TD811
.5M39
1988
OOOR88101
FY 1988
MEASURABLE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESULTS INITIATIVES
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
IMPACTS ON GROUND WATER
-------
o
<
ad
>
ID
'-' h
H Q
£
o
HH
O
w
K
Q
_l
<
Z
O
o
LJ
LT
CO
<:
0
\£
CO
5
_j
>-
LU
_1
Z
<
GO
b_
LU
GO
2
CO
LU
2
<
~D
Z
o
CO
>
Q
h-
Z
LU
LU
O
<
Z
<
LU
1
CO
<
CO
ID
O
Q
o:
<
M
<
X
of
o
h-
o
LU
cr
Q
o
ID
GO
ft:
LU
CO
CO
<
STEPHEN R
X
O
Z
<
cr
m
i
z
UJ
UJ
o
<
z
<
LU
o:
o
ROBERT E.
Z
O
h-
o
LU
00
^
z
<
LU
0
<
cr
o
i
CO
Q
Z
LO
0
LT
0 Q,
cr o
LJ ^
Q <
Z z
Z GO"
^ LU
^ 5
LU ^
X ^
o
LT
LU
O
<
Z
<
:>
^±r
h-
O
LU
O
o:
CL
LU
^
o:
z>
m
JEFFREY J.
CO
L±J
LJ
>-
O
_l
Q_
^
LU
Q_
LU
LU
(f}
\
Z
LU
Q
ID
\
CO
(f}
CL
LJ
Z
Z
z
<
GO
Q
_l
<
Z
O
Q
LU
_l
>-
O
O
^L
Z
<
cr
LJ_
LU
z
i
z
<
GO
Z
0
CJ
GO
LU
_J
Z
o
GO
<
^
_j
LU
1
LU
2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (OPL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street, Rogm 1670,
Chicago, II,
-------
Executive Summary
For FY 1988, an Underground Storage Tank (UST) Measurable Environmental
Results Initiative (MERIT) Project was undertaken to map and evaluate
high risk USTs (tanks greater than 15 years of age) within ten counties
identified as sensitive ground water areas. The counties had been
identified in FY 1986 and county portfolios had been generated with mapped
CERCLA, RCRA, NPDES, and Public Well Supply sites. Listings of high risk
UST facilities were obtained from the states' Notification Databases.
UST sites were mapped onto the FY 86 portfolios and latitude and longitude
were determined by computer. Hydrogeologic setting and proximity of the
facility to public wells were used to measure the potential impact of
USTs on sensitive ground water areas. This information may be used to
generate a prioritized list of USTs for states to use in monitoring and
compliance. In addition, the mapping process was evaluated to identify
problems that may limit, and procedures that may expedite, mapping UST
facilities should any state consider a similar project. It was found
that mapping was time-consuming, with most site information being ob-
tained by telephoning the tank contact person. Also, detailed road maps were
found to be essential in locating and mapping UST facilities.
Objectives
1. To evaluate the information in the UST Notification Data Base in
terms of ability to locate UST sites.
2. To determine the feasibility of locating UST sites, ascertaining
latitude and longitude, and including the information into a Geographical
Information System.
3. To provide a methodology for establishing compliance monitoring
and enforcement priorities for UST facilities based on hydrogeologic
setting, proximity to public water supply, and age of tank.
Background
The Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program was established in
November, 1984 under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). Its purpose is to provide guidance and develop regulations
for containment of hazardous materials and petroleum products stored in
USTs. These substances can be a health hazard when released, particular-
ly when these releases contaminate ground water, a major source of drink-
ing water.
Section 9002 of Subtitle I established notification requirements to
assist states in locating and evaluating leaking tanks. Tank owners
were required to notify the State or local agency, by May 1986, of
regulated substances stored in or dispensed from USTs. Additionally,
information on the age, size, type, location and use of each tank was
required.
-------
In FY 1986, the Measurable Environmental Results Initiative (MERIT)
Ground Water Mapping Project identified 11 counties in Region III as
sensitive ground water areas. These counties are:
Delaware: Kent, New Castle, Sussex
Pennsylvania: Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Chester,
Lackawanna, Lancaster, Montgomery
Maryland: Anne Arundel
Within these counties the locations of RCRA TSD facilities, NPDES "major"
permitted facilities, CERCIA listed sites, and public water supply wells
have been mapped.
It is estimated that 250,000 USTs containing petroleum and hazardous
substances are located in this region, providing a greater potential for
ground water contamination when compared to 3,000 CERCLA sites and 450
RCRA facilities. An EPA survey estimates the average age of leaking
storage tanks is 17 years, and that at least 10% of UST systems are
leaking.
Project Planning
A proposal to study the impact of USTs on sensitive ground water
areas in Region III was submitted to the MERITS Committee for FY 1988.
It was comprised of a workplan that outlined the objectives and scope
of the project (Attachment A).
For the FY 88 MERIT Project, USTs older than 15 years were evaluated.
Data on tank locations were available from the states' Notification Data
Bases. County portfolios generated in FY 86 were used for mapping each
site. Hydrogeologic setting and proximity of the tank to public wells
were used to measure the impact of USTs on sensitive ground water areas.
The time period of the study was from 10-1-87 to 9-30-88. It re-
quired the equivalent of one work year to complete the project; .3 work
years of senior staff for coordination and development, and .7 work
years of entry level staff for implementation. The senior staff person
was from Region Ill's UST section. Entry level staff included three
parttime contractors for 20 weeks and one student from the NNEPS Program
to map and input data.
Funding for the project was estimated to be $30,000. Specifically,
$29,000 for entry level staff and $1,000 for travel, data gathering, and
supplies.
Final approval of the project was given by the Deputy Regional
Administrator on November 10, 1987 (Attachment B). Funding was approved
by the Office of Underground Storage Tanks on December 14, 1987 (Attach-
ment C).
-------
Project Implementation
Computer listings for the selected counties, consisting of owner
names, addresses, and facility numbers of USTs older than 15 years,
were obtained from Pennsylvania and Delaware. County portfolios of USGS
quad maps were obtained from EPA's Ground Water Protection Section, of
the Water Management Division, Region III. These maps had overlays of
public water supply wells, CERCLA, RCRA, and NPDES permit sites. UST sites
were mapped by county in the following order: Kent, DE; Bucks, Chester,
PA; New Castle, DE; Montgomery, Lancaster, Berks, PA; Sussex, DE; Lacka-
wanna, and Allegheny, PA.l
Using the data on tank sites, USTs were mapped onto the overlays,
either directly from the given address or by telephoning the tank owner
for more specific information on its location. A flow chart illustrating
the mapping process is in attachment (D). Tank locations were first found
on a detailed road map of the county, then transferred onto the quad
overlay. Each site was numbered and labeled on the map. If the tank
location could not be identified and the owner was unavailable, letters
requesting more specific information and a map of the approximate area
were sent to the given address of the tank owner. Of the ten counties,
letters were sent to tank owners in five: Kent, Bucks, Chester, New
Castle, and Montgomery/ to see if the response rate was high enough to
justify the time spent on the letters. A small percentage of sites had
been assigned facility numbers, with little other information. Efforts
to reach the owners were unsuccessful, thus these sites were unmappable.
Each mapped site was given a DRASTIC rating, based on its hydro-
geologic setting, obtained from the nearest public water supply well.
DRASTIC is a rating system which evaluates the sensitivity of an area to
potential ground water contamination. DRASTIC is an acronym for factors
used to determine the rating: Depth to water, (net) Recharge, Aquifer
media, Soil media, Topography (slope), Ijnpact of the vadose zone, and
Conductivity (hydraulic) of the aquifer. Each of these factors is
weighted and given a range and rating which results in a numerical
DRASTIC index. The greater the index value for a particular area, the
greater the vulnerability of the area to contamination.
If the UST was found to be within 1/4 mile of a public well site,
25 points were added to the DRASTIC index. This provides a ranking
of UST locations, available for each county, that may be useful in the
development of a state UST program.
1 Anne Arundel County was not addressed by this project because it is
being studied by the Baltimore IEMP Project. Allegheny County was not
mapped in this manner due to the poor quality of the available street
map. Allegheny County will be mapped using CIS solely.
-------
Upon completion of mapping USTs for one county, the latitude and
longitude were determined for each site using the 4170 CPU computer and
digitizer. This computer system enabled electronic determination of
the latitude and longitude of each point, or site on the quad. In the
event of a release, an available listing of the coordinates of each site
will aid in rapid identification of possible USTs involved.
Data consisting of facility number, quad map, site number on quad,
DRASTIC rating, and latitude /longitude for each county were entered
into a data base which used dbase III software. Printouts available from
this database consist of sites by DRASTIC index (attachment E); by quad
name (attachment F); by county (attachment G); and by state (attach-
ment H). The form used for recording the data is included in attachment I,
Evaluation and Recommendations
Mapping Process
Based on mapped sites, there are at least 1400 UST facilities with
tanks 15 years of age and greater within the nine mapped counties. The
maps provide a good visual aid in noting density of USTs in urban areas,
around public drinking well sites, and for comparison with CERCLA and
RCRA sites. UST sites were mapped directly onto the USGS quad overlays
generated by the FY 86 MERIT Ground Water Project. Portfolios consisting
of all quads in each county had previously been constructed and were
immediately available. Each map had an acetate overlay upon which to
locate UST sites, greatly facilitating the mapping process. The number
of UST facilities became quite dense in urban areas. Therefore, it was
necessary to use distinguishable colors and symbols for plotting.
Additional acetate sheets were layered upon the original for quads with
a high density of sites. By doing this and by dividing the quad into
four quadrants, sites were much easier to locate on the map, particularly
when generating latitude and longitude.
The mapping process itself proved to be somewhat arduous because
of insufficient or outdated information. Address information from the
computer listings was often incomplete or inadequate, such as P.O.
boxes instead of street addresses, and many of the owners had to be
contacted by telephone in order to map the site. This slowed the process,
and often prevented the facility from being located when the owner could
not be reached. The listing was derived using data from 1986, with many
USTs having been sold, abandoned, or removed since then. Again, this
prevented mapping of the site from the computer printout. Even a complete
street address frequently required a phone call because the available
street maps did not always lists numbers on the streets, particularly
beyond city limits.
-------
To improve identification of UST locations, an additional form, si-
milar to an automobile accident form, with a blank road diagram, could
be sent to the tank owner/operator. Provision should be made to update
the form or report any change such as tank removal or ownership. In
addition, mapping the UST locations demonstrated the importance of re-
viewing the notification forms for correct completion prior to entering
the information into the notification database.
Attachment (J) is a typical example of the computer listing obtained
from the states. The contact person for the facility was generally un-
available. It proved to be faster and more successful to ask whoever
answered the phone for information. Additionally, for many of the cor-
porate gasoline stations, the contact person was usually a regional
manager who was unable to give specific locations of each station. Per
the instructions on Form 7530, contact person and telephone number at
the site location should be included. To expedite mapping and phoning
and to avoid duplication, on the printout, group all tanks by facility
identification numbers, then sort by zip code.
Detailed street maps are essential in the mapping process. USGS
quads, while very detailed in many respects, do not list street names or
numbers. Thus a street map was necessary in determining the specific
location of the UST, which would then be transferred onto the quad.
However, for several counties good street maps were not available, this
limited the number of sites that could be mapped. Allegheny County, for
example, does not publish any county street maps. Only maps of Pitts-
burgh were available, and facilities outside of the metropolitan area
could not be accurately located. Allegheny County will be mapped using
NETWORK, a software program that matches addresses and assigns latitudes
and longitudes. Therefore, prior to designing a mapping project, available
detailed street maps of the county or area to be mapped should be
investigated. Maps should include street numbers, if possible.
Accuracy of the mapped UST locations was primarily determined by the
accuracy of the available information; from the addresses provided by
the states to verbal descriptions. Therefore, a location mapped at a
large intersection may, in fact, be several hundred yards away. Rural
areas were especially difficult in that there were often no cross-streets
nearby; or tanks were located away from the street address as in a
large complex, such as a sewage treatment plant; or on farms. In ad-
dition, lack of availability of a detailed street map resulted in greater
error when mapping from the street map onto the quad.
Data and Results
Attachment (K) illustrates the distribution of the mapping process
for each county as well as a total for the 9 completed. Success rate varied
for each county, depending on availability of maps, contact people, and
urbanization. New Castle County had a very high success rate of 99.4%
mapped, while Lancaster had a rate of 91.8%. Both counties had equally
detailed maps, however, Lancaster is more rural, thus affecting the
availability of contact people and specific site information.
-------
Mapping by telephone accounted for a large percentage (60.7%) of
mapped sites. Clearly, the computer listings were not adequate in them-
selves for identifying site locations. For example, of the 348 sites in
New Castle County, 74.1% (258) were located by telephoning the facility
for more information. This resulted in a very time consuming process
and should be taken into consideration if states attempt a similar map-
ping project.
Attachment (L) shows the distribution of response from letters sent
to facilities for five counties. Of the 31 sent out, 41.9% (13) were
returned by the UST owners showing their locations on the provided map
within a three week period. Although the overall percentage of letters
sent to total number of sites was low, only 3%, results indicate that
letters may be an important tool in the mapping process. If a state
should undertake to map all UST facilities, then the 4 or 5% mapped by
letter could represent a sizable number of tanks, and may include many
high risk tanks. In this study, all USTs were relatively high risk,
thus, in Lancaster County, for which no letters were sent, the 8.2%
unmapped sites consisted entirely of high risk tanks. Lancaster County
was a highly rural area, accounting for many owners not having been
reached by telephone. Letters could be a successful method in obtaining
specific site locations.
Attachment (M) shows the distribution of USTs by DRASTIC rating for
all facilities. While the highest number of sites fall into the 105-129
DRASTIC range, results indicate that there is a significant number of
sites with very high DRASTIC ratings of 190 and greater. This can aid in
prioritization of tanks for purposes of monitoring and compliance.
DRASTIC ratings have also been broken down by county, attachment (N).
There is no overall pattern that can be ascribed to each county due to
the various hydrogeologic factors that determine the DRASTIC rating.
Therefore, while it would be useful to prioritize facilities by DRASTIC
rating for the entire mapped area, prioritizing by county should also be
considered in the development of an UST program.
A Geographical Information System (CIS) is currently being developed
with many practical applications that would be useful in this project.
Using NETWORK software, the computer can match addresses from the computer
listings received from the states to a computer-generated street map.
Data for street addresses are obtained from census data, currently, only
urban areas are available for use. Attachment (O) is two maps of New
Castle County, Delaware. These maps were generated from data obtained
from New Castle County and EPA. The first map indicates CERCLA, RCRA,
NPDES sites, and PWS wells. The second includes the same information as
the first, plus the UST sites with tanks greater than 15 years old. It
is obvious that the UST sites dominate the map. In New Castle County,
tanks greater than 15 years represents only 38% of the total number of
tanks.
-------
Conclusion
With the estimated number of USTs in Region III to be 250,000, and
many of these tanks installed and operated without regulations concerning
construction material and installation; and possibly 10% of these tanks
leaking; the need for regulating USTs becomes very apparent, especially
in sensitive ground water and urban areas. These large numbers require
(JST investigation and data collection to be prioritized for reasons of
resource allocation. This project intended to study one method of prior-
itizing USTs, by way of mapping, that individual states could adapt for
themselves.
Prioritization began with information that had been collected and
was available for application. Tanks prone to leakage were found by
earlier EPA studies to be greater than 15 years of age. Also, in Region
III, 11 counties had been identified as areas sensitive to ground water
contamination. These counties had been previously mapped with RCRA,
CERCLA, NPDES, and Public Supply Well (PSW) sites. DRASTIC ratings had
been determined for each Public Well site. Use of this information
helped reduce the cost and time spent on the project. By using the
county maps, the location of each UST facility in reference to PSWs was
easily identifiable and the impact of the UST on the ground water area
could be ascertained according to the DRASTIC rating. A listing of UST
sites ranked by DRASTIC rating was then generated and readily available.
Prioritization could also be determined by county or by zip code, which-
ever would best fit the resources of the state. While there are
several obstacles to the mapping process, such as incorrect information
and lack of street maps, the maps can be an important source of data
with many applications, e.g., aids for urban, developing, or specific
geographical areas.
The maps additionally illustrated the large number of UST sites
compared to the number of CERCLA and RCRA sites, thus regulating USTs is
a much larger undertaking. Because of this, however, their importance
is magnified and their impact could be greater. It is, therefore, ne-
cessary to continue to collect data, keep information as current as
possible, use new technology (such as CIS), and make information avail-
able to UST owners/operators in order to acheive the 'best' regulations
possible that would benefit the environment as well as meet the needs of
the tank owners.
-------
Acknowledgements
Database: BASE III PLUS
Graphics: LOTUS 1-2-3
Freelance
CIS: Information Resource Management Branch
Arcinfo/NETWORK
Ground Water Protection Section, Water Management Division
References
Federal Register, 1985. Notification Requirements of Owners of
Underground Storage Tanks; Final Rule. U.S. E.P.A., Washington, D.C.
Federal Register, 1988. Containing Hazardous Substances; Financial
Responsibility Requirements; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
U.S. E.P.A., Washington, D.C.
National Water Well Association, 1985. DRASTIC: A Standardized
System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hydro-
geologic Settings. U.S. E.P.A., Ada, OK
-------
Future Activities
The following are the Region's plans for distribution of this report
and future activities regarding this project:
1. Copies will be provided to all the States within the Region.
Further discussion of the project will occur during the States-Region
meeting, scheduled for January, 1989. If any of the States are interested
in pursuing a similar type of project, the Region will provide assistance
in planning and implementatation of the project.
2. Copies will be provided to the Office of Underground Storage
Tanks and the UST Program Managers in the other EPA Regions. A discussion
of the project will occur at the National Program Managers meeting
tentatively scheduled for February, 1989. Copies of the report will also
be distributed to the Hazardous Waste Division Directors of the other Regions.
3. Request for copies of the report will be sent, per the notice in
Ground Water, July 1988. (Attachment P)
4. The UST Section will continue to support the CIS activities of
the Region. This will include providing the latitude and longitude data
for the counties which have not been plotted on the CIS system. Also, the
UST Section will do a comparison of the sites identified by the project
with the sites located by the address-matching program. This will allow
States and other jurisdictions to expedite the site location process for
those areas where the metropolitan area data exists.
5. The Region will assist any States and local jurisdiction with
selecting necessary computer hardware and software to establish a CIS
system.
-------
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT DESCRIPTION
A Fy 88 Merit Suggestion Form/Project Workplan
B Deputy Regional Administrator's Approval
C OUST Special Project Approval
D Mapping Process Flowchart
E Sample printout of sites by rating
F Sample printout of sites by USGS Quad map
G Sample printout of sites by County
H Sample printout of sites by State and rating
I Mapping data entry sheet
J Sample computer listing of sites from State
data base
K Pie chart for mapping process
L Pie chart of responses to letters
M Distribution by rating of all sites
N Distribution by rating for each county
0 CIS generated maps of New Castle County, DE
P Reprint of article in Ground Water, July "88
-------
ATTACHMENT A
-------
FY 88 MERIT Suggestion Form
Title: Impact of Underground Storage Tanks on Sensitive Ground Water
Description; There are approximately 250,000 Underground Storage Tanks
(UST's) in the Region, which represents the greatest number of potential
sources of ground water contamination when compared to 3,000 CERCLA sites
and 450 RCRA facilities. For this Region, the average age of tanks that
have been discovered to be leaking is about 17 years old. It is proposed
that, for the Counties identified and mapped in the FY 86 and 87 MERIT
Ground Water Mapping Project, the UST's which are older than 15 years
be mapped. Based on the hydrogeolgic setting and proximity to a public
water supply well, a rating system will be developed and this ranking will
be used as a management tool to plan and target inspections and enforcement
activities within the UST program.
Expected accomplishments; This MERIT should result in reducing the occurrence
of major leaks from UST's which impact public water supplies and sensitive
ground water areas.
Estimated Resources Needed:
HWMD 1.0 wy
Contract/Grant Funds $10,000. Supplies and Map Reproduction
Name; Wayne S. Naylor Date: March 27, 1987
-------
SPECIAL PROJECT ITDRKPLAN
Originator: Wayne S. Naylor
UST Coordinator
Region III (3HW34)
.841 Chestnut Building
. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Date: October 30, 1987
Title: Inpact of USTs on Sensitive Ground Water Areas
^"dgot: ?30,00(V
Timeframe: 1/1/88 - 9/30/88
Narrative:
Ob jelLive
To implement an FY 88 MERIT project, (proposal attached), which will
locate USTs within eleven selected counties in the Region and evaluate
their potential for contaminating ground water.
Justification
See attached Proposal.
-------
FY 88 MERIT Proposal
Title: Impact of Underground Storage Tanks on Sensitive Ground Water
Purpose; To identify the Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) which have t-±ie
greatest likelihood of impacting public water supplies in sensitive
groundwater areas and to establish inspection and enforcement priorities
for the UST Program utilizing this information.
Description; There are approximately 250,000 Underground Storage Tanks
(UST's) in the Region, which represents the greatest numb^c of potential
sources of ground water contamination when compared to 3,000 CERCLA
sites and 450 RCRA facilities. For this Region, the average age of tanks
that have been discovered to be leaking is about 17 years old. It is
proposed that, for the Counties identified and mapped in the FY 86 and 87
MERIT Ground Water Mapping Project, the UST's which are older than 15
ycujLa be uiayyeu. Based on the hydrogeologic setting ana proximity to a
public water supply well, a rating system will be developed and this
ranking will be used as a management tool to plan and target inspections
and enforcement activities within the UST program.
Estimated Resources Needed;
HVvMD 1.0 wy
.3 wy Senior staff for development/coordination/oversight
.7 wy EPA/Entry level staff for implementation
Contract/Grant Funds $1,000. Supplies and Map Reproduction
Present resources do not address this issue. The present program focus
is on State program oversight and existing problems from leaking USTs.
Responsible Organizations;
Lead Division: HWMD
Lead Division Contact: Wayne S. Naylor
Support Division: WflD
Support Division Contact: Stuart Kerzner
-------
:,fork Plan:
Milestone Activities Target Date
Obtain list of Counties Mapped 10/15/87
ObtairtJList of USTs from States 12/31/87
Map UST locations 3/31/88
Develop Ranking System/Rank USTs 6/30/88
Develop Inspection/Enforcement Plan 9/30/88
Criteria for Selection:
1. Leaking USTs could impact the drinking water supply for all the
population in the selected Counties/ since both ground water and
surface water can be affected. The potential estimated affected
population is 8,000,000. One of the constituents of gasoline is
benzene, a known carcinogen. The human health impact would to be to
reduce the risk of exposure to contaminated drinking water as well
as the exposure from vapors.
2. Leaking USTs can impact sensitive ecosystems over most of the
area mapped throughout the year.
3. Technical feasibility- Notification data bases will be operational
in all the States by 9/30/87.
Financial feasibility- Since the County portfolios already
exist, the cost of this proposal is minimal, approximately $.10/tank.
Availability of resources- The .3 work years of Senior staff
will come from existing UST Program staff, the remaining .7 work
years will have to be allocated to the initiative.
Legal authority- §9005 of RCRA establishes the Inspection,
Monitoring, Testing, and Corrective Action Authority for the
UST Program.
Institutional capability- The portfolios and reproduction contract
already are in place.
Public support and concern- The number of reported incidents of
leaking USTs has doubled in the past 5 years. The establishment
of Subtitle I of RCRA in 1984 and the Leaking UST Trust Fund in
1986 demonstrate the public support and concern on this issue.
4. The initiative addresses three programs: UST: Public Water
Supply: and Ifell Head Protection.
-------
Method of Accomplishment
Date will be collected from the States for the eleven counties for
facilities with tanks greater than 15 years old. Using this information,
facility locations will be plotted in the county portfolios previously
generated. Latitude and longitude coordinates will be assigned to each
facility, either manually or with a digitizer.
After a facility is plotted, a rating value will be determined
utilizing the DRASTIC system and proximity to public water supply. Each
facility will then be put in a data base for ranking.
Based on the total number of facilities rated, the top 5 - 10% will
De identitied for further EPA action. This would include notifying the
PWSS program, RCRA program, and CERCLA programs of UST facilities which
may be impacting their sites. Also, the States would be given the list
of ranked facilities in the State for use in developing inspection
priorities.
Geographic Location of Project
Delaware: Kent, New Castle, Sussex counties.
Maryland: Anne Arundel County - This county is currently being investigated
under the Baltimore IEMP project. The Region will attempt to minimize
duplication of effort.
Pennsylvania: Berks, Bucks, Allegheny, Chester, Lackawanna, Lancaster,
Montgomery Counties.
Benefits
The primary beneficiary will be the public water supplies in the
eleven counties. The project can be used as a model for States which may
be interested in developing geographical information systems and for
establishing priorities for inspections and compliance which have the
most impact on human health and the environment.
tfrio Will Perform the Work
Region Ill's UST Section will be responsible. Specifically, one
senior staff person will be supervising five student co-ops for 20 weeks
each.
Detail of Funding
5 Student co-ops for 20 weeks @ $250/week = $25,000. $l,00f for travel
to States, EPA Headquarters for project review, data gathering. $4,000
for supplies and reproduction of portfolios. Total: $30,000.
-------
ATTACHMENT B
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19107
SUBJECT: Current Status of Region Ill's MERITS
DATE: NOV 1 C 1987
FROM: Stanley L. Laskowi _
Deputy Regional Administrator (3DAOO)
TO: Division Directors
Attached for your use is the current status of our negotiations
regarding the FY 88 MERITS. The table includes whether the MERIT is
fully active, partially active, or on hold awaiting some action. The
table also includes the necessary actions, where appropriate.
I would also like to discuss some logistics for the project depending
upon their individual status. Where a project is listed as active, I
expect that you have begun implementing as of October 1, 1987 and it
will be tracked accordingly. For these active projects, I request that
you supply Henry Brubaker, Chief, Planning and Analysis Section (3FM61)
with your Division's staff person working on the project, both lead and
support by Friday, November 13, 1987. If you need to change any milestones
from those included in the MERITS Report (7/87) sent to Headquarters,
please submit them to Planning and Analysis. Milestone changes may be
made until November 30, 1987 without using the MERITS project change form.
If there are no changes submitted, the project will be tracked based
upon the milestones in the MERITS Report. It should also be noted that
each Division is responsible for their own milestone reporting and project
changes regardless of being in a lead or support role on the project.
If a project is listed as partially active, I expect the Identified
action to be completed expeditiously so the project can become fully
active. You should submit the milestones which are currently active to
the Planning and Analysis Section (3PM61) as soon as possible. Please
keep me informed at the weekly staff meeting regarding the status of
these projects.
Th«r« are some projects which are on hold. I encourage you to
pursu* funding and/or support from Headquarters and other sources as
vigorously as possible. If you need my assistance please let me know.
I would also like to be informed of the progress made on making these
projects implementable. If you have not received the identified funds
for a project on hold by December 31, 1987, we will review the projects
to either rescope or defer to FY 89.
Attachment
cc: James M. Seif (3RAOO)
Office Directors
EMC Members
Merit Authors
-------
FY MERITS STATUS
PROJECT
11/02/87
STATUS
Page 1
ACTION
1. Hazardous Waste iipacts on the
Chesapeake Bay
a. RCRA/CERCLA Priority Active
Setting
b. Pesticide Monitoring in On Hold
Groundwater
HUMD followup
Ofl Self 9/30/87
memo to Moore
(OTS).
c. Herbicide Monitoring in Active
Agricultural & Residential
Areas
2. Indoor Air Contaminants
(Radon & Terainicides)
Partially Active
AMD continue to
pursue funding
with OAR. Could
be raised to
Barnes.
3. PAUVOH Sulfur Dioxide Study
4. Surface Water Toxics Risk
Assessnent
Active
Active
5. Municipal Raw Sewage Abatement
Prograa
On Hold
UMD working with
OU for possible
support frost
FY 88 CUA funds.
8. Ozone Rule Effectiveness/
Gasoline Marketing-Refinery
Partially Active
AMD continue to
pursue funding
with OAR. Could
be raised to
Barnes.
Hazardous Vacte lapacts on
Groundwater (RCRA/CERCLA)
Active
{pacts of Underground Storage
Tanks on Groundwater
Active
-------
FY MERITS STATUS
PROJECT
11/02/87
STATUS
Page 2
ACTION
9. Kanawha Valley Air Toxics Study Partially Active
10. Asbestos NESHAPs
11. Red Clav Creek
12. Preliminary Assessment of
Multi-Media Toxic Releases
13. Public Disclosure of
Multi-Media Toxic Releases
14. Groundwater Protection
15. Achieving a Partnership Towards
Ecosvstei Protection
16. Brtne Disposal
17. Economic Analysis of VOC
Controls
18. GIS Groundwater
19. Aluminatei in Acidified
Tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay
20. Groundwater Expert Systems
21. Drinking Water Source Location
Survey/Mapping
Partially Active
Active
Active
On Hold
Active
On Hold
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
Active
AMD continue to
work with OAR
to define
support needed.
OAR lay provide
in-kind
services.
AMD continue to
pursue funding
with OAR. Could
be raised to
Barnes.
Exploring
Regional options
on handling
issue.
ESD working with
OW for possible
support from
FY 88 funds.
-------
FY MERITS STATUS
PROJECT
11/02/87
STATUS
Page 3
ACTION
22. Risk Model for Lead Exposure
in Baltinore
On Ho id
23. Biotechnology Training
24. Waste Minimization Technical
Assistance
25. Field Inspection Efficiency
26. Cross-Media Environnental
Management Project
27. South Richmond Geographic
Study
Active
Active
Active
Active
Partially Active
HWMO and State
of MD are
negotiating with
EPA HQ. HQ may
decide to fund
only the Boston
Study.
ESD to continue
discussions with
OPPE to define
support needed.
-------
ATTACHMENT C
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
3 = = iC£ OF
SOLID WASTE A,NO £MERGENCV RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Special Project Review Decision: Region III, Impact of
USTs on Sensitive Ground Water Areas
FROM: Jim McCormick, Deputy Director
Office of Underground Storage T
TO: Wayne Naylor, UST Coordinator
Region III
I am writing to inform you that your special project
proposal which will study the impact of USTs on sensitive ground
water areas has been approved. We expect the knowledge that is
gained in this project will lend support to the development of
improved inspection and compliance strategy.
A total of $30,000 is approved for the project. This amount
will be transferred to your region after FY 88 funds become
available.
We are looking forward to continued communication with you
on the progress of this project and the lessons we can share
across all regions. If you have any questions, please contact
Mark Waiwada (475-9727).
cc: Ron Brand
St«v« Wassersaug, HWD Director Region III
-------
ATTACHMENT D
-------
FY 1988 UST MERIT
MAPPING PROCESS FLOWCHART
COMPUTER LISTING
ADDRESS
STREET MAP
TOPO MAP
DRASTIC RATING
RECORD ON
WORKSHEET
LAT/LONG
w
DATABASE
NO
YES
YES
PHONE CALL
UNMAPPED
-------
ATTACHMENT E
-------
i J C'i
1 ' ' ' 1 Oti 2 L i 'AT if,..'- i..'.'
I'JiJAC
i r,-
t'ju :
CI i'liTFIP
' ' \- n'~ Tr~r~i
I..- 1 -i i -J L i-i -It- K
L 1-1 MC rtLTF't-
LuMu-f i rFi.'
L.-ut -i:. : r-.K
L nN!~A'iTvr>.f
! HNCA;- : :-H
L.*r.|f M -:T !'"!'
L uNiiA;: IF-I"
LAhif.AS ! i.--.-
LANCASTER
Li iNCAo Ft'-1
Li il\lu-''_- I'EP
LAMLufSTER
LANCASTER
LAMf.nJ I"!- !<
L.f. ' ll'Or- 1 Kr'
L A NC..A 3 ' ' ''-'
!..''NC,i- IE ,
LAN i' A-STLIK
LANO-I;." rrrn
I ,-!i-ir,H : ~P
L-nMrii-i-: fLR
L A NC.-i ':.'. ER
LAfnIA- ! FR
BFftl" '"
BERKS
KENT
1- ENT
! Ern"
TENT
i 'FN i
KEN;-
1- !- NT
" ENT
NEW LASTLE
Nt W CIASTLL"
Nl 'v CASrU'r
flEW rY^Ti E
NFiy r.A9r;.E
NEW CAzyr. E
i'-IEW L.i-iSi"i.L
Nfc-'W CIA.1. i'l.K
Bl ISSE" ^
I'1- 1 23^7
L L"ju4 /"-?:-
J.cy ) L 1 23
".3''B2'..;-3
"6084 ,'" i
"o, ' '4' '5
'6,.'r<,t>' '5
7{: i '-CL56
.ol-b71
.'.67r.''"'i' '
.'6O451S
3oil478
7.6 I J 717
.'.'tJO5-'- 1Q
"" /> 1 G 1 ^ t
'-, 21": 8
7 6'."' I "9«
"',,f,'- >: ;..;»;,
7.t.'.'30o L
7c-' u-o6'.'
"61 "".' :>o
':61 Gft26
",,-, i . ..362
'"61 036 *
';62b"-?10
.'362Q('>"-'7
302^985
O6 1 '.'I & 3
<.'£>2343iS
1 I'n'jr'jO 1 S
10(.>0175
1O00013
10UO217
2'"> OO.3 13
100'"' 144
1000044
I 0003 1 7
30'")0tt 1 5
3i_M~i040 t
TO' '055 1
>' " ". 2-_'.
1 .'0028°
3oOi ', -iS
',' 'i Hjf_. \
31 "I''.)3 t 5
Si ), , |. :. j,i
HEl.i Ff'TGuU
CUA !'E9V ILL L-
CONK'"" ; 'H-n
;.L.J|.A
i. EOL M
Lb.L'1. i>
! L: GL A
LE-.GLA
LbLil.n
LuN'I'-'^TL r\
LANt..ASTEi=
LANCASTF.R
L.I .rJf t--,'~ i'ER
COLUMBIA EAST
COLUMBIA WEST
C'.'LUMBlA WEST
COLUMBIA WEST
UF-W HOI LAND
NEW i iOLL, .ND
Nh !AI Hfil LnUU
1 .. I i" I 11
LI i'lTZ
L f ! IT I.
Ll'TITZ
MANHEIH
MAI IHE i M
EPHR^TA
' LIT £ TOWN
I-.'UT ." TOWN
g M ,. u M f
M1LI-"OPD
SMvF-i ji-i
W1/1 'M FNi-i
5MVRhhi
St'i T PNA
SM>K=NA
SI't ' PI iA
NF.WARK WES F
PEL A WARE C f !"r
DEL.AWHPE 'I ITy
DEL -.WARE L I TV
-.M'rRNA
MIL' l ILL TOWN
!"l 1 11 II' LET OWN
Ml'uJ 'LETCH IN
BL i HAMr BLACH
i
-r
4
CT
1 ..
14
1
j"'
8
i r
1 ~*i
._
ii'.>
L-3
i 2
1
4
£
i
r
i 1
L 4.
r
4
15
"S.
'T
1
L
8
1 7
I1-.
1 ;
1 2
1 4
LO
1
2
4
jl.
__
i j_
15
^
7 '
2 '
i.
22 j
'" ' 7 1
2,_ 1
J2 1
22 1
221
22 1
2 2 1
221
221
221
j-'j_ X
22 J
. : i
22 1.
2 2 .1
22 1
2 2 1
2'2 1
. j _ j.
IV: l
:2i
2lJ i
! 1 J ' L
/-,/--, j
-.--0-1
"'i :' '
,"" "9
,"!' ^- '
-'i J -'
1 ! -"'
i. ' ' ^ ' ""
^ 1 ' '
7'JT'
JOG
7' '~
, j 'j'~
20?
209
20C5
i, r_:
... L'~
2' '->
-------
ATTACHMENT F
-------
i i£ QUAD
It ID #
., MH.43" '4
".^ r'i"j'-! J5 16
',i ii )tj'j ",-7, ;
.0-"1' ''^ 1
-------
ATTACHMENT G
-------
P c:l Cj e i i '.J ,
1 ' " .1"-', 95
i- Y 1<-"QP HEr. IT
iJc".T IMr.iLT" UN
»
0k
9
'JUAf Ni.-.ME
* COUNT^ £LPKS
MUMJFi'-i
i-|, iMM.ir'i."
riMl'IbURG
HAMNJPG
HHMBUPQ
KnM'r'JPG
. LJTTTCiUJN
i u rr ' ijuiM
i LJT :' rowi'-i
! J F 7: TI .'WM
i 'iiz |-JWN
"OP P'JN
r UP TON
i i"ip P iU
, , ip rnn
tfF i HEL
BE; r HI- i
Hhl- ''I'.' ! LI. i-
t-l- '- !!'.' 1 I.LE
i .,'£RM ' 1 L i E
:\'El:'r".' ! L-LEr
i Eh'! , E
'T.-i''!'1! E
TEMPLE
r .. rFLl-
, - r rv- j j | 1
' '.""_> 1 1 " 1 _ r
! li'lPI !.'
TEMPLE
! -hPL£
! ,"i-jp| |
i -.a i.i-I
1 -J F'_E
!>' ;1! 'L !-
<:' - E^TWOQC
1 KE 1 NC.fli".
l-l ." - : uj.JOD
I ( i > . -i \ jilj* j
j t i f 1 i . | i f- H W 1 H T
J;;'^ 'Jpn^H1''1' Ltl
UUAL' ^Tf-iiL 1 ,-i f" E i 'L'L: L...M.I."-, f !
![ iiJ #
i ' 'o ; .-""-' 9,-- 4!"i:-:i4f3 " ,-.."T-, i
1 '.'.-. '.'3 '.'59 40" 1 '6 ' iT'^i
' O.i ?5l ". !'. ',-!; '" "5b ' 1
' ' - 1 562- 4 . T_I' -'n;1; -1 L
4 O.-.. 'L .'0 4; 7,34'': '5531'
c", ,,,-j(,;'44T 4.- 7351 "5581
i Of. ! 07- 1 I. , V j j c«' ""5462
2 ' 'o If;. "-'.-.-.. ~ 4'"> -.'..4 4 "34 rr
'.-. ;.'.". 4 .". . -!'' 3 1.24 75 4<-7
4 '.'.«.>:!. " '.'0 .103' "c "754.--.l
s 06 2 / ^5(.' 1' '-;.':>] "- 7pi4
i OciuJ3~ 4f">"..'"'21 7'-'-l'".
,.: >:..' '9'rJ'-> 4''.:'' >." ', """.,4: !
3 ' i,., 1 7'-'1-'"" ) . ~. "'28 "'54' "".
4 Of- .' ''"- "< 4C1 !ip".>5'" ." 5 ~r -.>-...
L '.'-v"'5'. o' 4-: ::-:: 7 7.-i :
ri "3 ~ /';"'" «1 1"> "-1 '-<"'" 4 ""* ' " ~r
; ;,;::!-,:;3 i;,:,;.:3 :';?
"L -^"'."445 i'-'^o-ri --"'jo;.
.'.' '.'o i.2- c :. -1' '..:"<"'9 ">-' il L
3 '61 ' '-'75 ! ' 2'r/-L "-' "60' '
4 ' J f 2 7 ,7 -1 3 4 0 ,7 r: 10 " - . 0 f . "
J '.'6 i.|C' i ''.°4 -KC'Vf.f. .'5'~7 '''; [
06l':)'J'':}4 l-'','4"7' TbVkiO
3 0611?04 41'1 ""'J2 '"-:;'58iJ
4 ' 'ij'.'.yZ1-' 1-0 ',."41. 0 "r-"354
cr - i "i -f i r i - f~i ,~- "> r~ r~ " *"
' ' *") I "T I ^r ' ~>- h A"i ' O ' %7J 'I1
o 06301-'" 1 4' ',~f->c-JS. ~"T~.'.:
7 ('1-25--J.3'-' ;.'7'2ei52 *.7,rf,h'~'
B 06lcr".4<"' 4.J2-I5 '''7.002
Q , ; . -4 _v ' j ! 'r v , [ - ' ~ irr c." ~r
1 , ,' \ i ""> r" f i , - - , c~ rr t
J '-' '.'^J_'7' ' 1 !'. , ,'0 .7ib;7,'4
11 >.'- 3':''55c;' i' '"T:'.'-: "5:77n;ii-:..
12 Of: i ' -i':74 4'j,. .',18 "".55'-J7
1 Oo 1 "^53 4'7 '":.'""- 7"34"7iL
2 06,7 ! -In 40,:" ^ ""549 J
3 ..,.-,," ' V-"? -i. .;/7 ! -. 7:3491
i ("!>-. 'f 'F "' ! 1 . ,'t ~C" -"_-) - *
1- '»'£)'.' <\ ..... J I1 '*.. . _J .'i-I< _ _'
1 j.^j i ' ' 24 J> 4o "'41 '3 ''r.'"''.:''.1
U
r:
tJ
'-
b
-
4
6
4
-7
1
I
r
j
3
r:,
-
<~~:
' ,
4
-,
o
""
'
*!
4
j_.
r-
_,
,__'
0
*!
j
i
-1
^.'
1
Uji.iMF i -u.'0
-li.'IMf-i '-uORF
- ! 'MI- Ir-G Sh'R ENG
».:, I 190-
4' ',::
l-'.'l '-'".' -i
'"'0
-------
ATTACHMENT H
-------
Lr'8i- ME!' i
co LI! i i
h LJ i ;
, El IT
! i-Ml
i- r. i i '
1- E.NT
KLM7
i t-NI
MEW Cur IL.E
! il- W CM -7 ' i. !
r1!.- W C i-i'r- i LE
NEW CASTLE:
MEW r ,.v-, M..E
MEW CfibT'LE
MLW i '.i-Y~, I" I.E
NEW CAI:T|. £
SU'-BSE <
'jUriSf.-. ->
r.Uf ':.t -
-:US' 'R.
SU, . ii:
c; L .' ' '~~ ' "
SI''-??! -
'-' IJSSt "
:,i i' '-r /
SLJS£EX
SI IbSE'-
SUrSEX
SU'ISE'
1 t-'M f
i 1- MT
! .EN f
1 ENT
i- ENT
! i- i i r
1 EN"!
i- EN r
I- ENT
\ ENT
. ENT
! ENT
! ENT
i. H |\|T
i UiT
i- i N r
l-.t.N i"
t- KMT
,~ r r
j L' It
\ i i 1 1 i i~i f cr
i '_' . J _J
( "-'01 '5
1 >oc'.' i. :.
200071 j,
; i 'Oc.i i -< 4
i. . ,..)i;)ri.d4
1 '"'"'. "" L '
-I- - -/!--
_,, II _,l._l f-j 1 -J
30 'I1' '41 M
" 1 1! lOS'". I
3 '"'Of ' .'2 -'
1 jt.suZF-
31 "X'24S
_ ( ' 1 i . l , , l ^J
"', Ml 3 TV "" 1 "*]
"-!' :! 3'>4
'-< "'.". ' ! t-'-
'.'jl.".'027'5
';.i ii n )i.)(.) _
5C'i " ;.!3
:.'' ''.' '..''.' i .'
iO'.'Oi. 45
i; ;. :,?
~,i'if'ji"i' u:,, .
y- »:-o i ::a
?''" " 'i'~»i
'5000 2&9
S'^Oi.'j^iO
1 OO02 "''-'
1 ''"-'O21' ! 3
1':'0002'..'
j 000287
1 000 1 70
1000301
100'"' "3 5
1OOOO31
.1 O00082
1 .j,J(jf,Qw
100'M'j.l
1 ")01 i'1'-!
LOO>"'23|:'
i '.'0'.'3 1 "
1 »." 1. 8"r
i i')i.)0229
1 ' ' 0 i".1 ,. ' j '~i
j '"' ."j704
,jr '_!. i J!.1 L-II i ' i-
M IMU ! n ML
Sr! ,-PNA
rl ri rORD
-5M t ^ NA
SMiF:MA
SM ,-P! in
bhl', i-NA
3MV RNA
HE WAP!-. WE3T
PEL AWARE C [ r y
PELfiNAF E Cl ;";
OF.! ,-iWARL- riTV
-M .-RrJA
MIDDLETOmlN
MIDDLbTONN
f-1TDl':..ETiJWN
LI-:THAI-JY' BEACH
I'RANKP 'Jf-'ij
r-'riNI- h OR I)
I "RANI FORD
Mli.LSI-.CPO
Mil L.580RO
Ml LL'JjBORi.i
hi LL !. -3 BO PC
LAUREL
REHOBOTH '.-EACl-
Er-", i PMOMN !'
I'M LF MOUNT
HARBESON
FREDERECA
FPEDERir,-;,
DO'-'EP
DO-'ER
SMyR-IA
SM M-MA
qjvj , )., f.jM
:-.M , RNA
MfL-f-'URD
DO'v'LP
H EWTON
L'i'JVF^'
SM r RNH
DOVER
rl i LFijF-T-
DOVER
M1LFORT
IA) Tll-M i-JG
ID
1
1
i *5
17
1 2
1-4
1'"'
L
4
12
to
I'.1'-'
1.
21
'.'9
209
2' I19
209
109
-'Dv
209
i. o -i
19-1
I 5 -i
IF i-
1P.L
184
184
18 4
1~.<]
184
L 3-1
184
184
124
i O '*
Id 1
-------
ATTACHMENT I
-------
U6T
PA^iLJTY \b
LAT Z^M/ JNtf^T
-------
ATTACHMENT J
-------
-f-
l-.l
-T-
U]
<;
^-r
>
X
C)
in
a
o
a
Ul
*
r j
ro
m
m
03
m
x
o
ui
H
.g
^
hH
m
X
c:
C1
00
o
a
0^
Ul
r>j
t»
£
4
O
r j
a
^
tn
en
5
Ul
ID
X
1-* 33
r~ cn
n o
o -
33 Ln
- o
o
C1 33
m 2
m
33
^D
-0
O
L.J
! 1
cn
a
a
o
f i
a
*
-C-
r-
m
z
z
~?
33
rh
-H
,_,
6
z
r-
r^i
tn
m
m
33
e>j
p
_jr-
t i
O-
O-
o
i
o
d
;5
Ul
en
in
Ul
ID
X
3
h-4
r~
-n
o
33
ni
-0
o
Cr-
Ifl
1
33
O
tn
o
T3
Z
m
33
1
en
a
a
a
f j
a
*
r-
m
%
-7
J
m
i
CJ
o
r-
131
tn
i
m
z
m
t>i
o
r-j
j-
f j
rj
i
o-
0>
t>J
?
-H
O
a
n
Ul
en
c
IK
Ul
a
X
in
a
o
0
l*
*
IZ » 3
r~ M r~
-H -H
o m o
2 r- 2
- r
m o
o z: c
m ^ f-.
> o
t m
-o cn
-0 X t
o E: o
O3 -< ~O
r-i
6
z
r~
o
tn
m
z
m
33
a
_p»
>f ",
f i r
o
0-
5:
__l
0
CD
<
Ul
tn
c
in
ro
X
en
a
a
a
>
*
en
O 33 O
en cn
cn en
03 i CD
0 H- 0
33 e>J 33
O O
JO
0 I-J C
m e> t-i
»~
-0 cn
-a H
t>J O
-o -a
en
3
3
^-
m
33
-H
CiJ
a
.r-
f. j
1 1 !
a-
0-
t>j
£
-i
o
a
n
Ul
en
c
in
in
ID
X
cn n
m m
r- 3
CD m
-f, -H
K< 33
| <
r
m 33
" ?
rn
^o
-a
--j
en
! 1
LH
o
o
o
Q
f J
*
f <
X
H
n
X
m
z
en
CO
33
O
a:
o
r-
m
33
X
h- 1
H
O
S
z
tn
a
.f*
o-
i
CD
CD
CD
CD
0-
I
o
a
"*
Ul
tn
in
u:
ID
X
CO
m
CD
c
r-
j
m
m
-0
tn
i
en
a
a
o
a
h i
*
0 X
m 1-1
3 H
rn o
-\ X
> m
33 Z
-< tn
33 CO
O 33
> O
CP en
o
m
33
X
i <
0
X
m
tn
a
j.
C.J
o-
i i
CD
CD
CD
CD
0-
t
O
a
n
Ul
cn
c
in
in
rD
X
tn
m
o
33
tn
m
t
0
z
m
^o
en
o
a
a
-a
03
^r
2 >
c*>
TO
m >
o
O 01
sj m
cn o
-H 3>
i_n
c
i*
^*
3
CO
0
03
en
o
l i
Kj
CD
Ch
(
O
1 J
a
"^
Ul
en
c
in
in
X
3
r~
r~
cn
CO
o
33
0
,_,
m
-0
i
Ln
a
a
o
^5
en
*
-O
i>j 6
33 m
> en
33 >
O 33
-> y
o m
t
«"
m 1-1
f)
3)
CO
O
133
k- 1
m
b
m
z
i:
m
en
m
33
a
CD
en
o-
l 1
--i
a
o-
H
o
y
n
in
en
c
in
in
m
X
3
f
|
en
CO
o
33
O
r-,
rn
-0
0-
o~
LH
Q
f j
~0
#
C'l
I-j CO
>.< 0
f-1 O
t 1
33 m
> en
Hi
r- 3
33 >
0 33
o m
<^
m v-i
n
33
0
rn
CO
o
z
3TJ
m
en
rn
33
01
a
K)
CD
en
p>
i i
0
o
1
o
a
n
in
tn
c
tn
in
ID
X
en
D
a
a
f i
-n
tn
*
t J
3 iv CO
1-1 rj s
cn 33 m
co > cn
o t-
33 r 3
0 73 >
O 33
> ~
i i i i m
m -i
<^
i rn t-*
-0 - Z
0-
33
CO
0
1 1
m
CD
o
m
z
m
en
m
33
O
CD
en
o-
i i i
c
?
1
o
a
^
in
en
tn
m
ID
X
Ln
a
o
0
f 1
-0
en
*
3 f -' Ct3
r- rj 5
r- i-.
tn 33 m
CD > tn
O l-i
33 r~ 3
O ^O !&
0 33
> 7"
o o rn
m t
<;
H m kH
a o
cr-
o-
33
CD
0
r-n
Ki
m
CD
o
rn
m
tn
m
33
J3
CB
en
o>
i l l
0
o-
_J
o
Q
^
in
en
c
in
Ul
H
X
k*
r~
H
o
z
r1
m
-0
-0
CB
i
rr
3 m
> cn
tn
0 >
1 33
Ul 3
-H >
"D 33
m 7
m m
-i -i
"
o
33
CD
O
F 1
m
ra
o
m
z
m
en
m
33
L.J
Q
CO
en
a-
t i
o
0-
^
o
f J
a
^
Ul
en
c
in
m
ID
X
3
r-
o
"31
0
-0
1
Ln
^
O
^_
f
'jl
" S
>s
cn
Z 0
0 >
I-1 33
tn 3
-1 >
31 31
m 5-
m TI
t;
P
33
CD
O
m
o
rn
E:
rn
en
rn
C-4
o
r j
CO
Ln
a-
i i
a
Cr-
^
O
CD
^
Ul
rn
IT)
X
[ __
^ T
i
=
* j i* i
a n >
! M f
a. »- ,-c
CL r- rri
3 <
'.n c ,""
n ~a
OJ
H I,'"1
Q
2 -<
r1^
n T
3 ',3
.U
5
Lr)
o -n rrj
a a* x
r; n
r" ^J
Oj .
n H
r* rf
TJ
T) 2
lj"l J
r c
11
o
3
r^ a
C TJ
13
0
~z. n
r~
§ 0
a- g
n r"
n
> ->
C Oi
0) 3
a 'Q
._,
c "n
p- iij
3 n
' ^
-------
ATTACHMENT K
-------
o
CO
00
c
H
O
o
~n
m
T3
3]
z:
~D
o
o
m
CO
CO
~D
1C
O
z
m
o
ro
CD
0
CX5
CD
0
o
m
CO
a
-------
ATTACHMENT L
-------
O
d
m
o
O
~D
m
m
o
ro
en
bo
m
oo
O
00
m
m
oo
ID
O
m
o
CD
r- CO
m CO
o
m
m
CO
-------
ATTACHMENT M
-------
Number of Sites
>
if)
H
o
15
LQ
en
o
O
o
en
O
O Ol
o o
U-J
o
o
OJ
en
o
o
o
A
^i
o
o
I _t
o
o
o
o
en
CD
o
hO
o
Ol
V
N) _
o
\N
o
CD
o
-------
ATTACHMENT N
-------
60
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
988 UST MERIT
DRASTIC RATINGS FOR BERKS COUNTY
V / //\
<70
-f
70-100
r
jz:
101-130 131-160
DRASTIC Ratings
161-190
r - r
191-205 >205
o
0)
E
z
100
90
80
70
60
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
FY 1988 UST MERIT
DRASTIC RATINGS FOR BUCKS COUNTY
<70
(
70-100 101-130 131-160 161-190 191-205 >205
-------
a>
(ft
0)
a
E
100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
FY 1988 UST MERIT
DRASTIC RATINGS FOR LANCASTER COUNTY
<70 70-100 101-130 131-160
DRASTIC Ratings
161-190
191-205
>205
o
0)
E
D
Z
210
200 -
190 -
180 -
170 -
1 60 -
150 -
140 -
130 -
120 -
1 10 -
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0
FY 1988 UST MERIT
DRASTIC RATINGS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY
<70
70-100 101-130 131-160 161-190 191-205 >205
-------
205
-------
ID
n
FY 1988 UST MER T
DRASTIC RATINGS FOR CHESTER COUNTY
<70 70-100 101-130 131-160
DRASTIC Ratings
161-190 191-205
>205
n
E
FY 1988 UST MERIT
DRASTIC RATINGS FOR KENT COUNTY
<70
70-100
101-130 131-160 161-190 191-205
>205
-------
FT i960 UST MERIT
DR/5TC RATINGS FOR UCKAVANNA COUNTY
40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
21
20 -
19 -
1« -
17 -
16 -
15 -
14 -
13 -
12 -
11 -
10 -
9 -
e -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
1
<70 70-1QO 101-130 131-150 161-190 191-2Q5
DRASTIC Ratings
DRASTIC RATINGS KJR SUSSEX COUNTY
>2O5
Y77A V///A
<70 70-1OO 101-130 131-160 161-190 191-2O5
DRASTIC
>2O5
-------
ATTACHMENT 0
-------
RCRA
CERCLA
(EPA)
CZ] CERCLA
(New Castle Co.)
pws
NPDES
-------
CD RCRA
EG CERCIA
(EPA)
CZ3 CERCLA
(New Castle Co,)
CD PWS
High Priorily UST
NPDES
-------
ATTACHMENT P
-------
GW in the News (Cont. from page 543)
WISCONSIN LANDFILL CODES REVISED
Wisconsin has revised its solid \\aste administrative
codes. 'I he new NR 500 series of codes became effective
February 6, 1988. One provision of the new codes is that
certain reports including ground-water monitoring plans,
initial site reports, feasibility reports, plans of operation,
and in-field conditions reports must be signed by a hydro-
geologist. NR 500.03(64) and NR 550.31(e)2 define a
hydrogeologist as a person who is a graduate of an
accredited institution of higher education \\ho has success-
fully completed 30 semester or 45 quarter hours of course
work in geology. At least 6 semester or 9 quarter hours
must have been in hydrogeology, geohydrology, or ground-
water geology. The person must also have acquired through
education and actual field experience the ability to direct
the drilling of borings and the installation and development
of wells, and to evaluate and interpret geologic and hydro-
geologic data in accordance with the requirements of chs.
NR 508, 510 and 512.
The purpose of this new requirement is to help ensure
that interpretation of geologic and hydrogeologic data in
the reports for a landfill is being done by a qualified hv dro-
geologist. Also, the Wisconsin Bureau of Solid Waste-
Management believes a person has to have an advanced
understanding of geology and hydrogeology along with
actual field experience to correctly interpret the origin and
stratigraphy ot the subsuiface environment and its plusical
and chemical characteristics.
DELAWARE PANEL RECOMMENDS
NONDEGRADATION WATER POLICY
Delaware should adopt a nondegradation water policy
that prohibits potential ground-water polluting activities
and begin the task of delineating and protecting significant
aquifer recharge zones, a steering committee, appointed by
the governor, recommends.
Following two years of workshops, a steering com-
mittee comprised of academics, industry representatives,
and state officials, released a final report, "Delaware's
Environmental Legacy." These long-term recommendations
focus on the future of Delaware's drinking-water supplies
and call for protection of vulnerable ground water by
establishing ground-water preserves. "Preserves are areas
(defined by productive aquifers containing high-quahtv
water) set aside to preserve the water resources tor future
generations, especially in case of catastrophic loss of
existing resources," says the report.
The group calls for legislation outlining the responsi-
bilities of private landowners in protecting wellheads and
aquifer recharge areas consistent with land-use controls.
Other water qualit) recommendations include requiring
water sampling and analysis prior to sale ot developed real
estate utilizing on-site wells, establishing a Delaware I'olicv
Advisory Board for Water Resources; and requiring the
state to identify circumstances under which septic systems
pollute ground water to an unacceptable level
Ground-water contamination from septic sv stems is a
problem in Delaware 'I he steering committee recommends
that the state require installation of public wastewater
treatment systems in critical areas as a condition of future
development approval. (.'.round \\atfi \\unitor
AMERICAN GROUND WATER TRUST CONTINUES
OUTSTANDING GROWTH
'I he American Ground \\atcr Trust has named John
P. Apcl, Frederick R. McLaren, and Susan S Seacrest as
additional members of its Board of Trustees John P Apcl
is vice president for governmental affairs, American Electric
Power, headquartered at Columbus, Ohio Frederick K
McLaren is founder and president of McLaren l-nviron-
mental Engineering, Sacramento, California Susan S.
Seacrest, president of the 500,000 member National Arbor
Day Foundation, is also president of the Nebraska Ground-
vvater Foundation.
During their recent April 21 meeting, in an expression
of their continuing support of the Trust, members of the
Board of T rustees committed more than S1 70,000, adding
to the substantial commitments made previously by the
National Water Well Association, the Water Well Journal
Publishing Company, and others. During the six months
prior to the May 1988 start of its formal national solicita-
tion effort, the Trust has received nearly 5500,000 in
support of its efforts to preserve America's ground-water
resources
"Ihe American Ground Water Trust, a nonprofit
foundation based at Dublin, Ohio, features ground-water-
related programs concentrating on public awareness, infor-
mation dissemination; and education and training. For
more information, write: The American Ground Water
Trust, Kevin McCray, Executive Director, 6375 Riverside
Dr., Dublin, OH 43017.
NEW UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK STUDY TO
FOCUS ON GROUND-WATER VULNERABILITY
Computer mapping of multiple sources of ground-
water contamination is the focus of a pilot studv bv the
Environmental Protection Agency's Region 3 office that, if
successful, could be used nationwide Regional officials in
Philadelphia are especially interested in charting a new
source of potential contamination-underground storage
tanks located in sensitive ground-water areas.
The agency has selected 1 1 counties m Delaware and
part of the Chesapeake Bay region to map potential sources
of ground-water contamination Last vcar, the region pro-
grammed Superfund sites, hazardous waste disposal
facilities and underground injection wells into the computer
model. 'Ihis year, EPA plans to chart petroleum and
chemical tanks that are 1 5 years or older 'I hese storage-
tanks will be mapped in relation to their proximity to
municipal drinking-water wells. Ihe study does not include
private uater wells.
'Ihere are three benefits to the study, says Wav ne
Naylor of Region 3. F'irst, the agency can use the data to
set enforcement priorities bv isolating those tanks that art-
closest to municipal wells and that are regarded as most
threatening to human health and the environment 'I hen in
the event of a petroleum release, H'A can use the model to
determine where the release mav have occurred, saving a
trip to the site Finally, the computer mapping system is
viewed as a model for other states so they can adopt the
program and develop statewide maps in the future
"Ihe stud\ is scheduled to be completed September
30 For more information, contact H'A's Kcgion 3 Under-
ground Storage Tank Office, 841 Chestnut St , Mail Code
3HW34. Philadelphia, PA 19107, or call 2 1 5-597-7354. -
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agenaj
Region 5, Library (5PL-16)
230 S. Dearborn Street, Boom 1670
Chicago, IL 60604
------- |