-------
-------
TD426
.',843
]986
(.2
Office of GrounB
Protection
813R86001
-------
GUIDELINES FOR GROUND-WATER CLASSIFICATION
UNDER THE EPA GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY
FINAL DRAFT
NOVEMBER 1986
A final of this document was never approved.
The EPA does not approve of the contents of
this document [Per Jerri-Anne Garl, Chief,
Safe Drinking Water Branch, April 11, 1993]
OFFICE OF GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
OFFICE OF WATER
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
U.S. Environmental Protection
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Ptaar
Chicago. II 60604-3590
-------
0,3, Environmental Proteclk
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The guidelines were prepared by the Office of Ground-
Water Protection under the overall guidance of the Director,
Marian Mlay. The project manager was Ron Hoffer, with
additional technical support provided by Jose Valdes.
Assistance in developing the socioeconomic and ecological
aspects of the system was provided by Brendan Doyle and
Arthur Koines of the Office of Policy Planning and Evalua-
tion. Much of their effort led to a set of supporting
analyses which, while unpublished, were valuable in framing
options. Joyce Edwards of OGWP helped in the secretarial and
logistical aspects of this document from the inception of the
proj ect.
Technical consultants played a significant role in the
preparation of these guidelines. The primary technical
consultant was Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (G&M), Dr. William
Doucette, project manager. Other members of the G&M support
team included Michael Gaudette, Bonnie Halberstam, Caroline
Hoover, Don Lundy, Paula Magnuson, Jeffrey Mahan, and
Jeffrey Sgambat. Gloria Hall at G&M performed the majority
of word processing. Subcontract assistance was provided by
ICF, Inc., Paul Bailey, project manager. Other ICF support
team members were Craig Dean, Janis Edwards, and Liane
Heatherington.
The efforts of the Classification Guidelines Work Group
are especially appreciated. Serving with representatives of
the EPA program offices and EPA Regions were Robert Moore of
the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Edith
Tanenbaum of the Long Island Regional Planning Board, Rodney
DeHan of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
Maxine Goad of the New Mexico Department of Health, and John
Moore of the U.S. Geological Survey. The technical and
policy insight of all the work group members helped immeasur-
ably to carry through the spirit of the EPA Ground Water
Protection Strategy. Any shortcomings in this document,
should not, however, be attributed to the work group members
as individuals.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PART I
Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its
Ground-Water Protection Strategy in August, 1984. This
guidance document for ground-water classification is a
follow-up to the Strategy, and is a major step in EPA's
efforts to provide policy direction for EPA programs with
ground water responsibility. The purpose of this document is
two-fold: (1) to further define the classes, concepts, and
key terms related to the classification system outlined in
the Ground-Water Protection Strategy, and (2) to describe the
procedures and information needs for classifying ground
water. Through the release of the Draft Guidelines, public
comment is being solicited on the appropriate direction to
meeting these purposes.
Through the process of classification, ground-water
resources are separated into hierarchical categories on the
basis of their value to society, use, and vulnerability to
contamination. Ground-water classes will be a factor in
deciding the level of protection or remediation the resource
will be provided.
Background
The core of the Ground-Water Protection Strategy is a
differential protection policy that recognizes that different
ground waters require different levels of protection. A
three-tiered classification system was established as the
vehicle for implementing this policy.
The classification system will, as appropriate, be
implemented by EPA program offices and state agencies
responsible for EPA delegated programs as changes in program
guidance and regulation are made. The differential protec-
tion policy, as expressed through the classification system,
will assist the programs in tailoring protection policies for
ground water. In permit-based actions concerning point
sources of pollution, classification will most likely become
an additional step in site-specific analysis. Similarly, EPA
is considering various approaches for using differential
protection and other strategy-related policies for broader-
based, nonpoint sources. Two recent EPA rule-making actions-
11
-------
- one for Superfund and one for radioactive waste disposal—
incorporated aspects of the classification system. Other EPA
program offices are in different stages of developing
approaches to implementing the system. It is important to
note that the Guidelines are not enforceable in particular
EPA programs until legally incorporated by program guidance
regulations, or other appropriate means.
State agencies responsible for managing ground water
will not be required by EPA to adopt the classification
system for general program use. In fact, many states have
already developed ground-water protection approaches tailored
to their particular land use and hydrogeologic conditions.
However, state agencies carrying out delegated or authorized
EPA programs may need to use these guidelines as they are
implemented by those programs.
It should be noted that a site located in a designated
Safe Drinking Water Act Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) is not
automatically placed in Class I. The criteria for SSAs are
less rigorous than those of Class I. Greater rigor is needed
for classification since, unlike SSAs, Class I will be a
decision-making factor in program regulations. SSAs are only
considered at the Federal level under financially assisted
projects such as farm loans and rural water districts.
At least half of the states are using, or are seriously
considering using, some form of a site-by-site or anticipa-
tory classification system. Under its existing programs, EPA
will perform site-by-site rather than aquifer or well field
classification. However, the classification system presented
in this guidelines document attempts to be generally con-
sistent with broader classification systems that may be used
by the states. EPA is considering the substitution of state
ground-water classification systems for the EPA system
wherever possible. In the implementation of its ground-water
protection programs, EPA will consider and incorporate, to
the extent possible, State Wellhead Protection Areas approved
under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986.
The EPA Ground-Water Classification System
The EPA Ground-Water Classification System consists of
three general classes of ground water representing a hier-
archy of ground-water resource values to society. These
classes are:
Class I - Special ground water
iii
-------
Class II - Ground water currently and potentially a
source for drinking water
Class III - Ground water not a source of drinking
water.
The classification system is, in general, based on
drinking water as the highest beneficial use of the resource.
The system is designed to be used in conjunction with the
site-by-site assessments typically conducted by the EPA
program offices in issuing permits and deciding on appro-
priate remedial action.
Classification Review Area:
A site-by-site approach to classifying ground water
necessitates delineating a segment of ground water to which
the classification criteria apply. Since EPA is not clas-
sifying ground water on a regional or aquifer-specific basis,
a Classification Review Area concept is incorporated as a key
element in the classification decision. This is, however,
strictly an area for review of ground-water characteristics
and not an area where regulation will be imposed beyond that
of the specific activity under consideration.
The Classification Review Area is delineated based
initially on a two-mile radius from the boundaries of the
"facility" or the "activity." An expanded Classification
Review Area is allowed under certain hydrogeolgoic condi-
tions. Within the Classification Review Area, a preliminary
inventory of public water-supply wells, populated areas not
served by public supply, wetlands, and surface waters, is
performed. The classification criteria are then applied to
the Classification Review Area and a classification deter-
mination made.
Subdivision of Classification Review Area and Interconnection
Concepts:
Where hydrogeologic data are available, the Classi-
fication Review Area can be subdivided to reflect the
presence of naturally occuring ground-water bodies that may
have significantly different use and value. These ground-
water bodies, referred to as "ground-water units", must be
characterized by a degree of interconnection (between
adjacent ground-water units) such that an adverse change in
water quality to one ground-water unit will have little
likelihood of causing an adverse change in water quality in
the adjacent ground-water unit. Each ground-water unit can
IV
-------
be treated as a separate subdivision of the Classification
Review Area. A classification decision is made only for the
ground-water unit or units potentially impacted by the
activity.
The identification of ground-water units and assessment
of interconnection between ground-water units may, in
critical cases, require a rigorous hydrogeologic analysis.
The acceptance of subdivisions will be on a case-by-case
basis after review of the supporting analysis.
The recognition of ground-water unit subdivisions to the
Classification Review Area establishes a spatial limit for
classification and the application of protective management
practices. The degree of interconnection to adjacent ground-
water units and surface waters is also a criterion for
differentiating between subclasses of Class III ground
waters.
Ground-water units are mappable, three-dimensional
ground-water bodies delineated on the basis of the three
types boundaries described below:
Type 1: Permanent ground-water flow divides
Type 2: Extensive, low-permeability (non-aquifer)
geologic units (e.g., thick, laterally exten-
sive confining beds) especially where charac-
terized by favorable hydraulic head relation-
ships across them (i.e., the direction and
magnitude of flow through the low-permeability
unit)
Type 3: Permanent fresh-water/saline-water contacts.
(Saline waters being defined as those waters
with greater than 10,000 mg/1 of Total Dis-
solved Solids).
The type of boundary separating ground-water units
reflects the degree of interconnection between those units.
Type 2 boundaries constitute a low degree of interconnection.
A low degree is expected to be permanent unless improper
management causes the low-permeability flow boundary to be
breached. Type 1 and Type 3 boundaries imply an intermediate
degree of interconnection. They are prone to alteration/
modification due to changes in ground-water withdrawals and
recharge.
v
-------
A high degree of interconnection is inferred when the
conditions for a lower degree of interconnection are not
demonstrated. High interconnection of waters is assumed to
occur within a given ground-water unit and where ground water
discharges into adjacent surface waters. A high degree of
interconnection implies a significant potential for cross-
contamination of waters if a component part of these settings
becomes polluted.
Class I - Special Ground Waters:
Class I ground waters are resources of unusually high
value. They are highly vulnerable to contamination and are
(1) irreplaceable sources of drinking water and/or (2)
ecologically vital. Ground water, which is highly vulnerable
to contamination, is characterized by a relatively high
potential for contaminants to enter and/or to be transported
within the ground-water flow system.
In these Draft Guidelines, the Agency is seeking comment
on the appropriate approach to defining "highly vulnerable."
Public comment will influence the Agency's choice of an
approach for the Guidelines when they are issued in final
form. To assist in framing the discussion, these Draft
Guidelines focus on two options for determining vulner-
ability. Both of these require consideration of a number of
hydrogeologic parameters. Option A would require use of the
DRASTIC system (Aller et al, 1985), a numerical ranking
system developed by the National Water Well Association under
contract to EPA. The DRASTIC system provides a method of
scoring an area's "vulnerability" based upon consideration of
various parameters such as depth to water, recharge, aquifer
media, etc. Using this approach, an area would be considered
"highly vulnerable" if its DRASTIC score exceeds levels
specified in these Guidelines. Option B does not rely on a
set methodology with numerical criteria. Instead, vulner-
ability would be assessed in a more qualitative manner,
relying on best professional judgement. The user might
consider specific technical parameters within the DRASTIC
system (i.e., depth to water, net recharge, aquifer media,
etc.), but would not attribute scores to these parameters or
provide numerical cutoffs for defining "highly vulnerable"
areas. Other techniques would also be allowable under Option
B. Thus, this alternative is considered qualitative in
nature since specifics as to methods or criteria are not
provided in these Classification Guidelines. Instead, the
overall advantages and disadvantages of the general cate-
gories of techniques is provided. Comments on these two
VI
-------
options, as well as other options for assessing vulner-
ability, will be considered by the Agency in determining how
best to incorporate this factor in classification decisions.
Ground water nay be considered "irreplaceable" if it
serves a substantial population and if delivery of comparable
quality and quantity of water from alternative sources in the
area would be economically infeasible or precluded by
institutional constraints.
In these Draft Guidelines, the Agency is also soliciting
comment on approaches to judging two aspects of the "irre-
placeable" criterion. Option A incorporates a quantitative
determination of the population served by the source and the
economic feasibility of replacing the source. Under this
approach, a drinking water source would be considered
"irreplaceable" if it serves at least 2500 people and the
annual cost to a typical user of replacing the source exceeds
0.7 to 1.0 percent of the mean household income in the area.
Option B focuses on a qualitative assessment of the replace-
ability of the ground water. Under this approach, the
relative size of the population served by the source and the
cost of replacing the source would be factors to consider in
assessing the source's "replaceability." The Guidelines
would not, under Option B, provide a set methodology, nor one
or more numerical cutoffs. Again, the determination would
focus on best professional judgement. A user following
Option B may choose, however, to consider some of the
quantitative methods or approaches in Option A, if deemed
relevant in a particular classification decision. Comments
on these two options, as well as other options for assessing
"substantial population" and "irreplaceable" (from an
economic standpoint), will be considered by the Agency in
determining how best to incorporate these factors in classi-
fication decisions.
Ground water may be considered ecologically vital if it
supplies a sensitive ecological system located in a ground-
water discharge area that supports a unique habitat. A
unique habitat is defined to include habitats for endangered
or threatened species listed or proposed for listing pursuant
to the Endangered Species Act (as amended in 1982), as well
as certain types of Federally managed and protected lands.
VI1
-------
Class II - Current and Potential Sources of Drinking Water
and Water Having Other Beneficial Uses:
All non-Class I ground water currently used, or poten-
tially available, for drinking water and other beneficial use
is included in this category, whether or not it is par-
ticularly vulnerable to contamination. This class is divided
into two subclasses; current sources of drinking water
(Subclass IIA), and potential sources of drinking water
(Subclass IIB).
Ground water is considered a current source of drinking
water under two conditions. The first condition is the
presence of one or more operating drinking-water wells (or
springs) within the Classification Review Area. The second
condition requires the presence within the Classification
Review Area of a water-supply reservoir watershed (or portion
of a water-supply reservoir watershed) designated for water-
quality protection, by either state or local government.
The concept of a current source of drinking water is
rather broad by intent. Only a portion of the ground water
in the Classification Review Area needs to be supplying water
to drinking-water wells.
A potential source of drinking water is one which is
capable of yielding a quantity of drinking water to a well or
spring sufficient for the needs of an average family.
Drinking water is taken specifically as water with a total-
dissolved-solids (TDS) concentration of less than 10,000
mg/1, which can be used without treatment, or which can be
treated using methods reasonably employed in a public water-
supply system. The sufficient yield criterion has been
established at 150 gallons/day.
Class III - Ground Water Not a Potential Source of Drinking
Water and of Limited Beneficial Use:
Ground waters that are saline, or otherwise contaminated
beyond levels which would allow use for drinking or other
beneficial purposes, are in this class. They include ground
waters (1) with a total-dissolved-solids (TDS) concentration
over 10,000 mg/1, or (2) that are so contaminated by natur-
ally occurring conditions, or by the effects of broad-scale
human activity (i.e., unrelated to a specific activity), that
they cannot be cleaned up using treatment methods reasonably
employed in public water-supply systems. Two alternative
tests are proposed for making this determination. A refer-
viii
-------
ence-technology test is proposed in the draft and an optional
economically-based test is included in Appendix G.
Class III is subcategorized primarily on the basis of
the degree of interconnection with surface waters or adjacent
ground-water units containing ground water of a higher class.
Subclass IIIA ground waters have a high-to-intermediate
degree of interconnection to adjacent ground-water units of a
higher class or surface waters. In addition, Subclass IIIA
encompasses ground waters in those settings where yields are
insufficient from any depth within the Classification Review
Area to meet the needs of an average size family. Such
ground waters, therefore, are not potential sources of
drinking water.
Subclass IIIB is restricted to ground waters charac-
terized by a low degree of interconnection to adjacent
surface waters or ground waters of a higher class within the
Classification Review Area. These ground waters are natural-
ly isolated from sources ojf drinking water in such a way that
there is little potential for producing additional adverse
effects on human health and the environment. They have low
resource values outside of mining, oil and gas recovery, or
waste disposal.
PART II
Classification Procedures
These Guidelines provide a more in-depth discussion of
the actual process of site-by-site classification. The
process is facilitated through a classification decision
chart and associated worksheet. These were developed to
provide a systematic approach to classifying ground water
based on certain criteria, e.g., presence of wells, ecologic-
ally vital areas, water quality, irreplaceability, etc. They
are provided as suggested approaches only, since a given
setting may be more effectively handled through another
sequence of steps.
Classification requires certain information on the
character of the Classification Review Area. The emphasis of
data collection is on readily available sources. More in-
depth analyses are not expected routinely, but, may become
necessary for Class I or, especially, Class III areas and for
subdivision of the Classification Review Area.
IX
-------
Preliminary data needs include:
Base map of the Classification Review Area,
Inventory of public water-supply systems in the
review area,
Delineation of areas served by private wells,
Demographic information for the public water-supply
systems and areas of private wells,
Survey of ecologically vital areas, and
. Hydrogeologic data sufficient to judge vulnerability
of or support interconnection analysis.
The remaining sections of this chapter contain technical
guidance for the following:
Expansion of the Classification Review Area,
Subdivision of the Classification Review Area and
Determination of Interconnection,
Determining Irreplaceability,
Determining Ground-Water Vulnerability,
Determination of Reasonable Treatment, and
Ground-Water and Surface-Water Interactions.
PART III
The final chapters of this document are appendices which
contain the following information:
Appendix A - Glossary
Appendix B - Alternative Options Considered
Appendix C - Sample Applications of Ground-Water Class-
ification
Appendix D - DRASTIC Factors and Ratings
Appendix E - Background Data Regarding Class I and III
Appendix F - Census Bureau Information
Appendix G - Economic Tests for Determining Class I
Irreplaceable Waters and Class Ill-
Untreated Ground Waters
x
-------
GUIDELINES FOR GROUND-WATER CLASSIFICATION
UNDER THE EPA GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS xi
PART I
BACKGROUND AND DEFINITION
OF GROUND WATER CLASSES
1. 0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 EPA1s Ground-Water Responsibilities 1
1.2 The Purpose of this Document 1
1.3 Organization of this Document 2
2 . 0 BACKGROUND. 3
2.1 Need for Ground-Water Classification 3
2.2 Guidelines Development 4
2.3 Implementation in EPA Programs 6
2.4 Interaction with State Ground-Water
Protection Efforts 10
3 .0 THE EPA GROUND-WATER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 15
3.1 An Overview of the Ground-Water Classes
and Subclasses 16
3.1.1 Class I - Special Ground Waters 16
3.1.2 Class II - Current and Potential
Sources of Drinking Water and Water
Having Other Beneficial Uses 20
3.1.3 Class III - Ground Water Not a
Potential Source of Drinking Water
and of Limited Beneficial Use 21
3.2 Classification Review Area 22
3.2.1 Technical Basis for Two-Mile Radius 23
3.3 Subdivision of the Classification Review
and Interconnection Concepts 25
3.3.1 Ground-Water Units 26
3.3.2 Interconnection 27
3.3.3 Illustration of a Subdivision 27
3.4 Key Terms and Concepts for Defining Class I 30
3.4.1 Highly-Vulnerable Ground Water 30
3.4.2 Irreplaceable Source of Drinking Water 32
3.4.2.1 Substantial Population 33
3.4.2.2 Uncommon Pipeline Distance 34
3.4.2.3 Comparable Quality 34
xi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
3.4.2.4 Comparable Quantity 35
3.4.2.5 Institutional Constraints 35
3.4.2.6 Economic Infeasibility 36
3.4.3 Ecologically Vital Ground Water 37
3.5 Key Terms and Concepts for Defining Class II 37
3.5.1 Current Source of Drinking Water 39
3.5.2 Potential Source of Drinking Water 39
3.5.2.1 Water Quality/Yield Data Needs 41
3.5.3 Sufficient Yield 41
3.6 Key Terms and Concepts for Defining Class III 43
3.6.1 Methods Reasonably Employed in Public
Water Treatment Systems 43
3.6.2 Insufficient Yield at Any Depth 44
3.6.3 Interconnection as a Class III Criterion... 45
PART II
DETAILED CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES
4 . 0 CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES 46
4.1 Preliminary Information 52
4.1.1 Base Map of Classification
Review Area 52
4.1.2 Well Survey 52
4.1.3 Demography 53
4.1.4 Ecologically Vital Areas 53
4.1.5 Hydrogeologic Data 54
4.2 Conditions and Procedures for Expanding the
Classification Review Area 55
4.2.1 Hydrogeologic Settings 55
4.2.2 Expanded Classification Review Area
Dimensions 56
4.3 Subdivision of the Classification Review Area
and Interconnection Concepts 59
4.3.1 General Hydrogeologic Information
Needed for Identifying Ground Water
Units and Analyzing Interconnection 61
4.3.2 Type 1 Boundaries: Ground-Water
Flow Divides 62
4.3.3 Type 2 Boundaries: Low-Permeability
Geologic Units 67
4.3.4 Type 3 Boundaries: Fresh/Saline
Water Contacts 73
4.3.5 High Interconnection Scenarios 80
4.3.6 Example of Subdividing a Classification
Review Area 80
xn
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
4.4 Determination of Irreplaceability 88
4.4.1 Substantial Population (Option A) 91
4.4.2 Substantial Population (Option B) 91
4.4.3 Uncommon Pipeline Distance 93
4.4.4 Comparable Quality Analysis 95
4.4.4.1 Water Quality Parameters 95
4.4.4.2 Sources of Information 95
4.4.5 Comparable Quantity Analysis 96
4.4.6 Institutional Constraints 98
4.4.6.1 Example of Considerations for
a More Detailed Assessment 98
4.4.7 Economic Infeasibility (Option A) 101
4.4.7.1 Annualizing Capital Costs 103
4.4.7.2 Using Water Supply Utility
Rates and Fees to Estimate
Costs of Alternative Water
Supply 103
4.4.7.3 Household Income of Substantial
Population 103
4.4.8 Economic Infeasibility (Option B) 104
4.4.9 Summary 104
4.5 Determining Ground-Water Vulnerability 107
4.5.1 Option A: DRASTIC 107
4.5.1.1 DRASTIC Methodology 109
4.5.1.2 Application of DRASTIC to the
Classification Review Area 109
4.5.1.3 Limitations to the Application of
DRASTIC 112
4.5.2 Option B: Qualitative Assessment 112
4. 6 Determination of Reasonable Treatment 115
4.6.1 Standards and Criteria for Treatment 115
4.6.2 Treatment Technologies 117
4.6.2.1 Regional Availability of
Reference Technologies 117
4.6.2.2 Treatment Efficiencies 120
4.6.3 Methodology for Determining Treat-
ability 121
4.6.4 Sample Problem 127
4.7 Ground-Water and Surface-Water Interaction 130
4.7.1 Ground-Water Discharge to Surface
Water 130
4.7.2 Surface Water Discharge to Ground
Water 130
5 . 0 REFERENCES 135
Xlll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY A-l
APPENDIX B: ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR
DEFINING CLASSIFICATION KEY TERMS
AND CONCEPTS B-l
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE APPLICATION OF THE CLASSIFICATION
PROCEDURES C-l
APPENDIX D: TABLES OF DRASTIC FACTOR VALUE RANGES
AND CORRESPONDING RATINGS D-l
APPENDIX E: BACKGROUND DATA: CLASS I AND CLASS III
ISSUES E-l
APPENDIX F: GENERAL CENSUS BUREAU INFORMATION;
NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSES FOR CENSUS DATA
SERVICES; AND BUREAU OF THE CENSUS STATE
COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS F-l
APPENDIX G: ECONOMIC TESTS FOR DETERMINING CLASS I -
IRREPLACEABLE AND CLASS III -
UNTREATABLE GROUND WATERS G-l
xiv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
2-1 Conceptual Framework Between Ground-Water
Classification Program Policies for Facility
Siting, Engineering, and Operation 5
2-2 Example of State Protection Systems 9
2-3 Idealized Well Field Protection Zones in West
Germany 11
3-1 Summary of Ground-Water Classes 17
3-2 Relationship of Classes, Key Terms, and Concepts 18
3-3 Conceptual Classification Flow Chart 19
3-4 Hypothetical Classification Review Area Showing
Potential Class Determining Factors 25
3-5 Illustration of a Hypothetical Classification
Review Area 28
3-6 Illustration of a Subdivided Classification
Review Area 29
3-7 Example Class I - Ecologically Vital Ground Water.... 38
3-8 Example Class II - Current Source of Drinking Water.. 40
3-9 Example Class II - Potential Source of Drinking
Water 42
4-1 Procedural Classification Chart 47
4-2 Example of Geometry and Dimensions of the Proposed
Expanded Review Area and For Karst Settings 58
4-3 Hydrogeologic Sections Showing Flow Systems of
Increasing Complexity with Type I Boundaries 64
4-4 Example of Type 1 Flow Divide Boundary 66
4-5 Example of Type 2 Boundary 69
4-6 Example of Type 2 Boundaries Between Aquifers
in a Sedimentary Basin 71
4-7 Example of Type 3 Boundary Through an Unconfined
Aquifer in a Coastal Setting 76
xv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont.)
Page
4-8 Example of Type 3 Boundary in an Evaporite/Saline
Water Setting 77
4-9 Example of Type 3 Boundary Through Basin Fill in
a Closed Basin/Arid Climatic Setting 79
4-10 Examples of High Interconnection Between
Ground-Water Unit and Surface Water 81
4-11 Hypothetical Setting for Demonstrating the
Subdivision of a Classification Review Area 84
4-12 Hypothetical Classification Review Area 85
4-13 Subdivision of a Hypothetical Classification
Review Area into the Ground-Water Units 86
4-14 Criteria for Class I - Irreplaceable 89
4-15 Example Class I - Substantial Population 92
4-16 Outline of Procedure for Analyzing Potential
Institional Constraints to the Use of an
Alternative Source of Water 100
4-17 Test for Class I - Irreplaceable Ground Water 105
4-18 Potential Evaporation Versus Mean Annual
Precipitation in Inches 108
4-19 Illustration of Drastic Mapping 112
4-20 Illustration of Surface Water Recharge to Ground
Water for the Edwards Aquifer, Texas 132
4-21 Cross-Section of an Alluvial Aquifer Showing
Surface Water Recharge from the Mohawk River 133
4-22 Ground-Water Isotherms of Mohawk River Basin 134
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
4-1 Classification Worksheet 48
4-2 Range of Values of Hydraulic Conductivity and
Permeability 74
4-3 Uncommon Pipeline Distance for Different
Populations 94
4-4 Population Institional Constraints 99
4-5 Drastic Range Rating for Depth to Water 110
4-6 Summary of Operational Methods for Defining
the Key Term "Highly Vulnerable" Ground Water 114
4-7 RMCL & MCL Values for Selected Contaminants 116
4-8 Health Advisories for Selected Contaminants in
Water 118
4-9 Application of Treatment Technologies in
Public Water Supply Systems, by EPA Region 119
4-10 Description of Treatment Process 122
4-11 Effluent Quality Working Table From Sample Problem.. 128
xv 11
-------
PARTI
BACKGROUND AND DEFINITION
OF GROUND WATER CLASSES
-------
PART I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 EPA's Ground-Water Responsibilities
EPA currently administers more than eight statutes which
direct the Agency toward reducing or eliminating threats to
ground water from a large number and variety of sources.
This is a far from simple task and is one which commands a
major part of the Agency's budget and personnel resources.
Changes in statutes and resulting regulations have occurred
in the past/ and will continue to occur in the future, to
further manage these pollution sources. Through EPA's long-
range planning efforts and, more recently, an agency-wide
direction toward overall risk management, ground-water
protection on a cross-media basis, the second "problem" is
receiving increased attention.
An important tool in this cross-program phase was made
available in August 1984, when EPA released its Ground-Water
Protection Strategy. This Strategy represents the official
policy of EPA in this field, and followed extensive debate
and analysis within EPA, among other Federal and State
agencies, and with the public. The goal of the Strategy is
to maximize and coordinate protection functions, both within
Headquarters and the Regions. It was not meant to resolve
all of today's ground-water protection issues, but rather to
set up a framework for better overall protection.
Ground-water classification was introduced in the
Strategy as a key element in setting priorities for regula-
tory action prioritizing attention and resource management.
As will be discussed more fully in Chapter 2.0, classifica-
tion was deemed essential, given the potentially enormous
numbers of pollution sources matched by the expense of clean-
up programs, should contamination occur.
1.2 The Purpose of this Document
This document provides the technical guidelines for
implementing the classification system, originally estab-
lished in the Ground-Water Protection Strategy. By following
the procedures and methods outlined, ground water, which may
be affected by a facility or activity under EPA review, can
be placed within a relevant class or classes, representing an
implied hierarchy of protection. While the use of the system
by EPA programs is discussed briefly in Section 2.3, this
document should be viewed essentially as a set of technical
guidelines for ground-water evaluation via classification.
-------
Specific management strategies, "standards", and other
program related policies, are outside the subject of this
document.
It is also critical to note that EPA will not, as a
result of these guidelines, the Strategy, or its current
statutory authorities, be classifying large segments of land,
aquifers, etc., in-advance of any specific decision. The
Agency, or the delegated/authorized States, will only classi-
fy the ground water around specific sites or areas where a
decision related to a permit, degree of clean-up or regula-
tion, etc., is to be made. These differences are highlighted
further in Chapter 2.0.
1.3 Organization of this Document
Chapter 2.0 provides additional background information
on the Ground-Water Protection Strategy, including the
rationale and use of classification. EPA's site-by-site
approach is also contrasted with broader areawide mapping and
classification efforts. The remainder of the guidelines
document is organized into three major parts. Chapter 3.0
contains an overview of the classification system, and
definitions and explanations of Hey terms and concepts. The
procedures for classification are documented in Part II,
Chapter 4.0. This chapter is designed for potential users of
the system; whereas, the previous chapters provide less
detailed information suited for general interest. Chapter
4.0 provides a step-by-step user's manual, covering the
recommended sequence of decisions, corresponding data needs,
and technical methods for each. A series of Appendices
follows in Part III and includes a glossary (Appendix A) and
a discussion of the alternative options considered for
defining classification key terms and concepts (Appendix B) .
Appendix C is particularly relevant since it illustrates the
classification procedures through a series of sample case
studies. The remaining appendices provide background in-
formation and important references for performing the classi-
fication procedures.
-------
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 Need for Ground-Water Classification
The EPA Ground-Water Protection Strategy (August, 1984)
consists of four major elements:
. Strengthen State Institutions — through technical
assistance and State grants
. Cope with Unaddressed Sources — through source-
specific protection programs in cooperation with other
EPA programs
. Establish EPA Policy for Ground-Water Protection—
through the establishment and implementation of
protection policies
. Strengthen EPA Institutions — through the establish-
ment of Offices of Ground-Water Protection at Head-
quarters and in the Regions.
These guidelines stem from the third element, and the
need to achieve greater consistency in the various programs
at EPA with ground-water protection responsibilities. The
Agency was concerned that the focus solely on individual
polluting activities, rather than on the resource which might
be affected, was leading to problems with consistency. Some
EPA programs tended to factor-in ground-water considerations
to a greater extent than other programs. Some EPA programs
implemented specific statutes which themselves held a bias
toward one medium, such as surface water, in a way that
impacts on ground water were not fully assessed. Complicating
the situation was the fact that many of these programs had
become well established in their methods of operation.
In light of these factors, EPA adopted a policy for the
Ground-Water Protection Strategy that "protection should
consider the highest beneficial use to which ground water
having significant water resources value can presently or
potentially be put." This "differential protection" policy
acknowledges that some ground water deserves unusually high
protection due to their current use, relative value to
society, and vulnerability to contamination. For these
ground waters (Class I), management will include extra-
ordinary protective measures. For most ground waters (Class
II), the very high "baseline" of protection inherent in EPA's
programs will be applied. Ground waters which have lower
value to society for water supply or other disposal purposes
(Class III), would logically, under this policy, require a
-------
different management approach. Furthermore, the policy
asserts that the extremes of the system (i.e., Class I and
III) should be restricted to rather infrequent situations,
reflecting the importance of effectively managing ground
water for its best use.
The Agency recognized that in-advance aquifer classifi-
cation offers a community or State certain advantages from an
overall management perspective. EPA believes, however, that
such decisions should be made at the state or local levels of
government. The major purpose of these guidelines is,
however, to support the site-by-site assessments typically
employed in EPA permits, impact statements, and other de-
cisions. Differences among such systems are reviewed in
Chapter 2.3.
The Ground-Water Protection Strategy established a more
protective category (Class I) than had been in existence
prior to 1984. This more protective category will be recog-
nized in a consistent way from program to program. Class III
provides for the formalization of where EPA programs can
recognize lower resource values — i.e., not sources of
drinking water — either now or in the foreseeable future.
2.2 Guidelines Development
The development of these guidelines began in August,
1984, and consisted of three phases — definition, testing,
and review. Throughout the process, the Office of Ground-
Water Protection (OGWP) worked closely with a guidelines work
group, consisting of representatives from several states, EPA
regions, other EPA programs, and the U.S. Geological Survey.
In the definition phase, key terms and concepts related
to the classification scheme described in the Strategy were
analyzed in detail. These included key terms and concepts
such as "irreplaceable source of drinking water," "eco-
logically vital," "highly vulnerable," and "current source of
drinking water." Several alternative options for defining
each term were drawn up, along with data requirements and
methodologies for employing each. Many, of the alternative
options were derived from approaches used by other EPA,
state, and local programs to address similar or related
concepts. Each approach was examined with respect to its:
. Consistency with statutes, other programs, and with
the overall intent of the Strategy;
. Flexibility for accommodating State and region-spe-
cific characteristics or concerns;
-------
FIGURE 2-1
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK BETWEEN GROUND-WATER CLASSIFICATION AND
PROGRAM POLICIES FOR FACILITY SITING, ENGINEERING, AND OPERATION
DIFFERENTIAL
PROTECTION
POLICY
GROUND-WATER
CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
FACILITY SITING
AND ENGINEERING
FACILITY
OPERATION
OTHER PLANNING
AND EVALUATION
TAILORED
GROUND-WATER
PROTECTION
-------
. Arbitrariness; and
. Potential difficulties or complexities in implementa-
tion.
The next phase involved the preparation of detailed case
studies with which to test the initial classification frame-
work. Candidate case studies were canvassed from a variety
of sources and a small workshop held to determine the work-
ability of the classification definitions and to select the
most relevant and representative samples for the guidance
document. The feedback from this phase led to a refinement
of the classification system and procedures.
Finally, the project focused on review and revision of
several drafts. The public will review and comment on this
draft in late 1986. Comments from the public review will be
factored into the development of final guidelines in 1987.
2.3 Implementation in EPA Programs
The Ground-Water Protection Strategy provides two key
insights on implementation. First, the Strategy establishes
the differential protection approach as an official Agency
policy. Classification is set as the primary means to
implement that policy. Next, the Strategy provides examples
of how classification may be used by specific EPA programs to
assist in framing various program policies. A conceptual
schematic of this approach is shown in Figure 2-1.
In order to implement these classification guidelines
(which are not themselves enforceable requirements), EPA
programs will need to modify their specific guidance docu-
ments and regulations. Decisions as to how they are to be
implemented can only be made through EPA program office
actions, taking into consideration each program's statutory
requirements. Actual implementation may be different than
the examples portrayed in the Ground-Water Protection Stra-
tegy due to changes in statutes and the need to be consistent
with more recent program policies. The approach cited for
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program in
the Strategy, for example, was presented in the framework
that existed before the sweeping Hazardous and Solid Waste
Act Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). As it responds to HSWA, EPA
will develop a coherent approach to ground-water protection
that incorporates such Congressionally-mandated requirements
under HSWA as the waste-specific "waste bans," location
guidance/standards, liner/technology standards, and cor-
rective action requirements. Differential protection and
-------
classification will also be incorporated into this broader
context.
Two specific rule-making actions have been completed—
one for Superfund, and one under the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, or
"Superfund"), and one for radioactive wastes. The CERCLA
National Contingency Plan (NCP) revised on November 20, 1985
(50 FR 47974) establishes the process for removal and/or
remedial actions at Superfund sites (40 CFR Part 300).
Revised Section 300.68(e)(2) addressing scoping of response
actions during remedial investigations includes an assessment
of "(v) Current and potential ground-water use (e.g., the
appropriate ground-water classes under the system established
in the EPA Ground-Water Protection Strategy" to assist in the
determination of what type of action should be taken.
EPA also cites the Strategy in its list of other Federal
criteria, advisories, guidance, and State standards to be
considered. The list is found in the October 2, 1985, policy
on CERCLA compliance with other Environmental Statutes
(published as an appendix to the preamble of the NCP) . The
policy provides that (among other things) the classification
factors must be considered in remedial action if it is
pertinent. If the Agency finds that they are pertinent in
response actions, but does not use them, or uses and alters
them, the decision documents must state the rationale.
Guidance manuals for implementing the new NCP are under
development by the Agency.
The second completed implementation action is the
release of the "Environmental Standards for the Management of
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic
Radioactive Wastes." EPA's role under the overriding Atomic
Energy Act is very limited and is primarily standard-setting.
The final rule (40 CFR Part 191; released in the Federal
Register on September 19, 1985) includes two standards
relative to differential protection:
. A drinking-water-related standard is to be applied to
all locations if a "special source" of ground-water is
present. "Special sources" are further defined as a
major subset within the Class I definition included in
these guidelines.
. A "total dose"-related standard is to be applied at
the boundary of a "controlled area" for "significant
sources of ground water." "Significant" sources are
essentially a major subset within the Class II
definition included in these guidelines.
-------
At this time, conceptual approaches to implementation
are in different stages of development and consideration by
programs administering all major ground-water related sta-
tutes in EPA. In permit-based, "point-source"-type actions,
it is expected that classification will be essentially an
additional step in site-specific analysis. Broader-based,
non permit/non-point sources are more problematic. In farm-
by-farm application of pesticides, for example, there is no
regulatory mechanism to evaluate each site-by-site action.
EPA is beginning to consider the approaches to implementing
differential protection and other Strategy-related policies
for these broader sources. Again, the classification guide-
lines will be implemented as appropriate, given the overall
authorities of the Agency under specific statutes.
Since neither the guidelines definitions nor the program
implementation options have been finalized, it is impossible
to predict the numbers of EPA classification decisions which
will result or be included in each particular class. Some
initial analyses have been performed utilizing aggregated
(i.e., not site specific) data on gross hydrogeological and
socioeconomic characteristics around a subset of over 1400
RCRA, CERCLA, and UIC facilities. Assuming that the "quanti-
tative" options (all denoted as Option A in Section 3.0 and
4.0) are selected, the range in classification outcomes
covers:
Class I 5 to 11 percent
Class II 83 to 94 percent
Class III 1 to 6 percent
Given the different interpretation of the "qualitative
options" for Class I terms (each denoted as Option B) , no
such analyses could be performed. It is important to note,
however, that these estimates reflect the percentage of
classification decisions and not percentage of all United
States ground water or aquifers. Additionally, these esti-
mates were made on the basis of several assumptions regarding
individual site characteristics. Sensitivity analyses show
that the above ranges in percentage values account for most
of the uncertainties associated with these assumptions.
It is appropriate to note, however, that well-field
protection is typically the "high end" of any classification
system as it is most often oriented to current, important
public water supplies. Potential drinking water sources,
ecologically vital ground waters, and low-quality, non-
drinking water sources are not identified or managed in such
systems.
-------
FIGURE 2-2
EXAMPLE OF STATE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
CRITICAL RECHARGE AREA
ZONING/LAND USE
RESTRICTIONS
CLASSIFIED
GROUND WATER,
SURFACE WATER
WATERSHED
GROUND-WATER
DISCHARGE LIMIT
WELL FIELD
PROTECTION ZONE
PERMIT WAIVERS TO
ALLOW DEGRADED GROUND-WATER
(OLD INDUSTRIAL AREA)
EXPLANATION
ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARY
• WELL
*m«li!'i'wml MOUNTAIN RIDGE
-------
A final note: these guidelines may not be used as a
defense or guide to future settlements of Federal enforcement
or other administrative or judicial cases unless, or until,
specific programs issue implementing directives, regulations,
or policies on how these concepts are to be applied to
specific programs in a consistent manner with their statutory
authorities and mandates.
2.4 Interaction with State Ground-Water Protection
Efforts
The EPA Ground-Water Classification system will be used
as an important tool for decision-making in EPA programs,
including those programs delegated to the states. State
agencies responsible for ground-water management will not be
required to adopt the EPA classification system or another
system for general state program use. State agencies imple-
menting delegated or authorized EPA programs will, however,
need to use these classification guidelines as appropriate to
those programs. Many states have, however, developed ground-
water protection approaches that are tailored to their
particular land use and hydrogeologic conditions (e.g.
generic examples in Figure 2-2). At this time, at least hall
of the States have in operation, or under serious considera-
tion, some form of site-by-site or in-advance classification
system.
It is important to distinguish between these two generic
types of classification systems. An in-advance or anticipa-
tory approach to hydrogeologic mapping or aquifer classi-
fication is believed by many to be essential for effective
local ground-water management (e.g., Conservation Foundation
1985). Through this process, geologic and hydrologic char-
acteristics of currently used or potentially available
ground-water sources are assessed through mapping, computer
simulation, etc. Plans for water use are drawn-up, and land-
use controls either suggested and/or actually put into place.
These controls may be fairly sweeping in nature and cover
industrial siting, housing development, road construction,
etc.
Several Western European countries implement the concept
of well-field protection zones (Figure 2-3), often thought of
as the most pragmatic approach to anticipatory classification
of public water-supply settings (e.g., Milde, et al, 1983).
In West Germany, for example, nearly 80 percent of the 14,000
well fields in that country have protection areas in-place or
in the process of being established. The key protection area
is located within 2 kilometers (about 1.2 miles) from the
well. As in most such systems, only a portion of the entire
10
-------
FIGURE 2-3
IDEALIZED WELL FIELD PROTECTION ZONES IN WEST GERMANY
(AFTER MILDE ET. AL., 1983)
-PHYSICAL LIMITS OF AQUIFER
•—WELL
1—WELL ZONE (10 METERS)
1—BOUNDING FLOW LINE
-FIRST PROTECTION ZONE BOUNDARY (50 DAYS TIME OF TRAVEL)
!— BOUNDARY OF MOST DISTANT "iMPLEMENTABLE* PROTECTION ZONE (2 KILOMETERS)
BOUNDARY OF OUTERMOST PROTECTION ZONE
11
-------
aquifer is given the "special" designation. In Switzerland
the distances are shorter (minimum of 200 meters or about 650
feet); those in the Netherlands are time-of-travel based
(typically 10 and 25 years travel time). Well-field protec-
tion zones are incorporated in some state and local protec-
tion systems; most notably, in Florida and the New England
states.
There has been considerable activity at the Federal
level in the area of enhancing State protection efforts. On
June 19, 1986, the President signed into law the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act Amendments of 1986. This law includes two new
ground-water provisions, the first of which, (Section 1427),
is a demonstration program establishing critical aquifer
protection areas (CAPA) within Sole Source Aquifers. This is
considered a program which is limited in extent, and geared
to demonstrating techniques for protection of certain impor-
tant ground waters.
The second element of the Amendments requires the States
to develop programs to protect the wellhead areas of all
public water systems within their jurisdiction "from contam-
inants that may have any adverse effects on the health of
persons." These wellhead protection areas are defined as
"any surface or subsurface areas surrounding wellfields
through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move and
reach a well or wellfield." EPA is required to issue techni-
cal guidance within a year after enactment which the States
may use (i.e., may not choose to use) for determining the
extent of the wellhead protection areas.
The Act specifies that the following elements be incor-
porated into State programs:
Duties of State and local agencies and public water
supply systems in implementing the program
Determination of wellhead protection areas for each
public well
Inventory of all potential anthropogenic sources
within the protection area
A program that contains as appropriate, technical
assistance, financial assistance, implementation of
control measures, education training and demonstra-
tion projects to protect the wellhead areas from
contaminants
12
-------
Contingency plans for alternative water supplies in
case of contamination
Siting considerations for all new wells
Procedures for public participation.
This program must be submitted to the Administrator of
EPA within the three years after enactment and the States are
expected to implement this program within two years after it
has been approved by the Administrator. The only effect on a
State of failing to submit a Wellhead Protection Program,
however, is the loss of related funds.
The provision is structured to give all States maximum
flexibility in formulating their programs and the Administra-
tor will disapprove a program only if it is not adequate to
protect public water wells from contamination. Any dis-
approval must be made within nine months of submittal; and,
should a program be disapproved, a State must modify the
program and resubmit their plans within six months.
Once a program is approved, the Administrator shall make
50 to 90 percent match grants to the State for costs for the
development and implementation of the State program. The
Congress has authorized $20 million for each of FY 1987 and
1988 and $35 million for each FY 1989 through 1991. As of
this date, however, no funds for FY 1987 have been appro-
priated.
It is appropriate to note, however, that wellfield
protection is typically the "high end" of any classification
system, as it is most often oriented to current, important
public water supplies. Potential drinking water sources,
ecologically vital ground waters, and low-quality, non-
drinking water sources are not identified or managed in such
systems.
The important point is that anticipatory classification
is best performed and implemented by State and local govern-
ments that hold land-use authority. Under its program,
existing statutes and budget resources, EPA can only perform
site-by-site classification as part of its routine program-
by-program effort. The classification system outlined in
this guidelines document attempts to be generally consistent
with broader anticipatory classification systems. Unlike
anticipatory classification, which takes many years (and
considerable technical and financial resources) to implement,
site-by-site classification can be rapidly factored into EPA
13
-------
procedures in a way that is legally consistent with Agency
authorities. By taking this approach, however, EPA does not
wish to discourage anticipatory classification — an approach
which the Agency feels is a very useful one for effective re-
source management at the State and local levels.
Since a cornerstone of the Ground-Water Protection
Strategy is fostering State-specific efforts, EPA is consid-
ering the substitution of State ground-water classification
systems for the EPA system wherever possible. Given past
program precedents, the State system will most likely need to
be "equivalent to" or "at least as stringent" as EPA's.
Since the implementation of the EPA ground-water classifica-
tion system is still in the early stages, specific criteria
or factors for such evaluations have not been determined.
Options for Agency consideration, even though preliminary in
nature, will be examined over the course of the next year.
Institutional mechanisms at the Headquarters and Regional
levels for reviewing such systems will also be considered.
In addition, EPA will be evaluating the legal basis for
incorporating State Wellhead Protection areas approved by the
Agency under the SDWA Amendments into its operating programs,
as well as into this ground-water classification framework.
14
-------
3.0 THE EPA GROUND-WATER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The EPA Ground-Water Protection Strategy established
three general classes of ground water representing a hier-
archy of ground-water resource values to society. These
classes are:
Class I - Special ground water
Class II - Ground water currently and potentially a
source for drinking water
Class III - Ground water not a source of drinking
water.
The classification system is, in general, based on
drinking water as the highest beneficial use of the resource.
Ground water does serve other beneficial uses, such as
manufacturing, electric power generation, livestock produc-
tion, irrigation, and ecosystem support. Most such uses of
ground water will be encompassed in Class I or Class II, in
that water of a quality suitable for drinking will also be of
a quality to serve as a raw water source for most other
beneficial uses. Class I does include a special non-drink-
ing-water component for "ecologically vital" ground water. A
more complete discussion of the other beneficial uses of
ground water is found in Appendix B.
The classification system is designed to be used in
conjunction with the site-by-site assessments typically
conducted by the EPA program offices in issuing permits,
deciding on appropriate corrective action, etc. The Agency
does not have authority within its statutes to require states
to do broad-scale, in-advance (anticipatory) aquifer mapping
or classification. Those states which do choose to adopt
such tools will, of course, have a key component for compre-
hensive resource management. Anticipatory classification of
aquifers is one nf the ten components of a state comprehen-
sive ground-water protection program recommended by the
National Ground-Water Policy Form (Conservation Foundation,
1985).
The EPA Ground-Water Classification system allows EPA to
incorporate many of the same concepts found in state systems
into the Agency's routine case-by-case decision making. An
important surrogate for in-advance mapping employed in the
EPA system is the Classification Review Area. This is the
area or, in actual terms, the volume to which the classifica-
tion criteria primarily apply and is explained more thor-
oughly in Section 3.2.
15
-------
The remaining discussion in this section focuses on
defining the classes and key terms and concepts of the EPA
Ground-Water Classification System. Many technical terms are
used in the descriptions, a number of which are defined in
the Glossary (Appendix A).
The class definitions presented in this document have
evolved from those presented in the Ground-Water Protection
Strategy. While there are no substantive changes in the
class concepts, the descriptions are revised to reflect the
results of the guidelines development process. For this
reason, the reader should reference those parts of the
Strategy document defining the classification system primar-
ily for background purposes.
Finally, it should be noted that the Agency is request-
ing public comment on all these terms and definitions.
Particular attention should be placed on the approach to
defining three Class I terms: "highly vulnerable," "substan-
tial population," and "economically infeasible." Whereas
only one option is presented for the bulk of the classifica-
tion terms, two options are presented for each of these three
Class I defining terms.
3.1 An Overview of the Ground-Water Classes and Subclasses
The EPA Ground-Water Classification System consists of
three major classes. Two classes are subdivided into sub-
classes, allowing for the refinement in the hierarchy of
recognized resource values (Figure 3-1). The classes and
subclasses of ground water are differentiated using key terms
and concepts. The relationship between classes and key terms
is illustrated in Figure 3-2 and flow-charted conceptually in
Figure 3-3.
3.1.1 Class I - Special Ground Waters
Class I ground waters are resources of unusually high
value. They are highly vulnerable to contamination and are
(1) irreplaceable sources of drinking water and/or (2)
ecologically vital. Ground water may be considered "irre-
placeable" if it serves a substantial population, and, if
delivery of comparable quality and quantity of water from
alternative sources in the area would be economically infeas-
ible or precluded by institutional constraints. (It should
be noted that the Agency is providing several options for
determining these factors, so as to focus public comment on
the best way of incorporating these concerns in classifica-
tion decisions.) Ground water may be considered "ecologic-
16
-------
Ul
o
or
V)
LJ
cr
XZ
LU<
UJ
UJ
O
oc
co
UJ
oc
CO
o
UJ
z
UJ
CO
<
CD
to
2
DC
UJ
UJ
a gl
m h<
HIGHLY VULNER/
AND EITHER
IRREPLACEABLE
SUBSTANTIAL POPUI
OR
_J
2
I ECOLOGICALLY VI
LJUJ
-
P
(OO
il
o
Ul O
•g
CO
17
-------
18
-------
o
19
-------
ally vital" if it supplies a sensitive ecological system that
supports a unique habitat.
It should be noted that a site located in a designated
Safe Drinking Water Act Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) is not
automatically placed in Class I. The criteria for SSAs are
less rigorous than those of Class I. Greater rigor is needed
for classification since, unlike SSAs, Class I will be a
decision-making factor in program regulations. SSAs are only
considered at the Federal level under financially assisted
projects such as farm loans, rural water districts, etc.
It is expected that Class I decisions will be small in
number. Such ground waters will generally receive extra-
ordinary protection due to the potential risk to large
numbers of citizens dependent upon a source of drinking water
or the risk of further endangerment to endangered or threat-
ened species dependent upon unique habitats.
The key terms and concepts used to distinguish Class I
include:
. highly vulnerable to contamination
. ecologically vital ground water
. irreplaceable source of drinking water
- substantial population
- comparable quality
- comparable quantity
- institutional constraints
- economic infeasibility.
3.1.2 Class II - Current and Potential Sources of
Drinking Water and Water Having Other Bene-
ficial Uses
All non-Class I ground water currently used, or poten-
tially available, for drinking water and other beneficial use
is included in Class II, whether or not it is particularly
vulnerable to contamination. This class is divided into two
subclasses; current sources of drinking water (Subclass IIA),
and potential sources of drinking water (Subclass IIB).
Class II ground waters comprise the majority of the
nation's ground-water resources that may be affected by human
activity. Class II ground waters will generally receive the
very high level of protection which represents the "baseline"
of EPA programs. It is assumed that any ground water which
is currently used for drinking water will fall in Subclass
IIA, unless Class I criteria apply. Other ground waters are
considered potentially usable as a source of drinking water,
20
-------
both from quality and yield standpoints (Subclass IIB), until
demonstrated otherwise.
3.1.3 Class III - Ground Water Not a Potential
Source of Drinking Water and of Limited
Beneficial Use
Ground waters that are saline, or otherwise contaminated
beyond levels which would allow use for drinking or other
beneficial purposes, are in this class. They include ground
waters (1) with a total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration
over 10,000 mg/1, or (2) that are so contaminated by natur-
ally occurring conditions, or by the effects of broad-scale
human activity (i.e., unrelated to a specific activity), that
they cannot be cleaned up using treatment methods reasonably
employed in public water-supply systems.
Class III ground-water units* are subcategorized pri-
marily on the basis of their degree of interconnection with
surface waters or adjacent ground-water units of a higher
class. In addition, Class III encompasses ground waters in
those very rare settings where yields are insufficient from
any depth within the Classification Review Area to meet the
needs of an average size family. Such ground waters,
therefore, are not potential sources of drinking water.
The key terms and concepts used to evaluate a Class III
decision include:
. interconnection to adjacent ground-water units (as
defined in Section 3.3) and surface waters
. treatment methods reasonably employed in public water
supply systems
. insufficient yield.
Subclass IIIA includes ground-water units which are
highly to intermediately interconnected to adjacent ground-
water units of a higher class and/or surface waters. These
may, as a result, be contributing to the degradation of the
adjacent waters. They may be managed at a similar level as
Class II ground waters depending upon the potential for
producing adverse effects on the quality of adjacent waters.
The subdivision of Class III represents a refinement in
the classification system as originally presented in the
Ground-Water Protection Strategy. Placing shallower, more
interconnected, ground waters in Class II, for example, would
*The concept of ground-water units is discussed in Section
3.3.
21
-------
imply a quality and resource value that may not be appro-
priate. The Class IIIA designation in these cases provides a
clear indication that these highly interconnected ground
waters are not in themselves sources of drinking water.
Class IIIB is restricted to ground-units characterized
by a low degree of interconnection to adjacent surface-waters
or other ground-water units of a higher class within the
Classification Review Area. These ground waters are natural-
ly isolated from sources of drinking water in such a way that
there is little potential for producing adverse effects on
quality. They have low resource values outside of mining or
waste disposal.
3.2 Classification Review Area
Classifying ground water necessitates delineating a
segment of ground water to which the classification criteria
apply. Since EPA is not classifying ground water on a
regional or aquifer-specific basis, an alternative to defined
aquifer segments is needed. This is the Classification
Review Area.
It is important to understand that the Classification
Review Area is delineated as part of the site-by-site review
process. It is a review area and not a regulatory area. To
put it another way, EPA believes it appropriate to look at a
broad area for characterizing the types of ground water of
concern. Regulatory or permit controls will not be imposed
in that entire area; only that particular portion or site
which is subject to the EPA program which is utilizing the
classification for decision making.
The Classification Review Area is delineated based
initially on a two-mile radius from the boundaries of the
"facility" or the "activity." The facility or activity may
be physical in nature (e.g., the edge of proposed surface
impoundment) or hydrogeologic (e.g., the edge of contamina-
tion area). The dimensions of the Classification Review Area
can be expanded in hydrogeologic settings of intermediate to
very high ground-water flow velocities where these velocities
occur over distances greater than two miles. A detailed
discussion of these settings and procedures to expand the
review are provided in Part II, Section 4.2.
Within the Classification Review Area, a preliminary
inventory of public supply wells, populated areas not served
by public supply, wetlands, and surface waters, is performed
as described in Part II, Section 4.1. The classification
22
-------
criteria are then applied to the Classification Review Area
and a classification determination made.
Initially, all ground water within the Classification
Review Area is assumed to be highly connected hydr©geo-
logically to the activity (both vertically and horizontally).
This approach will always lead to the highest class deter-
mination. Where more hydrogeologic data are available, the
Classification Review Area can be subdivided to reflect a
more accurate appraisal of the interconnection between the
ground waters associated with the activity and other ground
waters of the Classification Review Area. This topic is
presented in the following section (3.3). Where the Classi-
fication Review Area is subdivided, a decision resulting in
several ground-water classes could result. For example, a
disposal well could potentially affect all ground water
through which the well is constructed. If the disposal well
penetrates a fresh water zone in order to inject into a
deeper, salt water zone, a classification decision for both
zones would be needed.
Figure 3-4 illustrates a Classification Review Area
around a proposed facility. The site of the facility is
approximately 500 feet in diameter. Water supplies in the
Classification Review Area include a public water supply
system well and a densely settled area of private wells. A
river with a wetland runs through the review area. Each of
these facts may bear on the decision of the class of ground
water.
3.2.1 Technical Basis for Two-Mile Radius
EPA examined three sources of data in establishing the
radius of the Classification Review Area. The data provided
insight into the length of flow path over which high degrees
of interconnection occur. In addition, they indicate dis-
tances contaminants could be expected to move in problem
concentrations should they be accidentally introduced into
the ground-water system. The data sources were:
A survey of contaminant plumes from investigations of
existing spills, leaks, and discharges
A survey of the distances to downgradient surface
waters from hazardous-waste facilities
Calculations of the distances from which pumping
wells draw ground water under different hydrogeologic
settings.
23
-------
H
24
-------
A discussion of this data and its interpretation is
provided in Appendix E.
3.3 Subdivision of the Classification Review Area; Concepts
of Ground-Water Units and Interconnection
Subdivision of the Classification Review Area is allowed
in order to recognize naturally occurring ground-water bodies
that may have significantly different use and value. For
purposes of subdividing the review area, these ground-water
bodies, referred to as "ground-water units", must be charac-
terized by a degree of interconnection (between adjacent
ground-water units) such that an adverse change in water
quality to one ground-water unit will have little likelihood
of causing an adverse change in water quality in the adjacent
ground-water unit. Each ground-water unit can be treated as
a separate subdivision of the Classification Review Area. A
classification decision is made only for the ground-water
unit or units potentially impacted by the activity.
The concepts of ground-water units and the interconnec-
tion between adjacent ground-water units are particularly
important to the application of the classification system.
First, the degree of interconnection to adjacent ground-water
units and surface waters is a criterion for differentiating
between subclasses of Class III ground waters. Second, the
delineation of ground-water units establishes a spatial limit
for classification and the application of protective manage-
ment practices. Hydrogeologists routinely assess the inter-
connection between bodies of ground water for such purposes
as designing water-supply systems, monitoring systems, and
corrective actions of contaminated water. Where ground-water
bodies are shown to be poorly interconnected, it is possible
to spatially distinguish between their use and value. Waters
within a ground-water unit are inferred to be highly inter-
connected and, therefore, a common use and value can be
determined. As a consequence, it is possible to selectively
assign levels of protection to specific ground-water units to
reflect differences in use and value. Protection applied to
adjacent ground-water units will have little beneficial
effects.
The identification of ground-water units and the evalu-
ation of interconnection between ground-water units may, in
critical cases, require a rigorous hydrogeologic analysis.
The analysis may be dependent upon data collected off site
that is not part of the readily available information nor-
mally used in a classification decision. For these reasons,
the acceptance of subdivisions will be on a case-by-case
25
-------
basis after review of the supporting analysis. A discussion
of appropriate analyses is presented in Part II, Chapter 4.0.
3.3.1 Ground-Water Units
Ground-water units are components of the ground-water
regime, which is defined as the sum total of all ground water
and surrounding geologic media (e.g., sediment and rocks).
The top of the ground-water regime would be the water table;
while, the bottom would be the base of significant ground-
water circulation. Temporarily perched water tables within
the vadose zone (see Glossary) would generally not qualify as
the upper boundary of the regime. The Agency recognizes that
upper and lower boundaries are sometimes difficult to define
and must be based on the best available information and
professional judgment.
The ground-water regime can be subdivided into mappable,
three-dimensional, ground-water units. These are defined as
bodies of ground water that are delineated on the basis of
three types of boundaries as described below:
Type 1: Permanent ground-water flow divides. These
flow divides should be stable under all reason-
ably foreseeable conditions, including planned
manipulation of the ground-water regime.
Type 2: Extensive, low-permeability (non-aquifer)
geologic units (e.g., thick, laterally exten-
sive confining beds), especially where charact-
erized by favorable hydraulic head relation-
ships across them (i.e., the direction and
magnitude of flow through the low-permeability
unit). The most favorable hydraulic head
relationship is where flow is toward the
ground-water unit to be classified and the
magnitude of the head difference (hydraulic
gradient) is sufficient to maintain this
direction of flow under all foreseeable con-
ditions. The integrity of the low-permeability
unit should not be interrupted by improperly
constructed or abandoned wells, extensive,
interconnected fractures, mine tunnels, or
other apertures.
Type 3: Permanent fresh water-saline water contacts
(saline waters being defined as those waters
with greater than 10,000 mg/1 of Total Dis-
solved Solids). These contacts should be
stable under all reasonably foreseeable con-
26
-------
ditions, including planned manipulation of the
ground-water system.
3.3.2 Interconnection
The type of boundary separating ground-water units
reflects the degree of interconnection between those units.
Adjacent ground-water units demarcated on the basis of
boundary Type 2 are considered to have a low degree of
interconnection. A low degree of interconnection implies a
low potential for adverse changes in water quality within a
ground-water unit due to migration of contaminated waters
from an adjacent ground-water unit. A low degree of inter-
connection is expected to be permanent, unless improper
management causes the low-permeability flow boundary to be
breached. The lowest degree of interconnection occurs where
a Type 2 boundary separates naturally saline waters from
overlying fresh waters (less than 10,000 mg/1 TDS), and the
hydraulic gradient (flow direction) across the boundary is
toward the saline waters.
Adjacent ground-water units demarcated on the basis of
boundary Type 1 and 3 are considered to have an intermediate
degree of interconnection. An intermediate degree of inter-
connection also implies a relatively low potential for
adverse changes in water quality within a ground-water unit
due to migration of contaminated waters from an adjacent
ground-water unit. Type 3 boundaries, however, are charac-
terized by a diffusion zone of fresh water-saline water
mixing that will be affected by changes in water quality in
either of the adjacent ground-water units. Type 2 and 3
boundaries are also prone to alteration/modification due to
changes in ground-water withdrawals and recharge.
A high degree of interconnection is inferred when the
conditions for a lower degree of interconnection are not
demonstrated. High interconnection of waters is assumed to
occur within a given ground-water unit and where ground water
discharges into adjacent surface waters. A high degree of
interconnection implies a significant potential for cross-
contamination of waters if a component part of these settings
becomes polluted.
3.3.3 Illustration of a Subdivision
The Classification Review Area depicted previously in
Figure 3-4 may be subdivided based on hydrogeologic consid-
erations to narrow the focus of the classification decision
to the ground-water unit most relevant to the facility. For
example, the hydrogeology may consist of two aquifers sep-
27
-------
FIGURE 3-5
ILLUSTRATION OF A HYPOTHETICAL CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
28
-------
FIGURE 3-6
ILLUSTRATION OF A SUBDIVIDED CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
Public Water
Supply
W«H
Wet I acids with
Endangere
...'•"'•""Specie
Ground-Water Unit
/Boundary
Lower
Ground-Water
Unit
29
-------
arated by a thick, laterally extensive aguitard, as shown in
the cross-section in Figure 3-5. If the aguitard is shown to
satisfy all the criteria for a Type 2 boundary, then the
Classification Review Area can be subdivided into two ground-
water units as depicted in Figure 3-6. For an activity at
the surface, the upper ground-water unit would be the most
relevant to the classification decision. The lower ground-
water unit would not be considered relevant and could be
excluded from subsequent consideration in the classification
process.
3.4 Key Terms and Concepts for Defining Class I
As mentioned previously, Class I encompasses those
ground waters found to be hiahlv vulnerable to contamination
and defined as either an irreplaceable source of drinking
water or as ecologically vital around water. This section
presents an expanded discussion for these, as well as sup-
porting key terms and concepts.
3.4.1 Highly-Vulnerable Ground Water
Ground water which is highly vulnerable to contamination
is characterized by a relatively high potential for contam-
inants to enter and/or to be transported within the flow
system. This concept for classification purposes, focuses on
the inherent hydrogeological characteristics of the Classifi-
cation Review Area. Thus, vulnerability encompasses the
leaching potential of the soil and/or vadose zone and the
ability of the saturated flow system to move contaminants
over a large geographic area (not just beneath any given
site).
It should be noted that the Agency is providing two
options for operationally defining vulnerability. Comments
on these, as well as other approaches for assessing vulner-
ability, will be considered by the Agency in determining how
best to incorporate this factor in classification decisions.
Both approaches recognize that ground-water vulnerability
occurs in a continuum from very low to very high vulner-
ability, just as soil leaching potential varies and saturated
flow velocities vary from very low to very high. Advantages
and disadvantages inherent in each option are provided.
Option A focuses on the use of the DRASTIC system (Aller
et al, 1985), a numerical ranking system developed by the
National Water Well Association, under contract to EPA. The
DRASTIC method examines seven hydrogeologic characteristics
of an area:
30
-------
D - p_epth to water table
R - net Recharge
A - Aquifer media
S - Soil media
T - topography
I - Impact of the vadose zone
C - hydraulic Conductivity of the subject ground-
water flow system
The DRASTIC method can be performed using readily
available information on each of the above-listed charac-
teristics. In most cases, for the purposes of classifica-
tion, no new field work, drilling, or extensive mapping
procedures should be required. The method yields a single
numerical value, referred to as the DRASTIC index.
A two-tier DRASTIC criteria is proposed within option A.
The tiers are distinguished according to hydrologic regions.
In regions where estimated annual potential evapotrans-
piration exceeds mean annual precipitation, the DRASTIC cri-
terion for highly vulnerable is 120. This is done to incor-
porate some regional specificity based on this important
parameter. In regions where estimated annual potential
evapotranspiration does not exceed mean annual precipitation,
the DRASTIC criterion for highly vulnerable is 150. Pro-
cedures for using DRASTIC in the context of a classification
exercise are provided in Part II Section 4.5.
The use of DRASTIC, furthermore, is commensurate with
the idea that ground-water vulnerability (for classification
purposes) should not vary according to the type of activity
which is being evaluated. Vulnerability to contamination
must, for the purposes of a universal classification, be
independent of activity type. Otherwise, the class of ground
waters may change with each activity; an approach which is
inconsistent with state efforts, for example. Finally, the
determination of vulnerability should not be inferred as a
prediction of contaminant concentrations due to facility
failure, or other contaminant release from the activity under
consideration.
Among the various methods considered, DRASTIC has
several advantages. It was prepared using a Delphi approach
(a consensus building approach) on a panel of practicing,
professional hydrogeologists familiar with the potential for
ground-water contamination across the nation. It builds on
earlier systems, such as those of the Le Grand System (Le-
Grand, 1980) and the Surface Impoundment Assessment System
(Silka and Sweringer, 1978). It is applicable on a regional
level (i.e., several square miles), on par with the size of
31
-------
the Classification Review Area. Furthermore, DRASTIC was
designed to be used with readily available, regional hydro-
geologic information. And it was also designed to overcome
the problems of more simplistic methods (e.g., single-crite-
rion or multiple-independent-criterion system) that may
ignore relevant factors or the relative importance of a
factor compared to other factors (see Appendix B for discus-
sion of other approaches considered). Yet, it is relatively
simple to use and includes the primary factors inherent to
the area-wide vulnerability concept implied in classification
decisions.
A distinct disadvantage of requiring the use of Option A
is that it denies the user of the Guidelines the opportunity
to consider other methods or to exercise full freedom of
professional judgment where appropriate. In addition, some
believe that the DRASTIC method may oversimplify the charac-
terization of an area where the hydrogeology is very complex.
Under Option B, users of the Guidelines could, if they
wish, consider the same parameters that are considered under
the DRASTIC approach, but would not be compelled to use the
DRASTIC system or the numerical cutoffs set forth in these
Guidelines for determining what ground waters are "highly
vulnerable." Rather, those classifying the ground water
would take the various parameters into account in arriving at
a professional judgment of whether the ground water is
"highly vulnerable." The advantage of this approach is that
it provides the person classifying the ground water with
complete flexibility in considering the complexity of the
particular site being evaluated. The disadvantage of this
approach is that, since different though well-qualified
professionals may reach different judgments under the same
set of circumstances, some certainty, predictability, and
reproducibility is sacrificed.
3.4.2 Irreplaceable Source of Drinking Water
A ground-water source may be classified as irreplaceable
if it serves a substantial population, and, if reliable de-
livery of comparable quality and quantity of water from
alternative sources in the region would be economically
infeasible or precluded by institutional constraints. It is
important to emphasize that the irreplaceability criterion is
a relative test in that its goal is to identify those ground
waters of relatively high value (compared to others). As a
result, these may deserve to be treated as unique or "spe-
cial." In order to consider a source of ground water to be
irreplaceable, several factors must be addressed in more
detail. "Substantial population" must be considered for all
32
-------
assessments. Where a substantial population is determined to
be present, other factors must be assessed including:
. uncommon pipeline distance
. comparable quality
. comparable quantity
. institutional constraints,
. economic infeasibility
In these draft Guidelines, the Agency is soliciting
comment on approaches to judging the "replaceability" of
current drinking water sources. Two options are presented to
help frame the discussion. Option A would require, among
other factors, a quantitative or semi-quantitative assessment
of the population served by the source and the economic
feasibility of replacing the source. Option B incorporates a
qualitative assessment of the substantial population/econo-
mically irreplaceable factors. Under this approach, the size
of the population served and the cost of using alternative
sources would be evaluated, but not with the use of preferred
methodologies accompanied by numerical cutoffs or other set
criteria.
This section describes the factors that must be con-
sidered under either of the above alernatives and how they
would be used in making a determination of "irreplaceability"
under each alternative. Since Option A relies on specific
techniques/cut-offs, it is discussed at greater length.
Section 4.3 in Part II presents a more detailed description
of methodologies, in particular for Option A, with additional
background material being provided in the Appendices.
3.4.2.1 Substantial Population
Under Option A, the "substantial population"
criterion can be met if at least 2500 people are served by:
. well(s) on a public system (where the people live
either inside or outside the Classification
Review Area), and/or
. private wells in a densely settled area (>1000
persons/sq mi).
Characteristics of U.S. public water-supply systems pre-
dominantly using ground water are described in the Federal
Reporting Data System (FRDS). The system was developed by
the U.S. EPA Office of Drinking Water to provide data on the
size, characteristics, and compliance of public water sys-
tems. FRDS data shows that 10 percent of water-supply
systems serve more than 2500 people. Thus, it generally
33
-------
defines areas of potentially high communal risk. That 10
percent, however, accounts for about 80 percent of the total
U.S. population served by ground water. A more detailed
discussion of the size of water-supply systems can be found
in Appendix E.
Under Option B the relative size of the population
served by the drinking water source would be one factor to
consider in determining whether a source is "replaceable."
The size of the population served, for example, will have to
be taken into account in determining the economic feasibility
of using alternative sources in the area. Thus, rather than
using a formula and specific cutoff as would be required if
the first approach were chosen, the user of the Guidelines
would have the flexibility to balance various factors in
determining whether a drinking water source is "irreplace-
able."
3.4.2.2 Uncommon Pipeline Distance
Uncommon pipeline distance means a reasonable
maximum distance over which water is piped in the region by
populations of approximately the same size as the substantial
population under consideration in the classification de-
cision. The concept of uncommon pipeline distance was
included in the irreplaceability criterion to make the
classification process easier to implement. This criterion,
although fairly general in nature, provides a means for
estimating the limits of the area within which potential
alternative water sources may be located. Without such a
boundary, any water source in the country might be considered
a replacement for any other water source, making the irre-
placeability concept unworkable. This criterion is appli-
cable under both Options A and B. A table presenting "un-
common pipeline distances" based on analyses of several
water-supply systems is presented in Table 4-3. In all
cases, this table merely provides general guidance and should
be taken qualitatively.
3.4.2.3 Comparable Quality
The Agency has defined "comparable quality" in
terms of the quality of raw sources of drinking water used in
the area, considering, in a general way, both the types of
contaminants that are present and their relative concentra-
tions. The intent is to make rough order-of-magnitude
comparisons to determine whether the potential alternative is
of the same general quality as the source, and as other water
used for drinking in the EPA Region, without conducting a
34
-------
specific, parameter-by-parameter comparison. This criterion
is considered in the same manner in both Options A and B.
3.4.2.4 Comparable Quantity
The Agency intends "comparable quantity" to mean
that the alternative source or sources, whether surface or
ground water, is/are capable of reliably supplying water in
quantities sufficient to meet the year-round needs of the
population served by the ground water. This definition
considers only the needs of the population at the time of the
classification decision. In developing their own classifica-
tion systems, states may choose, however, to consider modest
population growth and increasing water needs over time.
Again, this criterion would be considered in a similar manner
under both Options A and B.
3.4.2.5 Institutional Constraints
For purposes of the classification system, the
Agency defines institutional constraints as legal or adminis-
trative restrictions that preclude replacement water delivery
and may not be alleviated through administrative procedures
or market transactions. Institutional constraints can elim-
inate one or more possible alternative sources from con-
sideration (and, likewise, indicate which alternate supplies
are more viable than others) and, therefore, can necessitate
a Class I irreplaceable designation. Such constraints limit
access to alternative water sources and may involve legal,
administrative, or other controls over water use.
EPA has placed potential institutional constraints into
three categories:
(1) Probably Binding constraints — which include
treaties, agreements among states, and decisions by
the U.S. Supreme Court that are not capable of
being revised through market transactions or simple
administrative processes
(2) Constraints which may possibly be binding — such
as, when market transactions, or simple administra-
tive processes may not be able to provide an
alternative source of water (e.g., limits on the
source or amount of water that are created by state
law)
(3) Constraints unlikely to be binding — when market
transactions, or simple administrative processes,
usually can ensure an alternative source of water.
35
-------
These factors would be evaluated in a similar way in
both Options A and B.
3.4.2.6 Economic Infeasibility
To frame the Agency's consideration of "replace-
ability" for classification purposes, two options are spe-
cifically presented for public comment. In Option A, an
alternative source of replacement water is economically in-
feasible if the annual cost to a typical user would exceed
0.7 to 1.0 percent of the mean household income in the area.
EPA is proposing a threshold in this range and is seeking
comment on the applicability of this economic test and/or
other thresholds. Appendix 6 provides a detailed discussion
of these tests.
Although the economic infeasibility criterion suggests
an "ability to pay" measure, this does not mean that users of
the water would be expected to pay for a replacement source
in the highly unlikely event of contamination. Rather, this
approach is intended solely as a relative test to identify
those waters deserving of special protection.
This criterion does not require a rigorous analysis, but
rather a general understanding of the alternative source(s)
and rough estimates of replacement costs. To perform this
analysis, data in the following areas are needed:
. Physical characteristics of the alternative water
sources
. Estimates of capital and operating costs for using the
alternative source
. Household incomes of the ground-water users.
In most instances, generally available data will be suffi-
cient to apply this test. Simple, inexpensive estimation
techniques will be adequate.
In Option B, the cost of replacing a drinking water
source would be one factor in judging its "replaceability."
This cost could be taken into account along with the com-
munity's ability and/or willingness to pay for alternative
water sources in judging whether it is truly economically
infeasible to replace the water. Recommended methods,
approaches, or criteria would not be incorporated by guid-
ance. Best professional judgement in specific situations
would be the basis for decisions. To cite one example, water
suppliers in some cases may be "financially constrained" in
36
-------
their ability to provide alternative water. These limita-
tions could be addressed in a qualitative manner.
3.4.3 Ecologically Vital Ground Water
As a result of the guidelines development process,
ecologically vital ground water (Figure 3-7) is defined as
supplying a sensitive ecological system supporting a unique
habitat.
Underlined in the above statement are the two terms
which require further definition. A sensitive ecological
system is interpreted in these guidelines as an aquatic or
terrestrial ecosystem located in a ground-water discharge
area. A unique habitat is primarily defined as a habitat
for a listed or proposed endangered or threatened species, as
designated pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (as amended
in 1982). In some cases, certain Federal land management
areas, congressionally designated and managed for the purpose
of ecological protection, may also be considered unique
habitats for ground-water protection, regardless of the
presence of endangered or threatened species per se. Among
those most likely to be included are:
. Portions of National Parks
. National Wilderness Areas
. National Wildlife Refuges
. National Research Natural Areas.
A discharge area is an area of land beneath which there
is a net annual transfer of water from the saturated zone to
a surface water body, the land surface, or the root zone.
The net discharge is physically manifested by an increase of
hydraulic heads with depth (i.e., upward ground-water flow).
These zones may be associated with natural areas of dis-
charge, such as seeps, springs, caves, wetlands, streams,
bays, or playas.
3.5 Key Terms and Concepts for Defining Class II
Class II encompasses all non-Class I ground water cur-
rently used, or potentially available, for drinking and other
beneficial uses, whether or not it is particularly vulnerable
to contamination. Class II has been subdivided into two
subclasses which comprise the major key terms: current source
of drinking water and potential source of drinking water.
37
-------
FIGURE 3-7
EXAMPLE CLASS I - ECOLOGICALLY VITAL GROUND WATER
WHERE DISCHARGE AREAS'
^X ^&>C~ ••*-*'-~^-+.*.-;V* OR PROPOSED ENDANGERED
ARE HABITATS FOR LISTED
OR PROPOSED ENDANGERE
OR THREATENED SPECIES
I
I
V
FACILITY
\ i . ' \ ARE CONTAINED IN A
\ ! / PFHFRAI I NATIONAL PARK, WILDERNESS
\ I ______ / lAKinc i AREA, ETC. THAT IS MANAGED
\ I ./
FQR |TS ECOLOGICAL VALUES
! i
r i
l i
38
-------
3.5.1 Current Source of Drinking Water
Ground water is considered a current source of drinking
water under two conditions (Figure 3-8). The first and most
common condition is the presence of one or more operating
drinking-water wells (or springs) within the Classification
Review Area. The second condition occurs in the absence of
wells or springs, and includes ground-water discharge to a
surface water reservoir used as a drinking-water supply. It
requires the presence within the Classification Review Area
of a water-supply watershed reservoir (or portion of a water-
supply reservoir watershed) designated for water- quality
protection, by either State or local government.
The concept of a current source of drinking water is
rather broad by intent. Only a portion of the ground water
in the Classification Review Area needs to be supplying water
to drinking-water wells. It should also be noted that a
current source of drinking water, which meets the irreplace-
able/ highly vulnerable criteria, is Class I.
3.5.2 Potential Source of Drinking Water
A potential source of drinking water in the Classifica-
tion Review Area is one which is capable of yielding a
quantity of drinking water to a well or spring sufficient for
the needs of an average family. Drinking water is taken
specifically as water with a total-dissolved-solids (TDS)
concentration of less than 10,000 mg/1, which can be used
without treatment, or which can be treated using methods
reasonably employed in a public water-supply system. The
sufficient yield criterion has been established at 150
gallons/day (see Section 3.6.2 for the rationale). Ground
water not currently used for a source of drinking water will
be classified as a potential source of drinking water, unless
demonstrated otherwise.
An uppermost limit of 10,000 mg/1 TDS was chosen for
several reasons. Many State and Federal programs currently
use 10,000 mg/1 TDS to distinguish potable from non-potable
water. Some states set lower limits because the TDS of
drinking water is usually well below 10,000 mg/1. A survey
of rural water supplies (EPA, 1984), for which ground water
was the principal source, found a maximum TDS level of 5949
mg/1. Eighty-five percent of rural water-supply systems were
less than 500 mg/1 TDS. Given the range of TDS values,
10,000 mg/1 provides the flexibility needed in a nationwide
program. It also ensures that other beneficial uses of
ground water will receive substantial protection.
39
-------
FIGURE 3-8
EXAMPLE CLASS II - CURRENT SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER
f
/ DRINKING WATER
/ WELL
>,
x
I
I
UNPROTECTED
WATERSHED
FACILITY
\
\
PROTECTED
WATERSHED
\
x
DRINKING WATER
SUPPLY RESERVOIR
40
-------
Establishing a minimal yield (i.e., to wells and
springs) in the definition of potential source is consistent
with the hierarchy of resource values reflected in the
classification scheme. Areas where all water-bearing mate-
rials fail the "sufficient-yield" criterion will have little,
if any, resource value for drinking water and, therefore,
fall into Subclass IIIA.
By a de facto assumption, any ground water not a current
source of drinking water will be classified as a potential
source of drinking water, unless a lower resource value is
demonstrated. This approach was chosen because it enables
EPA to set a minimum Federal "floor" which provides broad
protection while placing the burden of proof on the person(s)
interested in demonstrating that the subject ground water
meets the criteria for a lower class of ground water. Figure
3-9 indicates the concept of a potential source of drinking
water.
3.5.2.1 Water Quality/Yield Data Needs
Specific data needs for water-quality testing
and water-yield testing were not established as part of the
Class II criteria. The general rule is to presume, in the
absence of data, that the quality and yield of a ground-water
resource is sufficient to meet the criteria for a potential
source of drinking water. Where the ground water can be
demonstrated to fail the quality or yield criteria, the
result could be a Class III designation.
3.5.3 Sufficient Yield
The definition of a potential source of drinking water
implies a yield sufficient to meet the long-term basic needs
of an average family by a well or spring. The sufficient
yield criterion was established at 150 gallons-per-day (see
Section 3.6.2 for rationale). In cases where the Classifica-
tion Review Area or the appropriate subdivision of the
Classification Review Area does not contain a well or spring
routinely used for drinking water, and can be shown to have
insufficient yield, then a designation of Subclass IIIA, for
the ground waters in the Classification Review Area or its
subdivisions (as described in Section 3.6.2), is possible.
As mentioned previously, unless it is demonstrated otherwise,
the Classification Review Area is presumed to meet the
sufficient yield criterion.
41
-------
FIGURE 3-9
EXAMPLE CLASS II - POTENTIAL SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER
xx
\
\
I FACILITY j
V ' J
NO DRINKING WATER WELLS IN
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW ARE A, BUT' o i 2 MILES
• < 10,000 MG/L TDS
• TREATABLE IF CONTAMINATED
• CAPABLE OF YIELDING WATER
TO WELL OR SPRING
42
-------
3.6 Key Terms and Concepts for Defining Class III
The third class of ground water encompasses those waters
which are not potential sources of drinking water due to:
1) salinity (i.e., greater than 10,000 mg/1 total
dissolved solids),
2) contamination, either by natural processes or by
human activity (unrelated to a specific polution
incident), that cannot be cleaned up using treatment
methods reasonably employed in public water-supply
systems (or economically treated). or
3) insufficient yield at anv depth to provide for the
needs of any average-size household.
Subclasses are differentiated based primarily on the
degree of interconnection to adjacent waters (i.e., surface
waters and/or ground water of a higher class).
The key terms and concepts underlined above are defined
in this section.
3.6.1 Methods Reasonably Employed in Public Water
Treatment Systems
Ground water may be considered "untreatable" if, in
order to meet primary drinking water standards and other
relevant Federal criteria or guidelines, treatment techniques
not included on a reference list of commonly applied tech-
nologies must be used. The focus on public-water system
techniques (rather than all technologies) was established in
the Ground Water Protection Strategy. The reference list has
been designed to account for variations in the use, avail-
ability, and applicability of treatment technologies in an
EPA Region. This approach is a relatively simple decision
framework that does not involve detailed engineering or cost
analyses. An optional approach which focuses on treatment
costs compared with total system costs is presented for
review and comment in Appendix G.
For application to the classification system, EPA has
made an inventory of all known or potential water- treatment
technologies and classified each as belonging to one of three
categories:
. Methods in common use that should be considered
treatment methods reasonably employed in public water-
treatment systems,
43
-------
. Methods known to be in use in a limited number of
cases that may, in some regions because of special
circumstances, be considered reasonably employed in
public water-treatment systems, and
. Methods not in use by public water-treatment systems.
Methods in common use include aeration, air stripping,
carbon adsorption, chemical precipitation, chlorination,
flotation, fluoridation, and granular media filtration.
Methods known to be used under special circumstances
include: desalination (e.g., reverse osmosis, ultrafil-
tration, and electrodialysis), ion exchange, and ozonation.
In most EPA Regions, these treatment methods should not be
considered methods reasonably employed by public water
systems. In certain EPA Regions, because of special ground-
water quality or water scarcity circumstances, they may be
considered reasonably employed.
Treatment methods not in use by public water treatment
systems include: distillation and wet air oxidation. These
methods are considered new to water treatment although they
have been applied for industrial purposes in the past. Since
their application to water treatment is experimental at this
time, they should not be considered treatment methods reason-
ably employed in public water systems.
It should be stressed that some techniques such as
granular media filtration are used by public water- treatment
plants for polishing (e.g., final treatment). These tech-
niques may be insufficient to adequately treat for heavily
contaminated ground water. In such cases, where unrelated to
a given source of pollution, a Class III designation is
likely. In other cases where the listed treatment techniques
are in use and would be equally effective and insignificantly
more costly to apply to the contaminant under consideration,
the water would be considered "reasonably treatable" and not
Class III.
Treatment capacity to handle certain concentrations or
combinations of contaminants may not be employed in a region,
although the basic technologies are available. In these
cases, the optional economics-based tests may be preferential
to the reference technology approach.
3.6.2 Insufficient Yield at Anv Depth
In order to establish Subclass IIIA on the basis of
insufficient yield, two conditions must be met within the
44
-------
Classification Review Area or appropriate subdivision of the
Classification Review Area. These conditions are:
(1) There are no wells or springs used as a source of
drinking water regardless of well yield.
(2) All water-bearing units meet the insufficient yield
criterion.
Given variability in regional aquifer characteristics
and climate, a value of 150 gallons-per-day was selected as
the cutoff for sufficiency. This level of production should
be possible throughout the year, in order to qualify as a
potential source of drinking water. The yield can be obtain-
able from drilled wells, dug wells, or any other method.
Agricultural, industrial, or municipal uses of these marginal
water-bearing areas would require significantly higher yields
than a domestic well and would, therefore, be unable to use
this low-yield ground water as a water source. The figure is
based on a conservatively* low yield below which it is con-
sidered unlikely or impractical to support basic household
needs.
In setting the sufficient yield criterion, EPA consulted
its own guidelines concerning water needs and related waste
flows for single family dwellings. EPA's water-supply
guidelines indicate that per capita residential water needs
range from 50 to 75 gallons-per-day (EPA, 1975) for a single
family residence. Waste flows from single family dwellings
using septic systems average 45 gallons-per-day per capita
(EPA, 1980, page 51). Using an average family size and a per
capita water need of approximately 50 gallons-per-day, the
well-supply criterion was established at approximately 150
gallons-per-day. (Note that, to be on the conservative side,
this assumption of household usage is the lowest figure used
in these guidelines.)
3.6.3 Interconnection as a Class III Criterion
The subclasses of Class III ground water are differ-
entiated in part by the relative degree of interconnection
between these waters and those in adjacent ground-water units
and/or surface waters. A discussion of ground-water units
and the concept of degrees of interconnection is provided in
Section 3.3. Subclass IIIA ground-water units are defined to
have a high-to- intermediate degree of interconnection to
adjacent ground-water units or surface waters. Subclass IIIB
ground-water units are defined to have a low degree of
interconnection to ground-water units of a higher class or
surface waters within the Classification Review Area.
45
-------
PART II
DETAILED CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES
-------
PART II
4.0 CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES
The previous sections provide both background and
overview of the EPA ground-water classification system. The
system is based on an analysis of data which is generally
available from published sources, telephone or in-person
contacts, or other program-related sources, such as permit
packages and environmental impact statements. The need for
detailed information on the hydrogeologic or socioeconomic
properties of an area will increase, for example, where a
Class I or Class III designation is possible, or a sub-
division of ground waters in the Classification Review Area
is being considered. In the majority of decisions, data
gathering and interpretation will be simple and inexpensive.
This chapter provides a more in-depth discussion of the
actual process of site-by-site classification. The process
is facilitated through a classification procedural chart
shown in Figure 4-1. A corresponding classification "work-
sheet" (Table 4-1) follows the sequence of procedural chart
steps. Classification will typically begin with step one and
continue until a final class determination is made. Both the
procedural chart and worksheet were developed to provide a
systematic approach to classifying ground water based on
certain criteria, e.g., presence of wells, ecologically vital
areas, water quality, irreplaceability, etc. They are
provided as suggested approaches only, since a given setting
may be more effectively handled through another sequence of
steps.
It is important to realize that, as a result of the
classification procedure, the Agency is not classifying a
specific ground-water region, per se. The classification
process will assist the EPA programs in such activities as
permitting and corrective-action assessments. No mapped unit
will be generated, although a Classification Review Area will
be employed as an aid in the decision process.
Lastly, the system assumes a broad definition for
current use as a source of drinking water (IIA). In the
absence of current use, the system will lead to a deter-
mination of potential source of drinking water (IIB), unless
a lower resource value is demonstrated. Other beneficial
uses of ground water will be considered in making Class II
determinations.
46
-------
47
-------
TABLE 4-1
CLASSIFICATION WORKSHEET
Step Question/Direction Response/Comment*
Establish Classification
Review Area (CRA) and
collect preliminary
information. Optional-
Demonstrate subdi-
vision (s) of the CRA
Locate any ecologically
vital areas in the CRA.*
Does the CRA or appropri-
ate subdivision overlap
an ecologically vital
area?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 4
Perform vulnerability
analysis. Is the CRA or
appropriate subdivision a
highly vulnerable
hydrogeologic setting?
. Yes, then the ground
water is CLASS I-
ECOLOGICALLY VITAL
. No. go to next step
Determine location of
well(s) within the CRA or
appropriate subdivision.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
contain well(s) used for
drinking water?
. Yes, to to next Step
. No, go to Step 8
*To be completed when performing classification.
**Steps 2 and 3 may be performed in reverse order.
48
-------
Step Question/Direction Response/Comment11
5* Inventory population
served by well(s).
Does the well(s) serve a
substantial population?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIA-
CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
6* Unless proven otherwise,
the drinking water source
is assumed to be irre-
placeable. Optional-
perform irreplaceability
analysis. Is the source
of drinking water
irreplaceable?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIA-
CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
7 Perform vulnerability
analysis. Is the CRA or
appropriate subdivision a
highly vulnerable
hydrogeologic setting?
. Yes, then the ground
water is CLASS I-
IRREPLACEABLE SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIA-
CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
*Under irreplaceability analysis Option B, Steps 5 and 6 are
considered qualitatively.
49
-------
Step Question/Direction Response/Comment*
8A Determine location of
reservoirs within the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division.
Does the CRA or appropri-
ate subdivision contain
reservoirs used for
drinking water?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 9
SB Determine status of
watershed(s) containing
reservoir(s) present in
the CRA or appropriate
subdivision.
Does that portion of the
water-shed designated for
water-quality protection
overlap the CRA or
appropriate subdivision.
. Yes, then the ground
water is CLASS IIA-
CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
. No, go to next step
9 Determine yield from
ground-water medium
(total depth across
CRA or appropriate
subdivision). Can it
yield 150 gallons-per-
day to a well?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIIA-
NOT A SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER (INSUF-
FICIENT YIELD)
50
-------
Step Question/Direction Response/Comment11
10 Determine water-quality
characteristics within
the CRA or appropriate
subdivision.
Is the water quality
greater than 10,000 mg/1
total dissolved solids
(TDS)?
(Note: If water quality
is unknown, then this
question must be answered
no.)
. Yes, go to Step 12
. No, go to next step
11 Are the ground waters so
contaminated as to be
untreatable?
(Note: If water quality
is unknown, then this
question must be answered
no.)
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIB-
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
12 Perform interconnected-
ness analysis. Is there
a low degree of inter-
connection between the
ground water being
classified and adjacent
ground units or surface
waters within the initial
CRA?
. Yes, then the ground
water is CLASS IIIB-
NOT A SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER (LOW
INTERCONNECTION)
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIIA-
NOT A SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER (INTER-
MEDIATE-TO-HIGH
INTERCONNECTION)
51
-------
4.1 Preliminary Information
An overview of basic information needs for classifica-
tion is presented in this section. More detailed discussions
are provided in the balance of this chapter as well as in the
Appendices. The collection of preliminary information is
meant to reflect an approach to classification which begins
simply and directly. The data should be collected from the
most current and best available sources. It should include a
well/reservoir survey, demographic information, and identi-
fication of ecologically vital areas. Regional hydrogeologic
data will be required if an interconnection analysis needs to
be made. Otherwise, a general description of the regional
geology, geomorphology, and hydrogeology would be useful.
Again, the emphasis is on available information rather than
on detailed in-field analyses.
4.1.1 Base Map of Classification Review Area
The Classification Review Area is defined by drawing a
two-mile radius from the boundaries of the facility or
activity area. An expanded review area is allowed under
certain hydrogeologic conditions of intermediate-to-high
ground-water velocities. These conditions and the procedures
to expand the Classification Review Area are presented in
Section 4.2. This Classification Review Area may be sub-
divided based on a hydrogeological analysis of interconnec-
tion between adjacent surface waters and ground-water units
as described in Section 4.3. A base map illustrating the
facility location, and the Classification Review Area bound-
ary is, of course, a vital piece of basic data.
4.1.2 Well Survey
A well survey should include the location, use, and
pumpage capacity of existing public water-supply wells or
well fields within the Classification Review Area. Public
vater-supply systems are defined under the Safe Drinking
Water Act as those serving more than 25 persons or with more
than 15 service connections. Information on the well depth
and screened interval depth may be needed if a subdivision of
the Classification Review Area is to be made.
A detailed inventory of private residential wells is not
necessary. As pointed out in Section 4.4, census data (e.g.,
densly settled areas) can be a good estimation approach. As
a preliminary step, the delineation of areas not served by
public water supplies, and the approximate number or density
52
-------
of homes in the area should be obtained. The simplest well
data to be included are the estimated number of wells pres-
ent, and other general characteristics of private wells in
the Classification Review Area.
Well information may be obtained from water authorities,
public health agencies, regulatory agencies permitting well
drilling, well drillers, or other state or local entities.
Sources of the data should be documented and, where the
information is not available, it should be so stated.
Water-supply reservoirs designated for water-quality
protection in the Classification Review Area need to be
identified and described. Again, state and local agencies
may be utilized in this capacity. Water-supply reservoir
watersheds designated for water-quality protection are
specifically recognized in the ground-water classification
system.
4.1.3 Demography
Information on populations served by public and private
wells will be needed if it is apparent that substantial
populations may be involved, which could lead to a Class I
decision. A first-cut approximation for public supply wells
in the area can be made by dividing the total pumpage capa-
city by the typical per capita consumption rates for the
region. Estimates of the number of private wells in densely
settled areas within the Classification Review Area will also
be necessary. Densely settled areas can be located on U.S.
Census Bureau maps. Procedures for determination of substan-
tial population are provided in Section 4.4.
4.1.4 Ecologically Vital Areas
Identification of areas which may be candidate discharge
points for ground water is a first step in locating ecologi-
cally vital areas. Such areas may include springs, streams,
caves, lakes, wetlands, estuaries, coastlines, embayments,
and playas. Once these candidate discharge areas have been
identified (since proving discharge may require field stu-
dies) , the presence of a habitat for a listed or proposed
endangered or threatened species (pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act as amended in 1982) needs to be examined. The
location of any such areas, or any Federal lands managed for
ecological values within the Classification Review Area must
be identified. The Regional Office of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the State Endangered Species coordinator
53
-------
or Heritage Program administrator are two sources for infor-
mation regarding unique habitats and/or endangered or threat-
ened species. Information about Federal lands may also be
obtained from Federal land management agencies such as the
National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of
Land Management. The presence of Federal lands is indicated
on most state and county road maps and U.S. Geological Survey
quadrangle sheets.
4.1.5 Hydrogeoloaic Data
Regional hydrogeologic information will be needed, to
some extent, in order to perform a DRASTIC analysis for the
vulnerability criterion; estimates are needed on:
depth to water
net recharge
uppermost aquifer media
soil media
topography (slope)
vadose zone media
hydraulic conductivity-of the uppermost aquifer.
This information is typically reconnaissance in nature
and may likely be obtained from county/regional reports and
also State geologic surveys. Pertinent information will be
obtained from U.S. Geologic Survey cross-sections, topo-
graphic maps, stratigraphic sections, county geologic maps,
and U.S. Department of Agriculture soil maps.
If interconnectedness of ground water with adjacent
ground units and surface waters is to be analyzed, additional
detailed hydrogeologic information is necessary. This might
include descriptive hydrogeologic data, aquifer test data
from previous studies, semi-quantitative flow nets, computer
simulations, or other relevant information. This information
is critical for all Class III demonstrations. Specific
considerations for interconnection to adjacent water is
described in Section 4.3.
The best available sources of published hydrologic/-
geologic information are the U.S. Geological Survey publica-
tions, State geological surveys, scientific books and jour-
nals, and U.S. Department of Agriculture county soil surveys.
Data supporting facility permit applications, Clear Water Act
Section 208 studies, as well as Environmental Impact State-
ments, may also be useful.
54
-------
4.2 Conditions and Procedures for Expanding the Classi-
fication Review Area
Expansion of the Classification Review Area is allowed
under certain hydrogeologic conditions. The two-mile radius
may be insufficient for determining the use and value of
ground water and identifying potentially affected users in
hydrogeologic conditions of intermediate to very high ground-
water flow velocities where these velocities occur over
distances much greater than two miles. In such settings,
there is a potential for activity-related contaminants to
move beyond a two-mile radius in a relatively short time
frame, especially under the influence of large-scale ground-
water withdrawals. This section represents qualitative
descriptions of those hydrogeologic settings where an
expanded review area is appropriate, and the procedures to
quantitatively establish the dimensions of the expanded
review area based on hydrogeologic characteristics.
An expansion of the Classification Review Area will be
triggered upon the determination that the activity under
review occurs within two hydrogeologic settings. Because
these settings are described qualitatively, some level of
hydrogeologic information will be needed to match the real
settings to qualitative description.
4.2.1 Hydrogeologic Settings
Two hydrogeologic settings have been identified where
expansion of the Classification Review Area is appropriate.
They are:
A. Settings (referred to as Karst settings) where the
principle aquifer is relatively shallow (<100m) and
composed of carbonate rocks, with a well developed
system of solution-enlarged openings (secondary
porosity). The solution-enlarged openings serve as
the main conduits for ground-water flow and are
interconnected into distinct but dynamic ground-
water basins feeding a complex of cave streams.
These settings are often referred to as karst areas
or karst aquifers. Flow through the conduit system
is extremely rapid, as much as 1800 ft-per-hour
(Quilan and Ewers, 1985) over long distances, in
some cases up to 15 miles. Settings may be found in
the following ground-water regions (after Heath,
1984):
55
-------
6. Non-Glaciated Central Region
7. Glaciated Central Region
10. Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region
11. Southeast Coastal Plain Region, and
15. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
B. Certain settings (referred to as alluvial basin set-
tings) where the general length of ground-water flow
paths are significantly greater than the two-mile
Classification Review Area radius (i.e., where the
distance between perennial streams is greater than
four miles). These settings are predominantly
alluvial basins and other basins filled with uncon-
solidated to semi-consolidated materials and are, in
addition, characterized by:
An unconfined aquifer as the dominant aquifer
Losing streams as the predominant source of re-
charge
Transmissivities and flow velocities that are
moderate to high (>250 m2/d and >60 m/yr, respec-
tively)
Relatively low annual rain fall (less than 20
inches)
The ground-water regions (after Heath, 1984) where
these settings can be found include:
2. Alluvial Basin Region
3. Columbia Lava Plateau Region
4. Colorado Plateau and Wyoming Basin Region
5. High Plains Regions, and
6. Non-Glaciated Central Region.
4.2.2 Expanded Classification Review Area Dimensions
The dimensions of the expanded review area are governed
by the hydrogeologic characteristics of the region. Flow-
system boundaries, flow direction, and flow velocities are
the key characteristics.
For Setting A, karst areas, the expansion area dimen-
sions will be based on boundaries of the ground-water
basin(s) encompassing the activity. A basin includes all
56
-------
recharge areas supplying the cave stream extending to the
perennial stream where the cave-stream discharges. These
basins can be mapped using dye-tracing studies and a water-
level map. However, due to the expense of such studies, few
basins have been mapped. As a surrogate, it is recommended
that the distance to the nearest spring-fed, perennial stream
be employed to establish the expanded review-area dimensions
as shown in Figure 4-2. The reviewer is cautioned that, in
some cases, the nearest perennial stream may not be the
discharge for the subject ground-water basin. Such an error
can be minimized by locating the topographic high (the water-
shed divide) between the nearest perennial stream and
adjacent streams. If the activity is on the same side of the
topographic high as the nearest perennial stream, then it is
reasonable to assume that the nearest perennial stream is the
discharge. If not, then the discharge is likely to be the
perennial steam on the same side of the topographic high as
the activity/facility. In rare cases, the activity or
facility is located on the topographic high. In such a case,
the expanded review area should extend to the nearest
perennial stream on all sides of the topographic high.
For Setting B, alluvial basins, the dimensions of the
expanded review area are based on the average ground-water
flow velocity within the basin. The radius is to be extended
to a distance that ground water will flow in a period of 50
years. For example, if flow velocities averaged 400 feet-
per-year, then the expanded radius would be 20,000 feet,
approximately four miles. In the event that ground-water
flow velocities are unknown, an expanded radius of five miles
is recommended.
Ground-water flow velocities range over several orders-
of-magnitude. The highest velocities are those of the karst
cave streams. In alluvial basins, it will be unlikely that
flow velocities as high as one mile a year will occur except
over very short distances not representative of flow through-
out the basin.
The dimensions of the expanded review area can be
modified to account for the direction of flow. Where flow
direction can be reliably determined, only the downgradient
portion of the expanded review area need be examined. The
expanded review area can also be subdivided according to
rules outlined in Section 4.3. Examples of expanded Classi-
fication Review Area for both a Karst setting and an alluvial
basin setting are provided in Appendix C case studies 10 and
11, respectively.
57
-------
FIGURE 4-2
EXAMPLE OF GEOMETRY AND DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPOSED
EXPANDED REVIEW AREA FOR KARST SETTINGS
EXPLANATION
PROPOSED FACILITY
58
-------
4.3 Subdivision of the Classification Review Area; Identifi-
cation of Ground-Water Units and Analysis of Inter-
connection Between Ground-Water Units
The ground-water regime defined in Chapter 3.0 can be
subdivided into three-dimensional, mappable ground-water
units. The Classification Review Area, regardless of size,
may be subdivided to allow more precise definition of the
specific ground-water units where classification should be
focused. This chapter presents the methods and examples by
which subdivisions are identified and how the degree of
interconnection between the subdivisions is analyzed.
Subdivision of a Classification Review Area may be
carried out to separate ground-water units having different
use and value and, therefore, are subject to different
degrees of protection. For example, the subdivision of the
Classification Review Area will be necessary to justify the
following types of conclusions:
Deep ground-water units with Class IIIB water are
overlain at shallow depth by ground-water units with
Class I or II water,
The ground-water unit associated with an activity
does not discharge to an ecologically vital area
present in the Classification Review Area,
A shallow, ground-water unit that is a potential
source of drinking water (Class IIB) is underlain by
a deeper ground-water unit that is currently used as
a source of drinking water (Class IIA)
Having identified the ground-water units within the
Classification Review Area, the user of this document is
ready to classify the waters within the units in accordance
with the methods set forth in other sections and schema-
tically summarized in Figure 4-1. The interrelationship
between ground-water unit subdivisions and the classification
of ground water are as follows:
. All ground water within a ground-water unit has a
single class designation.
Boundaries separating waters of different classes
must coincide with boundaries of ground-water units,
59
-------
One or more adjacent ground-water units may have the
same class designation.
Ground-water units are delineated on the basis of three
types of boundaries described below:
Type 1: Permanent ground-water flow divides. These
flow divides should be stable under all
reasonably foreseeable conditions, including
planned manipulation of the ground-water
regime.
Type 2: Extensive, low — permeability (non-aquifer)
geologic units (e.g., thick, laterally exten-
sive confining beds), especially where charac-
terized by favorable hydraulic head relation-
ships across them (i.e., direction and mag-
nitude of flow across the low-permeability
geologic unit). The most favorable hydraulic
head relationship is where flow is toward the
ground-water unit being classified and the
magnitude of the head difference (hydraulic
gradient) is sufficient to maintain this
direction of flow under all foreseeable
conditions. The integrity of the low perme-
ability unit should not be interrupted by
improperly constructed or abandoned wells,
extensive, interconnected fractures, mine
tunnels or other apertures.
Type 3: Permanent fresh water-saline water contacts
(saline water defined as those waters with
greater than 10,000 mg/1 of Total Dissolved
Solids). These contacts should be stable under
all reasonably foreseeable conditions, includ-
ing planned manipulation of the ground-water
regime.
The degree of interconnection between ground-water units
is related to the type of boundary. A high degree of
interconnection is assumed for all waters within a single
ground-water unit. Adjacent units that are separated by a
Type 1 (ground-water flow divide) or Type 3 (fresh water-
saline water contact) boundary have an intermediate degree of
interconnection. Adjacent units separated by a Type 2 (low-
permeability geologic unit) boundary have a low degree of
interconnection.
60
-------
The degree of interconnection across the three boundary
types defined here depends on selected key physical and
chemical processes governing movement of water and dissolved
solute in the subsurface. Under steady/state ground-water
flow conditions the principal mechanisms effecting potential
contaminant movement across Type 1 (ground-water flow divide)
or Type 3 (salinity difference) boundaries would be mechani-
cal dispersion and chemical diffusion. These conditions are
considered by EPA to represent an intermediate degree of
interconnection. Under transient flow conditions caused by
pumpage or accelerated recharge of fluids within the Class-
ification Review Area, there exists the potential to spat-
ially displace a ground-water flow divide or saline/fresh
water interface boundary. For this reason EPA believes that
foreseeable changes in aquifer stresses and increased ground-
water use in the Classification Review Area should be con-
sidered in determining the permanence (i.e., location over
time) of such boundaries.
The primary mechanism for contaminant transport across a
Type 2 boundary is the physical movement of ground water into
or from the low-permeability geologic unit. The Agency
recognizes that the physical and chemical processes that
control fluid and solute transport through low-permeability
non-aquifers is not as well understood as it is for aquifers.
However, for the purposes of assessing the degree of inter-
connection, one must be able to infer that the flow rate of
water through the non-aquifer is very small relative to the
flow rates through adjacent aquifers.
The following subsections present further guidance and
examples on how boundaries between ground-water units are
identified.
4.3.1 General Hydroaeoloqic Information Needed for
Identifying Ground Water Units and Analyzing
Interconnection
The information required to subdivide the ground-water
regime into ground-water units generally includes topics
within the fields of geology, hydrology, and management of
ground-water resources (controls on withdrawals/recharge,
properly abandoning deep wells, etc.). The description of
the ground-water regime and any potential subdivisions must
be as quantitative as possible. The Agency recognizes that
the degree of precision with which the Classification Review
Area can be subdivided is limited by the abundance and
quality of readily available data. Supplementation of the
existing data base with field and laboratory investigations
both on-site and off-site may be needed to accurately confirm
61
-------
the existence of subdivisions. The following discussion will
serve to guide the types of data collection efforts needed to
justify the subdivision of the Classification Review Area.
Background information on geologic formations and
occurrence/movement of ground water can be obtained at a
regional scale of accuracy from State and Federal agencies.
Topographic maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) are now available at useful scales for most of the
nation. These can help identify ground-water flow directions
and flow divides for the uppermost aquifer. Data on the
distribution and characteristics of soils are available from
the USDA Soil Conservation Service. General information on
precipitation, run-off and recharge rates can be obtained
from the USGS and can be supplemented by climatic data from
weather stations around the country. Ground-water pumpage
and locations/depths of wells can generally be obtained from
State agencies that issue well permits, or from local Public
Health Agencies and water districts.
The first step is to identify all aquifers occurring
within the ground-water regime of the Classification Review
Area. In areas that have been well studied these will be
recognized and documented in government agency reports. In
poorly studied areas, proper recognition of aquifers can be
inferred from lithologic descriptions of geologic formations,
structural features of the area (if flow is mainly through
fractured rock), and the depth and design of wells. The
areal and vertical extent of hydrogeologic units within the
ground-water regime can be shown in a series of cross-sec-
tions and maps. For most hydrogeologic settings it will be
most useful to interpolate between locations where conditions
are known (i.e., wells, outcrops, excavations, etc.) and
present variations in thickness and elevations of important
units with contour maps prepared at a common scale.
After the identification and graphical representation of
the geologic framework it is possible to identify ground-
water units within the ground-water regime using the guidance
provided in subsequent sections.
4.3.2 Type 1 Boundaries; Ground-Water Flow Divides
The concepts of ground-water flow systems may not be
familiar to some readers and needs to be reviewed in order to
understand flow divide boundaries between ground-water units.
Figure 4-3(a) shows in vertical cross-section a series of
adjacent shallow ground-water flow systems for a single-
layer, water-table aquifer. The systems are bounded at the
base by a physical impermeable boundary. As is typical in
62
-------
humid regions, the water-table profile conforms to the
topographic profile.
The flow net in Figure 4-3(a) clearly shows that ground-
water flow occurs from the recharge area in the highlands to
the discharge areas in the lowlands (i.e., valleys). Verti-
cal line segments AB and CD beneath the valleys and ridges
constitute ground-water flow divides, i.e., imaginary im-
permeable boundaries across which there is no flow. In the
figure, these ground-water flow divides separate adjacent
flow systems ABCD and ABEF which, for purposes of subdivi-
sion, correspond to ground-water units separated by Type 1
boundaries.
In simplified, symmetrical systems such as those il-
lustrated in Figure 4-3(a), ground-water flow divides coin-
cide exactly with surface water divides and extend vertically
to the base of the aquifer. In more complex topographic and
hydrogeologic settings these properties may diverge substan-
tially from the situation, illustrated.
A comparison of Figures 4-3(a) and 3(b) reveals how flow
patterns and divides are altered when the undulations in the
water table are superimposed on the regional hydraulic
gradient towards a more regional stream and discharge area.
Ground-water flow divides in Figure 4-3(b) extend through the
full thickness of the aquifer only at either end of the
entire flow regime. The full dimension of the flow regime
may or may not be encompassed by the two-mile radius. The
total length, S in the figures, can range from hundreds to
thousands of feet.
Figure 4-3(c) is an example of more complex conditions
in which the flow patterns and flow systems are effected by
both topography and regional variations in hydraulic conduc-
tivity of layered earth materials. Given adequate data, com-
puterized models of real sites can provide approximations of
ground-water flow patterns. In general, the level-of-sophis-
tication employed to demonstrate the presence of a Type 1
boundary should be comensurate with the complexity of the
hydrogeologic setting.
The spatial location of the water-table and ground-water
flow divides may be stable under natural flow conditions but
can be modified by man-made hydraulic stresses, such as
large-scale ground-water withdrawals or recharge. In some
cases it will be necessary to estimate the permanence (i.e.,
location with time) and position of ground-water flow divides
under stressed conditions from available hydrologic and
geologic data and foreseeable changes in water use.
63
-------
FIGURE A-3
HYDROGEOLOGIC SECTIONS SHOWING FLOW SYSTEMS OF
INCREASING COMPLEXITY WITH TYPE 1 BOUNDARIES
- RID6E TOP FLOW DIVIDE
LAND SOUf ACE
WATER TABLE
TYPE I BOUNDARIES
a) Simple flow systems associated with a water-table aquifer
(after Hubbert, 1940).
0.2S
TYPE
BOUNDARY
0
DISCHARGE TO
REGIONAL STREAM
AND WETLANDS
DISCHARGE TO
GAINING STREAMS
0
01S 0.2 S 03S 04 S 055 06S 07S 0.8 S 09S
I—TYPE I
BOUNDARY
b) Ground-water flow pattern in a water-table aquifer with local and
regional discharge areas (after Freeze and Whitherspoon, 1967).
0.2 S
0.1 S -
TYPE 1
BOUNDARY
—TYPE I
BOUNDARY
0 0.1 S 0.2S 03S 0.4S 0.5S 0.6S 0.7S 0.8S 0.9S
c) Ground-water flow pattern in dipping sedimentary rocks with local
and regional discharge areas (after Freeze and Whitherspoon, 1967).
64
-------
A good example of ground-water units separated by a Type
1 flow divide boundary is shown in Figure 4-4, The setting
illustrated consists of two alluvial valleys with high-yield
wells completed in sand and gravel deposits, separated by
sandstone bedrock that can only provide limited supplies to
domestic wells. Ground water in the alluvium is derived from
precipitation and from the bedrock, and discharges to the
river under natural conditions. Under pumping conditions,
the water pumped by the high-yield wells is derived largely
from the river, from local precipitation, and from the
bedrock. Near the wells in the eastern valley, flow system
boundaries are affected by ground-water withdrawals and are
stable as long as the well discharges are steady. The
ground-water flow divide separating the two valley aquifers
is not effected by pumpage, and provides the essential
characteristic that allows the delineation of ground-water
units A and B.
In order to provide EPA with a defensible ground-water
flow-divide delineation, a limited flow analysis will gen-
erally be required as a minimum. An acceptable approach is
to prepare a water budget for the ground-water unit in order
to show a reasonable order-of-magnitude balance on flow into
and out of the system. This could involve the preparation of
a ground-water flow net (see Glossary for definition) for the
uppermost aquifer with accompanying estimates of volumetric
flow into and out of the unit. The flow net can be gen-
eralized and need not be rigorously correct in a quantitative
sense. The analysis should be carried out even though part
of the ground-water system continues outside the Classi-
fication Review Area, that is, if part or all of the dis-
charge or recharge area of the unit extends beyond the
Classification Review Area.
The semi-quantitative flow net of the uppermost aquifer
should be supplemented by a vertical hydrogeologic cross-
section and supporting data showing that the uppermost
aquifer is, in fact, underlain by an extensive aquitard or
crystalline rock non-aquifer within the Classification Review
Area. The flow net can be based on available water-table
elevation data as interpreted from water levels in relatively
shallow wells; locations/elevations of springs, wetlands, and
perennial streams; and supplemented with topographic eleva-
tions. The rates and directions of flow can be estimated in
plan view given a water-table contour map and estimates of
aquifer thickness and hydraulic conductivity. The conduc-
tivity can be obtained from the area-specific reports, field
or laboratory tests, or by estimating a range from the
scientific literature based on earth material type. Flow
patterns inferred from these data must also consider signifi-
65
-------
FIGURE 4-4
EXAMPLE OF TYPE 1 FLOW DIVIDE BOUNDARY
GEOLOGIC MAP
ELEVATED BEDROCK
AREA
2 MILES
HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
GROUND-WATER FLOW DIVIDE
A (West)
4OOFT
200 FT
A1 (East)
ALLUVIAL AQUIFER
SANDSTONE AQUIFER
GENERAL FLOW DIRECTION
'/'/' BASE OF CIRCULATION
ACTIVE
MUNICIPAL
SUPPLY WELL
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW
AREA BOUNDARY
66
-------
cant spatial and directional variations in conductivity in
areas having a more complex stratigraphic and structural
geologic conditions.
At the beginning of the flow analysis, it is important
to determine whether the ground-water flow system is in a
state of steady or transient flow. Areas that are charac-
terized by a lack of ground-water development and usage can
generally be assumed to be in steady state. This will
simplify the analysis because the estimate of system dis-
charge can be equated to recharge. If the natural recharge
rate compares favorably with a reasonable percentage of mean
annual precipitation, the ground-water flow divides can be
considered reliable. The applicant can go to the ground-
water literature to obtain "reasonable" estimates to recharge
in any geographic/ground-water region of the United States
(e.g., see US6S Water-supply Paper 2242 by R.C. Heath, 1984).
In areas characterized by large-scale withdrawals of
ground water from shallow or deep aquifers, the flow regime
is more prone to be in a transient state. Evidence of
transient conditions includes:
Declining ground-water levels
Depletion of ground-water storage
Movement of flow divides
When such evidence of movement exists, it may be necessary to
estimate the ultimate steady-state position of the flow
divides assuming conservatively large withdrawal rates and
small water flow and storage properties.
4.3.3 Type 2 Boundaries; Low-Permeability Geologic
Units
The Agency would assign a low degree of interconnection
across the low-permeability geologic unit (Type 2 boundary)
if the following conditions can be shown:
The low-permeability geologic unit is laterally
continuous beneath the entire area and/or limits the
lateral continuity of the more permeable geologic
unit
There are no known wells, mine shafts, etc. that are
improperly abandoned or unsealed through the geologic
unit
67
-------
The geologic unit has a small permeability relative
to both adjacent geologic units and to geologic media
in general
. The flow of water through the geologic unit per unit
area is insignificant relative to the flow of water
per unit area through adjacent strata
Low-permeability geologic units include fine-grained
sediments and sedimentary rocks, such as clays and shales, as
well as crystalline igneous and metamorphic rocks that have
few interconnecting fractures. Because these materials have
small permeabilities, small quantities of water will be
transmitted through them in response to hydraulic gradients.
In areas where hydraulic heads beneath or within a low-
permeability unit are greater than heads in an aquifer above
the unit, the hydraulic gradient has an upward component
across the Type 2 boundary. The Agency considers this to be
the most favorable head relationship because it further
ensures that the direction of ground-water movement at the
boundary serves to inhibit the migration of contaminants into
and across this type of boundary.
In selected environments, such as deep geologic basins,
the applicant is free to make arguments that the flow of
fluids is negligibly small through the low-permeability unit.
The actual cut-off values of key variables such as perme-
ability, thickness and hydraulic gradient are not specified
in these guidelines and are left to professional judgments.
Figure 4-5 illustrates a setting where the presence of a
thick, regionally extensive aquitard establishes a low degree
of interconnection between a shallow ground-water unit and a
deeper underlying ground-water unit (aquifer). This config-
uration is common in the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plain
settings where the lower aquifer is the principal regional
aquifer and is a source of water supply. It is overlain by
an extensive confining clay that may be tens of feet thick.
The shallow ground-water aquifer system supplies only limited
amounts of water to wells. The reasons for the low intercon-
nection between aquifers in this setting are as follows:
the flow of water through the aquitard is exceedingly
small,
the time of travel of water through the aquitard is
very large
Sedimentary basins commonly exhibit multiple freshwater
aquifers each separated by a regionally extensive low-perme-
68
-------
FIGURE 4-5
EXAMPLE OF TYPE 2 BOUNDARY
CRA
2-MILES
MSL
10
ALLUVIAL AQUIFER
(UPPER GROUND-WATER
UNIT)
2-MILES
FACILITY
20
ff 30
AQUITARD
X
a.
Hi
a
40
50
60
AQUIFER
(LOWER GROUND-WATER UNIT)
70
69
-------
ability confining unit. Figure 4-6 is an example of such a
basin where ultimate discharge of the deep fresh water
through overlyirg low-permeability confining units (flow
barriers) is to the ocean. Deeper ground waters in these
basins will be characterized by a Total Dissolved Solids
(TDS) concentrations that may be much greater than the 10,000
mg/1 limit for Class III ground waters, and interconnection
is considered to be low, even though hydraulic gradients are
in the direction of less saline water.
The reasons for the low degree of interconnection are as
follows:
. salts are retained in deep aquifers confined by late-
rally extensive aquitards,
. the flow of water through the confining units is
exceedingly small,
. the time of travel through the confining unit is very
large
. the depth to these waters is generally below the
bottom of any major water-supply wells in the area.
Deep, confined, saline ground-water units with a low
degree of interconnection to overlying fresh ground-water
units are currently the primary hydrogeologic setting into
which wells can be permitted to inject hazardous wastes under
present EPA and state Underground Injection Control (UIC)
regulations. These waters are herein defined as Class III,
Subclass B ground water. EPA's position is that the inter-
connection test for such candidate Class IIIB waters will
follow those tests for the UIC program, Class I wells.
In general, the demonstration of the existence of a Type
2 boundary requires that one identify and characterize the
laterally continuous low-permeability non-aquifer that
constitutes the boundary. The following is a list of factors
to be considered in making this demonstration:
. Stratigraphic setting and lithologic characteristics
. Structural setting and joint/fracture/fault charac-
teristics
. Hydrogeologic setting and hydraulic head/fluid flow
characteristics
70
-------
[__
rf
Nl /Hld30
71
-------
The first distinction should be between whether the non-
aquifer is of sedimentary or igneous/metamorphic origin. If
it is sedimentary in origin, an identification of the envir-
onment of deposition will permit inferences about the ex-
pected geometry, thickness, and continuity of individual
strata. These inferences should be defended with geologic
sections including data from well logs and/or measured
sections. The age of the unit, the degree of cementation,
and degree of compaction are all qualitatively related to
water-bearing characteristics (hydraulic conductivity and
porosity).
If the unit is an igneous or metamorphic rock, the
continuity and thickness can usually be inferred from geo-
logic maps and reports for the region in which the Classifi-
cation Review Area exists. Identification of igneous rocks
that have tabular geometries such as volcanic flows, ash-fall
deposits, or intrusive sills and dikes will allow inferences
about thickness and continuity. These may serve as aquifers
or aquitards within a sequence of sedimentary rocks.
Crystalline "basement" rocks of igneous and metamorphic
origin underlie the entire North American continent. In
areas where these rocks are fractured and exposed at or near
the land surface, they generally serve as poor-yielding
aquifers. However, significant circulation can be assumed to
be restricted to the upper few hundred feet because the
fractures tend to close with depth. In other areas, where
these rocks are buried by younger rocks, they can generally
be assumed to represent the base of active circulation unless
there is evidence to the contrary. In these situations the
Type 2 boundary is equivalent to the bottom of the ground-
water regime (see Glossary).
A general knowledge of the tectonic setting and struc-
tural geologic history of the region will provide insight
into the types and frequency of geologic structures to be
found in the Classification Review Area. Numerous field
studies have shown that significant ground-water flow in
consolidated sedimentary and crystalline rocks is controlled
by geologic structures. These features include folds, faults
and associated joints and fractures in the rock.
Major structures such as fault zones that intersect
consolidated rock formations may hydraulically connect
multiple aquifers into a system of aquifers. Fault zones in
consolidated rocks are known to collect water from large
areas and control the locations of ground-water discharge at
72
-------
major springs. In softer sediments and in some structural
settings, fault zones can have the opposite effect by
producing barriers to flow. Individual joints and small
fractures in consolidated rocks and sediment can be mapped
systematically with field studies, however, proof of their
absence is the more important element in demonstrating the
presence of a Type 2 boundary.
The best evidence of low-permeability non-aquifer
conditions constituting a Type 2 boundary are those related
to the hydrogeologic setting and measured hydraulic para-
meters. Table 4-2 shows that the hydraulic conductivity of
both sedimentary deposits and igneous/metamorphic rocks can
be estimated within several orders-of-magnitude on the basis
of lithology alone. In parts of the United States associated
with large ground-water usage, there has been a need to
understand the ground-water regime and these areas will often
have been studied by various government agencies. Con-
sequently, the hydraulic properties of aquifers and aquitards
will be known in quantitative terms. In these areas the
thickness, lateral extent, and hydraulic conductivity will be
documented. A favorable condition would then be associated
with a recognized aquitard or aquiclude that is known to be
relatively thick, homogeneous, widespread, and poorly perme-
able. The optimum head condition would be such that vertical
hydraulic gradients are directed upward through the unit,
i.e., across the Type 2 boundary.
4.3.4 Type 3 Boundaries; Fresh/Saline Water Contacts
Type 3 boundaries between bodies of ground water with
contrasting concentrations of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
most commonly occur within the following types of hydro-
geologic settings:
. Sea-water intrusion into fresh-water aquifers in
coastal regions,
. Saline waters associated with ancient evaporite de-
posits in sedimentary basins,
. Saline waters associated with closed topographic
basins in arid regions.
. Saline brines in deep geologic basins,
. Geothermal fluids in tectonically active regions,
73
-------
TABLE 4-2
RANGE OF VALUES OF HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY AND PERMEABILITY
(AFTER FREEZE AND CHERRY, 1979)
Rocks
4)
C —
O O
e
\_
a
« o
c
TD O O
^> C. -
*- « 5-
T3
o
Unconsolidafed
K K
K
^eP°sits > (darcy) (cm2) ( c
C O
9-^-2?
« i±«>
g O 3
-i: P o
10D
JO4
1O3
102
10
I
to
-3
IO
"5
10
,-6
10
10"
,-7
1O'
10
1
--'
to*
-10-
-io-2
tO"1 -
"2 -
-to'
-10-
-10
,-10
-10
,-n
IO
-10"
,-s
-10
r5
,
-10
-10
10'
-5
,-6
-10
10'
-7
L10
-1
Her1
r 10
-'2
-10
-10"
,-t3
N-6
-IO
-9
10
-10"
-9
-10
-2
-10
,-tl
tto~7 -toHS -to"10 -to'12
icr8 Lio^Uo-" ^o"13
-10
,-3
-10
,-4
-to
-5
-IO
,-€
-to
,-7
74
-------
In the above settings, the TDS of naturally occurring
saline water may be 3 to 10 times greater than the 10,000
mg/1 criterion. Owing to natural concentration gradients, a
zone of diffusion is normally observable between the saline
and fresh ground waters. The 10,000 mg/1 TDS isometric
surface will generally be situated within the diffusion zone
separating the waters of contrasting salinities.
Figure 4-7 illustrates how a wedge of sea water which
has intruded into an unconfined aquifer is identified as a
separate ground-water unit of higher salinity and density
relative to an adjacent ground-water unit, in the same
aquifer, containing fresh water. In this setting, there
exists a zone of diffusion between two flow systems that
contain fresh water and sea water. The salinity boundary
would occur along the 10,000 mg/1 TDS isometric surface.
Figure 4-8 illustrates a second hydrogeologic setting
characterized by the presence of near-surface evaporite
deposits overlying deeper-bedrock units. Salts are dissolved
from the evaporite units by the circulating ground waters and
a shallow zone of saline waters coexists with fresh ground
waters within the same flow system. However, based on the
delineation of a Type 3 boundary, two distinct ground-water
units can be identified.
Although the saline water is primarily confined to the
low-permeability evaporite formation, this water leaks into
the underlying aquifer creating a zone of diffusion within
the underlying aquifer. The boundary between the two ad-
jacent ground-water units would be drawn along the 10,000
mg/1 TDS isometric surface within the diffusion zone. The
diffusion zone would be a stable feature assuming the flow
system is in both hydraulic and geochemical steady state.
The degree of interconnection between these adjacent ground-
water units is defined to be intermediate. The type of
setting illustrated in Figure 4-8 is not as common as the
coastal intrusion setting illustrated in Figure 4-7, but it
is known to exist in selected parts of the United States.
In the above two settings, the intermediate degree of
interconnection between ground-water units is due to the
limited potential for the exchange of waters across a Type 3
boundary within a diffusion zone. In the first setting, the
salt water and fresh water are in separate, but adjacent flow
systems. In the second case, the diffusion zone is more
extensive and may or may not be within a single flow system.
A third case involves a single regional flow system with the
diffusion zone in the deeper and more downgradient end of the
system.
75
-------
FIGURE 4-7
EXAMPLE OF TYPE 3 BOUNDARY THROUGH AN
UNCONFINED AQUIFER IN A COASTAL SETTING
FACILITY
OCEAN
FRESH WATER
(GROUND-WATER UNIT)
ZONE
DIFFUSION
BASE OF AQUIFER —.
EXPLANATION
{gg:gy;;| > 30.00O mg/l TDS WATER
[ | DIFFUSION ZONE
— GROUND-WATER FLOW DIRECTION
_.£._ WATER TABLE
Hc«wL»- CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
•' lO/XO mq/JL TDS ISOCONCENTRATION LINE
76
-------
H
nJ
§
PH
00 <
w
H H
n
e
77
-------
The third setting includes naturally saline ground water
contained within topographically-closed structural basins
within arid parts of the western United States (e.g., the
Great Salt Lake Desert). Figure 4-9 shows an example of such
a setting where the water is recharged from runoff from
mountain ranges adjoining the basin, circulates to the center
of the basin, moves vertically through confining beds, and
discharges to playa lakes and the atmosphere. These settings
are known to have brine waters greatly in excess of the
10,000 mg/1 Class III criteria within the discharge area to
depths as great as 2000 feet below land surface.
Distinct ground-water units can be delineated based on
the identification of Type 3 boundaries as shown in Figure
4-9. Under natural conditions the diffusion zones encom-
passing these boundaries are stable and ground-water units A
and B can be identified as shown. Large-scale withdrawals
from upgradient fresh (Class II) ground water or injection
into the saline (Class III) ground-water can laterally
displace the diffusion zone. The pumped wells may eventually
yield saline water and will cease to be sources of drinking
water. Thus, the potential to cause adverse water-quality
effects may result from improper resource management.
Type 3 boundaries are the least interpretive of the
boundary types because they are simply equivalent to the
10,000 mg/1 TDS isometric surface through the ground-water
regime. These boundaries are then easily recognized and
mapped when TDS data are available for ground waters from
various depths and locations in the Classification Review
Area. The elevations at which ground-water TDS is equal to
or greater than 10,000 mg/1 has been mapped and published for
selected basins and regions. The principal sources for such
data are the USGS and state geological surveys, especially in
states having abundant oil and gas resources. In areas of
known sea-water intrusion, or upconing of salt water due to
pumpage, published data are occasionally available which will
show in vertical section or plan view the extent of the salt-
water wedge. This may be conservatively taken as the 10,000
mg/1 TDS boundary where more specific TDS data are not
available. In areas of known high temperature geothermal
resources, published data are available to estimate the Type
3 boundary location. Because these areas, are few in number
and are limited in areal extent, few will be co-located with
potential Classification Review Areas. Equally limited are
data bases for saline water settings associated with soluble
evaporite deposits. At specific sites in these areas, the
relationship between water quality, soluble strata, and
ground-water flow directions can be established and the Type
3 boundary mapped. This relationship can be assumed in
78
-------
£
H
E
co
u
H
i-3
U
Q
CO
a
CO
s
u
o
LJ
1
U.
a.
X
o
N
Z
g
V)
I
o
m
J2
a:
ui
J
i
3
I
d
79
-------
adjacent areas, where the stratigraphy and flow patterns are
known, in order to extrapolate the Type 3 boundary to other
parts of the Classification Review Area.
4.3.5 High Interconnection Scenarios
High interconnection of waters is assumed to occur
within a given ground-water unit and where ground water
discharges into adjacent surface-water bodies. The latter
situation is specially relevant in identifying Subclass IIIA
ground waters, for occasions where these are not potential
sources of drinking water.
Subclass IIIA can be associated with shallow, uncon-
fined, aquifers that underlie broad, urbanized, industrial
areas where numerous diffuse sources of contamination have
degraded water quality. Figure 4-10 shows hydrogeologic set-
tings that may qualify for class IIIA (Untreatable). The
two examples shown include urban/industrial areas located
near major surface waters and overlying alluvial sediments
that are saturated at relatively shallow depths. As shown,
the degraded water must be contained within a shallow ground-
water unit that discharges to the local surface-water body.
4.3.6 Example of Subdividing a Classification Review
Area
Figures 4-11 through 4-13 illustrate how a hypothetical
Classification Review Area is subdivided into ground-water
units and the potential classification decision for each
unit. It should be emphasized that for purposes of an actual
classification decision, not all the subdivisions illustrated
here would be necessary, as only the ground-water unit
relevant to the facility would be classified.
The facility for which a classification decision is
needed is located on the floodplain of a perennial stream
that flows in a direction towards the viewer in Figure 4-11.
The water table is relatively shallow beneath the floodplain
and is essentially at the land surface in wetland areas
adjoining the stream. The habitat for an endangered species
is located in a wetland on the opposite side of the stream
from the facility.
The geology of the Classification Review Area consists
of essentially flatlying sedimentary formations overlying a
crystalline basement composed of undifferentiated granitic
and metamorphic rocks. Three local aquifers and two aqui-
tards are recognized in the area. The uppermost aquifer is a
water-table aquifer defined as the saturated part of a sand
80
-------
3
W
U
ss
w
o
•H
+J
0
Q)
C
O
O
^
0)
.p
C
00
•H
rC
0)
4J
C8
•O
00
o
4-)
C
n)
M
n)
M-l
•H
cr
to
to
•H
81
-------
z
o
<
Q.
X
UJ
WATER
UJ
S*
UNTREATA!
ECTION
tr
o
^
>
O
u.
e
UJ
i-
<
6ROUND-
UJ
J
CD
<
WATER T,
<
UJ
K
<
$
UJ
>
UJ
K
Z
O
^_
r*
0
CLASSIFt
4
6 w
O 0)
H 00
m M
co
T) J3
0) U
4J in
CO T-t
w -d
to
(X 4-1
Q) -H
Cfl
(0 00
•H 3
O
4J J=
•H 4J
0)
M >
Q) QJ
4-1
(0 C
> o
I •!-!
T3 4-)
§0
(1)
O C
M C
00 O
o
VJ VJ
(U (U
? 4J
o c
0) >4H
.c o
H
0)
. 00
rt a)
o »
4-> O
0) CO
4-1
U (A
0) CO
C fi
o •
U 0)
)-< Wl
(U O
4-1 M-l
C 0)
•H VJ
0)
>, J
iH 4J
00 •> •
•H T) T3
ft C M
CO CO
VI 4->
•H •• -H
>. 3
4J M cr
•H Cfl tfl
C T)
3 C (V
3 43
H O 4->
0) £>
4-1 A
tfl cs oo
* 3
I 0) O
-O CX VJ
c >.x
3 H 4J
o
^1 >> >^
00-Q tfl
O B) 0)
CO 0)
£1 JS O
82
-------
and gravel deposit overlying a low-permeability shale forma-
tion. This aquifer is recharged by the infiltration of
precipitation and discharges primarily to the stream and
wetland areas. It is locally used for water supply by
domestic wells in a nearby residential development.
Figure 4-11 shows a deeper middle aquifer that is
sandwiched between two regionally extensive shales that serve
as aquitard confining beds. Ground water is pumped from the
middle aquifer at a municipal well which supplies water to a
nearby city. The city also receives water pumped from deeper
wells in the lower aquifer, however, these wells are located
on the other side of the city off the left edge of Figure 4-
11. Pumpage from these wells has caused sea water to intrude
the lowest aquifer from the ocean located off the right edge
of Figure 4-11. The lower aquifer is underlain by crystal-
line rocks which have low permeabilities and are not used as
an aquifer in the area.
Figure 4-12 illustrates the cylinder-shaped volume of
earth material that underlies the Classification Review Area.
The ground-water regime is defined to include all ground
water and earth materials between the water table in the
uppermost aquifer and the contact between the lower aquifer
and the basement rocks. Figure 4-13 shows how the regime can
be subdivided into five ground-water units. For purposes of
an actual classification decision, only the ground-water unit
that could potentially be affected by the facility would be
pertinent.
Ground-water units 1 and 2 are subdivided along a Type 1
ground-water flow divide boundary beneath the sinuous peren-
nial river. This boundary is inferred from a mapping of the
flow pattern within the uppermost aquifer. The aquitard
beneath the aquifer exhibits no evidence of discontinuities
within the Classification Review Area. It is present in all
deep wells in the area and consistently shows large vertical
gradients across it. Even so, the estimate of the rate of
ground-water flow per unit area through the unit (based on
these gradients and hydraulic conductivities) is no greater
than 10~6 cm/sec which is negligibly small relative to
ground-water flow rates in adjacent aquifers. Based on these
characteristics, the aquitard constitutes a Type 2 low
hydraulic conductivity, non-aquifer boundary. The vertical
extent of ground-water units 1 and 2 is thus, delineated by
the existence of this physical boundary.
Ground water within the middle aquifer is identified as
a third ground-water unit with the overlying and underlying
aquitards constituting Type 2 boundaries. In addition to the
83
-------
84
-------
FIGURE 4-12
HYPOTHETICAL CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
Ground -
Water
Regime
AauJtard -inr^m:
Jppwmost
Aquifer
Middle
Aquifer
Lower
Aquifer
85
-------
o,
Typ« 2
Boundary
-------
characteristics described above for the uppermost aguitard,
long-term aquifer tests have been performed on the municipal
wells completed in the middle and lower aquifer. These tests
indicate that less than ten percent of water pumped from the
aquifers is derived from the leaking aquitards, thus their
designation as Type 2 boundaries is justified.
Ground water within the lower aquifer is generally
moving towards a major pumping center located outside of the
Classification Review Area. A significant part of the water
in this aquifer has been replaced by sea water having TDS
concentrations in excess of 30,000 mg/1. The problem has
been studied by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation
with the city. The movement of the interface between fresh
and saline water is being monitored with a few deep wells.
The approximate location of the interface at the time of
subdivision was approximately known and, lacking specific TDS
data, is taken as the 10,000 mg/1 TDS Type 3 boundary sep-
arating ground-water units 4 and 5 on Figure 4-13. Because
the actual 10,000 mg/1 TDS boundary is probably several
hundred feet further towards the well field, use of the
interface as this boundary makes ground-water unit 4 larger
and unit 5 smaller than it actually may be. These errors are
conservative in the sense of providing levels of protection
to these waters as determined by class designation.
Based on the above general discussion of classification
related criteria the ground-water units may be classified, as
shown on Figure 4-13, as follows:
Unit 1 may be Class I Ecologically Vital Ground Water
due to the endangered species habitat within the
discharge area, wetland environment and potentially
vulnerable condition,
Unit 2 may be Class IIA, current source of drinking
water due to the residential wells screened in this
unit,
Unit 3 may be Class IIA current source of drinking
water owing to its use for water supply but is poorly
interconnected to the Class IIA water in the upper-
most aquifer,
. Unit 4 may be Class IIB potential source of drinking
water even though it maybe used for water supply
outside the Classification Review Area
Unit 5 may be Class IIIA, not a potential source of
drinking water because it has a TDS above 10,000 mg/1
and has a intermediate degree of interconnection with
adjacent Unit 4, a potential source of drinking
water.
87
-------
4.4 Determining Irreplaceability
Figure 4-14 displays the general concept of irreplace-
ability for Class I ground water. The goal is to identify
those waters of such relatively high value that unusually
high protection is warranted. For the purposes of classifi-
cation, this is not meant to be an extremely rigorous, costly
exercise. In many instances, estimates will suffice. For
example, a census of residents should not be performed to
determine whether a substantial population is affected — if
available information suggests that current water users
approximate the required thresholds, the criterion should be
considered satisfied. Similarly, irreplaceability will be
assumed unless an analysis is deemed desireable; typically
when a permit applicant feels that a Class II situation is
truly the case. If an analysis is performed, it should not
be necessary to evaluate every possible replacement source;
rather, rough estimates developed for no more than a small
number of representative replacement water sources should be
adequate to indicate the presence or absence of a irreplace-
able source. These "shortcuts" are necessary since detailed
water-supply alternative studies are inordinately expensive
and are reserved for such major projects as large multiple-
purpose dams and reservoirs.
A ground water serving a substantial population is
considered irreplaceable, if alternatives are not suitable
due to any one or more of the following five criteria:
Use of the alternative source would require piping
water over an unreasonable or uncommon distance
The alternative source is incapable of providing
water of quality that is comparable to typical
quality of ground water used for drinking in the
Region
The alternative source is incapable of yielding water
in sufficient quantity to serve the substantial
population
Access to the alternative source is precluded due to
institutional constraints
Use of the alternative source is economically infea-
sible.
Again, the general procedure is to first determine if
the ground water within the Classification Review Area or the
appropriate subdivision serves a substantial population. If
88
-------
FIGURE 4-14
CRITERIA FOR CLASS I - IRREPLACEABLE
ANY ONE OF SEVERAL FACTORS:
• POLLUTED GROUND-
WATER I SNOT OF
COMPARABLE QUALITY
/
• GROUND-WATER IS
ECONOMICALLY
INFEASIBLE
CLASSIFICATION
REVIEW AREA
. • RIVER IS
INSTITUTIONALLY
PRECLUDED
• GROUND-WATER IS
ECONOMICALLY INFEASIBLE
TO DEVELOP AND PIPE TO
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW
AREA
AREA OF INVESTIGATION CONSIDERED
TYPICAL FOR THE REGION
89
-------
so, then the source is considered irreplaceable until
demonstrated otherwise using the above five criteria.
The following sections discuss definitions for the more
specific procedures, and key factors related to irreplace-
ability:
. Substantial population
. Uncommon pipeline distance
. Comparable quality
. Comparable quantity
. Institutional constraints
. Economic infeasibility.
Each of the following sections describes particular methods
based on data available from Federal and State agencies and
other easily accessible sources. Each section identifies and
characterizes relevant data sources. Where appropriate,
example calculations are used to illustrate data application
and appropriate quantitative methods for determining irre-
placeability.
In these Draft Guidelines, the Agency is also soliciting
comment on approaches to judging two aspects of the "irre-
placeable" criterion. Option A incorporates a quantitative
determination of the population served by the source and the
economic feasibility of replacing the source. Under this
approach, a drinking water source would be considered
"irreplaceable" if it serves at least 2500 people and the
annual cost of typical user of replacing the source exceeds
0.7 to 1.0 percent of the mean household income in the area.
Option B focuses on a qualitative assessment of the replace-
ability of the ground water. Under this approach, the
relative size of the population served by the source and the
cost of replacing the source would be factors to consider in
assessing the source's "replaceability." The Guidelines
would not under Option B, provide a set methodology, nor one
or more numerical cut-offs. Again, the determination would
focus on best professional judgment. A user following Option
B may choose, however, to consider some of the quantitative
methods or approaches in Option A, if deemed relevant in a
particular classification decision. Comments on these two
options, as well as other options for assessing "substantial
population" and "irreplaceable" (from an economic standpoint)
will be considered by the Agency in determining how best to
incorporate these factors in classification decisions.
90
-------
4.4.1 Substantial Population (Option A)
Under Optional A, ground water is deemed to serve a
substantial population if at least twenty-five hundred
persons are served by (Figure 4-15):
. centralized public water supply well(s) within the
Classification Review Area or appropriate subdivision
whether the population lies inside or outside Classi-
fication Review Area or
. private wells within the Classification Review Area or
appropriate subdivision for persons living in a
densely settled area (i.e., census definition based on
1,000 persons-per-square mile) or
. a combination of the above.
This definition of substantial population is based on
numerical thresholds and concepts already used by the Census
Bureau. The population data necessary to make these deter-
minations is widely accessible and sufficiently up-to-date.
In most instances, making these determinations will be
straightforward. If the well(s) in the Classification Review
Area or appropriate subdivision service a public water
system, an estimate of the number of user households multip-
lied by the average number of persons-per-household (2.7 on a
national basis, each state or locality may be somewhat
different) should approximate the total population served; if
the population is served by other water sources, these should
be accounted for proportionately. (Water supplied for
industrial and agricultural purposes should not be included.)
For private well users, it will be necessary both to estimate
the population in the Classification Review Area not served
by public water systems and, also, to calculate the pop-
ulation density. The EPA maintains a data system called GEMS
(for Graphical Exposure Modeling System) which can be used to
estimate both population and population densities for a
variety of areas around a point (see Appendix E for details).
4.4.2 Substantial Population (Option Bl
Option B differs from Option A in that no specific
numerical cut-offs are dictated for determining "substantial
population" or the "economic feasibility" of replacement.
Rather, the relative size of the population served by the
source would simply be factors to consider in assessing the
source's "replaceability." A determination that a source is
"irreplaceable" would require a qualitative assessment of the
91
-------
FIGURE A-15
EXAMPLE CLASS I - SUBSTANTIAL POPULATION
r
*
I
>
^
\
(A) WELL(S) ON PUBLIC SYSTEM SERVES
22500 PERSONS; EITHER INSIDE OR
OUTSIDE CLASSIFICATION REVIEWAREA
FACILITY
%
\
•\
(B) PRIVATE WELLS IN
DENSELY SETTLED AREA
SERVE >2500 PERSONS
FACILITY
r
f
s
\
FACILITY
o o \0
°\
o I
0 I
O o 0|
\
\
\
o o o/
o
/
%
o o o
o / o
\
\
/
(C) PRIVATE WELLS AND
PUBLIC SUPPY WELL(S)
SERVE >2500 PERSONS
92
-------
technical and economic feasibility of replacing it taking
into account all of the factors that may be relevant in any
specific case. Some of the same steps in data gathering and
analysis included in Option A might be utilized, or alterna-
tively, other procedures could be substituted. The overall
approach to determining replaceability would, however, be
more qualitative in character, and be more dependant on
professional judgment.
4.4.3 Uncommon Pipeline Distance
Designating an uncommon pipeline distance for the Region
is an important early step in determining irreplaceability.
This uncommon distance will set a hypothetical radial
boundary around the site within which an alternative source
of water can be located. It, therefore, restricts the number
of alternative sources that should be considered in the
classification decision. If no alternative institutionally
available water source of comparable quantity and quality can
be located within a reasonable distance, the ground water in
the Classification Review Area should be considered to be
Class I irreplaceable. In theory, this is the maximum
distance water is currently piped from the raw water source
to the distribution system for each population category.
The determination of uncommon pipeline distance depends
on many factors, including topography, geology, hydrology,
availability of developed water resources (e.g., lakes,
reservoirs, etc.), institutional constraints on water
development, water demand, and economic resources. As a
result, distances can vary significantly. In the semi-arid
regions of the West, water may be conveyed 50 miles or more
from the source to the distribution system. In the more
humid East, however, water is typically piped five miles or
less. Piping distances can also range considerably even
among neighboring states.
Although it is reasonable to define an uncommon pipeline
distance for different population categories, it is in
practice, extremely difficult to set rigid criteria. In the
absence of an exhaustive survey, guidance on these distances
is available in Table 4-3, based on information provided by
EPA's research laboratories and the Federal Reporting Data
System (FRDS) maintained by EPA's Office of Drinking Water.
The distances proposed in Table 4-3 are based on the applica-
tion of a one percent income threshold that is applied as an
economic criterion for other Class I tests. These distances
can be calculated for other threshold levels. Working from
data provided by EPA's Cincinnati water-quality laboratories,
which estimate the costs of piping various quantities of
93
-------
TABLE 4-3
UNCOMMON PIPELINE DISTANCES FOR DIFFERENT POPULATIONS
(Based on an 1% Economic Threshold)
Population Size
Uncommon Pipeline Distance
<5,000
5,000-10,000
10,000-25,000
25,000-100,000
>100,000
25 miles
35 miles
70 miles
100 miles
150 miles or more
These distances could be computed for different levels of income
thresholds (e.g., 0.2%, 0.5%).
94
-------
water (the size of pipes varied with the amount of water
being delivered to a certain size of population), EPA
proposes indexing these costs to the amount of dollars
expressed by the income threshold for a certain size of
population. For example, a population of 2500 persons would
exceed their 1% income threshold when the costs of piping
water exceed $2.4 million. This dollar amount roughly
translates into an average piping distance of 13 miles when
estimating the costs of installing and pumping along the
pipes of the diameter needed to deliver a sufficient amount
of water to 2500 persons. The result of this approximation
should be used as general guidance for the lower bound of
uncommon pipeline distance.
4.4.4 Comparable Quality Analysis
Once a potential alternative water source has been
located, it is important to determine whether the quality is
comparable to that of other drinking water in the EPA Region.
The term "comparable quality" is defined as a level of water
quality that is not substantially poorer than other raw
drinking water resources in the EPA Region.
4.4.4.1 Water Quality Parameters
To be considered of comparable quality, the quality of
the alternative water resource should be — within an order-
of-magnitude — as good as or better than, existing drinking
water resources, taking into account the precision of the
measurement of each parameter. For example, an existing
water source may have an average of 93 mg/1 TDS, with a range
of 75 mg/1 to 100 mg/1. An alternative water source may be
considered not of comparable quality, if it has an average
TDS of 1,300 mg/1 with a range of 1,000 mg/1 to 1,600 mg/1.
For some parameters of interest (e.g., taste, color, odor),
the evaluation may be highly subjective. It is again meant
to be a relative test which considers a few general cate-
gories of parameters (e.g., TDS, organic compounds, heavy
metals, radionuclides and other secondary physical/chemical
properties).
Existing information on water quality should be used,
given the very high cost of new series of sampling and
analysis. The comparison is intended to be relative and
subject to professional judgment.
4.4.4.2 Sources of Information
At the Federal level, three important sources for
water quality information may be consulted: EPA, the Army
95
-------
Corps of Engineers, and the United States Geological Survey
(USGS). Each of these agencies has conducted, or continues
to conduct, comprehensive surveys that describe water
resources in the U.S. Although not always designed specif-
ically to provide detailed water quality data, these studies
provide information sufficient to facilitate the comparable
quality considerations of the ground-water classification
system.
EPA has funded comprehensive studies of Regional water
quality to determine the principal point and non-point
sources of pollution. These studies, conducted under section
208 of the Clean Water Act, for example, give a broad
overview of water quality (U.S. EPA, 1980b).* They are
generally obtainable through the State and local agencies
which received the funding. The Army Corps of Engineers
conducts similar regional water-resource studies in order to
examine water supply and demand within specified river and
lake basins in the United States. The most useful resource
of data from USGS will .often be the published basin-wide
investigations of ground- and surface-water resources. USGS
also maintains the National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX)
which is designed to assist users in identification, loca-
tion, and acquisition of information on water resources. The
National Water Well Association (NWWA), Worthington, Ohio,
maintains a library of all USGS and State Geological Survey
information on water supply and quality. Using automated
searching capabilities, the NWWA can identify and list all
publications concerning a specific geographic area.
On a more local level, regional planning boards and
councils of government, may also have information on poten-
tial drinking water supplies and river, lake, and stream,
quality in their regions. State agencies that administer
environmental protection, land use planning, agricultural,
geological survey, public health, and water programs, are
excellent information sources. State universities (particu-
larly land-grant universities) may sometimes serve as
repositories of information concerning ground- and surface-
water supplies.
4.4.5 Comparable Quantity Analysis
Within a reasonable distance range, as determined by the
"uncommon pipeline" distance analysis, a number of alterna-
tive sources of water may be identified. These sources may
include both surface or ground water. Common examples of
surface water that can be considered as a replacement source
re rivers, streams, natural lakes, and impoundments.
Alternative ground-water sources may be located in the same
96
-------
aquifer, or in another nearby aquifer, horizontally or
vertically separated from the source aquifer.
Determining whether the alternative source, or sources,
can yield adequate quantity requires three analytical steps:
determine current users' present water-supply needs
characterize potential sustainable water yield of
alternative source
compare potential supply and current demand.
Each of these steps is discussed briefly below.
Step 1; Determine current supply needs of water users
If the ground water to be classified supplies a public
water system, current supply needs will be known by the water
utility. If the ground water to be classified serves a
substantial population using private wells, current water
needs must be estimated using population figures and assump-
tions concerning typical water use.
Step 2; Characterize potential sustainable water yield of
alternative water supply
This information is best obtained from the previously
mentioned, published studies. In addition, routine water
shortages in communities currently served by an alternative
source, for example, would indicate that the alternative
source may not (conceptually) be able to provide water for an
additional population increment. Rapidly falling ground-
water levels over time also indicate that an alternative
source may not be capable of consistently providing suffic-
ient yield year-round. However, levels which are not falling
may also indicate a source which is unavailable for ad-
ditional usage, but one which is being properly managed. In
cases where the ability of an alternative source to meet the
needs of the substantial population is unclear, a more
quantitative analysis may be necessary*
Step 3; Compare alternative water supply and existing water
demand
In cases where the alternative source is located in a
water-rich area, the comparison of user needs and source
yield may be done on an annual basis. The comparison should
be conducted on a monthly basis where the alternative source
is ground water under existing or potential stress or where
97
-------
the alternative source is a surface water with considerable
month-to-month variability in flow. Important sources for
water-quantity information include local water utilities,
State water agencies, and the U.S. Geological Survey.
4.4.6 Institutional Constraints
Institutional constraints involve legal, administrative,
and other similar forms of control over access to water. For
purposes of this Guidance, the Agency has adopted the
following definition of institutional constraint:
An institutional constraint is a situation in
which, as a result of a legal or administrative
restriction, delivery of replacement water may not
be assured through simple administrative procedures
or market transactions.
While a detailed examination of legal and institutional
issues is rarely called for, a preliminary review should
indicate whether an institutional constraint is present. The
following discussion presents a breakdown of potential
institutional constraints and a general procedure for
determining whether a binding institutional constraint is
present in a particular situation. Appendix E provides a
more detailed description of constraints as well as informa-
tion sources.
The Agency has analyzed the potential constraints and
determined which are probably binding, which may be binding
in some cases or possibly binding, and which are unlikely to
be binding. For a straight-forward assessment, comparison of
the constraints affecting a particular source of water, the
list of constraints presented in Table 4-4, should suffice.
In those cases where a detailed assessment is warranted, the
procedure outlined in Figure 4-16 is suggested.
4.4.6.1 Example of Considerations for a More
Detailed Assessment
A potential source of replacement water (e.g.,
the Rio Grande River) may be subject to an international
treaty (e.g., the 1944 Treaty between the United States and
Mexico on Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and
Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande) limiting the amount of
water that may be withdrawn by users in the United States,
and to an Interstate Compact limiting the amount of water
that may be used within a particular state. In addition,
that portion of the river flow assigned to a particular state
may already be fully taken up by other users. Finally, the
98
-------
TABLE 4-4
POTENTIAL INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS
Probably Binding Constraints
Water is subject to international treaty
Water is subject to interstate water apportionment compact
Water is allocated by the U.S. Supreme Court as a result
of litigation among states
Water is subject to Federal or Indian reserved right
Possibly Binding Constraints
Water is allocated by litigation among persons
Water is allocated by permit
Water is allocated by local water district or another
local authority
Amount of water that may be used is limited:
- by public trust doctrine
- by instream flow protection requirements
by state law
- by permit
by local management authority
- by prior appropriation(s) that are all for highest
beneficial use
- by Federal navigational servitude
Place of use of water is limited:
by state law
- by permit
by local authority
Constraints Unlikely to be Binding*
Water is subject to prior appropriation (unless for
highest beneficial use)
Water is subject to riparian right
Physical access to property is restricted:
- by property rights of other persons limiting rights-of-
way for pipes, ditches, conduits, etc.
by Federal or State statutes requiring environmental
impact assessment or establishing other procedural
requirements.
*Upon application of simple administrative procedures or
market transactions.
99
-------
FIGURE 4-16
OUTLINE OF PROCEDURE FOR ANALYZING POTENTIAL INSTITUTIONAL
CONSTRAINTS TO THE USE OF AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF WATER
Identify Potential
Institutional Constraints
Related to Source
Determine Type of
Constraints
NO
YES
YES
YES
Physical
Access
. Restricted
YES
Identify Potential
Market Mechanism
YES
Alternative Source
Available
Procedure
Available to
Alleviate
Constraint
YES
Alternative is Subject to
a Binding Constraint
Identify Potential
Administrative
Procedure
100
------- OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000A0K\tiff\2000U1Q3.tif): Saving image to "C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000A0K\tiff\2000U1Q3.T$F.T$F" failed.
-------
Capital costs:
Well field development
Raw water intake structure (wells)
Water treatment facility
Pumping stations
Storage
Transmission system
Rights-of-way
Land
Relocation of utilities
O&M costs:
Labor, equipment
Utilities
Parts/inventory
Administration
Other costs:
Architectural and engineering fees
Legal and administrative fees
There are ample sources of information that may be used
for estimating costs. These include Federal and State
agencies, architectural and engineering consulting firms (A/E
firms), trade associations, and local water utilities (ACT
Systems, Inc., 1977, 1979; Temple, Barker and Sloane, Inc.,
1982; AWWA, 1981). Costs can vary somewhat from one region
of the country to another. For purposes of classification,
only a general estimate is needed and, initially, there is no
need to undertake a detailed cost estimation study.
Various EPA reports on water supply and waste-water
treatment are also a good source of information on costs
(e.g., Culp, et al, 1978). The results of such studies are
presented in the form of tables and cost curves, subdivided
into construction costs and O&M costs. This data can be
updated simply to allow for inflation and geographical
variations by energy and labor costs.
Another useful data source is the MWWA Nationwide Water
Well Drilling Cost Survey (NWWA, 1979). The results of this
survey are summarized in the form of tables giving drilling,
as well as casing costs, as a function of the well diameter,
hydrogeologic conditions, and other factors. Although this
survey dates back to 1979, it is the most recent available
from NWWA. The data in the survey should be escalated to
account for inflation. Cost indices published quarterly by
Engineering News Record give a very recent indication of
construction, operation, labor, and other costs.
102
-------
The remaining portion of Section 4.4 provides useful
supplementary information for most classification decisions.
More advanced procedures for use in special cases, are
provided in Appendices E and 6.
4.4.7.1 Annualizing Capital Costs
Capital costs are the initial costs of investments
needed to develop a new drinking water source. They may
include architectural and engineering fees, as well as legal,
real estate or other fees incurred as part of planning,
constructing, and implementating a new water system for this
analysis.
For purposes of determining economic feasibility, capital
costs must be annualized before they can be added to O&M
costs to obtain the total annual costs of the alternative.
Capital costs are annualized by multiplying by an annualiza-
tion factor:
Capital Costs x Annualization Factor (AF) =
Annualized Capital Costs
The annualization factor divides the total capital costs into
equal annual payments that would be required if the capital
expenditures were financed using a standard fixed-rate
mortgage. As a first cut, a factor of 0.1 can be used. A
more refined factor should not be necessary but can be
computed according to Appendix E.
4.4.7.2 Using Water Supply Utility Rates and
Fees to Estimate Costs of Alternative
Water Supply
In some circumstances, the cheapest alterna-
tive water supply available to a community will be a nearby
water-supply utility. The alternative water-supply system
may be modeled after an existing system that serves a
community in the same region that is similar in both popula-
tion size and characteristics. In such cases, the cost of
the alternative supply may be estimated using the rates and
fees charged by the existing utility to its service popula-
tion.
4.4.7.3 Household Income of Substantial
Population
The final step in determining economic
infeasibility involves comparing the annual costs of the
alternative water system to average household incomes in the
103
-------
community. Income data is generally available in two forms:
per household income and per capita income. The two may be
used interchangeably, by factoring in the average number of
persons per household. In addition, income is sometimes
reported as "personal income" or "money income." Household
money income should be the income figure used for this
exercise and is available from a number of sources.
4.4.8 Economic Infeasibility (Option Bl
Option B differs from Option A in that no specific
numerical cut-offs are dictated for determining "substantial
population" or the "economic feasibility" of replacement.
Rather, the relative size of the population served by the
source would simply be factors to consider in assessing the
source's "replaceability." A determination that a source is
"irreplaceable" would require a qualitative assessment of the
technical and economic feasibility of replacing it talcing
into account all of the factors that may be relevant in any
specific case. Some of the same steps in data gathering and
analysis included in Option A might be utilized, or alterna-
tively, other procedures could be substituted. The overall
approach to determining replaceability would, however, be
more qualitative in character, and be more dependant on
professional judgment.
4.4.9 Summary
The criteria for Class I irreplaceability may be best
summarized through a hypothetical example. Consider the city
of Waterfed, an urban area with a population of 25,000, that
receives its water from a public well system. The water
meets primary drinking water standards and is of good
chemical quality. The average daily usage is 7 million
gallons-per-day.
There is an alternative to Waterfed's central well
field. For the sake of simplicity, assume that this source
is either representative of other sources, or is the only
alternative drinking water source within a reasonable
distance of the city. If the alternative is to serve as a
replacement, it must satisfy the set of criteria which is
depicted in Figure 4-17. The first criteria is that the
alternative water source must be of comparable quality to
water in the surrounding area. If the alternative source
were substantially inferior to Waterfed's water and conven-
tional treatment could not improve the quality to a compar-
able level, the city's ground water would be considered Class
I irreplaceable. In this case, the alternative is inferior
in terms of organic materials, but is substantially equiva-
104
-------
FIGURE 4-17
TEST FOR CLASS I - IRREPLACEABLE GROUND WATER
SUBSTANTIAL POPULATION
YES
IS THE PIPELINE DISTANCE TO REPLACEMENT
WATER SOURCE UNCOMMON?
YES
NO
NO
IS ALTERNATIVE WATER
SOURCE OF COMPARABLE
QUALITY?
NO
WATER IS
CLASS I
IRREPLACEABLE
NO
NO
YES
WILL THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCE PROVIDE
COMPARABLE QUANTITY OF WATER?
YES
1
YES
DO INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS PRECLUDE
ACCESS TO REPLACEMENT SOURCE?
NO
IS REPLACEMENT
ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE?
YES
WATER IS NOT
CLASS I
IRREPLACEABLE
UNDER OPTION B, THESE STEPS
ARE CONSIDERED QUALITATIVELY
105
-------
lent in terms of heavy metals and other inorganics, radio-
nuclides, and other physical and chemical properties. The
level of organic contamination is not unusual in the Region.
Conventional water treatment can remove the organic contam-
inants; and, Waterfed's water, therefore, is not Class I
Irreplaceable by this criterion.
The next criteria area to address is the comparable
quantity of water. If the alternative cannot provide
Waterfed with the 7 million gallons of water it needs every
day, the ground water would be classified as Class I.
The next criteria area addresses established laws,
administrative systems, or other forms of social control over
access to water which may preclude the use of the potential
replacement water source. If there are any institutional
restrictions that do not allow the replacement water to be
obtained through administrative procedures or market trans-
actions, Waterfed's well water would be considered Class I.
No such barriers exist, and Water fed's well water is not
Class I irreplaceable by this criterion.
If Waterfed's water is not to be considered Class I
irreplaceable, replacing the city's well water must be an
economically viable option. Under Option A, the annualized
replacement cost to a typical user must be within or greater
than 0.7 to 1.0 percent of the mean household income in the
community to be Class I. Waterfed's mean household income is
$20,000 per year and there are 9,100 households. If the
annualized cost of replacing the city's ground water is
within or greater than the range of $1.27 - $1.82 million
($20,000 times 9,000 times 0.7 - 1.0 percent), the water may
be designated Class I irreplaceable under this option. Based
on rough estimates, the capital cost for constructing the
pipeline to pump water from the alternative source is
approximately $2 million. Using the simplified annualization
factor of 0.1 yields an annualized capital cost of $200,000.
The annual operating and maintenance costs are likely to be
between $150,000 and $200,000, yielding a total annualized
replacement cost of between $350,000 and $400,000. Since
this is at most, 0.31 percent of the mean household income,
Waterfed's current water source is replaceable and, there-
fore, is, in the final analysis, not Class I irreplaceable.
There is no need to perform a more detailed economic analy-
sis.
Under Option B, these or other cost/ability-to-pay
factors would be addressed in a more qualitative fashion.
Such analyses may indicate, for example, that the area is not
"water-short" and that the community generally seems able to
afford such services as water supply improvement. Thus, the
supply is considered "replaceable" under Option B as well.
106
------- OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000A0K\tiff\2000U1Q9.tif): Unspecified error
-------
u
2
j
W
c
co
JZ
^—t
OJ
L_
o
E
c
.2 c
•5. 2
CO O
UJ
« s
<— *
C C
0) (O
o g
Q. E
c
ro
03
.2 c
to .2
i_ *-»
a 2
s :§•
to o
5 TO
.2
*-•
C C
CD co
o ®
a. E
108
-------
4.5.1.1 DRASTIC Methodology
DRASTIC is an acronym representing seven key
hydrogeologic factors correlated to the potential for ground-
water contamination listed below:
D - p_epth to the water table
R - Net Recharge to ground water
A - Aquifer media
S - Soil media
T - Jopography (slope of the land)
I - Impact of the vadose zone
C - Hydraulic Conductivity of the subject
ground-water flow system
The DRASTIC methodology consists of several steps
leading toward a single DRASTIC index number. In the first
step, each factor is given a rating between 1 and 10 (except
for net recharge, which is rated between 1 and 9) depending
upon the range of parameter values within a hydrogeologic
setting. Consider the range of values for depth to water,
and corresponding ratings, shown in Table 4-5. A setting
with a depth to water of 28 feet would be rated as a 7.
(Tables listing the range of values and corresponding ratings
for each factor are provided in Appendix D.)
In the second step, each factor rating is multiplied by
a factor weight to give a factor index. For instance, the
weight for depth to water is 5 and, thus, if the rating is 7,
the factor index is 35 (7 times 5). For the final step, the
individual factor indices are added together to arrive at the
DRASTIC index.
The degree of confidence in a DRASTIC index number is a
function of the reliability of the hydrogeologic information
used to rate each factor. In settings where the hydrogeo-
logic information is well established, due to localized
ground water and geologic studies, for example, the index
will have a narrow confidence band. As in any procedure
involving professional judgment, a more experienced or better
trained evaluator will provide a more accurate portrayal of
ground-water vulnerability to contamination.
4.5.1.2 Application of DRASTIC to the Classification
Review Area
DRASTIC can be applied to the Classification Review Area
using one of two approaches. In the most general approach,
the ranges of each DRASTIC factor can be estimated from
available information and a single DRASTIC index generated
109
-------
TABLE 4-5
DRASTIC RANGE RATING FOR DEPTH TO WATER
(FROM ALLER ET AL, 1985)
Depth to Water
(Feet)
Range
0-5
5-15
15-30
30-50
50-75
75-100
100+
Rating
10
9
7
5
3
2
1
Weight: 5
110
-------
for the entire Classification Review Area. The average
rating for each factor would be chosen where the range in the
values of actual factor parameters spans two or more ratings.
For example, if the depth to water across the Classification
Review Area ranged from 5 to 30 feet, then two ratings would
be bracketed (see Table 4-5), ratings of 9 through 7. An
average rating of 8 would be chosen. This approach does not
allow for the differentiation between hydrogeologic settings
within the Classification Review Area where the range in
values of factor parameters may not be so variable.
The second approach is to map out the major hydro-
geologic settings that have significantly different DRASTIC
indices within the Classification Review Area. Differences
in DRASTIC indices in the range of 10 to 20 or more index
points are considered significant. Where DRASTIC units are
mapped out, an area weighted, average index can be computed.
However, if the activity occupies any portion of a DRASTIC
map unit with an index greater than the "highly vulnerable"
criterion, or, if more than 50 percent of the Classification
Review Area exceeds the criterion, the setting should be
designated as highly vulnerable.
As an illustration of the mapping approach, consider the
proposed activity shown in Figure 4-19. Within the Classifi-
cation Review Area, three hydrogeologic settings have been
mapped and labeled: A, B, and C. The DRASTIC index for each
hydrogeologic setting is 180, 140, and 100, respectively;
while, the area for each setting is 20 percent, 45 percent,
and 35 percent, respectively. The weighted average DRASTIC
index is calculated as follows:
Area
Map DRASTIC Proportion Weighted
Unit Index of Area Index
A 180 .20 36
B 140 .45 63
C 100 .35 35
Weighted Index 134
For this illustration, the map-unit, area-weighted
DRASTIC index of 134 is less than the highly vulnerable
criterion of 150. If map-unit A had been greater than 50
percent of the Classification Review Area, or, if the activ-
ity had occurred in map unit A, the designation of highly
vulnerable would have been automatic.
Ill
-------
FIGURE 4-19
ILLUSTRATION OF DRASTIC MAPPING
MAP UNIT B
DRASTIC = I4O
MAP UNIT A
DRASTIC = 180
MAP UNIT B
DRASTIC =I4O
MAP UNIT C
DRASTIC = 100
EXPLANATION
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA BOUNDARY
2 MILES
Ilia
-------
4.5.1.3 Limitations to the Application of DRASTIC
DRASTIC has been designed to account for a number
of different conditions, among which are multiple aquifers
and confined aquifers. There is also a separate index
designed strictly for agricultural analyses.
The DRASTIC methodology allows for the depth-to-water
rating to be adjusted for confined aquifers. With this tech-
nique, different aquifers within the Classification Review
Area could receive a different DRASTIC index. Generally, the
deeper aquifers will be less vulnerable. However, contam-
inants entering in a vulnerable recharge area may reach even
the deepest aquifer given sufficient time. The system typic-
ally favors the uppermost aquifer in determining vulner-
ability and a single DRASTIC index attributable to the
Classification Review Area, or subdivision of the Classifi-
cation Review Area. This is generally consistent with
Agency's philosophy that the primary aquifers threatened by
the bulk of EPA regulated programs are those under table
conditions. Where the uppermost aquifer is found to be
vulnerable, all ground water with a high degree of inter-
connection to the uppermost aquifer is to be considered
highly vulnerable. Confined aquifers with a low-to-inter-
mediate interconnection to the uppermost aquifer are con-
sidered less vulnerable.
The DRASTIC method also establishes a separate and
different set of factor weights for agricultural activities.
Because the Agency has decided to consider vulnerability as
independent of activity, only the regular factor weights will
be applied.
4.5.2 Option B; Qualitative Assessment
In this option, the user of Guidelines would select the
most appropriate operational tools for assessing vulner-
ability. The selection might be based on factors such as site
setting, professional experience of the user, the avail-
ability of data, or previous program experience. In some
cases, general comparisons of the hydrogeologic setting to
others where vulnerability is a concern might suffice. The
analysis might end at that point, or a detailed mapping or
flow net analyses might commence. Option B is called "quali-
tative," since these Guidelines would not include referred
tests of methods to follow, or other numerical criteria/
decision steps.
There are five general categories of vulnerability
methods which have been analyzed in the context of these
112
-------
Guidelines. Within each of the five broad categories is a
series of sub-approaches that could be used. Although
discussed in Appendix B, the five are summarized in Table 4-
6. As one moves from the "qualitative description" approach
through to the "integrative criterion", sophistication
generally increases along with cost and complexity. The
qualitative approach could include some of the DRASTIC
factors as well. Rather than utilize the ranking and weigh-
ing scheme discussed in the previous section, or all of the
seven DRASTIC factors could be reviewed for a given area, and
professional judgment used accordingly.
113
-------
W
|J
g
5
M
Em ffl
O *S
PH
W H
w §
£ ?
2
*i2 s^
M ^
EC
o
H
X
s
o
S3
M
M
*•
O MH
4J >i 0 4)
0) J= A
4J > 4-> BJ
C -H 01 C 0
£ id 4) -H
0) 4J H P T3
OI-H ft 4)
•d H M-H 0>
3 id o M-d
1-1 3 MH O 3
& MTI
41 0 H-d W
M 4J 4) DI
H C >iC
3 W M-H
& 0i « O 4J •
4) C *» 4-1 4)
M-H-d C 4) H
4J C 4) 10 A
•-4J Id > id
4) 0> COM
10 (0 Ifl-H-H 4)
3 C 0i C
H O 0 0 H
0 id-H 4-1 H 3
•P 4) -P 0 ?
M ft 10 4)
4) -H M 0i >i
HA M 4) OH
ft O O O MX!
E 4J W 0 -d 01
•H Id 4) M >i-H
w E-d ft.c.fi
M
m
>i 4)
H M
» -d id
to Oi
DI -H 4)
C A Oi
•H 10 M M
4J M » 0 id
4J 4) >i M X3
01 MH -d - 0 O
W-H C W 4)
&id H » M
W-H C
H Id O-H M
ft >i M id 4)
id-d A M 4->
M 4) 4) M id
4) C CH 4) >
C-H -H A 4J 1
H MH Id id fl
3 C H 4) 4J C
> O M E W 3
O 4) M M O
>i C > 4) « M
H 3 O ftX Oi
"&
•H • « •
X id A o
o
•H
H
MH O
O 41
C O
0 M
•H-d
4J >i
•H
M 41
OH
to ft
4) «
•d M
4>
0) C
> H
•H 3
4J > M
id DI
•P >i C
•HH'H
H £1 4->
Id 0I4J
3-H 4)
&.C to
rH
Kj
H
4) Id >t
4) M
O M -P
4J C
10 3
4J-H 0
H O
O O 4)
•H-H.C
HH.fi 4J
MH »
•H W
•d C w
~% M
4> M O
10 4) «
34J
0 MH
•P U A
Id
4) 0) O
H H -H
111
w to id
c
«
.e *
•P O
3
w 'd
M C
4) 0
H O
w o
U -H
4) H
^
0) 4) >i
10 MH 4J
O -H
•d o >
id in-H
id
M
O
0
id
4->
c
4)
"8
4)
•d
c •
•H «
•H
4) M
H 4)
01 4J
C-H
t/1 O
r»
4)
W W
id >(
C 3 C 0 w
•H O1 Id id H M
4) A O
4J C Id 4J
M M 4) -H M O
0 O 4) 4) id
4J 4-> E 4J C MH
0 O H H
id id 0 3 3 C
MH M-l 4J W > 0)
4) 4)
4) A 4) M >( 3
rH O M H 4->
01 id 3 H .C. 4)
C 4)H H 0iA
•H -H-H-H
CO W W 4) -H M
O W I M C C
Id 3 4) 0 O
4J W 4-" -H -H
C .» u -H 4J 4J
4> 10 Id M id Id
E 0) O C H •
4) 4J .» -H 0) t3
> (0 4J M E M Q)
0 -P43 0 M M M
M U 0i 4-> 4) 41 0
ft -H O 4J 4J C
E >i 4) * 4> C 01
HA 3 MH "d -H -H
O «
•H O M
H 4) Id
3 W 4)
M
>i $
JS^1 ft
»o w
4J H 4)
4> A
01 X O
UH C
O -H
O •
in »H in
H A A
V
^1 4)
4) 4J 01
C-H M
O > Id
N -H A
4J O
41 O 4)
W 3 M
O -d
•d e-d
« o c
> o id
4J
4)
g
s.
1
•H
o
H
-S1
-M
rH
3
£
m
4) ...
M • U
o *d 0i
01 O 4) C C
C W -d O H -H 1
•H -d -H Id 4J O
»4lld4JMCld 4)
OH OOOMOOi
H 01 O 41 4-1 -H 0
HCMMOIOO4JO
Id -H Id -H Id W -H -H
to "d MH 4) MH OIMH
•d 10 MH-H C-H
5-d 4JJ3 ft ft ft A ft
4) C O 4J -H 10 10
E id id 4J M MI
MH CH O Oi O 4)
T3 DI -H3MHCMH4-I4-I
4) C-d E -H -H C
4J -H O -d W 4-1 -d W 0>
O iC iC ^ C *d 4) N M W
•H OlOiO-H-HH-H O W
WOI4) 0) O W -H W
•H 5 5 C-d M Mr M
A U-HftCOOid
ft M 4J W -H -H
00 >MHC<- I04->H
104-*XOOt£j4-&4)tOld
O 4) O O C E-H O
Q) flj *O W (Q Q) *H rH >H
EM id 4J ft>d 1-H o
4) to NO 4) DI
01 0 (B X W •• toro N C
•HhM4J<*M -H-H4)
4) H 4) 0ip4 "d 4J 4J
$ ld>iHldH Ch Mld-H
^ • AH ft -H U TJ IB 3 M •
— * 4I4J6 M CT3H ^
Di>d O Tf S 4) 3 C O IB C IB rH O
C4)HV M IB "» IB > IB 00
•H 4-1 H ft M M 0> M~'^4J4)IOO>
4JAt004)4) 1 ^10 OH
ldO> 4J
to C -H
O W -d
td-H C 4)
4J 4) 4J
•d id 4J -H
CH c 3
id 4) -H W
0i M id -P
C 4) 4J 0
•H 4J id 2,
4J c -d
•&-^f .
•H 4) M 4)
4) A 4) M •
S 4J > 0 W
O id
MM WO
O M • M
4J 4) W O Id
O -d MH
(d -H O DI 4)
MH 10 4-1 C DI
C O-H M
M 0 id W Id
0 U MH H
MH (0
C DI
W • 4) 10 C
3 O O "d -H
0 M SH ft
H 0 4J 4) ft
H O 4) -H (d
< WAX£
M rf
O K
•P O
id
4) M
^
O
rH
O >1
> id
id -d
M
-P M
1 41
MH ft
O
1 4J
O O
E O
•H MH
4J
fN
01 rH
id
M C
o id
> A
< 4J
4)
M
3
to
C Q
O id M ft
•H OX
MM O
O O O
4J MH O C
•H C Id
M H Id
O O -PA
> W O
4) id -H id
> M -d O
•H 4J M
4J 1 TJ
id MH 41 O
M O 4J 4-> •
01 1 O 4J
O 4) O O C
4J E H E -H
C -H O -H 0
H EH (0 4-1 ft
in
114
-------
4.6 Determination of Reasonable Treatment
The ground-water classification system indicates that
Class III ground waters are those which (1) contain greater
than 10,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids (TDS); (2) are
yielded in insufficient quantities to satisfy the needs of an
average household; or (3) are so contaminated that they
cannot be cleaned up using treatment methods reasonably
employed in public water systems. An approach to define the
latter based on a comparison to "reference technologies" is
provided in this section. An alternative approach, new to
this draft, is available for consideration and review.
Although the test is somewhat more complete and, perhaps,
expensive to perform, it is believed to be more rigorous and
definitive in its application. The alternative which can
eventually replace, or be used in conjunction with "reference
technologies" is fully discussed in Appendix G.
4.6.1 Standards and Criteria for Treatment
The above definition implies that an analysis of
treatment methods should consider relevant "standards and
criteria" for long-term drinking water use. No one set of
such "numbers" are available and thus, some professional
judgment may be required.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, for example, EPA has
issued National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR). These regulations set maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) for a number of inorganic, organic, and microbiologi-
cal contaminants in drinking water. These values are based
on both health factors and technical/economical feasibility.
MCLs for selected parameters can be found in Table 4-7.
In addition to MCLs which are enforceable standards,
RMCLs or recommended maximum contaminant levels are set
reflecting EPA's goal of no known or anticipated adverse
health effects. Both RMCL and MCL values are updated
periodically. For example, proposed RMCL values for eight
volatile organic chemicals are published in the Federal
Register (1985). It is the objective of the agency to set
MCLs as close to RMCLs as possible.
EPA provides drinking water suppliers with additional
guidance under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
EPA is now in the process, for example, of developing RMCLs
for additional contaminants to serve as guidance for estab-
lishing new drinking water MCLs. The Agency is accelerating
the pace of both RMCL and MCL issuance. Other chemicals
addressed under the Clean Water Act (CWA) may be inter-
115
-------
TABLE 4-7
RMCL & MCL VALUES FOR SELECTED CONTAMINANTS1
Contaminants RMCL MCL
(mg/1) (mg/1)
Inorganic Species:
Arsenic 0.05 0.05
Barium 1.5 1
Cadmium .005 0.010
Chromium .12 0.05
Fluoride - 1.4-2.4
Lead 0.020 0.05
Mercury .003 0.002
Nitrate (as N) 10 10
Selenium .045 0.01
Silver - 0.05
Organic Species:
Benzene 0
Vinyl Chloride 0
1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.007
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.20
p-Dichlorobenzene 0.750
Trihalomethane - .1
Lindane - 0.004
Sources: Federal Register, Vol. 50, No. 219, Nov. 13, 1985.
p 46889, p 46958, p 46957.
Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, June
1985, U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio
116
-------
mittently encountered in a water system, and are believed to
pose a risk for the near term, yet are currently unregulated
in drinking water. The guidelines for these are developed by
the Office of Drinking Water in the form of Health Ad-
visories. The health advisories are not mandatory for public
water systems, but provide information for emergency situ-
ations. (Health Advisories are available on some contaminants
where no MCLs or RMCLs are published, Table 4-8.) They are
calculated at three exposure levels: one day, seven or ten
days, and longer term (1 to 2 years). A margin of safety is
factored in to protect the most sensitive members of the
general population (U.S. EPA, 1985; Federal Register, 1985).
Finally, the RCRA program in developing its Alternate
Concentration Limits (ACLs), and in responding to the land
disposal bans portion of the RCRA amendments of 1984, will be
examining the applicability of other sets of criteria and
standards for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic contam-
inants. These will likely be useful for addressing the large
number of contaminants without current MCLs, RMCLs, or health
advisories.
4.6.2 Treatment Technologies
Many different treatment technologies are currently used
for treating surface and ground waters which serve as public
drinking water supplies. These technologies can be classed
into five general categories: volatile organic chemicals
removal; non-volatile organic chemicals removal; metals
removal; non-metallic inorganic chemicals removal; and
disinfection. Some technologies are effective in reducing
only a few types of contaminants, while others may effi-
ciently treat several contaminant classes simultaneously.
Although most processes are designed to treat a single
"class" of contaminants, many will provide some beneficial,
non-design removal of other contaminant classes. (Appendix E
briefly describes each of several generic treatment tech-
nologies with reference to their appropriate usage and
limitations.)
4.6.2.1 Regional Availability of Reference
Technologies
Table 4-9 presents the use of various treatment
technologies by EPA Region. Most of the reference tech-
nologies are currently in use at public water supply systems
in all regions of the country, however, not necessarily in
hazardous-waste applications (e.g., carbon adsorption is
sometimes used in taste and odor applications and not for
removal of volatile organics). The exceptions to this are
117
-------
TABLE 4-8
HEALTH ADVISORIES FOR SELECTED CONTAMINANTS IN WATER
CHEMICAL
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
1, 1-Dichloroethylene
1, 2-Dichloroethylene
1, 2-t-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Ethylene glycol
Formaldehyde
n-Hexane
p-Diozane
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB)
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Tr i chl or oe thy 1 ene
Xylenes
Health
1-day
0.2
0.0625
1.0
4.0
2.7
13
19.0
0.030
13
5.68
7.5
0.125 0
2.3
21.5
2.0
12
Advisories
ma/1
10-day
0.23
0.02
0.0625
0.4
0.27
1.3
0.030
4.0
0.598
0.75
.0125
0.175
2.2
0.2
1.2
Longer
Term
0.07
0.0075
0.07
0.15
5.5
0.02
0.34
1.0
0.075
0.62
aTotal trihalomethanes refers to the sum concentration of
chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane,
and bromoform.
118
-------
TABLE 4-9
APPLICATION OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES IN PUBLIC WATER
SUPPLY SYSTEMS, BY EPA REGION3
Technologies Applied
in All Regions
Aeration"
Carbon Adsorption
Chemical Precipitation
Chlorination
Flotation6
Fluoridation
Granular Media Filtration
Technologies Applied
in Some Regions
Air Stripping0
Desalination
Ion Exchange
Ozonation
Technologies Generally
Not Applied3
Distillation
Wet Air Oxidation
Biological Treatment
6
7
28
A3
30
30
20
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
II III
28
12
55
99
64
38
48
3
0
5
0
0
0
0
Number of Systems Identified
IV V VI VII VIII IX
21
8
67
96
94
42
61
4
0
3
1
0
0
0
58 96 9
4 13 3
109 227 25
161 292 70
186 217 58
97 211 15
107 185 32
2
5
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
40
1
96
86
90
57
65
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
8
4
35
64
70
23
44
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
17
4
37
119
80
9
62
2
8
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
12
55
31
12
24
0
20
1
0
0
0
0
a This table is based primarily on data available in the 1981 AWWA Survey of Public
Water Supply Systems, and supplemented with case studies drawn from the available
literature. The data reflect only the use of the technologies in water utilities,
and to not represent usage patterns of those technologies for wastewater or indus-
trial process water treatment. Data describing 1500-1600 public water systems were
consulted.
b The AWWA Survey includes air stripping in this category.
c Plants were identified independent of the AWWA survey.
" No evidence of application of these technologies was found in the set of 1500-1600
public water systems examined.
e Includes technologies using skimming, diffused air, diffused oxygen, and pressurized
gases. 119
-------
desalination, ion exchange, and ozonation; these treatment
technologies nay be considered reasonably employed in certain
Regions. Air stripping, which is most often used for removal
of volatile organic solvents from ground waters, should be
considered "available" for Class III analyses, despite its
limited use in public water supply systems.
Other treatment technologies may be applicable in the
future, but are not now considered readily available or
reasonably employable. Distillation techniques have long
been employed for treating industrial process water, for
example, but is generally reserved for such water, for
example, but is generally reserved for such areas as water-
short islands. Biological treatment techniques have been
used for in situ clean up of ground waters and although
efforts to develop biological treatment technology is not
applicable or reasonably employable. Wet air oxidation
techniques are used in industry for removal of organics from
process wastewater. Efforts to develop this technology for
application in water treatment are also underway, but the
techniques should not be considered reasonably employable.
The reference list of these technologies are used to
define the set of available water treatment technologies. A
partial bibliography of resources and references is given in
Appendix E.
4.6.2.2 Treatment Efficiencies
Evaluation of treatment efficiencies for a single
contaminant or group of contaminants requires the evaluation
of interferences and interaction of contaminants. General
background data on treatment performance indicate ranges of
values for efficiency. For example, EPA's Treatability
Manual for Priority Pollutants (U.S. EPA, 1980), presents
examples of typically achievable contaminant removal ef-
ficiencies for a range of contaminants and technologies.
More precise determination requires pilot testing or
comparison by experts with other similar waste streams.
Appendix E indicates the general level-of-success the various
treatment technologies have with frequently encountered waste
streams. Removal efficiencies are not reported in the
literature for all contaminants, as experience using certain
technologies is not available.
Contaminant concentration, physical conditions (e.g.,
pH, temperature), solution chemistry, and the presence of
competing or interfering contaminants can all contribute to
the large variations in removal efficiencies that are
120
-------
reflected in the literature. For situations in which a more
accurate assessment of treatment efficiencies is desired, the
user of these guidelines may wish to refer to a partial
bibliography of sources listed at the end of Appendix E.
Table 4-10 lists some of the major advantages, dis-
advantages, and limitations associated with each treatment
process. For developing process configurations, it is
usually desirable to remove the contaminants first that they
may interfere with subsequent processes. For example, if a
system uses both granular media filtration for solids removal
and ion exchange for softening, the filtration stage should
precede the ion exchange stage in order to assure that
potential resin-fouling solids are eliminated from suspen-
sion. As another example, plants with solvent contamination
will air strip or carbon adsorb the organics prior to
chlorination, to prevent the formation of halogenated
organics which are less efficiently removed.
4.6.3 Methodology for Determining Treatability
To determine if a ground water can be cleaned up using
treatment methods reasonably employed by public water
systems, the permit reviewer may wish to follow the steps
described below.
1. Describe the contamination problem.
The description of the contamination problem should
include information on the natural or background water
quality, the extent of contamination, and the physical
factors influencing both ground water and treatment. The
natural quality of a ground water may be inferred from
historical data or by comparison to background ground waters
in the site vicinity.
Contaminants in the ground water of concern should be
specified and the range in concentrations noted. In particu-
lar, if the type and concentration of contaminant vary
spatially, this should be indicated as it has design implica-
tions for treatment configurations. The analyses used and
the range of sampling and measurement error should also be
provided to assist the reviewer in understanding the degree
of certainty of contamination. It is important to address
the areal extent of contamination to be sure it meets the
basic notion that contamination is not related to an in-
dividual facility or activity.
The physical parameters of concern include flow pat-
terns, climatology, and other site-specific issues. Many of
121
-------
4-1
C
0)
3
1— (
4-1
C
Q) -H
rH
•H C
4-1 -H
Cfl
rH M
0 T3
> -H
rH
X O
en rH cn
C C
O O T3
•H CD
4-> cn ti-
ed a) c
4J > 0)
•HO OH
E E w
•H 01 3
J « cn
/— N
T3 C
rH 0
C o -H
O U 4-1
•H ---3
4-J rH
Cfl 0> rH
Ll > O
01 -H OH
< 4J
-•^ -H Ll
00 W -H
C C CO
•H o) en
OH in cn 4J c
OH 0) C -H
•H W Q) CO
Li cfl Li C 4-J
4J 4-1 3 -H rH
§3
in
Li > Ll 4J 0)
•H "0 0) C Li
•< Cfl OH O
en E o >>
•HO) CO
Q H s
OT
0)
•H
U
C
0)
S *r"'
3 o
O -H
4-1
TJ 4-1
C 01
cfl
rH
•H CO
en cfl >
01 4J O
oc -H E
Cfl OH 0)
4-1 cfl Ll
c o
CO rC
i
•H
O
•H
4H
4H
0)
rH
cfl
>
0
QJ
Li
O
4-J
TJ
cfl
01
rH
^
Cfl
E
C
0
•H
cn
in
•H
G
PM
Li
O
4H
TJ
0)
0)
c
cfl
J_j
O
in
4->
C
cfl
j5
•H
c
CO
4-1
G
O
O
0)
I
Li
O
rH
cfl
U
•H
00
o
rH
o
•H
XI
0)
3
TJ
en
0
rH
^
U
c
0)
rH
O
^1
4-J
C
o
U
> 3 004H
TJ O -H
< J IK
/" %
^*>
rH
C
o
00
c
•H
OH
OH
•H
^|
4-1
en
^i
•H
Cfl
^
4-1
[J
O
00
T3
>>TJ 0)
rH C OT
rH 3 Cfl
Cfl O JS
Ll Ll U
01 00 Ll
C 3
0) Ll OH
00 O
4-1 0)
OT XI 4-1
•H TJ iH
OJ CO)
4-J Li CO XI
c -H o cn
0) 3
E cr 4-> oi
4-1 Q) C XI
cd Li Li 0) 4->
01 01 E
4-1 O tO -H 4-1
QJ C 3 SO
LI cr
[-1 ! fjq
(U
Li
a>
Jj
rH
CO
Q
£•
0)
Li
OT
OT U
C -H
O C
•H ffl
+J 00
cfl Ll
4-1 O
•H
E Li
•H O
. _1 &J
01
C
cfl
O
C
O 4-1
•H C
4-1 0)
a OH
Ll OT
o
in OT 4n
"rj DO
< oc
Cfl 4-1
C 4-1 C
O CO)
X; cfl E
Cfl TJ 00
U cfl cfl
W C
•H Cfl
f^\ y*
OT
4-1
c
£
fl)
Li
•H
3
cy
(U
Ll
w >>
0) 00
OC Ll
cfl Q)
4J C
c a>
cfl
TJ O
< .J
A
^G
00
•H
*c
01
Ll
cfl
OT
C
O
•H
.p
CO
Li
+J
C
0)
o
c
0
o
o
•H
4J
Cfl
§
i-H
^Q
o
M
OH
*o
c
CO
0)
^
•H
en
C
a)
c
o
•H
4-1
cd
Li
0)
c
CU
00
0)
Li
c
o
XI
Li
tfl
O
^
4-J Ll
C Cfl
0) OT
3 OT
cr1 a)
01 O
Ll 0)
4-H C
c
O 4-J
•H C
4-1 0)
(\3 rH E
r-l 03 Qj
0) en o
C O CO
01 O.rH
00 OT OH
0) -rl 0)
4J
O
C
*d
rH
3
O
OT
OT
T)
•H
j— |
O
OT
OI
TJ
C
0)
OH
OT
3
CO
OT
4-J
OT
O
0
00
c
•H
+J
cfl
Li
0)
OH
O
•a
c
rH
Cfl
4-J
•H
OH
Cfl
O
rH
00
E
o
m
T3
0>
0)
O
X
(U
*O
0)
01
o
X
a)
4-J
o
*rj3
rH
3
O
OT
01
OT
cd
a)
M
00 -H
TJ t)0
C E
cd
0
rH rH
•H
O
00
c
•H
*d
cfl
o
rH
o
•H
rH
3
cd
M
13
XI
^
*T3
cd
0)
4-1
OT
W
01
Ll
•H
3
cr
cu
OH« Q K
X
cu
1 1 1
_r"]
00
•H
K
O
*-H
cn
0)
•H
U
C
0)
•H
0
•H
4-1
4H
0)
rH
Cfl
>
O
C1J
M
x:
00
•H
W
M
4-1
C
cd
c
•H
C
CO*
4-1
C
0
o
4-1
O
01
00
c
cfl
Li
0)
T3
•H
JJ
Cfl
c
o
•H
4-J
CO
Li
4-1
C
0)
U
C
0
o
T3
Cfl
o
pQ
cfl
a)
Ll 00
01 C
> Cfl
O Ll
122
-------
/•—•>
•
4-1
C
o
\^s
o
T— 1
|
-c-
pi-"]
, ~j
pq
H
,c
00
•H
oaf
c
•H
4-1
in
CU
4-1
^
p
O
4-'
Cfl
VJ
O
in co
C rH
O
•H 4-1
4-1 C
Cfl OJ
4J 3
•H cr
E CU
•H )-l
4-1
O
in
CU
•H
4-1
•H
4J
C
CO
3
cr
CU
C
•H
Cfl
4J
C
•H
Cfl
E
O
4-1
CO
TJ OJ
Q) -H
r-l CJ
•H C
3 OJ
cr -H
0) U
M -H
MH
in <4H
•H OJ
TJ
CU
4->
cfl
CU
4->
CU
,0
4->
in
3
c
4~)
c
CU
c
CU
a
CU
ffi
i
c
o
>> u
M C
cfl 3
0
>. 4-J
Cfl
E cu
3
^> TJ
4-1
00 JS TJ -H >>
in i-i
CU cfl
0£ rH
cfl
4-1 10
C OJ
Cfl 4-1
> cfl
TJ M
CO CU
in c
•H CU
Q O
QJ
rH
cfl
rH
•H
Cfl
cd
^
rH
•H
TJ
CO
CU
r-l
in
•H
in
CU 4-1
oc c
CO CU
4J E
C 0,
Cfl .H
> 3
TJ cr
< W
O OJ
•H CO
rC 0
S CX,
W
OJ -H
TJ
3 *X3
rH C
W Cfl
CU
4-1
cfl
M
CU
CX
o
0
4-1
»^>
to
cfl
cu
*o
c
cfl
rH rH
cfl ,0.
3 cfl
cr ,-1
CU
c -H
cu in
3 c
rH 0
m o
UH
to
4-1
C
CU
g
CU
^
•H
3
cr
cu
»^>
00
CU
c
JJ
o
^
in
CU
o
c
cfl
4->
in
3
U
•H
O
CU
rH
J2
cfl
rH
rH
O
r-l
4-1
4-1
•H
E
•H
rH
C
o
•H
4-1
cfl
^1
4J
C
CU
u
c
o
o
o
z
in
4J
in
o
o
y*
v3
O
TJ
C
CO
rH
Cfl
4_)
•H
CX
CO
O
JJ
o
rJ
O
4-1
^
O
rH
OJ
4-1
to
3
e
00
w c
TJ -H
•H rH
rH 3
0 0
in m 4-1
c
O TJ 4-J
•H 0) C
4-1 TJ QJ
CO C >
4-1 OJ OJ
•H CX J*<
E to CX
•H 3
rJ C/J
to
rH 4->
C C
O (U
4-1 Q)
CO r-l
C "'>
•H 3
rH CT
CO CU
tO 10 r-l
CU CU
O oc >>
cfl 00
4-1 r-l
C 0)
CO C
> (U
CO rC
in oo
•H -H
P K
cu
00
Cfl
u
Hn to
0 C
O
rH -H
CO 4->
> CO
O 0
E
Q) TJ
W C
W Cfl
OJ 4-1
oc c in
cfl Q) C
4-1 rH O
C rH -H
Cfl Q) C
> 0 CD
TJ X
< w
0)
,0
4-1
in
3
£3
in o
oj m
r-l 00
3
4-1 TJ
CO C
r-l Cfl
OJ
C-^4 r^l
§o
to
4-1 vO
00 C
c cu
•H Q)
4-J £
Cfl 4->
Vj 0)
OJ ^
CX
O
E
0)
4-1 4J
o tn
rH >,
•H in
CX
c u
O tfl
•H flj
to
C M
CU O
4-J m
^
cu in
CU
tn to
OJ >>
r-l rH
•H CO
3 C
CT ffl
0)
r-l
Cfl
rH
3
0
OJ
rH
O
E
rC
00
•H
rC W
u
o c
rH 00
CO r-l
> o
o
§-^.._i
rC
r-l 00
•H
TJ CU
O ?
o
o
1
3
r-l
4J
in
c
•H
TJ
CU
4->
CO
O
•H
4-1
to
•H
rC
CX
o
to
^1
rH
.C
00
•H
w
rH
CO
O
OJ
r-l
r-l
O
M-l
4J
C
OJ
S
cfl
OJ
r-l
4-1
CU
>
•H
4-J
O
CU
MH
UH
W
rH
0
r-l
4-1
C
O
u
TJ
c
«
c
o
•H
4-1
Cfl
4-1
C
CU
E
to
TJ
•H
rH
O
to
TJ
OJ
>
rH
O
M
in
•H
TJ
MH
0
CU
c
•H
r-l r-l
XI Q) 10 CO
,C >, 4-1
TJ 4-i tfl in
CU r-l 3 O
4-13 rH 0
CO l+H Cfl
r-l S
4-J CU 4-1 3
c r-i in o
CU -H O
03 E TJ
C cr rH c
O CU to cfl
O r-l
4-1 rH
Cfl >, 4J C Cfl
Cfl C CU TJ 4-1
tn E cu E cu -H
4-1 ,C 4-1 CO -H Cfl
cfl 0 cfl' OJ 3 0
M -H oj r-i cr
Q) 43 r-l 4-J Q) rC
C ? 4-1 CU M 00
OJ r-l -H
O PM W
i
Cfl
r-l
4J
rH
3
M
in
•H
to
o
E
to c
0 0
•H
0! 4-J
tn cfl
r-l r-l
OJ 4-J
> rH
QJ -H
PH MH
1-1
123
-------
C
o
o
I
o
•H
rH
3
cfl
M
•O
CO >s
*O 45
•H
rH >-.
O 'O
w cd
0)
*O 4J
0) W
*d
5 >>
0) rH
CX M
W 4-1 -H
co 30 cd
C cn c 4n
O 60
•H 4-1 T3 WC
4-> C rH Q) -H
Cfl OJ 3 M T3
4-> 3O -H Cfl
•H rH X 30
E 4-1 W CTrH
•H C 0)
h4 H K
I-C
C W
O cfl
•H j
4J /— s ^j
Cfl W O
MM cfl
4J Q) 43
rH 4-1
•H rH Cfl
P-t *rH
m w
Cfl QJ
•H 13 4-1
13 C Cfl
0) cfl W M
5 w OJ Q) 4-1
6( C W
M •> cfl 0) 3
Cfl • 4-J 60 6
rH 60 C
3 • CO w 45
CO) > WO
Cfl V- ' TJ Q) -H
M cfl O X
O WO?
•H M
Q Pi
O T3
4-1 01 (0
cn QJ
>> 3 -H
cn o
Cfl rH 0) C
Q) O 42 01
M iH
•« 4-> CO
01 C Cfl -H
rH O O 4-1
0) CX O 4-1
rH B Cfl Q)
Cfl W C T3 0)
•H Cfl 0) >
W rH >, E O
0)0) rH Q) M
at M o) 4-1 Q) ex
CO > Cfl rH E
4-} ^> -H V-l Qj «H
C rH 4-J QJ -H
Cfl ,C Cfl CX 4-1 O
> 60 rH 0 rH 4J
•O -H Q) 3
< « K 2
*rj
rH
3
0
W
w
e
o
•H
4-1
Cfl O
M O
4J O
C «
o) •*
o
C T)
W O Q)
C 00)
0 0
•H 4-> X
4-1 CO)
CO 01
4-1 34J
•H rH O
6 4-1 C
•H C
hJ M
4->
C T)
cfl 0)
M W
0) O
C CX
01 W
60 -H
0) T3
M
0)
TJ rO
01 0)
60 4-1 4->
C cfl cn
cfl M 3
45 4J e
0 C
X W 0) rC
W OJ 00
M C -H
C cfl 0 42
O 4-J O ?
M C
Cfl .HO)
> cfl C
T) M -H
cfl 0) M
CO C 43
P 0
0) 0)
4-1 M
Cfl 3
M 4-1
0) cfl
rH M
O OJ
4-J CX
C c3
Cfl 4-1
o
4H
W O
C
•H 0)
cn 60
0) C
M cfl
cn M
0) O
W -H o) BO
Cfl 4-1 T3 CX
4-) OJ «H
C 45 ? -0
CO 4-> C
> C cfl cfl
*O P1!
< C/)
rH
^^_
60
E
O
if)
TJ
0)
0)
O
X
0)
4-1
O
c
TJ
rH
3
O
W
•
co
.
on
i
c
0) 0)
bfi *Q
OJ
M 4->
W
TJ 3
0) E
4-1
cfl 45
M 0
4J -H
C 45
Q) »
O
C 0)
0 C
O -H
M T3
cn 43 QJ
OJ W
4-> 4-1 O
cfl e cx
M cfl w
OJ M -H
C Q) TJ
OJ
O
o
•H
o
•H
4-> T3
CO C
O CO
4H O
O -H W
C 4-1
^ Cfl C
4-1 60 cfl
0) M C
•H O -H
M C E
> 4-1
0 C
CO -H O
C 0
QJ O
> -H O
O C "H
E co c
0) Cfl
M -O 60
e M
C cfl O
cfl
U
0)
c
o
N
o
c
•H «
Cfl •
4J 60
C •
O 0)
o -^
4J W
0 4J
c c
cd
T) 13
rH -H
3 X
0 0
W rH
cfl
4-1 0
C -H
o) E
3 Q)
rH 45
4-1 O
C
H
^
60
•H
f*
W
CO
i— I
CO
4-J
o s
C '•O
o
4-1
3 13
43 C
CO
*
^*) rH
rH Cfl
rH 4-1
Cfl -H
M CX
0) cfl
C O
CO
4-J
C
gs
Q)
^4
•H
3
V
QJ
K^
60
OJ
C
0)
s
o
124
-------
o
u
I
tJ
td
CO
•H
O
CO
01
oc
cd
4-1
C
cd
*O
<
Treats only contaminants which
can be oxidized
00
CU
cu
00
•H
JS
cd
I— 1
cd
•H
a
u
,c
00
•H
0
CO «
iH >,
Cd rH
3 M
-O ed
•H rH
co 3
0) U
1-1 -H
4J
iH Vi
cd cd
o ft
•H ^-^
t3
,C 0)
O 4-1
cd
CO Vi
CU 0)
0 C
3 (U
T3 00
CU
K
to
C
o
ja
Vi
cd
u
o
^1
•a
J3*
1"O
cu
4-)
cd
c
•H
Vl
0
I— t
^
u
Does not remove iron-cyanide
complexes
h level of training
precautions for
00 >.
•H 4-1 C
X Q) 0
»H -H
CO Cd 4J
cu to cd
Vi Vi
•H T3 Q)
3 C OH
cr cd o
cu
(X
o
•H
4-1
cd
h
CU
c
cu
00
CO
•a
•H
i— 1
O
CO
"^
cu
>
r-l
O
co
to
•H
*o
o
2
• c cd
00 CO S
CU -H C
E ^5
4J 4J
d S ,
rt O l-i
> u cu
O 4-1
^J l^ ^
00
4-H CU
o > t>^
•rt 4J
0) 4-1 -H
00 U CO
C CU C
cd M-l CU
cu
O 4-1 4J
M 0 -H
Z
substantial
cu
M
•H
3
cr
cu
Vi
>>
cd
S
*X3
0)
c
C
53
>4-t
o
(0 T3
eu C
•H Cd
4-1
•H T3
4J 0)
C -P
td cd
3 0)
cr vi
4-1
cu
00 CU
Vi ,£>
cd
rH
CO
cu
4-1
cd
Vl
Q)
C
CU
O
Vl
O
H-l
0)
>
•H
4-1
U
0)
4-(
HH
0)
^
iH
J2
O
4-1
(U
00
•a
3
rH
CO
CO
0)
•H
4-J
fH
CO
c
cu
•a
J3
4J
•H
JJ
CO
c
0
rH 00 J3
a
£3
•H
^
^H
•H
CO
cd
W
•H
P^
^
rH
iH
cd
3
CO
^4
cd
u
o
Vl
•a
J>Sj
fC
T3
CU
10
O
a,
CO
•H
T3
Vi
CU
4J
cd
»
c
cd
f:
CO
CO
cu
rH
(^
O
f^
cd
cu
C
en
4-1
B
CU
Q)
1C ^
Z3 *H
0 3
cr
-------
the treatment processes are highly sensitive to temperature
fluctuations; therefore, ambient temperature ranges become
important in selecting appropriate technologies or housing
requirements. The climate in the area of concern, including
data on the freeze/thaw cycles, and any storm or wind events
that may affect the treatment processes must also be con-
sidered, other site-specific considerations may become
important on a case-by-case basis.
2. Determine the desired effluent quality
To determine the desired quality of the treated water
following completion of all treatment processes, acceptable
concentrations for each contaminant must be addressed.
Relevant Federal Criteria include the MCL, the RMCL, and the
longest-term Health Advisory for each contaminant. These
values are sometimes unavailable for certain contaminants due
to insufficient data.
3. Define the applicable treatment technologies
For each contaminant present, certain treatment tech-
nologies may be particularly applicable. Refer to Table 4-8
and Table 4-9 and supplementary information in Appendix E to
identify regionally available removal technologies for each
contaminant. This list of technologies should be considered
the universe of available processes for treating the ground
water.
4. Compile regionally available process configurations
Before assessing ground water treatability, the permit
reviewer must define a set of treatment process configura-
tions that may be used to remove contaminants from the ground
water. These process configurations should be developed
considering efficient contaminant removal to the minimum
level required. Any combination of the treatment processes
should be considered readily available nationwide.
5. Evaluate treated water quality
To evaluate typically achieved water quality using any
given treatment process configuration, the concentration of
specific contaminants in the ground water/influent, levels of
background water quality parameters (pH, TDS, etc.) and the
removal efficiencies of each contaminant using each treatment
process ideally should be known.
Background data/manuals on treatability developed by EPA
can be consulted for initial guidance on treatment perform-
126
-------
ance. For example, typical removal efficiencies are indicated
in EPA's Treatability Manual for Priority Pollutants (U.S.
EPA, 1980). A qualified water treatment engineer could also
determine the relative effectiveness and a probably range of
effluent quality levels achievable for many frequently
encountered contaminant mixes. Interference effects pos-
sibly, from adverse levels of various contaminant combina-
tions, background water-quality parameters (e.g., pH, or
heavy metals, varying concentrations), can affect the
efficiency of treatment processes. Because of this, in
complex mixtures or where little experience exists, the lack
of bench or the pilot scale treatability studies may limit
the ability of the engineer in developing an estimate.
6. Determine if desired water quality is met.
Once the approximate effluent concentration of each
contaminant has been evaluated for a given treatment process,
these can be compared to the appropriate water quality
standard. If all effluent concentrations are less than the
desired water quality, the ground water can be cleaned up
using treatment methods reasonably employed in public water
supply systems. If some effluent contaminant concentrations
exceed desired water quality, the treatment process config-
uration does not adequately clean the ground water, and an
alternative configuration should be evaluated for contaminant
treatability. If all available treatment process configura-
tions do not remove contaminants to the levels which meet
desired water quality, the ground water cannot be cleaned up
using treatment methods reasonably employed in public water
supply systems. These will then be candidates for Class III.
4.6.4 Sample Problem
The following example is illustrative in nature and is
not meant to represent conditions at any specific facility.
A permit applicant has asked to site a facility in
Region IV, and has made the claim that the site location will
only affect Class III ground water. The chemical con-
taminants in the ground water, listed in Table 4-11, are
apparently from multiple sources and occur throughout the
Classification Review Area.
The desired water quality levels are listed in Tables 4-
7 and 4-8. For cadmium and selenium the applicant defines
the desired maximum effluent contaminant concentrations to be
equal to the MCLs as presented in Table 4-7. For carbon
tetrachloride, desired effluent quality is derived from the
ten-day Health Advisory (the only available), while for
127
-------
0-
T3
h a
4) >
4J 01
CO *H
3 43
O
•o <
01
•H 4J
0) iH
•o
f*y
s
F*
01
m
0)
g
PJ
H
n
U K
01 01
01 U
•H 0
rl Lj
B OH
01
•H
U Q
£ 01
>*4 01
H U
u
rH O
> PL,
§
PS O
01 01
M M
01 0)
£
s
•u pa
CO
0) V)
VJ 01
H 01
U
o
£
"^
01
01
u
o
IX,
43
?
**
CO
(y
9
4-1
£_
CO
£
•H
B
CO
4-1
E
I
1
I
1
l
I
B
0
•H
4J
CO
4J
rH
•H
O
u
01
PM
rH
CO
CJ
•H
e
(X
_6
Q
Q
j^
4-1
co
3
B
O
•H
4-1
CO
h
3
OC
•H
UH
B
O
0
in
01
0)
0,
0) Ol 01
01 01 01 O O O
>< >4 IH z z z
NO r^ in
o o 10 o o
ON NO r~« NO
o in m m o o
oo oo oo in o o
o cs o co o o
o o o o o o
cs o o o m o
oo o m o o cs
CS NO -H
rH
0)
01 13
01 01 h
B iH O
0) >, iH
rH JC 43
>> 4J O
X 01 CO
4-1 O H
0)144-'
O O 01
V4 rH H g
O 43 01 E 3
iH O 6 B 3 -H
43 CO O 01 -H C
O b 4D 3 j 01
•H 4J ,4 rH -9 rH
b 01 CO O CO 01
H H O H U CO
1
1
1
B
o
•H
CO
B
•H
rH
cQ
01
B
O
•H
4J
eg
4J
rH
•H
C
O
01
04
rH
U
•H
g
C
"c
c
^
^J
CO
1-
pa
B
0
•H
4-t
CO
S
(X
•H
MH
B
O
O
w
0)
a
u
o
£
01 01 01 01 01 01
NO O O ^ O O
o o o cs o o
000000
r^ O r^ O o r^
oo in NO ON
r^ o o m o o
ON NO r* NO
o in in in o o
NO ON ON rv ON r^«
oo oo oo m o o
ON ON ON ON
in
r- CS CS •» rH rH
o o o n o o
o o o o o o
cs o o o m o
oo o m o o cs
CS NO '-i
01
01 T)
C -rt
01 01 l-l
B -H O
01 >, rH
rH 43 43
>> 4J 0
43 01 CO
4J O U
0) l-l 4J
O O 01
o 43 a e 3
rH O B C 3 -H
43 (0 O 01 -H B
CJ H 43 3 B 01
•H 4-1 l-l rH »O rH
l-l 01 CO O CO 01
H H 0 H CJ CO
rH
00
e
E
•H
B
O
"S
4J
01
u
B
O
o
4-1
B
eg
B
•H
4J
B
O
O
4-1
E
01
3
rH
1*4
E
•H
0)
4J
II
•H
ff
B
.H
«
E
O
•H
4J
CO
r4
4J
E
01
u
E
O
O
JJ
E
CO
B
1
4J
§
4J
B
01
3
rH
MH
UH
0)
B
3
B
•r-t
X
•a
01
•H
01
•a
0)
f.
»
•0
4-1
§
u
tt)
p,
c
•H
4-)
^4
0
a,
01
01
0)
•H
u
B
01
•H
o
•H
14-1
a>
rH
CO
f)
i
rH
OQ
e
c
•H
*
B
O
•H
4J
L4
4J
E
01
O
B
0
U
4J
B
CO
C
•H
n
4J
B
0
U
4J
B
01
3
rH
UH
UH
OJ
•O
01
4-1
CO
rH
3
U
rH
CO
O
01
43
4J
II
o
S & $
128
-------
toluene, trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene a long-
term Health Advisory was used.
The treatment processes that most readily removes such
volatile organics such as carbon tetrachloride, tetrachloroe-
thylene, and toluene include carbon adsorption and air
stripping. Metals, such as cadmium and selenium, can be
removed using chemical precipitation, desalination, and ion
exchange. Granular media filtration would probably be
considered for removal of residual particulate matter,
following a chemical precipitation step, particularly if
desalination, carbon adsorption, or ion exchange processes
followed. All of these processes are currently in use in
public water supply systems in Region IV.
Achievable effluent quality must be evaluated for each
treatment process configuration to determine if the ground
water can be treated to meet desirable levels. Process and
contaminant specific removal efficiencies are provided for
all six contaminants. (Please note: these values are to
illustrate the process and are not intended to be actual
efficiencies.) As indicated by calculated WQO values and
comparing them with WQd values (Table 4-10), treatment
process configuration A can result in removal of trichloroe-
thylene, tetrachloroethylene, and carbon tetrachloride to
acceptable levels. However, levels of cadmium, selenium, and
toluene following treatment using process configuration A can
not meet the desired water quality. Therefore, the applicant
must consider an additional treatment process configuration.
Removal efficiencies for the process configuration B
including air stripping, chemical precipitation, filtration,
and desalination can achieve acceptable water quality levels
for all contaminants. Thus, according to this methodology,
this ground water is not Class III because it can be cleaned
up using treatment methods reasonably employed in public
water supply systems.
An alternate economically-based test for determining the
treatability of potential Class II ground water is proposed
in Appendix G.
129
-------
4.7 Ground-Water and Surface-Water Interaction
Interconnected ground water and surface water nay be
managed or regulated for different, and sometimes conflict-
ing, uses. The Agency recognizes that the interconnection
and interaction between ground water and surface water
necessitates coordination between efforts to classify and
manage both kinds of water resources.
Two conditions involving the interaction between ground
water and surface water deserve consideration in ground-water
classification. One condition is the recharge of ground
water from a surface-water body. The other is the discharge
of ground water to surface water.
4.7.1 Ground-Water Discharge to Surface Water
Ground-water discharge to surface-water bodies occurs in
many hydrogeologic settings and is the dominant condition in
high rainfall areas. Where poor quality ground-water
discharges to surface watert a potential to impact the
quality of those surface waters exists. The classification
system accounts for three conditions where ground water is
interconnected to surface waters and where surface-water
quality may be degraded:
Class I Ecologically Vital Ground Water - Ground
waters providing base flow to, or supporting water
levels for, unique terrestrial or aquatic habitats
associated with water bodies;
Class II Current Source of Drinking Water - Ground
waters currently used as a source of drinking water,
including those ground waters which discharge to a
drinking water supply reservoir with a protected
watershed
Class III Ground Waters Not a Potential Source of
Drinking Water - Saline or regionally contaminated
ground waters that are interconnected to adjacent
ground waters or surface waters.
4.7.2 surface Water Recharge to Ground Water
The recharge of ground water from a surface-water body
is the natural and prevalent means of ground-water recharge
in the drier western states, but can also occur in high
rainfall-rich areas due to the pumping or ground water in
130
-------
close proximity to the water body. An example of surface-
water recharge to ground water concerns the use of stream
impoundments to accelerate recharge. Figure 4-20 shows such
an impoundment, referred to as a recharge basin on a stream
crossing the recharge zone of the Edwards Aquifer in Texas.
Another example is the recharge of Mohawk River waters into a
sand and gravel aquifer which supplies well fields serving
the cities of Rotterdam and Schenectady, New York, as
demonstrated in Figure 4-21. The following Figure 4-22
indicates that the warmer river water enters the aquifer,
mixes with the cooler ground water, and is subsequently
withdrawn by the wells.
The potential for poor quality surface water to degrade
ground-water quality is implied in these examples. They
further demonstrate the need to consider surface-water use
and quality in managing ground-water quality where surface-
water bodies provide significant recharge. The classifica-
tion system by itself, however, is not intended to be the
focus for managing such settings.
131
-------
FIGURE 4-20
ILLUSTRATION OF SURFACE WATER RECHARGE TO
GROUND WATER FOR THE EDWARDS AQUIFER, TEXAS
RECHARGE
ZONE
UNCONFINED
EDWARDS FORMATION
A-
RECHARGE POND-/
CONFINED
EDWARDS FORMATION
RECHARGE DAM
-A1
o WATER SUPPLY
WELL
PLAN
EDWARDS
FORMATION" II
RECHARGE
ZONE
GLEN ROSE
LIMESTONE
GLEN ROSE
LIMESTONE
^ WATER SUPPLY
(WELL
*£ SOIL COVER
CONFINING
CLAY UNIT
EDWARDS
FORMATION
CROSS-SECTION
132
-------
FIGURE 4-21
CROSS-SECTION OF AN ALLUVIAL AQUIFER SHOWING
SURFACE WATER RECHARGE FROM THE MOHAWK RIVER
WELL FIELD A
WELL FIELD B
MOHAWK
RIVER
.; •- SAND AND GRAVEL .;.. • '.?.: .• •>.••«.•.-•«.• •„*.• ••:.:• «...
?##>^^
•• •. •-.,••'.".'.».-• »•..•:-*•.;-'•.• V'- •;.• .'•:«•.:• fv:•;:.-MIJ.V'--
133
-------
en
as
O
134
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
American Water Works Association, 1981. 1981 Water Utility
Operating Data.
Act, Systems, Inc., 1979. Volumes I & II, Managing Small
Water Systems: A Cost Study Prepared for U.S. EPA, Water
Supply Research Division. Municipal Environmental
Research Labs, MERL.
Act, Systems, Inc., 1977. Volumes I and II, The Cost of
Water Supply & Water Utility Management," Prepared for
U.S. EPA Water Supply Research Division, MERL.
Aller, Linda, Truman Bennett, Jay H. Lehr, and Rebecca J.
Petty, 1985. DRASTIC A Standardized System for
Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using
Hydrogeologic Settings. R.S. Kerr, Envir. Res. Lab.,
EPA/600/2-85/018; Ada? Oklahoma.
American Public Health Association, et al, 1976. Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater,
14th edition. American Public Health Association;
Washington, D.C., 1193 pp.
DiNova F. and M. Jaffe, 1984. Local Regulations for Ground-
Water Protection Part I: Sensitive Area Controls. Land
Use Law and Zoning Digest. Vol. 30, No. 5, P.6 to 11.
Flach, Y.W., 1973. Land Resources. In: Recycling Municipal
Sludges and Effluents on Land. University of Illinois;
Champaign, Illinois.
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry, 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-
Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Freeze, R.A. and P. A. Witherspoon, 1967. Theoretical
Analysis of Regional Ground-Water Flow: 3. Quantitative
interpretations. Water Resources Research 4, pp 581-
590.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1984. Stochastic Model of Correc-
tive Action Costs at Hazardous Waste Management Facili-
ties. Final Report prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of
Solid Waste; Annapolis, Maryland.
Heath, R.C., 1984. Ground-Water Regions of the United
States. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2242,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
135
-------
Heath, R.C., and F.W. Trainer, 1981. Introduction to Ground
Water Hydrology. Water Well Journal Pub. Co.; Worthing-
ton, Ohio.
Hubbert, M.K., 1940. The Theory of Ground-Water Motion. J.
Geo., 48, pp 785-944.
LeGrand, Harry E., 1980. A Standardized System for Evalua-
ting Waste-Disposal Sites. National Water Well Associ-
ation; Worthington, Ohio.
Milde, G., K. Milde, P. Friesel; M. Kiper, 1983. Basis in
New Development of Ground-Water Quality Protection
Concepts in Central Europe. Papers in the International
Conference Ground-Water and Man, Vol. II, p 287-295.
Austrialian Government Printing Service, Canbarra.
National Water Well Association, 1979. Water Well Drilling
Cost Survey. NWWA, Worthington, Ohio.
Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1984. Permit Writer's Guidance Manual for the Location
of Hazardous Waste Land Storage and Disposal Facilities
- Phase 1; Criteria for Location Acceptability and
Existing Regulations for Evaluating Locations. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Washington, D.C.
Office of Research and Development, Municipal and Environ-
mental Research Laboratory/ U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 1980. Design Manual: Onsite Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal Systems. Technology Transfer;
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Office of Water Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1975. Manual of Individual Water Supply
Systems. U.S. EPA; Washington, D.C.
Qui.lan, J.E. and R.O. Evans, 1985. Ground-Water Flow in
Limestone Terranes: Stragety, Rationale and Procedure
for Reliable, Efficient Monitoring of Ground-Water
Quality in Karst Areas. From Proceedings 5th, National
Symposium and Exposition on Aquifer Restoration and
Ground-Water Monitoring, National Water Well Associa-
tion, Worthington, Ohio.
Silka, Lyle R. and Ted L. Sweringer, 1978. A manual for
evaluating contamination potential of surface impound-
ments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Drinking Water, EPA 570/9-78-003; Washington, D.C.
136
-------
Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc., 1982. Survey of Operating and
Financial Characteristics of Community Water Systems.
Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980a. Treatability
Manual for Priority Pollutants. U.S. EPA, EPA 600/8-80-
042, a-e; Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980b. Water Quality
Management Directory, Agencies and Funding Under Section
208, 4th Edition. U.S. EPA; Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980c. Design Manual:
Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems.
Office of Research and Development Municipal Environ-
mental Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984. National Statis-
tical Assessment of Rural Water Conditions. Office of
Drinking Water (WH-550) Publication EPA 570/9-84-OC4;
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984b. Ground-Water
Protection Strategy. Office of Ground-Water Protection,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985b. Guidance on
Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, EPA/540/6-85/ 003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Draft Report-
Liner Location Risk and Cost Analysis Model, Appendix C.
Office of Solid Waste, Economic Analysis Branch;
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1984. National Water Summary 1984.
Water Supply Paper 2275. United States Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
137
-------
PART III
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY*
AQUIFER - A geologic formation, group of geologic formations,
or part of a geologic formation that yields significant
quantities of water to wells and springs.
AQUIFER SYSTEM - A heterogeneous body of intercalated perme-
able and less permeable material that acts as a water-
yielding hydraulic unit of regional extent.
AQUITARD - A confining bed that retards, but does not prevent
the flow of water to or from an adjacent aquifer; it
does not readily yield water to wells or springs.
CONE OF DEPRESSION - A depression in the POTENTIOMETRIC
SURFACE of a body of ground water that has the shape of
an inverted cone and develops around a pumped well.
CONFINED CONDITIONS - Exists when an aquifer is confined
between two layers of much less pervious material. The
pressure condition of such a system is such that the
water level in a well penetrating the confined aquifer
usually rises above the top of the aquifer.
CONTAMINANT PLUME - Irregular volume occupied by a body of
dissolved or suspended pollutants in ground water.
CRA - Abbreviation of Classification Review Area.
DISCHARGE AREA - A discharge area is an area of land beneath
which there is a net annual transfer of water from the
saturated zone to a surface-water body, the land surface
or the root zone. The net discharge is physically
manifested by an increase of hydraulic heads with depth
(i.e., upward ground-water flow to the water table).
These zones may be associated with natural areas of
discharge such as seeps, springs, caves, wetlands,
streams, bays, or playas.
ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM (ECOSYSTEM) - An ecological community
together with its physical environment.
ECOLOGY - The science of the relationships between organisms
and their environment.
*For general information only — not to be viewed as sug
gested or mandatory language for regulatory purposes.
A-2
-------
ECOSYSTEM - See ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM.
FLOW NET - A graphical presentation of ground-water flow
lines and lines of equal pressure head.
GEOLOGIC FORMATION - A body of rock that can be distinguished
on the basis of characteristic lithologic features such
as chemical composition, structures, textures, or fossil
content.
GROUND-WATER - Subsurface water within the zone of satura-
tion.
GROUND-WATER BASIN - (a) A subsurface structure having the
character of a basin with respect to the collection,
retention, and outflow of water, (b) An aquifer, or
system of aquifers, whether or not basin-shaped, that
has reasonably well defined hydrologic boundaries and,
more or less, definite areas of recharge and discharge.
GROUND-WATER FLOW DIVIDE - An imaginary plane (or curved
surface) distinguished by the limiting flow lines of
adjacent flow systems. Conceptually there is no flow
across this plane between the flow systems.
GROUND-WATER FLOW REGIME - The sum total of all ground water
(water within the saturated zone) and surrounding
geologic media (e.g., sediment and rocks). The top of
the ground-water regime is the water table while the
bottom would be the base of significant ground-water
circulation. Temporarily perched waters within the
vadose zone would generally not qualify as part of the
ground-water regime.
GROUND-WATER FLOW SYSTEM (GROUND-WATER SYSTEM) - A body of
circulating ground water having a water-table upper
boundary and ground-water flow divide boundaries along
all other sides. These boundaries encompass distinct
recharge and discharge areas unique to the flow system.
GROUND-WATER SYSTEM - See GROUND-WATER FLOW SYSTEM.
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY - The capacity of earth materials to
transmit water.
HYDRAULIC GRADIENT - The change in STATIC HEAD per-unit-of-
distance in a given direction.
HYDRAULIC HEAD GRADIENT - See HYDRAULIC GRADIENT.
A-3
-------
PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE - See POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE.
POTABLE WATER - Water that is safe and palatable for human
use; concentrations of pathogenic organisms and dis-
solved toxic constituents have been reduced to safe
levels, and it has been treated so as to be tolerably
low in objectionable taste, odor, color, or turbidity.
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE (PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE) - An imaginary
surface representing the STATIC HEAD of ground water and
defined by the level to which water will rise in a well.
The WATER TABLE is a particular potentiometric surface.
RECHARGE AREA - A recharge area is an area of land beneath
which there is a net annual transfer of water through
the vadose zone into the ground-water regime. The net
recharge is manifested by an decrease in hydraulic heads
with depth (i.e., downward ground-water flow from the
water table).
SATURATED ZONE - A subsurface zone in which all the voids are
filled with water under pressure greater than that of
the atmosphere. This zone is separated from the over-
lying zone of aeration (unsaturated zone) by the WATER
TABLE.
STATIC HEAD (HYDRAULIC HEAD) - The height above a datum plane
of the surface of a column of water (or liquid) that can
be supported by the static pressure at a given point.
STRESS (PUMPING STRESS) - Drawdown of water level and change
in HYDRAULIC GRADIENT induced by pumping ground water.
SURFACE-WATER DIVIDE - The line of separation, or ridge,
summit, or narrow tract of high ground, marking the
boundary between two adjacent drainage basins, or
dividing the surface waters that flow naturally in one
direction from those that flow in the opposite direc-
tion.
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) - The quantity of dissolved
material in a sample of water determined either from the
residue on evaporation by drying at 180°C, or, for
waters containing more than 1,000 parts per million,
from the sum of determined constituents.
UNCONFINED CONDITIONS - Exists when the upper limit of the
aquifer is defined by the water table itself. At the
water table, water in the aquifer pores is at atomos-
pheric pressure.
A-4
-------
UNSATURATED ZONE - See VADOSE ZONE.
VADOSE ZONE (ZONE OF AERATION) - A subsurface zone containing
water under pressure less than that of the atmosphere,
including water held by capillarity, and containing air
or gases generally under atmospheric pressure.
WATER TABLE - The surface of a body of unconfined ground
water at which the pressure is equal to that of the
atmosphere.
WATER-TABLE GRADIENT - The change in elevation of the water
table per unit of horizontal distance.
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR DEFINING
CLASSIFICATION KEY-TERMS AND CONCEPTS
B-l
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION B-3
2 . 0 CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA B-4
3.0 CLASS I KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS B-5
3.1 Irreplaceable Source of Drinking Water B-5
3.1.1 Substantial Population B-5
3.1.2 Comparable Quality B-5
3.1.3 Economic Infeasibility B-6
3.2 Ecologically Vital Ground Water B-7
3.3 Highly Vulnerable Ground Water B-8
3.3.1 Alternative Approaches to
Utilize Ground-Water
Vulnerability Concept B-8
3.3.2 Selection of a Methodology to
Operationally Define Ground-
Water Vulnerability B-9
4 . 0 CLASS II KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS B-14
4.1 Current Source of Drinking Water B-14
4.2 Potential Source of Drinking Water B-15
4.3 Ground Water with Beneficial Uses
Other Than Drinking B-17
5. 0 CLASS III KEY TERMS B-18
5.1 Methods Reasonably Employed in Public
Water Treatment Systems B-18
B-2
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
One phase of the process for preparing the Guidelines
for Ground-Water Classification involved defining key terms
and concepts related to the classification scheme. The
Office of Ground-Water Protection and guidelines work group
developed these definitions through an intensive analysis of
alternative options. As described previously, each approach
was examined with respect to its:
stringency
consistency with other programs, and the overall
intent of the strategy
flexibility for accommodating state and region-
specific characteristics or concerns
arbitrariness
potential implementational difficulties or complexi-
ties
This Appendix documents those options which were
considered during the development process, but not specifi-
cally highlighted for public consideration in these Draft
Guidelines. The alternatives discussed are not necessarily
poor approaches to the key issues and concepts. In fact,
many are currently used very effectively by other Federal,
State, and local programs. These options, however, were
deemed less suitable for a classification system with
nationwide, broad-spectrum application. Comments on these
alternatives, especially in the case of the "vulnerability,"
"substantial population," and "economically irreplaceable"
terms will, of course, be considered by the Agency in
preparing the Final Classification Guidelines.
B-3
-------
2.0 CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
Prior to the development of the Classification Review
Area concept, the Agency reviewed the methods used by states
in designating classified segments for ground-water systems.
These include the classification of aquifers, or portions of
aquifers as defined by geology, water quality, and surface-
water relationships. In addition, cones of influence of
individual wells are mapped and classified by some states.
It was decided that these techniques are not appropriate
for the EPA process, as they would involve in-advance
classification of large areas, in some cases, hundreds of
square miles in extent. The Strategy clearly establishes
that classification at this scale is within the role of the
states. A more limited scope of review which centers on the
proposed activity or facility was found to be most consistent
with EPA policy.
One option which was also considered included a range in
variable radii for the Classification Review Area, using
combinations of hydrogeologic characteristics such as ground-
water velocity, or types of geology (e.g., karst or glacial
till) specific to different regions of the country. The
disadvantage of using a geology-based variable radius is the
inconsistency of its use. Given that this is a method of
approximation only, designation of too small a Classification
Review Area could provide inadequate protection to intercon-
nected ground-water resources.
Also considered was the use of activity-specific radii—
for example, a different radius for landfills than for
pesticide application or underground tank installation. This
alternative was critiqued for several reasons. Most impor-
tantly, the Agency believed that use of activity-related
criteria to define the Classification Review Area could
result in a different classification being applied to the
same ground water for different types of activities. The
classification process is designed to avoid such variability
whenever possible.
B-4
-------
3.0 CLASS I KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS
3.1 Irreplaceable Source of Drinking Water
3.1.1 Substantial Population (Option A)
Option A for "substantial population" takes into account
a quantitative or semi-quantitative assessment of both public
water systems and concentrations of private wells. This
approach also takes into account the added burden of pro-
viding alternative drinking water to users not served by a
centralized water supply.
This definition for substantial population provides two
important advantages:
It considers both central city and suburban/ rural
settings (public water systems as well as private
well users) and, therefore, makes ground water in
both settings potential Class I waters.
It is based on terms, and thresholds defined by the
Census Bureau, is compatible with publicly available
census data, and incorporates terms that have been
used to describe population settings by other Federal
programs.
Another option for a "quantifiable" Option A which
involved defining "substantial population" in relative terms,
considering all populations served by public water systems
within a state. This option would define a substantial
population as one that is served by a public water system
that is larger than, for example, at least 95 percent of the
systems that are served by ground water in the state. Such a
definition would ensure that, at a minimum, the largest
system or systems in each state would qualify as serving a
substantial population. One concern was that this might
produce inconsistencies between states. Some possible
conflict with the policy of giving "special" protection to
areas with greatest communal risk (inherent in the Strategy)
was also noted. It should be remembered that Option B for
defining "substantial population" is more qualitative in
nature.
3.1.2 Comparable Quality
The Agency considered a definition of "comparable
quality" consistent with the Class III definition of "treat-
able," or having Total Dissolved Solids equal to or less than
10,000 mg/1, but was concerned over the possibility that
alternatives might be considered acceptable replacements
B-5
-------
although they deviate considerably from the quality of the
current source or from the quality of water typically used
for drinking in this Region.
3.1.3 Economic Infeasibility
Several alternative options considered for defining
economic infeasibility under the "quantitative test" of
Option A were assessed. One involved using the criteria
developed by EPA'S Office of Drinking Water for evaluating
excessive economic burden. This set of approaches would
designate an alternative source as economically infeasible
if:
water bills to a typical user (a user who consumes
about 100,000 gallons-per-year) will increase by more
than $100 per year
water bills to a typical user will increase to more
than $300 per year
the system investment (measured as undepreciated
replacement costs) will increase by more than 100
percent.
Such options do not account for the community's ability to
pay, a consideration of significant importance. Moreover,
the dollar values set by the criteria are dated and have not
been adjusted to account for inflation.
Another option considered for defining economic infea-
sibility would designate a source as infeasible if the cost
to a typical user exceeds the amount paid by the upper five
percent of all public water-system users in the state. This
option accounts for ability and willingness to pay to some
extent. Judgments are based, however, on data describing
water costs (rather than household income) statewide. The
measure of ability or willingness to pay is, therefore,
indirect. This measure is also less accurate than the
selected approach because statewide water rates do not always
reflect the true cost of the water. Subsidies from state or
local governments and economies of scale may cause rates paid
by users to be lower than actual costs.
A third approach considered was an evaluation of
economic feasibility on the basis of a comprehensive cost and
benefit analysis. This option would require a much more
data-intensive and complex analysis than any of the other
options considered. More important, the Agency noted that a
cost/ benefit analysis would necessarily give explicit
consideration to the type of activity motivating the classi-
B-6
-------
fication decision, contrary to the intent of the Ground-Water
Protection Strategy. It should be remembered that Option B
for determining "economic irreplaceability" is more qualita-
tive in nature, but could utilize some of these specific
measures as appropriate.
3.2 Ecologically Vital Ground Water
Several alternative options were considered, but not
highlighted for public comment, within the definition of an
ecologically vital area. These included:
Designating all discharge areas as ecologically vital
("all discharge areas" option)
Designating ground-water discharge areas as eco-
logically vital if they contain an endangered or
threatened species, or a management area designated
for ecological protection by a Federal, State or
local agency ("any protected ecosystem in a discharge
area" option)
Using critical habitats instead of all habitats of
endangered species ("critical habitats" option).
The "all discharge areas" option was attractive, in that
it would be relatively uncomplicated to implement and would
serve to define both key terms, sensitive ecological system,
and unique habitat. The Agency, however, perceived that it
would result in a very large number of Class I designations,
which is not in keeping with the intent of the Ground-Water
Protection Strategy. More important, not all discharge areas
are associated with truly unique habitats.
The "any protected ecosystem in a discharge area" option
was judged to be an exceedingly comprehensive approach,
accommodating currently existing ecological protection
programs at all levels of government. However, extensive
research would be required to identify the universe of such
protected areas, and many inconsistencies exist from program
to program and from state to state.
To clarify the "Critical Habitats" option, the reader
should be aware that Critical Habitat areas are designated
for some endangered or threatened species, and range from
less than one square mile to thousands of square miles.
Specific locational information is available in the Federal
Register and Code of Federal Regulations for each of these
areas. Use of Critical Habitats alone was considered
unworkable for several reasons. Pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, equivalent protection must be afforded
B-7
-------
to all habitats, not just Critical Habitats. Many truly
endangered species lack Critical Habitat designations.
Although, at the present tine, Critical Habitats are assigned
on a routine basis when species become endangered, this was
not the case at the inception of the program. Under extreme
circumstances, Critical Habitats are intentionally not
delineated to avoid publicizing an especially sensitive
species. Limiting unique habitats to only the designated
Critical Habitats would leave the habitats of many endangered
and threatened species without Class I protection.
3.3 Highly Vulnerable Ground Water
With respect to ground-water vulnerability to con-
tamination, options for both basic utilization and opera-
tional standpoints were examined. The Agency is requesting
comment most specifically on the latter, although the choice
of operational definition will have an impact on the overall
concept use.
3.3.1 Alternative Approaches to Utilize the Ground-
Water Vulnerability Concept
Two alternative approaches were considered for utilizing
the ground-water vulnerability concept. Both were based on
the concept that vulnerability is dependent upon the nature
of the activity. This concept has validity in two respects.
First, different kinds of activities will involve wastes of
contrasting hazard. For example, hazardous wastes disposed
of within a RCRA landfill present a significantly greater
health risk upon direct contact than some mining wastes.
Second, different kinds of activities have contrasting design
and operating features. Consider the comparison of land
treatment versus underground injection (via a deep well) of
secondarily treated municipal waste waters. Some activities
take place within the ground water medium and others take
place well above the ground-water table. Thus, an approach
employing this concept would provide a greater activity-
specific picture of the potential for contamination to occur.
The first alternative considered would have incorporated
an activity-dependent vulnerability concept, requiring the
development of specialized operational methodologies for
defining vulnerability for different activities. The Agency
found two major disadvantages for this approach. First,
under an activity-dependent vulnerability concept, the same
ground water would likely be placed into different classes
where different activities take place or are proposed in the
same vicinity. Ground water could be vulnerable to one
activity and not the other. It might lead to confusion in
B-8
-------
the regulated community, and the public at large, to find
that the class of ground water changes with each activity.
Secondly, the effort and time to develop specialized opera-
tional methodologies for each activity would be substantial.
The second alternative considered involved removing
vulnerability as a class-determining factor. Each EPA
program would, at its option, establish activity-specific
operational definitions for vulnerability as might be needed
for implementing management strategies. The principal
advantage is that the class of ground water would consis-
tently reflect the current and potential use of the resource.
Specific operational definitions would then not need to be
developed and tested as part of the 06WP classification
program. One major disadvantage was raised, in addition.
Ground-water vulnerability to contamination was established
in the Ground-Water Protection Strategy as an essential
component to the Class I concept. If EPA had decided to
consider removing vulnerability as a class-determining
factor, then this very important concept would be lost.
3.3.2 Selection of a Methodology to Operationally
Define Ground-Water Vulnerability
Five operational methodologies were considered to
determine ground-water vulnerability (see Table B-l).
3.3.2.1 Qualitative Methodology
A descriptive/qualitative method establishes the
vulnerability of hydrogeologic settings, based on concepts of
terrain lithology or hydrogeologic functions, as expressed in
a few well chosen, technical words. Examples of highly
vulnerable settings might include areas of karst terrain or
ground-water recharge areas. Examples of low vulnerability
may be discharge areas or confined aquifers. The general
procedures to implement such a method would be to either
match a candidate, real setting to a "standard setting," or
to provide a map showing their location. While no quantita-
tive criteria would necessarily be set, this type of method,
when implemented, will result in the establishment of
"precedent criteria" whenever a specific site is accepted or
rej ected.
3.3.2.2 Single Factor Methodology
The single factor method would employ a single
quantitative criterion to all hydrogeologic settings. For
example, areas with a depth to water of less than 150 feet
could be considered highly vulnerable to contamination. The
B-9
-------
Jp
P
£4
i
og
HMC
z s
H
t^ Q
gg
HO O
I b
CQ r
CO W
W Q J
OQ £E 2
3 P o2
H W W
jg 5s
2
j ^
3 ^
^4
M t^
MS
S H
W X
CLj £
o
b
O
i
i
co
CO
1
g
S
o
^
s
M
fa CQ
O <
W
CO H
W S
fc P
2
£s ^
M .J
X
0
H
K
8
O
fp
M
S
0 MH
P tx 0 4)
4)43 A
P > P W
C-H Oi C O
0) P C 0 P
E « Ol-H
55 P H P 73
DIH ft D
•OH M-H Ol
3 fl 0 MT)
t-i 3 MH O 3
O1 COT-i
CO -0 ft)
ft) 0 0"O W
M 4J ft) Oi
•H C >1 C
&CO M-H
Ol* O P •
0) C P P 4)
M-H -O C ft) H
4-1 C ft) CO A
-P fl > «
4) ft) COM
CO CO CO -H -H ft)
3 C Ol C
H O 0 0 H
O fl-H P H 3
P 0) P O >
M ft CO ft)
ft) -H CO Oi>i
HJ3 M ft) OH
ft O O O M43
E 4-> M 0 *O DI
•H * ft) M >t-H
CO E-O 0,4343
CO
fl
>i ft)
H M
"43 fl
CO DI
DI -H ft)
C 43 DI
•H CO M M
4J M - O fl
ftlMH>O - O 0
W-H C W ft)
&«H - M
W-H C
H 10 O-H M
A >l W fl ft)
fl *O A M 4-)
MO) 4) M fl
4) c CH ft) 3
C -H -H A ** *
HMH fl 10 "0
3 CH ft) 4J C
> 0 M E CO 3
O ft) M M O
>iC > ft) fl M
H 3 0 ft* DI
"S
S fl A 0
O
I
MH O
0 ft)
eg1
O M
SI
•H
M 0)
OH
CO A
0) 10
•O M
ft)
ft) C
>H
•H 3
P > CO
fl DI
•P >1 fi
•H H -H
fl DIP
3-H ft)
CX43 CO
-
^n
H
CO fl
•H O
H-H
A4J
« M
4J-H
10 H .
« 5 h
ft) M
0 M 4J
P C
CO 3
P-H 0
H O
343
O O ft)
•H-H 43
•H CO
O 0
•»-H M
ft) M O
CO 0) 10
3 4J
•H ft)
O M H
** 0>§
ft) 0) O
HH-H
Oi DIH
E C ft
•H-H ft
co co a
c
fl
P O
wo
CO C
ft) O
H O
CO U
CO -H
ftlH
C 3
M <0
O M-*
•HTJI
43 fc*t O
4-1 43 H
4) MIX
C 0
0 H
N 4J A
ft)
01 ft) >1
W MH P
0 -H
•Co >
fl in-H
>H P
C
«
M
O
O
fl
MH
C
ft)
fj
4)
T)
C •
•H fl
•H
ft) M
H ft)
O14J
C-H
•H M
CO U
-
4)
CO CO
3 H -H
fl N •*
C 3 fi ft) CO
•H D* fl fl H M
ft) A 0
•» p c rt P
M M OI-H M O
O 0 V ft) *
P P g 4J 0 MH
00 HH
fl fl 0 3 3 C
MHMH 4J CO > ft)
ft) ft)
4)43 0) M >i3
H O M HP
Oi« 3H43 ft)
C ft) HH DIA
•H -H -H -H
10 CO fl S 43 CO
ft) MH Oi
ME C MH-H
ft) 3 CO O O43
> W OI-H CO
O CO E M C C
fl 3 0) O 0
p CO 4J-H-H
fi .v CO -H 4-> 4J
4) CO fl M fl fl
E 4) O C H •
tt) 4J ••• -H ft) TJ
> « 4J M E M ft)
O 4-143 O M M M
M CO Oi4J 0) ft) O
ft -H O p p C
E >i ft) fl 4) C DI
HA 3 MH "O -H-H
O -
•H O M
H ft) fl
3 CO ft)
•O 0 M
>i ft)
43«l' ft
-O CO
P rH d)
ft) 43
0) X O
MH C
O-H
0 '
in H in
H A A
V
>itt)
ft) 4-1 DI
C-H M
O > fl
N-H43
4J O
ft) O ft)
CO 3 M
O-O
•O C-O
fl O C
> O fl
fi
ft)
*o
c
$
Oi
1
•H
ft)
H
ft
•H
p
H
3
S
ro
4)
M • CO
O*O DI
DIO 0) fi c
C CO "O O H-H 1
•H -0-H « 4J O
3ft)«4JMCfl ft)
OH OOOMOOi
H DI ft) 4) P-H O
HCMMOCOO-PO
fl-H fl-H fl Cfl-H -H
CO -O MH ft) HH OlMH
•O CO MH-H C-H
OflMWft)OCJ-HO
43 O-HHMVOIV
PT) P43 ft ft ftA ft
ft) fi O 4J-H CO CO
E fl fl P M Ml
MH CH 0 DI O 0)
•O DI -H3MHCMH4J4J
ft) C -O E -H -H C
P-H 01 T3 W 4J T3 W ft)
fl4^4-)ft)Oi4)OO) E
O .^i 43 ^ fi *O ft) N M W
•H OiOlQ*H-HH-H O CO
P-H-HE)H>0)4->MHO)
W 0) 0) tt) O W -H CO
•H 3 S C -O M ME CO
43 OI-H ft C 0 0 fl
ft M 4-1 CO -H -H
OO • MH C -^ W P rH
Oft) OOCE-HO
0) fl -O W flftl-HH-H
MMHfift)MOE4->Oifi
O -HPO)MDift)E43
EM fl P ft-O E-H 0
OMPM-ift3O_WO>
0
in
H
C
«
43
P
M
ft)
P
fl
ft)
M
Ol
X
ft)
•o
c
•H
<
U K
CO M
< ft)
CK ^
Q 0
•O Oi §
a) e i 4J -
4J -H o w o -a
43 M 4J ft) CO >lO ft) Ol
DI o fl 43 w •• can NC
•HbM4J«C«CQ -H-H 0)
4) H 4) DICB -a P4J
3 4 >iH lOH C b M fl-H
~ • AH Oi -HCJ-OjOSCO-
•— » W-^B ^ CflH »-.
C ft) H ft) X fl " fl > fl 00
•H P EH ft M M ft) M — •» P ft) W 0>
P 43 W O ft) 4) 1 -^ W OH
fl Ol< H P H M *O<< M ft
M-H Oi 0) fl H 0) M iJ WOW -
tt)Q>S<4: MUX- MH-HQ
H 3 ft) — P N a -H -o -a c
fl i <.>QH o fl w -d c E i fl
CJ C tt) fl C 43 U C fl tt) 4) M
•H O H 0) C O - ft)MP4->Di
MfiftEO-H'- ftlMftOiCOCOft)
ft) Eft)-H4Jin 43Ofttt)>iflJ
E T3 18 43 P fl 00 E-i MH < J W 3 —
3 C X O fl-HO\
Z « ft) CO Z OH
*
0) co
H ft
DI-H >
C43 ft) 0
•H W > P
W C-H
o w -a
fl-H C 01
4J ft) P
•O fl p -H
CH C 3
10 OI-H CO
M
DI M fl P
C 0) P 0
•H 4-> fl Z
P c -a
£•">,.
•H ft) M ft)
ft) 43 4) M •
3 P > O CO
0 fl
M CO CO ft)
O M • M
4J ft) CO ft) fl
O 'O M H
(0 -H O DI ft)
MH CO 4J C Ol
C O -H M
M O fl CO fl
O U MH H
MH fl
C Oi
CO • ft) CO C
3 ft) 4) T) -H
0 M 3 H ft
rH O 4J ft) ft
H O ft) -H fl
< w A > e
M <
0) «
4J CJ
ft) M
M ft)
Ol >
0
H
ft) >l
> fl
fl -a
M
4-1 M
1 ft)
MH ft
O
1 4J
4) O
E O
•H MH
JN
ft) ^
DIH
fl
M C
ft) «
> 43
< 4J
ft)
M
• CO
C O
O fl M ft
•H OX
MM ft)
0) 0 ft)
4JMH O C
•H C fl
MH fl
O ft) P43
> CO O
0) fl -H fl
> M TJ 4)
•HP M
4J 1 -O
«MH ft) 0
M O 4J 4J •
Oi 1 O P
0) ft) ft) ft) C
•P E H £ -H
C-H ft) -H 0
H EH CO 4J ft
m
B-10
-------
fatal flaw to this method is the selection of a single
quantitative factor to represent highly vulnerable conditions
that can be applied across the country and its various
hydrogeologic settings.
3.3.2.3 Multiple Factor Metholocrv
The method of listing multiple independent-
criteria is commonly applied in state programs for the
location of hazardous-waste facilities and other facilities
used for the disposal of noxious wastes. The principal
drawback is the lack of consistency in these criteria among
states. This method also has the disadvantage of not being
able to weigh each factor according to their relative
importance for contaminating ground-water. In addition, it
sets a criterion that must be met for each factor. The
approach is inflexible, in that a poor rating for one factor
cannot be balanced against a superior rating of another
factor to achieve an average acceptable rating. This balanc-
ing is important because ground-water transport and leaching
potential are not additive processes, but are multiplicative.
3.3.2.4 Numerical Rating Methodology
The numerical rating methodology is an extension
of the multiple independent factor criteria listing method.
In addition to establishing multiple factors, the range for
each factor is subdivided and assigned relative numerical
ratings. An example concerns the depth-to-water factor in
DRASTIC (Aller, et al, 1985) shown in Table B-2. The
numerical factor ratings can be multiplied by weight in order
to reflect the relative importance of factors. Finally, the
factor ratings, or weighted factor ratings, are added to give
a final score. The selection of factors follows the same
reasoning as discussed for the multiple factor method. Under
this type of method, only a criterion for the final score is
established. As long as the final score criterion is met,
there are no limits assigned to any factors.
Hybrids of a numerical rating method and multiple factor
method, or more sophisticated types of standards, are also
possible. For example, minimum criterion can be established
for critical factors. In addition, factor ratings may be
multiplied or divided by other factor ratings to better
approximate interrelationships between those factors.
The principal advantages of a numerical rating method
include those presented for the multiple factor method, plus
factor weighting. These systems are relatively easy to
implement, depending upon the difficulty of measuring the
B-ll
-------
TABLE B-2
RANGES AND RATINGS FOR DEPTH TO WATER
AS USED IN THE NUMERICAL RATING SYSTEM DRASTIC
(ALLER, ET AL, 1985)
Depth to Water
(feet)
Range
0
5
15
30
50
75
- 5
- 15
- 30
- 50
- 75
- 100
100+
Rating
10
9
7
5
3
2
1
Weight: 5
B-12
-------
factors selected. Factor weighting allows for the more
important factors to be distinguished. This method also
allows for compensation between factors, a low score in one
factor may be offset by a high score in another factor.
The disadvantages are essentially the same as those of a
multiple factor method. The factor weights, when used, will
be somewhat subjective. The typical approach to assigning
weights is to poll the "experts" and establish a consensus
value. Weights assigned in one region may not work very well
in other regions. The selection of a cut-off value for
highly vulnerable will also have a limited technical basis.
3.3.2.5 Integrative Methodology
Integrative methodologies are often considered
the most sophisticated, since they can represent the interac-
tion and relative importance of the various hydrogeologic
factors. The Office of Solid Waste is investigating a time-
of-travel criterion as part of hazardous-waste land disposal
siting requirements. The high-level radioactive waste (HLW)
program within the Department of Energy has established a
time-to-exposure criterion. The disadvantage of the integra-
tive methods (for localized vulnerability assessments) is the
need for accurate, site-specific data, usually requiring a
detailed hydrogeological investigation. This presents
conflicts with lower-risk activities where high cost investi-
gations are typically not performed. In addition, the
integrative methods are less suited to mapping purposes
should states be interested in building upon EPA's system.
As a final note, Option B for determining vulnerability
opens up the use of any or all of these approaches, depending
on site and decision specificity. It is considered a
"qualitative" option since the Agency would not provide
specific recommendations on preferred methods, cutoffs, etc.
B-13
-------
4.0 CLASS II KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS
4.1 Current Source of Drinking Water
Several alternative options were considered within the
definition of current source of drinking water. These were
based upon:
. Occurrence of multiple wells in the Classification
Review Area ("multiple well" option)
. Exceedance of a specified ground-water production
level in the Classification Review Area ("exceeding a
production level" option)
. Application of intensive management practices, or
evidence of regional stress in the Classification
Review Area ("intensive management or stress" option).
The multiple well option is an expansion of the "one-
well" option that is highlighted for public comment. The
determination of a current source of drinking water would be
based upon the presence of two or more wells and would result
in a more restrictive current-source subclass and increase
the size of the potential-source subclass. This option would
have created a bias against the more sparsely populated rural
areas. The philosophy of the Agency is that, if a source is
being used as drinking water by even one family, it should be
classified and protected as a current source of drinking
water.
The "exceeding-a-production level" option looks at the
volume of drinking water being pumped, rather than a set
number of wells. The intent of the option was to screen out
little-used aquifers from the current source of drinking-
water designation. This option was not highlighted for
public comment for the same reasons as the multiple-well
option.
The "intensive management or stress" option would focus
on areas which are controlled through ground-water management
agencies, or are exhibiting pumping stress (e.g., persis-
tently falling water levels). This approach by itself could
overlook a large number of other sources of drinking water
that are not managed for ground-water withdrawal, or are not
under stress.
B-14
-------
4.2 Potential Source of Drinking Water
Several other options were considered for the definition
of "potential source of drinking water." These included:
Stricter water-quality criteria
Non-quantitative yield criterion
Specific water-quality data needs
Socioeconomic considerations.
The "Stricter Water-Quality Criteria1* option would have
adopted the Federal primary drinking-water-quality standards,
in addition to the selected TDS cutoff. This was viewed as
an attractive approach because it addresses levels of
specific toxic contaminants. However, it was deemed to be
overly restrictive since many ground waters that do not meet
primary drinking water standards are treatable. Also, it is
hard to "prove" they meet the MCLs.
The "Non-Quantitative Yield Requirements" option would
have set no minimum yield to qualify as a potential source.
The Agency decided, however, that areas do exist where yields
are insignificant, however rare, and, therefore, must be
considered in order that the classification system be
complete.
Since ground-water quality data are not consistently
available for all areas or regions, the issue of data needs
for classification was carefully examined. One option
studied was to require a ground-water quality test for
classification. This approach would result in the most
accurate quality assessment of the potential for the ground
water to serve as drinking water, but was considered to be
unnecessarily burdensome for most activities.
The "Socioeconomic Considerations" option would base the
determination of potential drinking water on Socioeconomic
criteria. Some water is potentially drinkable, but may never
be used because it is too costly to retrieve, not available
because of institutional constraints, or is in an area in
which development is unlikely. This approach was rejected
because it was judged difficult to implement and not highly
workable, since economic and institutional trends are often
difficult to predict. Also, the test is too complex for the
baseline of protection in Class II.
B-15
-------
TABLE B-3
BENEFICIAL USES OF GROUND WATER
OTHER THAN FOR DRINKING WATER
A. MUNICIPAL
B. AGRICULTURE
C. INDUSTRY
D. MINING AND ENERGY
DEVELOPMENT
E. ENERGY PRODUCTION
F. ECOLOGICAL (NON-CLASS I)
G. STORAGE/WASTE DISPOSAL
H. RECREATION
I. PASSIVE USES
fire protection
district heating
landscaping
blending
irrigation
livestock
frost protection
blending
heating/cooling
process water
blending
mineral
geothermal
hydrocarbon
power plants
heat pumps
baseflow
heat pumps
disposal of waste
and treated waste
water effluent
surplus fresh water
management
swimming pools (indirect)
golf courses
ice skating (indirect)
physical support for
earth structures
impedance of subsidence
and salt-water intrusion
B-16
-------
4.3 Ground Water with Beneficial Uses Other Than
Drinking
Within the context of "other beneficial use" (OBU),
several options were considered but not adopted. These
included:
. Providing a separate subclass within Class II for OBU
. Consideration of specific OBUs v. all OBUs as a group
. Giving more protection to ground water with dual
uses.
The idea of creating a third subclass under Class II for
ground waters with other beneficial uses (Table B-3) was not
adopted for several reasons. First, the existing current and
potential source of drinking-water subclasses appears to
provide sufficient protection for the majority of OBUs.
Second, most OBU ground waters would have a dual role as a
current or potential source of drinking water, and would be
afforded the protection given to drinking water as the
highest and best use. Third, it would be difficult to assess
the protection that should be afforded for OBU ground waters
as a general subclass, because quality, yield, and other
requirements are so varied among the many different uses and
between regions.
Because EPA does not intend to use different management
practices according to the various other beneficial uses of
ground water, the Agency judged the consideration of specific
OBUs to be unnecessary. In addition, the selection, defini-
tion, and determination of resource value of OBUs would be
difficult on a national scale, since resource values and uses
vary considerably within a region. Some states are reviewing
specific OBU subclasses for agricultural or other purposes.
This is an ideal approach for tailoring ground-water protec-
tion at the state level, though it was deemed impractical to
adopt some number of subclasses for OBUs on a nationwide
basis.
The Agency considered providing a higher level of
protection to drinking water, which is also being used for
selected OBUs. This approach was considered to be less
feasible on a national scale since resource values and uses
vary widely.
B-17
-------
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF THE
CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES
C-1
-------
SAMPLE APPLICATIONS OF THE
CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES
The following case studies are presented to illustrate
the central classification concepts and use of the various
classification procedures. Individual case studies are
presented in a systematic fashion in accordance with the
Classification Procedural Chart (Figure 4-1) and associated
worksheet (Table 4-1) - instructions or questions are posed
followed by the corresponding information with subsequent
directives, or a final class determination. The general
format for the case studies begins with a presentation of the
preliminary information and concludes with the completion of
the Classification Worksheet.
Each case study has been modeled after real activities
and physical settings. Data sources have been generalized to
avoid identification of the specific site under examination.
The particular activity under consideration has also been
omitted since classification is essentially independent of
the activity type. Place names and localities have been
disguised, but my be recognizable to a familiar reader.
Costs and other figures used in these case studies are
hypothetical. It should also be noted that the final
classification decision presented in each case study does not
represent the Agency's determination for the real activity
from which the case study has been developed since some
factors were changed for the purposes of this review. A
summary of case studies and related issues addressed in each
case is presented in Table C-l.
C-2
-------
Q
W
H
O
rH 25
I <
U
to
w w
rJ M
PQ Q
< f=
H H
CO
w
X
5
H
B
O
•H
4J
*H
U lj
crj 3
T3
4J
f! -H
4J k
» B
o
B -H
O 4J
•H O
4J Q)
U B
s§
§ 2
O 01
tJ -U
01 C
1-. W
01 4J
•O -H
01
r-l
JO
D.
01
0)
o
O
c
0)
4->
O
to
H
r-l
CO
4J
00
O
01
u
o
CO
B
01
l-l
3
-------
CASE STUDY 1
Introduction
The following case study is an example of a Class IIA-
Current Source of Drinking Water. The standard Classifica-
tion Review Area, defined by a two-mile radius from the
proposed facility, is used in this example. Although a
substantial population is involved, the Classification Review
Area is not highly vulnerable to ground-water contamination.
Preliminary Information with Respect to the
Classification Review Area
General
A permit application is being submitted for a site
located in the Eastern United States, east of the City of
Hilton Heights. Land use in the area is primarily rural
farmland interspersed with- chemical industries. The Classi-
fication Review Area is shown in Figure Cl-1.
Maps provided in this case study were developed from
U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle sheets. Text information
was collected from ground-water availability studies con-
ducted by the county, U.S. Geological Survey reports, and
from U.S. Census Bureau statistics.
Geo1ogy/Hydrogeo1oqy
The stratigraphic sequence of geologic units regionally
present is, in descending order (Figure Cl-2):
. Umber Formation - silty sand
. Hunter Formation - clay
. Toth Formation - sandstone
. Crystalline igneous and metamorphic bedrock.
The major aquifers in the area are the Umber and Toth
Formations. The Hunter Formation is known to be an unfrac-
tured, laterally continuous aquitard.
Well/Reservoir Survey
Two large capacity water-supply wells, screened in the
Umber aquifer and registered with the state, are located in
the Classification Review Area. These wells provide public
water supplies for the City of Hilton Heights, which,
according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics, had a population
of 3,700 persons in 1980.
C-4
-------
FIGURE Cl-1
BASE MAP ENCOMPASSING THE CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
\/j r
^ /
r: /
\ i:
EXPLANATION
• PROPOSED FACILITY
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA BOUNDARY
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY WELL
MUNICIPAL SUPPLY WELL
CITY LIMITS
ROADWAY
RIDGE
2 MILES
©
•
C-5
-------
a
sg
§
M
CO
CO
z
M
U O
o
W i-4
PS O
5 w
o o
H O
t* PS
§
co
i
to
to
§
@
N
z
w
o
CO
2
o
K
O
P'©v^
*>?$$&•£
,c>y//,-0'
Lv-'oii'v;^
n» ,x/x/x i ^ »x,
LYA/\-'C'~o
•'.)>.''-'.; '<•<£. *•'•< '.'i:
I-.:. • * rijj> - •, -i
I;'/ •"'•;'•• 00V'i; •''••
!iri;i
umrnmt
f/^timm
MMttzm
\&8$&$?m$
;.••'!'V'1''-'-'--•••'•''. V'. '•.'•'' i i i i
.ffiwwtfw i" •
Vj'Vii;^/^?^-^:^ 11 1|
\\y^'^?-v,-i'!s^-V!'^'' i
;o:»W
^|il
(t£ ^V
^18
•\X-£S£:
VO::.;'l;.:\;
i!Vift^^
f--!7-"--
k\!.'>/x
AjiV
lX.-l^/_/Nl '.
b''',^'f^;p>
f'i-s' '-ix'lj>/
>-L/-.'^^•>\/^
iNATION
-------
Additionally, if the proposed activity is permitted, a
new well will be constructed at the site. This well will be
screened in the deeper Toth aquifer.
No water-supply reservoirs are present in the Classi-
fication Review Area.
Demography
The City of Hilton Heights is located west of the
proposed facility and has a population of 3,700. All
residents are served by ground-water supplies, therefore the
well field is considered to serve a substantial population
under Option A. As no irreplaceability analysis was per-
formed, the ground waters are assumed to be irreplaceable.
Under Option B, the population is considered substantial by
recognized experts given the demographics of the region.
Ecologically Vital Areas
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service records indicate the
Classification Review Area does not encompass any Federal
lands designated for ecological protection or ecologically
vital areas.
Vulnerability
Given that the irreplaceability of the ground waters is
assumed, it is necessary to perform a vulnerability analysis
for the area. Under Option A for determining vulnerability,
DRASTIC is utilized with the following results averaged over
the review area:
UMBER FORMATION Rating Weight Number
. Depth to water - 15-30 ft 7 5 35
. Net recharge - approximately
20 in/yr 9 4 36
. Aquifer media - silty sand 63 18
. Soil media - loam 52 10
. Topography -2-6% 9 1 9
. Impact of vadose zone media -
sand with silt and clay 5 5 25
. Hydraulic conductivity -
100-300 gpd/ft2 2 3 6
DRASTIC Index (TOTAL) 139
This area is not considered highly vulnerable to ground-
water contamination under Option A since the DRASTIC Index is
less than 150.
C-7
-------
Under Option B for determining vulnerability, two expert
hydrogeologists in the area were consulted. The hydro-
geologic setting of loamy soils overlying silty sand aquifers
are considered "vulnerable" but not "highly vulnerable" by
these experts.
C-8
-------
Referring to the Procedural Chart shown in Figure 4-1
and associated worksheet in Table 4-1, the ground water is
classified using the following steps:
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
Establish Classification
Review Area (CRA) and
collect preliminary
information. Optional -
Demonstrate subdivi-
sion (s) of the CRA.
Locate any ecologically
vital areas in the CRA.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
overlap an ecologically
vital area?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 4
Determine location of
well(s) within the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division. Does the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division contain well(s)
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next Step
. Mo, go to Step 8
Inventory population
served by well(s).
Does the well(s) serve a
substantial population?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIA-
CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
The CRA is defined by a
two-mile radius from the
proposed facility. No
CRA subdivision has been
performed.
No ecologically vital
areas are present in the
CRA.
Yes, two large-capacity
water-supply wells are
located within the CRA.
Yes, under Option A, the
population served exceeds
the 2500-person threshold.
Under Option B, the popu-
lation is considered
substantial by recognized
experts given the demo-
graphics of the region.
C-9
-------
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
Unless proven otherwise,
the drinking water source
is assumed to be irre-
placeable. Optional -
perform irreplaceability
analysis. Is the source
of drinking water
irreplaceable?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIA-
CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
Yes, irreplaceability is
assumed.
Perform vulnerability
analysis. Is the CRA or
appropriate subdivision a
highly vulnerable hydro-
geologic setting?
. Yes, then the ground
water is CLASS I-
IRREPLACEABLE SOURCE
OF DRINKING WATER
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIA-
CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
No, under Option A, a
DRASTIC index of less than
150 does not constitute a
highly vulnerable hydro-
geologic setting.
Under Option B, the area
is not deemed highly vul-
nerable by hydrogeologic
experts.
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION:
CLASS IIA - CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
C-1o
-------
CASE STUDY 2
Introduction
This case study is a permutation of Case Study 1 leading
to a Class IIB - Potential Source of Drinking Water classifi-
cation. Although the preliminary information remains the
same, the Classification Review Area has been subdivided to
identify those ground-water units not highly Interconnected
with the ground-water unit directly beneath the facility. In
this manner, we have attempted to illustrate how subdividing
the Classification Review Area can alter the final ground-
water classification. Subdivision of the Classification
Review Area into ground-water units results in a class
determination of potential source of drinking water rather
than a current source.
Preliminary Information with Respect to the
Classification Review Area
General
Material presented in Case Study 1 is not repeated.
Figure C2-1 is a map of the water-table surface developed
from U.S. Geological Survey and State Geological Survey well
data and water-level measurements made specifically for this
study.
Classification Review Area Subdivision (Interconnection)
Three ground-water units can be identified within the
Classification Review Area (Figures C2-2 and C2-3). The
topographic divide serves as a ground-water flow divide
creating ground-water units 1 and 2 (Figure C2-2). Two large
capacity water-supply wells, located in ground-water unit 1,
provide public water supplies for the City of Hilton Heights.
Under pumping conditions, the water pumped by the high-yield
wells is derived from ground-water unit 1, resulting in
displacement of the ground-water flow divide (Figure C2-2).
The river, recharged by ground-water unit 2, does not serve
as a ground-water flow divide. Regional investigations
conducted by county hydrogeologists have shown that ground-
water flow beneath the river occurs in the lowermost Umber
Formation. The Hunter Formation, an unfractured, laterally
continuous aquitard, restricts vertical flow between the
Umber and Toth aquifers. Thus, a third ground-water unit can
be identified and is confined to ground-water movement in the
Toth aquifer.
C-11
-------
FIGURE C2-1
MAP OF THE WATER TABLE
EXPLANATION
• PROPOSED FACILITY
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA BOUNDARY
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY WELL
MUNICIPAL SUPPLY WELL
CITY LIMITS
ROADWAY
RIDGE
©
•
•63.
Z MILES
GROUND-WATER UNIT NUMBER
WATER TABLE CONTOUR,
IN FEET
GROUND-WATER FLOW DIRECTION
C-12
-------
1
OT
5
cc
cc
o
UJ
i
i
CM
.
_J
UJ
HO-
MO.
QOT
S^
i-^^7
£vMfev-/-
>',^,>;^r
:'/Nj'-''r^v^V-x
''-•T' .'•*'"'-' ^
vxc',cri»--\x-v
^-\-s.?\ /V/-\ ,
^c'S5?i
^$^^^
LU
O
v>
O
o
<
V
b
O
o
cc
o
UJ
CD
i
Q_
CC
O
5
£
LU
CO
o
UJ
g
i- ce
o uj
ui CD
£ 5
Q 3
3 s
U. 3
CC CC
LU UJ
M
o o
II
a ?
/
• • ^'^'-'.":.' v'
C-13
-------
ac
ui
o
' t-Vi
a:
UJ
C-14
-------
An intermediate degree of interconnection is demon-
strated where a Type 1 boundary separates adjacent ground-
water units and a Type 2 boundary with a low degree of
interconnection is demonstrated due to the presence of an
aquitard. Thus, it is possible to subdivide the Classifica-
tion Review Area in order to restrict ground-water classifi-
cation to the ground-water unit which is potentially
affected by the presence of the proposed facility.
Potential contaminants entering the ground water from
the facility would be transported in ground-water unit No. 2
and, ultimately, discharge to the river. The ground water
classification decision is thus restricted to ground-water
unit No. 2.
The following classification demonstration is limited to
ground-water unit No. 2 located beneath the proposed facil-
ity. Classification of other ground-water units is not
necessary*
C-15
-------
Referring to the Procedural Chart shown in Figure 4-1
and associated worksheet in Table 4-1, the ground-water is
classified using the following steps:
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
Establish Classification
Review Area (CRA) and
collect preliminary
information. Optional -
Demonstrate subdivi-
sion^) of the CRA.
Locate any ecologically
vital areas in the CRA.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
overlap an ecologically
vital area?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 4
Determine location of
well(s) within the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division. Does the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division contain well(s)
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next Step
. No, go to Step 8
The CRA is defined by a
two-mile radius from the
proposed facility. The
CRA has been subdivided
into three ground-water
units. The ground-water
classification decision
is restricted to ground-
water unit No. 2 located
beneath the proposed
facility.
No ecologically vital
areas are present in the
CRA.
No drinking-water wells
are within ground-water
unit No. 2.
C-16
-------
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
8A Determine location of
reservoirs within the
CRA or appropriate sub-
division.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
contain reservoirs
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 9
9 Determine yield from
ground-water medium
(total depth across
CRA or appropriate
subdivision). Can it
yield 150 gallons-per-
day to a well?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIIA-
NOT A SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
(INSUFFICIENT YIELD)
10 Determine water-quality
characteristics within
the CRA or appropriate
subdivision.
Is the water quality
greater than 10,000 mg/1
total dissolved solids
(TDS)?
(Note: If water quality
is unknown then this
question must be answered
no.)
. Yes, go to Step 12
. No, go to next step
No reservoirs are present
within the subdivided CRA.
Yes, the ground-water
medium is presumed to meet
the sufficient yield
criterion.
No, the water-quality is
unknown.
C-17
-------
Step Question/Direction Response/Comment
11 Are the ground waters so No, the water-quality is
contaminated as to be unknown.
untreatable?
(Note: If water quality
is unknown then this
question must be answered
no.)
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIB-
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION: CLASS IIB - POTENTIAL SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
C-18
-------
CASE STUDY 3
Introduction
This case study is an example of a Class IIB Potential
Source of Drinking Water. The standard Classification Review
Area, defined by a two-mile radius from the proposed facil-
ity, is used in this example. No drinking water wells are
present within the Classification Review Area. Also absent
are any ecologically vital areas.
Preliminary Information with Respect
to the Classification Review Area
General
A permit application is being submitted for a site in
the Armadillo Desert in the Basin and Range physiographic
province. The standard Classification Review Area is shown
in Figure C3-1. The U.S."Geological Survey characterizes the
regional landscape as broad, open, relatively flat-floored
valleys, separated by rugged mountain ranges. Valley-fill
deposits are sands, gavels, and cobbles of local origin,
transported to the site by alluvial and colluvial processes.
Figure C3-2 is a generalized cross-section of the hydro-
geology in the Classification Review Area determined from a
limited number of borings.
The climate of the Armadillo Desert is characterized as
arid. Average annual evapotranspiration exceeds average-
annual precipitation by an order of magnitude; hence, the
area is normally water deficient.
Well/Reservoir Survey
No ground water wells or drinking water reservoirs are
present in the Classification Review Area (Figure C3-1). If
the permit is approved for the facility to begin operation,
bottled drinking water will be delivered to the site for
employee use.
Demography
The nearest town is ten miles north of the proposed site
and has an approximate population of 5,000. There are no
known rural dwellings within a two-mile radius of the
proposed site.
Ecologically Vital Areas
No ground-water discharge areas, or Federal lands
designated for ecological protection, are present in the two-
mile Classification Review Area.
C-19
-------
FIGURE C3-1
BASE MAP ENCOMPASSING THE CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
EXPLANATION
• PROPOSED FACILITY
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW
AREA BOUNDARY
INTERMITTENT STREAM
—— GROUND-WATER FLOW DIRECTION
ROADWAY
2 MILES
C-20
-------
0
o
CO
CJ
o
g
CM CM CM
8
lO
CM
8
CM
CM
1SW 133d Nl 'NOI±VA313
C-21
-------
Referring to the procedural chart shown in Figure 4-1
and the associated worksheet in Table 4-1, the ground water
is classified using the following steps:
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
8A
Establish Classification
Review Area (CRA) and
collect preliminary
information. Optional -
Demonstrate subdivi-
sion (s) of the CRA.
Locate any ecologically
vital areas in the CRA.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
overlap an ecologically
vital area?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 4
Determine location of
well(s) within the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division. Does the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division contain well(s)
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next Step
. No, go to Step 8
Determine location of
reservoirs within the
CRA or appropriate sub-
division.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
contain reservoirs
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 9
The CRA is defined by a
two-mile radius from the
proposed facility. No
CRA subdivision has been
performed.
No ecologically vital
areas are present in the
CRA.
No drinking water wells
are present in the CRA.
No, there are no reser-
voirs present within the
CRA.
C-22
-------
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
9 Determine yield from
ground water medium
(total depth across
CRA or appropriate sub-
division) . Can it
yield 150 gallons-per-
day to a well?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIIA-
NOT A SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
(INSUFFICIENT YIELD)
10 Determine water-quality
characteristics within
the CRA or appropriate
subdivision.
Is the water quality
greater than 10,000 mg/1
total dissolved solids
(TDS)?
(Note: If water quality
is unknown then this
question must be answered
no.)
. Yes, go to Step 12
. No, go to next step
11 Are the ground waters so
contaminated as to be
untreatable?
(Note: If water quality
is unknown then this
question must be answered
no.)
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIB-
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
Yes, in the absence of
data, sufficient yield
is assumed.
No, water-quality char-
acteristics within the
CRA are unknown.
No, water-quality char-
acteristics within the
CRA are unknown.
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION:
CLASS IIB - POTENTIAL SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
C-23
-------
CASE STUDY 4
Introduction
This case study was developed from Case Study 3 in order
to demonstrate an expanded Classification Review Area for an
alluvial setting. The classification decision with a two-
mile Classification Review Area was Class JIB Potential
Source of Drinking Water. No sources of drinking water were
found in the two-mile Classification Review Area (Figure C4-
1). An expanded review area as demonstrated in this case
study may lead to a different classification decision.
Preliminary Information with Respect
to the Classification Review Area
Expanded Classification Review Area
This setting is found in the alluvial basin ground-water
region (after Heath, 1984) and based on the above information
matches the conditions for an expanded Classification Review
Area. These conditions are:
An unconfined aquifer as the dominant aquifer
Losing streams as the predominant source of ground-
water discharge
Transmissivities and flow velocities that are
moderate to high (>250 m2/d and >60 m/yr, respec-
tively)
Relatively low annual rainfall (less than 20 inches-
per-year)
The expanded review area is based on a five-mile radius
from the activity boundary. A five-mile radius was selected
because calculation of ground-water velocities near the
proposed facility was not possible due to a lack of informa-
tion on ground-water gradients. Where velocity is known, the
expanded review area radius is the distance water will flow
in 50 years. Figure C4-2 shows the expanded review area.
General
A permit application is being submitted for a site in
the Armadillo Desert in the Basin and Range physiographic
province. The U.S. Geological Survey characterizes the
regional landscape as broad, open, relatively flat-floored
valleys, separated by rugged mountain ranges. Valley-fill
C-24
-------
FIGURE C4-1
BASE MAP ENCOMPASSING THE TWO-MILE CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
EXPLANATION
• PROPOSED FACILITY
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW
AREA BOUNDARY
INTERMITTENT STREAM
—•- GROUND-WATER FLOW DIRECTION
ROADWAY
2 MILES
C-25
-------
FIGURE C4-2
BASE MAP ENCOMPASSING THE EXPANDED CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
4 MILES
• PROPOSED FACILITY
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW
AREA BOUNDARY
INTERMITTENT STREAM
•- GROUND-WATER FLOW DIRECTION
ROADWAY
• RESIDENTIAL WELL
O IRRIGATION WELL
C-26
-------
deposits are sands, gravels, and cobbles of local origin,
transported to the site by alluvial and colluvial processes.
A generalized cross-section of the hydrogeology within the
five-mile Classsification Review Area was assembled based on
a review of literature and well logs available for the region
(see Figure C4-3). The uppermost aquifer is unconfined and
has a transmissivity greater than 300 m2/d.
The climate of the Armadillo Desert is characterized as
arid. Average annual evapotranspiration exceeds average
annual precipitation by an order of magnitude; hence, the
area is normally water deficient. Ground-water recharge
occurs primarily at the higher elevations as snow melt
charged streams lose water into the ground.
Well/Reservoir Survey
No ground-water wells or drinking water reservoirs are
present in the two-mile Classification Review Area.
However, within the expanded Classification Review Area,
there are two wells used for irrigration and one well used
for water supply to a residence. If the permit is approved
for the facility to begin operation, bottled drinking water
will be delivered to the site for employee use.
Demography
The nearest town is ten miles north of the proposed site
and has an approximate population of 5,000. There are no
known rural dwellings within a two-mile radius of the
proposed site. There is one dwelling within the expanded
review area.
Ecologically Vital Areas
No ground-water discharge areas, or Federal lands
designated for ecological protection, are present in either
the two-mile or expanded Classification Review Area.
C-27
-------
a
§
m 2
I M
I
(£
O
O
O
Q.
tr
o
o
Q.
X
UJ
O
\
LJ
(0
o
o
o
00
CM
CM M CM CM
1SW 133J Nl 'NOI1VA313
8
o
8
CM
C-28
-------
Expanded Classification Review Area Decision
Referring to the Procedural Chart shown in Figure 4-1
and associated worksheet in Table 4-1, the ground water is
classified using the following steps:
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
Establish Classification
Review Area (CRA) and
collect preliminary
information. Optional -
Demonstrate subdivi-
sion (s) of the CRA.
Locate any ecologically
vital areas in the CRA.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
overlap an ecologically
vital area?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 4
Determine location of
well(s) within the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division. Does the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division contain well(s)
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next Step
. No, go to Step 8
Inventory population
served by well(s).
Does the well(s) serve a
substantial population?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIA-
CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
The CRA has been expanded
to a five-mile radius
from the activity boundary
because of an alluvial
hydrogeological setting
and a lack of information
on ground-water velo-
cities. No CRA sub-
division has been
performed.
No ecologically vital
areas are present in the
CRA.
Yes, one drinking-water
well is present in the
expanded CRA.
No, the well does not
serve a substantial
population as determined
by Option A.
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION:
CLASS IIA-CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
C-29
-------
CASE STUDY 5
Introduction
Case Study 5 is an example of a Class IIIB - Low Inter-
connection ground water. This case is based on a permit
application for underground injection of liquid wastes. The
standard Classification Review Area, defined by a two-mile
radius from the proposed facility, is used in this example.
Subdivision of the Classification Review Area is exemplified
below.
Preliminary Information with Respect to the
Classification Review Area
General
A permit application is being submitted for underground
injection of liquid wastes into the Emery Formation.
Planning, zoning, and tax-maps indicate land use in the area
is primarily for farming and cattle production. The Classi-
fication Review Area is shown in Figure C5-1.
Geologv/Hydrogeologv
U.S. Geological Survey reports indicate the target
formation for subsurface disposal is the lower ground-water
unit (Emery sandstone) located at a depth of approximately
4,000 feet (Figure C5-2). Below this formation are basement
rocks of quartzite, schist, and granite. The upper ground-
water units are composed of flat-lying, alternating layers of
dolomite, limestone, and sandstone.
The stratigraphic sequence shown in Figure C5-2 was
developed from previous well logs taken during oil and gas
exploration. The stratigraphy encountered correlates with
the stratigraphy in other parts of the basin and reflects the
regional geology.
Water-quality samples were also taken during drilling.
It was determined that ground water in the Emery Sandstone
has a total dissolved solids content ranging from 12,000-
15,000 mg/1.
Potable water for area residents, as well as for
livestock, is produced from the uppermost sandstone aquifer,
the Wagner Formation.
C-30
-------
FIGURE C5-1
BASE MAP ENCOMPASSING THE CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
\
\
\
\
PROPOSED
INJECTtON
WELL
EXPLANATION
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA BOUNDARY
• RESIDENTIAL WELL
ROADWAY
2 MILES
C-31
-------
§
CO
CO
a
u
CN
I
IT)
O
O O
M O
§
M
H
U
W
CO
i
to
8
«
CJ
Crt
3
O
<
£t
<
tr
o
Sti
UJ
OL
LJ>
COH-
O
<
o:
;. UJ'-.
: o!:
W
g
POT
g=! H>:W
SS8«
UJ
R
1
r
s
IIII
133d Nl Hld3Q
C-32
.UJ
. wt
-.00:
': Z O :
co
M/N
g
|
<
o.
X
UJ
o
1
0
o
0
(M
1
O
o
0
t
1
o
o
o
(0
-------
Classification Review Area Subdivision (Interconnection)
Three ground-water units can be identified within the
Classification Review Area and are numbered as shown in
Figure C5-3. Ground waters in each ground-water unit are
separated from each other by unfractured, laterally extensive
shale units. A low degree of interconnection is demonstrated
due to the presence of these Type 2 boundaries. The inte-
grity of these boundaries has not been compromised by
improperly constructed or abanondoned wells, or other
apertures. Injection and pressure tests performed indicate
that pressures required to meet the design flow rate fall
well below the Emery Formation's pressure-induced fracturing
limits.
Normally ground-water classification would be restricted
to the ground-water unit which is potentially affected by the
presence of the proposed facility. The proposed facility, in
this case, is a liquid waste injection well. Under a worst-
case scenario, potential contaminants entering the ground
water from the facility would be tranported in all ground-
water units underlying the facility rather than just the
Emery Formation. Therefore, classification of each ground-
water unit is necessary.
Well/Reservoir Survey
Figure C5-1 shows the location of four domestic wells
identified in the Classification Review Area. These wells
are screened within 200 feet of the ground surface in the
uppermost sandstone aquifer.
No water-supply reservoirs are present in the Classi-
fication Review Area.
Ecologically Vital Areas
The only discharge point in the Classification Review
Area is from the upper sandstone aquifer to a local stream.
However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed that
this stream does not provide habitat for an endangered
species. Additionally, no Federally-protected lands exist in
the area. Thus, the ground water is not considered to be
ecologically vital.
C-33
-------
&
fc "a
\
\
\
o
00
<
s
i
d
I
<
o
(t
• II
C-34
-------
Referring to the Procedural Guide shown in Figure 4-1
and assoicated worksheet in Table 4-1, ground-water Unit No.
3 is classified using the following steps:
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
8A
Establish Classification
Review Area (CRA) and
collect preliminary
information. Optional -
Demonstrate subdivi-
sion (s) of the CRA.
Locate any ecologically
vital areas in the CRA.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
overlap an ecologically
vital area?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 4
Determine location of
well(s) within the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division. Does the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division contain well(s)
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next Step
. No, go to Step 8
Determine location of
reservoirs within the
CRA or appropriate sub-
division.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
contain reservoirs
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 9
The CRA is defined by a
two-mile radius from the
proposed facility and has
been subdivided because
of the presence of low
permeability flow barriers
beneath the ground-water
units.
No ecologically vital
areas are present in the
CRA.
No drinking water wells
are within ground-water
unit No. 3.
No reservoirs are present
within the CRA.
C-35
-------
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
9 Determine yield from
ground water medium
(total depth across
CRA or appropriate
subdivision). Can it
yield 150 gallons-per-
day to a well?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIIA-
NOT A SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
(INSUFFICIENT YIELD)
10 Determine water-quality
characteristics within
the CRA or appropriate
subdivision.
Is the water quality
greater than 10,000 mg/1
total dissolved solids
(TDS)?
(Note: If water quality
is unknown then this
question must be answered
no.)
. Yes, go to Step 12
. No, go to next step
12 Perform interconnected-
ness analysis. Is there
a low degree of inter-
connection between the
ground water being
classified and adjacent
ground units or surface
waters within the initial
CRA?
. Yes, then the ground
water is CLASS IIIB-
NOT A SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER (LOW
INTERCONNECTION)
Yes, the uppermost
sandstone aquifer exceeds
the sufficient yield
criteria.
Yes, ground-water unit
No. 3 contains water with
TDS averaging 12,000 to
15,000 mg/1 and exceeds
the Class III TDS
threshold.
Yes, verticle movement to
adjacent upper or lower
units is restricted by
geologic units of low
permeability.
C-36
-------
Step Question/Direction Response/Comment
No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIIA-
NOT A SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER (INTER-
MEDIATE-TO-HIGH
INTERCONNECTION)
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION: CLASS IIIB - NOT A SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
(LOW INTERCONNECTION)
C-37
-------
Classification of Ground-Water Unit No. 2 is accomplished
using the Procedural Guide shown in Figure 4-1 and associated
worksheet in Table 4-1.
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
8A
Establish Classification
Review Area (CRA) and
collect preliminary
information. Optional -
Demonstrate subdivi-
sion^) of the CRA.
Locate any ecologically
vital areas in the CRA.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
overlap an ecologically
vital area?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 4
Determine location of
well(s) within the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division. Does the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division contain well(s)
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next Step
. No, go to Step 8
Determine location of
reservoirs within the
CRA or appropriate sub-
division.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
contain reservoirs
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 9
The CRA is defined by a
two-mile radius from the
proposed facility and has
been subdivided because of
the presence of low perme-
ability flow barriers
between the ground-water
units.
No ecologically vital
areas are present in the
CRA.
No drinking water wells
are wihtin ground-water
Unit No. 2.
No water-supply reser-
voirs are within the
CRA.
C-38
-------
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
9 Determine yield from
ground water medium
(total depth across
CRA or appropriate
subdivision). Can it
yield 150 gallons-per-
day to a well?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIIA-
NOT A SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
(INSUFFICIENT YIELD)
10 Determine water-quality
characteristics within
the CRA or appropriate
subdivision.
Is the water quality
greater than 10,000 mg/1
total dissolved solids
(TDS)?
(Note: If water quality
is unknown then this
question must be answered
no.)
. Yes, go to Step 12
. No, go to next step
11 Are the ground waters so
contaminated as to be
untreatable?
(Note: If water quality
is unknown then this
question must be answered
no.)
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIB-
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION:
The uppermost sandstone
aquifer exceeds the
sufficient yield criteria,
Water quality is unknown
for ground-water unit
No. 2.
Water quality is unknown
for ground-water unit
No. 2.
CLASS IIB - POTENTIAL SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
C-39
-------
Finally, classification of Ground-Water Unit No. 1 is
accomplished using the following steps from the Procedural
Guide shown in Figure 4-1 and associated worksheet in Table
4-1:
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
Establish Classification
Review Area (CRA) and
collect preliminary
information. Optional -
Demonstrate subdivi-
sion (s) of the CRA.
Locate any ecologically
vital areas in the CRA.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
overlap an ecologically
vital area?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 4
Determine location of
well(s) within the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division. Does the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division contain well(s)
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next Step
. No, go to Step 8
Inventory population
served by well(s).
Does the well(s) serve a
substantial population?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIA-
CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
The CRA is defined by a
two-mile radius from the
proposed facility and has
been subdivided because
of low permeability flow
barriers between the
ground-water units.
No ecologically vital
areas are present in the
CRA.
Four domestic wells are
present within ground-
water unit No. 1.
The wells do not serve a
substantial population as
determined under Option A.
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION:
CLASS IIA - CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
C-40
-------
CASE STUDY 6
Introduction
The following case study deals with the issues of
treatability and interconnection. It is an example of a
Class IIIA - High Interconnection between surface and ground
waters. In addition, based on the ground-water discharge
scheme of this flow system, and the intermediate degree of
connection between ground waters on opposite sides of a
river, the Classification Review Area has been subdivided.
Preliminary Information with Respect to the
Classification Review Area
General
A permit application is being submitted for a site
approximately 1000 feet west of the Pearl River (Figure C6-
1). This site is located.within city limits.
Geology/Hydroqeology
Based on U.S. Geological Survey reports, the site
geology consists of 15 to 30 feet of flood plain silts and
very fine sands immediately beneath the proposed facility
(Figure C6-2). The water table is located in this unit.
Underlying the silty unit are 4 to 11 feet of more permeable
fluvial sand. Thick lacustrine clays below the fluvial
sediments form the lower flow boundary of the site. Ground
water discharges to the Pearl River.
Classification Review Area Subdivision (Interconnection)
It is known that the Pearl River serves as a ground-
water flow divide, therefore, division of the Classification
Review Area into two separate ground-water units (each of
which discharges to the river) is possible (Figure C6-3). An
intermediate degree of interconnection is demonstrated where
the adjacent ground waters are in separate ground-water units
due to the presence of a flow boundary. The position of the
river as a flow boundary is not expected to change to any
significant degree from current or planned ground-water
withdrawals.
Well/Reservoir Survey
No water-supply reservoirs or drinking-water wells are
present in the Classification Review Area. Local residents'
drinking-water supply is piped-in from a source outside the
Classification Review Area.
The above information was verified by the County Public
Health Agency.
C-41
-------
FIGURE C6-1
BASE MAP ENCOMPASSING THE CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
EXPLANATION
• PROPOSED FACILITY
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW
AREA BOUNDARY
WETLANDS
CITY LIMITS
DIRECTION OF GROUND-WATER FLOW
ROADWAY
2 MILES
C-42
-------
C-43
-------
on
UJ
b m
2 G
UIQ
(-0
m
tr
o
m
UJ
a:
o
g
O M
8*
en « o
I P M
so R H
uS<
en
\
\
\
\
a:
ui
I- <
I-H
O
UJ
it
o
UJ
v>
I
UJ
o
u.
CO
V)
<
o
a
Q
O
UJ H
Q <
> ?
O O
z
o
i
5 a
$ °
9 §
0
h-
<
a.
X
UJ
b *
=J <
. "^
•'-«*i *-.
*••*. •' -
'*--••; . '
'•if,
• .-Ti-
(/)
O
<
s H
_l y
0 %
f!?i nr
'i1 '.
V i'
" LL
C-44
-------
Demography
The population is centered on the west side of the Pearl
River. Based on U.S. Census Bureau statistics, approximately
100,000 persons reside there. The remainder of the Classifi-
cation Review Area is sparsely populated.
Ecologically Vital Areas
The Classification Review Area does not encompass any
Federal lands designated for ecological protection or
ecologically vital areas. Ground-water discharge areas have
been identified as the Pearl River and associated tribu-
taries. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed that
these areas do not provide unique habitats for any endangered
species.
Treatabilitv
Over the years, the city has maintained numerous
industrial activities which have resulted in gross, wide-
spread contamination of the ground water. Based on an
extensive network of monitoring wells, it has been determined
that the ground water has been polluted by various organic
and inorganic constituents. Table C-3 lists various contam-
inants present in the ground water and treatment efficiencies
typically reported in EPA treatability and effluent guideline
manuals. The amount of contaminant cited represents an
average of water-quality samples obtained from monitoring
wells located on the west side of the Pearl River. Should
these waters be used as a source of drinking water they would
require treatment using technologies such as air stripping,
lime precipitation, sand filtration, and reverse osmosis.
Table C-3 also presents contaminant concentrations after
application of these technologies. Drinking water standards
for some constituents were not met, therefore, the ground
water is deemed untreatable, by reasonably available tech-
nologies.
The following classification demonstration is applicable
only to the ground-water unit located beneath the proposed
facility - the western portion of the Classification Review
Area relative to the Pearl River. Classification of the
ground-water unit east of the river is not necessary.
C-45
-------
JS P-
iS
o
a -*
Effiuont (
Reveree
(-1
31
^L
Effluent
Raven*
<«
« M
b< N
s i
u
§
c •
n to
a -
11!
S SJ!
" I
-* ft.
S
Inltlel
Concentration
(«l/l)
Constituent
552^
s s i I
• N
o m o o
0 O 0 0
g g g g
•» O> 4>
!? R R g
«B co <* oe
o
to
h.
C
1
M
C
M
«
|:
S
J
0
•
*
5
D.
0
W
•
3
f
J!
•
c
•o
i
?
•
N
• •
jj
g
to
• i
«
?
11
• *
w <
s :
?!
iS
li
7 *'
' '
• i
*
t
J
^
S
k I
i I
I /
o
2
c
"*
*
o
•
I
*
s
J
ji
^
**
2
c
4
S
M
J?
' A*
:
* •
* 9
u
s
•
' • I
1 I
j; s
o
« 8
C •
f* II
• *
2 £
O
oo
C
1
0
1
•o
4
S
X
^
I
to
.J
^
C
2
^
M
to
1
1
M
3
to
^
2
C
U
1
1
z
1
jj
u
I
C-46
-------
Referring to the Procedural Chart shown in Figure 4-1
and associated worksheet in Table 4-1, the ground water is
classified using the following steps:
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
8A
Establish Classification
Review Area (CRA) and
collect preliminary
information. Optional -
Demonstrate subdivi-
sion (s) of the CRA.
Locate any ecologically
vital areas in the CRA.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
overlap an ecologically
vital area?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 4
Determine location of
well(s) within the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division. Does the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division contain well(s)
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next Step
. No, go to Step 8
Determine location of
reservoirs within the
CRA or appropriate sub-
division.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
contain reservoirs
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 9
The CRA is defined by a
two-mile radius from the
proposed facility and has
been subdivided into two
ground-water units. The
ground-water classifica-
tion decision is restrict-
ed to the western ground-
water unit.
No ecologically vital
areas are present in the
CRA.
No, the ground-water
unit being classified
does not contain any
drinking-water wells.
No water-supply reser-
voirs are present in the
CRA.
C-47
-------
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
9 Determine yield from
ground-water medium
(total depth across
CRA or appropriate
subdivision). Can it
yield 150 gallons-per-
day to a well?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIIA-
NOT A SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
(INSUFFICIENT YIELD)
10 Determine water-quality
characteristics within
the CRA or appropriate
subdivision.
Is the water quality
greater than 10,000 mg/1
total dissolved solids
(TDS)?
(Note: If water quality
is unknown then this
question must be answered
no.)
. Yes, go to Step 12
. No, go to next step
11 Are the ground waters so
contaminated as to be
untreatable?
(Note: If water quality
is unknown then this
question must be answered
no.)
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIB-
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
Yes, the ground-water
medium is presumed to meet
the sufficient yield
criterion.
No, the ground-water unit
being classified has less
than 10,000 mg/1 TDS.
Yes, the ground-water unit
being classified is deemed
untreatable by reasonably
available technologies.
C-48
-------
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
12 Perform interconnected-
ness analysis. Is there
a low degree of inter-
connection between the
ground water being
classified and adjacent
ground units or surface
waters within the initial
CRA?
. Yes, then the ground
water is CLASS IIIB-
NOT A SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER (LOW
INTERCONNECTION)
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIIA-
NOT A SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
(INTERMEDIATE-TO-HIGH
INTERCONNECTION)
No, a high degree of
interconnection exists
between the ground water
and surface waters. An
intermediate degree of
interconnection exists
between ground waters on
opposite sides of the
river.
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION:
CLASS IIIA - NOT A SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER (INTERMEDIATE
TO HIGH INTERCONNECTION)
C-49
-------
CASE STUDY 7
Introduct ion
A Class I irreplaceable drinking-water source is repre-
sented in this Case Study. The standard Classification
Review Area, defined by a two-mile radius from the proposed
facility, is used in this example. Relevant issues for irre-
placeability include substantial population and vulner-
ability.
Preliminary Information with Respect to the
Classification Review Area
General
A permit application is being submitted for a site along
the White River in the midwest (Figure C7-1). Land use in
the vicinity is light to heavy industrial with a residential
area to the north.
Geology/Hydrogeology
The U.S. Geological Survey and county hydrogeologists
characterize the principal aquifer of the well field (Figure
C7-2) as a fractured sandstone formation which is overlain by
a sandy glacial till and alluvium. Ground-water movement
through the water-table aquifer occurs primarily through
fractures and is toward the White River where the ground
water discharges (Figure C7-3).
Well/Reservoir Survey
A municipal well field exists north of the proposed
facility. It contains 19 large-capacity wells pumping a
total of 8 million gallons-per-day (mgd). These wells are
screened in the fractured sandstone formation to an approxi-
mate depth of 300 feet.
Residential wells are also present in the Classification
Review Area although their exact locations have not been
determined. It is known, however, that they are also
screened in the sandstone, as well as the alluvium.
No water-supply reservoirs are present in the Classifi-
cation Review Area.
Demography
The population within the Classification Review Area is
estimated at 125,000, 60 percent of which are provided
drinking water from the well field. This site population
constitutes a substantial population under irreplaceability
Option A.
C-50
-------
FIGURE C7-1
BASE 'MAP ENCOMPASSING THE CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
EXPLANATION
• PROPOSED FACILITY
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW
AREA BOUNDARY
• MUNICIPAL WELL
— x CITY LIMITS
ROADWAY
2 MILES
C-51
-------
o
M
h
^
(-
o
g
o
o
Q.
UJ
en
0.
X
UJ
-------
FIGURE C7-3
MAP OF THE WATER TABLE SURFACE
2 MILES
• PROPOSED FACILITY
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW
AREA BOUNDARY
• MUNICIPAL WELL
-70 PIEZOMETRIC HEAD
DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW
C-53
-------
Ecologically Vital Areas
Ground water discharges to the White River. It has been
confirmed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that this
area does not provide habitat for any endangered species.
Thus, the ground water is not considered to be ecologically
vital.
Vulnerability
Under Option A for determining vulnerability, one
approach, presented here, is to map out each hydrogeologic
setting in the Classification Review Area that may have
differing DRASTIC indices. An area weighted average index
can then be computed. Figure C7-4 shows the mapped DRASTIC
map units.
Rating Weight Number
Map Unit A - Glacial Till
. Depth to water - 5-10 feet
. Net recharge - 6-9 inches/year
. Aquifer media - fractured
sandstone
. Soil media - clay loam
. Topography - 6-12 percent
. Impact of vadose zone media -
sand and gravel with significant
silt and clay
. Hydraulic conductivity -
estimated 500 gpd/ft2
9
8
8
3
5
5
4
3
2
1
45
32
24
6
5
20
DRASTIC Index (TOTAL) 144
Rating Weight Number
Map Unit B - Alluvium
Depth to water - 5-10 feet 9
Net recharge - 6-9 inches/year 8
Aquifer media - fractured
sandstone 8
Soil media - sandy loam 6
Topography - 2-6 percent 9
Impact of vadose zone media -
sand and gravel with significant
silt and clay 7
Hydraulic conductivity -
estimated 500 gpd/ft2 4
5
4
3
2
1
45
32
24
12
9
35
DRASTIC Index (TOTAL) 169
C-54
-------
Area Weighted DRASTIC
Hap DRASTIC Proportion of Area Weighted
Unit Index Classification Review Area Index
A 144 40% 57.6
B 169 60% 101.4
Classification Review Area Weighted Index 159
The facility is sited over Hap Unit B and is designated as a
highly vulnerable hydrogeologic setting. If the facility had
overlain Hap Unit A then the decision would still be for
highly vulnerable because the area weighted DRASTIC index
exceeds the criterion and more than 50 percent of the CRA is
highly vulnerable. Thus, the entire Classification Review
Area is designated as highly vulnerable to ground-water
contamination under Option A for assessing vulnerability.
Under Option B for determining vulnerability, an expert
hydrogeologist in the area was consulted. The hydrogeologic
setting of fractured sandstone overlain by sandy glacial till
and alluvium is considered highly vulnerable by this expert.
Irreplaceability
An analysis of available alternative sources of water
was not conducted. Thus, by default, the drinking-water
supply is assumed irreplaceable under both Options A and B.
C-55
-------
07-4
CUSSlpICAriON
TJ ALLUVIUM
1 TILL
C-56
-------
Review minary
collect prei-3- otional
information-
vital
per
HO
areas
formed.
next step
-
to next Step
persons
s
*-»
in
C-57
-------
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
Unless proven otherwise,
the drinking water source
is assumed to be irre-
placeable. Optional -
perform irreplaceability
analysis. Is the source
of drinking water
irreplaceable?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIA-
CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
Perform vulnerability
analysis. Is the CRA or
appropriate subdivision
a highly vulnerable
hydrogeologic setting?
. Yes, then the ground
water is CLASS I -
IRREPLACEABLE SOURCE
OF DRINKING WATER
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIA-
CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
Yes, the drinking water
is assumed irreplaceable
under Options A and B.
(Irreplaceability analysis
not performed).
Yes, the CRA is a highly
vulnerable hydrogeologic
setting under both
Options A and B.
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION:
CLASS I - IRREPLACEABLE SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
C-58
-------
CASE STUDY 8
Introduction
Case Study 8 relates to an ecologically vital habitat.
However, the Classification Review Area is subdivided such
that the ultimate ground-water class determination beneath
the facility is Class IIB - Potential Source of Drinking
Water.
Preliminary Information with Respect to the
Classification Review Area
General
A permit application is being submitted for a site
located along the Logan River (Figure C8-1). The area is
generally undeveloped, with the exception of the city located
in the northwestern portion of the Classification Review
Area.
Geo 1 ocry/Hydr ogeol ocry
U.S. Geological Survey reports indicate the Valley Sand
aquifer is protected by the Green Formation, a predominantly
clayey sediment unit which is known to be an unfractured,
laterally continuous aguitard. The upper Caldor Formation
aquifer {Figure C8-2) discharges to rivers in the region, and
leaks downward into the aguitard. Beneath the proposed site,
ground water from the Caldor aquifer moves away from the site
and discharges into the Logan River.
Classification Review Area Subdivision (Interconnection)
It is known from existing studies that the river and its
tributaries serve as ground-water divides in the area, thus,
creating three ground-water units which discharge to the
river bodies. Each system has been numbered as shown in
Figure C8-3. That portion of the Classification Review Area
containing the proposed facility (ground-water unit No. 1)
does not discharge to the segment of the river designated as
an endangered species critical habitat. As such, this ground
water unit is not highly interconnected to the waters of the
critical habitat.
Well/Reservoir Survey
Based on state and local planning board records, no
municipal/residential wells or water-supply reservoirs are
present in the Classification Review Area.
C-59
-------
FIGURE C8-1
BASE MAP ENCOMPASSING THE CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
EXPLANATION
PROPOSED FACILITY
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA BOUNDARY
WETLANDS
ECOLOGICALLY VITAL AREA
CITY LIMITS
ROADWAY
2 MILES
C-60
-------
fn
o
o
UJ
cc
o
I
C-61
-------
Demography
Based on U.S. Census Bureau information, approximately
20,000 persons live in the northwestern section of the
Classification Review Area. The remaining area is undevel-
oped to date.
Ecologically Vital Area
National Fish and Wildlife Federation records indicate
that the southernmost portion of the Logan River, within the
Classification Review Area, is designated as a critical
habitat for an endangered fish species. The location of this
habitat also serves as a ground-water discharge area for
ground-water units 2 and 3 (Figure C8-3). It should be
noted, however, that the proposed facility is located such
that any potential pollutants leaching into the ground water
would enter ground-water unit No. 1 and eventually discharge
to the Logan River.
C-62
-------
FIGURE C8-3
MAP OF THE WATER TABLE AND GROUND-WATER UNITS
WITHIN THE CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
PROPOSED FACILITY
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA BOUNDARY
WETLANDS
ECOLOGICALLY VITAL AREA
CITY LIMITS
65.
2 MILES
GROUND-WATER UNIT NUMBER
WATER TABLE CONTOUR,
IN FEET
GROUND-WATER FLOW DIRECTION
C-63
-------
Referring to the J»rocedural Chart shown in Figure 4-1
and associated worksheet in Table 4-1, the ground water is
classified using the following steps:
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
8A
Establish Classification
Review Area (CRA) and
collect preliminary
information. Optional —
Demonstrate subdivi-
sion (s) of the CRA.
Locate any ecologically
vital areas in the CRA.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
overlap an ecologically
vital area?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 4
Determine location of
well(s) within the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division. Does -the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division contain well(s)
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next Step
. No, go to Step 8
Determine location of
reservoirs within the
CRA or appropriate ssaj»-
division.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
contain reservoirs
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 9
The CRA is defined by a
two-mile radius from the
proposed facility and has
been subdivided into
three ground-water units
due to the presence of a
ground-water divide.
While there is an eco-
vital habitat within the
CRA, the ground-water unit
being classified does not
discharge into it.
No water-supply wells are
present within the CRA.
No water-supply reser-
voirs present in the
CRA.
C-64
-------
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
9 Determine yield from
ground water medium
(total depth across
CRA or appropriate
subdivision). Can it
yield 150 gallons-per-
day to a well?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIIA-
NOT A SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
(INSUFFICIENT YIELD)
10 Determine water-quality
characteristics within
the CRA or appropriate
subdivision.
Is the water quality
greater than 10,000 mg/1
total dissolved solids
(TDS)?
(Note: If water quality
is unknown then this
question must be answered
no.)
. Yes, go to Step 12
. No, go to next step
11 Are the ground waters so
contaminated as to be
untreatable?
(Note: If water quality
is unknown then this
question must be answered
no.)
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIB-
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
Yes, the ground water
medium is presumed to
meet the sufficient yield
criterion.
No, water quality is
unknown.
No, water quality is
unknown.
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION:
CLASS IIB - POTENTIAL SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
C-65
-------
CASE STUDY 9
Introduction
The following case study is a permutation of Case Study
8 leading to a Class I - Ecologically Vital Classification.
Although the preliminary information remains the same, the
location of the endangered species habitat has changed (see
Figure C9-1). Relevant issues addressed in this case include
ecologically vital areas and vulnerability.
Ecologically Vital Areas
The State Endangered Species Coordinator reports that
the banks of the Logan River provide wetland habitat for an
endangered species. This area serves as a ground-water
discharge area for the Caldor Formation. (Figure C9-2).
Vulnerability
A vulnerability analysis is the next step in the ground-
water classification process upon determining that an
endangered species habitat is present within the Classifica-
tion Review Area and the habitat can be shown to be a
discharge area for the proposed activity. This is necessary
in order to establish whether the area is highly vulnerable
to ground-water contamination. (See Section 4.4 and Appendix
D for procedural information.)
Under Option A for determining vulnerability, DRASTIC is
utilized with the following results:
CALDOR FORMATION Rating Weight Number
. Depth to water - 5 to 10 feet 9 5 45
. Net recharge - approximately
10-15 in/year 9 4 36
. Aquifer media - sand with
silt, clay, and lignite 7 3 21
. Soil media - sandy loam 6 2 12
. Topography - less than 2% 10 1 10
. Impact of vadose zone media -
interbedded sand with silt,
clay and lignite 6 5 30
. Hydraulic conductivity -
highly permeable (approximately
.16 ft/sec) 10 3 30
DRASTIC Index (TOTAL) 164
A DRASTIC score of 150 or more constitutes a highly vulner-
able hydrogeologic setting under Option A.
C-66
-------
FIGURE C9-1
BASE MAP ENCOMPASSING THE CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
EXPLANATION
• PROPOSED FACILITY
CLASSIFICATION REVIEWAREA BOUNDARY
WETLANDS
ECOLOGICALLY VITAL AREA
CITY LIMITS
ROADWAY
2 MILES
C-67
-------
O
O
U)
I
C-68
-------
Under Option B for determining vulnerability, two expert
hydrogeologists were consulted. These experts disagree on
whether the hydrogeologic conditions present constitute a
"highly vulnerable" setting as they have differing pro-
fessional opions regarding the hydrologic properties of the
aquifer media. This situation under Option B was resolved by
making the conservative assumption that the setting is highly
vulnerable.
C-69
-------
Referring to the Procedural Chart shown in Figure 4-1
and associated worksheet in Table 4-1, the ground water is
classified using the following steps:
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
Establish Classification
Review Area (CRA) and
collect preliminary
information. Optional -
Demonstrate subdivi-
sion (s) of the CRA.
Locate any ecologically
vital areas in the CRA.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
overlap an ecologically
vital area?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 4
Perform vulnerability
analysis. Is the CRA or
appropriate subdivision a
highly vulnerable hydro-
geologic setting?
. Yes, then the ground
water is CLASS I -
ECOLOGICALLY VITAL
. No, go to next step
The CRA is defined by a
two-mile radius from the
proposed facility and has
been subdivided into
various shallow flow
systems due to the
presence of a ground-water
divide.
Yes, an ecologically vital
area is present in the
CRA.
Yes, under Option A,
a DRASTIC score of 150 or
more constitutes a
highly vulnerable setting.
Under Option B,
differing expert pro-
fessional opinions
exist, therefore, it is
conservatively assumed
that the hydrogeologic
setting is highly
vulnerable.
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION: CLASS I - ECOLOGICALLY VITAL
C-70
-------
CASE STUDY 10
Introduction
Case Study 10 is another example of a CLASS IIA replace-
able drinking-water source. An analysis determined that the
ground-water supply was replaceable.
Preliminary Information with Respect to the
Classification Review Area
General
A permit application is being submitted for a site which
would overlie a highly transmissive aquifer, serving as the
major water-supply aquifer for the area. A two-mile Classi-
fication Review Area (shown in Figure 10-1) was employed.
Geology/Hydrogeology
Based on U.S. Geological Survey field work, the aquifer
is divided into two, approximately 50-foot thick, highly
interconnected zones (Figure C10-2). The upper zone consists
of dense, sandy limestones and soft, fine-grained, quartz
sandstones. The lower zone is made of hard, medium-grained,
quartz sandstones and sandy limestones which exhibit exten-
sive dissolution features. Underlying the aquifer is a
limestone formation of low permeability.
Well/Reservoir Survey
The Classification Review Area contains a well field
comprised of large-capacity wells that produce 8 million
gallons-per-day for 75,000 area residents (Figure C10-1).
The wells are screened in the lower sandy limestone formation
where dissolution features have greatly enhanced aquifer
permeability.
No water-supply reservoirs are present.
The above information was verified by the county public
health agency.
Demography
The Classification Review Area is well populated. Based
on U.S. Census Bureau information, an estimated 75,000
persons live within the two-mile-wide radius. All persons,
as well as industries, utilize ground-water resources for
their drinking water supply. This site population con-
stitutes a substantial population under irreplaceability
Option A.
C-71
-------
FIGURE C10-1
BASE MAP ENCOMPASSING THE CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
\
EXPLANATION
• PROPOSED FACILITY
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW
AREA BOUNDARY
• MUNICIPAL WELL
' STREAM
,...— INTERMITTENT CREEK
ROADWAY
2 MILES
C-72
-------
H
3
M
fcl
M
CO
3
U
I
O
p o
o o
§
O
td
l/l
CO
o
«
u
tsl
§
O
t/;
c
(E
O
iUiUULW
""i
RIVER
n rrn n n n
]U U U U U
I
1
I I I I I I I I I
uuuuuuu
1
B
i in
mummm
M MM
IIHHH
ON
x
UJ
SANDSTONE
LIMESTONE
STONE
DENSE
O
lO
133d Nl Hld3Q
C-73
O
o
-------
Ecologically Vital Areas
No ecologically vital areas are present within the
Classification Review Area. The State Endangered Species
Coordinator confirmed that the Classification Review Area
does not contain any ecologically vital areas or provide a
habitat to any endangered species.
Irreplaceabilitv Analysis
The well/reservoir survey in the Classification Review
Area indicates a municipal well field producing 8 mgd and
serving 75,000 area residents and it is determined that the
substantial population criterion is met under both Options A
and B. Subsequently, a Class I, irreplaceability analysis is
performed. In determining irreplaceability, the following
factors are addressed:
. Uncommon pipeline distance
. Comparable quality
. Comparable quantity
. Institutional constraints
. Economic infeasibility
The notion of uncommon pipeline distance creates a
manageable boundary within which alternative water supplies
can be identified. According to Table 4-3, a distance of 100
miles would be appropriate in this case. Use of surface-
water resources in the area is precluded due to tidal
influences requiring desalination. However, a review of
local geological reports, indicates the continuity of lower
sandy limestones tapped by the existing municipal well field.
To the south, urbanization and agriculture is limited indi-
cating that production of the required volume of water may be
possible. An alternative well field could be located four
miles south of the facility and five miles from the existing
water plant.
Local geological reports include extensive data on
ground-water quality, particularly for the lower sandy
limestone unit. Throughout the region, this unit is used as
a water-supply aquifer, and background water quality para-
meters have limited variation. Elevated total dissolved
solids levels have been observed 15 miles to the southeast.
However, as far as five miles south, the TDS levels average
less than 100 mg/1, only 25 mg/1 higher than the existing
municipal wells to the north. As a result, water quality is
anticipated to be of comparable quality to the existing
source, and treatment in addition to that received by the
existing source will not be required.
C-74
-------
Although water-quality data is well characterized, the
quantity of water that can be produced or the aquifer's
sustainable yield is not specically known in the proposed
area. However, data from a local US6S observation well
indicates fairly constant water levels in the proposed area.
The data also indicates the sandy limestone formation to be
slightly thicker near the USGS observation well than in the
vicinity of the municipal well field. Additionally, the
composition of the sandy limestone formation in each area is
similar. In this region, aquifer transmissivities correlate
closely with thickness, indicating fairly homogeneous
permeability of materials. Although a pump test was not
conducted, productivity would appear to be between 7 and 12
mgd, and should be adequate to replace the existing source.
Planning and zoning maps and tax maps indicate that
lands in the proposed area are privately owned and are zoned
for agriculture. Also, no other supply wells are recorded
within a 3-mile radius of the proposed alternative supply.
As a result, it is likely that an adequate property could be
acquired to establish the new well field. The easement
required for the 5-mile pipeline should also not represent a
constraint as a power utility easement already exists between
the two points.
The final step in evaluating the alternative supply is
to determine if the additional cost of water-supply develop-
ment and delivery would be economically infeasible to the
community. The additional cost to be borne would include:
. Land aquisition
. Well-field development
. Pipeline construction
According to the local economic development agency, the
average cost of agricultural land in the area is $2500/acre,
resulting in a cost of $50,000 for a 20-acre property
suitable for a well field. In order to develop 8 mgd, four
100-foot deep, 16-inch wells are required, including high
capacity pumps and testing. This system would cost about
$500,000 according to cost information provided by the
municipality from construction of the existing system. The
10-year old cost data was escalated using appropriate
construction cost indices. Operation and maintenance costs
for the well field were also provided and average $200, OOO/
year, mainly for power and well maintenance. Construction
costs for a five-mile, 30-inch diameter pipeline was esti-
mated from previous sewerage transmission lines constructed
in the area. A local engineering firm constructed the line
and indicated the cost at approximately $30/foot or about
$750,000. As the power utility is providing the easement for
no charge, this is the total capital cost. Operation and
C-75
-------
maintenance of the line is estimated at an annual cost of
$100,000. Other cost components such as the water plant,
distribution lines and treatment facility will not require
replacement.
In order to compute the total annual cost of the new
water-supply components, capital costs are annualized as
indicated in Section 4.3 or in Appendix E.
Total Capital Cost ($1,300,000) x
Annualization Factor (.1) -
Annualized Capital Cost ($130,000)
The annualized capital cost of $130,000 is added to the
$300,000 in operation and maintenance costs resulting in an
average annual cost of $430,000 as the incremental increase
in water-supply cost. This figure expressed on a per
household basis results in $15 per household (e.g., 75,000
people/2.7 people/household « 28,000). Using Option A for
assessing irreplaceability, the figure of $15 is compared to
the average annual household income for the state. Average
household income for the state is $20,000 according to the
1980 census figures. As $15 is less than 1 percent of that
figure ($200), the ground water is considered replaceable and
not Class I under Option A.
Under Option B, expert socioeconomists in the area were
consulted. These experts agree that the cost of replacing
the ground water does not exceed the community's ability to
pay. Thus, under Option B, as under Option A, the ground
water would be considered replaceable and not Class I.
C-76
-------
Referring to the Procedural Guide shown in Figure 4-1
and associated worksheet in Table 4-1, the ground water is
classified using the following steps:
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
Establish Classification
Review Area (CRA) and
collect preliminary
information. Optional -
Demonstrate subdivi-
sion (s) of the CRA.
Locate any ecologically
vital areas in the CRA.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
overlap an ecologically
vital area?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 4
Determine location of
well(s) within the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division. Does the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division contain well(s)
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next Step
. No, go to Step 8
Inventory population
served by well(s).
Does the well(s) serve a
substantial population?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIA-
CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
The CRA is defined by a
two-mile radius from the
proposed facility. No
CRA subdivision has been
performed.
No ecologically vital
areas are present in the
CRA.
Yes, a well field com-
prised of large-capacity
wells that provide 8 mgd
for 75,000 area residents
is Dresent in the CRA.
Yes, drinking-water wells
within the CRA serve a
population of 75,000.
Under Option A, the
population served exceeds
the 2500-person threshold.
Under Option B, the
population served is
considered substantial
given the demographics of
the region.
C-77
-------
Step Question/Direction Response/Comment
Unless proven otherwise, No, under Option A, the
the drinking water source ground water is con-
is assumed to be irre- sidered replaceable.
placeable. Optional - Under Option B, the
perform irreplaceability ground water is con-
analysis. Is the source sidered replaceable.
of drinking water
irreplaceable?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, then the ground
water is CLASS IIA-
CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION: CLASS IIA-CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
C-78
-------
CASE STUDY 11
Introduction
This case study details the problems associated with
karst hydrogeology and the need for an expanded Classifica-
tion Review Area. The hypothetical facility setting is first
examined using the standard two-mile Classification Review
Area and second using an expanded review area to demonstrate
the disparity of results and limitations of a two-mile radius
to this particular setting.
Preliminary Information with Respect
to the Classification Review Area
General
A permit application is being submitted for a site
located in Central Kentucky near the Little Blue River.
Planning and zoning maps indicate land use in the area is
primarily rural farmland. Several population centers exist
at distances greater than two miles which are served solely
by ground water.
Regional Physiography/Geology
The area under consideration is within the Central
Kentucky Karst terrain which is characterized by sinkholes,
infrequent streams and an integrated system of subsurface
drainage conduits within a carbonate bedrock complex.
Directly west of the facility, streams drain an upland area,
flowing eastward to the sinkhole plain. At the plain, the
streams intersect sinkholes and surface water is diverted to
the underground network of solution conduits within the karst
bedrock. This zone where surface water is re-routed to the
subsurface represents the termination of the eastwardly
extent of the more resistant sandstone formation overlying
limestone and dolomites. Without the resistant sandstone,
surface water has reworked the carbonate bedrock into a
network of vertical and horizontal solution cavities and
conduits that drain the sinkhole plain eastward to the Little
Blue River (Figure Cll-1).
Hydrogeology
The hydraulic characteristics of a karst aquifer are far
different from the Darcian principles of flow through a
granular media. Instead, ground-water circulation occurs
through a system of conduits having a variety of shapes and
capacities. The spatial position and relationship of these
C-79
-------
conduits and the temporal hydraulic heads within the voids
determine the geometry of ground-water flow paths. Regional
investigations including dye tracer tests, field mapping,
exploratory drilling, spelunking, and geochemical recon-
naissance sampling have been performed by county hydro-
geologists. The flow system is characterized as dynamic and
undergoes major changes depending upon the magnitude of a
precipitation recharge event. Extending our view eastward
past the two-mile Classification Review Area radius to the
Little Blue River during two distinct precipitation/recharge
events will help in understanding the intricacies of karst
groundwater circulation (Figure Cll-1).
During periods of low flow (little or no precipitation),
surface-water recharges the carbonate aquifer at the sinkhole
plain and travels through a series of solution cavities to
the ground-water Basin B trunk conduit (Figure C11-2 and
Figure Cll-3). Under these conditions, each ground-water
basin hydraulically operates as a separate entity. The
general direction of flow in Basin B (although tortuous) is
directly toward the Little Blue River.
During peak rainfall events, recharge to the aquifer via
sinkholes and swallets causes ground-water levels within the
Basin B trunk conduit to increase to the point where upper
cavity transverse conduits are intersected and ground-water
migrates into the trunk conduits of Basins A and C. This
process is termed "ground-water piracy". The consequence of
this process can be severe. In the example setting, a
substantial population within Basin C is served by ground
water from the trunk conduit. During high intensity recharge
events, ground water from Basin B which could potentially
contain contaminants from the proposed facility will travel
to all three ground-water basins. In effect, disposal
activities in one distinct basin could potentially affect
both the substantial population and the ecologically vital
area.
Well Survey
Within the two-mile Classification Review Area radius,
several domestic wells exist on the sinkhole plain as well as
domestic spring houses along the sandstone upland region.
Within the expanded review area there is a small city that
relies on ground water taken from a cave stream.
C-80
-------
FIGURE Cll-1
FEATURES OF THE EXAMPLE KARST SETTING
EXPLANATION
• PROPOSED FACILITY
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA BOUNDARY
® 3000 POPULATION WELL CENTER
t%8^<| ECOLOGICALLY VITAL AREA
o~ SPRING/SEEP
-^ FLOW ROUTE
-«• HIGH-LEVEL OUTFLOW ROUTE
GROUND-WATER BASIN BOUNDARY
•^--• SWALLET OF SINKING STREAM
4 MILES
C-81
-------
o
z
W
c/5
8
cs
i
u
E3
en
en
§
u
Csl
C-82
-------
FIGURE Cll-3
EXAMPLE OF OVERFLOW ACROSS GROUND-WATER BASINS
ou-
60-
40-
on
BASIN C
BASIN B
BASIN A
UJ
u.
0-
-20-
-40-
BASE FLOW CONDITIONS
(A)
80-
ui
UJ
a.
60-
40-
20-
0-
-20-
-40-
BASIN C
SUBSTANTIAL
POPULATION
SERVED
BASIN B
FLOW DIRECTIONS
BASIN A
ECOLOGICALLY
VITAL AREA
HIGH INTENSITY FLOW CONDITION
C-83(B)
-------
Demography
Several small cities exist nearby but do not fall within
the two-mile Classification Review Area. Two population
centers each having populations around 3500 to 4000 individ-
uals are found within the expanded review area. Rural
residents in the two-mile Classification Review Area number
approximately 100. The population is small enough, however,
not to involve the issue of substantial population.
Ecologically Vital Areas
The two-mile Classification Review Area does not
encompass any Federal lands designated for ecological
protection or ecologically vital areas. To the northeast,
within the expanded review area and along the Little Blue
River, several cave streams have been designated as critical
habitats for a rare and endangered aquatic species. Given
that the cave stream is a discharge area for ground water,
this habitat qualifies as an ecologically vital area.
Vulnerability to Contamination
Under Option A for assessing vulnerability, the DRASTIC
methodology yields the following results (averaged over the
review area):
Range Rating Weight Number
Depth to Water 30-50 5 5 25
Net Recharge 10+ 9 4 36
Aquifer Media Karst 10 3 30
limestone
Soil Media Thin to absent 10 2 20
Topography 6-12 5 1 5
Vadose Zone Media Karst 10 5 50
limestone
Hydraulic
Conductivity 2000+ 10 3 30
DRASTIC Index (TOTAL) 196
A DRASTIC Index of 196, exceeds the 150 criterion and,
therefore, the area is determined to be highly vulnerable to
contamination under Option A.
Under Option B for assessing vulnerability, expert
hydrogeologists in the area were consulted. Given the
substantial lack of soil media and the high permeability of
the aquifer, these experts agree that the area is "highly
vulnerable."
C-84
-------
Classification Based on Two-Mile
Classification Review Area
Referring to the procedural chart shown in Figure 4-1
and the associated worksheet in Table 4-1, the following
classification was performed using a two-mile Classification
Review Area as shown in Figure Cll-4.
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
Establish Classification
Review Area (CRA) and
collect preliminary
information. Optional -
Demonstrate subdivi-
sion(s) of the CRA.
Locate any ecologically
vital areas in the CRA.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
overlap an ecologically
vital area?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 4
Determine location of
well(s) within the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division. Does the CRA
or appropriate sub-
division contain well(s)
used for drinking water?
. Yes, go to next Step
. No, go to Step 8
Inventory population
served by well(s).
Does the well(s) serve a
substantial population?
. Yes, go to next step
. No. then the ground
water is CLASS IIA-
CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
The CRA is defined by a
two-mile radius from the
proposed facility. No
CRA subdivision has been
performed.
No ecologically vital
areas are present in the
two-mile CRA.
Yes, several domestic
wells exist on the sink-
hole plain as well as
domestic spring houses
along the sandstone
upland region.
No substantial populations
are present in the CRA as
determined by Option A.
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION:
CLASS IIA-CURRENT SOURCE OF
DRINKING WATER
C-85
-------
FIGURE Cll-4
BASE MAP ENCOMPASSING THE TWO-MILE CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
x
\
\
\
X
I
EXPLANATION
• PROPOSED FACILITY
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA BOUNDARY
® SPRING HOUSE FOR DOMESTIC USE
—— ROADWAY
4 MILES
C-86
-------
Classification Based on Expanded
Classification Review Area
The expanded Classification Review Area is shown in
Figure Cll-5. The following work sheet explains the classi-
fication decisions. Note that Figure Cll-5 does not show the
location of the cave stream network nor the location of
ground-water basin divides as shown in Figure Cll-1. In the
majority of Karst areas, this information will not be known.
Because this karst setting is composed of carbonate
rocks having a well developed system of enlarged solution
openings an expanded Classification Review Area is allowed.
It will be assumed that the true location of ground-water
basins and karst streams is not known. The dimensions of the
expanded review area are then determined by the distance to
the nearest spring-fed perennial stream; in this case the
Little Blue River. The topographic high between the Little
Blue River and the next stream to the east is further east of
the facility. Therefore, it can be assumed under the rules
of Classification Review Area expansion that ground water
beneath the facility will move toward the Little Blue River.
The expanded review area is shown in Figure Cll-5.
C-87
-------
FIGURE Cll-5
BASE MAP ENCOMPASSING THE EXPANDED CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
FVC
„ — —
/
y
/
1 ,
1 '
\
\
\
\
\
©
'I AKIATIONI
•••..-'" ; •!;•' :-'r •••f{- •' /: •••' -:i
:• 1 • " <.;..{ ' - ":'| •'"' '
^ . : • '""
* N • < :'."L ^
\ - : : :.:.
\
\ . •-:•
\ . :;v;::;;: ;. '; ./,.;
1 l- ?
1 :}< :•
1
® / ..
X •" : . •
• ^ «i "•
:
!]
(
-:'•' .": -fl -
•-' •._;- •".'...
:• . >' " .- •
.: . • ,4
-: V ' ' --1 C
• c
'
\
1
y
\
' 1
^Q
i
4 MILES
CN'
PROPOSED FACILITY
CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA BOUNDARY
EXPANDED CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA
SPRING HOUSE FOR DOMESTIC USE
30OO POPULATION WELL CENTER
ECOLOGICALLY VITAL AREA
SPRING/SEEP
ROADWAY
C-88
-------
Step Question/Direction
Response/Comment
Establish Classification
Review Area (CRA) and
collect preliminary
information. Optional -
Demonstrate subdivi-
sion (s) of the CRA.
Locate any ecologically
vital areas in the CRA.
Does the CRA or appro-
priate subdivision
overlap an ecologically
vital area?
. Yes, go to next step
. No, go to Step 4
Perform vulnerability
analysis. Is the CRA or
appropriate subdivision
a highly vulnerable
hydrogeologic setting?
. Yes, then the ground
water is CLASS I-
ECOLOGICALLY VITAL
. No, go to next step
The CRA has been expanded
because of the karst
setting. No CRA sub-
division has been
performed.
Yes, ecologically vital
areas are present in the
CRA.
Yes, under Options A and
B, the expanded CRA is a
vulnerable hydrogeologic
setting.
FINAL CLASS DETERMINATION: CLASS I-ECOLOGICALLY VITAL
Note: It is possible that the ground water may also be an
irreplaceable source of drinking water, however, there was no
need to perform an irreplaceability analysis because the
ground water qualified as Class I under the ecological vital
criteria.
C-89
-------
APPENDIX D
TABLES OF DRASTIC FACTOR VALUE
RANGES AND CORRESPONDING RATINGS
D-l
-------
RANGES AND RATINGS FOR DEPTH TO WATER
Depth to Water
(Feet)
Range
0-5
5-15
15-30
30-50
50-75
75-100
100+
Rating
10
9
7
5
3
2
1
Weight: 5
RANGES AND RATINGS FOR NET RECHARGE
Net Recharge
(Inches)
Range
0-2
2-4
4-7
7-10
10+
Rating
1
3
6
8
9
Weight: 4
D-2
-------
RANGES AND RATINGS FOR AQUIFER MEDIA
Aquifer Media
Range
Massive Shale
Metamorphic/Igneous
Weathered Metamorphic/Igneous
Thin Bedded Sandstone,
Limestone, Shale Sequences
Massive Sandstone
Massive Limestone
Sand and Gravel
Basalt
Karst Limestone
Rating
1-3
2-5
3-5
5-9
4-9
4-9
6-9
2-10
9-10
Typical Rating
2
3
4
6
6
6
8
9
10
Weight: 3
RANGES AND RATINGS FOR SOIL MEDIA
Soil Media
Range
Rating
Thin or Absent
Gravel
Sand
Shrinking and/or Aggregated Clay
Sandy Loam
Loam
Silty Loam
Clay Loam
Nonshrinking and Nonaggregated Clay
Weight: 2
10
10
9
7
6
5
4
3
1
D-3
-------
RANGES AND RATINGS FOR TOPOGRAPHY
Topography
(Percent Slope)
Range
0-2
2-6
6-12
12-18
18 +
Rating
10
9
5
3
1
Weight: 1
RANGES AND RATINGS FOR IMPACT OF VADOSE ZONE MEDIA
Impact of Vadose Zone Media
Range
Silt Clay
Shale
Limestone
Sandstone
Bedded Limestone, Sandstone, Shale
Sand and Gravel with
significant Silt and Clay
Metamorphic / Igneous
Sand and Gravel
Basalt
Karst Limestone
Rating
1-2
2-5
2-7
4-8
4-8
4-8
2-8
6-9
2-10
8-10
Typical Rating
1
3
6
6
6
6
4
8
9
10
Weight: 5
D-4
-------
RANGES AND RATINGS FOR HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
Hydraulic Conductivity
(GPD FT2)
Range
1-100
100-300
300-700
700-1000
1000-2000
2000 +
Rating
1
2
4
6
8
10
Weight: 3
D-5
-------
APPENDIX E
BACKGROUND DATA:
CLASS I AND CLASS III ISSUES
E-l
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
E.I REQUIREMENTS AND SOURCE OF WATER-USE DATA E-3
E.2 USE OF GEMS SYSTEM FOR ESTIMATING WELL DENSITY.... E-4
E. 3 DENSELY SETTLED CRITERION E-5
E. 4 STATE LAW E-6
E.4.1 General Background Information on
Institutional Constraints E-6
E.4.2 Federal Law E-8
E. 4.3 Interstate Compacts E-9
E. 4.4 Local Regulations E-10
E. 4.5 Treaties and International Laws E-ll
E. 4.6 Property Law E-ll
E.5 IRREPLACEABILITY: THE ANNUALIZATION FACTOR E-ll
E. 6 WATER COSTS VS. WATER RATES E-13
E. 7 SOURCES OF INCOME DATA INFORMATION E-15
E. 8 OVERVIEW OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES E-18
E. 8.1 Air Stripping/Aeration E-18
E. 8.2 Carbon Adsorption E-19
E. 8.3 Chemical Precipitation E-20
E.8.4 Desalination E-21
E.8.5 Flotation \ E-22
E.8.6 Granular Media Filtration E-23
E.8.7 Ion Exchange E-23
E.8.8 Ozonation E-24
E.8.9 Disinfection and Fluoridation E-24
E.9 SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON ECOLOGICALLY VITAL
GROUND WATERS E-25
E. 10 RADIUS OF CLASSIFICATION REVIEW AREA E-25
REFERENCES E-43
E-2
-------
E.I Requirements and Sources of Water-Use Data
The first step in determining whether a substantial
population is affected is to identify ground waters in the
Classification Review Area (CRA) serving as drinking water
sources. It will be necessary to determine whether these are
the sources of local town or city drinking water, and to
distinguish between centralized public water systems and
decentralized private wells.
If the ground water feeds public supplies, the following
determinations should be made:
Locations of wells for public water supply;
Well depths and pumping rates, if available;
Areas serviced by public water mains from the source
being classified;
Whether the ground water is the only source for the
population it supplies;
Percentage of water originating in the Classification
Review Area used for household purposes (factoring
out industrial and irrigation uses);
Number of households supplied by public system (data
are likely to be reported in this form); and
Number of persons per household for the area, as
reported by the Census Bureau, to determine the
population supplied by the public system.
The first step in obtaining this information is to
contact local and state organizations with responsibility for
maintaining records of drinking water supplies and usage for
the area. These agencies include:
Federal/state/local geological surveys;
State/local health departments;
State/local water departments;
Local water treatment facility;
Local water utility;
State department of natural resources; and
State department of energy.
One or more of these organizations should maintain
accurate records of public water usage, most likely in terms
of the number of households or hookups supplied by the public
E-3
-------
system. This number may be translated into an estimate of
the population served by using the number of persons per
household reported by county in 1980 Census of Population
state summaries (see detailed references) . Water used for
industry or irrigation need to be disaggregated so that only
drinking water usage is included.
Where public water sources do not supply the residents
within the affected area, detailed information on private
wells will be needed. The same agencies mentioned above may
also have information on private wells. Private sector
organizations that may have useful information include water
companies and well-drilling firms.
E.2 Use of GEMS System for Estimating Well Density
One means of estimating private well usage in areas
where no local information on private wells is available, is
to use population data for the area of interest available
through the Graphical Exposure Modeling System (GEMS)
maintained by EPA's Office of Toxic Substances, or a private
census data service (see list of organizations registered
with the National Clearinghouse for Census Data Services in
Appendix E).
Information on the GEMS system is available from EPA's
OTS modeling team. Using the GEMS Census Data (CD) pro-
cedure, it is possible to retrieve population and housing
count data from the 1980 Census for circular areas around a
point, which can be designated using latitude and longitude
coordinates or the ZIP code of the location. The system
provides information within defined concentric rings ranging
from 0.1 to 10,000km in radii. It is necessary to supply the
number of sectors into which the rings are divided; the
procedure allows from 1 to 16. Sectors are numbered clock-
wise with the first sector centered at zero degrees (the
north compass point direction). The program tabulates total
population and housing counts by ring distance and sector. A
simple mathematic conversion can be used to transform the
population counts into density.
The manner in which population data are recorded by the
Bureau of the Census and reported by GEMS can result in
reports of no population for some areas where people are
living. This information can be verified or corrected by
consulting local officials. It is unlikely that such areas
would satisfy the densely settled test, however.
E-4
-------
E.3 Densely Settled Criterion
If private wells in the CRA are found to serve at least
2,500 people, the densely settled criterion will be met if
the CRA is part of a census-designated densely settled area.
If it is contained in an Urbanized Area as described by the
Census Bureau, the population is by definition densely
settled unless it can be shown to meet any of the exceptions
described under the definition of a densely settled area.
Census Designated Places (CDP's) also by definition are
densely settled. These are unincorporated places with a
population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile.
They are outlined on Census tract maps for metropolitan
areas, on block numbering area maps in nonmetropolitan areas
of less than 10,000 people (see Appendix F).
Key terms used by the Census Bureau as follows:
Metropolitan statistical area (MSA): (a) a city of
at least 50,000 population, or (b) a Census Bureau-
defined urbanized area of at least 50,000 with a
total metropolitan population of at least 100,000
(75,000 in New England). There are 277 MSAs (as of
June 30, 1984). Every state has at least one MSA.
Urbanized area (UA): a population concentration of
50,000 or more, generally consisting of a central
city together with its surrounding densely settled
contiguous territory or "suburbs" (the urban fringe).
There are about 420 UA's.
Urban place; any population living within urbanized
areas; or places of 2,500 or more people outside
urbanized areas.
Densely settled area; not an official statistical
division, but used by the Census Bureau to indicate
an area with a population density of at least 1,000
persons per square mile within an urbanized area or
Census Designated Place (CDP).
Urbanized Areas may include areas which do not qualify
as densely settled, (e.g., less than 1,000 persons per square
mile) but are included within such geographic boundaries
because they either:
Eliminate enclaves of less than five square miles
which are surrounded by built-up areas.
E-5
-------
Close indentations in the boundaries of densely
settled areas that are no more than one mile across
the open end and encompasses no more than five square
miles.
Link outlying areas of qualifying density, provided
that the outlying areas are:
(a) Connected by road to, and are not more than 1-1/2
miles from, the main body of the urbanized area.
(b) Separated from the main body of the urbanized
area by water or other undevelopable area, are
connected by road to the main body of the
urbanized area, and are not more than five miles
from the main body of the urbanized area.
Are nonresidential urban areas (e.g., industrial
parks, office areas, or major airports), which have
at least one-quarter of their boundaries contiguous
to an urbanized area.
MSA's and their components are listed in the 1980 Census
of Population - Supplementary Report; Metropolitan Statis-
tical Areas and are mapped on State MSA outline maps.
Urbanized area (UA) outline maps are generally contained
within MSA publications.
E.4 General Background Information on Institutional Con-
straints
Institutional constraints on the availability of water
can arise from at least six general sources. Each of these
is discussed below.
E.4.1 State Law
State law creates basic rights to the withdrawal
and use of surface and ground water. For example, state law
may regulate the rights to or ownership of water, the
withdrawal, uses and allocation of water, conjunctive use of
surface and ground water, protection of instream users, and
measures required to protect ground water. The law in most
states, however, does not create a right to unlimited amounts
of water, and may restrict where the water may be used (U.S.
EPA, 1985; Council of State Governments, 1983). The states
have created different methods for establishing rights to
water and resolving conflicts over rights to withdraw and use
water. There are three major systems of regulation of water
withdrawal and use:
E-6
-------
The Eastern (common law) doctrine, used in about 37
states, provides that ownership of land carries with
it a right to water in adjacent lakes or watercourses
(a riparian right) and to water beneath the land.
The use of the water, however, may be restricted.
Under the absolute use doctrine it is possible for a
landowner to withdraw unlimited amounts of water,
without liability for damage to other landowners, and
to transport the water off the land. Under the
reasonable use doctrine it is possible to withdraw an
amount of water necessary for the use or enjoyment of
the overlying land, but the water may not be tran-
sported away from that land. Under the correlative
rights doctrine, the right to withdraw ground water
is based on the relationship between the size of the
aquifer and the area of the overlying land.
The Western (appropriation) doctrine, used in about
13 states, provides that water is a public resource,
and rights to water may be acquired by actual use.
Conflicts in priority of use are ordinarily settled
by the principle of "first in time, first in right."
Hierarchies of use, however, may also be established.
Permit systems, used in about 31 states, may be used
in conjunction with the common law or appropriation
doctrines, and may be applied to surface and/or to
ground water. Rights to water under a permit system
are acquired by application to a regulatory author-
ity. If the authority determines that no superior
claim exists to the Water, it records the claim,
issues a permit for use, and polices the actual use.
Permit systems may co-exist with other forms of water
regulation, such as designated ground-water protec-
tion zones or management areas. Many permit systems
specify priorities for different types of uses of
water (beneficial uses), generally making domestic
use, such as drinking water, the highest beneficial
use and making other uses, such as commercial or
industrial use and irrigation, lower beneficial uses.
Conflicts among users, or prospective users, of water
are resolved by most states in three ways: the conflict may
be decided by the administrative organization that ad-
ministers the water rights system in the state, particularly
if water use permits are required; special organizations may
be created to resolve water disputes; and the state or local
courts may resolve disputes. State law in certain circum-
stances may allow the use of eminent domain powers to shift
E-7
-------
water from one use to another, or to allow physical access to
water, and state law may grant the use of eminent domain to
the Federal government for certain purposes. Frequently,
when insufficient water exists for all claimed uses, lower
beneficial uses may give way to higher beneficial uses.
Some states have attempted by law to restrict or
preclude the export of water to users in other states, either
by requiring legislative approval of water exports, by
requiring reciprocity agreements with the states receiving
the water, or by absolute prohibitions. All of these forms
of restriction have recently been subject to legal challenge.
A number of states, particularly in the West, designate
ground-water protection zones or management areas, and seek
to coordinate surface and ground-water use (conjunctive
management). Measures of conjunctive management may include
restrictions on pumping ground water, requirements for
aquifer recharge, and well spacing requirements. Some states
(e.g., Texas, Nebraska) delegate aquifer protection authority
to local administrative bodies.
E.4.2 Federal Law
As a user of water, the Federal government generally
defers to state regulation of water. Federal laws often
pertain to Federal and Indian reserved rights to water and
Federal activities affecting water. In common law States,
Federal rights to water are linked to ownership or control of
land. In prior appropriation and permit States, Federal
agencies (e.g., the Bureau of Reclamation) register claims to
water. The Federal government may, however, have special
access to water in certain circumstances. Statutes (e.g.,
the Oil and Gas Well Conversion Act) or executive orders
(e.g., the Executive Order of April 17, 1926) may reserve
water rights on Federal public lands for particular purposes.
For certain categories of Federal lands withdrawn from
the public domain and reserved for such uses as national
forests, wildlife refuges, and parks, Federal reserved rights
doctrine can provide access to water irrespective of State
law. The courts have created this doctrine, which holds
generally that reservation of public domain lands for a
particular purpose carries with it an implied reservation of
sufficient water to satisfy the purposes for which the land
was reserved. The right is not created by use or lost
through non-use. Therefore, in certain circumstances, even
if the water is being used by another person, the Federal
government can obtain water for its own use. The purpose of
the water is determined as of the time the land reservation
E-8
-------
was created, and the reserved right is limited to that
purpose. (For example, if the reservation was created to
provide agricultural land, reserved rights to irrigation
water may exist, but there are no reserved rights to water
for industrial purposes.)
An Indian reserved right, similar to the Federal
reserved right, has also been created by the courts. This
doctrine is apparently based on the presumption that in
creating an Indian reservation the President and/or Congress
intended to reserve sufficient water for the use of the land.
Indians may hold superior rights to water connected with
reservation lands. Apparently, such rights may be sold,
although it is unclear whether only the amount of water
actually being used or the entire potential right may be
transferred. In addition to reserved rights, in a few
instances Indians also hold special water rights based on
treaties (e.g., Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo).
Federal water resource agencies, such as the Corps of
Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Soil Conser-
vation Service, as well as such Federally-chartered agencies
as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power
Authority, can affect water availability, either through the
water rights that they hold or through their decisions
concerning water management (Congressional Budget Office,
1983). Numerous other Federal agencies and laws can affect
water resource decisions indirectly. Examples of such
agencies or laws include the Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management (right-of-way decisions), the Fish and
Wildlife Service (requirements under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act), the National Environmental Policy Act
(Environmental Impact Assessment requirements), Clean Water
Act (dredge and fill permit requirements) and the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act and National Wilderness Preservation
requirements.
E.4.3 Interstate Compacts
Conflicts among two or more states or the Federal
government concerning rights to water in streams generally
are resolved either through interstate compacts or through
litigation (Clyde, 1982, 1984; Schwartz, 1985; Sporhase vs.
Nebraska, 1984). The result in either case is usually a
decision allocating the in-stream flow among the states
claiming the water. In a few cases, ground water has also
been allocated among states by interstate compact or court
decision.
E-9
-------
Interstate compacts are agreements among states that
have been ratified by the legislatures of the participating
states and the U.S. Congress. The compact creates a binding
law within the participating states and a binding contract
among the states. In certain cases, the Federal government
also joins the compact, and the compact is then binding also
on the Federal government. The members and powers of the
compacts currently in existence vary widely, from bilateral
agreements (e.g., Snake River Compact between Idaho and
Wyoming) to agreements affecting large numbers of states
(e.g., Colorado River Compact), and from compacts exclusively
devoted to allocating river water (e.g., Arkansas River
Compact of 1949) to compacts establishing regional multi-
purpose water resources management (e.g., Delaware River
Basin Compact). Approximately 25 interstate compacts
currently are in operation.
In the absence of a resolution of conflicting claims
through an interstate compact, litigation among states before
the U.S. Supreme Court may be the only means to resolve the
conflict. In deciding such cases, the Court ordinarily
attempts to carry out an equitable apportionment of the
interstate stream. Because the Court has been called upon
less frequently to resolve disputes among states over ground
water, the standard used in such cases is less clear.
E.4.4 Local Regulations
Local administrative bodies with jurisdiction over
sources of water in particular areas may exercise powers such
as well spacing and pumping rates that affect the avail-
ability of water. As previously noted, state legislatures
may delegate power to local bodies to administer particular
aspects of the water allocation or water protection system in
the state. Examples of such local agencies include under-
ground water conservation districts (Texas), which are
empowered to provide for spacing of wells and to regulate
well pumping in order to minimize the drawdown of the water
table; ground-water management districts (California), which
are authorized to manage ground-water withdrawals; and water
conservation districts (Nebraska), which are authorized to
regulate ground-water use. Other special purpose districts
may also affect water availability. The Texas Harris-
Galveston coastal subsidence district, for example, is
authorized to regulate withdrawal of ground water in order to
limit land subsidence.
E-10
-------
E.4.5 Treaties and International Laws
Treaties between the United States and its neighbors,
Mexico and Canada, allocate the waters of rivers flowing
between the countries. The 1944 Treaty of Utilization of the
Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and the Rio
Grande, for example, apportions the waters of those rivers
between the two countries and creates an International
Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) to apply the treaty and
settle disputes. Although ground water use is not fully
covered by the treaty, the IBWC has attempted to address the
management of international ground-water resources.
In addition to treaties signed by the United States,
certain international law proposals being developed by the
United Nations and the International Law Association may
sometime in the future establish general principles for the
allocation of ground and surface waters between two coun-
tries.
E.4.6 Property Law
State law governs the ownership and use of land. In
particular, "property law" affects physical access to water
supplies through restrictions on rights of way and easements,
or defining powers of eminent domain. State and Icoal law
generally regulates land use and access to land by persons
who are not landowners. Access to water, including the
location of pipes, storage, pumping, treatment, and other
facilities can be delayed or restricted by the property
rights of persons whose land must be crossed or used for such
facilities. Special procedures, such as easements, eminent
domain, and condemnation may be required to obtain necessary
rights-of-way. Special procedures vary from state to state.
E.5 Irreplaceabilitv; The Annualization Factor
An annualization factor may be used in comparing
economic feasibility in the irreplaceability test. The
annualization factor (AF), also known as a real capital
carrying charge, is given by:
AF = r
where r = real interest rate
n - life expectancy of capital equipment
The annualization factor is derived to obtain equal annual
payments of capital costs in constant dollars (i.e., adjusted
E-1 1
-------
for inflation) . This annual izat ion factor is equivalent to
the formula used to obtain a total of n equal annual payment
for a fixed mortgage in real dollars, where r is the real
interest rate for the mortgage.
The choice of real interest rates depends on the costs
of available financing for water supply alternatives. The
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recommends that a
ten percent (10%) real interest rate be used to discount
capital costs in the analysis of regulatory options.
Therefore, an interest rate of ten percent can be used to
derive annualization factors. Alternatively, real interest
rates on tax exempt bonds used to fund water projects can be
used in the analysis.
Municipalities and local governments can rely on tax-
exempt bonds to finance their water supply projects.
According to Standard & Poor's, the average nominal interest
rate on tax exempt bonds was 9.0% in May 1985. The yield on
individual bonds would depend on the bond rating. Real
interest rates on tax-exempt bonds can be derived from
nominal rates (i) by the following formula:
1 -
1 + e
where: r = real interest rate
i = nominal interest rate
e = expected rate of inflation
Assuming an expected rate of inflation of 4 percent
r . 1+.0908 - 1
1+.04
= 1.049 - 1
= .049 " .05 or 5 percent
Annualization factors are calculated here for both 5 and 10
percent real interest rates.
Dereivation of the annualization factor (AF) is affected
by the expected life of the capital equipment (n) . The
appropriate life-expectancy value to be used depends upon
many factors, including the type and complexity of equipment
and annual operating and maintenance schedules. Typically, a
value of 30 years is a reasonable life expectancy for a water
treatment plant involving conventional techniques such as
sand filtration, flocculation and precipitation, and chlor-
E-12
-------
ination. Other, simpler systems may remain operational for
longer periods and certain components (such as valves,
montioring equipment, or motors) may not last 30 years.
Capital costs can be annualized by three single steps:
(1) Estimte capital costs
(2) Estimate annualization factor
(3) Multiply capital costs time annualization factor to
obtain annualized costs.
Table E-l provides three annualization factors that
incorporate alternative assumptions for life expectancy of
the capital equipment, assuming a real interest rate of five
and ten percent, respectively. The values from the table
above can be used directly to annualize capital costs. After
capital costs are annualized, they should be added to annual
O&M costs to obtain the total annual costs.
The procedure for annualizing capital costs can best be
illustrated by a numerical example:
Assume Capital Costs = $1,200,000
Real interest rate = 10% or .10
Life expectancy of
capital equipment =30 years
Then
AF = -
= .10 = .10
1-1/(1+.1)J0 1-1/17.449
= .10 = .106
.943
Annaulized Capital Costs = Capital Costs x AF
= $1,200,000 x .106
= $127,200
E.6 Water Costs vs. Water Rates
Ground-water classification for Class I - Irreplaceable
would normally require an assessment of the economic costs of
an alternative water supply under both the qualitative and
quantitative approaches for judging irreplaceability. The
discussion in this section indicates that rates changed by a
water supply utility may not reflect economic costs for
various reasons. This implies that when the feasibility
determination is not clear-cut and when sufficiently detailed
E-13
-------
TABLE E-l
ANNUALIZATION FACTORS
n
(Life Expectancy of
Capital Equipment)
15
30
40
AF
(Annualization Factor)
r = .10
.131
.106
.102
r = .05
.096
.065
.058
E-14
-------
cost accounts are available from the utility, these should be
used in preference to the rate schedules to estimate costs.
The economic cost of the water supply may differ from
the charges made to the community by the utility for a number
of reasons. The utility may not set rates on the basis of
economic costs of supply, or the utility may not face the
true economic costs. Rates and fees may be set with refer-
ence to the average costs of the utility, whereas the
economic costs of additional water supply capacity are the
marginal (or incremental) costs of this capacity. Secondly,
the utility may charge different rates to different types of
users in such a way that one type of user (e.g., industrial
users) implicitly subsides other types of users (e.g.,
households). The concepts are illustrated in examples below.
Consider a hypothetical system that serves 10,000
households. It has annual O&M costs of $500,000 and annual-
ized capital expenses of $500,000 (including an allowance for
an acceptable return on capital). Therefore the total annyal
expenses of the system are $1,000,000. The utility charges
all households served by the system the same flat rate of
$100 per annum to recover costs and capital charges of
$1,000,000. Suppose that the system is expanded to serve 100
additional users; O&M costs increase to $60,000, capital
charges increase to $600,000. The one time costs of connect-
ing the new users of $100,000 are recovered immediately by
charging each additional user a connection fee of $100. The
utility re-computes rates of 11,000 users based on total
costs and capital charges of $1,2000,000, and so charges each
user $109.09 ($1,200,000 divided by 11,000). The charges to
the new users are the total connection fee of $100,000 plus
$109,000 annually (1,000 multiplied by $109.09) for a total
of $119,090. However the true costs to the system of the
additional users is $109,000 connection costs plus $200,000
annually ($1,309,000 minus $1,000,000) for a total of
$309,000. Therefore the rates and fee charged tot he new
users understate the true economic costs. The converse is
also possible; marginal costs may be lower than average costs
so the charges to new users may exceed the true economic
costs.
Consider a system serving 10 industrial users and 1000
households. Total system costs are $1,000,000 per annum.
The system supplies supplies 200,000,000 gallons annually.
Each household uses an average of 100,000 gallons per annum
and each industrial user takes 1,000,000 gallons per annum.
The utility charges industrial users of 0.75 cents per
gallon, raising annual revenue of $75,000, and charges
households a flat rateof $25 per annum, raising a further
E-15
-------
$25,000. Total revenues are $100,000 which covers the cost
of the system. Household users are charged an average of
0.25 cents per gallon, and so are implicitly subsized by
industrial users. Economic costs of the system are 0.50
cents per gallon, which exceeds the implicit per-gallon
charge to household, and is less than the per-gallon charge
to industrial users.
A further general reason that utility rates may not
reflect economic costs is that the utility does not face the
full economic costs of the system. This can arise if the
utility's capital expenditure is subsidized by grants and
loans from State or Federal agencies, or by preferential tax
treatment. This introduces a further potential source of
difference between rates and economic costs.
In cases where cost accounts are not available, the
financial accounts of the utility should provide some
information that may be used to adjust rate schedules to more
closely reflect economic oosts. For example, capital grants
for construction received by the utility from state and
Federal funds will be shown on the balance sheet. This can
be compared with total plant costs (the book value of these
fixed assets) to find the proportion of capital costs borne
by the utility. Suppose 50 percent of the capital costs are
paid for by grants and 50 percent by the utility. Annualized
capital expenses are 60 percent of total operating expenses.
In this case, the utility is effectively subsidized for 30
percent of total operating expenses. In this case, the
utility is effectively subsized for 30 percent of total
operating expenses (50 percent of 60 percent of total
expenses). As the utility faces only 70 percent of economic
costs, rates should be increased by a factor of 1.43 (100
percent divided by 70 percent) to crudely reflect this
difference between rates and economic costs, other potential
distortions may be more difficult to correct (even crudely)
without access to costs accounts. For example, while
different types of users may be charged different rates, it
may be impossible to determine whether this reflects dif-
ferent costs of providing a service to different types of
users or cross-subsidization between user types.
E.7 Sources of Income Data Information
Income data is available from various sources; depending
on the specificity, and the population density of the area.
Data sources include the following:
1) County or City Level - The County and City Data
Books, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983.
E-16
-------
2) Census Tract Reports for each Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area.
3) Block Reports (Maps in print) and Block Group data
for areas of the county which were blocked by the
1980 Census, but are not within tracts.
4) Enumeration District Reports for areas of the country
(rural) which were not blocked by the 1980 Census.
5) Regional Office of the Census.
6) State Coordinating Organizations which may have
compiled income data for a specific area.
7) Companies within the National Clearinghouse for
Census Data Services that provide demographic
studies.
County and city income figures are listed in The County
and Citv Data Book. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983. The
County and City Data Book shows for each county and city
(defined by more than 25,000 people) the median household
income for 1979.
Each standard metropolitan statistical area is broken
down progressively into tracts, block groups, and blocks.
The smallest unit for which income data is available from any
depository library or from GPO. The reports contain both
means and medians of household income from 1979.
Certain areas of the county were not tracted but were
blocked. These areas may be found in unincorporated places
of more than 10,000 people and in states (Georgia, Mississip-
pi, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia), which contracted
with the Census Bureau. The unit in which income information
may be found for these areas is the block group. Two sets of
material should be obtained from the Census Bureau: (1) block
maps, available in print and categorized by state, and (2)
block group reports available as STE-1A microfiche or on
computer tape. Areas not blocked in the 1980 census (i.e.,
rural areas) are broken down into enumeration districts that
average approximately 550 people and are listed by counties
within states.
Regional and state offices may also provide specialized
income information. A list of the information service
specialists in the Census Bureau Regional Offices and State
Coordinating Organizations may be found in Appendix F.
E-17
-------
Private demographic companies, which the Census Bureau
refers to as "National Clearinghouses for Census Data
Services" may also be helpful. For example, if median
household income inside a 3 mile radius around a CRA were
desired, a national clearinghouse would be able to provide
appropriate information. A list of these organizations is
available in Appendix F.
E.8 Overview of Treatment Technologies
The following discussions of treatment technologies
indicate the typical area of application and limitations of
particular significance and the potential problems encoun-
tered when treating water with multiple contaminants. A
series of references is included that can be used for general
background data. Many treatment processes, particularly
those used in water polishing, develop reductions in treat-
ment efficiencies in the presence of interfering contam-
inants, so that "pretreatment" is required. In existing
water treatment facilities, the pretreatment requirements are
met using the processes in an order which progressively
removes various interferences. For example, a facility which
receives a water with high levels of adsorbable organics and
high suspended solids may use granular media filtration prior
to carbon adsorption in an effort to minimize the levels of
solids in the influent to the carbon adsorption; the load of
solids to the adsorption column will disrupt this process.
If several processes in a treatment configuration have
disruptive interference problems, the particular combination
of processes cannot be reasonably employed to treat the
water. This situation might occur if an influent contained
high levels of dissolved organics and of inorganic chemical
oxidants, and the treatment configuration under consideration
was a combination of desalination and ion exchange. The
dissolved organics, which would be removed by desalination,
could severely disrupt the ion exchange efficiencies, while
the chemical oxidants (removable by ion exchange) could
disrupt the desalination process. This particular treatment
configuration would, in this instance, be eliminated from
further consideration because additional pre-treatment would
be required to manage the chemical interences.
E.8.1 Air Stripping/Aeration
Air stripping and aeration can be used for removal of
volatile contaminants from ground water, as well as for
introduction of oxygen to the water. Air is passed through
the water or the water is finely sprayed into the air,
enhancing transfer of dissolved gases from the water to the
E-18
-------
air, which may be treated further or discharged. Cost
effective and efficient treatment requires continuous or
semi-continuous flow. The process has been used for ammonia
removal, hydrogen sulfide removal, and volatile organic
carbon removal in both water and wastewater treatment
operations. The treatment efficiences and design are a
function of the contaminant loading to the air; water ratio,
the length of contact time, contaminant volatility, and
temperature. Removal efficiencies of volatile organics
ranging from 10 to greater than 99.0 percent have been
reported in the literature.
Although air stripping is a relatively inexpensive
technology for removal of volatile contaminants, its use in
public water supply systems to date has been somewhat
limited. This is primarily due to an absence of need for the
technology, which is in wide-spread use in Superfund remedial
action and wastewater treatment operations. Traditional
aeration, which is in common use among public water utili-
ties, has typically been installed to provide oxygenation of
waters, and the removal of volatile contaminants is merely a
beneficial side-effect.
Temperature limitations in regions experiencing severe
winters may be such that air stripping and aeration processes
must be housed indoors or in thermally protected facilities.
If the treated water contains high levels of suspended solids
(unlikely to occur with ground waters), some pre-treatment,
such as filtration or pH adjustment, may be required prior to
air stripping.
Aeration and air stripping pose potential air pollution
problems if large amounts of volatile contaminants in the
treated waters are transferred to the air. If this is a
problem, emission control devices are required. Most ground
waters, however, are not likely to contain concentrations of
volatile contaminants sufficiently large to warrant such con-
trols.
E.8.2 Carbon Adsorption
Carbon adsorption treatment of ground waters entails
contacting the water with activated carbon, which adsorbs
contaminants and removes them from solution. Granular
activated carbon, used in beds or columns, is the most
commonly used form, although powdered activated carbon has
been used in some wastewater treatment applications.
Treatment processes can use both batch and continuous feed
operations. Activated carbon adsorption effectively removes
many organic and inorganic contaminants from solution.
E-19
-------
Treatment efficiencies are a function of the type of carbon
used, the concentration and type of contaminants present, the
length of contact time for each unit of water, and the
interval between carbon regneration or replacement. Removal
efficiencies ranging from 0 to greater than 99.9 percent have
been reported in the literature.
Although activated carbon adsorption theoretically can
provide limitless removal of contaminants, in reality there
are economic limitations to the applicability of activated
carbon treatment. Removal of high concentrations of contam-
inants may require overly frequent carbon replacement, while
hard to remove contaminants may require enormous treatment
facilities with several carbon contact systems: both
situations may incur excessive expense, and though tech-
nically feasible would be effectively unavailable.
Influent to the carbon adsorption process must be
relatively free of suspended solids and oil/grease to prevent
clogging of the adsorption beds. Suspended solids of less
than 50 mg/1 and oil/grease of less than
10 mg/1 are recommeded concentrations to avoid interferences.
Biological activity in the carbon beds may become a problem
in some instances, causing clogging and taste or odor
generation.
Removal efficiencies in carbon adsorption systems are
affected by changes in influent flow and influent chemical
composition. The presence of multiple contaminants in the
influent may reduce adsorption efficiency for some of the
constituents, although in some instances increased removal
efficiencies have been noted with multiple contaminants. For
any given water to be treated, the selection of the appro-
priate carbon and system design requires laboratory testing
to determine the specific adsorption efficiencies and
interferences for that influent.
E.8.3 Chemical Precipitation
Chemical precipitation, coagulation, flocculation, and
sedimentation are all interrelated processes which are most
often used to remove metals and certain organics from
solution. For waters containing dissolved solids, a pre-
cipitant is added which reacts with the contaminant to form a
solid, or to shift solution chemistry in such a way that the
contaminant solubility is reduced. The precipitated con-
taminant can then be removed by gravity sedimentation or
mechanical solids removal processes. Commonly used pre-
cipitants include lime, caustic, soda ash, iron salts, and
phosphate salts. Some waters contain colloidal suspended
E-20
-------
solids which cannot be readily removed using conventional
sedimentation. Treatment of these contaminants, which are
usually organic in nature, entails addition of a coagulant
(usually alum, cuprous sulfate, or ferrous sulfate) that
forces the suspended solids to agglomerate into larger
particles, which can then be removed using gravity sedi-
mentation. Some facilities add polymeric coagulant or
precipitation aids, which have been shown to enhance removal
efficiencies in some cases. Chemical precipitation processes
can be run as batch or continuous flow operations. Treatment
efficiencies depend upon the contaminant type and concen-
tration present, the solution pH and temperature, the
precipitants added, time and degree of mixing, and the time
allowed for sedimentation.
Precipitation of metals from solution can be inhibited
by the presence of chelating agents in the waters, such as
humic materials (naturally occuring organic acids) or other
organic compounds. This problem can 'be eliminated by using
precipitants with stronger affinities for the metal than the
complexion agent or by using pH adjustment to disrupt the
metal complex.
Use of chemical precipitation processes generates a
sludge which must be disposed of appropriately. Sludges
containing heavy metals or certain organics may be considered
to be hazardous wastes and as such should be disposed in
RCRA-regulated facilities.
E.8.4 Desalination
Desalination processes remove contaminants from the
influent using membranes to separate an enriched stream (high
contaminant concentration) from a depleted stream. Reverse
osmosis and ultrafiltration use a pressure differential to
drive the separation, while electrodialysis depends on an
electric field. The concentrated or enriched stream fre-
quently requires further treatment, while the depleted stream
is usually potable. Desalination processes have been used to
purify waters to drinking water quality in certain regions of
the country where fresh water is in short supply. The
processes are in more widespread use for treatment of
industrial process waters which must be of extremely high
quality. Treatment efficiencies are a function of the
molecular size and concentration of contaminants, strength of
the separation driving force, membrane type, and system
configuration. Removal efficiencies of greater than 90
percent have been reported in the literature.
E-21
-------
Desalination processes are highly sensitive to vari-
ability in the influent, and drastic changes in pH, tempera-
ture, or suspended solids. Any of these factors can effec-
tively reduce treatment efficiencies and the membrane life.
The suspended solids in a desalination influent should be
minimized to particle sizes 10 microns or less in order to
prevent membrane fouling. Biological activity can severely
impair the process efficiency, and disinfection may be
required prior to desalination. The presence of chlorine may
also disrupt efficient desalination, dechlorination or non-
chlorine disinfection processes may be desired.
Desalination processes are very expensive and energy-
intensive. Because of this, desalination is not frequently
used for removal of contaminants which are readily removed
via other treatment processes. However, for high TDS waters
and waters with large dissolved molecules, these processes
may provide cost effective contaminant removal.
E.8.5 Flotation
Flotation is used to remove oil and grease or suspended
particles from the agueous phase. The process involves
introduction of a gas (usually air) into solution, and
subsequent attachment of the gas. bubbles to particulate
matter which then floats to the surface. The floating
particulates can be skimmed and removed for disposal or
farther treatment. Surfactants and pH-modifications are
often used to improve process performance. Flotation is used
in many public water utilities across the nation for removal
of organic matter from surface waters, but the most common
use of the process is removal of oils and grease from indus-
trial petroleum wastewaters. Removal efficiencies are a
function of concentration, size, mass of contaminant partic-
les, air loading rate, types of chemical additives used,
hydraulic loading rate, and skimmer design. Removal effici-
encies over 95 percent have been reported in the literature.
Flotation is effective for contaminants with densities
less than or near to that of water, but is relatively
ineffective for contaminants which are denser than water. It
is not particularly effective at removing dissolved contam-
inants, although chemical additives can be used to decrease
contaminant solubility. If volatile contaminants are present
in the influent, flotation may result in simultaneous strip-
ping of these contaminants from solution.
E-22
-------
E.8.6 Granular Media Filtration
Granular media filtration is widely used to separate
solids from aqueous streams. Water is fed (via gravity or
applied pressure) through a bed of granular media, which may
consist of sand, gravel, coke, or combinations of the three.
Periodically the filter is "backwashed," which removes the
filtered particles into a relatively small volume of waste-
water which must be disposed or treated further. Granular
media filtration is commonly used in water utilities follow-
ing chemical precipitation to ensure turbidity standards are
met. Filtration performance depends upon the solubility of
the contaminants, the strength and size of contaminant
particles, the type of granular media used, the hydraulic
loading rate, and the interval between backwashings. Removal
to suspended solid levels less than 10 mg/1 has been report-
ed.
E.8.7 Ion Exchange
Ion exchange processes, like carbon adsorption, operate
by removing contaminants from solution onto a receptor. The
ion exchange process uses a chemically reactive resin which
exchanges innocuous ions for the contaminant ions in solu-
tion. The reaction is reversible, which allows a facility to
regenerate the ion exchange resin and reuse it. Ion
exchange processes are most commonly used to generate high
quality industrial processes waters, but recent applications
have also included wastewater treatment and ion exchange
water softening to remove hardness in drinking water sup-
plies. Ion exchange can be used for removal of almost any
ion from solution, but is not very effective for removing
uncharged contaminant species. Removal efficiencies, which
have been reported in excess of 99.9 percent, are dependent
upon the ionic charge of the contaminants, contaminant
concentration, type of resin used, hydraulic loading, and
interval between resin regeneration.
Although almost any ionic contaminant can be removed
using ion exchange processes, the specific ion exchange
resins used are usually specific to certain types of contam-
inants. Resin selectivity is based on the type (positive, or
negative) and degree of charge on the contaminant ions. If
several types of contaminants with varying charge are
present, efficient ion exchange treatment may require a
series of diffrent resins.
Changes in pH or the presence of organic and inorganic
complexing agents may cause certain ionic species to form
uncharged or differently charged chemical complexes, which in
E-23
-------
turn can reduce the efficiency of ion exchange treatment.
These problems are often overcome by adjusting pH so that the
desired ionic species are present, or by pretreating the
influent to remove complexing agents. Pretreatment may also
be required if the influent to the ion exchange process
contains excessive suspended solids which will clog the bed
or foul the resin.
E.8.8 Ozonation
Ozonation is a chemical oxidation process in which the
influent stream is contacted with ozone which breaks refrac-
tory (non-biodegradable) organic compounds into smaller,
treatable or non-toxic compounds. Used alone or in con-
junction with ultraviolet radiation, it is a highly effective
means of treating dilute concentrations of organics. Because
it is an expensive process to construct and operate,
ozonation is not in common use in public water utilities
across the nation. However, several individual water
treatment systems use ozone rather than chlorine to disinfect
their water supply. The process can achieve both effective
disinfection and up to 99 percent removal of certain organic
compounds. Ozonation effectively removes pesticides,
chlorinated hydrocarbons, alcohols, chlorinated aromatics,
and cyanides.
The efficiency of contaminant removal using ozonation is
dependent upon the retention time of the process reactor, the
ozone dose rate, the ultraviolet light dose rate, and the
contaminant type and loading. Treatability studies are
required prior to installation of ozonation processes to
treat specific influent streams.
Ozonation is currently used by only a few public water
supply systems, primarily as a disinfection process. It is
an expensive process which is readily replaceable with
chlorination for disinfection, but which has been gaining
acceptance for use in public water supply systems because it
does not cause any by-product trihalomethane formation. Lack
of use of ozonation in public water supply treatment systems
may be due to economic constraints and limited need for the
technology.
E.8.9 Disinfection and Fluoridation
Two water treatment processes which are universally
available are chlorine disinfection and fluoridation.
Chlorine disinfection is the most commonly used means of
destroying bacteria in public water supplies. Fluoridation
of water supplies is used to prevent dental health problems.
E-24
-------
The processes do not remove chemical contamination from the
wastestream; they serve instead as preventive measures in
control of disease and maintenance of public health.
E.9 Source of Information on Ecologically Vital Ground
Waters
Tables E-2, E-3, and E-4 provide a list of U.S. Fish and
Wildlife and State Heritage Program representatives who may
be contacted to obtain information on the location of
potential unique habitats when classifying ecologically-vital
ground waters.
E.10 Radius of Classification Review Area
The EPA classification system utilizes a Classification
Review Area with a radius of two miles from the boundary of
the facility or activity. The radius is intended to be large
enough to identify wells and surface waters which are high
interconnected with ground water under the facility. The
following sources of information were examinaed in the
selection of this radius:
A survey of existing contaminant plumes documented
through investigations of spills, leaks and dis-
charges
A survey of the distances to downgradient surface
waters from hazardous-waste facilities; and
Calculations of the distances from which pumping
wells draw ground water under different hydrogeologic
settings.
These sources are described below.
Plume Survey
A survey of contaminant plume geometries, (i.e., length,
width and depth) was prepared in connection with the develop-
ment of a stochastic model of corrective action costs at
hazardous-waste management facilities (Geraghty & Miller,
Inc., 1984). The plume survey provides generalized informa-
tion on the distances contaminants have been known to migrate
regardless of time, source type or hydrogeologic setting.
This was viewed as an indication of the area which may be
affected if contaminants were accidentally released from the
site.
E-25
-------
TABLE E-2
LIST OF OFFICES OF ENDANGERED SPECIES
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICES
The Fish and Wildlife Service, a unit of the U.S. Department of Che
Interior, has been delegated the main responsibility for coordinating
national and international efforts on behalf of Endangered Species.
In the ease of marine species, however, actions are taken in cooperation
with the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National
Marine Fisheries Service Similarly, in the
area of import/export enforcement for Endangered plants, Interior coop-
erates with and is assisted by the Department' of Agriculture through the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (Liaison listed on page 7).
PROGRAM MANAGER—ENDANGERED SPECIES—Mr. Ronald E. Lambertson
Associate Director-Federal Assistance
U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Telephone: 202/343-4646
CATEGORY COORDINATOR—ENDANGERED SPECIES—Mr. Roman Koenings
Deputy Associate Director—Federal Assistance
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Telephone: 202/343-4646
Mr. John M. Murphy, Chief
Office of Program Development
and Administration
U.S. Plan and Wildlife Service
1000 North Glebe Road, Room 629
Arlington, Virginia
Telephone: 703/235-1726, 7, 8
Mr. John L. Spinlcs, Jr. Chief
Office of Endangered Species
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1000 North Glebe Road, Suite 500
Arlington, Virginia
Telephone: 703/235-2771, 2
Mailing Address for Office of_ Progr.-
Development and Administration
U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
Mailing Address for Offlee .of
Endangered Species
U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dr. Kenneth R. Russell, Chief, Branch of Biological Support
Telephone: 703/235-1975, 6, 7
Mr. Brian Cole, Chief, Branch of Management Operations
Telephone: 703/235-2760, 1, 2
E-26
-------
Chief
Federal Wildlife Permit Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1000 North Glebe Road, Suite 600
Arlington, Virginia
Telephone: 703/235-1937, 8, 9
Mr. Clark Bavin, Chief
Division of Lav Enforcement
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1735 K Street, NW., 3rd Floor
Washington, D.C.
Telephone: 202/343-9242
Mailing Address for Federal
Wildlife Permit Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, O.C. 20240
Mailing Address for Division
of Lav Enforcement
P.O. Box 28006
Washington, D.C.
20005
Mr. Thomas Striegler, Special-Agent-in-Charge, Branch of Investigations
Telephone: 202/343-9242
Dr. Richard L. Jachowski, Chief
Office of the Scientific Authority
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1717 H Street, NW., Room 536
Washington, D.C.
Telephone: 202/653-5948, 49. 50
Mailing Address for Office of
the Scientific Authority
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
Regional Endangered Species Coordinators:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is comprised of seven Regional Offices.
(See map on inside back cover for geographic boundaries.) Each office has
a senior official who has been designated as a Regional Endangered Species
Coordinator. Additionally, each of the regions has several Field Offices.
Problems of a local nature should be referred to these offices.
Region 1 Regional Director (Attention: Mr. Sanford R. Wilbur
Endangered Species Specialist)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Suite 1692, Lloyd 500 Building
500 NE. Multnomah Street
Portland, Oregon 97232
Telephone: 503/231-6131 (FTS: 8/429-6131)
Field Offices
California
1230 "N" Street, 14th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: 916/440-2791 (FTS: 8/448-2791)
Idaho
4696 Overland Road, Room 566
Boise, Idaho 83705
Telephone: 208/334-1806 (FTS: 8/554-1806)
E-27
-------
Nevada
Great Basin Complex
4600 Kletzke Lane, Building C
Reno, Nevada 89502
Telephone: 702/784-5227 (FTS: 8/470-5227 or 5228)
Washington/Oregon
Buildtng-3, 2625 Parkmont Lane
Olympia, Washington 98502
Telephone: 206/753-9444 (FTS: 8/434-9444)
Pacific Islands Administrator
300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 5302
P.O. Box 50167
Honolulu, Hawaii 96850
Telephone: 808/546-5608 (FTS: 8/546-5608)
Region 2 Regional Director (Attention: Mr. James Johnson
Endangered Species Specialist)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
500 Gold Avenue, SW.
P.O. Box 1306
Albuquerque, New Mexico 67103
Telephone: 505/766-3972 (FTS: 8/474-3972)
Field Offices
Arizona
2934 West Fairaont Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85017
Telephone: 602/241-2493 (FTS: 8/261-2493)
New Mexico
P.O. Box 4487
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87196
Telephone: 505/766-3966 (FTS: 8/474-3966)
Oklahoma/Texas
222 South Houston, Suite A
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74127
Telephone: 918/581-7458 (FTS: 8/736-7458)
Texas
c/o CCSU, Box 338
6300 Ocean Drive
Corpus Christi, Texas 78411
Telephone: 512/838-3346 (FTS: 8/734-3346)
Fritz Lanham Building, Room 9A33
819 Taylor Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: 817/334-2961 (FTS: 8/334-2961)
E-28
-------
Region 3 Regional Director (Attention: Mr. Janet M. Engcl
Eadaogered Species Specialist)
U.S. Pish and Wildlife Service
Federal Building, Fort Snelling
Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111
Telephone: 612/725-327.6 (FTS: 8/725-3276)
Region 4 Regional Director (Attention: Mr. Alex B. Montgomery
Endangered Species Specialist)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, SW.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Telephone: 404/221-3583 (FTS: 8/242-3583)
Field Offices
Alabama/Arkansas/Louisiana/Mississippi
Jackson Mall Office Center
300 Woodrow Wilson Avenue, Suite 3185
Jackson, Mississippi 39213
Telephone: 601/960-4900 (FTS: 8/490-4900)
Florida/Georgia
2747 Art Museua Drive
Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Telephone: 904/791-2580
(FTS: 8/946-2580)
Kentucky/North Carolina/South Carolina/Tennessee
Plateau Building, Room A-5
50 South French Broad Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Telephone: 704/258-2850 ext. 382 (FTS: 8/672-0321)
Puerto Rico/Virgin Islands
P.O. Box 3005
Marina Station
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 00709
Telephone: 809/833-5760 (FTS: 8/967-1221)
Region 5 Regional Director (Attention: Mr. Paul Nickersoa
' Endangered Species Specialist)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Suite 700, One Gateway Center
Newton Corner, Massachusetts 02158
Telephone: 617/965-5100 ext. 316 (FTS: 8/829-9316, 7, 8)
E-29
-------
Field Offices
Coanecticut/Maine/Vermont/Massachusetts
New Haapshire/Rhode Island
P.O. Box 1518
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Telephone: 603/224-9558, 9 (FTS: 8/834-4726)
District of Columbta/Delavare/Maryland
Virginia/West Virginia
1825 Virginia Street
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Telephone: 301/269-6324 (PTS: 8/922-4197)
Neu Jersey/Pennsylvania
112 West Foster Avenue
State College, Pennsylvania
Telephone: 814/234-4090
Nev York
100 Grange Place
Cortland, New York.- 13045
Telephone: 607/753-9334
16801
(FTS:
8/727-4621)
(FTS: 8/882-4246)
Region 6 Regional Director (Attention: Mr. Don Rodgers
Endangered Species Specialist)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Telephone: 303/234-2496 (FTS: 8/234-2496)
Field Offices
Colorado/Utah
Room 1406, Federal Building
125 S. State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84138
Telephone: 801/524-4430 (FTS: 8/588-4430)
Kansas/Nebraaka/North Dakota/South Dakota
223 Federal Building
P.O. Box 250
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
Telephone: 605/224-8692 (FTS: 8/782-5226)
Montana/Wyoming
Federal Building, Rooa 3035
316 North 26th Street
Billings, Montana 59101
Telephone: 406/657-6059 or 6062
(FTS: 8/657-6059)
E-30
-------
Regional Director (Attention: Mr. Dennis Money
Endangered Species Specialist)
1011 E. Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: 907/786-3*35 (FTS: 8/907/786-3435)
E-31
-------
TABLE E-3
LIST OF STATE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM OFFICES
October 1985
Nongama Branch
ARIZONA HERITAGE PROGRAM
Arizona Game t Fun Department
2222 W. Groen.ay Rd.
Phoeni.. AZ 85023
602/943-3000 .245
•ranch Supervieori Terry Johnaon
ZoologUti Dick Todfl
Zootogiets Cecil Schmlbo
Zoologiat: JIB Brooks
0*» Manager i Rich Si I nek I
Habitat Spec. i truce Palmer
Wildlife RetiM: Cindy Oorathy
ARKANSAS NATURAL HERITAGE INVENTORY
225 E. Merkhem. Suit* 200
Licctt Rack. AR 72201
501/371-1706
Coordinator/Zoologist: Ken Smitn
Ecalogist: To* Fott
Botanist: Sttvt Orzetl
Out Manager: Cindy Osbcrne
CALIFORNIA NATURAL DIVERSITY DATABASE
e/o CA Oept. of Fish 1 Geme
1416 9th Strict
Sacramento, CA 35814
916/322-24S3
Section Leader: Steve Nicola
Prog. Menager/Ecol: Debcran Jensen
Zoologist: Larry Eng
Res.Asst/Zooi : Carrie Shaw
Aouatic EcoL: John Ellison
EcoLogist: Bob Holland
Botanut: Jin Shevock
Ait:. Botanist: Cindy Roy
Data Handler: Sylvia Gude
Element Prea.Plen: Roianne Btttxen
End. Plants Coord: Susan Cocnrane
SNAP Coordinator: Chris Unkei
CCL3RADO NATUBAL HERITAGE INVENTORY
Cape, of Natural Resources
1313 Sharpen St.. An. 718
Cenver, CO 80203
303/865-3311
Botanist: Steve O'Kane
Ecoi: Susan Gelstc»itsc-
203/660-3142
CONNECTICUT NATURAL OIVE'SIT" 3ATA64SE
Natural Resources Center
Oept. of Environmental P'ctaction
Staca Or.rice Building, An. 553
165 Capital Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106
203/566-3540
Biologiat/Oata Man: Nancy Hurray
Ecologist: Kan Hatzlar
Date Handler: Megan Rollins
FLORICA NAFja^L AflWS INVENTCRY
2£A E. 6tn Avenue
TaUanassee, '. :'3C3
904/224-e207
Coordinator: Stave Gate»ood
Zoologist: Oala Jackson
Botanist: Dennis Hirdin
Ras.Scac/Oata Manager: Jt« Huller
Secretary: Judith Lyons
•HAHAII HERITAGE
111S SatUH St.. HOI
Honolulu, HI B6B17
BOB/S37-4S08
Director: Audrey Na»nan
IDAHO NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
4696 Ovaritnd Rd., Suite 518
Bofaa, 10 83705
201/334-3402 or 3648
Coord1nator/Zool: Craig Orovea
totanlst/Ecologist: Steve Caicco
Data handlar/Bloli Pa> Peterson
INDIANA HERITAGE PROGRAM
Oiv. of Nature Presarvaa, IN ONR
612 Stata Offtea lldg.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317/232-4078
Coordmator/Bot: Jia Aldricn
Ecologist: Nika Honoya
Plant Ecologist: To» Post
Zoolo'gist: Brian Abrall
IOWA NATURAL AREAS INVENTORY
Stata Conservetion Coamission
Wallace State Office Bldg.
Oes Homes,- IA 50319
515/2B1-35J4
Ecologist: John Pearson
Data Handler; John Fieckenstein
Zoologtat: Oaryl Howe11
Botanut: Mark Laoacnke
KENTUCKY HERITAGE PROGRAM
ICY Neture Preserves Commission
407 Broedney
Frankfort, KY 40601
5C2/;oi-ZS66
Director: Richard Hannan
Botanist: Marc Evans
Zcoiogist: Ranald Cicarello
Ornithol: Brainard Paimei—3eil
Aquetic BIOL: Bill Fisher
Secretary: Julie Smitner
LOUISIANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Oeoartment of Neturai Resources
Coestal Management Division
P.O. Boi 44124
Batcn Pouge, LA 708C4-4124
50V342-460S
Coordinator/Ecol: Nancy Jo Craig
Zoologist: uary Laster
Botanist: Annette Perner
Data Manager: Alenea Williams
• MAINE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAN
Maine Chapter
•22 Main Street
Toosram, ME 04C86
207/729-51S1
Coorctnator: Jonn Albright
Data Menager/Sct: ^i Oste'DrccK
MARYLAND NATURAL HERITAGE &
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Ceot. of Natural Resources
C-3, Taves Stata Office Bldg.
Annapolis, MD 21401
js^-ucj .:s;= D.C.DIRECT DIAL
;C1/265-3655
Coor3'natcr/Bot: Dan Boone
Envi ronmentsv-|So%5 : Arrc^C ^crsan
Man. Area Soft: Sist* Ricneri;^
' MODEL NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
The Nature Conservancy
1800 N. Kant St., Suite BOO
Arunaton, VA 22209
703/841-5307
Zoologist: David WHcove
Botanist: Mary Paimr
Ecologist: being hired
MASSACHUSETTS HERITAGE PROGRAM
Oiv. of Fiahenea t Wildlife
100 Cartridge St.
Boeton, KA 02202
617/727-9194
Coordineur/Ecolt Henry Woo I say
Botanfati (nice Some
Zooiogieti Scott Kelvin
Data Manegar: Joanna Tribbla
Heb.Prat.Spec: Annie Marlowe
MICHIGAN NATURAL FEATURES INVENTORY
Mason Building. 5th floor
Boi 30028
Laneing, MI 48909
517/373-1552
Coordmator/Bot: Sue Crispin
Ecologtst: KIB Chapman
Zoologist: Lam Wilsmern
Data Manager: S:u Ouxinga
MINNESOTA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Department of Natural Resources
Bo 6
St. Paul, MN 55155
612/296-4284
Coordinator: Baroara Coffin
Botanist: Welby Smith
Ecologist: Kattn wendt
Zoologist: Lee Pfannmuller
Data Manager: Carman Converse
MISSISSIPPI NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
111 H. Jefferson St.
Jecpison, J« 39202
601/354-7226
Coord/Bot/Wild.Bio: Kan Goreon
Zoologist: Boo Jones
E:oiogist: Jim Wiseman
MISSOURI NATURAL HERITAGE INVEWTCRY
Missouri Deot. Of Conservation
P.O. 3oi 180
Jefferson City. MO 65102
314/751-4115
Coordinator: Mike S«eet
Biologist: Dennis Fi^y-XSIO
Secretary: Diana Munstarman
MONTANA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
State Library Building
1515 E. 6tn Ave.
Helena, MT 59620
406/444-3C09
Coordinator/?ool: David Center
Botanist: Steve Sneuy
Ecologiat: Nancy Grulke
Data Teen/Sec: Lisa Shepperd
NAVAJO NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Bo< 2429
»mec« =sc«. AZ S6S15-!i2S
oC2^-a;i-S^3 jr 9-U9
Acting Coord/Botanist: Oonne House
Data Maneger: Virju Link
Zoologist: vacant
(* = Proto-Heritage Programs)
E-32
-------
NEVADA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Dept. of Coneervetlon I Neturel
Resources
e/o Oiy. of State Perfce
Capital Complej, Nye Bldg,
201 S. Fell Sc.
Careon City, NV 89710
702/885-1360
Coordinator/tel.i be me. hired
Research tel.: being hired
NEW HAMPSHIRE NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
e/o Society for the Protection of N.H.
Forests
54 Portsmouth Street
Concord, KM 03301
603/224-9945
Coordinator/Bat: Frances Breckley
Oeta Manager: Edit Hentcy
NEW JERSEY NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Offica of Natural Lands Nanaganant
109 w. Stece St.
Trenton, HJ 08625
609/984-1339 or 1170
Coordinator/Ecol: Thomas Bradan
Botanist: David Snydar
Zoologist: Jin Scaiscie
Data Hanagar: Jane Sans
Oats Handler: Elena Williams
NEK MEXICO NATURAL RESOURCES
SURVEY SECTION
ViUagra Bldg.
Santa ft, MH 87503
505/B27-7862
Coordinator: Cathy Carrutners
Botanist: Paul Kmgnt-7850
Botanist: Anna Cully
Data Handler: Leslie Price
Hgmt. Analyst:. Denise Gross
NEW YCRK NATURAL HEFITAGE PHCGRAH
Wildlife Raaourccs Canter
Oeimer. NY 120S4-S767
£18/439-8014 ,203
Coordinetor/Zool: Pat Hehlhoo
Ecologist: Carol Rescnke
Botanist: Stava Clements
Data Henejer: flacnal Pleujr.ner
L.I. Botanist: Bob Zare^ca
367-3225
NORTH C1SOLINA NATURAL ME9ITAGE
Dipt, cf Natural & cccnor-c PCS.
Oiw. of Stata Parks
Bo> 276B7
Ralaign, NC 27611
919/733-7795
Coordinator: Charlas E. Boa
Botanist: Laura Hanabarg
Ecologiatt Alan Haamay
Procaction Spac: Julia H. Moora
Wttlancs Inv.Pas.Soac: Stevtn Lacnar^
Zoologist: Harry Laurand, Jr.
Inv. Info. Spac: Miki Scnafaia
NORTH DAKOTA NATURAL HERITAGE INVENTORY
N.O. Gana & Fish Dapartnant
100 N. Bisaiarck Eiprassusy
Bismarck, NO SBS01
701/221-S310
tjcrc Tracer/2cci: 3ar£, ser
Zoologist: Cnns Reitnei
SOUTV CAROLINA HEPITAGE TRUST
S.C. KUdl.l Marine Ratourcel Oept.
P.O. Bo> 167
Coluaeia. SC 29202
803/756-0014
Coord/Zeol: Stave Bennett
Fi*n t wual.Bio: Jono Caly
Envir.Planner: S:u Gree:er
Botanist: Doug Reynar
Ecolojisti John Nelson
Ft* Bie/Preserva Mc,r: Jtm Sorro.
Secretary! Keye DieL Oenieia
SOUTH DAKOTA NATURAL MEPITAGE
S.O. Oaot. cf Same* F>sn i Psrks
3iv. af =sr,rs i 'ec.-eation
Sigurs Arcerscn dLC£., 3-114
Pierre, SO S7£01
605/773-4226
Botanist: David Or
Data Soec: Ge£jT._^aei
(TBeNEBSEE HERITAGE PROGDAM)
ECOLOGICAL SERVICES DIVISION
TN Oepertaiefit of Coneervetton
701 Broadcay
NeahvUle, TN 37203
BlS/74a-6545
01 rector i Oen Eager
Zaolagiet: Pent Meawl
Plent Ecol/Prot.Plani Larry Seilth
Belenlati Pwi (eejere
•Ue-llfe te*U Oeryl Durhw
Beta Beee Menegeri Dave Snupe
Aq.Bio/Pro.Rev.Coon Rooerte Hylton
TEXAS NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
General Lend Offica
Stephen F. Austin Bldg.
Austin, TX 78701
512/475-0660, 0661, 0621, OBOp
Aast.Deputy Commissioner/
Lend Hgmt.Oivi Ben Brown
512/475-1539
Coordinator: Tine Bondy
Zoologist! Rei Mahl
Ecologist: David Diamond
Botanist: Jackie Poole
Data Manager; Robert Murpny
Secretary! Jackie Solit
TVA REGIONAL HERITAGE
Office of Natural Resources
Norns. TN 3782B
615/494-9600
Coord inetor: Dull am H. Redennd-X2613
Project Meneger: J. Ralpn Jordan
6otaniat: Josspn L. Collins
Net.Araea Coord: Judith 6. Po«ars
Zoologist: Cheries P. Mivho^sor.
*VEFHCNT NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Vemont Field Office
138 Main Street
Hontoolier. VT 05602
B02/229-4425
Coordinator: Marc OesHeu.les
Ecologist/Oata Man: Lu Thompson
WASHINGTON NATURAL HERITAGE PRCGRAM
Department cf Natural Resources
Hail Stop EX-13
Olympia, WA 36504
2C6/753-244B
Coordinator/Bot: Merit Shaeran
Ecologist: Ltnea Kunze
Plant Ecoicgist: Reid ScnuUer
Secretary: Charlotte Neison
Habitat Preserv.Soec: Batty Rodeneit
VEST VIRGINIA WILDLIFE/HERITAGE
DATABASE
Wildlife Resources Division
ONR Cperations Center
P.O. Box 67
Elkins, WV 2E2>1
304/636-1767
Aest. Director! Pete Zurcuc.i
Coordinator/Ecol: Brian McDonald
Data Handler: Sandra Hahringar
Botanist: Garria Rouse
E-33
-------
WISCONSIN NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
Endangered Beeourcea/4
Oapt. of Natural Reaourcoa
101 S. Woeetor St.. Bo* 7311
Nodi eon, *1 53707
SO8/266-0924
Zoolognci IUI Seittn
Ecologiet: Erie Epstain
Botanleti Juno DoMorpuni
Doto Nonogori Kothy Sleeer
•VONIN8 NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM
1603 Cap Ho I Avenue. Rei.323
Cheyenne, Iff 82001
303/860-8142
CooroVBotanfeti voeont
too Jonkino. Vieo President, Sennet (41-5320
Mjrfly Wtoting. Oireetsr, Horitogo (41-1339
Sh»U«y Rodoion, AttitttnC Oiroctor, HFA 841-S3S7
tat Oifploy. Director. PStO 1X1-5322
Jung jo An, Budgit Spoeiolut M1-53S8
Jack Whitt, Notionol Eealogitt 217/3(7-8770
Ooretny AUord. Claisificocion Ecol. 217/3(7-8770
Larry Morta, Oirictor, Mac'I Oataboat (41-53(1
Mary Broanon, Nat'I OataOaaaa Aatociata (41-53(0
Hargarat Oraoa. National Info.Man. (41-53(0
Oavi Honiman, Mierocomoutar Analyt: (41-53S5
Btrnadatta Scn.ot.fio, Mieroeaniaucar
Spaciauat 841-5355
Kan Mrignt, Sanior Programar/Anai. i<1-53Si
Carol Hodga. Admmiatrativa Actc.. HFA (41-<3
-------
TABLE E-4
LIST OF ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, January
1, 1986.
U.S. Fish, and Wildlife Service, Contaminant Issues of Concern - National
Wildlife Refuges. January 1986.
Guidance on Ground Water Classification: Approach to Completing Follow-up
Research, January 1985, prepared by GCA Corporation for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency - Land Disposal Branch, Washington, B.C.,
Contract No. 68-01-6871.
40 CFR 270.3(c), EPA Administered Permit Programs: The Hazardous Waste Permit
Program.
Guidance on Remedial Investigations Under CERCLA, Chapter 9, EPA/540/G-85/002,
June 1985.
Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA. Chapter 6, EPA/540/G-85/003,
June 1985.
E-35
-------
The data base for the survey included ground-water
quality investigations, consultant reports, and other
publically-available literature (e.g., scientific journals).
The availability of data was limited by the confidential
nature of many privately-funded contamination investigations
and the relatively small number of off-site investigations
conducted by the government prior to the implementation of
the Superfund program.
The survey found 50 contaminant plumes containing
inorganic and organic contaminants. Hydrocarbon plumes
consisted of dissolved and liquid phase (undissolved)
materials. The sources of the plumes were spills, leaks and
discharges from diverse sources including municipal and
industrial sites, transportation accidents and unknown
sources. Plume boundaries were defined as a detectable
increase above background quality.
The survey showed that the median plume length was 1600
feet. Ninety-five per cent of the plumes were less than two
miles in length. A histogram of plume lengths is provided in
Figure E-l.
The data were too limited to determine whether the
plumes in this survey had reached their maximum lengths.
Theoretically, if a contamination source is continuous and
the contaminant is not degraded, transformed, or immobilized
in route, the plume length will eventually be equal to the
distance to a downgradient discharge point. Other factors
which could prevent plumes from reaching their naural
discharge points include insufficient time since the contam-
inant release and the implementation of an effective remedial
program. In some cases a steady-state condition may be
reached between contaminant input by the source and dilution
due to recharge. While it is now known whether the plumes in
this survey had reached equilibrium, it is not likely due to
their random selection that any one of the above factors had
any unusual degree of influence on the results.
Distance to Downgradient Surface Waters
ICF, Inc., conducted a survey of 117 hazardous-waste
management facilities for development of the EPA Liner/
Location Model (U.S. EPA, 1985). For each site, the down-
gradient distance to surface waters (e.g., lakes, streams,
ocean, bay or marsh). This information provides insight into
the distance at which a flow boundary for the shallow ground-
water system is likely to be encountered. Thus, limited the
area potentially impacted by a facility.
E-36
-------
00
u
z
M
i-4
M
z
o
0
to
1
PH
I1
III 1 1
^ — O 0) 00 f*
^-50% =1600 FEET
i§ i|
il
N
il
<0
|0
10
p
1 O 1 O
1! P
|0 ,0
p |»
60
cu
1 O 1 O
50 lo
ifn oeg
,8
s-
i§ ^§ ^1
.0 O
38 B*
N IO
O O
II III
• <0IO
-------
Some of the facilities int he survey were included in
EPA's "site visit" facility survey. Other sites were
selected from among available Part B Permits. A site was
included in the survey only if it provided information
sufficient to operate the liner/location model (e.g.,
comprehensive facility design parameters and hydrogeologic
information). Facility sites were located on U.S.G.S.
topographic maps using latitude and longitude data. G&M
assisted ICF by identifying the general direction of ground-
water flow from the site on the topo map. Figure E-2 shows
the frequency distribution histogram for distance to down-
gradient surface waters. Ninety-five percent of these
distances are less than two miles.
Pumping Well Capture Zones
One of the criteria for establishing the radius of the
Classification Review Area was to identify highly inter-
connected ground-water resources. One test of intercon-
nection is the capture of ground water by a pumping well. It
is presumed that all of the area supplying water to a pumping
well should be placed in one classification.
All ground water within a flow system between a well and
the upgradient ground-water divide may be assumed to be
potentially flowing into the well. In addition, wells
reverse ground-water flow and capture ground water from
downgradient locations as well as "lateral" locations
(perpendicular to the regional flow direction, see Figure E-
3) . Thus, the well capture zone extends in all directions
from the well. To determine whether a facility to be
classified may fall within a well capture zone it is,
therefore, necessary to perform an inventory of wells in all
directions from the site, not just in a downgradient direc-
tion.
Site-specific data would be required to establish with
confidence whether a well is drawing ground water from a
site. Optimally, pumping test results and accurate water
table data should be obtained. In many cases calculations
would need to be supplemented by modelling to estimate the
area with accuracy. Such data might be used in subdividing a
classification review area; however, the initial area must be
large enough to identify all wells to be evaluated.
To determine whether the two-mile radius would satis-
factorily identify water-supply wells capturing water from
under a site (a formula developed by Todd, 1976) was used to
determine the generalized dimensions of well capture zones
under different hydrogeologic conditions. The formula,
E-38
-------
o
o
•o
o
CM
O
o
-o
CO
o
o
•o
to
o
o
-o
o
o
-o
CM
o
o
-o
o
to°8
2g|8
» ii ii ii
-J 10 in s
o
.o
o
O)
1.8
o
•z.
o <
r- K
w
o
o
.o
o
to
o
.o
o
IO
8
o
o
o
o
10
o
o
o
CM
o
o
o
IO
CM
I
o
CM
'£-39
-------
UJ
UJ
o
I-
co
o
HI
cc
D
h-
Q.
<
O
E-40
-------
illustrated in Exhibit E-5, provides a calculation of the
maximum downgradient extent of well capture (XL) and the
lateral distance (YL) (perpendicular to non-pumping ground-
water flow gradients). Lateral and downgradient capture
distances were calculated for a range of transmissivities and
water-table gradients under pumping conditions of .5 to 3.0
mgd. Incompatable well yields and transmissivities were not
used. Table E-5 shows the results of the calculations.
The well yields were selected to represent the common
range of pumping rates for water supply wells (U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, 1984). With the exceptions noted below,
water-supply wells are generally smaller than 2 mgd. The
largest lateral capture distance for a 2.0 mgd supply well
for the transmissivities and gradients examined is two miles.
Thus, the two-mile radius would identify the majority of
individual water-supply wells which could be drawing water
from under a proposed facility or site in directions other
than the downgradient direction.
NOTE: Exceptions include the basalt aquifers of the
Columbia Plateau and Hawaii, where common well sizes are
up to 4 mgd and some may exceed 18 mgd; the Floridan
Aquifer in Florida and Georgia where common yields are
up to 7 mgd and may exceep 28 mgd; and the Chicot
aquifer of the Lake Charles formation in Louisiana where
common yields up to 3.5 mgd are found. Other regionally
extensive high-yielding aquifers where wells may exceed
2 mgd include the Texas Edwards aquifer, thick members
of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains, alluvium and
older sedimentary basins in California and the Sparta
Sands in Arkansas.
In summary, the plume survey and survey of distances to
discharge boundaries support the two-mile radius in the
downgradient direction. The plume data indicates that
distance that contaminants are known to migrate in problem
concentrations and the distance to discharge points data
indicate the likelihood that a flow boundary will be inder-
cepted. Pumping well capture distances provide the basis for
including lateral and upgradient areas in the review area.
Thus, the two-mile radius provides an initial identification
of potentially highly interconnected ground water related to
a site under classification.
E-41
-------
TABLE E-5
LATERAL AND DOWNGRADIENT WELL CAPTURE DISTANCE (in feet)
(after Todd, 1976)
Transmissivity/Gradient (ft/mi)
10,000/30-50 50,000/10-30 100,000/5-10
.5 MGD
1.0 MGD
2.0 MGD
3.0 MGD
Lateral
Downgradient
Lateral
Downgradient
Lateral
Downgr ad i ent
Lateral
Downgradient
4400-2640
1400-840
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
2640-880
840-280
5280-1760
1680-560
10,560-3520
3360-1120
15,840-5280
5040-1680
2640-1320
840-420
5280-2640
1680-840
10,560-5280
3360-1680
15,840-7920
5040-2520
Governing Equations
Lateral Distance
Downgradient Distance
= ft
= ft
= gpd
- gpd/ft
Q
T
YL - Q/2Ti
XL = Q/2 Ti
N.A. = Not applicable
E-42
-------
REFERENCES EVALUATING INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS OR
WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
American Water Works Association. Research Foundation and
Keuringsinstituut voor Waterleidingartikelen (Coopera-
tive Report). "Occurrence and Removal of Volatile
Organic Chemicals from Drinking Water." Denver, CO.
1983.
American Water Works Association. Water Quality Treatment.
Denver, CO. 1971.
Argo, D.G., "Control of Organic Chemical Contaminants in
Drinking Water." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Seminar, 1978.
Argo, D.R., "Use of Lime Clarification and Reverse Osmosis in
Water Reclamation." Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation 56:1238-1246. December, 1984.
Clyde, S.E., "Legal and Institutional Barriers to Transfers
and Reallocation of Water Resources," 29 S. Dak. L.
Rev. 232 (Spring 1984).
Clyde, S.E., "State Prohibitions on the Interstate Exporta-
tion of Scarce Water Resources," 53 U. Colo. L. Rev. 529
(1982) .
Congressional Budget Office, Current Cost-Sharing and Financ-
ing Policiesfor Federal and State Water Resources
Development. Special Study-, July 1983.
Council of State Governments, Interstate Compacts and Agen-
cies , 1983, provides annual listing of names and phone
numbers of commissioners of interstate compacts and
compact administrators, and citations to state and
Federal legislative enactments of compacts.
Gulp, R.L., G.M. Wesner, and G.L. Gulp. Handbook of Advanced
Wastewater Treatment. 2nd Edition. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, New York. 1978.
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc. "Fort Lauderdale Water Quality and Treatment
Study." Prepared for the City of Fort Lauderdale,
Florida. 1981.
E-43
-------
Ferguson, T.L. "Pollution Control Technology for Pesticide
Formulators and Packagers." Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Hazardous
Materials Programs. January, 1975. EPA-660/2-74-094.
Glaze, W.H., et al. "Oxidation of Water Supply Refractory
Species by Ozone With Ultraviolet Radiation." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-570/9-74-020.
1974.
Gummerman, R.C., R.L. Culp, and S.P. Hansen. "Estimating
Water Treatment Costs. Volume 1. Summary." Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH. August,
1972. EOA-600/2-79-162a.
Hoigne, J., and H. Bader. "Ozone Requirements and Oxidation
Competition Values of Various Types of Water for
Oxidation of Trace Impurities." U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA-570/9-74-020. Washington, D.C.
1979.
Joyce, M. "Smyrna, Delaware Solves a Water Problem."
Journal of Environmental Health 42(2):72-74. September/
October 1979.
Kim, N.K., and D.W. Stone. "Organic Chemicals and Drinking
Water." NYS Department of Health, Albany, N.Y. 1981.
Larson, C.D. "Tetrachloroethylene Leached from Lined
Asbestos Cement Pipe into Drinking Water." Journal of
the American Water Works Association. 75(4):184-188.
April 1983.
Mackison, F.W., R.S. Stricoff, and L.J. Partridge, Jr., eds.
"Occupational Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards."
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S.
Department of Labor. NIOSH/ OSHA. Washington, D.C.
January, 1981. DHHS (NIOSH) 81-123.
Malarkey, A.T., W.P. Lambert, J.W. Hammond, and P.J. Marks.
"Installation Restoration General Environmental Tech-
nology Department. Final Report. Task 1. Solvent and
Heavy Metals Removal from Groundwater." Roy F. Weston,
Inc., West Chester, PA. Prepared for U.S. Army Toxic
and Hazardous Materials Agency. January, 1983.
E-44
-------
McBride, K.K. "Decontamination of Ground Water for Volatile
Organic Chemicals: Select Studies in New Jersey" in
Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Rehabilitation — A
Light at the End of the Tunnel. Proceedings of 2nd
National Symposium on Aquifer Restoration and Ground
Water Monitoring. David Nielsen, ed. Columbus, OH.
pp. 105-113. May 26-28, 1982.
Mccarty, "Volatile Organic Contaminants Removal by Air
Stripping." Proceedings, AWWA Seminar, 99th Annual
National AWWA Conference, San Francisco, CA. June,
1979.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. "Volatile Organic Removal: Two
Ground Water Supply Case Histories." Presented at the
New York Section AWWA. 1980.
Nabolsine, Kohlman, Ruggiero Engineers, P.C. "Technical
Memorandum: Well Water Supply Testing for the Removal
of Organic Contaminants." Office of the Mayor, Glen
Cover, New York. 1978.
O'Brien, R.P., et al. "Trace Organics Removal from Contam-
inated Ground Waters with Granular Activated Carbon."
Presented at the National ACS meeting, Atlantic,
Georgia. 1981.
Plimmes, J.R., ed. Pesticide Chemistry in the 20th Century.
ACS Symposium, Division of Pesticide Chemistry. New
York, N.Y. April, 1976.
Schwartz, E.B., "Water as an Article of Commerce: State
Embargoes Spring a Leak Under Sporhase v. Nebraska. 12
ENV. Affairs 103 (1985).
Schwinn, D.E., D.F. Storrier, R.J. Moore and W.S. Carter.
"PCB Removal by Carbon Adsorption." Pollution Enain-
eering 16(1):20-21. 1984.
Shukle, R.J. "Rocky Mountain Arsenal Ground-Water Reclama-
tion Program" in Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water
Rehabilitation—A Light at the End of the Tunnerl.
Proceedings of 2nd National Symposium on Aquifer
Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring. David Nielsen,
ed. Columbus, OH. May 26-28, 1982. pp. 367-374.
Singley, J.E., et al. "Use of Powered Activated Carbon for
Removal of Specific Organic Compounds." Proceedings,
AWWA Seminar, 99th Annual AWWA Conference. San Fran-
sico, California. June 1979.
E-45
-------
APPENDIX F
GENERAL CENSUS BUREAU INFORMATION;
NATIONAL CLEARINGHOUSES FOR CENSUS DATA SERVICES;
AND
BUREAU OF THE CENSUS STATE COORDINATING ORGANIZATIONS
F-1
-------
GENERAL CENSUS BUREAU INFORMATION
Regional Census Bureau contracts :
. Atlanta, Georgia 30309: 1365 Peachtree Street,
N.E., Room 625
Telephone: (404) 881-2274
. Boston, Massachusetts 02116; 441 Stuart Street,
10th Floor
Telephone: (617) 233-0226
. Charlotte. North Carolina 28202; Suite 800, 230
South Tryon Street
Telephone: (704) 371-6144
. Chicago. Illinois 60604; 55 East Jackson Boule-
vard, Suite 1304
Telephone: (312) 353-0631
. Dallas. Texas75242; 1100 Commerce Street, Room
3C54
Telephone: (214) 767-0625
. Denver, Colorado 80225; 575 Union Boulevard,
P.O. Box 25207
Telephone: (303) 234-5825
. Detroit. Michigan 48226; Federal Building and
U.S. Courthouse, Room 565, 231 West Lafayette
Street
Telephone: (313) 226-4675
. Kansas City, Kansas 66101; One Gateway Center,
4th and State Streets
Telephone: (816) 374-4601
Information in each of the 12 regional offices of the
Census Bureau answer questions about census publica-
tions and products and help users locate and use
census data. They also conduct workshops and make
presentations on census programs and services.
F-2
-------
. Los Angelas. California 90040; 11777 San Vin-
cente Boulevard, 8th Floor
Telephone: (213) 209-6612
. New York. New York 10007; Federal Office
Building, Room 37-130, 26 Federal Plaza
Telephone: (212) 264-4730
. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19106; William J.
Green, Jr., Federal Building, 600 Arch Street,
Room 9244
Telephone: (215) 597-8313
. Seattle. Washington 98174; New Federal Building,
Room 312, 915 North Second Avenue
Telephone: (206) 442-7080
Libraries with government depositories
. 1980 Census of Population - Supplementary
Report, Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Order
No. PC 80-SI-18)
. Urbanized Areas; 1980
. 1980 Census reports for each state
2
. Census tract maps for local area
2
. Income statistics
. Enumeration Districts
2
Customer Service Bureau, Data User Service Division,
Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. 20233
(202) 763-4100
Geography Division, Bureau of the Census,
Jeffersonville, Indiana (812) 288-3213
P-3
-------
National Clearinghouse for
Census Data Services
Address List
January 1983
U.S. Department of Commerce
Bureau of the Census
Washington, D.C. 20233
The National Clearinghouse for Census Data Services
is a referral service for users needing specialized
assistance in obtaining and utilizing statistical data
and related products prepared by the Census Bureau.
This assistance ranges from informational services
such as seminars or workshops to technical services
such as providing tape copies or performing geocod-
ing. The organizations listed in this brochure have
notified the Census Bureau that they can supply users
with the services noted below.
Organizations registered with the National Clearing-
house for Census Data Services complete a checklist
describing services they provide. These may include
one or all of the following:
• Preparation of computer tape copies, printouts, or
special files and extracts.
• Preparation of microfiche copies, printouts from micro-
fiche, or other micrographic services.
• Preparation of analytic reports, area comparisons, or
area profiles.
• Online access to data.
• Training programs or other informational services in
accessing and/or using census data.
• Special services such as geocoding, site selection, market
area analysis, redistricting, or other activities using census
products.
Organizations registered with the Clearinghouse are
not franchised, established, or supported by the
Bureau of the Census. Each organization establishes
its own methods of operation, cost structure, and the
clientele eligible for services. The Census Bureau does
not monitor or control the prices or the quality of
services offered by those organizations.
This brochure provides a listing of organizations by
State. The letters A through M are used to indicate
the services provided by the individual organizations.
More detailed information can "be obtained directly
from the individual organization or .from the State
and Regional Programs Staff, Data User Services
Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.
20233. telephone (301) 763-1580.
Related data services are provided directly to users
through the Census Bureau's Data User Services
Division and the Bureau's regional offices (listed on
the last page of this brochure). In many States,
services similar to those offered by. Clearinghouse
registrants may also be provided to State and local
governments and others through State data centers
(consortiums of State agencies, universities, and
libraries). For information on the State Data Center
Program, contact a Census Bureau regional office or
the State and Regional Programs Staff, Data User
Services Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington,
D.C. 20233, telephone (301) 763-1580.
California
Allstate Research and Planning
Center. Ann: Nicholas Gannam.
Allstate insurance Company, 321
Middlefield Road, Menlo Park.
94025.415/324-2721 (A.8.C.H.M)
Biddle and Associates, inc., Ann:
Cheryl Morgan/Barbara Ounlap, 903
Enterprise Dnve. Suite 1.
Sacramento. 95625. 916/929-7670
(B.C.H.LM)
California Survey Research. Ann: Ken
Gross. 152 Ventura Blvd.. Suite
1101. Sherman Oaks, 91403. 213/
986-9444 (B.C.H.M)
Criterion Incorporated, Ann: Bill
Bamberger, 11100 Roselle Street.
San Diego, 92121. 714/455-0162
(A.B.C.E.HJ.K.UM)
David Bradwell and Associates. Inc.,
Ann: David Bradwvil. 860 Las
Gallmas Avenue. San Raphel,
94903. 415/479-4960 (B.O.H)
Demographic Research Company.
Ann: Joseph J. Wetssmann. 233
Wilshire Blvd.. Santa Monica,
90401. 213/451-8583
(A.B.C,D.H,I,J.K,LM)
General Research Corporation. Ann:
Lynn Heidlar/ Michael Sharp, 5383
Hollister Avenue, P.O. Box 6770.
Santa Barbara. 93111. 805/964-
7724 (A.B.C.E.H.M)
National Decision Systems, Ann:
Came Goodman. 9968 Hibert
Street, Suite 100. San Diego, 92131.
714/695-0060 (B.C.E.H.M)
Nobi Takahashi and Associates. Ann:
Nobi Takanashi. PO Box 1319,
Oakland. 94604 415/465-0293
(A.B.D.E.H.l.K.LM)
Rose Institute of State and Local
Governments, Ann- Robert S
Walters. Pitzer Hall. Claremont
McKenna College, Claremont.
91711. 714/621-8159 (A.B.C.H.M)
Urban Decision Systems, inc.. Ann-
James A Pans. 2032 Armacost
Avenue, P O Box 25953. Los
Angeles. 90025. 213/320-8931
(A.B.C.E.H.K.L.M) (Organization also
located m other states, please
contact individual listed above for
further information.)
-------
Donnelley Marketing Information
Sen/***. Ann- Bnan Becker, 1515
Summer Street. Stamford. 06905.
203/357-8735 (A.3.C E.H J.L.M)
National CSS. Ann Jeffrey M. Lee,
Business Research Products. '87
Danoury Road. Wilton. 06897 203/
762-2511 (A3C.E.H.K.L.M)
(Organization also located m other
state's, ciease contact individual
listed aoove for furrer information )
Reebie Associates. Attn David A
isacowitz. Principal. 200 Railroad
Avenue. Greenwich. 06830 203/
561-8661 (A.B.C.H.M)
Research for Policy Decisions. Attn:
Norman Spector. One Financial
P'aza. Hartford. 06103 203/247-
3411 (A.B.C.E.H.I.J.K.L.M)
District of Columbia
Occuoations. Inc . Ann- Lloyd V
Tornme. 1260 21st Street. N W..
Suite 801, Washington. D C , 20036.
202/659-3876 (A.B.C.E.E.H.L.M)
Florida
Behavioral Science Research. Attn:
Robert A Ladner, 1000 Ponce de
Leon Blvd.. Coral Gables. 33134.
305/448-7622 or 800/327-6207,
outside Florida (A.B.C.D.F.H.I.L.M)
Census Group Computing Center.
Attn- Paul Manna, Flonda State
University. Tallahassee. 32306.
904/644-4836 (A.B.C.O.E.K.M)
info Tech. Inc . Ann- Marlin Eby. P 0
Sox 14545. Gainesville. 32605 904/
375-7624 (A.B.CD.G.H.I.K.L.M)
St °etersburg Times and E/emng
mcecendent. Ann Jack Vernon /
Susan McKeivey. Research
Department. P 0 Box 1121. St.
Petersburg. 33731 813-393-8451
(A 9CO E.H.I J.KL.M)
Census Access Program. Ann- flay
Jones, University of Florida
L tranes. Department of Reference
3rd 3:bi.ography, university of
r'craa, Gainesville. 32611 904/
392-0363 (A3CDEGHJX-M)
Management institute. Ann G Hartley
Meihsh/Michael J White/ Pamela S
Tucker. College of Business
Administration. University of South
Flonda, Tampa 33620. 813/974-
4264 (A.B.C.D.E.I.L.M)
Hawaii
Department of Budget and Finance.
Attn Tad Nakano, Electronic Data
Processing Division. P O Box 150.
Honolulu. 96810 808/548-3117
(A.3.C.H.L)
Illinois
Concordia College, Attn: William
Kammrath, 7400 Augusta Street.
River Forest. 60305 312/771-8300
(A.B.C.DE.H.L.M)
Indiana
Research Associates. Inc . Attn John
J Carter. P O Box 44640.
Indianapolis. 46244 317/266-6925
(A.B.C.H.J.K.L.M)
Louisiana
Tn-S Associates. Incorporated, Ann:
Kenneth Selle/Wayne Hatcher, P O.
Box 130. Puston. 71270. 318/255-
6710 (A.B.C.D.E.H.I.L.M)
Main*
Creative Computing Services. Ann:
Celeste Carey. RFD #1. Box 5590,
Dryden. 04225. 207/645-3321
(A.B.C.O.H.J.K.M)
Social Science Research Institute.
Ann- Garrett Bozytmsky, 164
College Avenue. Orono. 04473.
207/581-2555 (A.B.C.O.H.L.M)
Maryland
Systems Sciences, inc.. Attn- Chns
Gordon. 4340 East-West Highway.
* 1122. Bethesda. 20814 301/654-
0300 (A.3.C.H.J.K.M)
Massachusetts
Geographic Systems, inc., Ann:
Spencer Joyner, 100 Main Street,
Reading. 01867 617/942-0051
(A.B.C.H.J.K.M)
Modeling Systems. Incorporated. Ann:
Geoffrey N. Berlin. Ten Emerson
Place. Suite 3-E. Boston. 02114.
617/277-6778 (HJ.K.L.M)
NERCOMP, Ann: Robert Gibbs,
President, 439 Washington Street
Braintree. 02184. 617/848-6494
(A.8,C,D.E.H."L,M)
United Community Planning
Corporation. Ann: Donald D. Dobbin,
87 Kilby Street. Boston, 02109.
617/482-9090 (B,C,H,U,K.L.M)
Urban Data Processing, Inc.. Ann: Bill
Max field. 209 Middlesex Turnpike.
Burlington. 01803. 617/273-0900
(A,3,C.O,H.J,K.M)
Michigan
COMSHARE. Attn: Ted Jastrzembski.
3001 South State Street. Ann Arbor,
48106.313/994-4800
(A.8.C.E.H.LM) (Organization also
located >n other states, please
contact individual listed above for
further information)
Data Research Center. Ann: Scott D.
Phillips, 715 East F-ont Street,
Traverse City. 49684 616/947-2501
(C.H.L.M)
Data Coordination Division. Ann:
Patricia C. Becker. Planning
Department. City of Detroit. 3400
Cadillac Tower. Detroit. 48226. 313/
224-6389 (B.D.H.I J.M)
inter-University Consortium for Political
and Social Research. Attn: Erik W.
Austin. P O Box 1248. Ann Arbor.
48106. 313/763-5010 (A.B.C.D.L.M)
LAM Consulting. Incorporated. Ann:
Jacquard W Guenon. 220 Albert
Street. Suite 211. East Lansing,
48823 517/337-7750
(A.B.C.E.F.H.I.LM)
Michigan State University. Ann-
Anders C. Johanson. Computer
Laboratory. East Lansing. 48824
517/355-4684 (A.B.C.D.E.H.J.K.L.M)
Oakland County Planning Division,
Attn- David R. Hay. 1200 North
Telegraph Road, Pontiac. 43053.
313/858-0720 (A.B.C.D.F.G.H.I)
Southeast Michigan COG. Ann: Jim
Thomas, 1248 Washington Blvd..
Book Building. Detroit 48226. 313/
961-4266 (A.B.G.H.I.J.K.M)
Total Environmental Systems. Inc..
Attn Robert E Seaman. 414 North
Larch Street. Lansing.-J8912 5i7/
482-2500 (A.B.C.H.I J < L Vt)
Tn-Coonty Regional Planning
Commission. Attn- Jason E Wnitler.
913 W Holmes Road. Suite 201.
Lan»ng, 48910 517/393-0342
(A.B.C.D.E.H.U.K.L.M)
Minnesota
OATAMAP, Inc., Ann: Grant I
WarfieW. 9749 Hamilton Road. Eden
Praine. 55344 612/941-0900
(A,3.C.H,I.J.K,L.M)
Mississippi
Mississippi State University. Ann E'len
S. Bryant, Department of Sociology,
P 0 Drawer C, Mississippi State.
39762.601/325-2495
(A.B.C.D.G.H.L.M)
Missouri
MARC Research Data Center. Ann:
Jon A. Nelson, 20 West 9th Street.
2nd Floor, Kansas City. 64105. 816/
474-4240 (A.B.G.H.I.J.K.M)
University of Missoun-St.Louis. Ann:
John G. Blodgen. Computer Center.
8001 Natural Bndge Road. SL
Louts, 63121 314/553-5131
(A,B.C,H.J,K.LM)
Nebraska
Metromail Corporation. Ann: William
Dougherty, 901 West Bond Street,
Lincoln, 68501. 402/475-4591
(A.C.H.J.M)
New Hampshire
Geographic Data Technology, me .
Ann: Donald F Cooke. 13
Dartmouth College Highway, Lyme,
03768. 603/795-2183 (J.K.M)
New Jersey
Association of Public Data Users, Attn-
Richard D Bender, Princeton
University Computer Center, 87
Prospect Avenue. Princeton, 08540.
609/452-6023 (A.B.C.D.F.H.L.M)
Pnnceton-Rutgers Census Data
Prciect. Ann Judith S Rowe.
Princeton University Computer
Center. 87 Prospect Avenue.
Princeton, 08540. 609/452-6052
(A.B.C.D.E.F.G.H.l.L.M)
New York
American Demographics Magazine,
Ann: Peter K Francese, 127 West
State Street. P 0. Box 68, Ithaca,
14850 607/273-6343 (L.M)
CUNY Data Service. CASE.. Ann:
Robert Foss. Director. Graduate
School and University Center. City
University of New York. 33 West
42nd Street, New York, 10036. 212/
354-0640 or 790-4459
(A.S.C.O.E.H.J.K.L.M)
Demographic Systems, incorporated,
Attn Marvin Finkelstem, Census
Service Center Director, 325
Hudson Street. New York. 10013.
212/255-8707 (A.C.H.M)
F-5
-------
Marketing Group, Inc.. Attn:
Henry Lee. 1290 Avenue of the
Amencas, New York. 10104. 212/
581-8725 (A B.C.D.H.I.J.K.LM)
Market Statistics. Attn: Edward J.
Spar. 633 Third Avenue, New York.
10017 212/986-4800 (A.B.C.D.H.M)
National planning Data Corporation.
Attn Patsy Bailey Aiiard, P O Box
610. 'thaca. U850. 607/273-8208
(A.3 C D E H.K.L) (Organization also
located m other states, pleas*
contact individual listed above for
further information.)
User Services. University Computing
Center. Ann: Frank Pens. SUNY at
Sutfaio. 4250 Ridge Lea Road.
Amherst. M226. 716/831-1761 or
1771 (A.B.C.E.F.G.J.K.M)
Tn-State Regional Planning
Commission. Attn- Juliette EMis. 1
World Trade Center, 82nd P!oor,
New York. 10048. 212/938-3*02
(A.8.C.D.H.I.J,K.L..M)
Ohio
Public Demographics. Inc.. Ann:
Michael Starke. P O Box 19005.
Cincinnati. 45219. 513/681-3735
(A.3.C.D.E.H.J.M)
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State University. Attn:
Eldean Bahm. university Computer
Center. Mathematical Sciences
Building 113. Stillwater. 74078. 405/
624-6301 (A.B.C.I.L.M)
Oregon
Profiles Northwest. Attn- H W
Cummins. 66 W 24th Avenue.
Eugene, 97405 503/484-1318
(C.HIJ.K.L.M)
Pennsylvania
Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission. Attn Ronald
Fiialkowski. 1819 John F Kennedy
Blvd.. Philadelphia. 19103 215/567-
3000 (A.B.C.E.H.U.K.L.M)
Planning Data Systems, Ann- Barry H
Cohen. 1601 Walnut Street. Suite
1524. Philadelphia. 19102 215/665-
1551 (A.8.C.D.H J.K.M)
Pcbinson Associates, me . Ann Morns
Olitsky. Bryn Mawr Mall. 15 Morns
Avenue, 3ryn Mawr. 19010 215/
527-3100 (D.H.I.M)
Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional
Planning Commission, Attn: Wade
G. Fox, Mann Building. 8th Floor.
Pittsburgh. 15219. 412/391-5590/
5599 (I)
The UNI-COLL Corporation. Attn:
Alanna J. Keiton, 3401 Market
Street. Philadelphia. 19104 215/
387-3890 (A.B.C.D.E.H.J.K.M)
Tennessee
Econographics of Knoxville, inc.. Arn-
Robert J McCulloch. P 0 Box
9638. Knoxville. 37920-0638. 615/
982-1225 (H.I.J.M)
Mempms State University. Ann: Lew
Alvarado. Bureau of Business and
Economic Research. Memphis.
38152. 901/454-2281 (A.B.C.F.H.L)
Regional and Urban Studies
Information Center. Ann Andrew S.
Loebi. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, P O Sox X. Oak Ridge.
37830.615/574-5966
(A.B.C.D.G.H.L.M)
Texaa
Houiton-Galveston Area Council. Ann:
Dons Davis. 3701 West Alabama.
Suite 200. P O. Box 22777,
Houston. 77227 713/627-3200
•
-------
NATICNU. CLEARINGBGOS&,BQfc.CEM>US-CKI& SERVICES
ADDRESS LIST — Addendum
Delaware
Census and Data System
Attn: Edward Ratleoge
University of Delaware
Willard Hall, Roan 312
Main Street
Newark, Delaware 19711
302/738-8405
(A,B,C,D,E,J)
Florida
Paul E. Gagnon
Economic Research Consultant
1021 N.E. 8th Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
305/463-9732
(D,H,M)
Illinois
Northeastern Illinois Planning Connission
Attn: Chuck Metalitz
Research Services Depar&nent
4uO West Madison Street-2nd Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606
312/454-0400
Maryland
Congressional Information Service
Attn: Laima Rivers
4520 East-West Highway, Suite 800
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
301/654-1550 or 800/638-8380
(F)
Ed Nichols Associates
Attn: Ed Nichols
P.O. Box 158
176 Laytonsville Road
Washington Grove, Maryland 20880
301/258-5003
(A,B,C,H,J,M)
Regional Planning Council
Attn: Josef Natnanson
2225 No. Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
30 V38 3-5855
(A,B,C,D,H,J,K)
New Jersey
Princeton-Rutgers Census Data ?roje<
Attn: Gertrude Lewis
Center for Computer and Information
Servics
Rutgers University-Hill Center,
Busch Campus
P.O. Box 879 „
Piscataway, New Jersey 08854
201/932-2483
(A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,L)
New York
Columbia University Center for the
Social Sciences
Attn: Lauretta O'Dell
814 International Affairs Building
420 Nest 118th Street
New York City, New York 10027
212/280-3038
(B,C,D,E,F,G,H,L)
(Address Change)
Financial Marketing Group, Inc.
377 Park Avenue South
8th Floor
New York, New York 10010
212/685-5930
North Carolina
Personnel Research, Incorporated
Attn: Chris Northup
1901 Chapel Hill Road
Durham, North Carolina 27707
919/493-7534
(A,B,C,H,H)
(more)
F-7
-------
Pennsylvania
K. H. Thomas Associates
Attn: Kenneth H. Thomas
University Cizy Science Center,
Suite 200
3508 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
215/332-2^00
(A,B,C,F,G,H,I,L,M)
Rhode Island
Social Science Data Center
Attn: James M. Sakoda
Brown University
Box 1916
providence, Phode Island 02912
401/863-2550
(A,B,C,D,E,)
Texas
William G. Barker and Associates
Attn: Bradley M. Feinberg
1009 w. Randol Mill Road
Suite 212
Arlington, Texas 76012
817/255-0794
(B,C,E,H,J,K,M)
(Name and Services Change)
DUAL-Catm. inc. and DUALabs
(A,B,C,DrH,M)
Virginia
Orringtor. Econonics, Inc.
Attn: Jack Goodman
P.O. Box 3756
Arlington, Virginia 22203
703/527-5990
(M)
Washington
Samraamish Data Systems
Attn: Richard Schweitzer
1413 177th Avenue, N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98808
206/644-2442
(B,C,H,L)
May 1983
F-8
-------
State Data Center Program
State
Coordinating Organizations
AddreSS List January 1984
US Department of Commerce • Bureau of the Census • Washington, D.C 20233
ALABAMA
Alabama State Data Center
Center for Business and
Economic Research
University of Alabama
P.O. Box AS
University, AL 35486
Dr. Carl Ferguson, Director
•Mr. Sdward Rutledga
(205) 348-^5191
Office of State Planning
and Federal Prograos
State Data Center
P.O. Box 2939
3465 Norman Bridge 3d.
Montgomery, AL 36105-0939
.vtr. Gilford Gilder
(205) 284-8775
Alabama. Public Library Service
6030 Monticello Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130
Mr. Anthony Miele
(205) 277-7330
ALASKA
Alaska Department of Labor
P.O. Box 1149
Juneau. AS 99802
David Swanson
•Ms. Barbara Baker
(907) 465-^513
Office of the Governor
Office of Budget and
Management
Division of Strategic Planning
Pouch AD
Juneau, AS 99811
Mr. Thomas Chester
(907) 465-2203
Department of Education
Division of Libraries and
Museums
Alaska State Library
Pouch G
Juneau, AS 99811
Mr. Lou Coatney
(907) 465-2942
Department of Community and
Regional Affairs
Division of Local Government
Assistance
Pouch BH
Juneau; AS 99811
Mr. Doug Griffla
(907) 465-4734
Institute for Social, Economic,
and Government Research
University of Alaska
707 "A" Street, Suite 206
Anchorage, AK 99501
Mr. Jack Xr'jse
(907) 273-4621
ARIZONA
The Arizona Department of
Economic Security
1300 Test Washington, 1st Floor
P.O. Box 6123-045Z
Phoenix, AZ 35005
*Ms. Linda Strode
(602) 255-5984
Research Specialist
College of Business Admin.
Arizona State University
Temp*, AZ 85287
Mr. Too Rex
(602) 965-3961
'Denotes key contact person
E>_O
-------
College of Business Admin.
Northern Arizona University
Box 15066
Flagstaff, A2 86011
Or. Ron Gunderson
(602) 523-2358
Federal Documents Section
Department of Library, Archives,
and Public Records
Capitol, Third Floor
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Atif a Rawan
(602) 255-4121
Dean of the Graduate College
Administration Building, Sm. 501
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Dr. Lee B. Jones
(602) 626-4031
ARKANSAS
IREC-Cbllege of Business Admin.
University of Arkansas
33rd and University Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72204
Dr. Barton Westerlund, Director
Sarah Breshears
*Dr. Forrest Pollard
(501) 371-1971
Arkansas State Library
1 Capitol Mall
Little Rock, AR 72201
Ms. Frances Nix
(501) 371-2159
CALIFORNIA
State Census Data Canter
Department of Finance
1029 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Ms. Unda Gage
*Mr. Bill Schooling, Director
(916) 322-4651
Sacramento Area CCG
800 H Street
Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95314
Mr. Bob Faseler
(916) 441-5930
Assn. of Bay Area Governments
Hotel Claremont
Berkeley, CA 94705
Ms. Patricia Perry
(415) 841-9730
Regional Research Institute
of Southern California
600 S. Ccnmonwealth St.
Los Angeles, CA 90005
Mr. Tim Douglas
(213) 385-1000
Source Point
Security Plaza Pacific
1200 3rd Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Ms. Karen Lamphere
(714) 236-5353
State Data Center Program
University of Calif.-Berkeley
2538 d**.rminy Way
Berkeley, CA 94720
Ilona Eixiowski
(415) 642-6571
COLORADO
Division of Local Government
Colorado Dept. of Local Affaii
1313 Sherman Street, Rm. 520
Denver, CO 30203
"Mr. Reid Reynolds
Ms. Rebecca Picaso
(303) 866-2351
•Denotes key contact person
F-10
-------
Business Research Division
Graduate School of Bus. Admin.
University of Colorado-Boulder
Boulder, CO 80309
Mr. Gerald Allen
(303) 492-8229
County Information Service
Department of Economics
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
Ms. Sue Anderson
(303) 491-5706
Documents Department
The Libraries
Colorado State University
Port Collins, CO 80523
Us. Karen Fachan
(303) 491-5911
CONNECTICUT
Comprehensive Planning Division
Office of Policy and Management
State of Connecticut
30 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
*Mr. Theron A. Schnure
(203) 563-3905
DELAWARE
Delaware Development Office
99 Kings Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover. DE 13903
Mr. Nathan Hayward, Acting Dtr.
•Mr. Doug Clendaniel
(302) 736-4271
Computing Center
University of Delai
192 S Chapel Street
Smith Hall
Newark, DE 197U
Mr. Bob Shaffer
(302) 738-8441
DISTRICT OP COLOMBIA
Data Services Division
Mayor's Office of Planning
and Development
Room 458, Lansburgh Bldg.
420 7th Street, N.W.
fashington, DC 20004
*Mr. Albert mnnun
(202) 727-6533
Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments
1875 I Street, N.W., Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006
Mr. John McCLain
Ms. Susan Kalisn
(202) 223-6800
.FLORIDA
Division of Local Resource
Management
Florida Deparnnent of
Coonunity Affairs
2571 Executive Center Circle, !
Tallahassee K PL 32301
•Mr. Matthew Brady
(904) 488-2356
GEORGIA
Georgia Office of Planning
ftpd Budget
270 Washington St., S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30334
Mr. ClarJc Stevens, Director
•Mr. Tom Wagner
(404) 656-2191
Documents Librarian
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA 30303
Mr. Jay McNaoara
(404) 658-2185
Robert W. Woodruff Library
for Advanced Studies
Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30322
Ms. Elizabeth McBride
(404) 329-6872
•Denotes key contact person
F-1 1
-------
Main Library
University of Georgia
Athena, GA 30602
Vs. Susan C. Fields
(404) 542-8949
Georgia Dept. of Comnunity Affairs
Office of Research % Information
40 Marietta Street, Jf.W., 8th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30303
Mr. Dave Wiltsee
(404) 656-3873
Documents Librarian
State Data Center Program
Albany State College
504 College Drive
Albany, GA 31705
Ms. Gold* Jackson
(912) 439-4065
Docuaents Librarian
State Data Center Program
Georgia Southern College
Statesboro, GA 30458
.Sis. Lynn Walshak
(912) 356-2183
State Data Center Program
Vfercer University Law Library
Mercer University
Macon, GA 31207
Mr. Reynold Xosek
(912) 745-6811
University Computer Center
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602
Ms. Hortense L. Bates
(404) 542-3106
Price Gilbert Memorial Library
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332
Mr. Richard Leacy
(404) 894-4519
HAWAII
State Departaent of Planning
and Economic Development
P.O. Box 2359
Honolulu, HI 96804
•Mr. Robert Scbmitt
Ms. Maureen St. Michel
(808) 548-3082
Electronic Data. Processing Divis
State Department of Budget
and Finance
Kalanimoku Building
1151 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
vQT9 TOO ZCtQBSi^^^PO
(808) 548-4160
Hawaii Cooperative Health Systen
University of Hawaii
Moore Hall, #427
1890 East-West Road
Honolulu, HI 96822
Mr. Bain Henderson
(808) 948-6977
IDAHO
Division of Economic and
Cooounity Affairs
700 W State Street
State Capitol Bid*., Hm. 108
Boise, ID 83720
Mr. Dan Emborg, Administrator
(208) 334-2309
*Mr. Alan Porter
(208) 334-3416
University Research Center
Boise State University
1910 University Drive
Boise, CD 33725
Dr. Richard Hart, Director
(208) 385-3576
Mr. Basil Dahlstrom
(208) 385-1573
•Denotes key contact person
F-12
-------
Ibe Idaho State Library
325 West State Street
Boise, ID 83702
Ms. Belen Miller, State librarian
Sir. Gary Bettls
(208) 334-2150
ILLINOIS
Division of Planning and
Financial Analysis
Illinois Bureau of the Budget
William Stratton Bldg., Rm. 605
Springfield, IL 62708
•Ms. Kathy Roberts
(217) 782-3500
Ccnmunity Research Services
Department of Sociology, Anthro-
pology, and Social Work
Illinois State University
Normal, IL 61761
Dr. Vernon C. Pohlmann
(309) 438-2387
Center for Governmental Studies
Northern Illinois University
DeEalb, IL 60115
Us. Ruth Anne Tobias
(815) 753-0322
IMDIANA
Center for Urban and Environmental
Research and Services
Southern Illinois University at
Sdwardsvllle
Box 32
Edwardsvllle, IL 62026
Mr. Charles Kofron
(618) 692-3032
Chicago Area fl*»
-------
Census Services
Iowa State University
318 East Hall
taes, LA 50011
Dr. Willis Goudy
(515) 294-8370
Laboratory for Political Research
University of Iowa
321 Schaeffer Hall
Iowa City, IA 52242
Mr. Jim Grtfhorst
(319) 353-3103
Census Data Center
Department of Public Instruction
Grimes State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
Mr. Steve Boal
(515) 281-4730
Census Data Center
Iowa Department of Hunan Services
Hoover State Office Raiding
Des Moines, LA 50319
Mr. Sent Westaas
(515) 281-4694
Ballou Library
Buena Vista College
Strom Lake, IA 50588
Dr. Barbara Palling
(712) 749-2127
KANSAS
State Library
State Capitol Building, Rm. 343
Topeka, B3 66612
•Mr. Marc Galbraith
(913) 296-3298
Division of the Budget
State Capitol Building, Rm.
Topeka, KS 66612
Mr. Daina Farrell
(913) 296-2436
Institute for Economic and
Business Research
325 Nichols Hall
The University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66044
Mr. Robert Glass
(913) 864-3123
Center for Urban Studies
Box 61
Wichita State University
Wichita, S3 67208
Mr. Mark Glaser
(316) 689-3737
Population Research Laboratc
Department of Sociology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
Mr. Donald
(913) 532-5984
KEHTOCKY
Urban Studies Center
Department SDC
University of Louisville
Gardencourt Campus
Alta 7ista Road
Louisville, KY 40292
*Mr. Vernon Staith
(502) 588-6626
•Denotes key contact person
F-14
-------
Office for Policy * Management
State of Kentucky
Capitol Annex
Frankfort, £T 40601
Mr. William Hlnty*
(502) 564-7300
State Dept. of Library & Archives
State Library Division
300 Cbffeetree Road, P.O. Box 537
Frankfort, KT 40602
Mr. James Nelson, Director
(502) 875-7000
LOUISIANA
Louisiana State Planning Office
P.O. Box 44426
Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Mr. Wallace L. Walker, Director
•Mr. Thornton Cofield
(504) 342-7410
Division of Business and
Economic Research
University of New Orleans
Lake Front
New Orleans, LA 70122
Ms. Jackie Hymel
(504) 286-6248
Division of Business Research
Louisiana Tech University
P.O. Box 5796
Ruston, LA 71270
Dr. Edwd 0'Boyle
(318) 257-3701
Reference Department
Louisiana State Library
P.O. Box 131
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Mrs. Blanche Cretin!
(504) 342-4918
Experimental Statistics Department
173 Agriculture Admin. Building
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Dr. Nancy Keith
(504) 388-8303
MAINE
Division of Economic Analysis
and Research
Maine Department of Labor
20 Union Street
Augusta, ME 04330
•Mr. Raynold Fongemie
(207) 289-2271
MARYLAND
Maryland Dept. of State Planning
301 West Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Ms. Constance Lieder, Secretary
of the Md. Dept. of State Ping.
•Mr. Arthur Benjamin
(301) 383-5664
Computer Science Center
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
Mr. Eli Schunao
Mr. John McKary
(301) 454-4323
State Library Resource Center
Enoch Pratt Free Library
400 Cathedral Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Ms. Anne Shaw Burgan
(301) 396-5328
•Denotes key contact person
F-15
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
MINNESOTA
Center- for Massachusetts Data,
Executive Office of Coomunities
and Development
IX Cambridge Street, Rm. 904
Boston, MA 02202
*Mr. Charles McSweeney, Coordinator
of Center for Massachusetts Data.
(617) 727-3253
University Office of Center for
Massachusetts Data.
University of Massachusetts
117 Draper Hall
Anherst, MA 01003
Dr. George R. McDowell, Director
of Center for Massachusetts Data,
(413) 545-0176
MICHIGAN
Michigan Information Center
Department of Management
and Budget
Office of -the Budget/LLPD
P.O. Box 30026
MIV 48909
•Dr. Laurence Rosen
(517) 373-7910
MIMIC/COS
Wayne State University
5229 Cass Avenue
Detroit, MI 48202
Mr. William Simoons
(313) 577-2180
The Library of Michigan
Government Documents Division
P.O. Box 30007
Lansing, MI 48909
Ms. F. Anne Diamond
(517) 373-0640
State Demographic Unit
Minnesota State Planning Agea
101 Capitol Square Building
550 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Mr. Thomas Gillaspy
•Ms. Eileen Barr
(612) 296-4886
Minnesota Analysis and
Planning System
University of Minnesota-St.Pa
475 Coffey Hall
1420 Eckles Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55108
Ms. Patricia Kbvel-Jarboe
(612) 376-7003
Office of Public Libraries an
Interlibrary Cooperation
Minnesota Department of Educa
301 Hanover Building
480 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Mr. Bill Asp
(612) 296-2821
MISSISSIPPI
Center for Population Studies
The University of Mississippi
Bondurant Building, Room 3W
University, MS 38677
Dr. Max Williams, Director
•Ms. Michelle Ratliff
(601) 232-7288
Governor's Office of Federal
State Programs
Department of Planning and Pi
Walter Sillers Building
Jackson, MS 39202
Mr. George Parsons, Director
Ms. Jeanie E. Smith
(601) 354-7018
•Denotes key contact person
F-16
-------
MISSOURI
NEBRASKA
Missouri State Litany
308 High Street
P.O. Box 387
Jefferson City, to 65102
Mr. Charles O'Halloran
•Mr. Jon Harrison
(314) 751-4552
Office of Administration
124 Capitol Building
Jefferson City, MO 66101
Mr. Ryan Burson
(314) 751-2345
B and PA Research Center
University of Missouri
10 Professional Building
Colunbia, MO 65211
Or. Ed Robb
(314) 882-4805
MONTANA
Census and Economic Information
Center
Montana Dept. of Coranerce
1429 9th Street
Capitol Station
Helena, MT 59620-0401
•Ms. Patricia Roberts
(406) 444-2896
Montana State Library
Capitol Station
Selena, MT 59620
Mr. Harold ("^l<"T*fci*ra
(406) 449-3115
Bureau of Business and
Economic Research
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59812
Ms. Mazine Johnson
(406) 243-5113
Center for Data Systc
and Analysis
Office of the Vice President
for Research
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
Ms. Lee Piulkner
(406) 994-4481
Bureau of Business Research
200 CBA
The University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588
Dr. Donald Pursell, Director
•Mr. Jerry Deichert
(402) 472-2334
Policy Research Office
P.O. Box 94601
State Capitol, Rn. 1321
Lincoln, NE 68509
Mr. Andrew Cunningham
(402) 471-2414
Nebraska Library Commission
1420 P Street
Lincoln, NE 68508
Mr. John L. -Kopischke. Director
Ms. .Patricia Sloan, Fed. Doc.
(402) 471-2045
The Central Data Processing Divisi
Nebraska Department of Adminis-
. trative Services
1306 State Capitol
Lincoln, NE 68509
Mr. Robert S. Wright, Administrate
Mr. Skip Miner
(402) 471-2065
NE7ADA
Nevada State Library
Capitol Complex
401 North Carson
Carson City, N7 89710
Ms. Joan Kerschner
•Ms. Valerie Andersen
(702) 885-5160
Department of Data Processing
Capitol Complex
Blasdell Building, Rm. 304
Carson City, NV 89710
Mr. Bob Rigsby
(702) 885-4091
•Denotes key contact person
F-17
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW MEXICO
Office of State Planning
State of Nev Hampshire
2 1/2 Beacon Street
Concord, NH 03301*
•Mr. Jim Mclaughlin
(603) 271-2155
Sev Hampshire State Library
Park Street
Concord, NH 03301
Mrs. Shirley Gray Adamovlch
(603) 271-2392
Institute of Natural and
Environmental Resources
University of New Hampshire
James Hall, 2nd Floor
Durham, NH 03824
Mr. Oven Ourgin
(603) 862-1020
NEW JERSEY
Nev Jersey Dept. of Labor
Division of Planning & Research
CN 388 - John Fitch Plaza
Trenton, NJ 08625-0388
*Ms. Connie 0.* Hughes
(609) 984-2593
Nev Jersey State Library
185 West State Street
Trenton, HI 08625
Ms* Beverly Railsback
(609) 292-4282
Prlnceton-Rutgers Census Data Project
Princeton University Computer Center
87 Prospect Avenue
Princeton, NJ 08544
Ms. Judith S. Rove
(609) 452-6052
Princeton-Rutgers Census Data Project
Center for Computer & Info. Servic
Rutgers University
CCIS-flill Center, Busch Campus
P.O. Box 879
Piscatavay, NJ 08854
Ms. Gertrude Levis
(201) 932-2483
Economic Development
Tourism Department
Bataan Memorial Building
Santa Fe, NM 87503
•Mr. John Velasco
(505) 827-6200
Nev Mexico State Library
P.O. Box 1629
Santa Fe, NM 88003
Ms. Sandra Faull
(505) 827-2033
Bureau of Business and
Economic Research
University of Nev Mexico
Albuquerque, NU 87131
Dr. Lee Brovn, Director
(505) 277-2626
Center for Business Research
and Services
Box 3CR
Nev Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003
Dr. Ken Novotny
(505) 646-2035
NEW YCflK
Division of Economic Research
and Statistics
Nev York Deparoaent of Commerce
Twin Towers, Room 1005
99 Washington Avenue
Albany, NY 12245
Mr. Peter Ansell, Assistant
Deputy Commissioner
•Mr. Mike Batutis
(518) 474-6115
Lav and Social Sciences Unit
Nev York State Library
Cultural Education Center
Empire State Plaza
Albany. NY 12230
Us. Elaine Clark
(518) 474-5128
•Denotes key contact person
F-18
-------
NORTH
North Dakota State Library
North Carolina Office of State
Budget and Management
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
•Ms. Francine Ewing, Director
of State Data Center
(919) 733-7061
State Library
North Carolina Dept. of
Cultural Resources
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
Ms. Earlean Strickland
(919) 733-3343
Institute for Research in
Social Science
University of North Carolina
VtonrHng tfrU Q26A
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Us* Judy Moses
(919) 966-3346
NORTH DAKOTA
Dept. of Agricultural Economics
North Dakota State University
Agricultural Experiment Station
Merrill Hall, Roan 207
P.O. Box 5636
Fargo, ND 58105
Highway 83N
Bisnarck, ND 58505
Us. Ruth Uahan
(701) 224-2490
OHIO
OMo Data Users Center
Ohio Department of Economic and
CornuQiey Development
P.O. Box 1001
Colunbus, OH 43216
•Mr. Jack Brown
(614) 466-7772
OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma State Data Center
Depar*ODent of Scorv^pi<» and
Ccnnuoity Affairs
Lincoln Plaza Building, Suite 285
4545 North Lincoln Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OS 73105
Ms. Cindy Rambo, Director
•Mr.« Harley Lingerfelt
(405) 528-8200
•Dr. Richard Rathge
(701) 237-8621
North Dakota State Planning Div.
State Capitol, 17th Floor -
Bisnarck, ND 58505
Mr. Ronald Bostick, Director
(701) 224-2818
Ms. Kathy Lindquist
(701) 224-2094
Department of Geography
University of North Dakota
Grand Forks, ND 58202
Mr. Floyd Hickok
(701) 777-4593
•Denotes key contact person
aa Department of Libraries
200 N.E. 18tb Street
(Tflahnmi City, OK 73105
Ms. Virginia Collier
(405) 521-2502
OREGON
Intergovernmental Relations Div.
Executive Building
155 Cottage Street, N.E.
Sala, OR 97310
Mr. Jack Carter
•Mr. Jon Roberts
(503) 373-1996
Bureau of Governmental Research
and Service
School of Ccmmunity Service and
Public Affairs
University of Oregon
Sendricks Hall, Room 340
P.O. Box 3177
Eugene, OR 97403
Ms. Karen Seidel
(503) 686-5232
F-19
-------
Center for Population Research
•jfrj Census
Portland State University
P.O. Box 751
Portland, CR 972^7
Mr. Ed Shafer
(503) 229-0922
Oregon State Library
State Library Building
Salon, OR 97310
Sir. Craig Smith
(503). 378-4502
PENNSYLVANIA
Institute of State and
Regional Affairs
Pennsylvania State University
Capitol Campus
Middletown, PA 17057
•Mr. Bob Sutridge
(717) 948-6336
Department of Education
State Library of Pennsylvania
Forum Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Mr. John Gerswindt
(717) 787-2327
Governor's Office of Budget
«rvj Administration
Bureau of Management Services
903 Health and Welfare Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Mr. Ray Jfo.spar
(717) 787-1764
pumru RICO
Puerto Rico Planning Board
Minillas Government Center
North Bldg., Avenida Oe Diego
P.O. Box 41119
San Juan, PR 00940
*Mr. Suriel Sanchez
(809) 726-5020
General Library
University of Puerto Rico
.Road #2
Mayaguez, PR 00708
Dra. Luisa Viga-Cepeda, Director
(809) 832-4040
DepmrtJfient of Education
Carnegie Library
P.O. Box 759
Hato Rey, PR 00619
Ms. Carmen Martinez
(809) 724-1046
RHODE ISLAND
Rhode Island Statewide
Planning Program
265 Melrose Street, Rm. 203
Providence, RI 02907
Mr. Daniel Varia, Chief
*Mr. Chester Symanski
(401) 277-2656
Rhode Island Department of
State Library Services
95 Davis -Street
Providence, RI 02908
Mr. Frank lacono
(401) 277-2726
Social Science Data Center
Department of Sociology
Brown University
Maxcy Hall, Angel Street
P.O. Box 1916
Providence, RI 02912
Dr. Janes
(401) 863-2550
Rhode Island Health Services
Research, Inc.
56 Pine Street
Providence, RI 02903
Mr. Lawrence Manire
(401) 331-6105
Rhode Island Department of
CcoBunity Affairs
Division of Bousing and
Government Services
150 Washington Street
Providence, RI 02903
Mr. Joseph G. Simeone
(401) 277-2892
F-20
-------
SCDTH CABCLIXA
Division of Research and
Statistical Services
Bixiget and Contrel Board
State of South Carolina.
Ranbert C. Dennis ELdg., B/341
1000 Assembly Street
Colunbia, SC 29201
Mr. Bobby Bowers, Chief,
Demographic Statistics
*Mr. Mike Macfarlane
(803) 758-3986
South Carolina State Library
P.O. Box 11469
Cblunbia, SC 29211
Mary Toll, Documents Librarian
(803) 758-3138
Vital Records Program
South Dakota Dept. of Health
Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501
Mr. William D. Johnson
(605) 773-3353
Rural Sociology Department
South Dakota State University
Scobey Hall, 226
Brookings, SD 57006
Or. Marvin P. Riley
Dr. Jim Satterlee
(605) 688-4132
TENNESSEE
SOJTH DAKOTA
Business Research
School of Busl
Bureau
Patterson Hall
University of South Dakota
Vennillion, SD 57069
Ms. Karen Bihlmeyer
(605) 677-5287
The State Planning Bureau
South Dakota Deparonent of
Executive Management
Stat« Capitol Building
Pierre, SD 57501
Mr. Tony Merry, Cotanlssioner
(605) 773-3661
Documents Department
The South Dakota State Library
Department of Education and
Cultural Affairs
800 N. Illinois Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501
Ms. Rose OaLevekl
(605) 773-3131
Research and Statistics Unit
South Dakota Dept. of Labor
607 North 4th Street
Aberdeen, SD 57401
Ms. Mary Susan Victors
(605) 622-2314
•State Planning Office
Janes K. Polk State Office Bldg.
505 Deadrick Street, Suite 1800
Kashville, TM 37219
Mr. Lewis Lavine, Executive Direct
*Ur. Charles Brown
(615) 741-1678
Center for Business and
Econcnic Research
University of Tennessee
Room 100, Glocker Hall
KncacTine, TN 37916
Ms. Betty Vickers
(615) 974-5441
TEXAS
Data Management Program
Governor's Office of Planning
and Intergovernmental Relations
P.O. Box 13561
San Houston ftrnH'*"gl Rm. 411
Austin, IX 78711
*Ms. Bonnie Young
(512) 475-8386
Department of Rural Sociology
Texas A and M University Systen
Special Services Building
College Station, TX 77843
Dr. Steve tfurdock
(409) 845-5115
'Denotes key contact person
F-21
-------
VERMONT
Texas Natural Resources
Information System
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711 j.
Mr. John Wilson
(512) 475-3321
Texas State Library
Archive Conndssion
P.O. Box. 12927
Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711
Mr. Allen Quinn
(512) 475-2998
UTAH
Office of Planning and
Budget
State Capitol, Boom 116
Salt Lake City, OT 84114
Mr. Kent Brlggs, Director
Mr. Brad Barker
*Mr. Jim Eobsoa
533-6082
Bureau of Economic and
Business Research
Business Building
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Rooda Brlnkerhoff
(801) 581-6333
Population Research Laboratory
Utah State University
Logan, OT 84322
Mr. William Stinner
(801) 750-1242
Department of Employment Security
174 Social Hall Avenue
P.O. Box 11249
Salt Lake City, UT 84147
Mr. Sen Jensen
(801) 533-2436
Denotes key contact person
Vermont State Planning Office
Pavilion Office Building
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
Mr. Bernard Johnson
•Mr. David Healy
(802) 328-3326
Center for Rural Studies
University of Vermont
25 Colchester Avenue
Burlington, VT 05401
Mr. Fred Schmidt, Director
Mr. Sam McReynolds
(802) 656-3021
Vermont Department of Libraries
111 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
Ms. Patricia Klinck, State Librarian
(802) 828-3265
Vermont Agency of Development
*nt\ ComoBunity Affairs
Pavilion Office Building
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
Mr. Barry Driscoll
(802) 828-3211
VIRGINIA
Department of Planning % Budget
445 Ninth Street Office Bldg.
P.O. Box 1422
Richmond, VA 23211
Mr. Stuart V. Connock, Director
*Ms. Julie Henderson
(804) 786-7843
Tayloe Murphy Institute
University of Virginia
Dynamics Building, 4th Floor
2015 Ivy Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Dr. Charles Meiburg, Director
Dr. Julie Martin
Dr. Michael Spar
(304) 371-2661
Virginia State Library
12th and Capitol Streets
Richmond, VA 23219
Ms. T.
-------
THGIN ISLANDS
Department of Cctnnerce of the
virgin Islands
P.O. Box 6400
Charlotte Araali*
St. Tbofflas, VI 00801
**r. Richard Moore
(809) 774-8784 z2I4
WASHINGTON
Forecasting & Estimation Division
Office of Financial Management
400 East Onion
Mall Stop 51-13
OlympU, WA 96504
*Ur. Lawrence Weisser
(206) 754-2808
Washington State Library
State Library Building
Olympia, Washington 98504
Mr. Roderick G. Swarcz
Mr. Rushton Bnndis
(206) 753-5424
Urban Data Center
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
Mr. Edgar Hot-wood, Director
Mr. Bob Shavcroft
(206) 543-7625
Social Research Center/
Department of Rural Sociology
Room 133, Wilson Sail
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164
Dr. Annabel Cook
(509) 335-1511
«
Department of Sociology/
Demographic Research Laboratory
Western Washington University
BellinghJUB. WA 98225
Mr. Lucky Tedrow, Director
(206) 676-3617
Technical Information Services/
University Library
Eastern Washington University
Cheney, WA 99004
Mr. Jay Rea
(509) 235-2475
Office of Institutional Studies
Central Washington University
Ellensburg, WA 98926
Dr. John Purcell, Director
Mr. John R. Dugan
(509) 963-1856
WEST VIRGINIA
Goonwity Development Division
Governor's Office of Economic
and CcoBuaity Development
Capitol Complex
Building 6, Room 553
Charleston, WV 25305
Mr. Miles Dean. Director,
Gov.'a Office of Econ & Conn Dev.
Mr. Fred Cut lip, Director,
Community Development Division
*Ms. {Catherine Shiflet
(304) 348-4010
Reference Library
West Virginia State Library Commissi
Science and Cultural Center
Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
Ms. Karen Goff
(304) 348-2045
Office of Health Services Research
Department of Community Health
West Virginia University
900 Chestnut Ridge Road
Morgantovn, WV 26505
Ms. Virginia Petersen
(304) 293-2601
•Denotes key contact person
F-23
-------
WISCCH5IN
Demographic Services Center
Department of Administration
101 South Webster St., 7th Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, VI 53707
Mr. Don toll
(608) 266-1067
•Mr. Robert Naylor
(608) 266-1927
Applied Population Laboratory
Department of Rural Sociology
University of Wisconsin
1450 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
Us. Doris Slesinger
Mr. Stephen Tbrdella
(608) 262-1515
•Denotes key contact person
F-24
-------
APPENDIX G
ECONOMIC TESTS FOR DETERMINING CLASS I - IRREPLACEABLE
AND CLASS III - UNTREATABLE GROUND WATERS
G-l
-------
INTRODUCTION
I. Economic Tests for Class I-Irreolaceable and Class III-
Untreatable Ground Waters
Ground-water classes are designed to provide a basis for
differential protection of ground waters: Class I ground
waters are those warranting higher degrees of control to
provide extraordinary levels of protection, and Class III
ground waters are those warranting the lesser levels of
protection due to their use and value. Protection of ground
water has both social benefits and social costs. The
principal social benefits of ground-water protection are
protection of human health and the environment and preserva-
tion of socially and economically-valuable ground-water
resources. The social costs of protection result from the
loss of the economic and other benefits of using the re-
source .
The Agency's Ground--Water Protection Strategy is based
on the principle that the highest value of a ground water is
as a current or potential source of drinking water. Certain
ground waters warrant a high level of protection because the
value of protecting their use as a source of drinking water
far exceeds the potential social costs of protection. Con-
versely, the value of protecting certain other ground waters
is very limited because it would be infeasible or inordinate-
ly expensive or impractical to use them as a source of
drinking water due to contamination or other factors, and so
these ground waters warrant a lower level of protection. The
economic tests for Class I-irreplaceable and Class III-
untreatable ground waters are designed to identify ground
waters that warrant higher or lower levels of protection
based on their economic value as a source of drinking water.
These tests are, however, only several of many class-deter-
mining factors.
The economic test for Class I complement the technical,
institutional and hydrogeological assessments of irreplace-
ability and untreatability. The need to include economic
considerations can be illustrated by considering the result
of performing classifications without applying the proposed
economic tests. Failure to include the economic tests in
determining class designations could result in some undesir-
able Class II designations. For example, ground waters that
are replaceable based on technical and institutional crite-
ria, but are highly valuable economic sources of water for a
substantial population because they would be excessively
expensive to replace, would be designated as Class II (in
lieu of Class III) without the economic test. Similarly, a
G-2
-------
ground water that can be treated to drinking water standards,
but only at such excessive expense, by national standards,
that its use as drinking water is an extremely remote
possibility, would be designated as Class II (in lieu of
Class III) without the economic test. Incorporating the
economic test would promote more appropriate class designa-
tions and corresponding levels of protection in such circum-
stances .
The economic tests for determining Class I-irreplaceable
and Class III-untreatable ground water have similar struc-
tures and components. They are both simple, implementable
proxies for an exhaustive socioeconomic evaluation of the
benefits of protection. These tests are intended for use as
"screening" tools only. Classifiers may employ more detailed
analyses in making a Class III untreatable classification,
depending on the availability of data and site-specific
factors. In whichever level of analyses is performed, site-
specific factors should be considered in determining the
socioeconomic value of protection.
Each test involves comparing site-specific water supply
costs with a cost threshold based on local or regional income
levels. The cost of a replacement or alternate water supply
system is estimated to approximate the value of ground water
that is currently used as a drinking water source (a Class I
candidate ground water). When the costs of replacement are
high, the economic value of protection is high and the ground
water, therefore, warrants a high level of protection. Using
a similar approach, the cost of using the ground water as a
source of drinking water is estimated as a measure of the
value of protecting contaminated ground water that is not
currently used as a drinking water source (a Class III
candidate ground water). In this case, the cost of treating
the ground water is inversely related to the value of
protection. If this cost is extraordinarily high and other
sources are available, the economic value of protecting the
ground water is low because the ground water is unlikely to
be utilized or provide other beneficial uses and the ground
water, therefore, warrants limited protection.
The tests utilize a percentage of local or regional
household income as a cost threshold for comparison with the
estimated water supply costs to make the class determina-
tions. The use of a local household income measure to
establish a cost threshold, rather than a national standard,
allows the tests to reflect variations in local economic
conditions, and thus, provides a measure of local economic
"burden" associated with a particular cost. Variations in
cost estimates among ground waters will, in general, be much
G-3
-------
more significant than variations in income levels for class
determinations using these tests.
The percentages of household income proposed as cost
thresholds are based on typical water supply costs relative
to household income of the service communities. Current data
show that annual water supply costs typically range between
0.1 percent and 1.0 percent of household income. Mean or
average costs are about 0.3 percent. Therefore, a cost
threshold exceeding 0.3 percent of household income will
identify inordinately high costs, and so thresholds exceeding
0.3 percent are proposed for both the Class I and Class III
economic tests.
The percent threshold proposed for the Class I-irre-
placeable ground water test approximates the very highest
costs that people pay for a water supply. Water supply cost
data show this level to be between 0.7 and 1.0 percent of
household income. For Class III, the overall percent
threshold is based on more average percentage of household
income that people typically pay, i.e., 0.3 to 0.4 percent.
For Class III an additional "treatment cost threshold" is
also proposed, however, to focus the classification decision
on whether or not the ground water is untreatable. If both
cost assessments are above this level, the ground water is
unlikely to be developed of a source of drinking water or for
other beneficial uses. This portion of the test is essential
in that, according to the Ground Water Protection Strategy,
Class III is reserved for areas of untreatable ground water.
Thus, the economic test must focus on this, to avoid desig-
nating as Class III, clean ground waters which are merely
expensive to develop because of their depth or distance-to-
population factors only.
The Agency has conducted sensitivity analyses of the
effects of varying the thresholds. Varying the percent
threshold has the effect of varying the number of ground
waters designated as either Class I and Class III under the
tests. Increasing the percentage thresholds decreases the
number of Class I and Class III designations and visa versa.
These analyses show that the percentage thresholds identify
inordinately high costs, and set a balance so that the number
of Class I or Class III designations that will be made will
correctly identify ground waters deserving either higher or
lower levels of protection. By setting thresholds at these
levels, classifiers would not be overprotective by creating
an unnecessarily large Class I group, or underprotective by
making too many Class III designations. The analyses
indicate that this balance is best achieved by using a
G-4
-------
different percentage of income threshold for the Class I test
than the threshold proposed for the Class III test.
The use of a Class III threshold of between 0.7 and 1.0
percent thus accords with the objective of restricting the
Class I designations to "special" ground waters, yet one
which results in a sizeable Class I.
In summary, the economic test criteria for Class I are
met when:
Water Supply System Replacement > 0.7-1.0 percent of mean
Costs (on an annualized basis) annual household income
A threshold of 0.3 percent to 0.4 percent is proposed
for analyzing total system costs in the Class III economic
test. Additional "treatment cost" thresholds are being
proposed to focus the Class III test on the economic "treata-
bility of the ground waters being classified." Recent
studies by EPA's Office of Drinking Water show that ground
water drinking-water supplies in water-scarce western states
can cost as much as $300 per household per year. An informal
survey of water utility rate increases that have been
approved in recent years, indicates that rate increases over
100 percent of current rates have been proposed and rarily
granted. These data provide indicators of when the ad-
ditional costs of treating a particular ground water may be
inordinately high. Therefore, the economic test criteria for
Class III are met when:
Annualized System Costs of an Alternative Water Supply
exceed 0.3-0.4 percent of mean annual household income
and
The Treatment Costs of an Alternate Water Supply
increase household water rates by more than 100 percent
or a total of $300/household/year.
The treatment cost threshold may be adjusted to reflect
regional or statewide treatment costs in comparable systems.
Classifiers may wish to incorporate more detailed economic
analyses which express the tradeoffs and/or benefits of
protecting a candidate Class III ground water for future
uses.
Ranges of values are being proposed so that classifiers
will have the flexibility to apply a threshold value that is
most appropriate for the situation. EPA is interested in
receiving comments on the use of these economic tests, and/or
other threshold values.
G-5
-------
II. Rationale for the Economic Test of Irreplaceability
(Class I)
The classifier may apply an economic test to determine
whether ground waters that currently serve a substantial
population (among other factors) warrant the special protec-
tion of a Class I designation.
The economic test of ground-water irreplaceability
complements the assessment of the availability and suit-
ability of an alternative water supply source by considering
the economic feasibility of utilizing the alternative.
Economic feasibility is determined by comparing typical costs
of drinking water supplies to the income of service communi-
ties. The test designates a ground water as Class I-irre-
placeable if (among other factors) the cost of utilizing an
alternative water source is excessive relative to the income
of the service community. Specifically, a potential replace-
ment source is defined to be economically infeasible if the
annual cost to a typical household user would exceed a
percentage of the mean household income in the community.
The economic test, thus, identifies ground-water sources
that are replaceable by technical and institutional criteria,
but have a particularly high economic value because potential
replacements are very costly, and therefore warrant a high or
special level of protection.
Percentage of Income Threshold for the Class I Economic Test
The proposed threshold for the economic test is a range
of 0.7 to 1.0 percent of annual household income. This range
has been chosen by comparing typical water supply costs to
the average annual household income of the service popula-
tions. Exhibit A presents data on typical water supply costs
relative to national average household income. The data show
that costs are typically between 0.1 percent and 0.3 percent
of average annual household income. Water supply costs
rarely exceed one percent of average household income. These
data suggest that the threshold percentage of household
income for the economic test should be chosen to exceed 0.3
percent to accord with the objective of identifying ground
waters that are particularly costly to replace as sources of
drinking water. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis of the
effects of employing alternative thresholds on the number of
Class I designations indicates that:
Class I representation is fairly insensitive to
economic thresholds between 1.0 percent and 0.5
percent
G-6
-------
EXHIBIT A
TYPICAL WATER SUPPLY COSTS
RELATIVE TO NATIONAL AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Typical water supply costs per $450 - 1,500
million gallons*
Typical water supply costs per $ 27 - 90
household per year*5
Average annual household $26,500
income0
Typical water supply costs as 0.1 percent •
percentage of average 0.3 percent
household income
aSource: Temple, Barker, and Sloane, Inc. 1982, Inflated to
1984 dollars.
bAssumes annual household usage of 60,000 gallons.
cSource: Average household income, 1983, Statistical Ab-
stract of the U.S.. 1986. Inflated to 1984
dollars.
G-7
-------
At a threshold of 1.0 percent, Class I representation
is dominated by non-economic Class I criteria; and
Class I representation is very sensitive to reduc-
tions in the threshold value below 0.5 percent.
The use of 0.5 percent or above thus accords with the
objective of restricting Class I designations to ground
waters for which the socioeconomic value of protection is
particularly high, but the designation is not so overly
restrictive that it would result in a negligible Class I.
Implementation of•the Economic Test
Implementation of the economic test has two principal
steps:
(1) Estimating the cost of developing an alternative
source to provide drinking water to the population
currently served by the ground water under review;
and
(2) Comparing the costs of the alternative for a
typical user household to the test percentage of
average household income for the population.
Estimation of Costsfor Alternative Water Source
The classifier must calculate the cost of the most
economical alternate systems. He or she may base the system
cost estimates on a system the same size as the one being
classified, or he/she may estimate the size of the system
that would be needed.
Water supply system costs can be broken down into four
major components:
(1) Acquisition;
(2) Treatment;
(3) Distribution and Transmission; and
(4) Support Services.
Each of these costs elements may be incurred in developing an
alternative source to supply a community with drinking water.
Acquisition costs are the costs of producing or acquiring
water, and can be thought of as the costs of getting the
water to the treatment plant. These costs include the
capital, operating, and maintenance costs of wells, reser-
voirs and aqueducts, and payments to suppliers for purchased
water. Treatment costs include the costs of treatment plant
G-8
-------
and equipment, and the costs of chemicals that are added to
the water. Distribution and transmission costs are the costs
of pumping the water from the treatment plant to the service
population, and the capital and maintenance costs of the
piping network. Support services costs are the costs of
administrative and customer services that are not directly
related to the physical process of delivering water.
Exhibit B shows the average cost structure of the small
and large systems surveyed by ACT Inc. (ACT Systems Inc.,
1977, 1979). Costs are separated into the four major
components, with the exception of interest expenses which
were not allocated to particular cost components, and have
been shown separately.
Water system costs vary depending on the scale of the
system. Exhibit C shows average costs for ground-water and
surface-water systems serving populations in various size
categories, based on survey data collected by Temple, Barker
and Sloane Inc. (Temple, Barker and Sloane Inc., 1982). The
data were collected in 1981 and have been inflated to 1984
dollars.
These data show that there are significant economies of
scale in systems operation. Systems serving populations of
approximately 300,000 have average costs of about $600 per
million gallons whereas systems serving populations between
2,000 and 20,000 have average costs in the range of $1,000-
$1,500. Also, for systems serving over 5,000 people, there
appears to be little difference between the average costs of
systems that use predominantly ground water and systems that
use predominantly surface water. Cost estimates for an
alternative source should, therefore, reflect the considera-
tion of the size of the system (determined by the population
currently served by the ground water under review).
Cost estimates should also reflect the scope of measures
that would be needed to supply the population from an
alternative source. Three basic possibilities arise when
developing an alternative water source: the first possibil-
ity is that only the acquisition component of the system
would be needed; the second is that both acquisition and
treatment components would be needed; the third is that, in
addition to acquisition and treatment components, a trans-
mission and distribution network would need to be construct-
ed. These situations would lead to different costs.
Acquisition costs only would be incurred when existing
treatment and distribution capacity could be used with the
alternative source. Source development may include such
G-9
-------
EXHIBIT B
TYPICAL COST STRUCTURES FOR WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS
Small Systems
Percentage Percentage
of of
Operating Operating
Expenses Expenses
Excluding
Interest
Large Systems
Percentage Percentage
of of
Operating Operating
Expenses Expenses
Excluding
Interest
Acquisition
Treatment
Distribution
and Transmission
Support Services
Interest Charges
Total
19
15
36
14
16
100
Charges
22
18
43
17
MM
0
15
10
31
25
19
100
Charges
19
13
38
30
-
aServing between 300 and 75,000 people.
^Serving over 75,000 people.
SOURCE: ACT Systems Inc., 1977, 1979
G-10
-------
EXHIBIT C
TYPICAL WATER SYSTEM COSTSa
(1984 $/million of gallons produced)
Source
Population Served by System Surface Water Ground Water
1,000 -
3,300 -
10,000 -
25,000 -
75,000 -
over 500,
3,300
10,000
25,000
75,000
500,000
000
1,085
1,063
795
727
596
457
1,493
924
718
710
606
574
aOperating expenses (including depreciation and capital
charges), inflated to 1984 dollars.
SOURCE: survey of Operating and Financial Characteristics of
Community Water Systems, Temple, Barker and Sloane,
Inc., 1982
G-ll
-------
measures as locating and drilling a new well field in an
alternative aquifer, or switching from a ground-water source
to a surface-water source.
Both acquisition and treatment costs may be incurred
when a difference in water quality between existing and the
alternative water source requires that additional treatment
processes be added in order to meet water quality standards.
For example, the ground-water supply for a community may
require no treatment other than chlorination; however,
switching to a nearby surface-water supply may require
addition of unit processes such a coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation, and filtration to the existing treatment plant
to remove contaminants entering the reservoir with surface-
water run-off.
Distribution and transmission costs may be incurred in
situations where the installation of a new distribution
system is necessary in order to supply the community with
drinking water from an alternative source. Such extensive
measures would generally be required in situations where a
population is currently served by a number of private wells
and the alternative would require a centrally located water
supply system. This situation is particularly applicable to
rural settings.
Estimation of costs for an alternative water source
should be conducted using site-specific information to the
fullest extent possible, because the costs of developing the
source can vary widely depending on site-specific factors,
and because the purpose of the test is to measure the effect
of these factors on costs. However, the data on average
system costs and cost structures presented in Exhibits B and
C may be used to estimate costs for the system components
that are likely to have similar costs to the national
average. In these cases, national average system component
costs for certain components would be combined with site-
specific or source-specific estimates for other system
components.
For example, development of an alternative source for a
community of 4,000 people currently served by private wells
may require development of all of the components of water
supply system in order to utilize a nearby lake, which is the
only suitable alternative source. In this case, the distri-
bution and transmission and support services components of
the system that would be required to develop this source
might be typical of systems of similar size nationwide. The
national average cost estimates could be used to estimate the
costs of these components. From Exhibit B we note that these
G-12
-------
components typically comprise 60 percent of the costs of a
small system (43 percent for distribution and transmission
plus 17 percent for support services). From Exhibit C, we
note that average costs per million gallons for surface water
systems that serve between 3/300 and 10,000 people are
$1,063. Thus $638 (60 percent of $1,063) could be used as
the estimate of distribution and transmission and support
service costs. (These costs would need to be inflated to the
base year for which cost estimates are required. Further
discussion of inflation adjustments can be found in Section
III of this Appendix and Appendix E, which discuss the
economic test for Class III ground-waters.) This estimate
would then be added to source-specific estimates of acquisi-
tion and treatment costs. Acquisition costs might differ
from national averages, for example, because use of the
alternative source may involve purchase of expensive water
rights and rights-of-way. Treatment costs might be high, for
example, because the alternative source contains fertilizer
and pesticide run-off from nearby agricultural land.
A number of information sources are available to
estimate site-specific component costs. These sources
include Federal and State agencies, architectural and
engineering consulting firms, trade associations, and local
water utilities. Various EPA reports on water supply and
water treatment are also good sources of cost information
(e.g., Gulp, et. al., 1978). (Specific discussion of the use
of data from Gulp, et. al., is provided in section III of
this Appendix in the context of cost estimation for the
economic test for Class III). Other sources include the
National Water Well Drilling Cost Survey (NWWA, 1979) for
cost estimates of ground-water source development (acquisi-
tion costs). When utilizing cost estimates from disparate
sources that refer to different time periods, care should be
taken to allow for inflation (as well as local variations in
labor and energy costs). EPA is expected to release updated
cost information over the coming years in preparation for the
implementation of the public water supply requirements of the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986. Until these data
are available, cost indices published quarterly by Engineer-
ing News Record can be used for this purpose.
Engineering costs are usually estimated in three
components: capital costs (e.g., construction, capital
equipment), operation and maintenance costs (e.g., labor,
equipment replacement & maintenance, utilities, administra-
tion) , and other costs (e.g., legal fees). Costs estimated
in this way should be converted to equivalent annual costs.
Annualization of capital costs is based on the expected
lifetime of the capital and the cost of finance. As a first
G-13
-------
approximation, capital costs may be annualized by multiplying
by a factor of 0.1. Thus:
Annualized Capital Costs - Capital Costs x Annualization
(Factor (0.1)
and
Annualized Costs - Annualized Capital Costs + o&M costs.
Appendix E provides further discussion of annualization
methodology.
For cost estimation, the required system size is
determined by the substantial population currently served by
the ground water under review. The following standard
assumptions may be used to estimate the water capacity
required to serve the population:
Average Household Size * 2.75 persons
Average Annual Household » 150,000 gallons
Water Usage1
For example, a population of 4,000 people would require
a system with an annual capacity of 218 million gallons
(4,000/2.75 x 150,000 gallons per annum). This is equivalent
to a capacity of approximately 0.6 million gallons per day
(MGD).
Estimated costs of system components should be expressed
on a common basis before they are combined. Typically costs
are expressed on a per thousand gallon or per million gallon
basis. (Exhibit C presents costs on a per million gallon
basis). Annualized costs can be easily expressed on this
basis by dividing annual costs by the capacity of the system.
Comparison of Costs with Average Household Income
Once the costs to utilize an alternative source have
been estimated, the economic test can be performed by
comparing the annual cost to a typical user household with
the average household income of the population currently
served by the ground water under review.
1150,000 gallons is used here to provide capacity for uses
other than residential uses. This figure is based on an
assumption of 150 gallons per person per day.
G-14
-------
The estimated costs to a typical user should be based on
the assumption that annual household water usage is 60,000
gallons. (Note that a higher assumption of water use
(150,000 gallons) is used when determining system size.)
Thus, if total estimated system costs are $1,000 per million
gallons, the annual costs for a typical household would be
$60 per household ($1,000/1,000,000 x 60,000). This figure
is then compared with the average annual household income of
the population served by the ground water under review. If
data on the average household income of this population is
not readily available, data for the county average household
income may be used instead. These data are readily available
from the Bureau of the Census publication entitled "County
and City Data Book", which can usually be found in local
libraries. Exhibit D presents state average household
incomes, for reference. These aggregated data should be used
instead only if more specific county data are unavailable.
Again, income data should be inflated to the base year of the
test.
When cost and income data have been compiled, the
following division can be performed:
Per Household Costs of UtilizingAlternative Source
Average Household Income
The division will generally yield a ratio between 0.05
and l percent. If less than 0.7 percent, the ground water
should be designated as Class II. If the result falls within
or above the range of 0.7 to 1.0 percent, the ground water
should be designated as Class I.
Example
A population of 6,000 (2,182 households) is currently
served by individual wells in the Classification Review Area.
The only viable alternative water source is a reservoir which
is currently used largely for agricultural purposes, and is
slightly contaminated by fertilizers and pesticides.
Utilization of this alternative would require development of
an acquisition system to pipe water to the population, a
treatment plant capable of treating the water to drinking
water standards, and distribution system to deliver the water
to the service population. Thus, all of the system com-
ponents would be required. The distribution and transmission
component of the system and support services are likely to be
similar to systems of similar size nationwide so national
cost estimates may be used for these components. However,
G-15
-------
EXHIBIT D
MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY STATE
(1980)
State
Alabama $21,200
Alaska $37,700
Arizona $25,100
Arkansas $19,700
California $28,100
Colorado $27,200
Connecticut $29,500
District of Columbia $26,300
Delaware $26,400
Florida $23,500
Georgia $23,200
Hawaii $30,900
Idaho $22,600
Iowa $24,600
Illinois $28,400
Indiana $25,400
Kansas $25,000
Kentucky $21,500
Louisiana $23,900
Maryland $30,100
Massachusettes $26,100
Michigan $27,900
Minnesota $26,100
Mississippi $19,800
Missouri $23,500
State
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
$22,600
$21,800
$22,800
$24,100
$27,600
$24,800
$29,400
$22,200
$26,000
$25,600
$23,000
$24,900
$24,800
$23,900
$22,200
$20,000
$21,700
$25,800
$28,700
$22,100
$26,400
$26,700
$21,800
$27,700
SOURCE: Bureau of the Census (1980), inflated to 1984 dollars.
G-16
-------
acquisition and treatment must be estimated based on the
specific circumstances.
Evaluation of this situation should proceed as follows:
i) Determine the system size.
The system would be required to supply a community with
approximately 2,182 households. The system capacity required
would be 327 million gallons annually, or 0.9 million gallons
per day (2,200 x 150,000 / 365 days). 150,000 gallons per
household represents a system size with capacity to supply
residential, commercial, and other uses.
ii) Determine system components required.
In the case, all of the basic system components would be
needed.
iii) Estimate costs of the system.
Distribution and transmission and support services
components are typical of national costs, so they may be
estimated using average values from Exhibits B and C. These
costs are estimated as 60 percent (43 percent plus 17
percent) of $1,063 per million gallons, i.e., $638 per
million gallons. Based on consultation with a local water
utility, this 1981 dollar figure is inflated by 45 percent to
reflect cost changes between 1981 and the year of the
analysis. A cost estimate of $925 per million gallons is,
therefore, used for these components.
A local engineering firm provides estimates of capital
costs of $850,000 to construct a pipeline from the source and
a treatment plant capable of treating the water to drinking
water standards, and operation and maintenance expenses of
$100,000 for the plant and pipeline in current dollars.
Thus, approximate annual acquisition and treatment costs are:
Annualized Capital Costs $ 85,000
(Calculated by multiplying
capital costs; $850,000, by
annualization factor; 0.1)
+ Annual O&M Costs $100.000
- Total Annual Costs $185,000
In addition, fees of $200 per million gallons would be
charged for use of water from the reservoir. Thus, total
acquisition and treatment costs would be $795 per million
gallons ($185,000 divided by 327 million gallons, plus $200).
G-17
-------
Totalling the costs for the system gives:
$765 + $925 - $1,690 per million gallons.
iv) Comparing costs for a typical user household to the
average household income.
Costs to the typical household are based on annual usage
of 60,000 gallons per household. The cost estimate implies
an annual cost of $101 for the typical user ($1,690 divided
by 1,000,000 X 60,000).
Recent census data shows that average household income
for the county is about $12,000. Thus, the test ration is:
$101
0.8 percent
$12,000
In this case, the costs of utilizing the alternative
source are so high that the ground water is irreplaceable
according to the economic test criteria, and so it warrants a
Class I designation.
G-18
-------
III. Economic Test to Indicate that Contaminated Ground Water
is Untreatable (Class III)
The economic test can be applied to determine whether a
contaminated ground water should be provided the level of
protection of a Class II or Class III ground water. This
test is provided for comment as a more rigorous test than the
"reference technology approach" discussed in the main
sections of these guidelines. Economic feasibility is
determined in this test with reference to typical costs of
drinking water supplies relative to the income of service
communities. Data show that annual water supply costs
typically represent between 0.1 percent and 0.3 percent of
the annual average income of the service community. The
economic test designates the ground water as Class III-
untreatable if the cost of treating the water to drinking
water standards and developing it as a source of drinking
water is excessive. Specifically, the use of a contaminated
ground water as a source of drinking water is defined to be
economically infeasible if the annual total cost (including
treatment) to a hypothetical user household would exceed a
percentage of the mean annual household income in the
hypothetical user population. A hypothetical user population
must be used because, by definition, the potential Class III
ground water is not currently used and, therefore, the test
must be based on a hypothetical user population.
The economic test, thus, identifies ground-water sources
which have particularly low economic value (under present or
foreseeable future conditions), because treatment and use of
such ground waters for drinking purposes would be very
costly, and highly unlikely, even though there may be
technical procedures available to render these of drinking
water quality. Such ground waters, therefore, warrant a
lower level of protection than other ground waters. Since
this a two-step process, the actual cost of treating the
ground water will be of utmost importance; again to avoid the
bias of designating "clean" ground waters as Class III due to
non-quality factors.
The first threshold test examines total costs over a
range of 0.3 to 0.4 percent of household income. This level
has been chosen with reference to typical water supply costs
relative to the mean household incomes of the service
populations. Typical water supply costs relative to national
average household income show that costs are typically
between 0.1 percent and 0.3 percent of the mean household
income. These data suggest that the threshold percentage of
household income for the economic test should be chosen to
exceed 0.3 percent to accord with the objective of identify-
G-19
-------
ing contaminated ground waters that are particularly costly
to treat and use as sources of drinking water.
The second step focuses on treatment costs when they
increase total system costs to a level which exceeds a total
household cost of $300 per year or when they increase current
rates more than 100 percent. These criteria are being
proposed for assessing "treatability." EPA is seeking
comment on these criteria.
Implementation of the Class III Economic Test
STEP 1; Determine Size of Hypothetical User Population
The first step in the economic burden test is to
determine the size of the "hypothetical user population",
that is, the population that could use (on a conceptual
basis) the ground water as a source of drinking water. The
size of the hypothetical user population is determined
through two approaches, with the second being the controll-
ing:
1) the mean population served by ground-water systems in
the state, and
2) a population that could be served by the maximum
sustained yield of the aquifer in question.
Exhibit E presents the mean size population served by
ground-water supply systems in each state. For example, the
mean population served by ground-water systems in the State
of Maryland is 3,916. These data may be used for the first
estimate.
The second estimate is determined based on the estimated
sustained yield of the aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey
office (e.g., District Office) in the state or the state
geological or water surveys will often have hydrogeological
information (e.g., maps, reports, and surveys) on most
aquifers within a state. Consultation with these and other
individuals with local expertise and experience can likely
provide a reasonable estimate of an aquifer's sustained
yield. For more detailed assessments, a review of boring
logs, geotechnical evaluations or other data sources will be
needed. Field assessments and ground-water monitoring may
also be needed to assess not only aquifer yield, but quality
parameters as well. Once the sustained yield is estimated, a
population equivalent can be determined based on an annual
water use of 150,000 gallons per household per year. For
example, geotechnical and hydrogeological data may indicate
that an area in Maryland, which is being classified, has an
G-20
-------
EXHIBIT E
MEAN POPULATION SIZE SERVED BY GROUND-WATER SYSTEMS
BY STATE OR TERRITORY
State
American Samoa
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
State
1,360 North Carolina
2,136 North Dakota
492 Nebraska
2,202 Nevada
1,848 New Hampshire
1,799 New Jersey
732 New Mexico
582 New York
1,083 Ohio
2,435 Oklahoma
1,050 Oregon
3,370 Pennsylvania
8,438 Puerto Rica
769 Rhode Island
1,492 South Carolina
2,707 South Dakota
2,141 Tennessee
1,614 Texas
903 Trust Territory
1,473 Utah
3,916 Vermont
3,072 Virgin Islands
1,297 Virginia
2,513 Washington
1.557 West Virginia
1,270 Wisconsin
278 Wyoming
422
665
839
466
610
5,639
1,702
1,779
2,085
1,109
540
742
3,037
1,690
841
930
5,269
1,384
306
1,287
433
65
388
848
842
1,331
508
SOURCE: ICF, Inc. Analysis, based on the Federal Reporting
Data System Interactive (FRDS/Interactive), which
identified public water supply systems (ground water
and surface water).
G-21
-------
estimated sustainable yield of 50 gallons per minute or
72,000 gallons per day (gpd). The population equivalent that
could be served by this yield is 480 (72,000 gpd divided by
150 gpd/person). Because the latter, hydrogeological factor
is controlling, the hypothetical user population for the
aquifer under review is assumed to be 480 persons. Using the
national average of 2.75 people/household, the user popula-
tion of 480 is equivalent to 175 households (i.e., 480 people
divided by 2.75 people/household).
STEP 2; Determine the Mean Annual Income Per Household
The second step in the economic burden test is to
determine the mean annual household income of the hypotheti-
cal user population. This determination may be made by
assuming it to be equal to the mean household income in the
county where the ground water is located. These data are
readily available from the Bureau of the Census publication
entitled "County and City Data Book", which can usually be
found in local libraries** When county-level data are not
available, state-level data may be used as default values.
Exhibit F indicates the mean annual income per household in
each state as provided by the 1980 Census inflated to 1984
dollars. In the State of Maryland, for example, the mean
annual income per household is $30,000 (1984 dollars).
STEP 3: Estimate The Cost of theWater Supply system
The next step is to estimate the cost of the ground-
water supply system which could serve the hypothetical user
population size determined in Step 1. In order to do this,
it is important to consider the four major cost components of
a newly developed water supply system: acquisition, treat-
ment, delivery, and support service.
Acquisition costs are primarily the costs of acquiring
and physically developing a water supply at the site. They
include the cost of the land, rights of way, and well field
development costs. The latter can vary depending on hydro-
geologic conditions, particularly the depth of the aquifer
and the geologic formation overlaying the aquifer.
Treatment costs include the costs of the treatment plant
and equipment, and the costs of the chemicals that are added
to the water. For a water of given quality, the costs of
treatment depend on the quantity of water treated and the
treatment technologies used. The capacity of a treatment
plant is determined by the size of the population. (Much of
the cost analysis for Step 3 will pertain to treatment
costs.)
G-22
-------
EXHIBIT F
MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME BY STATE
(1980)
State
Alabama $21,200
Alaska $37,700
Arizona $25,100
Arkansas $19,700
California $28,100
Colorado $27,200
Connecticut $29,500
District of Columbia $26,300
Delaware $26,400
Florida $23,500
Georgia $23,200
Hawaii $30,900
Idaho $22,600
Iowa $24,600
Illinois $28,400
Indiana $25,400
Kansas $25,000
Kentucky $21,500
Louisiana $23,900
Maryland $30,100
Massachusetts $26,100
Michigan $27,900
Minnesota $26,100
Mississippi $19,800
Missouri $23,500
State
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming
$22,600
$21,800
$22,800
$24,100
$27,600
$24,800
$29,400
$22,200
$26,000
$25,600
$23,000
$24,900
$24,800
$23,900
$22,200
$20,000
$21,700
$25,800
$28,700
$22,100
$26,400
$26,700
$21,800
$27,700
SOURCE: Bureau of the Census (1980), inflated to 1984 dollars.
G-23
-------
Delivery costs include transmission and distribution
costs. Transmission costs are the costs of pumping the water
from the treatment plant to the main distribution network.
Distribution costs include the cost for the piping network
which provides the water to the water users.
Support services are primarily administrative and
customer service costs that are associated with the manage-
ment of a water supply system.
Because a Class III candidate ground water is not
currently used, it would typically be necessary to include
all four of the system components in estimating the costs of
developing this resource as a water supply source. Each cost
component needs to be evaluated on a site-specific basis.
However, default values can be used to estimate acquisition,
and support services costs if it can be shown that the site
has no extraordinary characteristics that would result in
costs which are substantially different from the national
average costs for a system of that size. Because the class
III candidate ground water is contaminated, default values
should not be used to evaluate treatment costs. Treatment
costs are strictly site-specific and are determined by the
nature and level of contamination of the ground water.
Default values for acquisition, delivery, and support
service costs can be derived from Exhibits G and H. Exhibit
G presents annualized costs (i.e., annualized capital and
O&M) for ground-water systems of various sizes, based on
nationwide data. The costs are expressed as 1984 dollars per
million gallons ($/MG). Thus, if the total annual water
demand is known, Exhibit H can be used to estimate the annual
system cost (excluding treatment costs). Exhibit H presents
the relative contribution of cost components to the total
water supply system cost. These percentages are based on
water supply systems across the nation and grouped into two
size categories: 300 to 75,000 population and greater than
75,000 population. For example, acquisition costs for a
system serving a population of 5,000 typically represent 22
percent of total costs.
As an example of how to use Exhibits G and H, assume a
user population of 5,000 (1,800 households). Exhibit G
indicates that for a user population of this size, the annual
cost of ground-water supply systems equals $924 (1984
dollars) for each million gallons produced. Because acquisi-
tion, delivery/ and support services costs make up 82 percent
of this total cost (Exhibit H) , total costs, excluding
treatment costs, to the hypothetical user population of using
the ground water as a source of drinking water amount to $758
G-24
-------
EXHIBIT G
COSTS OF GROUND-WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS2*
BY POPULATION SIZE CATEGORY
(1984 $/xnillion gallons produced)
Population Served by System Annual Cost
25 - 1,000 4,616
1,000 - 3,300 1,493
3,300 - 10,000 924
10,000 - 25,000 718
25,000 - 75,000 710
75,000 - 500,000 606
over 500,000 574
aOperating expenses (including depreciation and capital
charges, inflated to 1984 dollars.
SOURCE: Survey of Operating and Financial Characteristics of
Community Water Systems. Temple, Barker and Sloane,
Inc., 1982
G-25
-------
EXHIBIT H
COST COMPONENTS AS PERCENTAGES
OF WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM COSTS
System Serving System Serving
300-75,000 Greater than 75,000
Population Population
Cost Component (% of total costs)a (% of total costs)a
Acquisition
Delivery
Service
Total
22
43
11
82
19
38
30
87
aTotal costs are the sum of annualized capital costs and O&M
costs.
SOURCE: ACT Systems, Inc., 1979.
G-26
-------
(1984 dollars) per million gallons produced (i.e., $924 x 82
percent). The total annual water usage is 270 million
gallons (i.e., 1,800 households x 150,000 gallons per
household per year), so the annual costs to the hypothetical
user population for acquisition, delivery, and support
services are $204,660 (i.e., $758/mg x 270 mg).
Determining the most economic treatment system involves
a series of assessments. First, the specific ground-water
contamination problem in the Classification Review Area must
for a Class-Ill determination be fully characterized. Again,
the contamination problem should be areal in extent, and
cannot be attributed to a specific disposal site or other
activity. Much of the data may be provided in program-
specific permit applications, although supplemental informa-
tion may be available from US6S, local authorities, and local
research organizations.
Once the contamination has been characterized, the
desired water quality levels should be determined for each
chemical constituent of concern. If all chemical constitu-
ents of concern are present at less than drinking water
standards (MCLs) or Health Advisories, the water requires no
treatment.
The next step is to identify all of the treatment trains
which are capable of reducing contaminant concentrations to
the desired range. Exhibit I tabulates contaminant removal
efficiencies for common treatment technologies. Any treat-
ment technology which does provide removal of any of the
contaminants of concern may be eliminated from further
consideration. The process of identifying the treatment
trains which are capable of achieving the desired concentra-
tion levels can be done systematically by evaluating all
possible combinations of treatment technologies from among
the non-eliminated choices, or may be done heuristically
using expert judgement.
The treatment trains identified in this process can then
be costed out, and the least costly selected. Any of these
treatment trains that includes another of the treatment
trains as a subset, can be disregarded because it will
clearly be inefficient. (In some cases, public water systems
add apparently redundant technologies to remove chemical
constituents for 'aesthetic' reasons, or to provide backup
treatment to accommodate fluctuations in influent quality.)
If no treatment trains can be identified, the ground water
will automatically be Class III.
G-27
-------
•o
to
13
t-H
r-<
U
M
-*•
u:
J
PS
2:
i
H
§
O
U
.J
EC
a
>
w
3:
u
<
>
5
rj
<
CJ
t-H
A.
£
t*
a:
2
U
ce
c
0
'+_)
CO
c
o
N
0
0>
60
C
ffl
C X
0 U
(t
•o c
o> o
z: *
i-H *J
3 -H
C -H
(13 U-
Li
O
C
0
n
o
U-
c
c
(fl
c
to
w
01
Q
C
Q
to 4J
U CO
"e £
o) a.
X "H
u u
01
it
o-
c
o
C "H
O 4J
x a.
ffl 0
C «
•a
oc
c c
•rt O
a -H
a. *j
•r- «
U OJ
en <
in o r^
CN a*
S — 1 U>
*J > O
01 01 <-<
U 0) E 10 3 U
e3a>— IO>-EQ
OJ -H N E X O O i
Wk-C'O>-'-«l-'-H
^ccpauLJUL;--'
0
o
&
0)
c
a;
X
JZ
01
0
0
u
b
u
fsl
-H
o
m
iA
Q)
c
0)
X
JZ
•u
o
X
u
o
£
~
u
01
4J
2
QJ
o
o
o
£
u
o|
u
0 | g
o
V-X X
o o o o
CO O
OL,
0)
c
4J
e oi
o c
U CQ
O X C
y -9 Q -o
o rj au
0 0 0> 0
r~- o 00 ^ O
o oom ooooom r^. om
n ininin ^H(N^PJ o ^ \Of*^
u
•c
coinin r>. inoo oor^
O
u
Oino o f^-ooo oo ooo
*> *> & i-. c^-3-oom o ^ow®
u
u u u
•C Ui -O
u ~* -* ^ ^
u u
U UXXX XXX >-l 4J rH X «
^H T) X 0) X 4J X
00 X X Li 0 0) 4J
X 4-i O 01 flJ 0 0)
0)0)0)0) U E «-H CtiLiCUE
C T3 T) C 0) X 0> 3 XOJOlf-OHOW
OJ-Hi-HCC C*-i-«*J 'Hl^OCjCli-lliHO)
i— i U (fl X <03Xn) CO>(00)Q.<*^XiAtOC
XOEV*O*OUXV> > w 3 « -u - x a>
X 3 U X dj C l-l4J4-'COrH>-<4J'-H X ^- 'H -C -rt 1— 1
W^fc C.JJrrZCucnWHHH-'HtNHX
m
01 0!
M 1-1
o a
X 4J
u
O 0)
*J 4-1
U i— I
CO
^H
'e *
•5 x
W (t
E «
01 >
+j m
w
X E
i-
c
01
E *o
4-> 01
n) 4J
01 t
k> u
4_i Q)
c
00 01
C QC
in o>
CO
c
0 ^H
-ft (0
AJ >
3 0
O 0)
V) t-i
L4 0)
UH U
•v o>
I8*
0) vi
0
01 -H
CO
4j a>
a.
T3 0
0>
4J *J
u c
8.1
X 4J
0) (0
01
a> t-
X «->
C U4
U 4-)
u
-H Q)
•S-3
u
4J
c -u
(0 O
• M -rH
ia
4J Ui
c o
o
U 01
<*H (C
o u
w
*J tH
C -H
01 3
t,
S..S
01 T3
X 0)
*•* ^
4J 4-i
c w
0) C
M -^
u x
0> 4J
I- C
0)
« 3
ec
o
01
>
"^
CO
c
01
(0
0)
(-
01
L.
OJ
k.
Ifl
Ll
i
c
01
I
t-
4J V>
C 0)
u u
u c
8."
u
in •*•
C- «*-(
1!
X OJ
*J tt
C 01
01 1-
o *->
^
V E
a 01
X
01 U
tfl HH
c u
0>
a> a
X tfl
4J
y-i
0 0
*J
w
u
•e o
T3 to
o -u
u c
OJ
3
•U 0
fO X
"
C *J
O 0
— c
4-1
U V
OJ l-
tfl CO
t3
w c
.H ns
x
«
u
c
•a 01
01 U
X S
4- 0)
OJ
(0
01 0>
VI JZ
.- u
oc
c
a
a
*£
ir
-
c
(t:
«
>
o
E
a>
0)
>
o
0!
u-
a;
w
a
•o
u
a.
w
c
(0
c
3
u
IM
01
CO
to
T!
•v
01
o
a
0)
X
oc
0
X
-
£.
tL
-
(C
QJ
0)
*-
c
0)
CO
CO
>
CO
01
u
3
1C
3
0>
>
C3
5
~
X
J
1
_
^
L.
z
rt
—
>
c-
jr
•""
&
u
c
&.
t
t-
s
re
ct
J
=
It
—
K
V.
je.
r;
__
G-28
-------
To cost out the treatment trains, the individual system
components should be listed. Exhibit J lists the system
components typically required with each treatment technology.
When using published cost curves, it is important to read the
accompanying test which describes the system components
included in the cost curve, and identifies which components
must be costed separately. The following reference (along
with Gulp et al.) provide cost curves for a range of treat-
ment technologies and system sizes:
Estimating Water Treatment Costs. Gummerman, Gulp and
Hansen, EPA 600/2-79-162a.
Treatability Manual. Technologies For the Control
Removal of Pollutants, EPA 600/2-82-001C; and
Estimation of Small System Water Treatment Costs. EPA
600/2-84-184a.
Again, updated cost assessments will likely be available from
EPA or the water utility industry, under the public water
supply provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments
of 1986. The costs references generally provide separate
estimates of capital costs and annual O&M costs. These can
be annualized based on the expected lifetime of the capital
and the cost of finance. As a first approximation, capital
costs may be annualized by multiplying by a factor of 0.1.
Thus:
Annualized Capital Costs » Capital Costs x Annualization
Factor (0.1)
and
Annualized Costs = Annualized Capital Costs + O&M Costs
Appendix E provides further discussion of annualization
methodology.
Costs calculated in this way for eight standard treat-
ment technologies are presented in Exhibit K.
As an example, the annualized costs to treat a ground-
water contaminated with air stripping, precipitation, and
rapid sand filtration for a system supplying a population of
5,000 (or 1,800 households) would be approximately $159,800
(the sum of $28,000 for air stripping, $62,700 for precipita-
tion, and $69,100 for rapid sand filtration) in 1982 dollars.
This figure should be inflated to a dollar figure for the
base-year of the analysis. It should then be divided by the
G-29
-------
EXHIBIT J
DEFAULT COMPONENTS OF EACH TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY
Aeration/Air Stripping
Aeration tower
In-plant pumping
Activated Carbon
Carbon columns
Backwash pumping
Washwater surge basin
Chemical Precipitation
Lime feed system
Contact clarifier
Sludge pumping
Sludge drying beds
Slugde hauling
Desalination
Reverse Osmosis
In-plant pumping
Filtration
Granular media filtration
beds
Granular media
Backwash pumping
Washwater sewage basin
Ion Exchange
Pressure Ion Exchange System
Ozonation
Ozonation system
Ancillary Operations
Administrative
Raw water pumping
Polished water pumping
Clearwell storage
Flotation
Dissolved air flotation
Sludge pumping
Sludge drying beds
Sludge hauling
G-30
-------
EXHIBIT K
ANNUALIZED COSTS OF TYPICAL TREATMENT COMPONENTS
FOR TOUR TYPICAL PLANT SIZES
Population Served
Component
Aeration/
Air Stripping
Activated
Carbon
Chemical
Precipitation
Desalination
Flotation
Filtration
Ion Exchange
Ozonation
Ancillary
Operations
500
$16,500
$18,800
$35,200
$43,900
$30,100
$56,200
$10,100
$6,000
$25,900
2.500
$20,700
$27,000
$51,500
$109,500
$37,300
$61,400
$26,400
$7,000
$24,000
5.000
$28,000
$33,900
$62,700
$171,500
$48,900
$69,100
$38,900
$9,300
$46,200
25.000
$70,200
$113,900
$127,700
$595,600
$109,800
$107,700
$74,800
$19,200
$110,900
All figures are in 1982 dollars.
G-31
-------
number of households in the hypothetical population to
calculate an annual cost per household. This value in turn
is divided by the annual average (mean) household income and
a percentage is then derived. This value is then employed in
STEP 5 to classify the ground water.
STEP 5; Classify the Ground Water
Two threshold values must be considered in completing
the Class III test: first, the total system cost threshold
and then secondly, the treatment cost threshold. If the
value estimated in STEP 4 exceeds the proposed range of
"total system cost threshold" percentages (0.3-0.4 percent)
and the treatment cost component of total system costs
increase water rates more than 100 percent or establish a
rate greater than $300 per household per year, than the
ground water is Class III. If the value is less than the
proposed range of economic criteria percentages and the
treatment cost threshold, then the ground water is Class II.
Because the Class III test must focus on whether or not
a particular ground water source is untreatable, the classi-
fier must focus on the treatment costs associated with
similarly-sized or comparable systems. Current data show
that treatment costs nationwide typically comprise 18 percent
of the total cost of systems serving 300-75,000 population
and 13 percent of the total costs of systems serving more
than 75,000 population (ACT Systems, Inc., 1979). In making
a Class III designation the classifier must compare the
effect that treatment costs of the system being classified
will have on household water bills. If treatment costs
produce a household rate greater than $300 per year or a rate
increase greater than 100 percent over current rates (or any
other baseline percentage as established for similarly-sized
or comparable systems within a state or region) then the
ground water is Class III-untreatable.
In some cases the classifier may wish to undertake
additional analyses of the treatment costs. If, for in-
stance, a ground water resource is being classified in the
arid southwestern United States where acquisition and
delivery costs comprise a major part of total system costs
and, yet, very costly treatment technologies would need to be
employed, the classifier may wish to compare the treatment
costs associated with the system being classified with
typical treatment costs of similarly-sized or comparable
systems elsewhere in the state or EPA region, instead of
comparing them against a national standard. Again, the
objective of this test is to determine which systems would
G-32
-------
require treatment processes which are so costly that they are
"economically" untreatable.
Example
A Class IIIA determination is being considered for a
hypothetical site in Maryland. Past industrial activity and
urban recharge have resulted in generally poor water quality
of the aquifer. As a result, an application for continued
land disposal activity includes a Class IIIA determination.
The five steps of the Class III economic test are examined in
this hypothetical problem.
STEP 1: Determine Population Size/Number of Households
Due to widespread industrial contamination, local ground
water in the area has been not used for drinking in more than
30 years. Public water is supplied from a surface water
source. Since the ground waters are shallow, a Class IIIB
assessment is unlikely.
The US Geological Survey District Office has been
consulted to obtain old water supply reports for the area as
to estimate the yield of the aquifer under review. Based on
these reports, the Classification Review Area would support a
sustained yield of approximately 625 gallons-per-minute (gpm)
which is equivalent to 0.9 mgd. This yield could reasonably
serve a population of 6,000, assuming water usage of 150
gpd/person.
Exhibit E indicates that the mean population size served
by ground-water systems in Maryland is 3,900. Because the
3,900 average is less than the 6,000 population (based on
yield), the classifier may choose which hypothetical popula-
tion figure is most appropriate. If, for instance, the
ground-water resource being classified is in the path of
encroaching development (even though such development will
not utilize local ground water) the higher figure may be
selected for analysis. In this example, the 6,000 figure is
used as the hypothetical user population. This population
figure represents about 2,182 households (i.e., 6,000 people
divided by 2.75 people/household).
STEP 2; Determine the Mean Annual Income Per Household
In Maryland, the mean annual income per household is
$30,100 (see Exhibit F). This income estimate is used in the
absence of more specific survey data.
G-33
-------
STEP 3; Estimate the Cost of the Water Supply System
The first part of this step is to estimate the acquisi-
tion, delivery, and service costs of the water supply system.
These system components are assumed to be typical of national
average costs, so they may be estimated using data from
Exhibits G and H. A population of 6,000 people will use
about 329 million gallons of water per annum (i.e., 6,000
people x 150 gpd/person x 365 days) . The annual cost for a
typical ground-water system to produce this amount of water
is about $303,996 (i.e., 329 MG x $924/MG from Exhibit G) in
1984 dollars. Finally, the estimated system cost apportioned
to acquisition, delivery and service is approximately
$249,277 (i.e., $303,996 x 82 percent from Exhibit H).
To determine the system treatment cost, the procedure
described in the preceding section should be used. Samples
of ground-water from old industrial supply, wells were
obtained. The ground water contains a non-volatile, non-
biodegradable organic compound, a set of volatile organics,
and elevated levels of heavy metals. In order to use this
contaminated ground water as a drinking water source, a
relatively sophisticated treatment train would likely be
employed, consisting of: (1) air stripping; (2) precipita-
tion; and (3) filtration. An estimate of the annualized
costs of treating this ground-water source with a treatment
plant using these processes (with a capacity to serve 5,000
people) were developed in the preceding discussion, and are
$159,800 in 1982 dollars. This cost is inflated from 1982 to
1984, assuming an inflation factor of 35 percent, to give
1984 costs of $215,700. This figure can then be pro-rated
(assuming that treatment costs remain constant) for a
population of 6,000 to yield an estimate of $258,840 (i.e.,
$215,700 X 6,000/5,000).
Estimated total annual costs for the system are there-
fore:
Acquisition, Distribution and $249,277
Transmission, and Support Services
+ Treatment $258.840
Total Annual Costs $508,117
Total annual costs per household are $233 ($508,117
divided by 2,182 households).
G-34
-------
STEP 4; Compute the Economic Test
The economic test is as follows:
annualized water system cost per household
mean annual income per household
substituting the numbers estimated from Steps 1, 2, and 3,
the economic test becomes:
$233 - 0.77 percent
$30,100
STEP 5; Classify the Ground Water
The threshold value range of the Class III economic test
is 0.3 percent to 0.4 percent, which is less than 0.77
percent, so the ground water is determined to be a potential
Class IIIA.
STEP 6; Compare Comparable Treatment Costs;
Because the Class III — untreatable designation depends
on the costs of treating water as drinking water, it is
necessary to examine the effect that treatment costs have on
total system cost. In this example the treatment cost alone
comprises 51 percent of the total cost. When compared with
the treatment costs of similarly-sized or comparable systems
where treatment costs are typically 18 percent of the total
system costs, it can be determined that in this case the
treatment costs are relatively high. Further, data show that
the current average residential water bill is $101 per
household per year. The new cost of $233 represents more
than a 100 percent increase in costs, therefore, the resource
being classified is economically untreatable and, therefore,
Class IIIA.
G-35
-------
REFERENCES
Act, Systems, Inc., 1979. Volumes I & II, Managing Small
Water Systems: A Cost Study Prepared for U.S. EPA,
Water Supply Research Division. Municipal Environmental
Research Labs, MERL.
Act, Systems, Inc., 1977. Volumes I and II, The Cost of
Water Supply & Water Utility Management," Prepared for
U.S. EPA Water Supply Research Division, MERL.
National Water Well Association, 1979. Water Well Drilling
Cost Survey. NWWA, Worthington, Ohio.
G-36
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, 11 60604-3590
U,S. Environmental
------- |