed to protect public health and the environment. Corrective activities range from
instituting programs to reduce or eliminate polychlorinated biphenyls (RGBs) to the
removal of leaking underground storage tanks. The efforts to bring all facilities into
compliance are driven by a number of federal and State statutes, regulations, and
DOE orders. In order to comply with the multiple environmental statutes and
regulations governing DOE environmental activities, DOE often enters into negotiation
with federal and State regulators with the intent of reaching agreement on activities for
achieving and maintaining compliance with applicable regulations.
EM's waste management objective is to "treat, store, and dispose of hazardous,
radioactive, and mixed waste in an environmentally sound and effective manner." The
Waste Operations Program is now focusing on ensuring adequate, permitted storage
capacity for existing waste and on developing new storage, treatment, and disposal
facilities. In addition, EM is constructing and testing new facilities for treatment and
disposal of wastes.
DOE is also moving forward with its pollution prevention program. A variety of
programmatic and technical activities are occurring throughout DOE facilities and
sites. In addition, DOE is working to minimize the generation of new waste. Currently,
DOE is working to establish reasonable quantitative waste minimization goals, improve
field office reporting, and issue guidance to promote waste minimization throughout its
operations.
The objective of DOE's Environmental Restoration Program is to "contain known
contamination at inactive sites and vigorously assess the uncertain nature and extent
of contamination at other sites to enable realistic planning, scheduling, and budgeting
for cleanup." The goal of each environmental restoration activity is to ensure that the
risks to the environment and to human health and safety posed by inactive and
surplus facilities are either eliminated or reduce to prescribed, safe levels. Currently,
EM is emphasizing the assessment of the extent and nature of contamination.
Closures and interim remedial actions will also be undertaken in the short term.
Following these assessment activities, full remediation will occur with site monitoring
continuing after cleanup.
-------
2-15
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (continued)
DOE recognizes that a significant impediment to achieving its environmental
management goal is created by the constraints and limitations associated with
available technology. As a result, EM is focusing on the development and
implementation of "innovative, cost-effective technologies to facilitate compliance with
applicable laws, regulations, and agreements and to minimize the generation of
waste." The Technology Development Program (TOP) is designed to ensure that new
technologies are available to the Environmental Restoration and Waste Operation
Programs. In the restoration area, the TOP focuses in the near term on providing
technologies for site investigation and the study of remediation alternatives.
Potential for Coordination of DOE Programs with Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs
DOE's environmental management strategy recognizes the importance of
managing environmental resources based on unique regional considerations and
emphasizing activities that prevent future contamination. For each facility, DOE
develops a ground water plan that assesses and characterizes the ground water
resource in and around the facility. These ground water plans, in addition to risk
assessments, assist DOE facilities in developing and setting priorities to reduce,
mitigate, stabilize, and confine the threat associated with the treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous or radioactive materials and the clean-up of contaminated sites.
Such an approach to setting priorities is consistent with the overall CSGWPP
approach, although DOE's priorities address only those sites within a DOE installation.
DOE is currently in the process of bringing all operating facilities into
compliance with applicable laws and regulations and completing the cleanup of the
1989 inventory of contaminated inactive sites and facilities by the year 2019. This
process involves coordination with EPA, other federal agencies, and several States,
and includes addressing the requirements of several federal and State laws,
regulations, and programs (including RCRA Subtitles C and D, CERCLA, SDWA UIC,
SDWA WHP, CWA, UMTRCA, FIFRA, TSCA, NEPA, and others). For DOE sites on the
CERCLA National Priorities List, DOE coordinates CERCLA and RCRA cleanup
activities through site-specific Interagency Agreements (lAGs) with EPA and the
affected State. A State's CSGWPP could outline and document coordination across
State and EPA programs. Such an understanding of the relationship between these
authorities could allow DOE, a State, and EPA to more efficiently and effectively
negotiate lAGs and meet all applicable environmental regulations.
DOE collects and manages a significant amount of ground water data that
could be useful to a State in developing and implementing its CSGWPP. For example,
DOE undertakes an assessment and characterization of ground water resources for
each facility. Following remedial or corrective actions, DOE monitors the ground water
to determine contaminant levels. Each DOE site prepares an Annual Site
Environmental Report containing ground water monitoring data and descriptions of the
-------
2-16
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (continued)
monitoring network design, which DOE provides to State and federal agencies. DOE
could coordinate its ground water data with other State and federal agencies. Even
though DOE's information will relate to a limited geographic area of a State, the State
could use the maps to infer hydrogeologic settings for nearby areas that may have
few or no data points.
DOE is actively investigating new technologies for waste management, waste
minimization, and environmental restoration. DOE will develop these improved
technologies at facilities around the country. These new technologies will benefit
ground water protection and CSGWPPs as they become available for other protection
and remediation activities. DOE could work with a State to demonstrate the
application of these new technologies to ground water management. For example,
DOE's Savannah River Facility has successfully installed and is operating an
integrated demonstration for remediation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the
vadose zone. This technology works through a combination of airstripping and
directional drilling technologies and makes VOC removal faster and cheaper. DOE
expects savings in the millions of dollars from this particular technology. All States
and the CSGWPP approach will eventually benefit from the development of such
improved technologies.
While DOE supports the general ground water protection principles outlined in
EPA's Ground Water Strategy for the 1990s, the Department believes that States
should base ground-water protection priorities on the characteristics of the ground
water, rather than on facility ownership. Such an approach would ensure consistent
ground water quality management policies from site to site. DOE expects that the
CSGWPP approach will provide a coherent and consistent approach to ground water
protection, based on the resource value, and can provide a mechanism by which DOE
can incorporate State ground water priorities into sitewide ground water protection
activities.
-------
2-17
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Programs Related to Ground Water Protection
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is charged with conserving and managing
nationally owned public lands and natural and cultural resources, including water
resources. DOI directly sets policy and management priorities for these resources.
As the manager of water resources on public lands, as well as through its
responsibilities for conservation and development of water and mineral resources, DOI
implements reclamation of arid lands in the West through irrigation, and trust
responsibilities for Indian and other lands. Also, DOI influences how States and other
federal agencies set resource-based priorities through direct example and cooperative
decision making.
Several organizational units within DOI directly or indirectly influence the
management and use of ground and surface water resources. The organizational
units within DOI are involved with a wide array of activities that influence how other
federal agencies and States manage water resources. These activities range from
investigative research to program planning and data management.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) collects, evaluates, and disseminates
information on the availability, quantity, quality, and use of the Nation's surface and
ground water resources and conducts water-resources investigations and research.
Much of the work of the USGS is conducted in cooperation with over 1,000 State and
local cooperating agencies through more than 200 field offices. The USGS routinely
gathers information on ground water levels from more than 35,000 wells, and ground
water quality information from more than 9,000 wells each year through its Hydrologic
Data Collection program. This information is used to meet the needs of federal, State,
and local governments, the private sector, academia, and the general public. Studies
include characterizing aquifers, modeling their behavior under different patterns of
stress, mapping recharge areas, studying the interactions between surface water and
ground water, and estimating ground water use.
In addition to its intensive State-oriented hydrologic investigations, the USGS
also has several nationwide investigative programs that seek to provide a national
perspective on water-resource conditions. The National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) program, which began in 1986, seeks to describe the status and trends in
the quality of the Nation's ground water and surface water, and to provide a sound
understanding of the natural and human factors affecting the quality of these
resources. Investigations of regional stream-aquifer systems covering thousands to
several tens of thousands of square miles are being conducted on a rotational basis
for 60 key areas located throughout the United States. A wide array of water-quality
information that will benefit ground water protection efforts will be provided by the
NAWQA program. This includes the regional and national extent and severity of
contamination of the Nation's ground water quality, and a determination of the relative
-------
2-18
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (continued)
contribution of point and nonpoint sources to regional ground water contamination in
different land use and hydrogeologic settings.
The Regional Aquifer Systems Analysis (RASA) program is a systematic study
of the Nation's major aquifers. The program has assembled large amounts of
information about 25 regional aquifers and developed models to stimulate their
behavior under historic conditions and forecast future pumping patterns. Much of the
information collected by the RASA program is being summarized in a new ground
water atlas of the United States. The atlas is extensively illustrated with maps showing
the location and extent of major aquifers, their thickness, water levels, water quality,
and water use. The Toxic Substances Hydrology program develops methods for
study and basic understanding of the movement and fate of hazardous substances
from point and nonpoint sources of contamination.
The USGS has compiled information on ground water in its National Water
Summary reports - ground water quantity (1984), ground water quality (1986), and
water use (1987). These reports, which provide State-by-State and national water
information, assist policy makers to better understand the condition of water resources
as they formulate water policies, legislation and management strategies.
The U.S. Bureau of Mines overall mission is to help ensure that the United
States has an adequate and dependable supply of minerals to meet its defense and
economic needs at acceptable social, environmental and economic costs. By
developing new mineral technologies and providing reliable information as a basis for
sound minerals policies, the Bureau works to solve the country's mineral problems.
The Bureau conducts hydrological research on constructed or engineered wetlands
and on acid mine drainage, it evaluates the impacts of mining on both ground and
surface water, conducts studies on the impact of coal mining on municipal water well
production, and studies the hydrologic impacts associated with in-situ leaching.
The Office of Surface Mining (OSM) implements the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), particularly with respect to surface coal mining. As
a regulatory program implemented through the States, OSM activities involve ensuring
that society and the environment are protected from the adverse effects of surface
coal mining while ensuring that surface coal mining can be done without permanent
damage to land and water resources. OSM oversees mining and reclamation in
States with primary responsibility and regulates mining and reclamation in States that
have chosen not to assume primary responsibility.
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is responsible for providing the arid
and semiarid lands of the 17 contiguous Western States with a secure, year-round
water supply for irrigation. Reclamation has a planning program that examines the
potential for water resource development in the western United States. Planning
studies address both surface and ground water quality and quantity issues, including
-------
2-19
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (continued)
conservation, system management, and institutional changes. Reclamation
emphasizes coordination of planning activities with State and other federal agencies,
local entities, and the public to avoid duplicating efforts and to ensure that the most
needed and beneficial projects will be developed. Reclamation has implemented
programs for cooperative research and development for water conservation
technologies. Reclamation also provides technical assistance and data to other
government and private entities on ground water hydrology and water quality.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for the management of
more than 270 million acres of public lands. BLM also is responsible for subsurface
resource management of an additional 300 million acres where mineral rights are
owned by the federal government. BLM manages such resources as timber, oil and
gas, minerals, rangeland, land use, watersheds, and recreation.
The National Park Service (NFS) seeks to perpetuate surface and ground
waters as integral components of park aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems by
managing the consumptive use of water, and by protecting or restoring the quality
and availability of surface and ground waters in accordance with all applicable
Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. In addition, NFS manages its own
programs and park uses to avoid impairment of aquatic, wetland, and floodplain
resources and values.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for the conservation and
management of biologically productive wetland areas. Wetlands form the backbone of
the Service's 90-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which was established
primarily for the enhancement of migratory waterfowl. Wetlands also help control
flooding and improve water quality. Of the 215 million acres of wetlands that once
existed in the U.S., more than half have been drained or filled and converted to
agricultural or other forms of development. The Service attempts to stem this loss by
acquiring wetlands for the national Wildlife Refuge System. Under federal law, the
Service also advises other federal agencies involved in water development projects as
to how impacts on wildlife might be lessened. In addition, the Service is responsible
for restoring inland and anadromous fisheries.
The mission of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is to encourage and assist
Indian and Alaska Native people in managing their own affairs and in utilizing the skill
and capabilities of Indian and Alaska Native people in the management of programs
for their benefit. BIA can work to coordinate educational and planning opportunities to
Native Americans on ground water protection activities. DOI also maintains liaison and
coordination between the Department and other federal agencies that provide funding
or services to Indians.
-------
2-20
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (continued)
Potential for Coordination of DOI Programs with Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Plans
Data and information from USGS programs could be useful to federal, State,
and local agencies in the development of comprehensive ground water protection
programs. Collectively, these data represent a substantial pool of information that
need not be "reinvented" by other federal and State agencies. The data will assist
States in the characterization of their ground water resources and provide support for
resource-based priority setting. In addition, programs that support research into
water-related issues also could assist the resource characterization effort under
CSGWPPs. The Federal-State Cooperative program is a partnership involving the 50-
50 cost sharing of water resources investigations between USGS and over 1,000 State
and local agencies. The program is unique in that cooperating agencies must
contribute at least half of the cost of investigations but the USGS does most of the
work. Areas of technical assistance include comprehensive aquifer system
assessment, aquifer mapping, monitoring, data collection and data analysis to
determine the extent of contamination, and water use inventories. The State Water
Resources Research Institutes program supports 54 Water Research Institutes at land-
grant educational institutions. Data obtained from all of these programs could be
utilized by States in CSGWPP activities.
OSM has recently been involved in a series of rulemakings designed to allow
States and operators greater flexibility in the means by which they comply with the
SMCRA. These regulations are related to a number of water resource issues,
including wetlands management and ground water research. SMCRA is a State-
implemented act. Recognizing that there are many factors that a State must consider
when considering the possibility of assuming a regulatory program, OSM endeavors
to provide all States with the assistance and flexibility they require to implement the
provisions of the act. OSM could consider extending flexibility to States, based on
priorities established under CSGWPPs, in development of ground water monitoring
requirements, and might vary reclamation and restoration requirements in particular
situations based on State prioritization.
OSM provides research funding to universities in support of many initiatives.
Recently included among these initiatives was an investigation and assessment of
aquifer response to mining activity, methods for improving the quality of constructed
wetlands, and leachate generation from overburden. Coordination of these grant
activities with those of other federal and State agencies will facilitate the efficient
development of ground water protection programs.
The Small Reclamation Projects Act (SRPA), administered by Reclamation, gives
direct responsibility to local organizations for developing water and land resource
projects. Examples of cooperative use of SRPA funds related to the CSGWPP include
-------
2-21
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (continued)
ground water recharge projects (e.g., High Plains States Groundwater Demonstration
Program) and wastewater reclamation (e.g., Monterey County).
Many individual units of the National Park System have surface and ground
water data that will be useful to those responsible for developing or managing
comprehensive ground water protection programs in a region containing such units.
GIS systems are operating in many of these units that will facilitate the interpretation
and availability or transfer of such data. Also, the Water Resources Division (WRD),
located in Fort Collins, Colorado, assists parks and Regions in water resource data
collection, interpretation, and management, and in resource management decisions,
such as locating and testing surface and ground water sources, designing inventory
and monitoring studies, quantifying and acquiring park water rights, conducting
floodplain and flood hazards delineation, and preparing park-specific surface and
ground water resource management plans.
BLM has emphasized coordinating its activity with States in the preparation of
water quality management plans prepared pursuant to Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act. This coordination allows BLM to utilize a part of Section 319 resources to
promote implementation of State CSGWPPs.
Finally, activities of the BIA in support of actions by Native American
organizations could assist in the development of Tribal comprehensive ground water
protection plans.
-------
2-23
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Programs Related to Ground Water Protection
The Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for critical programs to
ensure safe, efficient, and accessible transportation. The duties of several DOT
programs directly or indirectly involve protecting ground water.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides for a national airspace and
air traffic control system, promotes a national airport system, conducts research and
regulates aviation safety, while complying with federal environmental regulations. FAA
administers a program of federal grants to airports for airport development and
reviews airport layout plans for public airports to ensure that airport development
meets safety standards. Airports, through runway and aircraft maintenance and
deicing operations, fuel storage and other airport operations, have the potential to
cause ground water contamination.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) manages the Federal-Aid Highway
Program to assist States in development of transportation infrastructure, in compliance
with federal environmental requirements. Federal surface transportation legislation
establishes federal assistance for a national highway system of roads that are most
important to interstate travel, national defense, and intermodal connections. It also
establishes a surface transportation program for other federal-aid roads and transit
capital projects. The FHWA research program develops and provides technical
guidance to States on highway construction and maintenance, and funds State
research. The National Highway Institute provides training to federal, State, and local
transportation personnel. Highway construction, maintenance, and operation activities
can contribute to ground water contamination. Deicing compounds, pesticides, and
spilled hazardous materials are potential contaminants.
The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) coordinates cross-
modal research throughout DOT. RSPA's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is
responsible for the safe transportation of hazardous liquids (petroleum) by pipeline.
Spills of hazardous materials from pipelines may contaminate ground water.
RSPA's Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation (OHMT) directs programs
to ensure that hazardous materials are transported safely to protect human health and
environment. OHMT promulgates regulations implementing the federal legislation
relating to hazardous materials transportation, including the packaging,
documentation, and State routing of hazardous materials. OHMT also provides
technical guidance and assistance programs to States on.response planning, training
of response personnel, and enforcement activities. FAA regulates the transportation of
hazardous materials by aircraft. The Federal Railroad Administration is responsible for
regulating the safe operation of railroads. It promulgates regulations for safe rail
transportation of hazardous materials. RSPA, FAA, FRA, and the FHWA Office of
Motor Carrier Safety are responsible for enforcement of various hazardous materials regulations
-------
2-24
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (continued)
The Coast Guard's responsibilities include preparing for and responding to
marine pollution incidents and coordinating public and private response efforts.
Included in this responsibility is regulation of onshore marine transportation facilities.
Potential for Coordination of DOT Programs with CSGWPPs
The FAA has the potential to assist in coordination of CSGWPPs for ground
water contamination prevention, evaluation, and remediation efforts with airport
operators. Such coordination could aid FAA in considering ground water protection
when developing standards and technical guidance for airport master planning,
development, and operation. Through the NEPA process, ground water issues can
be considered in connection with proposed airport development. FAA directives make
recommendations for controlling pollutants associated with aircraft and airfield
maintenance. Airports are treated as sources of industrial stormwater, and airport
operators are developing plans for compliance with industrial stormwater permit
requirements.
The FHWA/FTA could assist in coordination of ground water protection efforts
with State departments of transportation and other transportation agencies. Through
the NEPA process, ground water issues are considered in connection with proposed
highway and transit projects. When warranted, mitigation of adverse impacts to
aquifers can be funded. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Assistance Act
provides that ten percent of allocated Surface Transportation Program funds for each
State must only be used for transportation enhancement activities. Eligible activities
include mitigation of water pollution due to highway stormwater runoff. Another
provision of ISTEA allows States to use federal-aid funding for participation in State-
wide and regional wetland conservation and mitigation planning efforts. The FHWA
research and training programs could benefit from interagency coordination to further
consideration of ground water protection in those programs.
The RSPA OPS could work with States and other federal agencies to improve
ground water protection through improved procedures for responding to spills.
Regulations are being developed to require facility response plans, under the Oil
Pollution Act. The OPS could promote knowledge of information linked to ground
water protection through its pipeline accident and operator data program, and through
its training program for industry personnel, federal and State inspectors.
OHMT's activities seek to ensure that hazardous materials are transported to
avoid spill incidents and subsequent ground water contamination. OHMT could
cooperate with implementing a State's CSGWPP. For instance, the ground water
protection priorities established in a State's CSGWPP could be considered in
-------
2-25
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (continued)
programming technical assistance efforts within that State. In addition, OHMT and
States could work to coordinate information and efforts on emergency response
activities through CSGWPPs. The Coast Guard could provide information on
response plans of onshore marine transportation facilities.
-------
2-27
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Programs Related to Ground Water Protection
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ensures adequate protection of
public health and safety, the national security, and the environment in the civilian use
of nuclear materials. NRC's scope of responsibility includes regulation of nuclear
power plants, fuel cycle plants, and the medical, industrial, and research uses of
radioactive materials. Ground water protection activities in the NRC occur within four
primary program areas: the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Standards (NMSS),
which is responsible for the licensing, inspection, and regulation of facilities and
materials associated with the use, processing, transport, and handling of nuclear
materials, the disposal of nuclear waste, and uranium recovery facilities; the Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), which carries out the licensing and inspection of
nuclear power reactors, test reactors, and research reactors; and the Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research (RES), which plans and conducts the Commission's research
and technical and regulations development program; and the Office of State
Programs, which administers the State Agreements Program and maintains liaison with
States, local governments, other Federal agencies, and Indian Tribal organizations.
Regional Offices implement regulatory programs originating in the Headquarters
Office.
Ground water issues may arise in many different NRC program areas, including
NRC licensing and regulatory oversight of nuclear materials and waste management,
licensing and regulatory oversight of nuclear reactor operations, research and
standards development, and inspection and enforcement, under the jurisdiction of the
Offices described above. Certain of these responsibilities may be assumed by States
through the NRC Agreement State programs; other programs and responsibilities are
assigned to the Federal government by statute (e.g., NRC licensing of commercial
nuclear power reactors and repositories for the disposal of high-level radioactive
waste) and may not be assumed by States. Twenty-nine States (Agreement States)
have formal agreements with the NRC by which the State assumes regulatory
authority over byproduct and source materials and small quantities of special nuclear
material. Under the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, the programs of Agreement
States must be "compatible" with those of the Commission. NRC designates particular
regulatory requirements as matters of strict compatibility. The Commission is currently
evaluating generic implications of compatibility issues.
NRC generally provides for ground water protection through regulations and
licensing actions that require detection, correction, and prevention of ground water
contamination. NRC programs emphasize prevention through requirements of design,
siting, operation, and inspection of nuclear facilities, encouragement of processes that
reduce or eliminate potential sources of contamination, and through recovery and
recycling. Monitoring and corrective action are also sometimes required. Although
NRC emphasizes protection of ground water from radiological contaminants, the
-------
2-28
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (continued)
effects of NRC's protective measures address nonradiological impacts on ground
water to the extent that the radiological impacts are controlled.
NRC's protection of ground water is frequently implemented through site-
specific license conditions, such as upper control limits for concentrations of
contaminants in ground water, monitoring requirements, and, if necessary, corrective
action and restoration requirements. In some cases, EPA standards have been
applied on a site-specific basis to the remediation of contaminated sites to ensure
adequate protection of ground and surface water resources.
Potential for Coordination of NRC Programs with Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs
NRC program offices, particularly NMSS and Research, and the Office of State
Programs may be able to make use of enhanced State capabilities for resource-based
decision making and coordination of State programs under CSGWPPs in a number of
ways. In the development and implementation of requirements for handling and
disposal of mixed waste, for example, additional flexibility in the siting and licensing of
mixed waste facilities might be considered in States that have evaluated the status of
their ground water resources and established priorities affecting facility siting, resource
protection, and remediation. In decommissioning facilities that have been licensed to
possess nuclear materials, State priority-setting under a CSGWPP could be
considered in the assessment of whether a site has been decommissioned to levels of
radioactivity that allow release for unrestricted use. Pending codification of
radiological criteria for decommissioning, NRC applies a variety of guidance and
criteria to determine whether sites have been sufficiently remediated so that they may
be released for unrestricted use. These criteria are applied on a site-specific basis,
with emphasis, as appropriate, to ensure that residual contamination levels are "as low
as is reasonably achievable" (ALARA). State groundwater priorities under CSGWPPs
could be considered by NRC in its ALARA determinations. NRC also could assess
how CSGWPPs might enhance the ability of Low Level Radioactive Waste Compacts
to site low level radioactive waste disposal facilities by creating consistent systems of
prioritization of ground water resources in States. CSGWPPs also could affect ground
water monitoring requirements and procedures for uranium milling facilities and
requirements for reclamation activities at such facilities.
NRC, and particularly NMSS, also could provide for flexibility and resource-
based decision making in the development of license conditions, particularly where
NRC references EPA standards or methodologies for ground water protection and
where EPA is building such flexibility into its regulatory requirements. For example,
NRC could adopt differential ground water management approaches tied to a State's
adoption of a CSGWPP for ground water monitoring requirements and schedules at
licensed facilities. Increased levels of monitoring could be required at facilities located
in areas that the State's CSGWPP had identified as high priority ground water areas;
-------
2-29
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (continued)
lower levels of monitoring could be required at areas of lower priority according to the
State's own priority setting.
For Agreement States, NRC could consider the extent to which Agreement
State compatibility can allow for flexible approaches to ground water-related issues
under a CSGWPP. In the future, as States develop CSGWPPs, NRC and the States
could seek to reflect the State's capacity for resource-based decision making in the
agreement between NRC and the State. In addition, the Commission has begun a
process to ensure early and substantial involvement of the Agreement States in
rulemakings and other regulatory efforts. A CSGWPP could provide a focus for
State/NRC interaction on ground water issues.
As States develop priorities for resource-based management through Core or
Fully Integrating CSGWPPs, NRC could utilize such priorities directly in developing
site-specific license conditions. Finally, the NRC Five Year Plan calls for NRC to take a
more active role in fostering better cooperation and communication between NRC and
State and local governments and Indian Tribes. The existing communication links
between State Liaison Officers and NRC Regional State Liaison Officers could serve as
a means of information transfer concerning the implementation of CSGWPPs in those
programs in which States may assume regulatory priority.
-------
*9gloi 5 Library
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
------- |