PROTECTING THE NATION'S GROUND WATER:
EPA'S STRATEGY FOR THE 1990s
The Final Report of
the EPA Ground-Water
Task Force
**' EARLY RELEASE COPY ***
May 8, 1991
-------
NOTE TO THE READER:
This Ground-Water Task Force Report is a statement of
Agency policy and principles. It does not establish or affect
legal rights or obligations. This guidance document does not
establish a binding norm and is not finally determinative of
the issues addressed. Agency decisions in any particular case
will be made by applying the law and regulations to the
specific facts of the case.
-------
EPA GROUND-WATER TASK FORCE
REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Part A: EPA's Ground-Water Protection Principles
Part B: The Federal/State Relationship in Ground-Water Protection
Part C: EPA's Approach to Implementation
Part D: Agency Policy on EPA's Use of Quality Standards in Ground-Water
Prevention and Remediation Activities
Part E: Data Management Recommendations
Part F: ORD Ground-Water Research Plan
-------
EPA GROUND-WATER TASK FORCE
REPORT
Executive Summary
BACKGROUND:
A number of Federal statutes provide EPA with the authority to prevent and
control sources of ground-water contamination, as well as to clean up existing
contamination. During the early 1980s, EPA recognized that these authorities to protect
ground water were fragmented among many different statutes, and were largely
undefined. As a result, in 1984 the Agency adopted a Ground-Water Protection Strategy
to articulate the problem and EPA's role in a national ground-water protection
program. Under this Strategy, the Agency has focused its efforts on four major
objectives:
• Building State capacity;
• Addressing sources of contamination;
» Establishing ground-water policy direction and program consistency; and
• Coordinating EPA programs.
While this strategy was effective in creating momentum for States to develop and
implement ground-water programs, the passage of time and growing body of experience
indicated that gaps remained in protection efforts across the country. It became clear
that there was a need to assess our progress and adjust our approach to take into
account recent changes in statutory authorities and our increased knowledge of the issue
by promoting comprehensive protection on the State and local level.1
In July 1989, EPA Administrator William Reilly established a Ground-Water Task
Force chaired by Deputy Administrator F. Henry Habicht Bt to review the Agency's
ground-water protection program and to develop concrete principles and objectives to
ensure effective and consistent decision-making in all Agency decisions affecting the
resource. The Task Force included membership from all Headquarters offices with
ground-water protection responsibilities and selected Regional representation. Several
work groups were created to develop recommendations on issues of special interest, and
a substantial outreach effort succeeded in obtaining input on two key issues - Agency
principles and the character of the Federal/State relationship - from major Federal,
State, local, public interest, industry and agricultural leadership groups and the
Governors and agency officials of all States,
1 Under Federal statutes and EPA policy, Indian Tribes may be recognized as States for the purpose of
operating national environmental programs. Throughout this report, references to States also refer to
Tribal governments as well as the U.S. Territories.
-------
The outcome of this effort is a policy and implementation principles that are
intended to set forth an aggressive approach to protecting the Nation' s ground-water
resources and direct the course of the Agency' s efforts over the coming years. It will be
reflected in EPA policies, programs, and resource allocations, which will guide EPA,
States and local governments, and other parties with whom we work in carrying out the
Agency' s ground-water responsibilities. This approach is characterized by:
» Clear Statement of Policy: This document sets forth a clear statement of Agency
policy, which will serve as a decision-making framework for all Agency programs
relating to the ground-water resource.
* Focus on Comprehensive Resource Management: This policy builds on current
State activities by providing financial incentives for filling in gaps in protection
efforts and building comprehensive protection programs on the State level.
Under this resource-based approach to protection, States are to take into account
the total impact of all sources of contamination as well as the unique
hydrogeologic features of their resource. A critical first step in developing and
implementing protection programs and arraying priorities, is to ensure that
currently used and reasonably expected sources of drinking water do not present
adverse health risks.
* Emphasis on Prevention of Ground-Water Contamination: Under this policy the
Agency will place an increased emphasis on prevention of ground-water
contamination, and strive to achieve a greater balance between prevention and
remediation activities.
* Clear Federal and State Roles: EPA's policy clearly articulates the principles
defining the EPA/State relationship in ground-water protection, and provides for
developing the framework on the State level for integrating Federal and State
actions relating to the resource.
* Adequacy of State Programs: The Agency' s new policy describes EPA' s
intention to refine over the next year the definition of the elements of a State
ground water protection program, and how each of the elements must be
addressed to develop a program that is "adequate" to comprehensively protect a
State' s resource. It also describes how EPA will work to provide greater
flexibility to a State in implementing Agency programs when that State has
achieved an "adequate" ground-water protection program which affords
comprehensive protection of the resource.
-------
EPA Oversight: In keeping with the recognition that States will develop and
implement their own unique but adequate State programs, EPA oversight in the
Agency' s ground-water related programs will shift from a program-specific basis
to a cross-program, resource-based approach to be further defined over the
coming year.
Coordinated Funding: In contrast with Agency tradition, EPA will shift from a
traditional grants mode into one characterized by coordinated management of
current ground-water related grants and the incentive of increased funding for
States showing progress with comprehensive protection of the resource.
DOCUMENTS TO GUIDE THE AGENCY'S FUTURE AGENDA:
A, EPA' s Ground-Water Protection-Principles - This document establishes
that the "overall goal of EPA's Ground-Water Policy is to prevent adverse
effects to human health and the environment, and to protect the
environmental integrity of the nation's ground-water resources." It also
states that, "In determining appropriate prevention and protection
strategies, EPA will also consider the use value and vulnerability of the
resource, as well as social and economic values.11 Additionally, the
document establishes principles related to prevention, remediation, and
Federal, State and local responsibilities.
B. The Federal/State Relationship in Ground-Water Protection - This
document contains an initial section that outlines the broadly applicable
principles of the Federal/State relationship, e.g., the role of the States and
EPA, and the importance of resource-based prevention efforts. This
document also includes a second section that: describes EPA's new
approach for promoting comprehensive protection of the resource; provides
a preliminary list of the elements of a State ground-water protection
program, which will be further refined through discussions with the States.
An appendix contains a draft document that describes the preliminary
elements of a state program in greater detail. This document will serve as
the framework for future work in this area. In 1991, EPA will hold
workshops around the country to provide the Agency with State input on
further refining the elements and their descriptions and on defining an
"adequate" State program. In 1992, EPA will work with each State to
complete a profile of its ground-water protection programs based on the
final elements and criteria for adequacy. These profiles will identify gaps
in State programs and will serve as the basis for grant workplan
agreements for the States' FY 1993 program efforts.
-------
C. EPA * s Approach to Implementation - This section describes the specific
roles and responsibilities of EPA program offices, both in Headquarters
and the Regional Offices, in implementing the Ground-Water Protection
Principles and ensuring the development and implementation of State
ground-water programs which will provide comprehensive protection (Parts
A and B of the report). It also describes the initial implementation actions
the Agency will take over the next few years.
D. Agency Policy on EPA's Use of Quality Standards in Ground-Water
Prevention and Remediation Activities - This policy statement describes
how EPA will use maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, and water quality standards (WQSs) under the Clean
Water Act, as "reference points" in carrying out ground-water programs.
It also describes how these reference points will be applied differently in
prevention and remediation activities.
E. Data Management Recommendations - This document discusses the status
of EPA' s ground-water data availability, accessibility, and utilizations. It
discusses how data collected by EPA and others is used in ground-water
planning and decision-making at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Several specific recommendations for improvement developed by the Task
Force follow. Also, an extensive computer and data system modernization
effort now being undertaken by EPA' s Office of Information Resources
Management, should result in a substantial improvement in the availability
and utility of ground-water data over the coming years. In FY 1991 the
Agency will be moving ahead with this initiative as well as
recommendations relating to data consistency, quality and automation;
accessibility; and data utilization.
F- Office of Research and Development f ORDt Ground-Water Research Plan
- This document describes the research EPA plans to undertake over the
coming years in response to the needs of Agency programs. It discusses
research activities needed to provide the scientific knowledge base for
successfully preventing and remediating ground-water contamination. In
FY 1991, ORD will conduct new research and technology transfer relating
to three key areas of the Agency's ground-water protection efforts: the
Wellhead Protection Program, State information systems for preventing
ground-water contamination from pesticides; and subsurface cleanup and
mobilization processes.
-------
PART A:
EPA'S GROUND-WATER
PRINCIPLES
-------
EPA GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
PRINCIPLES
The overall goal of EPA* s Ground-Water Policy is to prevent adverse effects to human
health and the environment and to protect the environmental integrity of the nation * s
ground-water resources; in determining appropriate prevention and protection strategies,
EPA wiM also consider the use, value, and vulnerability of the resource, as well as social
and economic values.
• In all events, EPA will execute this goal and the principles below in accordance with Federal
law.
* Adverse effects means those risks that are significant to affected population and determined
to be unreasonable where appropriate under relevant statue.
• EPA's fundamental premise is that the attainment of this goal is necessary to achieve the
sustainability of the resource and closely hydrologically connected surface water systems, not
just for the near term but for the future as well.
* In addition, because ground-water cleanup is extremely costly, and usually difficult and in
some cases impossible to achieve and demonstrate, EPA's goal is to emphasize prevention
of pollution where appropriate.
In order to achieve this goal, the Agency's principles are that:
With respect to prevention;
• Ground water should be protected to ensure that the nation * s currently used and
reasonably expected drinking water supplies, both public and private, do not
present adverse health risks and are preserved for present and future
generations.
• Ground water should also be protected to ensure that ground water that is closely
hydrologically connected to surface waters does not interfere with the attainment
of surface water quality standards, which is necessary to protect the integrity of
associated ecosystems.
• Ground-water protection can be achieved through a variety of means including:
pollution prevention programs; source controls; siting controls; the designation
of wellhead protection areas and future public water supply areas; and the
protection of aquifer recharge areas. Efforts to protect ground water must also
consider the use, value, and vulnerability of the resource, as well as social and
-------
economic values.
* Ground water is a uniquely local resource due to the ease with which small sources can
affect it, and the impact that use and hydrologic characteristics (e.g. vulnerability) can have
on its quality. As such, ground-water programs will require an appropriate blend of several
protection methods.
With respect to remediation:
• Ground-water remediation activities must be prioritized to limit the risk of
adverse effects to human health first and then to restore currently used and
reasonably expected sources of drinking water and ground water closely
hydrologjcally connected to surface waters, whenever such restorations are
practicable and attainable.
* Given the costs and technical limitations associated with ground-water cleanup, a
framework should be established that ensures the environmental and public health benefit of
each dollar spent is maximized. Thus, in making remediation decisions, EPA must take a
realistic approach to restoration based upon actual and reasonably expected uses of the
resource as well as social and economic values.
* In an ideal world of unlimited funds, prioritization would be unnecessary. However,
because resources do not permit all contamination to be addressed at once, the need for
prioritization must be recognized.
* Moreover, given the expense and technical difficulties associated with ground-water
remediation, EPA is emphasizing early detection and monitoring so that it can address the
appropriate steps to control and remediate the risk of adverse effects to human health and
the environment.
With respect to Federal. State, and Local Responsibilities;
• The primary responsibility for coordinating and implementing ground-water
protection programs has always been and should continue to be vested with the
States. An effective ground-water protection program should link Federal, State,
and local activities into a coherent and coordinated plan of action.
• EPA should continue to improve coordination of ground-water protection efforts
within the Agency and with other Federal agencies with ground-water
responsibilities.
* Since ground water in any given area may be subject to contamination from a wide variety
of point and non-point source activities, coherence and coordination in any plan of action
are vitally important. EPA must ensure that the ground-water protection programs it
implements under the dean Water Act (CWA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery
-------
Act (RCRA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the research programs that it funds under
these Ads, are directed toward achieving the principles outlined above. In the design and
timing of regulatory initiatives, EPA wUI address the highest risks. In addition, the authority
of each State to allocate water within its jurisdiction should not be abrogated.
Given the uniquely local nature of ground-water pollution and use, the States and localities
must have primary responsibility for assessing and prioritizing risks to the resource and for
implementing programs to protect the resource within each state so that it is available for
various uses. However, where specific Federal responsibilities are provided for under the
law, the requirements of the law must prevail
Not only must Federal, State, and local activities be linked to form a coherent plan of
action; but air, water, and land practices, to the extent practicable, must also be examined in
an integrated fashion to ensure protection of the ground-water resource.
8
-------
PARTB?
THE FEDERAL/STATE RELATIONSHIP IN
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
-------
THE FEDERAL/STATE RELATIONSHIP
IN GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
BACKGROUND:
Since the adoption of the Agency' s 1984 Ground-Water Protection Strategy, EPA
has been providing technical and financial assistance under the Clean Water Act to build
State capacity to protect ground water in a comprehensive manner. Further, EPA has
been implementing several source-specific statutes that protect and cleanup ground
water.
Over the last few years, States have made significant strides in developing and
implementing ground-water protection strategies. Yet, both the States and EPA
recognize, that much remains to be done to ensure comprehensive protection of the
nation' s ground-water resource. State ground-water programs vary considerably from
one State to another, and are often a patchwork of Federal, State and local source
control efforts, focusing on individual sources of contamination rather than the resource
as a whole. Source control programs tend to focus on sources that present significant
risks on a national basis, but may not represent the most important threats to drinking
water supplies (and therefore human health) at the local level. Many nonpoint and
small, dispersed sources remain unaddressed, and commercial, residential, and industrial
development often occurs with no recognition of long-term impacts on the quality of
ground water.
As a result of the work of the recent Agency Task Force, beginning in FY 1992,
EPA will take a more strategic approach to actively assisting States in comprehensively
protecting their ground-water resources. The Task Force identified the need for EPA to
step up its efforts to coordinate more fully Agency programs and authorities at the EPA
Regional and Headquarters levels, to help States build comprehensive, integrated
programs that protect the ground-water resource, to provide a framework for
coordinating multiple Federal programs and activities at the State and local level, and to
make optimum use of EPA grant authorities to promote Federal and State program
coordination.
The purpose of this report is to set in motion a more fully coordinated EPA effort
based on existing Agency authorities. EPA recognizes that, because of the timing of this
document, the Regions and States have already completed much of the planning and
negotiations for ground-water activities to be carried out in FY 1992. To the maximum
extent possible, however, EPA will work with the States to promote aggressive
implementation in FY 1992 through vehicles such as Regional grant amendments and
technical assistance.
10
-------
This document consists of three main sections: the first section describes the
broadly applicable principles of the Federal/State relationship; the second describes
EPAfs support of a new comprehensive approach by State Ground-Water Protection
Programs and lists possible elements of such State programs, which are based in large
part on the consensus developed in discussions held with members of the
Administrator' s State/EPA Operations Committee; and the third section describes
EPA • s approach to implementation through a coordinated grant program that relies on
multiple, ground-water related grant authorities. An appendix contains a preliminary
narrative description of the elements of a State program, which will be further refined in
collaboration with the States over the coming year.
PRINCIPLES DEFINING THE FEDERAL/STATE RELATIONSHIP:
In preparing this report, the Agency used "EPA's Ground-Water Protection
Principles" as a starting point for defining the Federal/State relationship in ground-
water protection (see Part A). The Agency believes, however, that there are several
additional broadly applicable principles of this relationship that need to be laid out as
well. They include:
« State Role is Critical: The Agency believes that while EPA will continue
its role in controlling major sources of contamination, the States (and
Indian Tribes) should retain the primary responsibility for the management
and protection of the ground-water resource and in addressing diffuse
sources of pollution. Such management may require decisions about
ground-water allocation and land use which are appropriately the province
of state and local government. EPA should support States in developing
ground-water protection programs that adequately protect the resource as
well as the framework for State/EPA relations.
* Resource-Based Efforts: States and EPA should emphasize a resource-
based approach to protection, in addition to the current source control
programs. Under this approach, the total impact of all sources of
contamination, as well as the unique hydrogeologic features of the
resource, should be taken into account in developing and implementing
protection programs. Further, in addition to protecting current drinking
water supplies, States should designate ground waters for protection that
are reasonably expected to be drinking water supplies, taking into account
such factors as: remoteness, quality, cost of protection, future growth and
population patterns, and the availability and cost of alternative water
supplies.
» Emphasis on Prevention and SustainaMlily In general, the Federal/State
relationship should be structured so that ground-water protection efforts
11
-------
are enhanced and coordinated.
Scientific and Economic Research: EPA should continue to conduct
scientific and economic research on various aspects of ground-water
protection, and provide standard setting information to the States. This
includes developing Maximum Contaminant Levels/Maximum Contaminant
Level Goals which relate to health concerns, Water Quality Criteria which
relate to ecological concerns, risk assessment information, fate and
transport data, and information on the economic values and tradeoffs
involved in protection activities.
Federal Consistency: EPA should strive for consistency among Federal
agencies and programs with ground-water protection responsibilities. For
example, the Agency intends to work with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) to develop a joint strategy for addressing issues
affecting the agriculture community through the ongoing USDA/EPA
Work Group on Water Quality. Further, mechanisms should be
established or better utilized for coordinating with DOI, DOE, NOAA,
DOD, and other Federal agencies with ground-water responsibilities.
The Roles of Federal andState Government in Regulating Specific
Sources of Contamination Should be Based on the Following Factors:
1. In general, State and local governments should play the prominent
regulatory role. This is especially appropriate when: a) the
activities of concern are numerous (e.g., 23 million septic tanks) or
highly localized (e.g., vary in impact and number from State to
State) and nationally present a low to medium risk potential; b)
when land use management is a principal protection approach; and
c) when technologies currently exist or are easily developed to
address the problem. Further, State and local governments should
play the primary role in the implementation of federally-mandated
ground-water protection regulations.
2. EPA should take a prominent regulatory role as currently
authorized by law when: a) there is a need to establish regulatory
consistency ( e.g. to limit adverse impacts on interstate commerce);
b) when the scope of the effort requires national resources (e.g.,
research, regulations addressing technically complex environmental
problems); c) when State-by-State efforts would create unwarranted
and inefficient duplication (e.g., bans, research); and d) when
national security is involved (e.g., the disposal of radioactive waste).
Differential Protection: In implementing EPA programs, the Agency
12
-------
should continue its policy of taking the use, value, and vulnerability as well.
as social and economic values of the resource into account in decisions
affecting ground water. This is necessary to achieve EPA' s overall
ground-water policy goal of preventing adverse effects to human health and
the environment, and protecting the environmental integrity of the nation' s
ground-water resources.
Voluntary Approaches: EPA should encourage States to pursue voluntary
nonregulatory approaches to protecting the resource. For example, the
Agency is currently working with USDA under the President' s Water
Quality Initiative to involve States in fostering effective prevention
approaches with the agriculture sector.
STATE GROUND-WATER PROTECTION PROGRAMS:
EPA intends to promote the development and implementation of State ground-
water protection programs designed to provide comprehensive protection of the resource
and the framework to coordinate programs and activities under Federal, State and local
statutes and ordinances. A core premise is recognition of the primary State role in
designing and implementing programs to protect the resource consistent with distinctive
local needs and conditions. (References to States include Indian Tribes where
recognized as States in the operation of environmental programs, as well as the U.S.
Territories). This generally means that EPA will provide broad national guidance and
use financial incentives to promote action. The Agency recognizes that protecting the
ground water is a unique and complex environmental issue that requires a new, non-
traditional approach. Clearly, a nationally prescriptive program is not appropriate; risk
taking and innovation should be rewarded.
EPA* s Nay Approach;
• Over the next six months . the Agency will hold Regional roundtablesjjiscussions
with State Directors of Environmental Agencies as well as State ground-water
program directors to reach agreement on the elements of a State program which
would provide comprehensive protection, a definition of the range of "adequate"
State programs, and an EPA review process.
* Over the next year EPA will continue ongoing wPlfcJHlh the States to profile and
assess current State ground-water protection activities to obtain a baseline of
information and help States identify gaps in their current ground-water protection
programs. This two stage profile process includes developing an objective
description of current State activities and then working with the State in
conducting a self-assessment of its activities to identify areas in need of further
13
-------
work. A State' s current efforts will be compared with the elements of, and
adequacy criteria for, a comprehensive program developed, in part, through the
Regional roundtables process described above. This baseline information will be
used by the EPA Regional offices in supporting State efforts to develop and
implement programs that provide comprehensive ground-water protection .
Regional priorities, milestones, and commitments for the Agency' s ground-water
related programs will be set in a way that are consistent with the individual
State' s needs and circumstances.
As States move toward designing and achieving a comprehensive approach to
protection of the resource. EPA will review and concur in State groirnd-waler
quality protection programs submitted by the States. The review will focus on
"adequacy" instead of "consistency" - the threshold question will not be whether
a State' s program is consistent with EPA criteria, but whether a program falls
within a range deemed "adequate" to protect a State's ground-water resource.
The Agency, hi collaboration with the States, will define a range of ways to
achieve "adequacy11 rather than one prescriptive definition,
EPA * s review of State programs will be flexible and take into account the unique
characteristics of each State, as well as the different stages of development of
each State program. The process will be interactive and iterative, with the States
and EPA working together. It will focus on assessing programs to identify gaps,
and providing EPA technical and financial assistance to States to address the
gaps.
The purpose of the process of determining adequacy is not to judge or evaluate a
State program in a "pass/fail" manner, or determine that a State's program is
11 inadequateM if it does noj meet the criterigEPA has developed in conjunction
with the States. Rather it is meant to be a process in which EPA works with
States to help them fill in gaps in State ground-water protection efforts and bring
their programs to a point where the States are fully capable of comprehensively
protecting the ground-water resource, given an individual State' s particular needs
and circumstances. Where EPA can determine that a State has reached this
point, EPA will seek to defer to State standards, priorities, and programs to the
extent authorized under Federal statutes (see below).
EPA's non-concurrence of a State's Ground-Water Protection Program will not
imply inadequacy of other ground-water protection programs within the State
either being conducted or approved by EPA or other Federal agencies. However,
non-concurrence of a State' s Program could result from a State not taking
responsibility for an expected role in the implementation of these other ground-
water protection programs.
14
-------
Using current ground-water relafetf grants. EPA wjll support the development and
implementation of State ground-water protection programs. While all States will
initially be eligible for funds, the Agency, working with the States, will define a
range of program characteristics that will be used to assess State progress toward
achieving an "adequate" comprehensive program. Exemplary State programs will
receive an increasing share of the grants, while States showing little or no progress
will receive reduced grant amounts. Further, for States with an "adequate"
program, the Agency oversight process will focus less on defining and overseeing
individual State actions and more on the overall effect of the program in
protecting ground water. States which elect not to participate in the process will
not be able to avail themselves of certain EPA-provided financial and oversight
benefits.
the extent authorized by EPA statute and consistent with Agency program
implementation objectives. EPA will defer to State policies, priorities, and
standards once a State has developed an "adequate" program. For States that
develop adequate State ground-water protection programs, EPA ' s policy will be
to look to or "defer to" State policies, priorities, and standards. Under this
poMcy of deference, EPA will study and identify ways in which the Agency can
defer to State decisions in implementing Agency programs. Implementation of this
policy for States with an adequate ground-water protection program will take
several forms.
First, EPA will identify ways to provide States with greater flexibility to target enforcement
and permitting activities consistent with the States' own policies and priorities.
Second, EPA will establish policies for reducing routine Agency oversight of State programs
affecting ground water.
Third, in its development of regulations and guidance, EPA will explore ways in which they
could provide for deference to State ground water standards, regulations or policies. To the
extent authorized by EPA statutes and consistent with Agency program implementation
objectives EPA will provide for consideration of or deference to State standards, regulations
and policies. EPA statutes generally provide that Federally promulgated standards or
regulations serve as minimum levels of protection. These statutes, however, generally
reserve to the States the authority to adopt more stringent standards or regulations.
Therefore, States already have a significant ro]e in establishing applicable standards for EPA
programs. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) is an excellent example of a statute that provides an important role for States in
decision-making.
With some limitations, CERCLA provides significant opportunities for EPA to adopt State requirements
as part of CERCLA cleanup actions. Whether or not CERCLA cleanups would be based on provisions
of a State ground-water protection program depends first on whether the plan includes "ARARs." As
defined in section 121(d)(2) of CERCLA, ARARs an "applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements" of other Federal or State environmental laws, For a State law requirement to be ARAR,
15
-------
Finally, where State regulations, standards or policies would provide for less stringent
protection than EPA regulations, standards or policies, there may be statutory or regulatory
prohibitions to deferring to the State. EPA, however, is committed to exploring
opportunities for providing for deference to State regulations, standards or policies as
authorized by EPA statutes and consistent with Agency program implementation objectives.
ELEMENTS OF A STATE GROUND-WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
As part of its role in promoting development of State programs which will provide
comprehensive ground water protection, the Agency, in collaboration with the States, wiU
determine over the next year the key elements of a State program. A preliminary list of
elements of a comprehensive protection program is below (see Part B: Appendix for a
preliminary narrative description):
Setting Goals and Documenting Progress:
- Ground-water protection goal which accounts for present and future uses of the
resource;
- Yearly action plan for achieving the goal, which includes a mechanism for
evaluating progress toward accomplishing the goal and provides for EPA
review.
Characterizing the Resource and Setting Priorities for Actions!
- Comprehensive assessment of aquifer systems and their associated recharge
and discharge areas;
- Procedure for inventorying and ranking potential sources of contamination that
may cause an adverse effect on human health; or ecological systems; and
it must be promulgated (i.e., of general applicability and legally enforceable, see section 300,4QO(g)(4)
(1996) of the National Contingency Plan), substantive rather than administrative (see 55 Fed. Reg,
8756-57, March 8, 1990), identified in a timely manner, and more, strjngettf than the Federal standard
(section 300.400(g)(4) (1990)). Where a State requirement is not directly applicable, EPA has
discretion to find the requirement to be ARAR because it is "relevant and appropriate" to circumstances
at the site. Where State standards include substantive requirements that are ARARs, the CERCLA
remedy would be required to meet or waive them. ARARs may be waived in six limited circumstances,
such as where it is impracticable to attain them, or for State standards, where the standard has not been
consistently applied (see CERCLA section 121(d)(4)). Under CERCLA, where State plans, policies or
guidelines do not qualify as ARARs, EPA may nevertheless treat them as provisions "to be considered11
("TBCs") with respect to the cleanup plan. TBCs would be evaluated and justified on a site-specific
basis. The recently revised NCP, in implementing CERCLA's cleanup program, demonstrates EPA's
commitment to providing a significant role for States in decision-making.
16
-------
- Process used for setting priorities for actions taken to protect or remediate the
resource, such as a use designation/classification scheme that considers use,
value, vulnerability, yield, current quaMty, etc.; including wellhead protection
and cost benefit analyses.
Developing and Implementing Prevention and Control Programs:
- A coordinated pollution prevention and source reduction program aimed at
eliminating and reducing the amount of pollution that could potentially affect
ground water; including wellhead and recharge area protection programs, siting
criteria, improved management practices and technology standards, etc.
- Enforceable quaMty standards that are health based for drinking water supplies
and ecologically based in areas where ground water is closely hydrologically
connected to surface water (Note: For actions under State law that are
independent of any Federally authorized program, it is the State' s prerogative
to determine whether to establish its own standards or to use EPA' s
standards);
- Regulatory and nonregulatory authorities to control sources of contamination
currently under State or local jurisdictions; e.g. permitting, siting and zoning
authorities on the State and local level;
- Remediation program that dovetails with RCRA and Superfund and sets
priorities for action according to risk;
- Monitoring, data collection, and data analysis activities to determine the extent
of contamination, update control strategies, and assess any needed changes in
order to meet the ground-water protection goal;
- Compliance and enforcement authorities given to the appropriate State and
local officials through legislative or administrative processes;
- Water well programs, including private drinking water wells, covering areas
such as well testing, driller certification, well construction, and plugging
abandoned wells;
- Statement of how Federal, State and local resources will be used to adequately
fund the program; and
- Public participation activities to involve the public in the development and
implementation of the program.
17
-------
Defining Roles Within the State and the Relationship to Federal Programs:
- Delineation of State agencies' responsibilities in the ground-water program
covering areas such as planning, implementation, enforcement and
coordination;
- Statement indicating how the State will or does provide local governments with
authorities to address local ground-water protection issues;
- Statement of the State * s role under ground-water related EPA statutes
including RCRA, CERCLA, SDWA, CWA, and FIFRA; e.g., EPA-approved
programs such as a RCRA authorization should be listed and integrated as part
of the State' s overall ground-water protection strategy yet continue operating
as free-standing programs;
- Mechanisms for dealing with other Federal agencies that affect State ground-
water programs (e.g., MOUs or other arrangements with USDA, DOI, DOD);
- Statement indicating how the State intends to integrate water quantity and
quality management; and
- Coordination of ground-water programs with other relevant natural resource
protection programs, including surface water management.
18
-------
GROUND-WATER RELATED GRANTS
Statutory
Authority
106
104(b)
(3)
205(g)
205GX1)
604{b)
205QH5)
201 (g)
(D(b)
319(h)
319(i)
Match
None
None
None
None
None
40%
50%
EUGIBLE ACTIVITIES
CLEAN WATER ACT
General: Prevention & abatement of surface
& ground-water pollution.
Specific: Permtttlnq. pollution control studies.
planning, surveillance & enforcement,
assistance to locals, training, & public
Information.
Qeneraj: Pollution prevention, reduction. &
elimination programs.
Specific: Research, experiments, training.
demonstrations, surveys, studies,
Investigations.
Delegated administration of construction
grants program, 402 or 404 permit program,
208(b)(4) planning program, & construction
grants management for small communities.
Develop water quality management plans.
Develop & Implement nonpolnt source
management programs.
Implement nonpoint source management
programs.
Carry out ground-water protection activities.
LIMITATIONS*
Allotment based
on extent of
pollution problem,
not the quality of
the State program.
No authorization
celling in FY91.
Not for program
operation.
Not for
40% to regional
comprehensive
planning agencies.
20l(g)(lKb):
Construction grant
deobligations and
reallotment funds
available.
No more than 15%
of total available
to any one State,
Financial
assistance for
demonstrations
only (cannot be
used for cost
sharing
programs). Limits
on administrative
costs.
S150K per State.
py§i$>
APPHOPfaATlON
$81 .7 million
(Ground-water
portion:
$12.2m)
$16.5 million
0
(Congress cut
off funding)
0
$16 million
0
(Congress cut
off funding)
$51 million
See 319(h)
19
-------
Statutory
Authority
Match
ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES
UM1TATIONS*
FY91$
APPROPRIATION
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDE ACT
23(a)(l)
15%
General: Implement pesticide enforcement
programs.
$26.8 million
(Ground-water
portion: $5m)
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
28
25%
General: Establish & operate toxics control
programs.
Specific: Monitoring, analysis, surveillance &
general program activities (currently used for
asbestos & SARA Tide III activities).
Authorization
expired in 1982.
Appropriations
committees should
be notified before
funds are used for
new ground-water
program.
$8.1 million
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
3011
25%
General: State hazardous waste management
programs.
Specific: Planning for hazardous waste
treatment, storage & disposal facilities.
$83 million
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
1443 (a)
!443(b)
25%
25%
Public water system supervision; State
drinking water programs.
Genera}: Underground Injection control
programs.
Specific: Program costs, inventories, data
management, technical assistance, etc.
Funds available
only to States with
primacy.
Funds available
only to States with
primacy.
$47.5 million
$10.5 million
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION & LIABILITY ACT
104(b)
10%
General: Superfund activities under core
program cooperative agreements.
Specific: Implementation, coordination.
enforcement, training, community relations,
site Inventory and assessment, administration
of remedial activities, legal assistance relating
to CERCLA Implementation.
Not for site-
specific activities.
$14 million
F Authorities in this matrix may be used to fund ground-water activities either in separate categorical grams or consolidated grants.
Further, the scope of eligible ground-water activities varies among authorities, Regions should consult their Grants Management Office
and Regional Counsel regarding these Issues.
20
-------
Part B: Appendix
Descriptions of Common Elements of
Comprehensive State Ground-Water Protection Programs
21
-------
DESCRIPTIONS OF COMMON ELEMENTS OF
COMPREHENSIVE STATE GROUND-WATER PROTECTION PROGRAMS
Because of each State's unique hydrogeological characteristics and conditions, the character of a
Comprehensive Program will not be identical in all States. EPA will provide States with great flexibility in
addressing the elements of a Comprehensive Program. A list of elements commonly found in mature
ground-water programs is provided below, including a narrative description of each element. Using this
universe of potential elements, EPA in collaboration with the States over the coming year, will develop a
final set of elements and adequacy criteria for element of a comprehensive State program.
Setting Goals and Documenting Progress
* JSround-WaterProtection Goal which Accounts for Present and Future Uses of the Resource. The
ground-water protection goal is in harmony with the national ground-water protection goal, and the
goal is founded in State statute. The ground-water protection goal accounts for present and
reasonably expected future ground-water uses.
Yearly Action Plan for Achieving the Goal which Includes a Mechanism forEvaluating Progress
Toward the Goal and Provides for EPA Review. The State has an action plan which describes how
the State will achieve its Comprehensive Program goal. The action plan outlines outcomes that are
needed to assure that the resource protection goal is achieved; a process for reaching those
outcomes; short* and long-term timetables, milestones, and measures of progress; and parties
responsible for achieving desired outcomes. Usually, the plan reflects the diverse authorities
available to the State to achieve its goal, including land use authorities, public health authorities, and
enforcement authorities.
Characterizing the Resource and Setting Priorities for Actions
* Comprehensive A^sesgmgnt of Aquifer Systems for Ground-Water Protection Purposes. The State
has an ongoing, effective program which provides basic information on the occurrence, movement,
and quality of ground-water resources within its borders. This program utilizes and integrates the
information available from State geological surveys, as well as ongoing Federal assessment and
mapping programs, such as those available from the USGS and Soil Conservation Service.
• Procedure for Inventorying and Ranking Potential Sources of Contamination that May Cause an
Adverse Effect on Human Health or Ecological Systems. The State has a program for identifying
the existence, location, and relative magnitude/risk of anthropogenic and natural threats to ground-
water quality. The program is capable of (1) identifying specific categories of activities which pose
threats to the quality of the resource, (2) locating geographic areas where such threats/sources are
concentrated, and (3) identifying specific source locations, facilities, plumes, etc, deemed to pose a
threat to public health and or the environment.
Process Used for Syfliflg Priorities for Actions Taken to Protect or Remediate the Resource. Such
as a Use Pe^igna,tio^/Qassifica{ion Scheme that Cops'jgrs Use. Value. VHfoerafoilitv. Yield^ and
Current Quality. lncfyd«"g Wellhead Protection and Cost Benefit Analysis. The State balances the
22
-------
timing, ordering, and extent of protection activity development and implementation based on a
scheme which reflects the risk to ground-water quality, human health, and ecosystem maintenance.
Prioritization schemes reflect resource characterization and source inventory efforts. The State is
encouraged to adopt prioritization schemes which considers such factors as resource use and
potential use for drinking water and other purposes, resource sensitivity to contamination, and the
tradeoffs in cost and/or effectiveness between protection and remediation options. Prioritization
schemes incorporate priorities established in Federal environmental statutes.
Developing and Implementing Prevention and Control Programs
A Coordinate^ Pollution Prcvpifio^ an j Source Reduction Program Ajmfrd at Redyying
Eliminating thg Ai^i^unt pf_PollutJQn_ fhflt C^uld Affect Groun^ Wafer- A program to reduce and
eliminate the amount of pollution that could potentially affect ground water with techniques such as
wellhead and recharge area protection programs, siting criteria, improved management practices and
technology standards, etc
Enforceable Qualify Standards that Are Health Based for prinking Water Supplies and Ecologically
Based in Areas Where Groui^ Water is Closely Hvdrolopy^|ly Connected to Surface Water.
Legally defensible and enforceable quality standards that could be based on MCLs (or EPA Health
Advisory levels) for drinking water, and on surface water quality criteria established under the Clean
Water Act for ground water closely hydrologicaUy connected to surface water are a part of a
Comprehensive Plan. In applying standards, States should distinguish between prevention and
remediation activities — EPA's policy on the use of quality standards in ground-water prevention and
remediation activities is one approach the States can refer to. (Note: It is the State's prerogative to
determine whether to establish its own standards or to use EPA's for actions under State law.)
Nonregulatory Authorities to Control Sources of Contamination Under State or
Local Jurisdiction; e.g^ permitting, SlfaBi 3WJ ^CTfoff Authorities. The State has authorities
necessary to manage the contaminant sources characterized in Element Two. The State has received
or is making progress toward receiving delegation of EPA's contaminant control programs.
Regulatory and nonrcgulatory authorities are sufficient to control additional sources of
contamination under State or local jurisdiction. These authorities include, but are not limited to,
permitting authorities*, controls on activities such as transport regulations and facility design
standards; and land use regulations (e.g-, zoning) that limit where, when, how, and if certain
activities may occur. Implementation and enforcement authorities are vested in local governments
where appropriate.
Remediation Program which Dovetails With RCRA and Supcrfund and Sets Priorities for Action
Acceding to Risk. The State has or is developing a remediation program that adequately addresses
those potential polluting activities and sites not already covered by EPA's remediation programs
(e.g^ hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities — including solid waste management
units at such facilities) and sites not on the National Priorities list.
Monitoring. Pata CoDectipn. aad Data Analysis Activities to Determine the Extent of
Contamination, Update Control SfratCgfrS and Assess Any Needed. Changes JO Order \Q Achieve the
Stale's c»wn Gr pund-Water Protection Goal. The State's information management activities include
the collection, laboratory analysis, storage, retrieval, and analysis of ground-water data. The State
has a program to ensure that the data collected within the State is consistent, of known and reliable
quality, and is efficiently stored for retrieval and use. This data is readily accessible to State and
23
-------
local agencies for use in analysis and decision making such as ground-water protection planning,
enforcement, tread analysis, permitting and other activities.
Compliance and Enforcement Authorities Given to the Appropriate State and T -oca)
Through Legislative or /)d.*ninifi(Tative Processes. Compliance monitoring and enforcement
authorities are adequately delegated to the appropriate State and local officials.
Water Well PrograTTi Including Private Prfalc^g Water Wells. Covering Areas Such as Well Testin
Driller Certification. Well Coagtryct'CT'i 8"^ Pfyggfog Abandoned Welis. The State has standards
for water well construction, testing, and driller certification to ensure that wells are drilled and
finished in a manner that is protective of public health. These standards include both public and
private drinking water wells. Additionally, the State provides well closure standards to ensure that
abandoned wells will not act as conduits into drinking water aquifers for contaminants.
Statement of How Federal. St3t?i fl^d Local Resources will frc >js/ed to Adequately Fund the
JProgram. The State adequately funds and staffs the Comprehensive Program. There is a good
match between available revenues and proposed expenditures.
Public Participation Activities to Involve the Public io the Development and Implementation of the
Prftgrfig- The public is involved in the development, review, and implementation of the
Comprehensive Program.
Defining Roles Within the State, and the Relationship to Federal Programs
Pei'neation of State Agencies' Responsibilities in the, Qrtwd- Water Program Covering Areas Such
a.$ Plpn^iffg, Implementation, ||nforc
-------
Statement Indicating how the State Intends to Integrate Wats' Quantity and Quality
The State addresses methods that it will use to minim™ the impacts of ground-water withdrawals
on ground water quality. The approach includes coordination between the State agencies
responsible for quantity management and quality management.
Cp9r donation pf Qfpund-Water Programs with other jPfftevatt Natural Resource Protection
PnW3m5i ^HClyJBVB Surface Water Management. The State has a mechanism for coordinating and
integrating the planning and implementation of all State, local, and Federal activities affecting the
ground water. The mechanism might include commissions or task forces that use inter-departmental
staff from all State and Federal regulatory agencies, including staff from agencies not usually
associated with ground-water protection such as community development and public works.
25
-------
PARTC:
EPA'S APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTATION
26
-------
EPA • S APPROACH TO
IMPLEMENTATION
HEADQUARTERS ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
An ongoing Ground-Water Polity Committee will be established to oversee the
implementation of the Agency "Ground-Water Principles11 and the Comprehensive State
Ground-Water Protection Program. It will develop overall program policy direction and
integration and work to improve coordination with other Federal agencies. It will be co-
chaired by the Deputy Assistant Administrator (DAA) for Water and the lead Deputy
Regional Administrator (DRA) for Pesticides, RCRA, or Superfund. Further, a
mechanism for providing ongoing State input into this effort will be established. The
Policy Committee will function in the following way:
Co-chain DAA for Water and Lead Regional DRA for Pesticides, RCRA or
Superfund.
Membership: DAAs, selected DRAs, key office directors, and selected regional
division directors.
Responsibilities: to develop overall program policy direction and oversee
implementation of both the integration effort within EPA and the work with the
States and other Federal agencies. This will include carrying out an ongoing
active outreach effort to seek the views and concerns of both the States and
Federal agencies in implementing this report, and developing a coordination plan
for working with Federal agencies. The Policy Committee will report semi-
annually to the Deputy Administrator (DA) and/or the Assistant Administrators
and Regional Administrators.
Implementation Workgroups will be formed as necessary with supplemental
membership of other Office Directors and Regional Division Directors to develop
policy and program operations proposals and to work with the national program
manager in the overall direction of the effort These implementaion workgroups
will be chaired by selected representatives of the DAAs as well as key office
director and regional division directors or their representatives. The
implementation workgroups will include:
• A ground-water "regulatory cluster" tmplemeptarion workgroup to coordinate
upcoming ground-water relatcjjjjecisipns made across regulatijjnypfficeg,and
media. The cluster approach will help ensure that the Ground-Water
Principles guide all Agency regulatory actions relating to the resource and help
27
-------
provide for integration and consistency in the development of EPA regulations -
required under Federal statutes. The workgroup wiE develop a work plan for
the cluster covering such topics as: the coverage and timing for each action;
cross-cutting issues that should be addressed or resolved; effects of decisions on
one action for others in the cluster. The key focus of the cluster activity will be
to determine the appropriateness of deferring to a State comprehensive
programs under each regulation, etc.
A schedule will be set for the DAA to deliver a coordination plan and briefing
to the DA.
A State Adequacy/Oversight Implementation Workgroup to implement the
comprehensive State protection program. This workgroup will focus on
finalizing the list and definitions of the elements of a comprehensive State
ground-water protection program and the adequacy criteria for each element
The subcommittee will also recommend the procedures for EPA review and
concurrence of State programs as well as the Agency' s continuing oversight
role. This subcommittee will have primary responsibility for ensuring State
input into all activities of the Ground-Water Policy Committee.
A Ground-Water Resources and Program Implementation Workgroup to
address cross-Agency ground-water related resource, _grantSjPffd program
operating guidance issues. This workgroup will work to ensure that the
Agency's ground-water related programs are supporting the development of
comprehensive State ground-water protection programs through annual
operating guidances and grant guidances. It will also focus on developing a
budget strategy for supporting State ground-water related needs and priorities
across Agency programs.
REGIONAL OFFICE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
Regional Offices will place the authority for annual planning and evaluation of
the EPA Ground-Water Protection Program at the DRA level. A ground-water
coordinating committee, chaired by the DRA and composed of key regional division
directors should be established in each Regional Office. The Regions will be responsible
for ensuring that State officials are actively involved in the implementation of EPA' s
Comprehensive Ground-Water Protection Program. The responsibility for carrying out
integrated planning on a day-to-day basis should be placed at the Division Director level.
Regional responsibilities include:
Reviewing all activities of the various programs with respect to their impact on or
contribution to, the development of Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Programs (CSGWPPs). Such activities would include assessing the use
28
-------
of available program funding sources to implement CSGWPPs.
Establishing specific priorities, milestones, and commitments for all programs.
The objective to support and acknowledge CSGWPPs that meet certain adequacy
criteria redefines the basic relationship between EPA and the States with respect
to ground water. This relationship requires a change in the process through which
priorities are set and flexibility by EPA regarding each program' s requirements
and performance measures. This shift, from a predominantly source control
emphasis to a more resource-focussed viewpoint, will first require identification of
the institutional barriers to change such as the Agency' s Strategic Targeted
Activities for Results System (STARS) and other management controls. It is
expected that this shift will be fully reflected in STARS by 1993.
Utilizing available resources in each program in a creative and integrated
manner to build comprehensive State programs, through the development of
Agency operating guidance and the identification of specific initiatives which
support Implementation of CSGWPPs. The CSGWPPs would be used to guide
implementation of Federal programs in that State. For example, a special
Regional/State initiative could be developed which would allow relief from a
certain percentage of STARS commitments for that program.
Establishing an integrated State/EPA planning process in order to reach
agreement on specific milestones and joint commitments for action. The first
step in this new planning process is the ongoing development of State profiles and
self-assessments, including State/EPA workshops on how to define "adequacy" as
a basis for approving State programs and directing additional Federal support to
each State for development of a CSGWPP.
Conducting regular annual evaluations of State, Regional, and Headquarters
progress in implementing CSGWPPs with a process for revision and planning.
This should be embarked upon as a process of continual improvement where
every aspect of each program seeks to improve "delivery11, ie. support of and
responsiveness to joint State/EPA milestones and agreements. Initially, all
programs should be directed to look at how they may do things differently in
response to this effort Specifically, each program should determine the value
added; i.e. how can development of CSGWPPs help each program in what they
do. Some examples are:
* A coordinated Regional/State data management effort to allow more effective reporting
under State 305(b) and other environmental indicator reports.
• A comprehensive State mapping effort to locate all water wells, especially public water
supply wells, using the same geolocator data element (latitude/longitude) to ease
assessments of the proximity to sources of contamination. Aggressive implementation of the
Agency's minimum data element set must take place in order to assure contaminant source
29
-------
locations are consistently provided.
* A comprehensive State vulnerability assessment effort that can assist development of State
pesticide management plans and that is also useful in prioritizing ground-water areas for
geographically targeted enforcement and clean up efforts.
* A Geographic Enforcement Initiative, integrating all programs and selected through a joint
State/EPA planning process which seeks to address a high priority ground-water area.
EPA/STATE IMPLEMENTATION - FIRST PHASE FISCAL YEARS (FYs) 1991-1993:
EPA intends to strengthen the impressive progress the States have made over the
last few years, by helping them to build on their current programs and providing them
with the financial, technical, and management tools to do so. The cornerstone of this
approach is an increased EPA focus on assisting States in identifying and filling hi the
gaps in their current programs and developing a mechanism for integrating separate
programs and setting priorities. This approach will rely on coordinating multiple ground-
water related grant authorities to help States develop and implement comprehensive,
resource-based programs. This approach signals that we are moving toward a truly
integrated program.
As a demonstration that EPA is polling together all its programs and authorities
to achieve substantial progress under existing legislative authorities, the Agency
will promote EPA and State program coordination in FY 1992. Based on an
inventory of potential funding sources (see attached), Regions will be asked to
look creatively at the inventory and to fully explore ways to tie these sources of
Agency grant funding together and/or work out mutual work plans. Potential
options for awarding grants to States include one or more of the following:
Encourage each EPA regional program with ground-water responsibilities, under the
leadership of the Deputy Regional Administrators (DRAs), to participate in and contribute
resources for the purpose of creating a formal ground-water coordinating mechanism in
each State, which will be responsible for addressing the issues of comprehensive state
program development, program integration and priority setting.
Profile current State programs based on a list of elements of a comprehensive State
protection program, to establish a more detailed baseline of information on State programs
and to determine where EPA and State priorities intersect in order to help direct EPA
funding.
While all of the elements of a comprehensive State protection program are important to an
adequate State program that comprehensively protects the ground-water resource, three
elements are of special importance for States to effectively implement existing EPA
requirements. These particular elements are also of particular interest and concern to
Congress and other interest groups. Consequently, EPA is encouraging Regions and States
to give special attention to the following three critical State program elements in FY 1992:
30
-------
(1) Establishing a formal mechanism for coordinating authorities and programs under
various EPA statutes;
(2) Identifying the most valuable, vulnerable aquifers; and
(3) Evaluating or ranking the highest priority sources of contamination.
Many State programs may already adequately address these three elements, while others
may need improvement in one or more of the areas.
As an example of creative grantsmanship, OPP and OGWP issued FY 1991
grant guidance under the CWA Section 106 and F1FRA grants to
encourage States to develop pesticide management plans, clearly
integrating the activities under each grant to promote a coordinated
approach among State agencies. While most other EPA/State grant
negotiations are well underway and it is difficult to make changes at this
point in time, Regions and States are encouraged to use mid-year grant
amendments to implement this model and/or pursue other creative grant
mechanisms in FY 1992, with special emphasis on accomplishing one or
more of the objectives outlined above.
During FY 1991 and 1992, the Agency's current ground-water related grants
be awarded to States based on existing allocation formulas - starting in FY 1993,
however, States showing exemplary progress toward achieving the objectives of
their comprehensive programs will receive increased amounts, while States
showing little or no progress will receive lower grant amounts. Once the
"elements of a comprehensive State protection program11 are fully defined and
EPA and the States reach closure on how to determine adequacy, they will serve
as the basis for determining whether a State program is adequate to protect its
ground-water resource and for making adjustments to grant amounts accordingly.
By the end of 1991, regional workshops will be held across the country to provide
the Agency with State input on several key issues: (1) bow to fully define the list
of comprehensive program elements; (2) how to determine "adequacy" for
concurring with and funding comprehensive State protection programs; and (3)
how to oversee State programs.
In FYs 1992 and 1993, the Agency will work to institute enhanced and integrated
management of the Comprehensive State Program effort — including greater
integration of the management of grant resources.
31
-------
PARTD;
AGENCY POLICY ON EPA*S USE OF QUALITY STANDARDS
IN GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
PREVENTION AND REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES
32
-------
AGENCY POLICY ON EPA" S USE OF QUALITY STANDARDS
IN GROUND-WATER PREVENTION AND
REMEDIATION ACTIVmES
{The purpose of this policy statement is to describe the approach the
Agency wOl use in making specific decisions with quality standards
when carrying out EPA *s ground-water related statutory responsibilities.}
When EPA is carrying out its programs, the Agency will use Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, as "reference points"
for water resource protection efforts when the ground-water in question is a potential
source of drinking water. Water Quality Standards under the Clean Water Act, will be
used as reference points when ground water is closely hydrologically connected to surface
water ecological systems. Where MCLs are not available, EPA Health Advisory
numbers or other approved health-based levels are recommended as the point of
reference. If such numbers are not available, reference points may be derived from the
health-effects literature where appropriate. In certain cases, maximum contaminant level
goals (MCLGs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or background levels may be used
in order to comply with Federal statutory requirements. Reference points are to be
applied differently for prevention and cleanup purposes.
Prevention". Best technologies and management practices should be relied on to
protect ground water to the maximum extent practicable. Detection of a
percentage of the reference point at an appropriate monitoring location would
then be used to trigger consideration of additional action (e.g., additional
monitoring; restricting, limiting use or banning the use of a pesticide). Reaching
the MCL or other appropriate reference point would be considered a failure of
preventioa
Cleanup: Remediation will generally attempt to achieve a total lifetime cancer
risk levels in the range of 10-4 to 10-6, and exposures to non-carcinogens below
appropriate reference doses. More stringent measures may be selected based on
such factors as the cumulative effect of multiple contaminants, exposure from
other pathways, and unusual population sensitivities. Less stringent measures than
the reference point may be selected where authorized by law, based on such
factors as technological practicality, adverse environmental impacts of remediation
measures, cost and low likelihood of potential use.
33
-------
PARTE:
GROUND-WATER DATA MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
34
-------
GROUND-WATER DATA COLLECTION,
ACCESSIBILITY, AND
UTILIZATION
Report to the EPA Ground-Water Task Force
by the Data Management Workgroup
October 1989
-------
Preface
The Data Management Committee of the EPA Ground-Water Task Force was charged with
examining ground-water data collection, accessibility, and utilization throughout the Agency, and developing
recommendations. This report addresses the first stage of the process by summarizing the status of these
activities, describing improvements and changes underway, and presenting options for the future.
36
-------
Ground-Water Data Collection. Accessibility, and Utilization
Contents
I. Background
A. What EPA (toes in ground-water data collection, accessibility, and utilization
B. What States and local governments do
C. What other agencies do
n. Decisions Made With Ground-Water Data
A. Permitting and compliance under Federal and State programs
B. Risk assessments
C. Remedial actions
D, Targeting of oversight activities
E. Protection of wellheads and vulnerable aquifers
F, Ground-water status and trends (indicators of water quality)
G. Assessment of Pesticide Impacts
m. Data Collection
A. Needs for additional or different data
B, Data quality
C. Improvements and changes underway
D. Options
IV. Data Accessibility
A. What kinds of data are being requested from EPA programs?
B. Problems and issues with data accessibility
C. Improvements and changes underway
D. Options
V. Data
A. How should EPA improve utilization of ground-water data?
B. Problems and issues in date utilization
C. Improvements and changes underway
D. Options
37
-------
Executive Summary
Ground-water data is collected using different methods and formats, according to the needs of
individual EPA programs, States, and other agencies. Different data quality objectives result in a range of
data collection elements, dataset structures, sophistication, and quality. Data collection for EPA decision-
making includes locating sources of contamination, performing risk assessments, and initiating remedial
actions. Data collection for identifying spatial and temporal trends attempts to discover ground-water quality
patterns, plan national and regional programs, and perform research on ground-water behavior. Advances in
data quality and quantity are evident in Agency activities such as RCRA facility monitoring, the National
Pesticide Survey, and identification of ground-water quality indicators. More baseline data could be used to
isolate certain sources of contamination, investigate local and site-specific problems, and advance research.
Options are presented for improving information capture, data quality, management, and dissemination.
Uneven data accessibility reflects differences in data collection among programs and States. Data is
often scattered or cumbersome to access. While recognizing limitations in current data accessibility, a
significant investment of resources and multi-office agreement would be necessary to affect a major change.
Specific user benefits of any new, standardized system should be defined. Advances have been made in data
retrieval systems, electronic bulletin board systems, and standardizing some aspects of data entry. Options are
presented for using Agency resources and leveraging other agencies to improve automation, and establish or
upgrade information clearinghouses.
Data utilization tends to follow the purpose for which the data was collected, however EPA could do
more to utilize available data. Patterns of data utilization are closely linked to ease of accessibility, user
knowledge, time available, and proximity to appropriate computer hardware and software. Advances in data
utilization include use of geographic information systems (G1S), use of ground-water models, and numerical
screening and ranking systems for targeting environmental priorities. Options are presented for encouraging
data utilization through improving data retrieval systems, preparing guidance, and performing
demonstrations.
38
-------
DATA COLLECTION, ACCESSIBILITY, AND UTILIZATION
1. Background
A. What EPA does inground-water data collection,, accessibilityand utilization
EPA programs have a variety of approaches to managing ground-water data. Activities within the
four major EPA programs that collect ground-water data are summarized below.
1. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
Ground-water data collection under the CERCLA, RCRA, and LUST programs is conducted to
determine if a release of hazardous constituents has occurred and the nature and extent of ground-water
contamination from a hazardous waste site, facility, or underground storage tank, ground-water detection or
assessment monitoring is required of owners or operators of both LUST and RCRA facilities. The purpose
of these monitoring activities is to identify aad remove a source of ground-water contamination and/or
prevent the introduction of hazardous constituents or petroleum products to the ground-water environment.
Understanding site hydrogeology is essential to characterizing the distribution and movement of
contaminants in the subsurface environment. In undertaking hydrogeologic evaluations, therefore, the
following related data is collected; 1) pertinent information relating to chemical or physical properties of
saturated geologic units, 2) the ground-water potentiomctric surface and, 3) the hydraulic properties of the
aquifer (c.g,, hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storativity, and velocity).
Data is typically submitted in hardcopy report format, however, for EPA-lead Superfund sites,
chemical data generated through the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) is available electronically.
Generally, site-specific data can then be accessed from the Superfund RPM or RCRA permit writer in the
EPA Regions, or their State counterparts.
Both RCRA and LUST track the status of ground-water monitoring through permitting in RCRA,
and by registering tanks in LUST. Specific regulations which have been issued to govern this process are
primarily implemented by the States through authorized programs. In the Superfund program, EPA responds
to and tracks releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants, requires
responsible parties to respond to releases or threatened releases and conducts oversight of their response.
2. Office of Pesticides and Toxics Substances (OPTS)
OPTS, in carrying out its responsibilities, can request and receive data relating to a chemical's
impact on ground water. These data may cover physical and chemical characteristics, fate of the chemical in
the environment studies, information on the amount of material released onto land or injected into the soil,
and ground-water monitoring studies. Much of the data obtained is utilized in the assessment of risk
associated with the chemical from its release into the environment. The Office also carries out specific
projects and research to obtain data that supports the improvement of its regulatory decision process and
evaluates the impact of its regulatory decisions on the environment
The Pesticides in Ground-Water Data Base contains information derived from monitoring studies
conducted by pesticide registrants, universities, and government agencies. The data base identifies the
pesticides that have been looked for in ground water, the areas that have been monitored, and the pesticides
39
-------
that have been detected. The data base mil be used by the Agency to supplement the regulatory process for
pesticides. It is being used to target pesticides that are contaminating ground water and establish priority
candidates for regulation to mitigate such problems. It will also be used to highlight vulnerable areas for
which reduced applications or other restrictions may be warranted, and to depict data gaps where additional
monitoring should be conducted. The ground-water data base is presently printed and distributed to the
Regions, States, and other interested parties. Consideration is being given to making the data base available
via electronic transfer through OPP's Pesticide Information Network,
A significant data collection effort underway is the National Pesticide Survey (NFS). The primary
purpose of the NFS is to characterize, for the first time, the occurrence and levels of pesticide residues in
rural domestic wells and community system wells across the nation using a statistical design. A second major
purpose of the NFS is to assess any major associations among patterns of agricultural pesticide use,
hydrogeologtc characteristics indicative of ground-water vulnerability to pollution and pesticide residues in
wells.
Information gained from the planning stages of the NFS is already being used by EPA and pesticide
registrants in designing other required studies. Health Advisory Levels generated by the survey have been
used in other efforts by OFF such as the Agricultural Chemicals in Ground-Water Strategy and vulnerability
measures generated for US counties. Multiresidue analytical methods developed for the NFS are currently
being evaluated for uses by EPA and non-EPA parties. The results of this study are expected to be
completed by the end of 1990 or beginning of 1991. Interim findings have been printed for distribution to the
Regions, States, and other interested parties.
Data collection also occurs through chemical-specific studies by registrants. The data required to
support the registration of a pesticide attempt to predict its degradation, terrestrial and aquatic metabolism,
mobility, dissipation and accumulation in the environment. Additional retrospective or prospective ground-
water monitoring studies may be required if a pesticide or its degradates demonstrate those characteristics of
persistence and mobility generally associated with chemicals that have a high potential for contaminating
ground water. These data are utilized in OFP's exposure assessment and in model simulations on the
pesticide. The results of these data are currently held in the Environmental Fate and Ground Water Branch
and are not readily available to other parties. Consideration is being given to making the data base available
via electronic transfer through OPP's Pesticide Information Network.
In the Office of Toxic Substances, ground-water monitoring is a required permit condition for TSCA
landfills. Regulations in 40 CFR section 761.75(b)(6) address ground-water monitoring for PCBs and other
parameters at TSCA chemical landfills.
3. Office of Research and Development (ORD)
ORD ground-water research serves two functions: providing support for program office regulatory
and technical assistance needs, and building a longer term scientific understanding of the subsurface as a
basis for EPA's current and future activities regarding ground water. As part of this research program, ORD
collects and utilizes ground-water data in certain laboratory and field research efforts. Most of this is project-
specific data generation, such as collection, storage, and analysis of pound-water quality data from field
experiments. An example would be ground-water sample data from a multi-year field experiment Some,
however, entail analysis of trends in large sets of data, such as identifying indicator parameters among VOCs
from examination of hazardous constituents commonly found in ground-water at hazardous waste sites
nationally.
For research purposes, data is collected and utilized to fit the purposes of particular research efforts.
For example, a research project can be designed with unique combinations of sampling equipment, sampling
40
-------
frequency, statistical analyses, computer data entry, and data reporting format. These can vary considerably,
depending upon the nature of the project, judgment of the researcher, and intended product. Thus,
considerable variability is inherent in research data collection and
utilization, despite general aims of standardizing laboratory and field methods.
Accessibility to ground-water that ORD collects and utilizes is also variable. Most data can be
accessed by request from the laboratory performing or sponsoring individual projects, or can be gleaned from
published reports or journal articles.
There are also several information clearinghouse projects underway, as explained in section IV.C.8.
of this Report. These sources provide access to project descriptions, articles, reports, and models rather than
numerical ground-water data.
An advancement is underway to provide access to large ground-water datasets. The International
Ground-Water Modeling Center (IGWMC) has begun to collect and automate ground-water data from
several well-studied locations in order to enhance the use of these datasets for model validation. This effort
will enable developers and users of various ground-water models to compare their modeling results with field
data generated from well characterized sites such as the Cape Cod aquifer, which have undergone long-term
monitoring by various agencies with extensive QA/OC procedures.
4. Office of Water (OW)
The SDWA and CWA programs are largely delegated to the States, leaving OW itself in a policy
and oversight role. As such, OW performs very little data collection and utilization. Office of Ground Water
Protection (OGWP) and its Regional Ground-Water Offices do take an active role in facilitating the sharing
and use of ground-water related data sets.
OW maintains STORET, EPA's computerized national database system for environmental
monitoring data related to the quality of surface and ground-water within the United States. The system
serves as a data repository and analysis toot for EPA, other Federal agencies, State and local governments,
U.S. Territories, interstate commissions, universities, and Canadian agencies. The Water Quality System
(WQS), the largest of the STORET components, contains data for over 700,000 ground and surface water
sampling sites scattered across the nation. Data loaded into STORET are not of consistent quality.
The SDWA does not specifically require the collection of ground-water data. However, some State
drinking water programs do require that public water supplies (PWSs) collect and report on the ground-
water quality where ground-water wells are the source of drinking water. The most important users of
ground-water data in the Drinking Water Program are the State governments who are often delegated
responsibility for program operation. EPA Regions are responsible for the oversight of the delegated
programs. OW uses ground-water data to help designate MCLs. Data to support the creation of new MCLs
are obtained from literature searches, feedback from delegated program, special studies, and stratified
random surveys.
Office of Drinking Water (ODW) maintains the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS) to support
the Drinking Water Program. FRDS tracks enforcement and violation actions for PWSs and does not contain
routine nonviolation site-specific information such as water quality of samples. Regions and State-delegated
programs enter data directly into FRDS.
ODW and OGWP have long recognized the need for data on the location of public supply wells. In
an effort to provide this information, EPA and the USGS have assembled information on the location of
water-supply wells in the southeast and northeast regions of the U.S. The information is currently available
41
-------
for use in databases and CIS.
The key decision-makers using ground-water data in the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program are EPA Regions and delegated States. The UIC program functions which are supported by various
types of ground-water data are: injection authorization (by permit or rule) and program enforcement.
Ground-water quality data are not routinely collected by permittees for an injection well, but may be made
available for review by program authorities through State Public Health Departments.
ODW maintains the Federal Underground Injection Reporting System (FURS) to support the UIC
Program. Data are supplied by the Regions and State-delegated programs. FURS represents a national
inventory of underground injection well facilities; however, it does not routinely have information on
individual wells.
B. What States
States are responsible for implementing and enforcing many Federal policies and standards. With
the assistance of dean Water Act grants, most States are now developing and implementing ground-water
protection strategies addressing various sources of contamination. States collect ground-water data in
response to these Federally-generated as well as State-generated programs. A few states have delegated data
collection responsibility to local governments, which also conduct some monitoring for their own purposes.
Also, self-monitoring by permitted businesses (e.g., public water supplies, RCRA facilities) is a common
practice in ground-water protection programs. There is a great deal of variety in the extent and quality of
State and local monitoring programs.
Monitoring is conducted to address a variety of needs depending upon the program requirements.
Community public supply wells are monitored quarterly for chemical and radiological parameters as required
in the SDWA. Ground-water monitoring is also required as a permit specification for sanitary landfills,
sludge disposal sites, RCRA facilities, and TSCA landfills. Results of the monitoring are usually submitted
on a quarterly, semi-annual and fr***Ml basis. Investigative monitoring determines the nature of
contamination at UST and CERCLA sites. Research monitoring is conducted on specific problems or
directed at a defined project area. Each of the programs has a different regulatory authority, program
objective, and requirements for conducting the monitoring program. In addition, each program has a unique
form of storing, accessing and releasing information. This may range from hard copy filing systems to
computerized databases.
Hydrogeologic and related geographic evaluations are performed to identify activities and/or areas
where ground water is contaminated or threatened and to allow evaluation and interpretation by managers.
Usually, this is performed through research monitoring and investigative monitoring. Research monitoring is
directed at specific projects to enhance understanding of geologic and hydrologic regimes. Investigative
monitoring, on the other hand, is used to examine various potential sources of contamination which may
enter the ground-water system.
Remediation of ground-water contamination is considered a high priority in the States and many
have adopted guidelines and policies which are more stringent than EPA's health-based and risk-based
requirements. These requirements also extend to solid waste management facilities, and sensitive
watersheds/drinking water sources. In many instances, the owner /operator, or responsible party's
requirement for remediation is to clean-up to background concentrations, Le., complete restoration of the
damaged aquifer to its previous condition.
Status tracking is required through several regulatory and water quality programs. In most cases, it is
the States that implement and operate the EPA's environmental programs that address ground water. For
42
-------
programs such as RCRA, U1C, UST, and PWSs, States are required to enter permitting and compliance
status information into national databases such as HWDMS or RCRIS for RCRA. In addition to the national
environmental programs, many States have developed their own programs to protect local ground-water
resources, and have developed their own tracking systems.
Laboratory and field research in State and local agencies varies, but is generally conducted on a
limited scale. When conducted it is most often related to site investigations. Typically, these government
agencies rely on EPA, USGS, other Federal agencies, private sources, and universities to provide information
related to research advances in the field of ground-water management.
In the area of pesticides, many States have initiated ground-water monitoring programs and have
identified areas where pesticide contamination of water resources is a problem. In OPP's Agricultural
Chemicals in Ground Water Strategy (draft), monitoring of pesticides in ground water is emphasized as a
feedback mechanism for determining the success or failure of contamination prevention efforts.
C. What Other Federal Agencies Do
The USGS routinely collects large amounts of ground-water and surface water data, and therefore
developed automated systems for information storage and retrieval The USGS operates WATSTORE
(Water Data Storage and Retrieval System), which includes GWSI (Ground-Water Site Inventory), an
inventory of wells, springs, and other sources of ground-water and relational information such as
hydrogeologic characteristics, well construction history, and water quality measurements. Data are loaded
into STORET monthly. NAWDEX (National Water Data Exchange) indexes available water research data
for user access.
Other related information retrieval systems at the USGS, although not specifically for numerical
ground-water data are WRSIC (Water Resources Scientific Information Center), which maintains abstracts
and bibliographic citations on the scientific literature and research in progress, and various clearinghouses.
Related mapping efforts includes GIRAS (Geographic Information Retrieval Analysis System), and standard
hard copy geologic and topographic maps. These maps, which support ground-water investigations, are not
consistently automated.
Various research efforts in ground water are underway at the USGS. Two large and significant data-
generating projects are NAWQAP, (National Water Quality Assessment Program), where selected areas of
the nation will be monitored extensively for surface and ground-water quality, and the interagency Midwest
Water Quality Initiative, which is investigating various factors and processes governing the effects of
agricultural chemicals on surface and ground water. EPA coordinates with USGS on planning these two
efforts. Many other, smaller and more specific research projects generate ground-water data which, like
EPA's, are not uniform in specifications, frequency, or format, and are not routinely entered into large,
accessible databases.
USDA's data collection is essentially on soil types and localities, however a bibliographic database
including water management information is maintained. USDA supports a national ground-water quality
directory of Federal, State, and private sector research projects, and records data on the results of their
clean-water program. Significant increases in ground-water research, data development, and automation are
planned under the Midwest Water Quality Initiative and Water Quality Plan. EPA is coordinating with
USDA on these activities.
DOE and DOD collect and utilize ground-water data in order to comply with CERCLA, RCRA,
and NRC requirements. Compliance entails intensive ground-water monitoring, hydrogeologic evaluations,
and ground-water program tracking, as well as research on fate and transport processes, monitoring
43
-------
instrumentation, and remedial techniques.
Other agencies with ground-water data collection and utilization functions, primarily connected with
research, are NASA, NSF, NRC, BOM, and BLM.
II. DECISIONS MADE WITH GROUND-WATER DATA
A. Peritin n ^c0 Under Fedel State
In the UIC program, States have primacy for implementation and the decisions affecting permitting,
compliance, and enforcement activities. This includes decisions on the operation of underground injection
well systems and preventing their impacts on ground-water resources.
In RCRA, both the States and EPA utilize ground-water monitoring data for permitting and
compliance decisions for detection monitoring to determine if a release has occurred, and assessment
monitoring to determine extent and characteristic of contamination. Results from assessment monitoring can
lead to lengthy and costly clean-ups. Also, RCRA hazardous waste listing and delisting decisions are
increasingly based on national and site-specific ground-water data. Superfund National Priority List sites are
ranked in part through evaluation of the ground-water pathway, which utilizes site-specific ground-water data.
In the UST program, if ground-water monitoring indicates presence of free petroleum product, the
owner /operator is required to immediately notify the State or local implementing agency. The agency may
follow up with release confirmation and corrective action.
Under TSCA, OTS also utilizes pound-water monitoring data for permitting and compliance
decisions. Such data are used to determine if a release has occurred from a TSCA landfill, a remediation
project, or a PCB spill.
B. Risk Assessments
Ground-water contamination is an issue at most hazardous waste sites. Thus, risk assessments based
on ground-water data are critical to the remedial process. The risk assessment process uses ground-water
data as part of the exposure assessment step to predict the extent of exposure and the number of people
exposed to released contaminants, and the chronic exposure concentrations. These data are used to
document contaminant sources, pathways, exposure points and routes.
Using the ground-water concentration data and site-specific exposure scenarios, the risk assessor
calculates daily intake of contaminants from ground-water by ingestion and inhalation. Chemical-specific
carcinogenic risks and systemic hazard indexes are calculated, then summed across compounds and exposure
routes. Usually, two separate sets of risk estimates are prepared, the first based on average ground-water
concentrations and the second based on maxima or 95% upper confidence Units.
OTS assesses potential for ground-water contamination as part of its screening of chemical suspects
or as input to fate and transport modeling for releases. Fate and transport models for contaminant
movement in soil and ground water are used for both generic and site-specific assessments.
Cj Remedial Actions,
Ground-water data generated during the investigatory phase of a OEROLA, LUST, RCRA, or
TSCA study are used for a sequence of decisions. Initially, the data is reviewed as a means of providing a
three-dimensional picture of a ^xyfv*'****** plume, or the immiscible petroleum 'pancake,* in the aquifer. At
44
-------
LUST sites, owners/operators arc required to begin the removal of free product upon detection. The plume
extent, the velocity with which it moves, and the environmental fate of these contaminants are determined in
order to estimate risk to potential receptors.
This information is also used to notify potential receptors of such risk. Once a risk assessment is
conducted to predict any impacts to these receptors, target clean-up goals are feasible. The number of
contaminants, their chemical and physical characteristics, concentration gradients within the plume, and
tendency of the aquifer matrix to interact with the contaminants may all preclude the use of current remedial
technologies. Hence, reliable ground-water data is not only critical in determining the nature of remedial
activities, but also may provide the basis for deciding that certain techniques are technically infeasible.
P. Targeting of Ov^r^ight Activities
In the RCRA corrective action area, there are thousands of solid waste management units which are
candidates for permit or enforcement action. Many have ground-water releases. Careful oversight of this
program will be necessary to meet statutory deadlines. Another area where oversight activities are targeted
with ground-water data is Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigations (PA/SIs) in CERCLA.
In some Regions, data bases with ground-water data used by EPA programs are downloaded into a
Geographic Information System (GIS) which is then used to target priority attention of oversight activities.
The GIS can be used to develop a ranking system for corrective action candidates using available data and
GIS mapping techniques. Using GIS technology, priorities for the scheduling of future PA/SIs can be
established.
GIS is an emerging method for targeting activities, and is aiming a greater role. GIS is essentially
a tool for storing and manipulating geographic information in a computer. It is an information system in
which both spatial and non-spatial data are stored, analyzed and displayed. GIS technology is unique in that
it integrates computer graphic capabilities with an automated database management system, although it is not
necessarily limited to the confines of a single, well-defined software system. A unique aspect of GIS is that
the maps created can be organized into various thematic layers, which can be displayed in any
combination desired. By using presently available data bases from the USGS and EPA (DLG, GIRAS,
CERCLIS, WHDMS, PWSS, UIC, etc.), thematic coverages can be created to display ground-water quality
and assist manager* in making planning decisions.
Other methods for targeting oversight activities include environmental or public emergencies, risk
assessments, informal comparisons of risk, analysis of cost effective options, and a prevention-focused
approach using an aquifer classification system.
E. Protection of Wellheads aj? j Vylngrable Aquifers
The Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program, established in 1986 by the Amendments to the SDWA, is
designed to protect the recharge area to public water supply wells from sources of contamination. Unlike
most EPA Programs which are regulatory in nature and address specific sources of contamination, the WHP
Program is designed to assist State and local governments in focusing on the resource itself through a
comprehensive analysis of the land uses, geology, hydrology, and institutional arrangements impacting a
public water supply well rather than on controlling a limited set of contamination sources via State or
Federal regulations.
Protection of aquifers presents a myriad of problems for the Federal, State and local decision-
makers, which are often hinged on the lack of information. The vulnerability of an aquifer to contamination
mainly depends upon the extent and location of recharge areas in relation to contamination sources, depth to
45
-------
the ground-water body, the composition of the soil and rocks overlying the aquifer, the recharge rate, the
nature of the ground-water flow system, and the potential for biodegradation of contaminants. Much of the
information to support such a vulnerability assessment is not readily available. Research on methods for
performing these assessments is in progress.
F. Ground-Water Status and Trends (Indicators of water quality'!
Uniform 'indicators* are useful for the characterization of ground-water quality across local, State,
Regional and National areas. Ground-water indicators provide consistent models for the presentation of
ground-water quality data and trends over time. They can provide a decision-maker with a better grasp of the
risks posed by ground-water contamination and help to improve his/her ability to focus efforts on the
greatest risks.
G. Assessment of Pesticide Impacts
Ground-water data are used by OPTS as a basis for regulatory decisions, measure of the
effectiveness of regulatory decisions, a basis for additional regulatory actions, and as an indicator of potential
environmental problems. When residues of a particular pesticide are detected in ground water at a level of
concern, OPTS has a range of options available to prevent or minimize the contamination. Several of the
available regulatory options are:
a) Require additional labeling that informs the user of the pesticides's leaching potential under certain
situations and steps the user can take to reduce the likelihood of the pesticide to contaminate ground water;
b) Classify the pesticide for "restricted use' to be applied only by an applicator that has been trained and
certified on the use of the pesticide;
c) Take steps to cancel some or all uses of the pesticide. The proposed Agricultural Chemicals in
Ground-Water Strategy would provide a framework for States to develop a State management plan for
preventing or minim iring ground-water contamination in lieu of cancellation,
III. Date Collection
A. Needs for Additional or Different Data
1. Additional baseline data
A vast amount of data exists within the ground-water community, often at broad Regional or
national scales, and collected by a multitude of programs and organizations. Much of this data has not been
automated by the data holders. The data were frequently collected under inconsistent standards, protocols
and quality assurance programs, and often focused on the narrow needs of the collector. The quality of much
of the data is not known and may potentially be unreliable for use in decision-making. Site-specific, sub-
county and county data are often lacking.
There is also a strong need for more complete health effects data and drinking water standards for
comparison to ground-water concentrations and subsequent decision-making on remediations,
2. Data for water quality trend analyses
In addition to the need for certain kinds of additional baseline information, there has been a growing
awareness of the need to collect information to support ground-water indicators in an effort to characterize
46
-------
ground-water quality across local, State, Regional and National areas and over time. In FY89, OGWP
compiled a series of ground-water indicators for public water supplies, hazardous waste sites, waste and
industrial sites, area-wide sources of nitrate contamination, and area-wide sources of pesticide contamination.
Region HI completed a pilot study with Pennsylvania on the use of ground-water indicators, with mixed
results on the ability of indicators to predict other aspects of water quality. Additional work is needed to
refine the existing indicators and to develop other program and location specific indicators to be used in
more fully characterizing the quality of the Nation's ground water. Inherent in the process of using indicators
is the existence of uniform data to support the indicators. Currently, the ground-water community lacks such
a program and focus for uniform data collection.
3. Data collection in automated format
Currently, very little of the ground-water data collected by or requested by Federal, State and local
governments are available in a readily usable form. Ground-water data submitted to government agencies are
commonly in the form of voluminous paper reports. This format precludes the ability of staff to perform
rapid analyses of spatial and temporal trends and constitutes a significant records management problem. The
specific data types that are missing or not readily available in automated format include:
* monitoring data - most of the existing data are in hardcopy format; data were collected under
inconsistent protocols and are sometimes of unknown quality,
• inventories of sources of contamination at State and local levels - information to support the
inventories is scattered or unavailable;
* hydrogeologic, land use and natural resources data information to support ground-water site
analyses, ground-water modeling, vulnerability assessments, etc. are scattered and often only in
hardcopy or map format;
* zoning, tax, real estate maps - most remain in hardcopy format;
* demographic data - some demographic data are available in machine-readable format; however,
significant technical resources are needed to load and use the data on local systems;
* well construction documentation and well logs at State, county, and local levels - most is in hardcopy
format
* locations of public water supplies - most is in hardcopy only.
It is also important to note that numerous data-collection methodologies are available; however, to
obtain comparable ground-water monitoring data, consistent data collection and analytical methods must be
used. This Ust of methods must be readily available to Federal, State and local agencies as well as the
regulated community and academia.
4. Research needs
Additional data collection and analysis would improve EPA's understanding of sources of
ground-water contamination. For example, the data generated from intensive ground-water monitoring under
USGS' NAWQAP survey could help EPA understand the significance of various point and non-point sources
of ground-water contamination, if the results can be clearly related to specific sources. In addition, the
Midwest Water Quality Initiative will provide data for EPA's purposes in understanding transport and fate of
agricultural chemicals in water. In both efforts, EPA is coordinating with other Federal agencies in order to
47
-------
ensure that these data arc collected awl analyzed so that the results are useful to EPA. In the latter case,
ORD has presented a research proposal to establish a cooperating research role with USGS and USDA.
ORD would participate by analyzing subsurface processes and ecological effects of particular interest to EPA
research and program offices.
EPA also has a need to collect and have better access to ground-water data from dosed or
remediated hazardous waste sites in order to systematically evaluate the effects of these closures and
remedies on ground-water quality. A research proposal to collect and analyze such data has been considered.
5. Resource implications of additional data collection
Although several of EPA's major programs gather ground-water data for their own purposes, the
level of funding for these programs and the intended use of the data vary. Similar data gathering diversity
also occurs in the States. In any data collection effort, the cost is a function of the number of samples, the
number of compounds for which each sample is analyzed, and the level of quality assurance. As EPA has
become increasingly involved in gathering ground-water data, levels of quality assurance have increased,
minimum data sets have been established and the number of samples and compounds analyzed has
increased. With these increases have come increases in costs.
In order to control these costs, programs such as Superfund, which historically have generated large
amounts of site-specific data, are now looking to manage the volume of analytical data gathered by using on-
site mobile labs, new screening systems and methods of analysis, and more efficient quality assurance. All of
these activities are consistent with the program's data quality objectives. In other programs, resource
constraints have already resulted in careful choices among activities related to data acquisition, handling and
storage. For these reasons, careful cost benefit analysis must be included in any proposals for additional data
gathering and changes in data handling or storage.
JELData Quality
All data used in the management of the ground-water resource must be of known and documented
quality. In order to evaluate the "usefulness" of data, a determination must be made as to how the data will
be applied, e.g«, health and safety decisions, site characterization, risk assessment, etc. In many instances,
data collected at a site may be suitable for several categories of decision-making. However, the accuracy and
precision of the data must be specified in order to determine if data use for each decision is appropriate. In
the past, there was little effort made to define data requirements prior to data collection. In addition, much
existing data is of unknown quality because most of it was submitted by the regulated community to comply
with the regulatory program governing their activities, and verification of it's quality was not fully assessed.
In addition to the problem faced with unknown data quality, data quality objectives vary across all
the agency programs. DQOs are the qualitative and quantitative statements that specify the quality of data
required to support Agency decision-making. They provide the substantive basis for the detailed technical
design of procedures to be used in data collection, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC). DQOs
were established by each program office to meet the objectives of their decision-making. Therefore, use of
one program's data may not be applicable to another because DQOs embody an understanding of what
applications of the data will be made and what limitations of the data are expected. For example, DQOs
under the Public Water Supply program are designed to meet established regulatory standards, while under
the CERCLA. program, DQOs are designed to meet lower health based and/or risk based standards.
C. Improvements and Changes Underway
EPA is currently working to improve data collection through a number of activities, including:
48
-------
* Ground-Water Indicators - OGWP compiled a set of indicators that the Agency and the States can .
use to track progress and set priorities in ground-water protection efforts. The ground-water
indicators cover the following areas of concern: public drinking water supplies; hazardous waste sites;
waste sites and industrial sites; area-wide sources of nitrate and pesticide contamination. OGWP is
currently sponsoring State pilot projects with New Jersey, Minnesota, and Idaho to further refine the
current indicators. The focus of the pilots is on implementing the indicators in the States' SDWA
305(b) water quality reports;
* Data Management Standards - EPA is currently working on a number of Agency-wide data and data
management standards which will improve the collection of ground-water and related data, OIRM is
completing policy analyses which will guide decisions concerning Agency practices in the
management of facility and spatial data. The proposed facility data standard will provide a much-
needed link for sharing data on facilities across Programs, and will improve EPA's capability to
maintain a central inventory of basic information on regulated facilities. The spatial data standard
will establish a consistent definition of spatial data parameters for the Agency. This standard is
critical to the successful implementation of GIS technology.
* OPPE has established an Agency-wide workgroup on electronic reporting standards (ERS). ERS
would facilitate the electronic transfer of reporting data (e.g., from the regulated community,
analytical labs) to EPA and eliminate many labor-intensive, paperbased, routine data entry efforts.
The OPPE Workgroup is drafting an Agency policy on ERS and serves to coordinate ERS activities
within EPA.
* QAMS Program - For each category of information used by EPA, there are appropriate procedures
and systems to enhance the information's utility and safeguard against errors. The system which
fulfills this function for environmental data is the mandatory Agency-wide quality assurance program,
which was officially established in 1979 and formally documented in 1984 by means of EPA Order
5360.1 ("Policy and Program Requirements to Implement the Mandatory Quality Assurance
Program"). The QAM Staff is charged with overseeing the QA activities of the Agency. QAMS has
focused its attention on the development of conceptual tools, such as Data Quality Objectives, as
well as on implementation support and education.
D. Options
1. In order for EPA to have ground-water trend information to establish environmental goals for the Agency,
to evaluate the quality of the environment, and to evaluate the performance of EPA Programs, options for
EPA to assess the quality of our nation's ground-water include:
» use the results of the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQAP) (results due
in the mid 1990's);
* use State efforts to provide the data through the CWA Section 305(b) reports to Congress;
* use OG WP's guidance for ground-water indicators, also included in the 305(b) report;
* conduct a national assessment on a routine basis using existing data bases;
2. Options for how EPA can improve ground-water data quality include:
* develop and use consistent ground-water data quality objectives across all EPA Programs;
49
-------
* develop and use Program-specific ground-water data quality objectives;
• require the inclusion of information on data quality in all databases containing ground-water data.
3. Options for ways EPA can develop and disseminate more health effects information on a faster basis:
* Increase resources to ODW to expedite the development of MCLs (ODW is under a Congressional
timetable for developing MCLs after the initial 83 MCLs are in place. The timetable requires the
development of 25 MCLs every three years.);
* Increase resources to EPA's peer review process associated with the entry of summary health risk
assessment and regulatory information on chemical substances into the Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS).
IV. DATA ACCESSIBILITY
A. What Efa*ds of Gjypnfl-Water Data are Bei»u? Requested from EPA Programs?
1. Hazardous waste programs
Information is frequently requested from EPA's hazardous waste programs. Requests are usually
linked to particular sites, and originate from Congress, the regulated community, environmental
organizations, the media, acadcmia, and other public agencies. Much of the ground-water information which
the hazardous waste programs use is available for public inspection, however it often is stored in filing
cabinets. Enforcement-confidential files, containing data from sites or facilities in litigation is not easily
accessible. Similar limitations apply to ground-water data that is considered confidential business information
(CBI).
2. Pesticides and Toxic Substances
OPTS responds to a variety of requests from a multitude of different constituents. Requests for
ground-water information/data are received from Congress, the regulated industry.environmental
organizations, academia, other Federal, State and local agencies, public media, and other interested parties.
The more focused and sophisticated information/data requestor, such as the regulated industry or other
agencies, generally asks for more scientific data whereas public media and other interested parties ask for
summary information, OPTS' data is accessible to the public after a CBI clearance is performed. The
following is a list of some of the more typical data requests:
* A list of chemicals/pesticides that demonstrate a high potential to contaminate ground-water;
* Information/data on chemical/physical characteristics, the environmental fate, and toxicity to
mammalian, avian, or aquatic organisms on a specific chemical or a group of chemicals;
* A copy of all the data developed during a particular monitoring project or contained within a given
dataset;
• Acceptable analytical methodology for a chemical or a group of chemicals;
* What monitoring studies have been carried out for a chemical or a group of chemicals? Who were
the principal investigators? Where can they be contacted?
50
-------
* Sources of other existing datasets relating to hydrology, hydrogeology, soil profiles/characteristics for,
a given geographical location, chemical/pesticide use sites, etc.
* Where and what chemicals/pesticides and their levels, have been detected in ground water;
* Information on the she and the amount of a chemical or chemical released on the land or injected
into the soil;
* The concentrations and locations of PCBs that have been detected in ground water.
3. Research
Research data are being requested particularly on remedial actions and technologies. Hazardous
waste site investigators are interested in which remedies have been successful in various scenarios, including
what concentrations of hazardous constituents were obtained from various methods.
4. Other
Additional kinds of data that are being requested as part of ground-water analyses include:
* hydrogeologic, land use and natural resources data;
* zoning, tax, real estate maps;
• demographic data;
* well construction and well logs at State, county, and local scales.
C. Improvements and Changes Underway
EPA is working to improve the accessibility of ground-water data and related information through a
number of activities including:
• Minimum set of data elements for ground water - OGWP, supported by a workgroup, developed a
minimum set of data elements for ground-water. This set includes 22 data elements, including geographic,
well/spring, and sample/analysis descriptors. These elements form the core use, on which ground-water data
users can build their own data base by adding additional elements to meet their specific needs, EPA has
adopted an Agency Order which requires the collection of the minimum set by EPA and its contractors
whenever ground-water data collection activities occur. OGWP is also working with other Federal agencies,
State and local governments, the regulated community, etc. to encourage them to voluntarily adopt the
minimum set. OGWP has also initiated an effort to develop final definitions and formats for the minimum
data set through a workgroup process.
• Region 10 Data Management Order - Region 10 adopted a Regional Order for Ground-Water Data
Management which establishes consistent procedures for organising, reporting, transmitting, storing and
retrieving ground-water data in the Region. The major provisions of the Order include: ground-water data
must be submitted to the Region in electronic format; the minimum set of data elements must be collected
and stored; and all ground-water data must be stored in a centralized Regional ground-water data system.
The Order applies to all ground-water data collection activities directly carried out by EPA staff or EPA
contractors, including research and development, enforcement, and permit issuance.
* STORET enhancements - STORET is currently being modernized by OW and OERM. Ground-water data
can now be retrieved using the new user-friendly menu-driven retrieval system as well as the STORET
command language. Once retrieved, the data can be manipulated using SAS, or presented in reports, tables,
51
-------
graphs, plots and maps. Data can also be downloaded to floppy diskettes. Provisions have been made in
STORJET for storing information on the minimum set of data elements for ground-water. In an ongoing
effort to improve STORETs utility and user friendliness, EPA is now working on the development of user-
friendly menu-driven data entry software as well as an electronic data transfer mechanism to facilitate entry
of monitoring data into STORET. Data entry is still voluntary, however, so STORET provides the user with
a limited data set.
* EPA/State Data Management Program - EPA initiated the EPA/State Data Management Program in
1985. The goal of the Program is to build and maintain the infrastructure needed (I) for effective State/EPA
data management and sharing; (2) to integrate data across media and programs so EPA and State managers
can target their efforts on environmental results.
There are currently two phases of the Program in progress: (1) data sharing by providing direct
communication links to the States for access to EPA's national information systems; (2) data integration
across programs and media. Most States now have direct communication links to EPA's computers. Many
are using the national systems for storage and retrieval of data. EPA has initiated Phase 2 efforts through
some State pilot studies.
• Steering Committee for Water Quality Data Systems - OW established this Steering Committee in 1987
to guide the continued development and management of STORET and other water quality systems. The
Steering Committee activities are carried out by EPA staff representatives from OWs program offices,
OERM, the Regions, and two States. In FY89, the Committee sponsored Regional Forums on Water
Information Systems for Regional and State staff. The Forums provided a setting for managers to exchange
ideas about EPA and State activities related to ground and surface water information. The Steering
Committee is currently working on a data sharing and system integration and compatibility study to evaluate
OWs major systems as well as a system modernization study.
* Interagcncy Advisory Committee on Water Data/Ground-Water Subcommittee * The Advisory Committee
on Water Data, established by the Secretary of the Interior, is chaired by USGS and is composed of
representatives of Federal agencies, including EPA, that acquire or use water data. The Ground-Water
Subcommittee provides a forum for interagency coordination and exchange of ideas on ground-water data
management issues.
• Clearinghouses and bulletin boards - Clearinghouses and bulletin boards related to ground-water
information include:
- OGWP Ground-Water Bulletin Board - OGWP has developed an electronic ground-water bulletin board
for State and local governments on the LOCAL EXCHANGE which is focused on ground-water and
wellhead protection issues,
- OSWER Bulletin Board - a PC-based electronic bulletin board for communications, dissemination of
computer programs and databases related to solid and hazardous waste regulation, permitting and
enforcement, including ground water.
- USGS Water Resources Scientific Information Center (WRSIC) - provides abstracts and computerized
bibliographic information on water-related scientific information, and maintains an information base on water
research in progress.
- USGS National Water Data Exchange - assists users of water data with the identification, location, and
acquisition of needed data.
52
-------
* National Water Well Association's National Ground-Water Information Center - provides access to
bibliographic database containing references on the occurrence and utilization of surface and ground-water,
and on water weU technology. EPA/ORD previously supported "Ground-Water On-Line" development, but
sow it is wholly user supported.
• ORD's R.S. Kcrr Environmental Research Laboratory has begun a Supcrfund site remediation technology
clearinghouse, as a service to technical EPA and State staff in hazardous waste programs.
• ORD sponsors a ground-water model clearinghouse at the International Ground-Water Modeling Center
(IGWMC), located at the Holcomb Institute.
~ ORD's Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling (CEAM) operates an electronic bulletin board system
for distribution and technical assistance on exposure models from ERL-Athens.
- A new, general ORD bulletin board system enhances communications and public access to many ORD
publications, including those on ground-water research,
* The Office of Information Resources Management has published the Agency's Information Resources
Directory (IRD) in response to ever-increasing demand for better awareness of information resources and
greater information sharing throughout EPA and its partners in environmental protection. The IRD is a
guide to a variety of widely used information resources, including information services and centers,
information systems, and datasets that are compiled and utilized by OPTS.
In addition, the Office of Pesticide Program maintains the Pesticide Information Network (PIN)
which presently is not listed in IRD. The PIN contains a compilation of monitoring projects being performed
by Federal, State and local governments and private institutions. The database contains a short synopsis of
each project, including chemicals, substrates and location. It also lists the name, address, and phone number
of a person to contact to gain additional information on a specific project. The PIN is a free, PC-based
network by which all interested parties may communicate and share monitoring information.
• Region ffl MERITs/ Temple Study (Regional Assessment Study) - This project employed GIS and various
databases to conduct an integrated analysis to identify and rank counties in the Region with the most
endangered ground water. The results of the study have supported decision-making on Regional program
priorities and resource expenditures. A second phase is underway for the state of Pennsylvania, refining the
database usage at a more detailed scale.
D. Options
1. Options for improving the automation of monitoring data obtained from the regulated community, EPA
contractors, and EPA Program Offices' projects are:
* promulgate regulations requiring that all new data collected be automated and transferred to EPA in
electronic format;
• publish EPA guidance directing the automation of data for carrying out and reporting monitoring
data;
* promote voluntary use of electronic reporting by the regulated community and others to automate
the data;
2. Options for EPA's role in automating national hydrogeologic, soils, and aquifer characterization data
53
-------
include:
* involvement of USGS and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in more EPA projects which have
side benefits of data automation;
* encouragement of USGS to institute a national program;
* funding USGS to automate data for EPA on a case-by-case basis;
* working with USGS upper management to restructure their program to more closely meet EPA's
needs;
* establishing an internal information system at EPA which would identify where more in-depth
information can be located, and what types of data are available.
The option of loading all ground-water data into one large, centrally accessible electronic data base
has some appeal, but may not be feasible. While a large data base could provide almost immediate access to
data, and could be used for trend analysis or responding to Congressional inquiries on a national scale, the
cost of loading, quality assuring, and maintaining such a data base may not be justified by the benefits. These
data are accessible already through various sources, although not easily or immediately. EPA could
alternatively improve coordination and access to information available from internal files, State and other
Federal agencies, in conjunction with GIS, to highlight areas of concern, (Areas of concern may include
sensitive aquifers or areas of high ground-water use for drinking water which are potentially threatened by a
large number of underground storage tanks, hazardous waste sites, or agricultural chemical use.)
3. Options of the Federal government for improving ground-water data access to States and local
governments:
national clearinghouse of pollution sources / contamination;
national directory of ground-water information;
national database of ground-water quality and related data;
modernization and expansion of EPA's STORET system;
improved State/Federal partnerships;
funding State systems.
4. Options for EPA to ensure consistency among the ground-water data that are collected by EPA, the States
and others include:
* regulations requiring EPA and the States to collect data using a specified format;
* EPA and States develop a consistent format but participation is voluntary;
* implement EPA policy on the minimum set of data elements which must be collected by EPA and
its contractors; State participation is voluntary but strongly encouraged.
V. DATA UTILIZATION
A. How Should EPA Improve Utilization of Ground-Water Data?
Individual program offices utilize data they collect, but EPA could do more to utilize available data
54
-------
for broader purposes. For example, EPA needs to have ground-water tread information in order to establish
environmental goals for the Agency, plan future emphasis for programs and to evaluate program
effectiveness, evaluate the quality of the environment, target protection efforts and perform gross level
screening, and to respond to Congressional inquiries,
Assessing the ground-water quality over large areas of the nation is a very difficult task. Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) offers a comprehensive means for managing and assessing the quality of
ground-water over a large geographic area. Also, it is an excellent tool for assisting managers in making
planning decisions.
Utilizing ground-water data can augment the Agency's ability to perform ecological assessments in
aquatic ecosystems. Broadening the use of ground-water data in our ecological assessments would improve
our ability to better define ground-water remediation goals. There is also potential for expanding utilization
of ground-water data for analysis of other environmental areas, such as global warming effects.
Manipulation of ground-water data through predictive models also has the potential to assist the
data user in making better hydrogeologjc decisions. Although there are limitations (see V.B.2), the use of
models is growing and their optimum use should be supported. Further statistical comparisons of
ground-water data are possible, e.g., through STORET and SAS, and other datasets and statistical packages.
2, Targeting environmental problems
In addition to the databases described earlier, ground-water data entered into GIS can be used to
determine areas that are undergoing environmental stress by adding other thematic layers such as DRASTIC,
pesticide usage and population using ground-water for their drinking water supply. A ranking system can
then be developed that takes into account a range of risk-related factors including potential sources and
known incidents of contamination. Based on this evaluation, environmental problems can be targeted for
priority attention, both geographically and by specific EPA program.
Ground-water data is also an essential component of other methods for targeting environmental
problems, including the Superfund Hazard Ranking System, which determines the grouping of sites on the
National Priorities List and which sites are eligible for funding, and the RCRA location standards (draft),
which determines types of locations environmentally unsuitable for hazardous waste facilities.
3. Research
EPA and State ground-water data could be utilized more fully and systematically to interpret
subsurface contaminant behavior, and methods for prevention and remediation of ground-water
contamination. If the range of EPA and State ground-water data were more readily accessible and of known
quality, there would be a greater potential for research analysis and interpretation on a national or regional
scale. This would ultimately provide better scientific understanding of ground-water characteristics and
behavior.
B. Problems and Issues in
1. Limited resources to manage and use data
In enacting legislation designed to address specific environmental concerns in several media, Congress
included ground water as an area where attention should be focused. As a result, each media program
established its own unique set of programmatic data elements to assist in managing ground water and report
their results to Congress. Although these individual data collection activities have served the programs well,
55
-------
their use in making effective and consistent planning decisions across all Agency programs is inefficient.
Data sets generated by individual agencies or programs are often ignored by other agencies or
programs. Recognizing and improving our ability to utilize data generated by other "media" programs is a
challenge facing the Agency. At the same time, data users must communicate their needs to others who may
be willing to modify their approach to collect or manage data so that it is more universally useful.
2. Tools for utilizing data are sometimes unknown or difficult to use
Utilizing statistical and modeling tools in evaluating ground-water data enables staff to determine if
contamination exists, estimate plume movement, and evaluate its response to various remedies. The statistical
methods of establishing the presence or absence of contamination and the underlying need to begin or end
remediation are important and currently controversial issues. Many ground-water flow and transport models
are well documented and sophisticated tools for processing large amounts of data. However, in real
applications, input data is limited and many assumptions must be made. Further, skilled staff and significant
time input is necessary to utilize ground-water models properly.
Data utilization via models, statistical comparisons, and GIS are all hampered to some extent by the
same user-related problems discussed in terms of data accessibility. These include user knowledge, available
time, and proximity to appropriate hardware and software.
3. Interpreting significance of relational data
The technical procedures involved in insralling a well, sampling the ground water, and analyzing the
samples are all critical in determining the value of ground-water monitoring data. Therefore, it is necessary
that information pertaining to these procedures is included in the data review. Although some level of
uncertainty is associated with every data point, professional experience and judgment is critical to identifying
when and how this relational information is used.
4. Scales of data vary
The utilization of data for program use and decision-making is very scale-dependent. For instance,
careful consideration should be given when selecting the scale at which spatial data is entered into the GIS.
Scale is important in grid spacing since large scale studies require higher levels of accuracy and finer grid
spacing. Regional data exists at the 1:1,000,000 scale. EPA also has maps for most of the country at the
larger 1:250,000 scale but unfortunately the level of accuracy is dramatically decreased due to errors in the
GIRAS (land use) database Sic. At the 1:100,000 scale, data exists but sometimes in quantities too great for
a Regional computer's current capabilities. Therefore, EPA should utilize large scale maps only when a
detailed study is being performed or for any high priority counties as needed.
GIS and other mapping scales are often smaller than needed for hazardous waste site evaluations.
Other examples of this phenomenon of scale difference are common when using various databases, and
therefore hinder their utilization.
C. Improvements and Changes Underway
Computerized Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are being established to varying degrees in the
Regions. GIS is a practical tool that can qualitatively manipulate large data sets of environmentally sensitive
data. A GIS can vastly improve on traditional methods for capturing, storing, updating, analyzing, and
displaying mapped natural resources data. The system allows the Regions to integrate efforts in ground water
56
-------
with other concerns for water quality, landfills, Superfund sites, and industrial facilities could all be located
in the database and compared with the location of water wells, wetlands, or other environmentally sensitive
areas. Applications of GIS highlight program interrelationships which may not be recognized at this time.
Further, GIS can enable us to focus management decisions more efficiently, and communicate those
decisions more effectively to other offices and the public.
• GIS in wellhead protection program (WHP) demonstration projects - In an effort to encourage the use of
GIS in WHP and ground-water protection efforts, OGWP is sponsoring a series of pilot projects at the
county, State, and Regional levels. These projects are intended to demonstrate unique and/or transferable
applications that support the decision-making process. Currently, OGWP is funding three WHP GIS projects
at the local level: Carroll County, MD (development of ground-water management performance standards
and county ordinances on land use to be used in a WHP Program); St. Charles County, MO (development of
interpretive maps to used in the development of a WHP Program); and Santa Clara Valley Water District,
CA (development of a model ground-water management strategy for a pilot recharge area).
• ORD-Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL) support to WHP GIS projects - EMSL is
providing technical support to OGWP's GIS projects. They are also producing a guidance document on the
implementation and use of GIS for WHP that is focused on the needs of local governments. The document is
scheduled for completion in FY91.
• WHP Data Management Demonstration Projects - OGWP is initiating a series of WHP data management
demonstration projects based on a national competition.
* In FY90, Congress appropriated $500,000 to EPA for grants to local communities to show how data
management efforts of local communities can assist in better decision-making in the implementation of WHP
Programs.
• OIRM System Modernization Project - EPA recognizes that there is a need to modernize its information
systems. The traditional single media approach to systems development no longer meets the Agency's
information needs. In an effort to meet these changing needs, OIRM started a 'System Modernization
Program". The elements of the initiative include: a Systems Development Center (to provide a central focus
for system development activities and emerging technologies); a modernization fund (to fund priority projects
and create incentives for modernization); an OIRM support team (to facilitate information and technology
transfer as well as the development of integrated systems); and an Agency-wide ERM Steering Committee (to
provide guidance and set priorities for the modernization effort).
* Technology transfer programs which include ground-water are operated by several EPA Headquarters
offices: the Office of the Administrator, Office of Research and Development, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, and the Office of Water. ORD operates the Center for Research Information (CERI),
which distributes research publications and sponsors training on ground-water science and engineering
subjects. Office of Water's ground-water Protection office also distributes documents and provides training,
mostly tailored for State and local governments and their needs in setting up ground-water protection
programs.
* Hazardous waste ground-water work stations b Regions: OSWER's Office of Program Technology
Support (currently the Technology Innovation Office) installed ground-water work stations in each regional
office for use by RCRA and CERCLA personnel The work stations provide the means to store and
manipulate site-specific ground-water data from hazardous waste sites. The work stations are a collection of
PC- based hardware and software, including CAD (Computer Assisted Design) based graphics and
ground-water flow and transport models. Work station users can communicate via the OSWER electronic
bulletin board system. The work stations can improve ground-water decision making, however, they are not
57
-------
designed to foster agency-wide access to ground-water data.
The ground-water work station has been used primarily for graphical representation of surface and
subsurface conditions and the contouring of chemical, as well as ground-water elevation, data. The system
has been used on an uneven basis partly due to the labor-intensive exercise required to input chemical data
and information regarding aquifer properties. Also, the limited number of models loaded into the
workstation and their inherent assumptions limited it's use at a significant number of sites. Some Regions
have, however, "customized" their work stations by adding models and other software, and have thereby
made the systems more useful
Regional staff have found the system valuable for map preparation in anticipation of briefings,
meetings, enforcement conferences, etc. Most of the maps are of large scale and are very legible. It's use in
permitting and enforcement dedsionmaking is somewhat limited to date partly because of time constraints,
workload, changing priorities and other factors. Some staff would like to use the system on a more frequent
bask but find it difficult to allocate the time necessary to become familiar with it. Personnel assigned to the
system on at least a part-time basis to enter site or project information into the system would improve
utilization. This would allow technical staff to use their time on the work station more productively.
D.Options
1. Options for improving the utilization of ground-water data include:
• modernize STORET to make it more "user friendly," as a mechanism to encourage the use of the
system as a central groundwater data repository,
* foster more data coordination at the Regional level through the use of GIS as a tool for integrated
environmental management;
* devote more resources to pilot and demonstration projects in ground-water data management which
have transferable applications to EPA, State and local decision-makers;
* issue generic guidance for carrying out and reporting monitoring studies to be used by academia,
industry, Federal, and State officials.
58
-------
GROUND-WATER DATA MANAGEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND:
Over the last few years, the management of ground-water data in support of the
nation' s ground-water protection efforts has become increasingly more complex. Agency
programs addressing ground-water protection have grown, cross-program integration has
increased, and the sheer volume of data that is required and collected and has to be
managed, has expanded significantly.
The Ground Water Task Force Subcommittee on Data Management' s Report
titled "Ground-Water Data Collection, Accessibility, and Utilization: was transmitted to
the Ground-Water Task Force on October 25, 1990 (Attachment). It discusses the many
issues that programs are facing as they manage ground-water data for decision making.
This document represents a consensus of the programs involved hi data management
As a result of the issues identified in the Report, and in the context of a Ground-
Water Task Force Subcommittee meeting held on May 25,1990, the Task Force is
making several recommendations to address Agency needs with respect to ground-water
data consistency, quality, and automation; ground-water data accessibility; and ground-
water data utilization: geographic information systems (GIS) and other applications.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Over the last several years there have been many successes hi ground water data
management by the program Offices and OIRM. In addition, each of these Offices have
additional data management activities under development However, most of these
efforts are focused on programs specific needs and not on the integration across the
programs to develop a comprehensive approach to data management. Therefore, the
following recommendations are proposed to build upon what has already been
accomplished and to fii in the gaps created by the need for cross program integration.
Resources must be provided for implementation of these recommendations because
at the present time there are no Regional data management resources similar to those
available for air or surface water data management to implement a ground-water data
management effort. A corresponding budget initiative is being developed by
Headquarters for the Regions and Headquarters.
Ground-Water Data Consistency, Quality, and Automation
Recommendation: Each Region should develop a cross-program policy on integrating
59
-------
and improving the management and use of ground-water data within the Region.
Each Regional policy would address but not be limited to program needs, data quality,
automation, and usage of the data for decision making. This Regional policy would be
consistent with EPA policy on minimum set of data elements for ground-water and data
standards. The value of implementing this policy at the Regional level is the programs
directly involved in each Region can determine what data to automate, how to use
information already in EPA Regional files, the cost of making the data available
electronically, the link to GIS and other issues. The Regional policy would also consider
the needs and capabilities of the States, local governments, and the regulated community
as key players and users of ground-water data. Region X which has already
implemented this policy should provide the other Regions the benefits of their
experience.
Ground-Water Accessibility
Recommendation: Develop a Directory for use by the Regions, States, local
governments, other Federal Agencies, and the ground-water community to locate ground-
water data.
The Directory would establish a central pointer system or "one stop shopping" to
identify the many EPA, State, and other Federal ground-water and related data bases in
existence. The Directory would have two tiers. The first tier would contain national
information which would be useful nationally. The second tier would only contain
information only useful to each Region such as their State and Regional data bases.
This Directory would begin to document and build an institutional memory of the
existence and the location of the data collected by the Regions and States.
Ground-Water Data Utilization: GIS and other Applications
RecQmmendatlQp: Incorporate more fully the regional GIS capabilities developed from
pilot projects into Regional ground-water decision making.
GIS is an emerging tool for cross-media planning and integrated environmental
management, and base program activities such as permitting, inspection, and
enforcement In addition, it is particularly useful in risk-based priority setting of
Regional program commitments and resource requirements. GIS has been found to be
increasingly useful in program planning and priority setting activities, once the
investment in area-specific mapping has been accomplished. As EPA begins using GIS
in its decision making, it is also important to begin promoting the use of GIS by the
State' s in their decision making process.
60
-------
PARTF:
ORD GROUND-WATER RESEARCH PLAN
61
-------
,--«aSt«« C"ea c< R«s«ven arc ==*.«« S-
P*OT»cton 2**acorr«m
OC 20*60
ORD Ground Water
Research Plan: Strategy for
FY 1991 and Beyond
-------
Foreword
Ground water is a vital natural resource in the United States, Its quality is of
foremost concern for the future of human health and (he environment. The
importance of ground water for consumption and other uses, as well as the
interaction of pound water with the rest of the hydroiogic cycle and other aspects
of the environment has become increasingly apparent in a number of EPA
programs. The Agency hM therefore established sundards and undertaken vinous
acu vmts to protect and remediate this resource. To underscore the importance of
these acoviues. the Deputy Administrator convened an EPA-wide Ground Water
Task Force to coordinate and direct future efforts.
There are three essential and inter-related requirements for EPA s ground water
efforts: legislative authority, admintsnove framework, and scientific and tecnno-
lopcaJ know-how This document addresses the thud requirement, particularly the
role of research in building a scientific understanduif of how to prevent, predict, and
remediate ground water contamination. This Plan presents the Office of Researcn
and Developments strategy for conducting subsurface and related research in
support of EPA s programs.
Ench Breuhauer
Assistant Administrator foe Research and Development
-------
ORD GROUND WATER RESEARCH PLAN: STRATEGY FOR FY 1991 AND BEYOND
Executive Summary
Ground-water research at EPA encompasses several different ORD
programs which are contributing to the body of knowledge in this
emerging science. Efforts are focused on serving EPA programs
which are requiring an increasingly sophisticated knowledge base
and greater technical assistance in order to develop and
implement environmental programs. A major theme or objective for
future research are prevention and remediation of ground-water
contamination. These objectives can continue to be met through
focused research products for EPA program clients, supported by
basic research on subsurface processes, monitoring and
remediation methods, while evaluating and refining research
results based on field experience, of primary importance are
coordination with other research agencies and organizations, and
dissemination of research expertise through technology transfer
and technical assistance. Several ground-water research
initiatives are highlighted in this Plan which would serve these
goals. A significant research initiative proposed for
consideration for FY 1992 concerns basic process research on the
behavior and effects of agricultural chemicals in ground-water
and surface water. Enhanced funding for ground water research
should be considered in order to sustain its ability to serve the
Agency's needs.
-------
I. Introduction
The Science Advisory Board's, "Review of the EPA Ground
Water Research Program" (July, 1985) concluded, among other
things, that ORD should establish centralized direction and
management for its ground-water research program through a
Ground-Water Research Manager. They recommended that this
Manager develop an integrated, comprehensive ground-water
research plan. The plan would address research needs and
activities spanning the various EPA programs having ground-water
components.
ORD has responded to these recommendations by appointing a
Ground- Water Matrix Manager, who coordinates with other ORD
Offices to analyze ground-water needs and promote new
initiatives. This Ground-Water Research Plan summarizes the
status of ground-water research at EPA, and proposes areas for
growth for fiscal year 1991 and beyond.
II. Background
ORD supports an active, diverse ground-water research
program dedicated to provide the scientific basis for protecting
current and potential drinking water aquifers, and interconnected
surface water resources, from contamination. The interrelated
scientific fields of hydrogeology, hydrology, geochemistry,
geophysics, biochemistry, microbiology, statistics, soil science,
and physical chemistry are components of ground-water research.
Each field provides a perspective on what can collectively be
called ground-water science. Research areas span source control,
detection, monitoring, prediction, and remediation of ground-
water contamination. Five EPA programs and their statutory
missions are served: CERCLA, RCRA, CWA, SDWA, and FIFRA.
EPA's role is somewhat unique in the Federal ground-water
research community, due to our regulatory missions and
timetables. For example, EPA's need to monitor ground-water
quality and remediate contamination to drinking water
concentrations has generated research into areas sometimes
untested by other organizations. Technology transfer and
technical assistance to those implementing environmental programs
depends upon a strong in-house knowledge base, responsive
research agenda, and assertive outreach program. EPA's research
effort in support of environmental programs is therefore
distinctive in purpose, direction, and timing. Other agencies
cannot be expected to fulfill this role. Our challenge in
working with other agencies and organizations is to identify
areas of common and separate interest, so that research is
complementary but not duplicative or lacking.
To carry out its functions in supporting ground-water
activities at EPA, ORD conducts research in five broad areas.
These areas, and some of ORD's significant contributions, are
summarized below:
-------
A. Subsurface Monitoring
The goal of this research program is to produce techniques
and methodologies for detecting and quantifying changes in
hydrogeology, and in subsurface water quality. Both direct
sampling and remote sensing approaches are generated. This
program includes research on locating and installing monitoring
wells; sample collection and preservation; quality assurance and
quality control; geophysical and geochemical detection and
mapping of shallow contaminant plumes with both surface and
downhole methods; mapping deeply buried plumes associated with
injection wells, determining chemical indicators of ground water
contamination; developing monitoring methodologies for the
unsaturated zone; advanced monitoring techniques such as real-
time, in situ monitoring of ground water with fiber optic sensor
and flourescence spectroscopy; and external leak detection
devices for underground storage tanks.
Most of ORD's subsurface monitoring research has been
undertaken in response to the needs of the CERCLA and RCRA
hazardous waste programs, where immediate needs to accurately
sample and analyze ground water have challenged the state of the
science to develop appropriate laboratory and field techniques.
ORB's monitoring research and development has advanced EPA's
ability to meet environmental needs and statutory requirements.
Some of ORD's most significant contributions have been in:
* fiber optic and x-ray fluorescence remote sensing;
* unsaturated zone monitoring for hazardous waste facilities
and underground storage tanks;
* well construction techniques to minimize sample
contamination;
identification of indicator parameters for ground- water
contaminants;
methods for collection of uncontaminated aquifer core
material;
• quality assurance of field investigations;
application of standard geophysical techniques to hazardous
waste site investigations;
» development of geographical information systems (GIS); and
methods for statistical comparisons of ground- water
monitoring data.
As these methods and technologies are developed, they are
transferred to EPA Regions, States, and the public through
guidance manuals, training, reports, and professional journals.
Case—by-case technical support to program offices in these areas
is also a major effort.
-------
B. Transport, and Transformation
In order -to predict the movement of contaminants in the
subsurface, and thereby predict potential human and ecological
exposure, ORD maintains a research program in transport and
transformation of contaminants. Predicting contaminant behavior
in the subsurface requires understanding the mechanisms and rates
of transport, and chemical, physical, and biological
transformations of contaminants. Transport is often assumed to
occur in the dissolved, aqueous phase, but may also occur in
separate, dissolved phases such as in immiscible oils, or sorbed
to fine, colloidal particles. The subsurface environment affects
the oxidation state, and the rates and types of chemical
transformations. These transformations in turn affect the
solubility and mobility of the contaminants. Transformation and
transport are therefore intimately related processes. QRD's
research studies these processes for various contaminants in
different settings, and develops models for predicting time of
travel and exposure concentrations.
Recent developments in transport and transformation research
include advances in understanding the processes that control
these phenomena, and integrating these processes into
mathematical models for describing and predicting the behavior of
contaminants in the subsurface.
At the process level, there have been recent advances in:
understanding the kinetics of the partitioning of
contaminants between ground water and aquifer solids;
* the behavior of multiphase fluid systems of water, oil, and
air;
* the movement of metal ions in response to chemical
conditions;
* abiotic transformation pathways and rates;
* vapor phase transport phenomena important in the vadose
zone;
* facilitated transport resulting from the presence of
colloidal materials, or cosolvents such as alchohols;
* the movement of contaminants through fractured rocks;
aerobic and anaerobic biotransformation;
• re-examination of the capacity of pollution-degrading
bacteria to move through soils and geological material,
which has improved our understanding of the partitioning of
organic compounds between ground water and residual oily
material;
* understanding higher order transformation reactions;
* understanding hydrodynamic dispersion in relation to
heterogeneity in the hydrodynamic domain;
a more definitive description of the metals sorption
processes; and
mathematical descriptions of the reduction of organic
pollutants in ground water.
-------
Recent advances in integrating process level information
into predictive tools include:
• the development and dissemination of the metal speciation
model MINTEQA2,'
• the pesticide soils leaching model PRZM;
• the pesticide ground water leaching model RUSTIC;
the screening model for vulnerable soils DBAPE, and
development of databases for access through DBAPE;
development of the multimedia model MULTIMED for predicting
the exposure from landfilled solid and hazardous wastes; and
• development and application of the CEEPES comprehensive
environmental management model to agricultural chemicals.
Most of the transport and transformation research in ORD is
performed in support of the hazardous waste programs, and their
needs in predicting the off-site effects of ground- water
contamination from waste disposal sites. Some is also done to
support the Office of Pesticide Programs to predict the leaching
behavior of agricultural chemicals. A new effort is underway to
support the Office of Water in determining the sorptive
properties of soils as a factor in protecting wellheads from
contaminant migration.
C. In situ Subsurface Remediation
ORD's ground-water research in the area of subsurface
remediation is developing effective, reliable methods for
restoring contaminated soils and ground water as close as
possible to their original quality. This includes methods for
recovering contaminants from aquifers for further treatment,
reducing the volume or toxicity of contaminants in situ,
monitoring and modeling remediation projects, and examining past
remediation and source control efforts to identify subsurface
factors contributing to their success or failure.
Significant research advances have included the initiation
of applied bioremediation to the subsurface, the development of
design tools for remediation (i.e., the BIOPLUME model), and
methods for performance evaluation of pump-and-treat technology.
Other areas of investigation include steam stripping and soil
vacuum extraction of contaminants, with an emphasis on
understanding the subsurface proceeses governing the results of
remedial measures.
ORD's research in the subsurface remediation area has been
performed in support of EPA's drinking water and hazardous waste
programs.
-------
D. Underground Source Control
EPA's Underground Injection Control program regulates the
injection of hazardous wastes into the subsurface. ORD has a
research effort to develop protocols for injection well
practices, injection well integrity testing methods, and to
understand the interaction of injected material with subsurface
materials.
E. Technical Assistance and Technology Transfer
Technical assistance generally refers to one-on-one
assistance by ORD on site-specific or problem-specific Regional,
State, or National regulatory matters. Technology transfer
generally refers to printed documents, software packages, and
focused training that are initiated and budgeted by ORD. Both
are carried out by ORD laboratories primarily for Superfund staff
in the Regional Offices. This effort is largely funded by OSWER
through the Superfund Technical Support Project, which provides
support on ground water as well as other aspects of Superfund
site investigations and remedies.
For example, the RSKERL provides assistance on subsurface
remediation problems through the Subsurface Remediation
Technology Support Core Team, operates an information
clearinghouse on this subject, and transfers technology from the
National Center for Ground Water Research, a consortium of Rice,
Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State Universities. Areas of expertise
include hydrogeological aspects of pump-and-treat aquifer
remediation, in situ bioremediation of soils and ground water,
geochemistry, fluid and contaminant transport, transformation,
and mathematical modeling.
EMSL-LV provides assistance in detecting, monitoring, site
characterization, data interpretation, and geophysical
techniques.This includes saturated and unsaturated zone
monitoring, remote sensing, mapping, geostatistics, anaytical
methods and quality assurance, borehole and surface geophysics,
and x-ray fluorescence field survey methods. A hotline and on-
site field training facility are important features of the
technology support program at EMSL-LV.
At ERL-Athens, the emphasis is on multimedia (i.e., ground
water, surface water, and soil) exposure and risk assessment
modeling of remedial action alternatives. Through the Agency's
Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling (CEAM), support is
provided on applying models to assist in risk-based decisions.
This includes information on models and databases that link
ground-water transport and transformation to human and ecological
exposure scenarios. Workshops and an electronic bulletin board
serve to enhance technology transfer and assistance.
-------
RREL operates the largest of the technical support centers
in ORD. Support is provided on engineering problems related to
but not specific to ground water, such as soil and above-ground-
water treatment alternatives, remedial construction processes and
materials, source control, and geotechnical methods.
Technical assistance and technical support continue to be a
highly important part of the ground water research program. In
the future, the services described above could be further
expanded to others in need of scientific and engineering
expertise for technical decision-making.
III. General Approaches for Future Ground-Water Research
A. staying at the Forefront of an Emerging Scientific Field
Hydrogeology and contaminant behavior is an emerging field,
and EPA's scientific research is at the forefront. EPA's
contribution to the state of knowledge is evidenced by our
contributions to the literature, our sponsorship of cutting-edge
research by universities such as Stanford, Yale, Louisiana state,
Carnegie-Mellon, and the consortium of Rice, Oklahoma, and
Oklahoma State Universities, and our participation in
international conferences (such as the International Geological
Congress, and others). Implementation of EPA's environmental
programs need the best available technologies and methods. These
needs demand that supporting research be innovative, state-of-
the-science, and timely. It is essential therefore that ground-
water research be supported so that it may remain at the
forefront.
B. Preserving Continuity
Another essential aspect of the research program is
continuity. Research projects studying flow, sorption,
transformation, or model development often require years of
steady effort. Field studies in particular require multiple
years of observation. A successful ground-water research program
must maintain stability over time in order to generate useful,
tested products. Ground-water research should therefore be part
of the Agency's long-term research agenda. Two examples of on-
going research areas related to ground water which have
successfully adopted 5-year plans are the Biosysterns Technology
Development Program and the Wellhead Protection Research Program.
c. Meeting Users' Heeds
There are several categories of users of EPA's ground-water
research. A primary user of research is EPA Headquarters
program offices, that develop regulations, guidance, and
strategies for national implementation. The scientific
underpinnings of these documents are based on ground-water
-------
research. For instance, the Office of Solid Waste, the major
supporting office for ground-water research funding, uses
research results from fate and transport modeling to formulate
hazardous waste characteristic criteria.
A second primary category of users is the Regional, State,
local government staff, and consulting community who implement
environmental regulations, guidance, and strategies. Technical
field manuals and technical assistance activities are generally
geared to this group. They represent the largest segment of the
user community, and are increasingly receiving more of the
research focus through technology transfer, technical assistance,
and training. Some examples are technical assistance on
developing remediation plans at Superfund sites, or providing
training on sampling procedures. This user group is also a
valuable source of information on the application of ground-
water methods and techniques, and can provide essential feedback
to research.
Third, basic research projects feed into other, more
advanced research projects which can eventually lead to products
or predictions. For instance, basic research in methods
development is necessary in order to conduct quantitative field
or laboratory studies. Research to develop scientific
principles of sorption, transformation, and migration provides
the basis for much of the research on technological controls for
specific sources of ground-water contamination. Therefore, one
of the primary users of research is researchers, who work through
iterative, experimental processes to develop products of use to
environmental programs.
Fourth, EPA contributes to extramural knowledge and
applications in ground- water science. Through interagency
agreements, publications, participation in conferences, and
membership in professional organizations, EPA ground-water
research is shared among users in the scientific community for
the betterment of all. Clearly, the research plan should
emphasize environmental program support, while seeking the best
balance among the various user groups.
The future trend will be toward greater and more innovative
technology transfer and technical assistance to Regions and their
contractors, as well as delegated States because these groups are
increasingly responsible for carrying out environmental programs
and are in need of technical knowledge. This effort cannot occur
in the absence of continued basic research and development.
Basic research to maintain and build our knowledge base must be
sustained so that there will continue to be technology to
transfer.
-------
D. External Coordination
Coordination plays a major role in prevention and
remediation research. ORD coordinates with other federal
agencies as well as State governments and private and public
institutions to promote information exchange and produce better
research products. Some examples are: current coordination on
the preparation of an interagency research plan with the USGS and
USDA on agricultural chemicals and their effects on water
resources; ongoing coordination with these agencies at field test
sites for validating pesticide leaching models and performing
site investigations; participation in the EPA/USGS Coordinating
Committee; recently co-sponsoring a conference on hazardous waste
ground-water research with the Electric Power Research Institute;
and participation in the Federal Coordinating Council for
Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET), which has recently
published a synopsis of all ground-water research supported by
Federal agencies. These types of alliances, and coordinated
research plans and projects will continue to be fostered in the
future.
Particular attention should be paid to the special expertise
and perspective various organizations can bring to a research
problem. EPA's needs and expertise are somewhat unique in the
research community due to our regulatory missions and timetables.
Subsurface processes that attenuate, transport, or transform
synthetic chemicals and metals, and sampling strategies for point
and non-point sources, are examples of areas where EPA
specializes. Our Agency's mandates to protect and remediate
ground water quality have generated research into areas other
organizations have not explored. We must continue to work with
other agencies to identify areas of common and separate interest,
so that important research is conducted but not duplicated.
E. Dissemination of Research Results
Technology transfer and technical assistance are important
applications of ground-water research. This mechanism provides a
direct link between the researchers' expertise and EPA's program
implementation at the Headquarters, Regional, and State levels.
Various efforts are underway, including seminars and publications
disseminated from ORD's Center for Environmental Research
Information (CERI). These efforts also support EPA's Ground-
Water Protection Strategy (1984), which calls for strengthening
State ground-water programs through technical assistance and a
strong research program.
ORD's major technical assistance activities in ground water
are supported by and directed at Superfund programs. However,
other programs such as RCRA are equally in need of hazardous
waste remediation expertise, and an institutional mechanism for
accessing all appropriate laboratories for short-term, intensive,
site-specific project support should be considered.
-------
F. Science Advisory Board Recommendations
The Science Advisory Board's "Review of the EPA Ground Water
Research Program" (1985) identified a number of needed
refinements, including the need for increased resources and the
need for increased technology transfer and training. They
indicated 16 specific recommendations for filling research gaps
among monitoring, source control, fate and transport, and
remediation. Some of those recommendations have been partially
implemented, such as CERCLA funding for ground-water research,
increased funding for monitoring, source control, source
minimization research, and technology transfer. Many, however,
have not been fully implemented due to resource limitations and
competing priorities for research funding. This includes
research on contaminant sources not addressed by specific
Congressional mandates, field validation of predictive
techniques, assessment of field applications of containment
techniques (caps, liners, walls, hydrodynamic controls), remedial
actions in fractured formations and in karst topography.
The SAB also emphasized the general need for sustained,
long-term research and emphasis on environmental protection at
EPA in "Future Risk: Research Strategies for the 1990's" (1988).
The SAB's "Resolution on Use of Mathematical Models for EPA for
Regulatory Assessment and Decision-Making" (1989) recommended,
among other things, that EPA increase its model validation
program. To the extent practicable, EPA should incorporate these
recommendations into plans for future research.
G. Ground-Water Research Legislation
Several bills have been introduced in Congress over the past
several years calling for additional ground water research and
related activities in the Federal government. This legislation
would give EPA specific authority and direction to perform ground
water research. Currently, EPA derives this authority from a
number of different statutes, such as the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
Major provisions of these bills that affect EPA include a
new interagency research oversight committee and an education
committee, a research demonstration program, environmental
profiles and research on significant ground-water contaminants,
technical assistance, training, and technology transfer,
establishment of a ground- water information clearinghouse,
establishment of research institutes, and grants to States to
develop and implement ground-water strategies. Most of these
provisions are consistent with parts of the existing program;
however, the research demonstrations, environmental profiles, and
clearinghouse would entail significant added emphasis in EPA's
research program.
The attention that Congress has given to new legislation in
this area underscores the importance of existing work at EPA,
-------
and reinforces the need for additional research to serve the
needs of the Nation.
IV. Growth Themes for QRD Ground-Water Research
Subject areas where ground- water research should seek to
expand can be broadly characterized by two themes: prevention
and remediation.
A. Prevention
Prevention encompasses the identification of threats to
ground water from point and non-point sources, and mitigating
these threats through a combination of source control, management
practices, land use changes, and institutional measures.
Prevention requires an understanding of fate and transport
processes, use of predictive techniques, and monitoring to
delineate the threats to ground water.
One aspect of prevention is wellhead protection, which
involves focused land and source management practices aimed at
preventing contamination of aquifers which supply drinking water
wells. By characterizing the vulnerability of aquifer systems,
local sources of contamination, and likely pathways and rates of
transport and transformation to such wells, State and local
governments can develop plans for protecting their drinking water
supplies. Wellhead protection research includes methods for
delineating wellhead protection areas, and managing point-
source/non-point source contamination threats.
Other aspects of the prevention theme are predictive tools,
such as models for flow, fate and transport. Predictive models
can be used to support management decisions to prevent the
introduction of contaminants to the subsurface or to prevent
exposure above a health-based concentration at a specified
location. The correct use of these models depends upon the
underlying field and contaminant data and assumptions that are
incorporated in the models. Research into rate constants and
physical properties such as hydraulic conductivity and effective
porosity can therefore all be looked upon as part of the
prevention goal.
Monitoring the subsurface for early detection of leaks from
underground storage tanks or waste impoundments, or seepage from
pesticide applications, can also be considered an integral part
of prevention. By employing various sampling and remote sensing
methodologies near the source of contamination, actions can be
taken to prevent the spread of contamination to ground water.
B. Remediation
The success of ground-water remediation efforts depends
largely upon understanding subsurface processes in order to
design effective remedies. For example, the success of
-------
remediation may be governed by mutiphase behavior of
contaminants, partitioning among solid and fluid media, biotic
and abiotic transformations, and transport in fractured media.
In order to remediate ground water at a waste site, knowledge of
these processes and how they are likely to operate under given
site-specific environmental conditions is essential.
Predictive tools such as models are also part of designing
and tracking remedial actions. For example, the BIOPLUME model
predicts contaminant migration affected by oxygen-limited
biodegradation, and can be used to help plan a bioremediation
project. Monitoring is also integral to remedial actions, both
for detecting contaminants and monitoring the progress of ground-
water cleanup. For example, assessing whether health-based
concentrations have been reached at a site depends heavily on the
monitoring techniques and strategy utilized.
Knowledge of subsurface conditions also interfaces with the
design of engineering methods and technologies for remediation.
For example, ground-water pumping systems and practices must be
compatible with the local hydrogeology and contaminant
properties. Because subsurface remediation is relatively new and
much remains unknown about the subsurface proceeses and long-term
results of various remedies, development and evaluation of
remedies must continue to be a focus for research.
V. Emerging Research Topics
Within the prevention and remediation themes, ORD has
identified a number of emerging topics and research needs in
ground water.
A. Monitoring
Advanced monitoring techniques that rely upon non-intrusive,
in situ, or microelectronic techniques hold promise for the
future, and may supplement or possibly replace conventional
laboratory "wet chemistry" for ground-water monitoring.
Development of fiber optics and x-ray fluorescence (XRF) have
been successful for in-situ, real time monitoring of some
organics and metal compounds, respectively. For example, in XRF,
an x-ray is directed at a sample, and in response the sample
emits induced fluorescence in the x-ray spectrum. A detector
analyzes the fluorescence for both type and concentration of
inorganics. With further refinement, it may be possible to do at
least preliminary screenings for a range of specific contaminants
at waste sites or USTs with these methods. The advantages in
time and cost savings, holding times, chain of custody, and
laboratory requirements are significant.
Other emerging topics include monitoring strategies for non-
point sources of contamination, long-term monitoring strategies
for closed hazardous waste sites, problems monitoring in wet
environments, remote sensing methods for fracture
characterization, unsaturated zone processes and monitoring
-------
techniques, monitoring strategies for karst terrain, and new
applications for problem solving with GIS.
B. Transport and Transformation
The roles of organic carbon, redox potential (eH), pH, and
solubility in aqueous phase transport need better understanding
in order to develop and rely upon predictions of contaminant
transport. Facilitated transport, a phenomenon that refers to
various mechanisms whereby contaminants move through the
subsurface at velocities greater than expected by considering
solubility and primary permeability alone, merits greater
understanding. For example, sorption of contaminants on
colloidal particles, and flow through macropores facilitate
transport, and must be accounted for in our predictions of time
of travel and exposure. Although anecdotal evidence exists that
this phenomenon occurs, it is not fully understood and is not
accounted for in operational transport models.
Another research topic in the area of contaminant transport
is complex wastes, or wastes with several components, densities,
or behavioral characteristics. The separation of leachates into
water-soluble and immiscible fractions can result in plume
stratification, with light non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPLS)
floating above dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLS). A
portion of the former sometimes can be removed from the
subsurface, while the latter settle in residual masses which are
not currently amenable to conventional removal methods. Another
complexity to this situation is the chemical alterations which
take place in the subsurface, sometimes producing plumes of
degradation products more toxic than the original waste.
The kinetics of adsorption and desorption, collectively
referred to as sorption, must be better understood to predict
transport reliably and design remedies. This is particularly
applicable to understanding the slow desorption of residual
contaminants in the deep subsurface. Remedies that enhance
desorption may be necessary in some settings.
Most transport models assume homogeneous hydrogeology, while
in fact this is more the exception rather than the rule.
Accelerated flow through fractured media is one important example
of the effects of heterogeneity on transport. This phenomenon
needs to be better understood and integrated into transport
models.
Transport, transformation, and environmental fate of non-
point sources, particularly agricultural chemicals is of special
interest to EPA. For example, much remains to be learned in the
areas of nitrate and pesticide behavior in the subsurface in
order to predict fate and effects with confidence.
Abiotic transformation processes have been studied for some
time, but much remains to be done, given the large number of
-------
organic pollutants. Recent discoveries, for example, show that
certain halogenated hydrocarbon solvents may be hydrolyzed or
reduced over a period of days or months to other compounds having
different properites.
The mobility and bioavailability of toxic metals and
metalloids depend on the species of the metal, which in turn is a
function of metal/metalloid chemical properties and the
characteristics of the subsurface. Improving our understanding
in these areas is providing a better basis for predicting
exposures to these toxic substances.
Little is known about the fate of pollutants disposed of in
underground injection wells. The conditions of temperature and
pressure in this environment may greatly accelerate the
transformation and transport of pollutants.
Ground-Water Modeling
The National Research Council, Water Science and Technology
Board, Committee on Ground-Water Modeling Assessment's report
"Ground- Water Models: Scientific and Regulatory Applications"
(September, 1989) contained a number of recommendations
applicable to EPA ground- water research. In summary, the report
recommends: (1) continued validation and refinement of ground-
water models, particularly those for flow through the unsaturated
zone, fractured rock, multiphase flow, and codes linking mass
transport and chemical reactions; (2) the role of bacteria in
transport and removal of contaminants; (3) improving the
presentation of uncertainty in model predictions, and improving
our ability to estimate the reliability of model results; (5)
continued efforts at characterizing subsurface processes through
field and laboratory studies; and (6) developing approaches for
parameter estimation and measurement techniques.
The Science Advisory Board gave similar recommendations in
their July, 1985 report, "Review of the EPA Ground Water Research
Program" and their January, 1989 report, "Resolution on Use of
Mathematical Models for EPA for Regulatory Assessment and
Decision-Making11, particularly points (l) and (3) above.
Clearly, future research in transport and transformation should
address improvements in the development, application, and
validation {i.e., laboratory or field evaluation) of predictive
models that EPA uses.
C. Subsurface Remediation
Identification of information requirements for remedy
selection, and methods for subsurface remediation continue to be
crucial areas for research. Low and variable permeability
influence the transport of contaminants, as well as the
dispersion of surfactants used in clean up, and pumping rates in
pump-and-treat operations. Other important relationships between
subsurface conditions and application of remedial technology must
-------
continue to be explored, in order to maximize the success of
costly and time-consuming remedial efforts.
Enhanced in situ methods for biotic and abiotic contaminant
degradation is an active research area that merits greater
attention. The permanent solutions possible through this
approach (as opposed to moving contaminants to treatment systems,
concentrating them, and moving the residuals to still other
locations), and the important alternatives these methods provide
to unproven extraction methods, render in situ methods one of the
most important growth areas for research. Processes for
transforming contaminants in the subsurface to simpler, less
toxic compounds are being explored for application to remediation
of hazardous waste sites and pesticide use.
Topics include in situ bioremediation, where microbes are
stimulated to degrade organic contaminants in place. Use of
naturally occuring, indigenous species is showing promise for
some contaminants and settings, while engineered microbes are
being developed for others. It has been shown in the laboratory
and field that certain organic wastes can be converted into
biomass and harmless byproducts of microbial metabolism. This
has begun to be demonstrated in the field for indigenous species
with hydrocarbon components of gasoline and for chlorinated
compounds such as vinyl chloride and DCS, which can be
cometabolized with methane. More highly chlorinated compounds
tend to be more recalcitrant to these methods, and may require
addition of microbes with special biodegradative functions.
White rot fungus has also shown to be effective on a number of
contaminants including DOT, PCBs, PAHs, chlorinated phenols and
chlorinated dioxins.
The major limiting factor in successful field application of
bioremediation, however, appears to be transporting oxygen or
other electron acceptor and nutrients to the microbial
populations so that they may flourish and metabolize the
contaminants rapidly. This transport factor is a function of the
heterogeneity and hydraulic conductivity of the site's geologic
media and distance from the remedial application to the
contaminant plume. In addition, in certain anaerobic conditions,
reductive dechlorination can be an effective bioremediation
method. In all circumstances, the importance of reliable site
investigations, monitoring systems, and predictive tools are
evident.
Ahead in bioremediation research is identification of
breakdown mechanisms for a range of contaminants, identification
of alternative electron acceptors (other than oxygen), aerobic
degradation of solvents, and the feasibility of adding micro-
organisms with special metabolic capabilities. Of equal
importance is overcoming hydrogeological obstacles to employing
bioremediation in the field, and developing methods for enhancing
transport of nutrients to microbial populations. This research
must be built upon methods development and controlled studies of
-------
biological transformation processes. Some of this research is
incorporated in ORD's Biosystems research program.
In the future, EPA may be able to estimate and enhance the
rate and extent of natural degradation processes of many
contaminants of concern in soils and ground water. A major
emphasis should be to approximate the extent of contaminant
reduction that can be attained with bioremediation to determine
whether the technology can be used to meet EPA's regulatory
standards for remediation and closure.
Abiotic remediation is another topic that has an unexplored
potential. EPA investigators are in the process of isolating the
natural compounds responsible for the observed abiotic reduction
of several classes of pollutants. These compounds may be useful
in enhancement of degradation processes.
VI. Future Needs and Support of ORD Ground-Water Research
While significant strides have been made in understanding
various aspects of ground-water science and technology, ground-
water research is still in its infancy in many respects. Unlike
surface water, ground water is very difficult to observe and
measure in the field, it moves slowly, and is strongly influenced
by the medium through which it flows. Further, contamination
results in different flow characteristics as well as a range of
chemical interactions and transformations, most of which cannot
be quantitatively predicted at this time.
The scope of research needs has been broadened by greater
concern for ground-water quality, new legislation and
regulations, better problem identification, and a tendency for
investigations to uncover ever greater variability in the
chemistry, physics, and biology of the subsurface. Research must
strive for but may never attain solutions to every contamination
problem in every hydrogeologic setting.
EPA programs require increasingly sophisticated knowledge on
which to base complex, costly contamination prevention and
remediation decisions. The importance of continued and expanded
supporting research is paramount. The value to EPA programs in
supporting ORD research has been demonstrated by such advances as
in ground water monitoring practices, site characterizations,
tools for risk assessments, remedy selections at hazardous waste
sites, and pesticide leaching models. Continued sustenance of
these and other program office activities will depend in part on
future research in the high priority areas identified below.
-------
VII. New and Proposed Research
A. New research for FY 1990 and 1991
Three research initiatives have been approved within the
last two fiscal years which will address some of the emerging
topics presented in this Plan.
1. Wellhead Protection
In September, 1988, ORD and EPA's Office of Water entered
into a 5-year research and technology transfer agreement to
support State Wellhead Protection (WHP) Progams. States are
currently implementing WHP programs in accordance with the 1986
Amendments to the SDWA. The purpose of the research is to
advance fundamental understanding and transfer information
regarding how to protect ground-water supplies which flow to
drinking water wells in various physical and institutional
settings across the nation. ORD begins research and development
activities for WHP in FY 1990.
Four research priorities are envisioned. First, field
testing and verification for WHP area delineation methods will be
undertaken, including the refinement of current modeling
approaches. Second, ORD will evaluate the ability of the
subsurface to assimilate certain amounts of contamination without
impact to drinking water supplies, and apply this information to
the delineation of WHP areas. Third, ORD will evaluate and apply
knowledge of agricultural chemical behavior, including use of the
RUSTIC model, for delineating WHP areas. Fourth, ORD will
develop WHP area ground-water monitoring strategies, including
definition of optimal sampling and monitoring designs.
The WHP research is consistent with the prevention theme for
ground water research, as well as ORD's approaches to long-term
basic research, service to EPA client offices, and technology
transfer to the States. It also will use results from several
emerging topics identified in this Plan, such as sorption, model
validation, transport of agricultural chemicals, and monitoring
strategies.
2. Preventing Ground-Water Contamination from Pesticides:
Information Systems for State Use
The problem of pesticides in ground water is national in
scope, but locally variable, therefore accurate predictions of
pesticide transport and transformation requires specific
information at the local level. Evaluation of all likely
combinations of pesticides, environmental settings, and
management practices is virtually impossible using random, large-
scale monitoring studies or limited site-specific investigations.
However, tools are available to locate problem areas, and develop
strategies for regulation and use of pesticides on a local level.
-------
These tools include models which have been developed to predict
the leaching of pesticides to ground water, data which has been
collected on soil properties and other relevant environmental
factors, and geographic information systems (GIS) for displaying
and analyzing spatial information. To date, these types of tools
have not been systematically integrated into a workstation
framework for State and local risk management.
The main purpose of this initiative is to provide such a
framework for States upon which they can develop locally
meaningful pesticide management plans. The work will also
include field evaluation of monitoring and modeling schemes. The
project will be carefully coordinated with related research on
the effects of agricultural chemicals on water quality at the
USGS and USDA, in order to ensure integration of information and
dissemination of results.
3. Subsurface Characterization and Mobilization Processes
(SCAMP)
The potential effectiveness of "pump and treat" technology
to remediate contaminated ground water and soils is largely
unknown, but widely practiced. Further, the technology sometimes
fails to accomplish the mandates of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) which states that cost-
effective technologies be utilized for the permanent remediation
of contaminated sites. The successful application of this
technology in site remediation requires an understanding of site
characterization methods and the processes controlling
contaminant transport and mobilization in the subsurface. Poor
understanding of these processes and inadequate site
characterization are the most common reasons that pump and treat
does not perform as a cost-effective, permanent remedy. This
does not mean that pump and treat should be abandoned, but that a
research program should be carried out to significantly improve
its efficacy, and current guidelines for the implementation of
this technology should be reexamined with new recommendations for
its use.
The overall objective of the research is to acquire process
and characterization information that will allow development of a
decision-making framework for predicting the appropriateness and
potential efficacy of "pump and treat" for site remediation.
This research will support the goals of the Superfund and RCRA
programs by providing information necessary to improve remedial
actions at hazardous waste sites.
The effort will consist of seven phases or activities: 1)
consolidation of existing information, and development of a 5-
year plan for research and development projects and outputsj 2)
development of improved methods for site characterization; 3)
research on immiscible fluid flow and residual saturation, and
their effects on pump and treat methods; 4) research on mass
transport in heterogeneous media, and its effect on pump and
-------
treat methods; 5) research on contaminant sorption to geologic
materials, and its effect on pump and treat methods; 6) research
and development of accelerated remediation methods, such as
combination of pump and treat with use of surfactants or micro-
organisms; and 7) technical assistance and technology transfer to
Superfund personnel.
The SCAMP research is a fundamental part of the ground-water
remediation theme of this Plan, and several emerging topics
including site characterization, behavior of immiscible
substances, sorption, bioremediation, effects of heterogeneous
media, and model refinement. It also strongly supports the
CERCLA and RCRA programs in site remedy decisions, and responds
to several Regional research priorites expressed in a recent
survey of Regional Superfund offices. In addition, it addresses
several research activities recommended by the SAB, as noted in
Chapter 2 of this Plan.
B. Proposed Initiative for FY 1992 and Beyond
Of the many remaining research needs in ground water, a
high-priority research area has been identified for special
consideration in FY 1992 planning and beyond. With consideration
of limited funding availability, the following two initiatives
address many, although not all, of the emerging topics discussed
earlier in this Plan.
1. Mid-West Agrichemical Subsurface/Surface Transport and
Effects Research (MASTER)
EPA, USGS, and especially USDA have various research
projects in progress studying the effects of agriculture on the
quality of ground water and surface water. Although each agency
has its unique responsibilities and areas of expertise and
concentration, there is mutual concern about the fate of
agricultural chemicals as they move through the environment that
could best be addressed through a coordinated plan of study.
Such a plan was drafted in February, 1989, and selected the mid-
continent soybean and corn-growing region to determine the
regional factors affecting the distribution of atrazine, an
herbicide of long-standing use, through the environment.
It is expected that methodologies developed through this
interagency research could be used by the agricultural community
and others to predict the effects of various soil,
hydrogeological, and climatic factors and management practices on
the distribution of agricultural chemicals on ground and surface
waters in other parts of the U.S. This interagency effort will,
among other things, generate basic and applied research into the
transport and transformation of agricultural chemicals in midwest
farmland. The information afforded from this research will
provide a better basis for predicting and controlling the
leaching of agricultural chemicals into drinking water aquifers.
Currently, ORD's role in the ineragency effort is mainly as an
-------
advisory body. However, EPA's concerns with environmental
impacts of pesticides, wellhead protection, and non-point source
pollution suggest that basic knowledge in this area is of primary
importance. The interagency initiative presents an excellent
opportunity.to share and contribute to an important research
effort. An interagency work group has met and agreed on several
proposed research areas for EPA, should funding become available.
Of particular benefit to EPA would be the addition of
research components to this interagency effort for studying
subsurface degradation processes of agricultural chemicals,
behavior of nitrates in surface and ground waters, macropore flow
in the subsurface, testing and improving EPA-developed pesticide
leaching models, real time monitoring methods, non-point source
monitoring strategies, interaction of pesticide runoff with
wetlands and potential recharge to ground water, and ecosystem
effects.
This initiative would address the prevention theme of this
Plan, and the emerging topics of monitoring strategies for non-
point sources, subsurface behavior of agricultural chemicals, and
model validation. MASTER is not entirely a ground- water
initiative, however much of the investigation is within the scope
of this Plan. Several recommendations of the SAB would be
addressed by this research, as discussed in Chapter 2. The goals
of this initiative are also consistent with the President's Water
Quality Initiative, EPA's Agricultural Chemicals in Ground Water
Strategy, and the Agency's support for interagency coordination
in research.
2. Other Initiatives to Consider for the 1990s
Other research initiatives to consider for the future, in
line with the themes, emerging topics, and appoaches discussed
earlier include:
Further development of bioremediation methods, including
continuation of such essential efforts as characterizing
subvsurface controls on implementing bioremediation in situ
for contaminated ground water, and developing methods for
evaluating and augmenting bioremediation processes in the
subsurface.
Enhancement of wellhead protection research, such as
assessing the relative impacts of multiple sources of
contamination to undergroun water supplies, as well as
identifying and preventing "unaddressed" sources of
contaminatin, e.g., from Class V injection wells.
• RCRA Technical Support Centers. Expand the existing
infrastructure for Superfund technical support at ORD
laboratories to address similar problems at RCRA sites.
-------
* Enhancement of technology transfer to State and local users.
New and innovative means ofr transmitting researtch results
can be developed.
* Further development of in situ, real-time monitoring
devices, to provide faster, less costly results for
planning, regulatory compliance, and remedial actions.
Characterization of subsurface heterogeneity, and
quantifying the dispersion term in different settings. This
impacts the results of virtually all of the transport models
EPA uses.
* Abiotic transformations of contaminants. Nonbiological
transformations in the subsurface are not well understood
for may compounds, and have significant effects on mobility
and toxicity.
* Methods for measuring redox potential in ground water
samples. This property is essential for understanding
certain reactions and modeling the subsurface, yet current
methods may be inadequate for measuring it.
* Develop chemical-specific reference documents, or
environmental profiles, containing physical/chemical
properties, environmental transport and fate information,
remedial methods and treatability information for
significant ground water contaminants.
Analysis of water quality trends in ground-water used for
drinking water supplies. There are various approaches to
analyzing the growing body of information on ground water
quality to better understand national and regional trends.
Subsurface transport of pathogens. Much remains to be known
about the public health risk of viruses and bacteria
transported via ground water to water supplies.
• Potential effects of alternative fuels use and storage on
ground water quality. While the use of certain fuels may
improve ambient air quality, potential leakage of highly
mobile fuel products from storage tanks may endanger ground
water quality.
* Effects of global warming on groun water. Global warming
may have significant impacts on ground water quantity, for
example through water table lowering of major aquifers and
changes in recharge patterns.
C. Future Funding of ORD Ground Water Research
At the current funding level of approximately $23
million/year (total R&D plus S&E), ORD can respond to some but
-------
not all of the research needs expressed by programs. To respond
to a range of needs, both on the generic and site-specific scale,
on-going research and new initiatives must be better supported.
An increase in the ground water research budget could
potentially support within five years a significant improvement
in the development and evaluation of databases, codes, and field
methodologies to respond to many of the outstanding needs of EPA
programs. For example, an increase of funds in transport and
transformation (currently funded at approximately $9M/yr.) could
advance current research efforts to the stage where we might
understand and begin to predict with some accuracy: a) the
behavior of major classes of organic compounds in major
hydrogeologic settings, b) the transport of contaminants in
certain complex environments, such as fractured rock, c) abiotic
transformations of certain common compounds, and d)
biotransformation in the subsurface, particularly under anaerobic
conditions.
With an increase in the monitoring budget (currently at
approximately $7M/yr.) we could move forward in developing
advanced, low cost screening and monitoring techniques for major
contaminants. In aquifer remediation (currently at approximately
5M/yr.) we could be much farther along in developing, evaluating,
and predicting the time and cost involved with a number of
subsurface remedies. In underground source control (currently at
approximately IM/yr.) we could significantly advance our
knowledge of the impact of injection wells on the subsurface and
consequent effects on ground water.
In technology transfer and technical assistance (currently
at approximately IM/yr.) we could provide much needed support for
information clearinghouses, technology transfer to States, and
greater support for EPA enforcement cases and other site-specific
ground water activities. We could make major progress toward
improving data management systems for storing and accessing the
vast amount of information available for site characterization.
A larger budget in general would also improve our ability to
provide seed money for promising external projects, and leverage
other agencies and organizations for cooperative research
efforts.
Congress has considered new legislation for ground water
research over the past several years, including authorization for
additional appropriations. The potential impact on current
research activities is not clear, however significant new funds
might be appropriated to carry out the legislative provisions,
such as research demonstrations, environmental profiles of
significant ground water contaminants, and State grants.
The potential results of not advancing ground water research
through some mechanism (legislative or otherwise) are, (l) early
contaminant detection and ground water protection limited by
-------
untested monitoring approaches, (2) uneven predictability of
contaminant transport and subsequent human and ecological
exposure, (3) poor source control planning where based on crude
predictions of contaminant fate and transport, and (4)
inefficient or ineffective remedial actions at hazardous waste
sites and other ground water corrective actions.
Aside from these impacts on implementation of EPA and State
programs, there are potential impacts of a lagging knowledge base
for future rulemaking and national policy development. A strong,
current knowledge base in ground water has benefits for many
aspects of environmental programs.
------- |