813R84101
A GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY
FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUGUST 1984
U.S
Region 5, uotmj (PL-llfl
77 West JacMon BoufenrtL
Chicago, It 60604-*«<~
-------
U.S. EmhumMftal PidBttton Agency
-------
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY
Table of Contents
Page
CHAPTER I - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
CHAPTER II - THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF GROUND-WATER
CONTAMINATION IN THE U.S 9
Findings 10
Conclusions 17
CHAPTER III - WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING GROUND WATER?. 19
Findings 20
Conclusions 29
Table A: Summary Table of Existing Federal Ground-Water
Protection Programs 31
CHAPTER IV - EPA1 S STRATEGY TO PROTECT GROUND WATER 32
1. Strengthen State Ground-Water Programs 35
2. Cope With Currently Unaddressed Ground-Water Problems 37
3. Create a Policy Framework for Guiding EPA Programs... 41
4. Strengthen Internal Ground-Water Organization 48
Footnotes 53
Appendices 56
Attachment I. State/Local/Federal Ground-Water Roles
Attachment II. Summary of EPA Ground-Water Regulations
Attachment III. State Assistance
Attachment IV. Options for Ground-Water Protection Guidelines
Attachment V. Headquarters Coordination Options
Attachment VI. Regional Management Options
-------
CHAPTER I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the last decade the public has grown increasingly aware
of the potential problem of ground-water contamination. Reports
of chemicals threatening drinking water supplies have mobilized
State, local and Federal governments to respond. But these
responses suffer from a lack of coordination among responsible
agencies, limited information about the health effects of exposure
to some contaminants, and a limited scientific foundation on which
to base policy decisions.
Officials at all levels of government ha.ve begun to look
for a definable strategy to protect ground water. The strategy
presented here will provide a common reference for responsible
institutions as they work toward the shared goal of preserving,
for current and future generations, clean ground water for drinking
and other uses, while protecting the public health of citizens
who may be exposed to the effects of past contamination.
EPA Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus recognized the
need to protect ground-water quality as a national concern.
In response, Deputy Administrator Alvin L. Aim formed a Ground-
Water Task Force to: (1) identify areas of serious inconsistencies
among programs and institutions at the State, local and Federal
levels; (2) assess the need for greater program coordination
within EPA; and (3) help strengthen States' capabilities to
protect ground-water resources as they themselves define the
need. In line with EPA's mission to preserve and enhance
environmental quality, this strategy document focuses on issues
of ground-water quality.
(Issues of water quantity and allocation are also important,
but they are outside the province of EPA. Many ground-water
quality issues (for example, salt-water intrusion) are closely
related to issues of ground-water quantity and allocation.
States will have to approach such issues through integrated
policies; topics relating primarily to quantity and allocation
are not addressed in this document. With respect to EPA
activities the scope and intent of this document includes only
EPA's statutory and regulatory authority.)
-------
-2-
The Task Force was composed of staff from each affected EPA
Program Office and two EPA regions. The Office of Water chaired
the group. Beginning work in June 1983, the Task Force delivered
a draft report to the Deputy Administrator on September 1, 1983.
He sought the views of senior Agency policy-makers by meeting
with the involved Assistant Administrators and their key
staff on many occasions to discuss the report and its implications.
As options began to narrow, this senior policy group requested
additional analyses from the Task Force, consulting with Regional
Administrators as it proceeded. At length, after concerted debate
and broad-scale Agency involvement, the main policy elements for
an EPA Ground-Water Protection Strategy emerged. Draft conclusions
were discussed with Congressional staff, State organizations,
and environmental and industry organizations.
A draft strategy resulting from that decision process
was then distributed to State officials and to select State,
business and industry, and environmental organizations for
comment. Approximately 150 organizations submitted comments.
After receiving comments from these interested parties, EPA
revised the draft strategy for final consideration by the
Deputy Administrator and Assistant Administrators. This
final Ground-Water Protection Strategy is the product of that
deliberation process.
A Perspective on Ground Water
In the 1970's, national environmental concern focused mainly on
natural resources and pollutants we could see or smell. Surface
water and air quality, specific types of contaminants such as
pesticides, or obvious sources of contamination such as uncon-
trolled hazardous waste sites, were of primary concern. People
concerned themselves only rarely with ground water since, hidden
from view as it is, few knew or really understood how seriously
the resource was being compromised.
Today, ground-water contamination looms as a major environ-
mental issue of the 1980's. The attention of agencies at all
levels of government, as well as that of industry and environmenta-
lists, is now focused on this vital resource. As contamination
has appeared in well water and wells have been closed, the public
has expressed growing concern about the health implications of
inappropriate use and disposal of chemicals. As concern has
increased, so have demands for expanded protection of the resource.
Our understanding of the sources and dimension of the threat
is limited, but increasing. Scientists can now measure specific
-------
-3-
organic chemicals at the parts-per-billion or -trillion levels.
As new health studies are completed and as we learn more about
various sources of ground-water contamination, our capacity to
deal with this problem increases. Scientists and engineers have
also learned more about how contaminants move in the subsurface
— which ones bind to soils and which ones pass through to the
water table beneath. They are now identifying technologies to
prevent, control, and clean up ground-water contamination.
Major Authorities and Responsibilities
The Task Force reviewed EPA's statutory authority as it
relates to ground water and examined the current scope and extent
of State programs as well. While the nature and variability of
ground water makes its management the primary responsibility of
States, the Task Force found that a number of Federal authorities
exist to support States in the effort.
Since these Federal statutes were enacted at various times for
separate purposes, inconsistency developed in EPA's regulations
and in the decisions made under them. While these differences
are often necessary and reasonable, there are a number that appear
to hinder a cohesive approach to ground-water protection. Improving
harmony among EPA's program rules affecting ground-water protection
is an important need, since inconsistency in such matters leads
to confusion and less effective protection than if roles, require-
ments, and responsibilities are clear and consistent.
In addition to its own authorities, EPA found a variety of
powerful State and local statutes available for use. A number
of States have begun their own programs for ground-water protec-
tion, some built on permits supported by a system of aquifer
classification. Continuing the development of State programs in
this area is vital, as they have the basic responsibility for the
protection of the ground-water resource.
Strategic Concerns
Given public concerns, EPA, as well as State and local govern-
mental agencies, must decide how best to protect public health
and critical environmental systems. It seems clear to many that
we must direct our energies to minimize future contamination,
even as we detect and manage contamination associated with past
activities.
Protecting ground water will be difficult. Starting with
limited knowledge of the resource and limited means to address
existing or potential problems, we must expend our efforts where
-------
-4-
groundwater contamination would cause the greatest harm.
Consequently, we assign highest priority to those ground waters
that are currently used as sources of drinking water or that
feed and replenish unique ecosystems.
Ground-water protection is a very complex and difficult issue.
It will require sustained effort at all levels of government over
a long period of time before this resource will be adequately
protected. Within this context, EPA developed its Ground-Water
Protection Strategy.
EPA's Ground-Water Protection Strategy
The EPA Strategy includes four major components that address
critical needs. They are:
- Short-term build-up of institutions at the State level;
Assessing the problems that may exist from unaddressed
sources of contamination—in particular, leaking
storage tanks, surface impoundments, and landfills;
Issuing guidelines for EPA decisions affecting ground-
water protection and cleanup; and
- Strengthening EPA's organization for ground-water manage-
ment at the Headquarters and Regional levels, and
strengthening EPA's cooperation with Federal and State
agencies.
These components, described in detail in Chapter IV, are
summarized below.
EPA will provide support to States for program development
and institution building. EPA will encourage States to make use
of certain existing grant programs to develop ground-water
protection programs and strategies. These funds will support
necessary program development and planning, the creation of needed
data systems, assessment of legal and institutional impediments to
comprehensive State management, and the development of State
regulatory programs such as permitting and classification. Regional
Administrators will work with Governors so that funds are directed
to the State agency or programs with the most complete authority and
capability to undertake or continue statewide program or strategy
development. EPA will also provide State agencies with technical
assistance in solving ground-water problems and will continue to
support a strong research program in ground water.
-------
EPA will address contamination from underground storage
tanks. Because the evidence suggests that leaking storage tanks—
particulary from gasoline—may represent a major, unaddressed
source of ground-water contamination, the Deputy Administrator
has directed the Office of Toxic Substances to design a study to
identify the nature, extent, and severity of the problem. EPA is
investigating the application of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA), as well as other authorities, as a potential legal
basis for applying appropriate requirements on design and operation
of these tanks. In the meantime, the Agency will issue chemical
advisories to alert owners and operators about the problem and
work with States and industry to develop voluntary steps to reduce
contamination. EPA is also planning direct regulation of underground
storage of hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
EPA will study the need for further regulation of land
disposal facilities, including surface impoundments and landfills.
EPA, in cooperation with the States, will conduct studies of
impoundments and landfills as to the degree of danger they present,
set priorities for control, review the regulatory options avail-
able, and determine if additional Federal controls are needed.
EPA will adopt guidelines for consistency in its ground-water
protection programs. The guidelines will be based on the policy
that ground-water protection should consider the highest beneficial
use to which ground water having significant water resources value
can presently or potentially be put. Under this policy, the
guidelines define protection policies for three classes of ground
water, based on their respective value and their vulnerability to
contamination. These guidelines are intended to provide a frame-
work for the decisions that EPA and States will have to make in
implementing EPA programs. The guidelines will be used by EPA
and the States to make decisions on levels of protection and
cleanup under existing regulations, to guide future regulations,
and to establish enforcement priorities for the future. (These
regulations will then provide the legal basis for the implementa-
tion of the guidelines. It is not intended that any substantive
or procedural rights are provided by this Strategy.)
The classes of ground water are as follows:
Class I: Special Ground Waters are those that are highly
vulnerable to contamination because of the hydrological
characteristics of the areas under which they occur and
that are also characterized by either of the following
two factors:
a) Irreplaceable, in that no reasonable alternative
source of drinking water is available to substantial
populations; or
-------
-6-
b) Ecologically vital/ in that the aquifer provides the
base flow for a particularly sensitive ecological
system that, if polluted, would destroy a unique
habitat.
Class II: Current and Potential Sources of Drinking Water
and Waters Having Other Beneficial Uses are all other
ground waters that are currently used or are potentially
available for drinking water or other beneficial use.
Class III: Ground Waters Not Considered Potential Sources
of Drinking Water and of Limited Beneficial Use are
ground waters that are heavily saline, with Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS) levels over 10,000 mg/L), or are otherwise
contaminated beyond levels that allow cleanup using
methods reasonably employed in public water system treat-
ment. These ground waters also must not migrate to
Class I or II ground waters or have a discharge to surface
water that could cause degradation.
EPA will accord different levels of protection to each class
as described in the examples below. Chapter IV describes in
more detail the regulatory approaches EPA will take to protect
these ground-water classes under each statute.
To prevent contamination of Class I ground waters EPA
will initially discourage by guidance, and eventually ban by
regulation, the siting of new hazardous waste land disposal
facilities over Special Ground Waters. Some restrictions may
also be applied to existing land disposal facilities. Further,
Agency policy will be directed toward restricting or banning
the use in these areas of those pesticides which are known to
leach through soils and are a particular problem in ground water.
EPA's general policy for cleanup of contamination will be the
most stringent in these areas, involving cleanup to background
or drinking water levels.
Ground waters that are current and potential sources of
drinking water (Class II) will receive levels of protection
consistent with thdse now provided for ground water under
EPA's existing regulations. In addition, where ground waters
are vulnerable to contamination and used as a current source of
drinking water, EPA may ban the siting of new hazardous waste
land disposal facilities, initially through guidance, and later
through regulation. While EPA's cleanup policy will assure
drinking water quality or levels that protect human health,
exemptions will be available to allow a less stringent level
under certain circumstances when protection of human health and
the environment can be demonstrated. EPA may establish some
-------
-7-
differences in cleanup depending on whether the ground water is
used as a current or potential source of drinking water or for
other beneficial purposes.
Ground waters that are not considered potential sources
of drinking water and have limited beneficial use (Class III)
will receive less protection than Class I or II. Technology
standards for hazardous waste facilities generally would be
the same as for Class I and Class II. With respect to cleanup,
should the hazardous waste facility leak, waivers establishing
less stringent concentration limits would be considered on a
case-by-case basis. Waivers would not be available, however,
when a facility caused the contamination that precluded future
use. EPA's Superfund program will not focus its activities
on protecting or improving ground water that has no potential
impact on human health and the environment.
To improve the consistency and effectiveness of EPA's
current ground-water programs, the guidelines will be incorporated
into each of the Agency's relevant program areas. Many of these
programs are delegated to the States, and for most programs,
States must demonstrate that their programs are "no less stringent1
than the Federal program in order to qualify for authorization to
implement the programs. However, in implementing these guidelines
EPA will provide as much flexibility to the States as is possible
under state delegation agreements.
Consequently, EPA will to the extent possible keep regulatory
requirements based on EPA's ground-water protection guidelines
general and performance-oriented. EPA will, in addition, develop
guidance to accompany such regulations for use by EPA when EPA
directly administers a program in a State (e.g., implementation
in a non-delegated State or implementation of a program which
cannot be delegated). Such accompanying guidance would not be
binding on the States, but it could also be used by the States
to assist them in developing their own regulatory requirements
or guidelines. This guidance will, for example, define more
precisely the meaning of the terms used in the Strategy, such
as "vulnerable and unique habitat".
The task of actually determining whether the ground water in
a particular location fits the criteria for Class I, II, or III
will be a site-specific determination. In programs involving
permits, such as RCRA and Underground Injection Control (UIC),
for example, this determination will be made during the permitting
process based on data supplied by the permit applicant. In
cleanup actions under Comprehensive Environmental Response Com-
pensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the ground-water class will
-------
- 8 -
be determined in conjunction with the assessment of the extent
of contamination. Where States have already mapped or designated
ground water for that location, the State classification of the
ground water will provide useful guidance.
EPA will improve its own institutional capability to pro-
tect ground water. EPA has assigned ground-water coordination
and development responsibilities to the Assistant Administrator
for Water and he has established an Office of Ground-Water
Protection to oversee the implementation of this Strategy. The
Director of that Office has already started to work with other
EPA offices and Regions to institutionalize EPA and State ground-
water roles, plan for correction of uncontrolled sources of
contamination, identify and resolve inconsistencies among EPA
programs, and learn more about the nature and extent of ground-
water contamination.
EPA Regional offices are also in the process of establishing
Regional ground-water units. They will coordinate Regional
ground-water policy and program development and assist the
States through grants and technical assistance designed to increase
their institutional capabilities to manage ground water.
EPA will carry out this Strategy in partnership with other
Federal agencies, especially the Department of Interior (DOI),
to insure that the Strategy is implemented as effectively as
possible.
The body of this report contains three chapters and an
Appendix. Chapter II describes the nature and extent of ground-
water contamination. Chapter III describes State and Federal
programs for ground-water protection. Chapter IV describes EPA's
strategy to protect ground water. The appendices include a
matrix describing State, local, and Federal roles and a summary
of the options considered by EPA in developing this Strategy.
*******
-------
- 9 -
CHAPTER II: THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF GROUND-WATER
CONTAMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES
-------
- 10 -
THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF GROUND-WATER
CONTAMINATION OF THE UNITED STATES
EPA's Task Force on Ground Water examined a number of
published and internal technical reports to assess the nature,
sources, and extent of ground-water contamination. This chapter
presents the findings and conclusions of that review.
Findings
1. THE NATURE OF GROUND WATER
Ground water is a vast resource underlying all of our
land. Ground water occurs in aquifers beneath the surface of
the earth. Aquifers are geologic formations that contain enough
water in a sufficiently permeable setting to yield usable amounts
ot water to wells and springs. Because of its dimension and
because of geologic and geochemical factors that influence its
movement and characteristics, it is a very complex resource to
understand.
Usable aquifers are present nearly everywhere in the United
States. The volume of known ground water is about 50 times
greater than annual surface flow in the entire Nation. Another
way to conceptualize the immense size of this resource is to
consider that the volume of ground water to be found within
one-half mile of the surface is estimated to be more than four
times that of the Great Lakes.
In general, the degree to which people use ground water
depends on a number of factors, one of which is whether good
quality surface water is available. Another is the relative cost
of delivering the ground water to individual users.
Ground water is the source of a substantial proportion
(24 percent) of the Nation's domestic, agricultural, and industrial
water. Between 1950 and 1980, total ground-water withdrawals
increased from 34 to 89 billion gallons per day (BCD), an increase
of 162 percent. The 1980 figure represents 24 percent of all
the fresh water used (372 BCD) that year. Further, ground-water
withdrawals are projected to reach 100 BCD by 1985. The principal
uses of ground water in 1980 were for irrigation (60 BCD), public
drinking water (12 BCD), with smaller amounts applied to industrial
and rural household use.JY
Reliance on ground water has increased greatly over the
past 35 years. In part, this increase is the result of a migration
-------
-11-
of population during the decade of the 1970's to rural areas,
where ground water is more easily accessible than surface water.
In some parts of the country ground water is often the only
available source of drinking water and can generally be used
with little or no treatment.
Once contaminated, ground water presents particularly diffi-
cult problems for monitoring and clean-up. In many ways ground
water is far more difficult to manage than air or surface water
because it is not accessible directly. Ground water is slow-moving,
with velocities generally in the range of 5 to 50 feet per year.
Large amounts of a contaminant can enter an aquifer and remain
undetected until a water well or surface water body is affected.
Moreover, contaminants in ground water—unlike those in surface
water—generally move in a plume with relatively little mixing
or dispersion, so concentrations remain high. These plumes of
relatively concentrated contaminants move slowly through the
aquifer and are typically present for many years—sometimes for
decades or longer—making the resource virtually unusable over
periods of time. Although opportunity exists for chemical or
biological transformation, changes in the concentrations
of contaminants occur slowly so that they may not be readily dis-
cernible in the short-term. Because an individual plume may
underlie only a very small part of the land surface, it is
difficult to detect by aquifer-wide or regional monitoring.
Monitoring of ground water is very expensive, particularly
where depths are substantial and multiple test wells must be
drilled. Restoration after contamination is often complex and
expensive, and success is unpredictable. For example, in the
case of a gasoline spill, where the contaminant is valuable,
recovery operations are typically 40-60 percent effective at
best. In most circumstances it is prudent to protect the resource
from contamination in the first place, rather than rely on clean-
up after the fact.
Ground-water contamination is of particular concern because
of its potential impact on sources of drinking water. Over 50 percent
of the U.S. population draws upon ground water for its potable
water supply. Approximately 117 million people in the U.S. get
their drinking water from ground water supplied by 48,000 community
public water systems and approximately 12 million individual
wells. The remaining people get their drinking water from 11,000
public water systems drawing from surface water sources. About
95 percent of rural households depend on ground water, as does a
still larger proportion (97 percent) of the 165,000 non-community
public water supplies (such as camps or restaurants serving a
transient population). Finally, 34 of the 100 largest U.S.
cities rely completely or partially on ground water.2/
-------
-12-
Until recently, the public viewed drinking water drawn from
the ground as a pristine resource, unspoiled by human activi-
ties. Most believed that soils were capaible of binding and
holding chemicals applied to their surfaces. While this is true
for some chemicals, we have learned over the past few years that
it is definitely not true for several important and widely used
classes of chemicals, such as low molecular-weight organic sol-
vents. Among those of primary concern are such common chemical
solvents as tri- and tetrachloroethylene, benzene, and chlorinated
benzenes.
This new understanding of the vulnerability of ground water
to contamination by man-made chemicals is significant. Where
concentrations of these substances have been encountered in
ground water, they have been orders of magnitude higher than
those generally found in surface water. This is particularly
disturbing because, while about half of water systems drawing
from ground water provide chlorination treatment, this is
ineffective for chemical contaminants. Only about 6 percent of
such systems use treatment which remove chemical contaminants.^/
Many of the most troublesome chemicals are toxic, and some have
been linked to cancer in test animals. E'or example, the suspected
carcinogen trichloroethylene (TCE), has been found—if only
rarely—at levels as high as 500,000 ppb (parts-per-billion) in
heavily contaminated ground water. Typical concentrations in
ground water are significantly less than 100 ppb, but surface
water concentrations seldom exceed 1 ppb, EPA's health advisory
on TCE recommends safe levels of TCE in drinking water at 2,000
ppb for an exposure duration of 1 day and at 80 ppb for a
duration of one to two years, based on toxic effects. The
companion guidance on cancer risks projects excess risk due to
drinking water contaminated by TCE to be one in a million at a
lifetime exposure level of 2.8 ppb.4/ The Agency is also proposing
drinking water regulations which includes TCE as one substance
to be controlled.
2. THE SOURCES OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION
The diversity and number of existing and potential sources
of g%ound-water contamination are large. There are three cate-
gories of sources of ground-water contamination: waste disposal,
non-disposal use of chemicals on the surface of the land, and
salt-water encroachment in response to ground-water development.
As a result of differences in hydrogeological conditions and
ground-water use, the threat posed by these sources varies
greatly with each specific site.
States assess ground-water contamination problems on the
basis of severity and/or frequency of degradation. The following
is a brief listing based on anecdotal information of the problems
States have identified: 5/
-------
-13-
Major problems; industrial landfills/lagoons; municipal land-
fills/lagoons; underground storage tanks; and chemical oil and
brine spills.
Intermediate problems; well injection; pesticides; fertilizers;
and septic tanks.
Minor problems; salt water/brackish water intrusion; road salts;
and feedlots.
Varies; wastewater treatment; land use; and mining background.
Some of the more troublesome contaminants from these sources
include:
0 gasoline (ethylene dibromide/ethylene dichloride,
benzene, toluene, lead)
0 organic solvents (TCE, TCA, benzene)
0 heavy metals (cadmium, lead, chromium, mercury)
0 inorganic chemicals (ammonia, cyanide)
0 organic chemicals (PCB, PBB)
0 soil fumigants (DBCP, EDB, aldicarb) and other
pesticides
0 pathogens and nitrates
One estimate indicates that there are now over 61,000 chemicals
on the market and several hundred are added each year.ji/
Improper waste disposal accounts for a substantial amount
of ground-water contamination. Many types of waste disposal pose
obvious risks to ground-water quality. Despite this, past
decisions on locating hazardous waste disposal facilities give
evidence of scant consideration of potential adverse impacts on
ground water. Indiscriminate disposal of toxic and hazardous
chemicals onto the land has given rise to Federal and State
cleanup programs under the Superfund legislation. While the
full number of such facilities remains unknown, EPA and the
States have identified approximately 16,000 potential sites,
including disposal sites. Some 5,600 of these sites have
undergone preliminary screening, and 546 of them are now listed
for priority attention under Superfund.7/
-------
-14-
In addition to facilities receiving hazardous wastes, other
facilities that may contaminate ground water are of concern. In
the mid 1970*s, EPA and the States' became increasingly concerned
that all waste disposal landfills (not just those receiving
hazardous wastes under RCRA) may be creating a substantial problem
for ground water. There are an estimated 93,000 such landfills
in the United States. Of these, 75,000 are classified as on-site/
industrial, and we know little about them. Another 18,500 are
classified as municipal.JJ/ Fewer than 10 States require any form
of regular monitoring for ground-water quality at these facilities.
Landfills are invariably located on land that is considered to
have little or no value for other use, — such as marshlands,
abandoned sand and gravel pits, old strip mines or limestone
sinkholes — all of which are susceptible to ground-water
contamination problems. 9/
A similar situation obtains at pits, ponds, and lagoons—
usually grouped and referred to as surface impoundments—that
receive both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. EPA's recently
completed Surface Impoundment Assessment (SIA) surveyed the
numbers and locations of surface impoundments, and estimated their
potential effects on ground-water quality.1_0/ The SIA defined
impoundments to be any significant man-made or natural depression
used to treat, store or dispose of waste (agricultural, mining,
oil and gas, municipal and industrial).
The study was not field-verified and so is subject to error.
Still, it presents an initial working estimate of the number,
location, and water quality impact of surface impoundments.
The SIA identified a total of 181,000 surface impoundments.
Most of them are unlined. About 40 percent of municipal and
industrial impoundments are located in areas with thin or permeable
soils, over aquifers currently used for drinking or that could
be used for drinking. About seven percent of all sites appear
to be located so as to pose little or no threat to ground water.
Because of the lack of generally available knowledge, ground-water
protection was rarely, if ever, considered when these facilities
were sited.
Septic systems also discharge high volumes of waste to
ground water. In some parts of the country, primarily in the
eastern half of the country, they are among the most frequently
reported sources of contamination.!^/ Approximately 20 million
American households, or 29 percent, use this type of on-site
waste disposal system. Assuming a 50-gallon daily discharge per
capita, household septic tanks handle about 3.5 billion gallons
of waste per day.12/ The primary health hazard is the introduction
of pathogens and nTtrates to ground water, but the presence of
organic cleaning solvents is of growing concern as well.
-------
-15-
Other practices may account for up to two-thirds of the
incidents of ground-water contamination.13/Use of pesticides
and fertilizers, chemigation (where chemicals are mixed with
irrigation waters), coating of roads with waste oils, use of
highway de-icing compounds, leaking underground storage tanks
and pipelines, accidental spills and "midnight dumping," abandoned
wells, drawdowns causing encroachment of salt water, and poorly
managed artificial recharge have all caused ground-water
contamination. Many of these practices go on with little
recognition or concern for their potential impact on ground-water
quality.
Leaking storage tanks may be causing the most serious
risks to human health and the environment. Such tanks are
used to store liquids of every description, including gasoline,
hazardous and toxic chemicals, domestic fuels, process chemicals,
and dilute wastes. Storage tanks are installed either above or
below ground. Incidents of contamination from above-ground
tanks, though less common, usually result in significant environ-
mental damage, since they often involve large volumes of lost
product. A number of factors account for leaking tanks, including
age, soil conditions, and improper installation.
Nationally, there are an estimated 1.5-2.0 million under-
ground storage tanks now being used to store gasoline, the vast
majority of which are steel. A small fraction of these are made
of specially protected steel,* and another small fraction of
tanks are made of fiberglass.\AJ Some experts estimate that
between 75,000 and 100,000 underground storage tanks are leaking
right now and the number is rising.15/ However, these estimates
are based on statistical estimates of the likelihood of tank
leakage rather than field testing of the rate or extent of leakage.
We know much less about underground storage tanks used for pure
(process) chemical storage, or hazardous and nonhazardous waste
storage.
About one million of the steel tanks now in the ground are
more than 16 years old and unprotected (e.g., by double
liners or cathodic protection). About 40 percent of all steel
gasoline storage tanks underground in the U.S. belong to gasoline
stations, and approximately 40 percent of these belong to major
oil companies. The other 60 percent belong to small oil companies,
jobbers, industries, and individual station owners. Unlike the
major oil companies, which have significant tank protection and
replacement programs underway, this sector has not established a
comprehensive protection program. 16/
^_/ Cathodically (an electrical method for neutralizing electrical
currents in steel tanks for corrosion protection).
-------
-16-
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
estimates that there are a minimum of 10,000 retail gasoline
storage tanks in the State and that 25 percent of them may be
leaking. The estimated annual loss from these leaking underground
storage tanks is 11 million gallons for this one State, although
it is not known how much of this seeped into ground water.19/
(It is important to note that Maine's estimate may not be
representative and cannot be applied across the nation.)
3. THE EXTENT OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION
Information on the current extent of contamination is far
from adequate to quantify the severity of the problem. Despite
numerous, well-documented incidents that continue to come to
light, EPA and the Nation as a whole lack a reliable means to
systematically measure the amount of damage already done and
likely to occur. A great deal of information has been assembled
over the years, but it has focused primarily on traditional
parameters affecting potential use, like salinity. Only recently
have advances in analytical chemistry enabled scientists to
measure specific chemicals at low levels and begin to assemble
information on chemicals of most concern as risks to public
health.
Due to the nature of the resource, it is very unlikely that
a comprehensive picture of ground-water contamination will ever
be available from ambient monitoring data. The vastness of the
ground-water resource makes the cost of significant ambient
monitoring prohibitive. While anecdotal data does not tell much
about the extent of the real problem, it does indicate that a
problem may exist and highlights the need for further investigation,
For now, we must rely primarily on such data as that collected
by other Federal and State agencies and at RCRA and Superfund
sites to expand knowledge of the problem. For example, EPA
expects that required monitoring of the approximately 1,500
existing hazardous waste disposal facilities will bring to light
more contamination incidents. A recent EPA study identified and
characterized 929 documented cases of contamination from abandoned
hazardous waste facilities. Although the study is not based on
a representative sample, about one-third of the 929 cases involve
documented contamination of ground water. In an additional
one-third, ground-water contamination is strongly suspected. 18/
In addition, we must make use of data on well closings, such
as that reported in recent Congressional and EPA studies. These
reports together show that nearly 8,000 private, public, and
industrial wells have been reported closed or affected by toxic
and other forms of contaminated ground water. It is very probable
that many more wells were closed but the closings were never
documented. 19/
-------
-17-
The Ground-Water Supply Survey recently conducted by EPA
illustrates the potential for ground-water contamination by
organic chemicals. This survey covers the Nation's 48,000 public
water systems drawn from ground water. The survey found that
man-made chemicals are being detected in about one-third of the
large public water systems (serving over 10,000 people) but are
being detected in only about one-fifth of all ground-water
systems. This indicates that some contamination exists and that
the water supply, as well as potential sources of contamination,
should be carefully examined.20/
Only about three percent of these systems detected levels of
contamination at the levels at which EPA is considering estab-
lishing drinking water standards (5-50 ppb). Although the vast
majority of these systems are finding levels of contamination
of little significance to public health, it is nevertheless
disturbing that they are being found at all. Since these
chemicals are not naturally occurring, they must come from human
activities. Unless the sources can be found and managed, serious
problems may lie ahead.
There are few data on ground-water contamination in the
160,000 non-community systems (those serving a transient popula-
tic$i). There are also virtually no data related to man-made
chemicals in the 12-14 million individual wells, even though many
are old, shallow, and most vulnerable to contamination.
In addition to the man-made organics discussed above, other
Federal and State studies have found other types of more conven-
tional contaminants — such as chlorides, sulphates, nitrates,
and metals — in ground-water supplies at levels that may cause
a public health problem.
*******
Conclusions
Based on review of the preceding information, the Agency
drew a number of conclusions in support of the ground-water
policy development effort. They are as follows:
1) Based primarily on anecdotal data, ground-water contamina-
tion may be a widespread problem that deserves incr
-------
-18-
2) Ground water is vulnerable to contamination, expensive
to monitor, difficult to clean up, and not usable once seriously
contaminated. General misunderstanding of the nature of ground-
water has subjected the resource to pollution by many past actions
involving the use and disposal of chemicals on and in the land.
Cleaning up contaminated ground water is difficult, expensive,
and often unsuccessful. These facts clearly argue for future
programs to focus on better protection of the resource while
efforts to detect and deal with serious contamination resulting
from past actions continue.
3) Surface impoundments, landfills, and storage tanks must
be better designed and constructed. Reports of ground-water
contamination from surface impoundments, landfills, and storage
tanks have been growing over the past few years. The attention
of EPA and the Congress has been drawn to these sources as areas
where additional national controls may be needed. Although there
are other important, uncontrolled sources, these categories appear
most in need of effective regulation.
4) More factual information is needed to determine the actual
extent and severity of the ground-water contamination problem in
the country. The nature and extent of ground-water contamination
should receive more attention from the Federal government,
particularly EPA, and the DOI. In particular, agencies should
make usable data from existing sources of information more
accessible to managers responsible for ground-water protection
at all levels of government.
The importance of the ground-water resource will continue
to increase. The present ground-water contamination problem is
expected to appear more severe as additional information is
collected, because the probability that many sources are contri-
buting to the problem is high. Further studies of the nature
and extent of the problems should indicate the significance of
contamination sources to the quality of ground water and provide
information concerning the fate of the contaminants and their
potential impact on human health and the environment.
-------
- 19 -
CHAPTER III: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING GROUND WATER?
-------
-20-
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING GROUND WATER?
The Ground-Water Protection Strategy was developed in full
recognition of EPA's recently released policy statements on
delegation and oversight. The clear intent of those policies is
to make use of Federal, State, and local governments in a
partnership to protect public health and the environment. State
and local governments are expected to assume primary responsibility
for the implementation of environmental programs because they are
best placed to address specific problems as they arise on a day-
to-day basis. The EPA role is to provide national environmental
leadership, develop general program frameworks, establish standards
required by Federal legislation, conduct research and national
information collection, provide technical support to States, and
provide assistance to States in strengthening their programs.
The Federal, State, and local roles as expressed in this Strategy
are completely consistent with EPA's delegation and oversight
policies.
The EPA role identified above will involve cooperation from
other Federal agencies, especially regarding research information
collection and technical support to the States. The EPA will
provide program leadership and technical assistance to the States
in matters involving the protection of ground-water quality,
and will rely on the Department of the Interior and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), for assistance in defining the
hydraulics and geochemistry of ground-water flow. In addition,
USGS will provide technical assistance (largely through its
"Federal-State Cooperative Program"), will conduct basic and
applied research in ground-water physics and chemistry,
and will work with EPA to help develop and support effective
monitoring strategies.
EPA's Ground-Water Task Force examined Federal legislation
and State program authorities to determine whether sufficient
statutory and regulatory flexibility exists to protect ground
water. The range of authorities at both levels is quite broad,
but we need to make better, more closely coordinated use of them.
The Task Force findings and conclusions follow.
Findings
Three levels of government—State, local, and Federal—have
substantial responsibility for ground-water protection. Until
the mid-19701s, it was principally the States and localities that
-------
-21-
were concerned with protecting the quality of ground water. Many
did not recognize ground-water contamination as a significant
problem. Federal environmental programs of the early and mid-
1970 's focused on other media or on chemicals of concern: the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for air; the Clean Water Act (CWA) for surface
water; the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for drinking water;
and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) for pesticides.
In the late 1970's, significant threats to ground water by
man-made contaminants became apparent, and ground water emerged
as an area of major public concern. Regulatory and technical
assistance efforts of EPA's drinking water program began to
turn in that direction, as States signaled their need for infor-
mation upon which to base their responses to contaminated ground
water found in public and private drinking water wells. At the
same time, new Federal statutes were passed to address additional
environmental threats: TSCA for control of commercial toxics;
RCRA for hazardous waste management; and CERCLA for abandoned
waste sites.
Several of the older statutes—CWA, SDWA, and FIFRA—have
authorities that can be applied to ground-water protection.
The newer statutes have provisions that are, in some cases,
even better suited to the task. So, in addition to the tradi-
tional activity of States and localities, we now have a broad
arsenal of Federal statutory authorities to apply in the pre-
vention and control of ground-water contamination. Attachment I
contains a brief summary of the roles that the three levels
of government—local, State, Federal—have assumed for ground-
water protection.
States, with local governments, have the principal role in
ground-water protection and management. Based on historical
State authorities, as well as Federal program authority delegated
by EPA, States are best suited to undertake direct implementation
and enforcement of ground-water protection programs. A variety
of institutions at the State and local levels address the problem
of ground water. Approximately 40_V States have general
environmental statutes which include authority to protect ground
water; 15 States have laws that apply specifically to ground
water. Forty-seven States have more than one major agency dealing
with ground-water issues, some have as many as eight.21/
_V References to States include territories, for a total
of 57 jurisdictions.
-------
-22-
States use different mechanisms to protect ground-water
quality. For example, about 32 State governments use general
water quality standards to supplement Federal standards for
ensuring safe drinking water supplies. Over 40 State
governments require some type of discharge permit/ though most
discharge permits are written to protect surface waters. Eleven
States now have some form of ground-water classification in place.
Several States have the authority to impose some type of State
land-use controls, but only a few actively use them to protect
ground water.
To deal with contamination incidents, at least 21 States
have established cleanup funds. Use of these funds varies,
from helping to cleanup sites included in the Superfund program
to dealing with sites excluded from Federal programs.
Nearly 40 States maintain monitoring networks for deter-
mining the general quality and quantity of ground water within
the State, while about the same number of States actively monitor
the ground water surrounding the major contamination sites.
Over 40 States have programs to notify and educate the public
regarding ground-water issues.
The management of ground water takes place in many ways.
Thirty-nine State governments organize their ground-water protec-
tion work under the auspices of a lead agency. Fifteen other
State governments recognize a lead agency only informally. Most
States have written procedures and agreements for coordinating
ground-water activities, although 12 rely on informal methods
to coordinate.
Finally, most States either conduct work in support of
nationally managed programs or implement programs delegated by
EPA, including RCRA, UIC, portions of CERCLA, and the CWA Con-
struction Grants program. By October 1984, EPA expects that
there will be a UIC program in every State and jurisdiction. At
that time, 33 States will have primary enforcement responsibility
for all classes of wells; three states will have authority for
oil and gas related wells only; one state will have authority
for all wells except oil and gas. EPA will be implementing the
remaining programs. In terms of the regulated universe, 73
percent of disposal wells, 92 percent of oil and gas wells, and
97 percent of mining-related wells will be regulated by States.
(Fourteen States have full primary enforcement authority delegated
under the UIC program, and 11 others have partial enforcement
authority. A Federally-administered UIC program has been
proposed in 23 States.)
-------
-23-
Under the RCRA program, 45 States have at least interim
authorization to exert certain controls over hazardous wastes
facilities. To date, 13 States have interim authorization to
issue permits to land-based facilities. By statute, all States
with interim authorization under RCRA must obtain full authorization
by January 1985. Under CERCLA, EPA has signed cooperative agree-
ments for 52 sites where the State is the lead agency for remedial
actions; EPA retains control over the selection of the cleanup
alternative at these sites. Under FIFRA, States have primacy in
pesticide use enforcement. Pesticide use restrictions imposed by
EPA can be enforced by individual States.
Local governments can also play a major role in ground-water
protection. They derive their authorities from State environ-
mental statutes or from related, powerful authorities, such as
those to protect public health and to control land use. Through
local zoning, lot sizes have been regulated into a few localities
to prevent intensive residential or commercial development over
recharge areas. In other cases, localities have enacted bans on
the siting of waste disposal facilities where ground-water
contamination could occur. Some communities also set restrictions
on the density of septic systems. Some areas, like Long Island
and Cape Cod, have enacted strict, local control programs to
protect ground water.
While State and local governments have moved forward to address
contamination of their ground water, they have been hampered by the
lack of a ready answers and the absence of staff trained in a
technological and scientific discipline still in its developmental
stage. New Federal efforts to help States cope with these problems
have proved useful, but they have also contributed at times to
competition and overlap. State institutions have been sorely
taxed to take on new responsibilities, deal with contamination
sources not covered by Federal statutes, and fashion a comprehensive
effort to protect both the quality and quantity of their ground water.
EPA's statutes, while designed for more general purposes,
provide substantial protection for ground water. EPA must apply
these authorities flexibly and imaginatively in programs that
take into account widespread threats to the resource. Several
such programs are just beginning to come into effect, while
others have been in place for some time.
CERCLA establishes a trust fund (Superfund) to finance
government responses to releases, or threats of release, of
hazardous substances that may harm health or the environment.
Superfund can address these problems not only in emergency
situations, but also at sites where longer term remedies
are required. The statute directs that a priority list of at
least 400 sites be identified as candidates for remedial action.
-------
-24-
A major factor in evaluating sites for response action is the
threat of ground-water contamination. Of the 539 sites now
listed for priority attention, 410 appear to have caused ground-
water contamination.
Under RCRA, EPA has implemented regulations to provide
"cradle to grave" management of hazardous waste. The program
includes standards applicable to generators and transporters of
hazardous waste and performance standards for permitting hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The standards
establish the principal ground-water protection policies of the
RCRA hazardous waste program. EPA has also established criteria
for non-hazardous solid waste disposal under Subtitle D of
RCRA. States must adopt and enforce these criteria, if they are
to have an EPA-approved State solid waste management plan. EPA
has completed all major statutory requirements under Subtitle D
of RCRA excepting the duty to review and approve State plans
within six months of submission. Some States have not submitted
plans but intend to do so. Citizens may seek enforcement of
these criteria directly in Federal district courts.
In addition, EPA is progressing with implementation of
the UIC program under the SDWA. It ensures that injection well
practices do not threaten present and future sources of drinking
water. The UIC program will regulate approximately 160,000 wells
by permit or rule.
The sole-source aquifer program under the SDWA permits
citizens to petition EPA for designation of an area as a sole-
source aquifer if it is the principal water supply. If so
designated, EPA reviews all Federally-assisted projects which
may affect the quality of ground water in the sole-source
aquifer.
EPA is also preparing regulations to establish standards
under the SDWA for certain volatile organic chemicals and pesti-
cides, which are the most commonly found contaminants in ground
water. When enacted, these regulations will require monitoring
by public water systems to protect users at the point of human
consumption. Monitoring requirements for private wells are a
State responsibility. The new monitoring requirements are
particularly important, since half the Nation's population drinks
water from underground sources.
The CWA provides a management structure for State water
quality programs, including ground water. At one time, a number
of States used funds provided under Section 208 of the CWA to
conduct ground-water management programs. EPA's CWA funding
-------
-25-
policies require that such activities must result in an
official update to the State's overall Water Quality Management
(WQM) plan, and require consistency between the WQM plan and
all related treatment works construction grant and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit decisions. Eleven States now use funds under Section
205(j) to support selected ground-water protection efforts.
Under other provisions of the CWA, construction grant projects
employing land application techniques to reuse and recycle
nutrients must be designed to ensure protection of ground water
for continuation of present use or for future use projected on
the basis of present quality. The CWA also provides
authority under Section 404 to protect wetlands, which are
commonly fed by ground water.
EPA also has an active program under FIFRA, which provides
authority to control the use of pesticides that may adversely
affect ground water. EPA has in place registration and testing
guidelines for evaluating the potential for pesticide chemicals
to leach into ground water. EPA can use a variety of methods to
limit potential damage, such as restricting the use of certain
pesticides with a high likelihood of leaching into ground water.
TSCA provides EPA broad authority to regulate new and existing
chemicals and chemical mixtures by exercising control during
their manufacture, processing, and use, as well as at their
eventual point of contact with people or the environment. For
example, if a chemical has the potential to contaminate ground
water, EPA has authority to limit certain uses, require warning
labels, impose pollution control measures, alter disposal plans
(with certain limitations), and require additional notifications
after manufacture has begun.
EPA also has a significant research effort devoted to
ground-water protection, concentrating on major management and
scientific problems associated with the resource (see discussion
in Chapter IV). Among the major topics of this research are:
developing methods to protect and monitor ground water, tracking
and measuring the transport and transformation of pollutants to
the point of human exposure, determining health effects associated
with various pollutant concentrations in ground water used as
drinking water, and assessing the cost-effectiveness of aquifer
reclamation.
Two major sources of ground-water contamination remain
largely uncontrolled by current EPA programs. A number of
sources of contamination described in Chapter II are regulated
-------
-26-
by EPA (hazardous waste facilities, underground injection wells)
but many more are not. States retain authority to regulate in
areas not regulated by EPA. In addition, EPA believes that two
of these unregulated sources appear to be of sufficient concern
to warrant national attention. They are storage tanks and land
disposal facilities (surface impoundments and landfills) for
non-hazardous wastes and chemicals and other products, by-products,
and intermediates. Land disposal of non-hazardous wastes are
addressed under Subtitle D of RCRA. Only States and citizens may
seek enforcement of these standards.
As for storage tanks, it is becoming increasingly obvious
that we must learn a great deal more about the problem before
any regulatory action is proposed. Furthermore, a number of
States have already made progress on this issue by undertaking
an inventory of these potential sources of pollution. Some States,
like Maryland and California, are establishing design standards
and criteria for installing, testing, and maintaining underground
storage tanks used for hazardous wastes. In addition, several
major oil companies, long aware of their potential liability,
have begun an aggressive program to replace old metal tanks and
to institute periodic inspections, better inventory controls, and
cathodic protection.
With regard to surface impoundments, State programs have
changed substantially since EPA conducted the initial Surface
Impoundment Assessment in the late 1970's. These changes are the
result of increased awareness and concern by the States and new
Federal programs such as Subtitle D of RCRA.
The majority of States have some type of regulatory program
that involves a system of permitting waste impoundments under
either State or Federal authority. Some States have added to
their NPDES programs provisions which address ground-water
contamination. The more traditional programs, however, focus
on the treatment phase of an entire facility or on the direct
discharge of wastes to surface water rather than on ground-water
contamination. Even State programs based on specific legislation
usually focus on point-source discharges to surface water rather
than on seepage and non-point source pollution of underground
water.
A few State programs (New Mexico, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
California, Wyoming) directly control the discharge of wastes to
ground water. However, the level of effort is quite uneven
among the States in providing effective and necessary planning,
review, inspection, monitoring, and enforcement to ensure compliance,
-------
-27-
EPA regulations are inconsistent with regard to a number of
issues relating to ground water; defining the resource to be
protected, allowing for differential protection, setting the
duration of control, prescribing the regulatory mechanism to be
used, providing for some kind of waiver or variance, and stipulating
the approach to monitoring and remedial action. Table A (page 31)
illustrates the range of these inconsistencies. Attachment II
presents a more detailed analysis of EPA regulations.
It is important to note that some apparent inconsistencies
may, in fact, be justified. Despite this, a number of discrepancies
may have no technical basis, and merely reflect different policy
or management decisions by different people at different times.
The practical implications of these differences to the manage-
ment of EPA programs can be illustrated by reference to some of
the short- and long-term regulatory and program issues EPA now
faces:
0 Litigation issues. Two RCRA law suits raise significant
issues of ground-water protection policy. In particular,
both suits raise issues about what ground water should be
protected. In one litigation, petitioners have raised
issues concerning the removal of certain ground waters
from the protections afforded by Subtitle C based on the
quantity of the aquifer and its current and potential
future uses. The Agency has deferred settlement of these
issues pending the development of its ground-water strategy.
In the other litigation, petitioners challenged the
ground-water protection criteria of RCRA Subtitle D
applicable to facilities handling non-hazardous solid
wastes. In settlement negotiations, the petitioners have
proposed a variety of approaches to protecting ground
water, most of which were aimed at providing flexibility
to account for differing existing and future ground water
uses. The court has deferred briefing this issue at the
request of the parties until the Agency's ground-water
Strategy is finalized.
° Alternate concentration limits (ACLs) in RCRA. EPA has
started evaluating land disposal permits. This work will
require decisions on applications for alternate concentration
limits. The criteria that EPA has established to date
relies on a showing by the applicant that an alternate
concentration will not pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the environment. One
issue that has emerged is how to evaluate ACLs in ground
water that is already contaminated. In establishing a
-------
-28-
policy in this area, it is important that the definition
of "already contaminated" under RCRA, and the RCRA policy
on ACLs in those ground waters, be consistent with
definitions and policies of other EPA programs. The class
definition and protection guidelines in this Strategy will
ensure that consistency.
Aquifer exemption in DIG. Under UIC, EPA may grant an
exemption allowing injection into an aquifer that meets
the definition of an underground source of drinking water
(i.e., less than 10 000 mg/1 TDS) if the aquifer contains
toxic contaminants at levels that render its use im-
practical. The decision on what levels and types of
contaminants render the aquifer unsuitable for use as
drinking water is one that has implications for other
Agency programs such as RCRA and Superfund.
FIFRA/SDWA interface. The Office of Pesticide Programs
and the Office of Drinking Water have developed a procedure
for establishing advisory levels for pesticides in drinking
water. The purpose of these levels is to render advice to
State health officials for use in dealing with episodes of
contamination. These levels, unlike tolerance levels for
pesticides residues in food, do not reflect a level to
which it is acceptable to contaminate drinking water, but
rather a level for which remedial action is recommended.
These advisories have potential application to other
Agency programs such as RCRA and Superfund. For example,
it is important that these advisories, guidance on ACLs
(under RCRA), and cleanup criteria under Superfund be
well coordinated.
"How Clean is Clean?" Superfund managers must decide and
EPA's enforcement program under emergency authorities
(principally those under RCRA and CERCLA) must compel
private actions that answer the question: "how clean is
clean"in ground-water cleanups. Currently, the Agency
is attempting to develop more specific decision criteria
for determining levels to which contaminated ground water
should be restored. This issue has broad implications
within the Agency and is related to other Agency activities
such as the development of health advisories. The Ground-
Water Strategy provides a framework for developing these
criteria based on the ground-water protection guidelines
defined in the Strategy.
-------
-29-
0 Protection for especially valuable aquifers. Some ground
waters are clearly more valuable than others and more
susceptible to contamination. Some are critical sources
of drinking water or provide base flow for particularly
sensitive ecosystems. States and EPA could design an
added level of protection for these ground waters by
prohibiting certain practices over them. The
RCRA program has begun to develop rules for locating
hazardous waste facilities and will be considering
limiting hazardous waste management activities over ground
water that is highly vulnerable to contamination. Decisions
made in this program will have policy implications for
other programs. It is important that the level of protec-
tion provided by EPA's various regulations for highly
vulnerable or valuable ground water be consistent and that
various Agency programs define such ground water in a
consistent way.
Conclusions
1) Building institietions, especially at the State level, is
critical to the comprehensive management and protection of ground
water. Many States have made major strides in increasing their
capabilities to protect ground water, despite the difficulties
implicit in this complex problem. While many States have expended
substantial efforts to build and coordinate their State programs
and have comprehensive programs that are in development or under
operation, these efforts are still insufficient to ensure protec-
tion for a resource that demands a comprehensive approach.
2) EPA must achieve greater consistency among its programs
if they are to have maximum effect in protecting ground water.
EPA rules which protect ground water are sometimes inconsistent
with one another, leading to conflicts, duplication, and different
degrees of protection from program to program. This heightens the
difficulty of decision-making by regulators as well as by regulated
industries.
Sufficient flexibility exists in the rules and policies
adopted under each EPA program such that it has been possible to
craft an acceptable, case-by-case solution to problems created
by apparent program inconsistencies. However, over the next few
years the effects of program inconsistency are likely to become
increasingly disruptive as RCRA, CERCLA, and UIC move to full
implementation unless steps are taken to provide needed policy
direction.
-------
-30-
3) EPA has had no lead point of accountability and coordination
for ground-water efforts at either the Headquarters or Regional
levels. Ground-water program efforts are located in four offices
in EPA headquarters: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(RCRA and CERCLA); Office of Water (SDWA and CWA); Office of
Pesticides and Toxic Substances (TSCA and FIFRA); and Office of
Air and Radiation (Uranium Mining and Mill Tailings, Reclamation
and Control Act (UMTRCA) and Atomic Energy Act (AEA)). The
Regions have a similar configuration. Each performs functions
related to ground-water protection and has responsibilities that
overlap to some extent with those of others. Prior to formation
of EPA's new Office of Ground-Water Protection, no single official
below the Administrator has had the authority to establish policy
or to coordinate these programs.
The Agency has either relied on general-purpose policy
coordination mechanisms—such as Steering Committees—to resolve
conflicts among programs, or has established ad hoc committees—
such as Task Forces—to resolve specific issues. These methods
have proven helpful, but they do not give EPA the capacity to
provide unified direction to its ground-water protection effort
over time.
-------
-31-
"2 0
C -rt
C04J
j2> "rt
Jfc
s
tCD
CO 4J
X 0 C
0 4-J 0>
ro TJ
I 0 4J
CO 4J (0
CD rH Sj
Cd
8
O CO
41
A. 2
CO O
fa 0
O T3
u
Monitoring
Required
u
£* C
•rt -rt (0
8&S
4-1 0 CO
•rt M -rt
S-£
u
C 4-1 4-1
O -H
S
m
•V O
SS|§
Mo
be
re
GW
s
u
I
k
CD -rt
co u
fl*
s
>1CJ;
S H
4J -rt
(0 C
£
Me
CO CO JH > 0
CO Q T3 CO
CO 1 C CO (Q D
(fl H I (o HJ "O
r-l M 4J rH C 4-1
U H CO U CD 0
s
Desgn
and
perfo
s
s
gn
Des
and
CO 0
•g r,
C 03 CO T3
^SB
CO fO ""
0 4J
Q CO
n
i
co
38
(0 4J
§
C
CD
>1
o a 4-1
O rH -rt (0
ro O T3 4-(
r-lO CO
O (0
- *y &
m -rt o
CJ 4J rH
rs
osure
•8
4-t
co
(0 O
CN
(CJ 0
aS
c o
rC
5,
o
o
o
"8
O
&
4-1
•3°£
•rt C 0
^•2^
0 4-1
0 0
^J O
4H O
•rt U
Q ft
s-Class V wells
an degrade up
o MCLs vs. no
egradation for
lass I, II, III
ea
us
c
_ 0
•rt 4->
c
co
co 3 xj CQ
lj CO 4J O P
0 -rt O H
4-1 -O S O rH
(0 v
O1 !H rH
VO
••J"
g£
0
0
CO
2
/I ft
m
4J -rt
CO rH
££
•H (ts
K PS
-------
-32-
CHAPTER IV5 EPA'S STRATEGY TO PROTECT GROUND WATER
-------
-33-
EPA'S STRATEGY TO PROTECT GROUND WATER
The principal challenge to EPA in developing a ground-water
Strategy is to harmonize the implementation of its many ground-
water programs and to enhance its partnership with the States
to increase protection of this critical resource.
STRATEGIC CHOICES
In designing its Strategy, EPA faced a number of difficult
choices. One strategic choice was to decide what role EPA
should play in ground-water protection, recognizing that the States
have fundamental responsibility for protection and management of
the resource itself. EPA's statutes concentrate on specific
contaminants and on specific sources of contamination, yet due
to its vulnerability, ground water frequently demands more compre-
hensive protection. EPA sees the need to strengthen the ability
of States to carry out this critical function. Only through
strong, carefully designed State programs can the objective of
comprehensive management be achieved.
A second strategic choice involves by what means and to what
extent ground-water resources should be protected. EPA programs
have begun to show inconsistency in specific decisions such as
site cleanup, enforcement conditions, and application of waivers.
The question is whether all ground water should be protected to the
same level, or whether decisions relative to the appropriate type
and level of protection should reflect the value of the resource.
While an unspoiled environment is an attractive goal, the potential
cost of protecting, monitoring, and restoring a resource so vast
as ground water is enormous. This fact necessarily affects the
decisions of managers at all levels, especially regarding the use
of scarce public funds.
The Agency also considered whether it is proper from a
public policy perspective to clean up all or portions of a resource
that almost certainly will never be used. The Agency also asked
whether it is doing enough to protect geologically vulnerable
ground water that is essential to human uses, or that feeds
highly sensitive or unique ecological systems. In certain of
these cases, when the cost of in situ cleanup has been prohibi-
tive, States have chosen to mitigate the damage by modifying the
flow pattern of plumes, changing use patterns for wells, or
treating the water at the point of use. EPA concluded that,
while flexibility is essential, we should strive for greater
consistency in ground-water decisions. This implies the need
for guidelines to shape EPA program actions and in turn to provide
leadership to the States.
-------
-34-
In carrying out the Strategy, EPA will, to the extent
possible, use the existing experience of other Federal agencies,
such as the USGS. Cooperation is essential in order to minimize
duplication of effort in the Federal sector and to ensure the
development of a technically sound effort.
A final strategic choice is how to enhance consistency and
coordination among EPA programs over time. Unlike the other
media in which environmental pollutants are found—air and surface
water—ground water previously has had no organization devoted
to its protection. It is, rather, an integral part of many programs,
A key strategic choice is how to emphasize and coordinate these
programs without disrupting ongoing activities.
As EPA reviewed these strategic choices, it became clear that
not everything can be done at once. An attempt to resolve every
issue among EPA's diverse programs with the stroke of a pen will
inevitably disrupt other important ongoing efforts. We cannot
change in a moment institutional patterns that have developed
gradually in response to other problems. We can accelerate the
development of new knowledge only as fast as the scientific
community can respond. Still, we can make steady progress, and
we can accelerate the pace of work now underway, particularly
at the State level.
EPA'S GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY
EPA's Ground-Water Protection Strategy seeks to build up
institutional capability in the States and within EPA to cope
with ground-water problems on a comprehensive basis. The Strategy
will provide greater consistency and coherence among EPA programs
aimed at protecting ground water and will initiate new steps to
deal with major forms of ground-water contamination not now
fully controlled. The core elements of the strategy are to:
Strengthen State ground-water programs;
Cope with currently unaddressed ground-water problems;
Create a policy framework for guiding EPA programs; and
Strengthen internal ground-water organization.
-------
-35-
1. STRENGTHEN STATE GROUND-WATER PROGRAMS
EPA will provide increased support to States for program
development and institution building. EPA believes that the most
effective and broadly acceptable way to increase national
institutional capability to protect ground water is to strengthen
State programs. Some States have already achieved excellent
results, while others are progressing more slowly. Enhancing and
accelerating these efforts should provide meaningful and lasting
results.
EPA will encourage States to make use of existing grant
programs to develop ground-water protection programs and strategies,
EPA will work with States to develop institutional capability to
protect ground water. States will be encouraged to prepare
or enhance their ground-water program development plans, including
an analysis of ground-water problems and needed ground-water
protection activities. States should also identify technical
assistance needed from EPA.
The work EPA will support is comparable to that undertaken
over the past several years by States that have already developed
ground-water protection programs, and will include program
development activities such as:
1) Development of an overall State action plan or strategy
to set ground-water protection goals and to coordinate
ground-water programs in various institutions;
2) Identification of legal and institutional barriers to
comprehensive ground-water protection programs;
3) Development of general ground-water programs (e.g., a
permit system) and design of a source- or contaminant-
specific ground-water protection program; and
4) Creation of data management systems to increase the
accessibility and quality of needed information.
Since some States have already completed some or all of
these tasks, the Agency will support activities to assess the
ground-water resource (e.g., mapping, selected monitoring) as long
as they are presented in a broad context indicating how they fit
into an overall State ground-water strategy. EPA will not support
routine operational or implementation activities as a part of
ground-water program development activities.
-------
-36-
Seven million dollars are available in Fiscal Year (FY) 85
for this purpose from CWA Section 106 water quality management
grants. Funds from a range of existing grant programs are also
eligible to support ground-water program development activities,
including grants under sections 205(j) and 205(g) of CWA, the
UIC program grant under section 1443(b) of the SDWA, and the
program grant under section 3011 of RCRA.
EPA Regional Administrators will work with Governors in
ground-water program and strategy development. Regional
Administrators will work with Governors to identify the most
appropriate mix of eligible grants and level of funding to support
ground-water program development. EPA will make every effort to
avoid serious impacts on a particular, existing program in a
given State. RCRA funds will not be available until a State has
met its RCRA program implementation commitments.
EPA will provide State agencies with technical assistance
in solving specific ground-water problems and will enlist the
aid of other Federal agencies whose particular expertise or
programs provide valuable capabilities EPA staff in Head-
quarters, Regions, and laboratories, as well as other Federal
agencies, will provide assistance to States in several areas:
1) technical and scientific issues; 2) State program design and
implementation; 3) identification of research needs, 4) data
management; and 5) training.
EPA will continue to support a strong research program in
ground water and will work closely with other Federal agencies,
especially the DOI. EPA conducts a research program to
provide a broad range of data and information for use by decision-
makers concerned with ground-water protection. The ground water
research program is directed toward improving monitoring technology,
prediction and assessment tools, and aquifer cleanup methods.
Other research programs also contribute to the scientific bases
upon which decisions about ground-water protection are made. For
instance, a significant portion of the research on the health
effects and removal of drinking water contaminants is directed
toward chemicals found in ground water. Research to develop and
evaluate technology for control of sources (such as surface
impoundments) and improvements in methodology for analyzing
water samples for trace constituents also contribute to our
scientific capability. Quality assurance is always an important
facet of any investigation, including those involving ground
water, and remains a high priority in our research program.
-------
-37-
2. COPE WITH CURRENTLY INADEQUATELY ADDRESSED GROUND-WATER
PROBLEMS
EPA will survey inadequately addressed threats to ground
water"In the Agency's review of ground-water contamination it
became evident that contamination from many sources not regulated
under RCRA Subtitle C or the UIC program can render ground water
as unfit for use as waters contaminated with hazardous wastes.
Often, too, such damage is more difficult and expensive to
clean up.
Recognized sources of contamination include surface
impoundments, landfills, underground storage tanks, pesticide and
fertilizer uses, septic tanks, mining, unregulated drilling,
natural gas pipelines, and sinkholes. Due to a lack of informa-
tion, the extent and seriousness of the problems associated with
each of these sources is not well understood.
EPA has found preliminary evidence that landfills, surface
impoundments, and leaking storage tanks could constitute widespread
problems and is initiating actions to further evaluate the
threats from these sources and develop controls as may be appro-
priate. These actions are discussed below. For currently
unaddressed sources, EPA will include in its ground-water monitor-
ing strategy steps to help define the nature, extent, and severity
of contamination from these sources.
EPA will study the effects of contamination from underground
storage tanks. To protect ground water from the threats posed by
leaking storage tanks, the Deputy Administrator has directed the
Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) to design a study to identify
the nature, extent, and severity of ground-water contamination
resulting from leaking product tanks, including the human health
and environmental effects that leaking underground tanks pose.
This study will include motor fuel tanks. It will gather data
about tank types, ownership, and the type of facility using the
tanks (e.g., gasoline station, industrial, or commercial facility).
OTS will test a sample of these tanks to determine the proportion
now leaking. The Office will also assess testing and protection
methodologies to evaluate their usefulness in a regulatory program.
In future years the Office may study other underground tanks and
pipelines.
In addition to identifying and characterizing the universe
of storage tanks, EPA will review options for a regulatory pro-
gram to control leaking storage tanks. The Agency will review
the need for and nature of regulatory options for the manufacture
and installation of tanks, periodic testing, improved records of
product inventory, and cleanup requirements. In the meantime,
EPA will issue a Chemical Advisory to alert all owners and
-------
-38-
operators of underground storage tanks to the nationwide problem
of ground-water contamination caused, in part, by gasoline. The
Advisory will explain that tank owners and operators may be
contributing to this problem, and that EPA has begun investigating
the problem and is assessing the need for future regulation of
underground gasoline storage tanks. EPA will also work with the
States and with trade associations, such as the American Petroleum
Institute (API) and the Society of Independent Gasoline Marketers
of America (SIGMA), to develop voluntary steps to reduce
contamination.
The Agency is also planning direct regulation of underground
storage of hazardous waste under RCRA. Regulation of hazardous
waste storage is required in the RCRA statute. Although regula-
tions are already in place for above-ground tanks and some under-
ground tanks, standards are needed for all underground tanks.
Based on data developed over the past two years, EPA will com-
plete its regulation of underground tanks containing hazardous
waste, and may amend the regulations that are already in place.
EPA will study the potential environmental problems that
could arise from land disposal facilities (surface impoundments
and landfills). RCRA Subtitle C rules already apply to surface
impoundments and landfills accepting designated hazardous
wastes. Other facilities handling non-hazardous wastes and
hazardous wastes produced by small generators are covered by
RCRA Subtitle D criteria (enforceable under citizen suits), but
they are not regulated under the Federally enforceable provisions
of RCRA. These facilities may be significant sources of ground-
water contamination. EPA will undertake a study of surface
impoundments and landfills, in cooperation with the States, to
determine if more extensive Federal and/or State requirements
are necessary and appropriate.
The study will address several questions. It will:
(1) identify, describe and categorize the various types of
impoundments and landfills; (2) survey the regulatory methods
either now used by States or considered feasible for controlling
contamination from these facilities; and (3) determine what
additional Federal controls may be needed. Field monitoring of
selected impoundments and landfills may be undertaken to better
define the impacts on ground water of such facilities. The
study will categorize surface impoundments and landfills for two
reasons: first, to distinguish between those that threaten ground
water and those that do not; and second, to analyze regulatory
approaches appropriate to each group, thereby minimizing the
regulatory burden.
-------
-39-
EPA will increase efforts to protect ground water from
pesticide and nitrate contamination. Preliminary monitoring
information indicates that use of certain pesticides may be an
important source of ground-water contamination. The Agency is
taking several steps to assess the leaching potential and health
impacts of individual pesticides and to develop and implement a
program designed to mitigate the threat they pose to ground water.
EPA will:
0 Require pesticide manufacturers to provide data on
leaching potential as part of the registration process.
(This data is already required for registration of
new pesticides. A data call-in program has been
initiated to accelerate the retrospective review
of the ground-water contamination potential from use
of existing pesticides.)
0 Use modeling techniques and field monitoring to evaluate
the extent and likelihood of ground-water contamination
from use of the pesticides.
0 Continue to evaluate the potential health effects of
pesticides and issue health advisories regarding drinking
water contamination.
0 For pesticides found to pose a threat to ground water,
use labeling restrictions or other means to restrict
their use in certain geographic areas based on
soil type, hydrogeology, and ground-water use.
0 Encourage implementation of the restrictions through
incorporation of ground-water provisions in FIFRA State
enforcement grant agreements and by providing
technical assistance to State officials, agricultural
extension personnel, and others who aid in informing
pesticide users.
0 Provide guidance, including health advisories and technical
assistance to State officials, agricultural extensive
personnel, and others to aid in informing users.
EPA will prepare a monitoring strategy involving guidelines
for network design.In reviewing the question of other contaminants,
EPA considered several approaches to monitoring to determine
their impact on ground-water quality. These approaches are:
(1) ambient monitoring; (2) monitoring at the point of contami-
nation, (3) monitoring at point of use; and (4) a combination of
these.
-------
-40-
'Ambient" ground-water monitoring: EPA rejected this
approach because plumes are relatively small, too
slow moving, and easy to miss. Further, such a costly,
broad-brush approach would involve monitoring ground
water with no known use or potential for human exposure.
However, ambient monitoring does help define
background information on quality, status of the
resource, and the ground-water flow system.
Point of contamination: Such monitoring has not
been done in a systematic way although considerable
data exist from testing done where contamination was
strongly suspected. The RCRA monitoring program provides
the first systematic data on certain contamination
sources—hazardous waste land disposal facilities.
The cost of a special network just to monitor the more
significant categories of contamination sources would
be extremely high and a questionable investment
considering the potential value of the information to
be obtained.
With enforced RCRA monitoring requirements supple-
mented by additional wells at selected sites, important
information on contamination—both existing and
potential—should be available. However, this type of
monitoring is restrictive as to the information it
provides on the hydrology and movement of the
contaminants.
Point of use: A third approach is to sample water from
drinking water wells now in use. Several such surveys
have been conducted which provide a general picture of
the quality of ground water used for this particularly
vital purpose. EPA is now developing additional drinking
water standards which will extend monitoring by public
water supplies and provide more information on contaminants,
like volatile organic chemicals, that are associated
with ground-water contamination. A similar survey focusing
on pesticides is now being planned. In addition, EPA
will provide health advisories for unregulated contaminants
for States to use in conjunction with their monitoring
efforts. Although the importance of this type of monitoring
is self evident, detection at a supply well is "after
the fact" of contamination. Moreover, this type of
monitoring alone does not answer all questions relative
to source of contamination, status of resource, or direction
and movement of ground water.
-------
-41-
0 Combination of approaches: Such monitoring would be
costly if EPA were to develop a network "from scratch".
However, the Agency recognizes that considerable effort
has been expended by other Federal agencies (particularly
USGS), State and local agencies, and even private
organizations to monitor ground water. The coordination
role of EPA may be put to best use by marshalling
these "forces" and encouraging the use of existing
monitoring facilities and data to the greatest possible
extent. A combined approach, therefore, may require
some additional investment to fill in data gaps but
provides the greatest potential for meeting
monitoring needs by bringing together a broad,
multiple interest base of information. Of particular
interest is data: 1) documenting existing hydrologic and
water quality conditions; 2) defining ground-water flow
systems; 3) describing hydrologic characteristics
of aquifer material in order to predict fate of
contaminants; and (4) providing support for decisions
on sitings, facility design, and remedial measures.
In reviewing these approaches EPA considered the most
practical way to gather information most useful for future
decisions. Besides continuing to require monitoring under RCRA,
Superfund, and the UIC program and conducting targeted surveys
of ground-water contamination from surface impoundments and
underground storage tanks, EPA will utilize existing monitoring
facilities and data from all available sources (other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, and other organizations)
to achieve the most effective and efficient acquisition of
monitoring data. This approach will be described further in a
ground-water monitoring strategy the Agency is now developing.
3. CREATE A POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR GUIDING EPA PROGRAMS
EPA will adopt guidelines for consistency in its ground-
water protection programs.The guidelines are designed to protect
ground water for its highest beneficial use.
The Task Force recommended that EPA develop some agreed-upon
guidelines for ground-water protection in order to have a basis
for consistent decision-making among EPA programs. In considering
what they should be, the Agency reviewed several approaches
(Attachment IV) to answer two critical questions:
-------
-42-
o What is the definition of the resource to be protected?
Existing programs use different terminologies to define
the resource they protect. It became clear that
ground-water definitions are crucial to achieving
consistency in protection.
o To what level should EPA protect the resource? The
Agency considered whether all ground water, regardless
of its use and value, should be protected equally.
It reviewed whether EPA should give a higher degree
of protection to ground water that is more valuable to
society, and less protection to ground water that does
not now (and is unlikely in the future) to serve as
a source of water for drinking or for another valued
purpose (e.g., irrigation, livestock watering, or
industrial use).
The Agency considered a number of factors in this review.
First, it studied the statutory base within which all EPA pro-
grams must continue to operate. Above all else, the requirements
of existing law must be fully implemented. Second, the Agency
reviewed the characteristics of the resource itself. Ground
water is much more expensive to monitor, clean up, and protect
than is surface water or air. This resource is vast, hidden,
and a proportion is already unusable due to natural contaminants
(usually aquifers with high salt concentration). In some circum-
stances, full cleanup of existing contamination is beyond the
capability of existing technology. Its slow movement, however,
means that most pollution remains highly localized, which facili-
tates management of known contamination. Some ground waters are
much more valuable than others because they are the exclusive
source of drinking water for a population.
Finally, the Agency considered the fundamental purpose of
any environmental program: to protect public health and the
environment. EPA concluded that the policy that must guide its
efforts must be based on the recognition of the highest beneficial
use to which the ground-water resource can presently or potentially
be put. In this context, EPA has concluded that the protection
of particularly sensitive and valuable ground waters is of
critical importance. For this reason, EPA will use its authorities
to the extent possible to provide the added protection that
these unique, highly important resources deserve. The guidelines
for ground-water protection reflect these considerations.
-------
-43-
Guidelines for Ground-Water Protection
EPA's guidelines for ground-water protection are based on
the beneficial use criterion described above. Protection
policies are defined for three classes of ground water. The
class definitions reflect the value of the ground water and its
vulnerability to contamination, and they apply to ground water
having significant water resources value. The three classes are:
I) Special Ground Water, II) Current and Potential Sources of
Drinking Water and Water Having Other Beneficial Uses; and
III) Ground Water Not a Potential Source of Drinking Water and
Having Limited Beneficial Use. These guidelines establish the
basic framework for the Ground-Water Protection Strategy.
In describing the various classes of ground water, emphasis
is on broad definitions and basic criteria to be used in class
assignment. Guidance will be developed establishing more
specific criteria and definitions for classifying ground water.
This guidance may prescribe additional criteria to be used in
identifying the various classes. It may also describe specific
information necessary to make a determination of hydrogeologic
vulnerability, such as geologic setting, hydrogeologic
characteristics, climate, and physiography. EPA will work
closely with States, local governments, business and industry,
environmental groups, and other Federal agencies, particularly
the DOI, in the development of this guidance.
Class I - Special Ground Waters
Certain ground-water resources are in need of special
protective measures. These resources are defined to include
those that are highly vulnerable to contamination because of the
hydrogeological characteristics of the areas under which they
occur. Examples of hydrogeologic characteristics that cause
ground water to be vulnerable to contamination are high hydraulic
conductivity (Karst formations, sand and gravel aquifers) or
recharge conditions (high water table overlain by thin and highly
permeable soils). In addition, special ground waters are
characterized by one of the following two factors:
(1) Irreplaceable source of drinking water. These include
ground water located in areas where there is no practical
alternative source of drinking water (islands, peninsulas,
isolated aquifers over bed rock) or an insufficient alternative
source for a substantial population; or
-------
-44-
(2) Ecologically vital, in that the ground water contributes
to maintaining either the base flow or water level for a
particularly sensitive ecological system that, if polluted,
would destroy a unique habitat (e.g., those associated with
wetlands that are habitats for unique species of flora and
fauna or endangered species).
In order to prevent contamination of special ground waters,
EPA will use RCRA authorities to initially discourage by guidance,
and will eventually propose regulations to ban the siting of
new hazardous waste land disposal facilities above these ground
waters. EPA will in addition request information about the need
to establish similar restrictions for some existing land disposal
facilities. Further, for any existing hazardous waste land
disposal facilities regulated under RCRA that continue to operate
in these locations, EPA will at a minimum continue to require
design practices to prevent contamination, and may consider
adding special design or operating requirements. No discharge
from such facilities will be allowed to contaminate the ground
water so that background conditions or drinking water standards
are exceeded. Where contamination has occurred within the
facility boundary, EPA regulations require cleanup of ground
water either to drinking water or background levels. EPA may
also use its Superfund or imminent hazard authority to seek
cleanup beyond the facility boundary if necessary.
The Superfund Hazard Ranking System will continue to operate
under the current formula in selecting sites for designation on
the National Priority List (NPL). The immediacy of the threat
to Special Ground Water will be one of the factors for taking
action among sites listed on the NPL. Cleanup objectives for
such Superfund sites will also be to drinking water or levels
that protect human health. Consideration of statutory factors
(cost-effectiveness and fund balancing) and the need to achieve
rapid privately-financed response may require occasional acceptance
of lower levels of cleanup.
Under TSCA, EPA will evaluate the merits of developing
additional restrictions on the use, disposal, or storage of
potentially threatening chemicals over these areas. EPA will
also apply the information-gathering authority under TSCA to
learn more about the use, disposal, and storage of chemicals in
these areas.
Under the UIC provisions of the SDWA, EPA will consider
developing special permit conditions (e.g., special cementing
requirements for casings going through special ground water, as
-------
-45-
well as monitoring of the ground water). EPA will also use the
combined authorities of the Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) program
and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to review
Federally-financed projects to ensure protection of these special
ground waters.
Class II - Current and Potential Sources of Drinking Water and
Water Having Other Beneficial Uses
All other ground water currently used or potentially
available for drinking water and other beneficial use is included
in this category, whether or not it is particularly vulnerable to
contamination. This comprises the majority of usable ground water
in the United States.
As a general rule, Class II aquifers will receive levels of
protection consistent with those now provided for ground water
under EPA's existing statutes. This means that prevention of
contamination will generally be provided through application of
design and operating requirements based on technology, rather
than through restrictions on siting, though exceptions may apply.
Cleanup of contamination will usually be to background levels or
drinking water standards, but alternative procedures may be
applied for potential sources of drinking water or water used for
agricultural or industrial purposes. EPA recognizes that in
some cases alternatives to ground water cleanup and restoration
may be appropriate. In these cases the contamination may be
managed in order to avoid migration into a current source of
drinking water or to avoid widespread damage. More specifics
for each program area are defined below.
Under RCRA, prevention of contamination may include siting
restrictions for new land disposal facilities over current sources
of drinking water in areas highly vulnerable to contamination.
These restrictions would initially be instituted through guidance
and later through regulations.
Where ground water is used now for drinking water, cleanup
of contamination from new and existing facilities will be subject
to current requirements under RCRA, with cleanup to drinking
water standards or background, as appropriate. For sites which
can impact potential sources of drinking water or ground water
used for other beneficial purposes, the same policy will generally
apply. Alternate concentration limits (ACLs) now provided in
the RCRA land disposal regulations will continue to be available
for both current and potential sources of drinking water if the
criteria for the ACLs can be met by an applicant. In addition,
for ground waters not used as current sources of drinking water,
EPA will also consider regulatory changes to allow variances in
-------
-46-
cleanup that take into account such factors as the probability
of eventual use as drinking water and the availability of cost-
effective methods to ensure acceptable water quality at the point
of use. Other factors such as yield, accessibility, and alterna-
tive sources will also be considered.
The superfund hazard ranking system is more likely to place a
site on the National Priorities List when the ground water which
is contaminated or threatened with contamination is a current
source of drinking water than when it is an unused potential source.
Additionally, when remedial action is considered at a site on the
NPL, such considerations as technical infeasibility, statutory
fund-balancing provisions, and potential for adverse public
health impacts may make cleanup of the resource less likely for
potential sources of drinking water than for current sources.
In certain situations involving current sources of drinking
water, such as when technical feasibility is an issue, the cost-
effective remedy may be to provide an alternate drinking water
supply rather than restoring the contaminated aquifer. In these
situations monitoring of the plume of contamination would be
used to evaluate the need for further action to prevent or
mitigate migration of the contamination.
EPA has identified no specific changes in policies under
TSCA at this time. At a minimum, TSCA information gathering
authority may be used to gather additional data on ground-water
contamination potential of particular chemicals.
The UIC Program will apply its current provisions to Class
II waters. Where the potential is low for ground water to be
used as drinking water (for example, when TDS levels are between
3,000 and 10,000 mg/L, mineral production is a competing use, or
the aquifer is inaccessibly deep), EPA will apply existing UIC
requirements to a Class II aquifer.
Class III - Ground Water Not a Potential Source of Drinking
Water and of Limited Beneficial Use
Ground waters that are saline or otherwise contaminated
beyond levels which would allow use for drinking or other beneficial
purposes are in this class. They include ground waters (1) with
a TDS level over 10,000 mg/L, or (2) that are so contaminated
by naturally occurring contaminants or by human activity (unrelated
to a specific hazardous waste land disposal site) that they
cannot be cleaned up using methods reasonably employed in public
water system treatment. In addition, the ground water must not
be connected to Class I or Class II ground water or to surface
water in a way that would allow contaminants to migrate to these
waters and potentially cause adverse effects on human health or
the environment.
Prevention of contamination may be less than that provided
for Class I or II in some instances, but high levels of protection
-------
-47-
will still be required in other cases. New and existing hazardous
waste land disposal facilities regulated under RCRA will be
required to meet the same technical standards — such as liners,
leachate collection systems, and monitoring — as facilities
located over Class I or II ground water. Hence, in terms of
protection, the Ground-Water Protection Strategy currently envisions
the same technical standard of protection for hazardous waste
facilities in all classes. With respect to cleanup, should the
hazardous waste facility leak, the Agency would normally grant
variances that establish elevated concentration limits. Generally,
cleanup decisions for Class III ground water that has been
contaminated by human activities would be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis. If contamination poses no risk to human health and
the environment, as will frequently be the case (because the
ground water is not usable and there are controls to ensure it
is not used), then, under RCRA, cleanup requirements could be
reduced or eliminated. Under other statutes, such as CERCLA,
cleanup decisions may consider also the cost of the cleanup.
The Superfund program will not focus its response activities
on cleanup of ground water in this class, although priority for
taking Superfund actions may be given to sites over Class III
ground water to control hazards unrelated to ground water (e.g.,
air emissions, fires, etc.).
Current UIC exemptions will remain in place, given the
exemption provisions noted in Class II. Nutrient reuse and
recycling requirements under the CWA will also follow these
guidelines.
Implementation of the Guidelines for Ground-Water Protection
The purpose of these guidelines is to improve the consis-
tency and effectiveness of EPA's current ground-water programs.
Implementation of the guidelines requires translating the
guidelines into specific requirements in each of the Agency's
major program areas. This involves: (1) criteria and procedures
for making decisions related to ground water according to quality,
use, and vulnerability; and (2) changing existing regulations if
necessary or possibly developing new regulations or guidelines
that will result in "consistent" levels of protection in each
program. These regulations will then provide the legal basis
for the implementation of the guidelines. It is not intended
that any substantive or procedural rights are provided by this
strategy.
Even with the guidelines in place, certain inconsistencies
among EPA programs will remain to be resolved and others will
emerge. One major responsibility of the new EPA Ground-Water
Protection Office (described below) is to identify and work with
all EPA programs involved to resolve remaining issues of program
inconsistency.
-------
-48-
Many of EPA's programs are delegated to the States. For
most programs, States must demonstrate that their programs are
"no less stringent" than the Federal program in order to qualify
for authorization to implement the programs. While EPA will foster
State efforts to classify ground water in a manner consistent
with the framework presented in this strategy, EPA will not require
States to adopt the Federal classification scheme for their over-
all ground-water protection programs and will provide as much
flexibility as possible under existing statutes to the States in
implementing delegated EPA programs. Consequently, EPA will to
the extent possible keep regulatory requirements based on EPA's
ground-water protection guidelines general and performance-oriented,
EPA will develop guidance to accompany such regulations for use
by EPA when EPA directly administers a program in a State (e.g.,
implementation in a non-delegated State or implementation of a
program which cannot be delegated). The guidance could also be
used by the States to assist them in developing their own
regulatory requirements or guidelines.
For EPA-administered programs, the task of actually
determining whether the ground water in a particular location
fits the criteria for Class I, II, or III will be a site-
specific determination. In programs involving permits, such as
RCRA and UIC, for example, this determination will be made during
the permitting process based on data supplied by the permit
applicant. In cleanup actions under CERCLA, the ground-water
class will be determined in conjunction with the assessment of
the extent of contamination. In many cases, the geologic and
hydrologic information necessary to make these classifications
will have to be gathered as a part of the site investigation.
In other cases, ground-water studies already completed by other
Federal or State agencies may sufficiently describe hydrogeology
such that the ground-water classification decision will be greatly
expedited. Where States have already mapped or designated
ground-water classes for that location, the State classification
of the ground water may be sufficient where it is comparable
to these guidelines.
4. STRENGTHEN INTERNAL GROUND-WATER ORGANIZATION
During EPA's review of its ground-water programs, it became
evident that the Agency could not go forward with an enhanced
ground-water protection effort, or provide leadership to the
States in achieving coordinated protection of the resource, with-
out clearly designated responsibility and adequate staff support.
There is a continuing need to coordinate EPA programs within
this common policy framework, and there must be effective support
-------
-49-
to States seeking to manage their ground-water resources. A
strong and supportive research effort is a crucial element.
These tasks require an internal management structure, within
which the several EPA programs with ground-water protection
responsibilities can function in an orderly, mutually supportive
way.
The Agency considered several options for increasing its own
institutional capability at the Headquarters and Regional levels
(see Attachments V, VI and VII). The major concern was to estab-
lish this capability without the substantial disruption that
reorganization would involve. For that reason, the Agency will
retain ongoing program efforts in their current organizational
locations, assigning lead responsibility for ground-water coordi-
nation to the Assistant Administrator for Water, and locating
lead responsibility in the counterpart divisions of the Regional
offices.
In order to carry out this mandate, the Assistant
Administrator for Water has been directed to:
0 Establish an Office of Ground-Water Protection;
0 Convene and chair an oversight committee of Assistant
Administrators and two Regional Administrators; and
0 Establish an ongoing dialogue with State program
directors.
The Office of Ground-Water Protection (OGWP) was established
on April 2, 1984. It will have responsibility to provide staff
support to the AA/RA Oversight Committee. This committee will
provide policy oversight and direction to the Office in the
implementation of the Ground-Water Protection Strategy. It will
ensure coordination of all EPA ground-water activities, identify
and direct the development of ground-water policies and guidelines,
and coordinate activities of program offices to carry out the
Agency ground-water Strategy. The Office will also convene a
"Ground-Water Steering Committee" to review all ground-water
policies and regulations and make recommendations on all budget
requests for ground-water protection activities. This committee
will be composed of office directors with operating responsibilities
for ground-water protection and several water division directors.
Special attention will be given to coordinating research priori-
ties to support State and EPA ground-water protection programs,
and to planning future actions as experience is gained.
-------
-50-
OGWP will also work with Regional ground-water offices,
providing policy contact and program coordination, including
developing guidance for use of grant funds to support State
program development. It will provide guidance to Regions, and
develop information for Regional use in providing technical
assistance to the States, such as on data management techniques
and State program development.
Data management and EPA research coordination will also be
addressed. Over time OGWP will develop information on how to
access available ground-water data for use by Regions, States, and
site managers. It will identify new data needs, identify data
needed to determine long-term trends and status, and conduct or
initiate special studies of ground-water contamination.
Further, the Office will be responsible for assessing and
evaluating how effective EPA has been in implementing the ground-
water strategy — such as in Regional coordination, steering
committee effectiveness, State program development and implemen-
tation — either directly or by arranging for an outside reviewer.
The Office will also work with other program offices to assess
the effectiveness of ground-water quality management and clean
up activities, such as remedial action and site cleanup, and
to support demonstrations of successful State ground-water program
operations.
OGWP will work with other Federal agencies, such as U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), Department of Defense (DOD), Department
of Energy (DOE), Department of the Interior (DOI), Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), and U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), as well as with relevant outside interests, such as State
organizations, trade and industry groups, environmental groups,
the press, Congressional staffs, and others. It will convene an
Interagency Committee on Ground Water consisting of individuals
from Federal departments and agencies having ground water concerns.
This committee will meet several times during the year to exchange
information of mutual interest. Other committees will be established
as needed. The Office will serve as an Agency spokesperson on
legislative matters affecting ground water.
Regional responsibility for ground-water coordination and
management will generally reside in the water divisions. In order
to permit Regional flexibility, yet achieve adequate consistency
among Regional programs, EPA has developed general criteria for
Regional ground-water programs.
-------
-51-
Functions for a Regional ground-water program include the
development and oversight of ground-water policy development and
coordination. Regions will establish an enhanced effort to provide
States with technical and institutional support in developing
ground-water programs and strategies. Regional ground-water
protection offices will coordinate Regional ground-water programs
such as State work programs/ Regional program plans, site assessments,
and enforcement. They will coordinate the ground-water data
collected by Regional programs, and they will develop, with the
States, systems for making data from various sources accessible
to groundwater managers. They will also be responsible for
coordinating related Regional training, technical assistance,
and public response.
While each Regional organization will be somewhat different
depending on the particular needs of the Region, each Regional
organization should provide for a mechanism for full participation
of all Regional ground-water programs at a level where decisions
can be made and a mechanism for issue resolution by the Regional
Administrator or the Deputy Regional Administrator. Each should
include a full-time director and full-time support staff with
technical, managerial and intergovernmental skills.
The organizational structure to be established at the EPA
Headquarters and Regional levels should make a major contribution
to the coordination of EPA programs and the support of State
ground-water protection efforts.
In summary, this EPA Ground-Water Protection Strategy
represents a major step forward in EPA and State efforts to
protect ground water. The strategy has four goals:
To foster stronger State government programs for Ground-
Water Protection;
EPA will provide grant support for State program
development;
EPA will offer technical assistance to States; and
EPA will target research efforts to State
requirements.
-------
-52-
0 To cope with inadequately addressed problems of ground-
water contamination;
EPA will assess the extent of contamination by
leaking underground storage tanks, issue a Chemical
Advisory warning gasoline station owners and
operators of the problem, and consider the need
to further regulate these contamination sources;
EPA will assess the problems associated with
surface impoundments and landfills; and
EPA will strengthen its efforts to protect ground
water from pesticide contamination and over time
assess the effects of other practices on ground-
water quality.
0 To establish a framework for decision-making by EPA
programs;
— EPA will adopt guidelines for ground-water protec-
tion. These guidelines will assure a high level
of protection for ground water used for drinking
and other beneficial purposes, and bring about
greater cohesion in EPA ground-water protection
efforts.
0 To strengthen the internal ground-water organization
EPA has established an Office of Ground-Water
Protection in the Office of Water and counterpart
offices will be established in each Region.
EPA believes that this strategy represents a pragmatic,
evolutionary approach to improving the protection of the Nation's
ground-water resource. It will provide the institutional muscle
needed to bring about the needed change. It provides at the
Federal and State levels a framework for decision-making and a
roadmap to address new problems. This Strategy can only be
successful through EPA leadership, the development of strong
State programs, and general support from Congress, environ-
mentalists, and the regulated community.
-------
-53-
FOOTNOTES
1. "Ground Water: Issues and Answers", American Institute of
Professional Geologists (AIPG), 1983.
2. "Ground Water: Issues and Answers", American Institute of
Professional Geologists (AIPG), 1983.
3. "Survey of Operating and Financial Characteristics of
Community Water Systems", U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking
Water, October 1982.
4. EPA Health Advisory on Trichloroethylene (TCE).
5. Informal Survey, EPA Regional Offices, December 4, 1983.
6. Toxic Substances Control Act, 1983, The Chemical Inventory,
OPTS, U.S. EPA.
7. CERCLA, Emergency and Remedial Response Information System
(ERRIS), 1983, U.S. EPA.
8. "The Report to Congress: Waste Disposal Practices and Their
Effects on Ground Water", EPA, Office of Water Supply,
January 1977.
9. Ibid.
10. "Surface Impoundment Assessment (SIA): National Report" EPA,
Office of Drinking Water (ODW), Draft, December 1982.
11. "The Report to Congress: Waste Disposal Practices and Their
Effects on Ground Water", EPA, Office of Water Supply,
January 1977.
12. Keeley, J. W., 1977. Magnitude of the Ground Water Contami-
nation Problem. In Public Policy on Ground Water Protec-
tion, ed. W. R. Kerns, pp. 2-10. Proceedings of a national
conference at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Va., 13-16 April.
13. Miller, David, Geraghty and Miller, based on a series of
regional surveys on ground-water contamination problems
and development of the 1977 Report to Congress, phone
conversation, December 23, 1983.
-------
-54-
14. Dr. Rudy White, API; Phone Conversation: December 9, 1983.
15. "Leaking Gasoline Storage Tanks Risk Explosions and Contami-
nated Water Near Service Stations" (cites Warren Rogers,
Newport, RI), The Wall Street Journal, November 16, 1982,
p. 56.
16. Shaner, Richard, "The Tank Leak Mess", National Petroleum
News, July 1982.
17. Marcel Moreau, Geologist, Maine Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), Phone Conversation, December 6, 1983.
18. "Assessment of Hazardous Waste Mismanagement: Damage Case
Histories", EPAf Office of Solid Waste (OSW), December 1982.
19. "Groundwater Contamination by Toxic Substances: A Digest of
Reports", Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division,
Congressional Research Service (CRS), Library of Congress.
"Resource Losses from Surface Water, Groundwater, and Atmos-
pheric Contamination: A Catalog", March 1980, Environment
and Natural Resources Policy Division, Congressional
Research Service (CRS), Library of Congress.
20. Westrick, James J., J. Wayne Mello, Robert F. Thomas, "National
Ground Water Supply Survey" (GWSS), EPA, Office of Drinking
Water, June 1982.
21. Informal Survey by EPA Regional Offices, 1982.
-------
-55-
INTRODUCTION
This section contains three types of materials as background
information.
1. Attachment I is a chart which describes the various
functions agencies perform at the State, Federal and
local levels to protect ground water.
2. Attachment II is a more detailed comparative analysis
of EPA ground-water regulations than is provided in the
text of the Strategy.
3. The last three appendices are summaries of the principal
options EPA considered in the development of this Strategy,
-------
-56-
APPENDICES
-------
2
_ - 0» 6
<1> 3 -H W
0)6 50 M
BS Bg,
"I* f&
5
S ft C
CD Q. CD
^ 0 BT O 4J
•H 3 10
^ J3 * CO CD
"O * & C
as-S^fr
•H -rt Q CO 0 •- Q> 6 fl>
rH M CD E 4J rH C & O
(0 Q a* 55 <0 nJ-HcTc
M 'O rH (D
>|-8| S:
t3 & 8 «q A
•s
h
p
l
Ge
bu
de
gu
CO
CD
CO
CO
g
•H
1
4J rH
(0 flj
T3 "S O
'•ss
O CD 4->
•H 4-> CO
rH -H
i«
& (0 (0
4-1
co
i-H
rH
(0
s
s
IO r-1
S 3
CO
CO CO
2
4J
g
•H
JJ
g
0)
CO
c \ '
S-iH
CO
•s * S -
4J 3 C
CO rH 5 O
•H O W -H
CO 4-> O
nj c «• ©
s
•H o> M
co ro cu
C i '
o
. 4J
ft CD
S^
O
4-1
I
4J
•iH
•H
4J
8
0 'W CD
- <0 O
^H >i
r-j rH
< 4J
s
^ * fi « .
H 3 O O 4-»
•O T3 -H 4J O . .
•rH 4-> (0 (0 4J
j: > 3 rH CO
O •!-! rH 3 4J -H
•rt
i-H S,
O
CO
•H
8
JJ CD
4J CO ^4-1
C -H -H l«-l
O
a
-------
CM
"8
I
•H O
rH
SS
•r-t lQ4
to -1-1
3 »
CD iJ
0) -U O
c m 4J
-r-t 4J C
U-t CO
T3 I C
CD C
CD M-I (0
CO
II
•H
12
•g
(0
CO CO
0)
«« o
CD -rt
^< CD J2 rH CO
- * g .g e,
S'-a-S'g
o gt co
CD C rH
-. ^ 4J -rj CD
^i-u^c^
-p -3 O 6 -H
-------
S2
-8
£
CO
*
Q,
b]
O <0
CO
u CX.
•^ O
> -r-t
(0
-l '•H S 'H
(U C 'O co
4->
i*4
> (0
S 0)
04 > >1
•i-l rH
CO CO P
0) C O
4-> a> CD
P X -H
CO CD T3
g
forma ti
c
M
rH
8
o
•rt
«J
z
5
S
g
••-I
4-1
CD
rH
,.
CO
2
rH
H
M
3 4->
5 rtJ
O) 0)
Jh,j
O "U
c^
^i (0
•1— ( ^
rH 0) (0
(0 P 4-1
3 (0 (0
CT S T3
?
!
CO
U-l
o
S? 5
C fu
•rH ^4
T3 O1
c p
f^j CU
•H
P
2
••
CO
3
rH
g
H
ll
Sc?
(0 U
c^a
rH
y
-------
H
M
z
M
CL,
§
2
S
8
CO
>l4H
-H TH
g&
03
Monitori
connec
0 -iH
• 4H
•rH -H
en
-H
CO
|
JS
s
10
•H O
03 -a
o 0
2
<4-l
O --I
0
4J 4H
!
CO
4H TD
•H i-H
3 0
0
8 CO
O CO
•* 0
O rH
0 Q)
CO
0
4H T3 4J
0
-H
>1
m
CN
is
>iS
.*
•iH
M
a>
II
s
C 4J OI-'J
I a?°
•• m
§§ »
H CO O
Vj *Q
O
0)
U-l (0
1^?
> 03
4J rH -H
03 0 0 g
O At TJ 4J
0 OS Cy 03 03
t I c i i *^
•• *O 03 iH
co >i q c -a
D> rH g 3 0
0)4-1(1)
3 C Ql
gss'Sooi0!
03 -rH kn O r-l Q OS
4->03
w
O rH
II
0 4->
CO 03
^
03 03
'rH
4-1 >i CO
C rH 05
0 Qi 0
8 CO
O CO
O rH
251
AJ n 4-1
C 3 co
n co
rl rH r-l
H-l Qt 0
4H Q44-I
z g §
Q)
- Ol
r-l 'CO
0
4H "O
r-( rH
:o
O
in
0
g -rl rH
rj
CP
4H4-I
0
> <-•
rHCr-t
*rf* V4
^
4H 2
Q
CQ -H
r4 4J
4-> 03
)H
0 0
CD
O O> —
3°
0) II
H U
§
4J 0
0 4->
• 03 T3
. . 4-1 fi rH
0 03 4J
4-1 CO OS 4H
r-l 03 03
0 0 4H 3t
& g O 3* U
O ge H CO O
.6
O 2
03
CO
Q<
Oi
03
&
!
O
s
t
0
-------
CN
S
^3
c
"8
j*
(1)
4J
CO
O> > -O
a as
WCM
0)
CO
-------
%
J
Z
bJ M
J DL,
ffl g
& «
CO
lj
£
rH
P
5 4J
Z CO
g
•H
flj
M
CT
W
Q
4J C
C It
CD (U
3 0
4J C
•H O
4-» O
C tJ
0 O
(0
g
4J
•r-t
C*
•3
M
g
••-•
2
4->
C
^
8
0}
2-2
U CO
Q) (0
1 1 jj
'(O CD
W
TJ (0
CD O
CO 1
i CD
CO CO
2 8
g
•H
4->
3a
> *
O 4-1
2 0
** ryj
4-1 CD U CO
C > CU 4H TJ
CD O M -r-( CD
4-1 Z CD
3 CD CD CJ
•r-l (0 C (0 CD
4J CD 3 CD
CO >-l 5 Vj 4J
C U & O C
O C O> C CD
O -H j2 -H -iH CO
2 O 10 O E CJ
£ c JQ c R5 as
4J 00 TJ 4J
•rH CO 3 -it
4J rH 4J *-.
CM O C C ^t
CO *" C M
S--H CO (0 O 2
i— 1 rH -H
(0 U C C
ti o -r< <3 -r<
•H C CJ»
SCO g rtj £4 (Q
4J CD D> Q 4J
nj c .c w c c
X CD O O •** CD
1C
VO
CN
g
g
•r-l
10
rH CO
O i-J
"> *
So
CO
4-1 TJ
•rH CD
CD
§X
CD
CD
ij i ^i
o c
C CD
•H -r-l (Q
Sla^
c
•iH
CO
TJ 4J
So|
O C 4J
•H to -i-i o£
c o>-^ 2
nj M co D
en o c cu
& C O M
O -H O 2
f^
m
CM
§
M O
M 4J
M C C
•H O>
k -rH
M 4-1 CO
M C 0) —•
CD TJ CO
M CD >-l
(0 u iq
assto1
-8
1-1
1
g
•iH
4-1
nj
r*H (0
"> 3S
S'S
fl
§i
Constit
in NIPD
CO
c
8
a
0
x:
r-H
^0
Cji
g
o
CD
4-1
4-1
CD
Qi
OT
CD
v
4-1
8
CO
4-1
Contami
in .NIPD
CJ
M
D
i
CO
•8 g
rH (0
CD O 4-1
> 4-> rH
CD CD
zll .
••H 0) rH
fc< *O t3 •
^ ^ 13
• CO 3
>1 CO O &4
4-1 CD -rH
•§ltg
R O 4-1 -H
0 O 4->
< 4H (0
& 4H C >
Cb 0 O M
2 1 •r-l 0
4J 4J CO
- CO U CD
X O CD !-i
^ C ^ C*
§00,0
*O CD *O
>1 0 4-> C
' — i co co nj
0 Sj 3,
>-i Jj D1^^
d) jJ
CO CO TJ C
0 •<-< (0 0
8Q, CD C
3-D O
CO C 3 tl
OJ rH -H
f2 rH ^ ^
ffi O -H 0
4-> S
CO
C) O
8 (0 C
CO N 0
H s O
|_J
3 2
02 fl^
S3 u
CJ 2
4-1
g
4-1
§
4-1
0
0
rH
0
Is
0 4J
(TJ -rj
rH CO
jQ 4J
(3 O
4-) CD
CO 4J
vo
CN
2
CO
CO •
.§!
li t I
0
4-> CO
C
-------
ff
I
S
a
I
e
u
^J
•Q
<0 TJ
c3 H
•r-f S
3 4~J
Z CO
s
•iH
4J
(0
ft)
^
a
Q
Constituent
of Concern
3 -H
g (5,
m -H
O oo O<
•• CJ -rH CO
Si S &
Same as part 264+ |
Radiological consti-
uents in NIPDWR and
Molybdenum and
Uranium
|
5
itoring only
specified
its
C E
£ 2 rH
PCBs, pH, specific
conductivity,
chlorinated
organics
OQ
3
H
-P
•H
i
0>
4J
£
£
2
.§
rH
"«
O 10
•H 4J
o <9
rH 4J
O 0
•H 0)
O CQ
2-H
•o
violation
MCLs
§ 0
4J
S
-Q
j2
X-l
•rH
W CQ
(Jj Q^
^•4 £
o
c cp
O Q
2 (9
Current Drinking
Water: all construc-
tion in NIPDWR
violation
MCLs
S3
^
S
•Q
C3
*
-H
CO tO
(^ jj
(J) CJ
V-4 £
y
C 0)
O -Q
z o
4J O -H \
>^ C \ -H (H CO
0 CD CO U 4J 0) •
CT > "o
Or)
CO (0
iw Qi
0 cT
C w
"8§,
(0 rZJ
IS 0)
•o
-------
in
03
•H
4J
^
•H
I
to
•o
4J
CO
' 1
5
& o
•rH 4-1
i£
CQ
iS
8
Bi3s.§IJ
3) -H 4-> 4J
*O O 5 Q >. Q)
25 4J CD "U >
c 6 H 8 -3 f
C 3 (3 Qj C >>l
£ 0) r-l 2 4-> iH
3S rH Q.S tO O
w 0 Q)
c CD 14-1 g m
m it-i to -H
g • -i-l ^4
(0 CT CD OS
CD • to > (D
-P C CD \ r-l
CO -rH CO «» JQ
(0 tO C CO -"-I
£ .p 03 -I-H CD tO
C 0) (0 C W
Z g (0 Qi N Qi
CQ
03 ••» CD
CO C >
cL -H to
to 4J s
•iH •• (0
T3 CQ 0 •»
CD O ^i
03 -H M CD jQ
Du M-H C **-4 QI
6 TJ tO
CD $ ^!
4J -H (0
0 <4-i CD
W -H rH
tt O
S-l Q|4-l
CD CO -H
4J rH
5 "U O
ftO >4-l
C CD
O O O
-J -H C
0 4-) O
0 "^
^M C! O
•8 ° 8 S -
t! •* -H -r^ CD
nj c 4J 4-) M
T5 Ol CJ 05 3
l3 tO M CO 0
4J 0 -U Q 4J
•• C
IH 0|
HH C
* 0)
M O)
^ 1
M "g
CQ CD tO
to i S
03 Ci fl
U C B
• • «.
MO >W
M -H «. 4J O
- 4J c to rtja
MOO "O Q1-U.C04J
M 3 -rt fl) C CcijrHC
^ ^ JJ (-1 (T3 -r-l 0) iHQ)
M 4J 03 3 *O CJ1 0 tO 03 £ 'O
CO J*4 CO C Q) 03 rH CD* *H
CO O O rH 'O CD OS Q rH
03UOUCQ Qi 03 5 E £ 4-1
U 1 1
O
M
D
D
CO
to
1
1
4>
CD
5
•g
>1
§
d)
1
•rH
1
04
^
J§
i
•^
c
0
•rH
CO
•H
O
fl\
•8
S
_g,
1
Q)
5
i—l
eu
z
5
z
o
4J
•H CM
rH
•H 03
CO Ol
0
0^
0 Z
to
O JD
Q CD
I 'O
CD -H
CQ U
03 CD
vo
CM
i j
^j
(Q
3
r4
• H
r-|
•H
g
CO
CO
c
CD 8
tO ^4 X4
r4 3 -H
•rt rH CD
J O M
rf
y
i
D
rH
5
8
0>
03
H
to
to
to
fO
i. i
•U H
iu C
C -H
•H 4J
o
— (0
m
vo a)
CM >
(D
to o
0 03
•r-l
4-1 U
OS O
rH
D) rH
•U CQ
03
4-> C
to O
•
U (1)
M
-------
-P
?
3
4J
^
U)
S
rH W
Is
& o
•rt U-l
l£
2
C
&
S
CT
4)
O rtj O O
• §
to
5s
>r^ >r^
rH -P
•rt (0
o o to
4-1 rH <])
£S V^
C W
O C -rt p
M -P O fO
4j o to
W ft -P
1 rH 'Z3
« •§ cj
398
i
Ss-A
O ^ 0)
W (0 tQ C rH
jj
g
83
&
•
1-1 10
0)
p, rt)
Q
CT jfl
tO M
fll O
Q 4-1
rH
0)
ni
0)
O>"O W
3££
§0; M TJ
0 0) -rt
•rt C -P O
W (0 W -rt
•rt O -rt 4J
B "§••§
M 4J O
tO & O 4J
0) O -rt o
& c? d) c o
•a c a) -rt
•rt 't ^ rH
CM (0 (0
fl} O C Q) -rt
O -P O rH -P
S i
to 3 "O
^ C^ OJ M ^0 O)
(rt o (fl i * TJ *rt tQ
rH Q) O -rt O C
B -rt tO > C O
W -rt rH fl) -rt (D -rt
0) QcP TJ 10 01
W O Q< <0 C -rt -rt
O 4J (0 r-i -H rH O
0)
•rt
-------
'O
11 1
r~H ^J
£> O Q)
d) O C
'O
^W V^
§ O £
uc,
&9 "g
O (0
Ll 10
O >i
II > rr-x ij
CU -H
CO 4-> U
CU (0 O
4J rH .C
4J CT 3
JH
O 4->
4J rH Ll
Li <0 CJl
30 C
CO U-l
1 (0
CO O Q)
4-1
§ *
Li *O
c? S
Oi Ll
O^
4J
wj O
Ll U-l
o>
C? Q
C Q»
Oj
«J 3
co
CD
4J 0)
S4J
(0
>4 -1-*
O 01
1
1
CO
CO
CO
CD
•H
o^
CD
4J
s
CO
•h
4J
c
vJ
en
CO
<0
c
rH 0
•8U
Ll (0
Ql CH
•H
Ll "O
O Ll
4H O
1 i
•H rH
O ng
Qt O
(0 -H
O 4->
3
0) -^
W *rH
(Q -M
0^ CO
v^ c2
0 -n
c
c"
'O O>
rH -H
O CD
3 T3
1
H
Li
Q\
jj
O
CO
CD
(0
3
4->
Li
Ql 4-)
3 C
CO CD
Cj
CD Si
'O Cj
-iH rH
Li CD
ft X>
1
U
M
D
.^^
m
0
OJ
*.
^
2.
^j
**
D>
0)
8
•H
4J
•r-l
^
_C^
4-)
(0
S1
•H
4->
CO
•H
X
CD
f~j
n^
3
Q
^
4J
0)
•H
CO
2
i
CO
rH
C
5
O
4-)
CD
f
^
(0
3
c?
W
JS
o
x:
4J
S1
3
W
*
c
4-»
S,
8-
CO
4-1
C
(0
o>
*^
CD
CD
H
i
0
§1
C0£
§ 2
CD
O^ *O
C CD
•H UH
(D -r<
•O >H
° T
oi io
1
CO
•H
4J
Q
X*
3
(0
?
4J
co
•rH
3
M-4
Q
85
3
1?
1
I
1
2
fa
I
0)
4J
CO
T"J
Q)
4-t
nj
^
CD
-------
g
CO
s
•rH
rH
-8
•rH
3
g
•H
•P
s
a
g
ca
V
C -P
(U
ver
val
ne
-U 0
C 4-1
!
4J 0)
•rH 0
IH >|C_> C
Q,4J M (3
•rH D 0
< rH i-H
as?!?
^"2 <0
O -p
s
0
re
i i
s
CO
s
IS
3
•rH
CO
pa i
S
a
ua
i i
4J
8-
-------
4J
s
0}
•3-3
II11I
I I
I I
cn
0) -H
05 -H -O
(1)
££<°
0) VJ O
r-l 0) O
CD 0 .U
rc to -H c
t^cn"
Q)
o
03
rH H
fi 5 ,1^ o d Q
cS 8 2 S «} o 8
I I
S1
•H
I
(Q
CT
•
(V
0) <0
rH O> O 4J
nj "Q -i-t jQ
U 3 , g -i-l -H
rH g 03 rH
$83g
i i
M
S
* 2
51
8 CO 0)
rH C
•H 0> >1 O
4-1 4J
c <; -u w
to <
-------
CD
o
•8
CO
g
•H
4->
(0
o
g
•rH
4J
8
•rH
"g
O
14H T3
Ml ^
cu 15
rH 4-)
CO (0 C
' ^1 CD
O) g
I?
Vd
8
CD
•rH 4J M
X C ft
x: o 4J
•H CD <0
^J ff'
fl) -H
rH CO
X5 -H CD
•rH rH
CO CO 4-1
CO -H 4-1
1 t 1
CD
CO .J
si
4J O
1
t>1 Q1
4J 0
-rH
C 4-1 (g
•H O Qt
ij H'
(0 rH -H
IH O
a> rH
CO (0
O rH -H
CD C C
(0
•
1
1 1
w
14
B
2
•r
c 4J o»
•H CJ O
(0
CD
(0
CO CD HH
JG <0
«J 4J 4J
CD CD 4J O
Xj CO CD 3 rH
«3 VH -P O
•a d) -in -H c
rH C 3 4J 5
3 O O1 CO O
O C CU C CD
SE -rt « -H 4J
1
(0
0)
c
•rH
4->
s
"8
•rH
b
8
J8
• H
4J
O
•rt O
^
ft CO
co
IQ CD
4-> 4-)
CO -rH
CO
!°
^g
CO
-
(0
C
-
O
•g
-------
I
•rl
P
ffi
«
S
SH
O
UH
CO
*o o
Q) (p
c c
•rH TJ
JJ $
c c
8 1
I s
•8
8 «
P C
•H -2
& g
C UH
E CD
35 jfi
rH S
c a
•2 .§
n^
ffl O
V
w
•C
U)
•H
•H
CO
rti
fli
•o
Q
w
I
•rl
1
4-1
1
CN
CO
ication
rH
r*
•H
4J
cS-
CD
4-1
CO
•rl
CO
§
B1
-H
^H (U
a.^
11
*^D C^
C 3
(0 VH
CO
8-rl
H "°
gc
(0
•rl
*O CO
Maximize co
Time consum
' '
1
*3
^j
?
Q4
CD
ij ^J
C g>
p co
g (0
O P
JJ
CD -H
4J
Jo
M
-gD
2 "8
O> 3
rH d)
io a
S^g
•rl >• -H
C < 10
(0 PS -rl
pu >
ft£a
,
CT CO
•rH P
^ «»H
(0 CO
E -H
Ss
•2 ^
CO rH
•rH flj
CD U rl
rH d) (D
flj 'O ^
>iT5 CO
CD CD
JC 4J CT
4J (0 C
rH P
CD CD E
i-i i-l (3
4J -H
CO 4-1
CD UH CJ
•rH Q (0
4^
•rl CO rH
rH CO CD
•pH CD Pi
J3 C g
•rl CD O
M > CJ
C -rl
P 4-1 T3
aye
CO CD (0
CD UH
iH UH CO
CD CD
CM CD CO
CD £, CO
VH 4J -ri
Retains cur
Depends on
to resolve
i i
g
•H
CO
•rl
^
a
1
(0
s
|Q
•21
CO
a
i
CO
CD C
*D S3
•n C
p £
VH C
QJ CD
4-1
s «
§M
o
•o
^J C
f^
>, JS
rH
4-> rH
CJ rH
(D -rl
" |i»
'O 4J
S 8,
•2 B1
4J CO
CJ
C UH
3 UH
UH (0
^J
4-> C CO
§-H "Tl
4J C
CJ C 10
4J CD P
3 VH -H >,
P -H 4-1 4->
W "D W P
VH C CO J2
fO 05 -rH 4->
0 . -0 3
Qj (0 CO
4J -H CO CQ
§.C CD UH 0)
CO fi P O
JH -H CJ
•O CD E rH 3
rH -U -H CD CO
3 <0 C >
P CD -H CD UH
O rH S: 1-5 P
1 1 1
•H
•H
O 61
4J a>
K
•n 4J
tj Ui
aa
(p
o
CO P
VH 4J
a2
4J
•a co
(0 -H
CD _C
E O
4J rH 4J
<0 <0 CO
C C -n
D> P C
•H -H -rl
§1*1
1
H1
•H
4->
(0
M<
Q
g
UH
CO
^J
^ [
CD
CD
> CO
§§ -H
JH 4-1
•H O
.Q O C
M '1 |
Qj CD
> 4->
fO -n C
4-1 CD
CD O E
Q 3 oJ
*Q cn
•O 0 <0
rH rH C
5 CD
4J CQ
O> C CQ
•SB 2
±}° S
Priority se
It would be
programs
Could not a
i i i
^
•
• rH O
CD <0
*-^ C CO
O 4"^
CQ -H CJ
tl S1 &
K'.H ™
CD rH rH
(0 <0
U-l U
P 4J -H
CO C
9--S 1
P CQ CD
VH <0 4-)
O>
rnScS
(0 -H
•n "w CD co
C 4J VH C
S co p
CJ -H T3 -H
CD O) C 4J
4-> O <0 CJ
rH (0
(0 P CO
SEE
CD O> 10 c(J
4.) P W in
(0 VH cn O)
S "p
3 CO >
jQ CQ (0
•H
CQ CD
C CD 3
•H iH CO
4J P -H
O CO
C 0) i-l
3 M O
UH
•O CQ
(0 C CD
4-> (0 rH
(0 4->
T3 >1 4->
UH (0
TJ -H £>
C 4J
(0 C UH
H -H CD 4-1
CD "D -H «£
rH rH 3 C&
(0 u U VH
.C CO O
's co >H 1
O CJ .Q
CD CO
3 rH p «j x;
P O 4-> C O>
en CD CD -H co Cu
Jj U 4-> V4 P
rH -H (Q CD rH
CD VH Cl N > CD
&*°c-S°£
rH CO O -O
UH P CQ IH P T3
UH -H -i-l O £, -H
(0 4-> > 4J 3
4J O -H O -H P
CO «J Q Z 3 0
1 III
UH
UH
(0
4-> rH
CO CD
CD CD
i-] I-H
VH
4J P
(0 4->
VH
UH -H
Q
CO (D
[ 1 ^ i
(0 4-1
(C
5°
aS
i
•6
Oi
Oj
(0
CQ
•^H
4J
•H
4J
(0
4J
C
rH
V-l
P
UH
0>
rH
•H
t*O
CD
CD
CQ O
Without per
is unlikely
i
CO
^3
2
CO
X!
^
CO
C
CO CO
>i CD
CO CJ
c
4-) (0
C T3
S D>
<0 Vj
C P
E CO
-------
DATE DUE
u s.
SSHS
-------
|