l,P'\/ll»0/K-t>5/
-------
                                  Appendix C

                 An Example of EPA Cross-Program Flexibility:
                                 South Dakota
      Each EPA program will identify ways in which it can provide greater support to
State priorities and policies in cases where the State's request for flexibility is
anticipated to provide environmental results comparable to those expected from
Federal priorities and policies, and has been developed on a basis of cross-program
integration aimed at reducing gaps in environmental protection.  To illustrate what it can
mean for EPA programs to implement this approach, the following example (an
approach EPA is supporting in South Dakota) is presented.

      South Dakota's Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR)
has determined that many municipal solid waste landfills, which  would not comply with
the new RCRA Subtitle  D regulations, are a priority concern for both ground water
protection and non-point source pollution control. The DENR's solid waste, ground
water, non-point source, and state revolving fund programs have worked together to
help South  Dakota's municipalities address this issue by closing these smaller landfills
and using state revolving fund loans to build new, fewer, regional solid waste
management facilities (much in the same spirit that such loans have been used in the
past to build wastewater treatment plants). These regional facilities also incorporate a
strong recycling program to reduce the volume of materials actually destined for
disposal.

      In order to support this effort, the Region VIII solid waste, ground water, non-
point source, and state revolving fund programs have also worked together with the
State to determine how this approach can be structured to meet each program's
requirements while still making the approach feasible for local communities.  Currently,
the State and the Region are working with their counterparts in EPA Headquarters to
identify and eliminate any remaining barriers to this approach. Because this is an
excellent example of how EPA can respond flexibly to a demonstration by a state of
better coordination and  better ground water protection, EPA is committed to taking the
necessary steps to ensure that South Dakota can utilize this approach; these steps may
include requesting supportive language as part of reauthorizing the Clean Water Act, if
necessary.  In addition,  these steps may include a dialogue led by Headquarters, with
input from Regions and states, to identify other types of activities that could legitimately
be funded by state revolving funds.
                                       17

-------
      DRAFT     DRAFT     DRAFT     DRAFT      DRAFT      DRAFT

                   EPA's Role in Furthering New Hampshire's
                     Comprehensive Groundwater Program
                                  (July, 1994)

      The following are some preliminary ideas of what EPA's groundwater-related
programs can do to assist New Hampshire in accomplishing the Five Year Work Plan
developed under the Comprehensive State Ground water Protection Program.

1.     Commit resources to the creation of a statewide GIS data layer of RCRA sites.

2.     Maintain, and if possible,  increase flexibility in targeting RCRA inspections in
      areas of high value ground water.

3.     Approve the use of 319(h) and future eligible resources to identify and map
      wellhead protection areas and other areas of high value ground water. The
      State will soon pilot methodology to utilize its GIS system to define areas of
      stratified drift which should be protected for future water supply. A funding
      source will be required to complete digitization of the aquifer maps and to use
      the GIS to create town-wide maps which identify wellhead protection areas and
      the critical stratified drift areas.

4.     Become educated about and consider the use of the State corrective action
      process at Federally managed contamination sites and commit to serious
      consideration of the issues raised  by the position paper to be prepared by DBS.

5.     Based on the results of the local needs survey, participate in the development of
      an outreach plan.  Participation could include focusing EPA technical assistance
      on identified local needs.

6.     If the need arises in the discussions on ground water and surface water
      discharges, research issues concerning treatment credits for ground water
      discharges to infiltration beds.

7.     Provide ground water quality data from federally managed contamination sites
      on an ongoing basis if it is needed to expand the State Well Network.

8.     Promote the use of ground water-related Supplemental  Environmental Projects
      (SEP) and have appropriate staff take part in CSGWPP subcommittee
      discussions.

9.     Assist the State in collecting information on appropriate ground water protection
      design features for siting or expanding highways.

                                      16

-------
                               APPENDIX B

                      State Proposals for EPA Flexibility
                               in Submitted
           Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs

      This appendix includes an example of a specific State's requests for EPA
flexibility and assistance in support of its CSGWPP, as identified in the National
CSGWPP Guidance. The example State is New Hampshire, which now has an EPA-
endorsed CSGWPP. The requests and recommendations for flexibility and assistance
provide the basis for negotiating the multi-year program plan.
                                     15

-------
            Expanding the scope of inspections and field surveys to include potential
            sources of ground water contamination;
            Establishing mechanisms for interstate coordination of ground water
            protection; and
            Sharing information between surface water and ground water programs

•     Training.  Headquarters would develop training for Regional and State NPDES
      program staff to explain potential impacts of BMPs on ground water resources,
      including design or operating alternatives which prevent or minimize ground
      water contamination  and surface water contamination through ground water.

•     NPDES Priorities.  Regional Offices would use and allow authorized NPDES
      States to consider, using EPA-endorsed CSGWPP ground water protection
      priorities and Statewide Basin Management/Watershed Protection priorities
      together to determine permitting priorities for NPDES facilities.

•     Enforcement and Prevention Opportunities. Regional Offices would use
      enforcement settlements that include support for ground water resource
      protection activities under a State's CSGWPP, such as support for community
      wellhead protection efforts in cases where contamination impacts drinking water
      supplies.

•     D. Improve Cross-Program Targeting of Funds to Common Critical Needs

•     One Grant Guidance. Each Headquarters Office and Regional Division (or
      Branch in cases where the Pesticides Program is located within an Air Quality
      Division) would integrate and  streamline the grant guidances they issue, with the
      goal that by FY 1997, each Office would issue one grant guidance document to
      the Regions, and each Division will issue one grant guidance document to the
      States. This integration would go beyond simply compiling separate guidances
      from each program to developing priorities and activities that are supported
      across the programs and provide the criteria for future Performance Partnership
      grants.
                                      14

-------
C.    Improve Coordination and Consistency in EPA's Ground Water-Related
      Programs
      State Ground Water Data Management. Each Region would provide technical
      assistance to States in developing comprehensive ground water protection
      databases. The Regions and the States would improve both the quality and
      quantity of ground water-relat3d data base systems and promote the use of CIS
      systems in implementing CSGWPP. The goal of this effort will be to assure data
      base compatibility among agencies having ground water protection
      responsibilities. Jointly, the Regions and States would identify ground water data
      system improvements needed to develop, maintain or improve State-specific
      comprehensive ground water data base systems, and identify opportunities for
      improved coordination with surface water programs.

      Data Exchange. The Agency would support cross-program ground water data
      exchange to assist effective State and Regional program implementation. The
      ground water data bases would be coordinated using compatible formats.
      Programs will provide resources to gather site-specific hydrologic information.
      Environmental indicators will be used to target data needs and geographic  areas
      for ground water protection activities under CSGWPP.  All programs would
      require ground water data to be collected, stored, and reported  using the
      Minimum Set of Data Elements (MSDE), including requirements in State grants.
      Programs would report communities, geographic areas, and aquifers under
      greatest stress from chemicals or contaminants regulated by them.  The
      availability and use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) would be
      encouraged.  Finally, EPA programs would coordinate  assistance to States for
      ground water resource assessments with USGS.

      Partnership with Other Agencies.  Headquarters and Regional staff from a
      number of programs would seek commitments from other agencies to assure
      consistency with each State's EPA endorsed CSGWPP.  In partnership with the
      States, each Region would coordinate with other appropriate Federal, State,
      sub-state and local agencies to seek commitments to assure that the ground
      water-related activities of those agencies are consistent with the goals and
      objectives of EPA-endorsed CSGWPPs.

      Regional Program Support. Overall coordination among Regional programs
      would  increase to support the implementation of a State's CSGWPP. These
      activities would include, but are not limited to, such efforts as:
            Sharing information between programs on the location of vulnerable
            ground water areas and regulated activities in those areas;

                                     13

-------
                                 APPENDIX A

                        Proposals for Future Evaluation
      While these Proposals for Future Evaluation have not been fully evaluated for
implementation, they are presented here for discussion and consideration.  It is
expected that additional proposals will be added to this list for evaluation over time.
A.    Provide Greater State-led Community-based Decision Making by giving
      States more flexibility to focus on critical ground water resources.

•     Training. All ground water-related programs should develop training materials
      for Regional and State personnel that include elements on cross-program and
      ground water-surface water interrelationships.

•     Regulatory Actions Targeted in CSGWPP Identified Areas.  EPA would
      assemble a cross-program team to develop methods and guidance for State
      and/or Regional permit, compliance, inspection and enforcement actions
      targeted on CSGWPP-identified priority ground water resources.

•     RCRA Corrective Action.  In developing the Corrective Action Rule (Subpart S),
      EPA would continue to evaluate opportunities to provide flexibility in remedial
      decision-making based on State priorities identified in EPA-endorsed
      CSGWPPs.
B.    Increase the Focus on Preventing Contamination

•     Community Prevention Projects.  EPA should evaluate:

            the authority to include best management practices (BMPs) in NPDES
            permits that are designed to help protect ground water from
            contamination; and
            the use of Supplemental Environmental Projects in enforcement actions
            which may include pollution prevention and wellhead protection in cases
            where point sources (NPDES, RCRA C and D, and UST) may adversely
            impact drinking water supplies.
                                      12

-------
      Ground Water Stakeholders Meetings. EPA and State and local stakeholders
      held a series of meetings in September, 1994,-to define measures of success for
      community wellhead protection programs and the measurement of specific
      environmental results for ground water protection. This effort will continue in FY
      1995 and FY 1996. EPA also held a national conference for Ground Water
      Stakeholders in December, 1994, to bring together the community of people
      interested  in promoting ground water protection to exchange information and
      approaches.
 Supportive Actions To Be Implemented

•     Outreach/Education and Local Action.  EPA will develop outreach and
      educational approaches and materials that help improve public and permit
      writers' understanding of: (1) ground water resources, and their relation to other
      portions of the water environment; and (2) the benefits and advantages of taking
      a whole-basin (or "watershed" or "holistic") approach to environmental protection.
      The goal of these efforts will be to stimulate community interest in assuming a
      leadership responsibility for holistic environmental protection.  Headquarters will
      primarily focus on building the outreach of national non-governmental
      organizations such as the League of Women Voters and the Groundwater
      Foundation.  Regions will primarily focus on ways of reaching  more audiences,
      and will work through and with States that are adopting the comprehensive
      approach to ground water protection. Outreach materials may be translated into
      Spanish or other relevant languages where appropriate and feasible based on
      local need and availability of funds.
IV.    Future Actions for Evaluation by EPA Program Offices and States to
      Improve Comprehensive Ground Water Protection

      EPA will continue to evaluate opportunities identified by States through
CSGWPPs for future action to improve the ground water protection aspects of EPA
programs. In the next year, the Ground Water Policy Committee will consider
recommendations for such actions from the Cluster Workgroup which cannot be
successfully  executed at a Regional level.  A list of Proposals for Future Evaluation are
identified in Appendix A.
                                      11

-------
      flexibility pilots begun in FY '95. These grants were intended to demonstrate
      maximum flexibility for cross-program activities under existing authorities, to
      allow States to allocate funds to respond to identified  problems or places of
      highest priority or greatest vulnerability or risk, typically in or near communities
      and their drinking water supplies. These approaches could be determined by the
      respective State in its Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program,
      Statewide  Basin Management/Watershed Protection Approach, or other
      comprehensive environmental programs, where statutorily allowable. The
      Agency is seeking authority to provide Performance Partnership grants to
      address State environmental priorities. Performance  Partnership Grants are
      intended to improve the performance of EPA programs by allowing separate
      grant funds to be combined and, consequently, enabling States to better
      integrate and coordinate protection activities.  It is the Agency's intention to make
      the first round of Performance Partnership grants in FY 1996.

      Grants Guidance and Coordinated Ground Water Activities. Based on the
      results of the pilot water and environmental multi-purpose grants, EPA programs
      will evaluate and, where possible, provide grants guidance beginning with the FY
      1997 grants cycle that encourages the use of grant funds to support coordinated,
      cross-program activities to the extent allowable under existing statutes.  These
      activities may include coordinated permitting,  collaborative mapping, etc., and
      may address the full range of available funds, including Clean Water Act
      Sections 104(b)(3),106, 205(j), 319(h), 518, 604(b); Safe Drinking Water Act,
      Sections 1442, 1443(a) and (b), 1451; Pollution Prevention Act; Federal
      Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, Sections 20, 23; Comprehensive
      Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, Sections 104, 311(c);
      Solid Waste Disposal Act, Sections 2007(f), 3011, 8001, 9003; Toxic Substances
      Control Act, Section 10; and National Education Act, Section 6. In addition, the
      guidance should encourage close coordination between surface water and
      ground water implementation activities funded from all sources.
E.    Increased Activities to Build Support From Stakeholders

 Supportive Actions Underway

•     National Town Meeting.  EPA worked with the League of Women Voters to hold
      a televised  "National Town Meeting" on ground water protection in April 1993, in
      which 170 down-link sites participated from around the country.  The meeting
      resulted in several communities initiating local prevention programs.  Additional
      follow-up is planned with the League, and plans for a 1997 initiative are being
      developed.
                                      10

-------
•     Regional Response for State Priorities. In meeting its own ground water
      protection responsibilities, the Region will take into account the States' ground
      water goals, priorities, cross-program integration needs, State-desired flexibilities
      and resource protection approaches addressed in the Core CSGWPP.

•     UIC. For the UIC Program, EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
      will stress in the Class V implementation guidance the need for Regions which
      implement the Class V program to coordinate with State-lead programs for
      underground storage tanks (UST) and RCRA, in order to deal effectively with
      industrial Class V wells.

•     Comprehensive Ground Water/Watershed Guidance.  Headquarters will issue
      guidance integrating the comprehensive approach for ground water protection
      with the Statewide Basin/Watershed Protection Approach, including the NPDES
      Watershed Approach, Comprehensive Nonpoint Source Control program,
      Wetlands Conservation Plans, and National Estuary Program.

•     Inspection/Compliance/Enforcement Targeting. Where appropriate, EPA will
      assist States in promoting cross-program inspection/compliance/enforcement
      actions that are multi-media in approach.  Included are such actions as facility
      inspections addressing several programs' requirements, whether conducted by
      EPA or States, as well  as targeting activities in accord with State priority ground
      water resources.

D.    Better Cross-Program Targeting of Funds to Common Critical Needs

 Supportive Actions Underway

•     RCRA Grants.  The RCRA program encourages States to use the flexibility
      provided them in the RCRA Implementation Plan to account for State priorities in
      their use of program funds. States can use these funds to coordinate and
      implement the RCRA portion of their State ground water protection programs. In
      this way, States, for example, can use ground water classification as an input to
      target geographic initiatives for permitting or enforcement, to select cleanup
      options for corrective action, or to identify high resource-value ground water over
      which additional protective measures may be imposed. This is consistent with
      the strong mandate for ground water protection and clean up in RCRA and with
      OSWER's commitment to support states as the primary implementors of RCRA.

 Supportive Actions To Be  Implemented

•     Multi-Program Grants.  The Grants Administration Division, in consultation with
      the Program Offices and Regions I and VIII, will evaluate the results of grant

-------
•     Regional Cross-Program Actions. The Deputy Regional Administrator in each
      Region, working in consultation with the Assistant Administrators, will improve
      Regional cross-program coordination by evaluating how Regional ground water-
      related programs can consider the goals, priorities, cross-program needs, State-
      desired flexibilities and resource protection approach of each State's CSGWPP.
      This evaluation may be accomplished as part of the Region's process of
      endorsing State Core CSGWPPs, for example.  Included in these evaluations will
      be a description of Regional mechanisms that allow/support/promote the
      consideration of CSGWPP in Regional ground water-related program activities.
      This description may appear as part of a Region's Ground Water Review.
      Regional staff who are responsible for program-specific activities in each State
      will meet regularly to develop State-specific Operating Plans that focus on
      holistic approaches, review State progress in various programs, and identify
      ways to help the State adopt a more holistic approach to environmental
      protection. This approach may vary by Region.

      Specific Regional cross-program activities to support CSGWPP development
      and implementation in all ground water-related programs may include:

            Reviewing appropriate ground water-related State workplans;
            Including CSGWPP elements in Regional ground water-related
            program/grants guidance to States, including Performance Partnership
            Grants, and in internal program workplans;
            Evaluating the  needs, opportunities and tools for cross-program sharing  of
            information on the location of vulnerable ground water areas and
            regulated activities in those areas and communities;
            Developing Regional approaches to identify methods for avoiding cross-
            media contamination;
            Exploring mechanisms for interstate coordination of ground water
            protection;
            Providing support for cross-program Regional/State public education and
            outreach activities to promote ground water protection;
            Implementing the Agency's Locational Data Policy and the Minimum Set
            of Data Elements for Ground Water;
            Exploring mechanisms for coordination with surface water program
            activities at the State and community level; and
            Assisting the States technically and financially in using CSGWPP as the
            "seed" for developing watershed protection and management programs.

•     Superfund Use of CSGWPP.  OSWER will prepare a directive for Regional
      Remediation Programs concerning review of CSGWPPs and use of their results
      in  remedial activities.  The directive will also discuss the importance of remedial
      program involvement in the .CSGWPP  multi-year planning process.

                                      8

-------
       Protection Programs that offer a foundation on which to build a PWSS monitoring
       waiver program. Delineations and contaminant source identifications carried out
       under community wellhead programs can provide information which is critical to
       ensuring that area-wide use and susceptibility waivers protect public health in
       public water systems. Where State or community wellhead programs include
       effective management of contamination sources, there is a significant potential to
       prevent or reduce contamination of the source waters.  States and public water
       systems are encouraged  to apply the flexibility provided in the national PWSS
       guidance for using wellhead protection program results in monitoring waiver
       applications and the benefits of conducting a consolidated contaminant source
       inventory.

 •     Regional Cross-Program  Coordination. Each Region will continue to improve its
       cross-program ground water coordination in support and enhancement of States'
       CSGWPPs. Regional staff responsible for ground water-related activities should
       network (via state-specific, program-specific, intra-Divisional, and other
       mechanisms) and coordinate their activities on a regular basis. These activities
       will assist States in the development of their CSGWPPs and the Regions in the
       review/endorsement of State CSGWPP submittals.

       Additionally,,Regional program managers will increase their efforts to improve
       ground water coordination between the Regional and State  ground water
       protection programs as well as among appropriate Federal,  State, sub-state and
       community agencies that also have ground water protection responsibilities.
       Regions should also improve coordination between ground water and surface
       water programs, and work to ensure increased coordination of State and local
       governments.

 f     Pesticide SMP. Since Pesticide SMPs are developed under a framework similar
/      to CSGWPPs, a State's implementation of its SMP can satisfy many of the Core
       CSGWPP criteria.  SMPs and CSGWPPs might form the basis for Performance
       Partnership Grant requests.
  Supportive Actions To Be Implemented

       Integrated Agency Response to State Flexibility Requests. All EPA ground
       water-related programs will work through the Ground Water Policy Committee
       and its Cluster Workgroup to ensure that any issues identified and flexibilities
       requested by States that are of national scope receive the benefit of an
       integrated EPA response.

-------
B.    Increased Prevention Focus

 Supportive Actions To Be Implemented

•     Underground Injection Control (UICV  For the UIC Program, EPA's Office of
      Ground Water and Drinking Water will stress in the Class V implementation
      guidance that grant funds should be targeted toward those activities that will
      address Class Y wells or similar potential sources of contamination that pose the
      most significant threat to high valued, priority ground waters as identified in a
      CSGWPP, such as community wellhead/source water protection, karst, and/or
      other vulnerable areas.

•     Research/Development/Demonstration Plan for Preventing Local Ground Water
      Contamination. ORD will develop a ground water research plan focused on
      prevention that will provide:

      (1) research on technical issues affecting community prevention implementation;
      (2) demonstrations of effective ground water protection in places representative
      of different hydrogeologic settings and different resource issues to serve as
      models for State and local officials to observe potential application in their own
      communities; and,
      (3) technical assistance ranging from community  consultation to preparation and
      distribution of case studies.

•     Indicators of Prevention Progress. The Office of Ground Water and Drinking
      Water, in consultation with States, is developing indicators to measure progress
      in preventing ground water contamination and program success. These
      indicators will be used to report State water quality trends nationally, using
      available information, in the Clean Water Act Section 305(b) Report to Congress.

C.    Improved Coordination and Consistency in Ground Water-Related
      Programs

 Supportive Actions Underway

•     CSGWPP Endorsement. All Regional ground water-related programs will
      participate in the review of State Core CSGWPPs. All Headquarters ground
      water programs will participate in the concurrence process for the first CSGWPP
      endorsement in each Region, so that they can understand the types of
      flexibilities the States are requesting.

•     Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Monitoring Waivers and Wellhead
      Protection. Thirty-nine States and Territories have approved Wellhead

-------
•     State Flexibility Requests in CSGWPP. Regional ground water-related programs
      will make every reasonable effort to accommodate flexibilities (e.g., joint funding
      for mutually supportive activities targeting inspections, or using Supplemental
      Environmental Projects for enforcement activities) requested by States in their
      "Vision Statements" and  multi-year program plans that will accompany or follow
      their Core CSGWPP submittal, provided that the States can demonstrate that
      these flexibilities will meet minimum program requirements and improve ground
      water protection.  An example appears in Appendix C.

•     Changes in Oversight Practices. EPA ground water-related programs will work
      with States and grant recipients to carry out the goals of the joint effort to reform
      oversight and create Performance Partnerships ("Joint Commitment to Reform
      Oversight" signed by Administrator Browner, May 17, 1995).  This effort will
      focus on analysis of significant environmental trends and patterns, giving States
      increased flexibility to address their priorities and ensuring strong accountability
      for results.

•     Superfund and RCRA Site Assessments.  Regional waste management divisions
      will consider assigning  a  higher priority for initiating site assessments at sites
      located in areas of high priority ground water, as defined by an endorsed
      Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program.

•     Risk-Based Management in UST Corrective Action. EPA Headquarters UST
      Program will draft a policy that promotes the concept of risk-based management
      and decision making in State UST corrective action programs. The policy will
      emphasize that sites should be managed differently based  on the human health
      and environmental risk that they pose, and that oversight should be focused on
      those sites posing the highest risk to communities. CSGWPPs could be a useful
      approach in achieving this goal.

•     RCRA State and Tribal Implementation Program.  EPA Headquarters will pursue
      promulgation of the State and Tribal Implementation Rule setting out standards
      for State and Tribal permit programs for municipal solid waste landfills. The
      Subtitle  D program  encourages approved States and Tribal programs  to do
      ground water planning  and allows States and Tribes flexibility to set standards
      for municipal waste landfills that reflect their interests.

•     Training. All ground water-related programs should include cross-program and
      ground water-surface water relationships in training for Regional and State
      personnel, such as Facility Inspector and NPDES Permit Writers courses.

-------
            use a State-developed ground water classification approach in
            establishing preventive requirements and in targeting sites for inspection
            and enforcement action;  and

            restrict placement of USTs in high risk ground water areas, especially
            source waters for community drinking water supplies, or require more
            stringent controls or monitoring for such tanks.

>     LUST Trust Fund.  The LUST Trust Fund will reemphasize to states that their
     cooperative agreements with EPA under the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
     (LUST) Trust Fund require use of a State-developed priority system when using
     Trust Fund monies for State-lead corrective action and enforcement. The priority
     system is to be used as a screening device to assure that sites addressed with
     these funds provide the greatest impact on or benefit for the protection of human
     health  and the environment. The CSGWPP approach to classifying ground
     water could be an important element of the State's UST priority system.

>     Nonpoint Source Program. Regional Section 319 guidances should reflect
     State's ground water protection priorities from its CSGWPP in  making funding
     decisions. Regions will continue to inform States that delineation activities for
     community wellhead protection  areas and zones of significant ground water-
     surface water interaction are included as priority activities in the Section 319
     guidance. EPA will continue to support Section 319 projects to conduct ground
     water assessments which identify priority areas for protection and lead to
     implementing protection efforts.

>     State Management Plan (SMP) Program. The SMP Program, like the CSGWPP
     approach, is based on the fact that programs to protect ground water should be
     designed and implemented consistent with distinctive community needs and
     conditions. SMPs  provide the States with the flexibility to focus efforts to areas
     of greatest risk to pesticide contamination. FIFRA funding is available for States
     to target pesticide management practices, monitoring, and assessment activities
     to these  areas the  States identify as priority ground water protection areas.

Supportive Actions To Be Implemented

»     Liaison with States. The EPA Ground Water Policy Committee through its
     Cluster Workgroup will establish a liaison with State organizations with multi-
     media representation for States with endorsed CSGWPPs to discuss and, where
     appropriate, act on opportunities for program changes proposed by States in
     their CSGWPPs and recommended by Regional offices because consideration is
     necessary at the national level.

-------
      o     Improved Coordination and Consistency in EPA's Ground Water-Related
            Programs, including consistency between ground and surface water
            programs,
      o     Better Cross-Program Targeting of Funds to Common Critical Needs
      o     Increased Activities to Build Support From Stakeholders

Within each theme, the actions are presented as:
            Supportive Actions Underway
            Supportive Actions Proposed for FY 1995/96 Implementation

      Proposals for Future Evaluation are presented in Appendix A. At this time,
Agency-wide consensus has not been achieved on them. These proposals need
further discussion and have not been fully evaluated. Appendix B includes examples of
a State's requests for EPA flexibility identified in its CSGWPP submitted to EPA for
consideration.  Appendix C presents a recent example for one State of a proposal for
EPA program flexibility.  Appendix D portrays the process for State-EPA interaction on
future proposals for program flexibility, commitments, and Agency action.

      The actions identified below reflect EPA's continuing commitment to improving
ground water protection within its legal framework while recognizing that the States
have the principal responsibility for the protection of this important environmental
resource.

A.    Greater State-led Community-based Decision Making giving States more
      flexibility to focus on critical ground water resources

 Supportive Actions Underway

•     Suoerfund and RCRA Corrective Action. Regional programs will continue to consider
      State ground water classification in the selection of Superfund remedies and
      RCRA corrective action, with respect to determination of expected ground water
      use,  ground water cleanup standards, and pace of cleanup. (Superfund
      remedies may change based on the result of reauthorization.)

•     Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program. The UST program will emphasize
      the existing flexibility that States have in implementing the UST program.  The
      UST program is already very compatible with CSGWPP philosophy, to the extent
      that they both rely upon the concept of a State-oriented management program to
      achieve protection of ground water. Because of its flexible nature and the
      discretion provided  to States, the UST program design currently allows States to:

            determine priorities, as well as establish site-specific ground water
            cleanup standards for corrective action;

-------
This focus will recognize that activities which affect local or regional ecosystems often
need a holistic and targeted approach involving both ground and surface water.

      Some recommended actions will be for operational changes identified through
EPA's regional offices, and they may be effected promptly.  Other actions may require
regulatory changes over a longer timeframe. Certain proposed actions that would
require statutory changes will be addressed separately from this process, as when laws
are reauthorized.  Improving comprehensive ground water protection is an ongoing
process and the Ground Water Policy Committee and Cluster Workgroup will seek a
wide range of input to foster its benefits, including effective participation by Regions and
States, local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and other programs. AN
ground water-related programs are committed to giving this activity adequate attention
to effect the improvements sought so that environmental results are achieved in a more
effective, rational way. The EPA Assistant Administrators and Deputy Regional
Administrators will be responsible for implementing the actions currently underway and
proposed for implementation in Fiscal Years (FYs) 1995 and 1996.

III.    The States' Leading Role in Identifying  Future Changes

      As States prepare their CSGWPPs for EPA endorsement and then begin
implementing these programs, they will identify opportunities for further changes in EPA
programs that will be useful in supporting comprehensive ground water protection.
States have a leading role in identifying future changes in EPA's programs for ground
water protection through the CSGWPP multi-year program planning process. Some
opportunities will be State-specific and others will apply to Regions and the entire
country. Regional offices will consider and act where appropriate, on proposed
changes that affect specific States or the Region. These actions will also guide the
development of Performance Partnerships between EPA and States for grants and
cross- or multi-program activities.  The Ground Water Policy Committee through its
Cluster Workgroup will establish a liaison with State organizations having multi-media
representation for States with endorsed CSGWPPs to ensure that opportunities for
changes necessary at the national level are  recognized, considered, and, where
appropriate, acted on by the Senior management of EPA. The Cluster Workgroup will
work with established State groups where appropriate.

IV.   EPA Commitment to Actions for Improving Comprehensive Ground Water
      Protection

      The actions identified at this time emphasize five themes:

      o    Greater State-led  Community-based Decision  Making giving States more
            flexibility to focus on critical ground water resources
      o    Increased Prevention Focus

-------
                  Continuing EPA's Commitment to Improving
                          Its Ground Water Programs
                                 In Support of
            Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs
I.     Affirming the Commitment to Improving Comprehensive Ground Water
      Protection

      With the release of the Final National Guidance for Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPP) in 1993, EPA committed to take actions
within its own programs that would promote these Comprehensive State Programs.
The purpose of these actions, described below, is to develop a more rational
Federal/State approach to manage environmental programs, focusing on State
priorities, to give the total water resource more effective and efficient protection for its
full range of human health and environmental endpoints in communities and State-
identified priority ground waters. CSGWPP is part of the Agency's comprehensive
approach which addresses all environmental concerns, including, for example, public
health, critical habitat, biological integrity, and ground and surface waters. CSGWPP
plays an important role in coordinating related program activities so that all water
resources are effectively and efficiently protected. It will also provide one of the bases
for funding Performance Partnerships between EPA and States.

      EPA programs began to take some actions immediately, based on the results of
the fourteen State and Federal agency Roundtable meetings in 1992, the completion of
State and Regional ground water program assessments, and the preparation of the
CSGWPP guidance in 1993. The result was the initiation of some improvements earlier
than contemplated in the CSGWPP guidance.  After release of the Guidance, other
actions were identified as a result of the States developing their CSGWPP submittals
for EPA endorsement.  This report identifies the specific actions that EPA is already
taking, will take or will evaluate for future action to support States in providing
comprehensive water resource protection targeted on ground water and  its interaction
with surface water.

II.     Continuing the Commitment

      EPA will review proposals for future actions that could improve comprehensive
ground water protection.  The EPA Ground Water Policy Committee will review and
take actions on recommendations from its Ground Water Cluster Workgroup. A key
imperative for these efforts will be a review for recommendations that focus on
improving States' ability to protect ground water in places of greatest demand, stress or
vulnerability, which  are often in or near communities and their drinking water supplies.

                                      1

-------
One Comprehensive Ground Water/   Office of Water                Qtr 3
Watershed Guidance                                           FY 1995

Insp'n./Compl./ Enf. targeting         Office of Enforcement          Qtr 4
on endorsed CSGWPP priorities       and Compliance Assurance     FY 1995
•     BETTER CROSS-PROGRAM TARGETING OF FUNDS TO COMMON
      CRITICAL NEEDS

Multi-Program Grants Demonstration   Office of Grants and            Ongoing
and Performance Partnerships        Debarment                   FY 1995

Grants Guidance supporting          Asst. Administrators &          Qtr 4
cross-prog, activities,                Deputy Regional Admin.        FY 1995
including, where appropriate,
surface water activities
•     INCREASED ACTIVITIES TO BUILD SUPPORT FROM STAKEHOLDERS

Outreach/Education and Local        Asst. Administrators &          Ongoing
Action                            Deputy Regional Admin.

-------
Superfund and RCRA Site Assmts.     Regional Superfund            Ongoing
in areas of State priority              Program Dir./Chief
ground waters

UST Risk-based Corrective Action     Office of Under-                Qtr 4
policy                             ground Storage Tanks          FY1995

RCRA State & Tribal Impl.            Office of Solid Waste           Qtr 4
Program (Subtitle D) to                                            FY 1995
allow standards setting
flexibility

Training to incl. cross-prog. &         Office of Water                 Qtr 4
ground & surface water interact'n                                   FY 1995
•     INCREASED PREVENTION FOCUS

UIC policy to fund Cl V activities       Office of Ground Water         Qtr 4
aimed at endorsed CSGWPP priorities & Drinking Water              FY 95

Research/Devel./Demo. Plan for       Office of Research and         Qtr 4
preventing community ground         Development                 FY 1995
water contamination

Indicators of Prevention Progress      Office of Ground Water         Qtr 3
                                  & Drinking Water              FY1995
•     IMPROVED COORDINATION AND CONSISTENCY IN EPA'S GROUND
      WATER- RELATED PROGRAMS

Regional Cross-Programs actions      Deputy Regional Admin.        Ongoing
supporting CSGWPPs

Regional Response to State          Deputy Regional Admin.        Ongoing
CSGWPP priorities

Superfund use of CSGWPPs to        Office of Emergency and       Qtr 1
guide remedial activities              Remedial Response           FY 1996

UIC Direct Impl. policy to             Office of Ground Water        Qtr 4
improve coord, with UST & RCRA      & Drinking Water              FY 1995

-------
                        Ground Water Commitments
                           Commitment Summary

      The Ground Water Commitments that follow are EPA's attempt to provide
flexibility to the States in support of their Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs (CSGWPPs). These Commitments are a result of discussions
between the States and EPA's ground water-related programs, and of discussions
within EPA programs. This report identifies the specific actions that EPA is already
taking, will take, or will evaluate for future action to support States in their CSGWPPs.
Substantial focus is on responding to State priorities, and promoting community-based
protection and EPA-State Performance Partnerships.

      These are only the first set of Ground Water Commitments. EPA will review
proposals for future actions that could improve comprehensive ground water protection
through the Agency's Ground Water Policy Committee.  States have a leading role in
developing these future'actions. Recommendations of the States will provide the basis
for negotiating their multi year program plans with the Regions, and will be discussed at
Policy Committee meetings. All EPA ground water-related programs will work through
the Ground Water Policy Committee and its Cluster Workgroup to ensure that any
issues identified and flexibilities requested by States that are of national scope receive
the benefit of an integrated EPA response.

Commitment                       Responsible Office             Date
•     GREATER STATE-LED COMMUNITY-BASED DECISION MAKING GIVING
      STATES MORE FLEXIBILITY TO FOCUS ON CRITICAL GROUND WATER
      RESOURCES, CONSIDERING APPROPRIATE SURFACE WATER
      CONCERNS

EPA Liaison with States through        Ground Water Policy           Qtr 4
State-led organizations for            Committee/Cluster             FY 1995
Endorsed CSGWPP flexibilities

State Flexibility Requests in           Asst. Admin. &                Ongoing
CSGWPPs responded to by Programs  Dep. Reg. Admin.

EPA Changes in oversight            All Program AAs, RAs,         Qtr 2,
practices                           OECA                       FY 1996

-------
                               APPENDIX D

                Process for Amending Commitments Docum&n1
      The following chart details how this Commitments document will be updated.
States will make their flexibility requests through the CSGWPP endorsement process
and through their State associations. Proposals that are of national! s-cope will be
reviewed by the Ground Water Policy Committee.
                                     18

-------
       bl
O
m H > H o>   -no

3D
m
O
c
m
t/>
H
cn
•n
p-
m
X
DO
P"
H
<


>
Z
O




<
CO
O




rn
2
rn


                                   m
                                   •o
                                   o
Proposals of\
National
Scope
REGIONAL
GROUND
WATER POLICY
COMMITTEES
                                   Q


                                   "0
                                   -o

                                   o
                                   o
                                   H


                                   m


                                   H
                                    13
                                    O
                                    o
                                    m
                                    C/)

-------