I
I
I
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
t
I
i
i
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
January 7, 1987
OFFICE OF
WATER
Dear Participants:
Welcome, and thank you for participating in this workshop to
develop guidance for implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1986. Enactment of these amendments instituted two
new programs to protect the ground-water resource: the Wellhead
Protection Program (WHP) and the Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration
Program (SSA). The Office of Ground-Water Protection at EPA
Headquarters, together with EPA regional offices, is responsible
for implementing and administering the programs.
Among its implementation responsibilities, EPA must, by
June 1987, develop and issue to the States technical guidance
which they may use in determining the boundaries of a wellhead
protection area and guidance and rule requirements for the receipt
of Federal grant support under both the WHP and SSA programs.
This workshop is intended to obtain a wide range of opinion
which will assist EPA in developing this guidance. You and the
other participants of this workshop were selected to represent
the groups involved in, or otherwise affected by, ground-water
protection efforts. Among those represented are state and local
governments, environmental groups, business and industry, other
federal agencies, and academic experts.
The goal of this workshop is to provide a forum for these
individuals and organizations to express their opinions and
viewpoints. I can assure you that the input you provide to EPA
as a participant of this workshop is vital to the implementation
of these programs. EPA will use and build upon your ideas and
comments as it develops guidance.
Again, welcome, Best wishes for a productive and interesting
workshop.
Very truly yours,
Larry Jensen
Assistant Administrator
_ for Water
<55 U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
M?.ii tx'df' 3iiO '•.
0 1 200 Penn.vy, /-..T;;^. /venue NW
^ Washington DC 20460
>- HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
^ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENW
~~ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
I
I
-------
I
1
I
1
WORKSHOP ON WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT PROTECTION PLANS
OFFICE OF GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I January 28-29, 1987
I
1
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
i
I
I
I
I
-------
1
i
i
l
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
CONTENTS
Agenda
List of participants
I. Introduction to the Workshop
1
I
1
1
II. Background Information on Wellhead Protection Program 1
and Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration Program •
III. Definition of an "Adequate" State Wellhead
Program
IV. Identification of Contaminants and Sources
V. Management and Controls — When and How to
Potential Threats
VI. Institutional Considerations
Appendix I — Ground-Water Sections of Safe Drinking
Amendments of 1986
Appendix II — Ground-Water Sections of Congressional
Report
Protection •
1
1
Respond to 1
1
1
Water Act •
•
Conference I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
1
i
i
I
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
-------
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
§ Professor Edith Brown-Weiss
Georgetown University Law Cente;
nOO Me>w .THTsev Ave»rme> . N*J
I
I
I
i
i
TENATIVE LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
MANAGEMENT PROTECTION PLANS WORKSHOP
Mr. Tom Allen
Ohio"EPA
361 E. Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43216
Mr. Timothy Amsden
Water Management Division
Director, Office of Ground Water
EPA Region VII
Kansas City, KS 66101
Mr. Edward Anton
California State Water Resources
Control Board
901 "P" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mr. Thomas E. Arizumi
Supervisor of the Drinking Water Section
Hawaii Department of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
Mr. Sharad Bhatia, Director
Division of Environment
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620
Mr. Jerry Biberstine
Drinking Water/Ground Water Section
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
-* j.
600 New Jersey Avenue,
Washington, DC 20001
Ms. Allegra Cangelosi
Coalition of Northeastern
Governors
Policy Research Center
Hall of the States
400 North Capitol Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
-------
Mr. Armando Carhonell
Cape Cod Planning
and Economic Development Commission
First District Court House
Barnstable, MA 02630
Mr. Richard Carlson
Director, Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62706
Mr. Mike Carnevale
Water Quality Division
Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality
Cheyenne, WY 82002
Dr. Russell F. Christman, Chairman
Department of Environmental
Sciences and Engineering
Room 106B
Rosenau Hall 201H
School of Public Health
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Mr. Phil DeGaetano, Director
New York Bureau of Water
Quality Management
50 Wolf Road, Room 306
Albany, NY 12233-3500
Dr. Rodney S. DeHan
Assistant Bureau Chief
Florida Department of
Environmental Regulations
2600 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Mr. Tom Devine
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
WH-562A
as EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Mr. Mike Donohue
New Hampshire Department
of Environmental Services
Water Supply and Pollution Control
Divis ion
P. 0. Box 95
Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
I
i
I
i
I
i
^v
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
Mr. Brendan Doyle
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
PM-221
US EPA
40L M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Paul Dutram
Ground-Water Coordinator
State Planning Office
State House Station 38
Augusta, ME 04333
Mr. Allen Egler
(Chemical Manufacturers Association)
Dupont Corporation
13W06 Louviers Building
Wilmington, DE 19898
Mr. Dennis Srinakes
National Ground-Water Specialist
South National Technical Center
USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Box 6567
Fort Worth, TX 76115
Mr. David A. Fierra
Director, Water Management Division
John F. Kennedy Building, Room 2203
EPA Region I
Boston, MA 02203
Mr. Clint Hall
Office of Research and Development
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
PO Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
Mr. Mario Hegewald
Special Assistant to the
Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
WH-556
US EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Steve Hirsch
Office of General Counsel
LE-132S
US EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Mr. Chuck Hunnewell
Division of Water Resources
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
1474 Prospect Street
Trenton, NJ 08633
Mr. Gale Hutton
Chief, Water Quality Division
Nebraska Department of Environmental Control
301 Centennial Mall South
Lincoln, NE 68509
Mr. Martin Jaffe, Associate Professor
School of Urban Planning and Policy {M/C 348)
University of Illinois
PO Box 4348
Chicago, IL 60680
Ms. Patricia Janssen
Department of Defense
Environmental Policy
OASD (I/EP)
Room 3D 833
Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-4000
Mr. Karl Johnson
Fertilizer Institute
1015 13th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
of Public Health
Mr. Bill Kelly
Division of Water
Michigan Department
3500 N.Logan Street
P. O. Box 30035
Lansing, MI 48909
Mr. Kenton Kirkpatrick
Deputy Director
Water Management Division
EPA Region VI
1401 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
Mr. Bill Klemt
(National Drinking Water Advisory Council)
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TK 73711
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
i
l
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
Mr. Jerry Kotas
Office of Drinking Water
WH 550
US EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Robert Krill
(Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators)
Director, Bureau of Water Supply
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Box 7921
Madison, NI 53707
Mr. Bill Kucharski
(Edison Electric Institute)
Pacific Power and Light
920 Southwest 6th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Mr. Don Kuntz
West Virginia Health Department
1800 Washington Street, East
Charleston, NV 25305
Mr. James Kutzman
Chief, Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, M.S.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Ms. Elizabeth Lapointe
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
WH-552A
US EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Richard Long
Director, Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
EPA Region VIII
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 1300
Denver, CO 80202-2413
Ms. Nancy Lopez
US Department of the Interior
18th and C Streets, NW
Washington, DC 20240
-------
Mr. David Terry
Division of Water Supply
Massachusetts Department of Environnental
Quality Engineering
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02103
Dr. Raymond Thron
Director, Division of Environmental Health
Minnesota Department of Health
717 Delaware Street, S.E.
P.O. Box 9441
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Mr. David Wagner
Deputy Commissioner
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
105 Meridian street
Indianapolis, IN 46225
Mr. Clive walker
Water Policy and Legislative Coordinator-
Soil Conservation Service
Department of Agriculture
Room 5237S
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, DC 20250
Ms. Robin Whyatt
Natural Resources Defense Council
122 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10021
Mr, R. Paul Wilms
Director, Division of Environmental
Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Doug Yoder
Assistant Director
Dade County Environmental
Resources Management
111 NW 1st Street
Miami, PL 33128
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This document was compiled by:
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Ground-Water Protection
H Marian Mlay, Director
1
with assistance from:
I Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc.
fc and
w Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc.
under contract no. 68-03-3304
I
I
1
I
t
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER I
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE WORKSHOP
Ground-water protection has received increasing emphasis
over the past decade as an important environmental responsibility
for the states and the federal government. Some states and
regions have been active in ground-water protection for years.
In all areas of the country, however, the decade has brought a
heightened awareness of the vulnerability of ground-water to
threats from a myriad of sources.
In 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took
two significant steps to improve and coordinate programs at the
federal level that affect ground water and to assist the states
in their efforts. First, EPA established the Office of Ground-
Water Protection (OGWP) as the focus of ground-water policy
coordination and planning for the Agency. OGWP is responsible
for working with the states to develop and implement ground-water
protection strategies, for coordinating EPA ground-water policies
and guidelines, enhancing ground-water data management systems
and capabilities, and initiating and conducting special studies
of ground-water contamination, among other tasks.
Also in 1984, after several years of development, EPA
adopted a formal "Ground-Water Protection Strategy" which set
forth goals and objectives for the Agency and described the
Agency's management approach to this field. The strategy
recognized the need to enhance protection of ground-water quality
through improved programs at the Federal and State levels, and
acknowledges the States' principal role in resource protection in
contrast to EPA's statutory authorities related to specific
sources of contamination and contaminants. It called for: (a)
an EPA policy of differential protection based on use, value and
vulnerability of the resource; (b) greater policy consistency and
coordination among ground-water related programs; (c) greater
attention to sources of contamination of national concern; and
(d) support to states in ground-water strategy development and
implementation.
Nearly every State has underway or is completing a state
ground-water protection strategy, in part with the support of EPA
grants (CWA/106). About half of the States have or are
establishing their own ground-water classification systems or
other approaches to providing protection.
Last summer, the President signed the Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments of 1986 (SDWAA) into law. The Amendments include
two new ground-water provisions: the Wellhead Protection (WHP)
Program and the Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) Demonstration Program.
Both are designed to support development of state and local
efforts to protect ground-water resources. Included, as
-------
1-2
Appendix I, is a copy of the statutory language creating these
new programs. In addition, that portion of the Congressional
conference report which describes the programs is included as
Appendix II.
A new Section 1427 of the Act establishes a demonstration
program to protect critical aquifer protection areas (CAPA)
within designated sole source aquifers. The goal of the
demonstration programs, which can be developed by any state or
local political subdivision that identifies a CAPA within its
jurisdiction, is to demonstrate innovative technologies and
control mechanisms that can be used to ensure the maintenance of
ground-water quality for the protection of human health,
environment, and ground water.
The second new program, Section 1428 of the Act, is designed
to protect the wellhead areas of all public water systems from
contaminants that may have adverse human health effects.
Wellhead protection areas are defined as any surface or
subsurface areas adjacent to public water supply wellheads
through which containments may move and reach the wellfield.
These two programs represent major new responsibilities for
OGWP. In its continuing efforts to assist States in developing a
comprehensive strategic approach to ground-water protection, EPA
will, to the extent possible, support state efforts to
incorporate these new ground-water programs into their
approaches.
Both programs are similar in some respects—they are
voluntary programs for which some federal support may be
available, and both are designed to help keep ground water free
from contamination and to protect human health. However,
differences exist in both the goals and expected implementation
of each program. Each program is discussed in more detail in
Chapter 2.
The Workshop
Since passage of the Amendments last June, OGWP has been
actively working with a number of experts both within and outside
of EPA to help implement the new law. In soliciting this
assistance, EPA recognizes and endorses the primary role of the
states in ground-water protection. Four technical committees
have been established to assist OGWP in this effort: a SSA
designation committee; a hydrological criteria committee; a
management protection plan committee; and a grant guidelines
committee.
As noted above, ground-water protection is primarily a state
prerogative. Accordingly, EPA intends to ensure that the
guidances developed will provide states and localities maximum
flexibility in developing the programs while ensuring that the
goals and objectives of the law are met.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-3
As part of its information gathering process, OGWP is
conducting two workshops during January 1987. The goal of the
workshops is to assist OGWP in developing guidances, which EPA
intends to publish for the WHP program by June 1987. The
guidances will be used by states and municipalities to develop
their programs and to apply for federal grants.
The primary focus of the workshops is directed at the WHP
program, rather than the SSA program. Clearly the two are
related and much of the information gathered at the workshops
will be applicable to the development of guidelines and material
for each. Still, EPA is interested in focusing the attention of
these workshops on the wellhead protection program.
The first workshop will focus on the guidance that should be
provided to the states in their efforts to delineate wellhead
protection areas around various wellfields. As described in
Subsection 1428(e) of the statute, EPA may consider
several factors such as the radius of influence around a
wellfield, the depth of drawdown of the water table by the
wellfield at any given point, the time and rate of travel as well
as the distance from the wellfield of potential contaminants, or
other factors affecting the likelihood of contaminants reaching
the well and wellfield.
The second workshop will focus on those elements of the
state program that are enumerated in the statute to ensure the
contamination of public water supply wells is avoided. The
workshop is designed to help EPA decide, as required by the
statute, how to judge whether a state program adequately meets
the goals of the law. The workshop will deal with four areas:
the definition of an "adequate state program" as defined in the
statute; identification and assessment of potential contaminants
and their sources; the management and control of such
contaminants; and the need to coordinate the roles of state and
local agencies in the design and implementation of the program.
Overview
In developing an "adequate" state program that will be
eligible for receipt of federal funds, states will have to go
through a number of steps as shown diagramatically in Figure
1-1. Key elements of these stages will be discussed and
evaluated in the two workshops.
Both workshops will consider the overall question of what
makes an adequate program and the relative roles and
responsibilities of state and local governments in developing and
implementing a plan.
The first workshop will also deal with the technical
questions concerning the designation of the wellhead protection
area (WHPA) around public water supply wells. The second
workshop will address more programmatic concerns including the
-------
1-4
definition of contaminants and their sources, an inventory of the
sources, an assessment of the potential threat posed by the
sources, and any necessary controls or other management
approaches that have to be imposed to ensure protection of the
WHPA.
FIGURE I
Major Stages in Developing and
Implementing a State WHP Program
PROGRAM
DESIGN;
ACTIVITIES:
Definition
of an'Adeauate"
Program
Designation of
WHP Area
Define
Contaminants
Define
Sources
Inventory
tne Sources
Assessment of
Potential
Threat
Management
and
Control
SOLES AND
RELATIONSHIPS:
institutional
Considerations
Workbook Outline
Chapter 2 provides background information on the two
programs and a review of current state activities in wellhead
protection. The remaining chapters address the major issues for
discussion. Each issue is summarized and several options are
presented along with some advantages and disadvantages of each.
Workshop Structure
The workshop will contain four key elements, as follows:
1 . Full-Group Discussion—Review of the Working Papers
Full-group, or plenary, discussions will take place in the
main meeting room at several points during the workshop. The
purpose of these discussions will be to identify and discuss the
principal issues presented in this workbook as well as other
issues raised by the workshop participants in preparation for
more detailed discussions that occur among individual teams.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-5
2. Team Discussions
At several points during the workshop, the participants will
break into smaller teams. Each team will be expected to
independently evaluate options and develop a preliminary position
on the topic assigned. In so doing participants will be asked to
discuss and review a number of options that SPA could use in
developing its guidance. Moreover, participants will be
encouraged to develop new options on their own.
3. Brief Team Progress Reports
At the conclusion of each of these team working sessions,
each team will present to the full working group approximately a
five-minute report of its discussion and conclusions. The
purpose of these reports will be to provide an indication to the
full group of each team's direction and, to the extent achieved,
any recommendations to the EPA.
4.
Final Discussion
After the team presentations, the participants will discuss
the issues raised and the team recommendations made. The
workshop will not attempt to reach a consensus on individual
issues. Its focus will be on obtaining a full discussion of
issues and options for EPA's subsequent use in developing the
guidance.
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER II
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION OR THE WELLHEAD PROTECTION
PROGRAM AND THE SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
On June 19, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments (SDWAA) of 1986. Included in this
legislation were two programs that call for a new role for the
federal government in ground-water protection.
While ground-water protection is traditionally the
responsibility of state and local governments, in recent years
the Congress has shown increased interest in helping to address
the problem from the national level. Both new programs are
designed to strengthen state and local efforts to address present
ground-water problems and to help eliminate future ones.
During consideration of these, and other, amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Administration expressed concerns
about the potential Federal intrusion into highly localized
decisions such as those involving land use policy. The final
committee conference report (See Appendix II) addressed some of
these concerns and spelled out the Congress1 view on the range
and scope of the new programs. The report states, inter alia,
that:
• A state's existing authority to manage, regulate, protect
or identify ground-water resources not be limited, e.g.,
a State may identify significant recharge areas not
contiguous to a well(s) in defining WHPAs.
• The program be structured to afford States maximum
flexibility in formulating a protection strategy, e.g.,
not required to adopt a regulatory program.
• States can be expected to take a wide variety of
approaches to wellhead protection and each could develop
a different approach for the whole state and within
different protection areas.
• EPA should use its disapproval power judiciously. The
only penalty for State failure to submit a plan is not
receiving grants.
As part of its efforts to implement the new law, EPA intends
to produce four documents by June, 1987.
• A technical guidance, as required by the statute, for
states to use in determining the extent of an appropriate
wellhead protection area
• A grants guidance for states to use in developing state
wellhead protection programs and in applying for grants
under the Act
-------
II - 2
• A rule required by statute that will establish criteria
for identifying critical aquifer protection areas
(CAPA's) eligible for funding consideration under the
sole source aquifer demonstration program, and
• A guidance that states and localities can use to develop
sole source aquifer demonstration programs and to apply
for a grant under provisions of the law
STATE PROGRAMS TO ESTABLISH
WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS (WHPAs)
Under Section 1428 of the new Amendments, States shall
develop programs to protect the wellhead areas of all public
water systems within their jurisdiction from contaminants that
may have any adverse effects on the health of humans.
WHP Grant Guidance
In order to obtain a WHP grant, a state must submit a
program to EPA that is "adequate" to protect the WHP's from
contamination. The Act specifies that the following elements be
incorporated into state programs.
• Duties of State and local agencies and public water
supply systems in implementing the program
• Delineation of wellhead protection areas for each
public well
• Identification of all potential anthropogenic sources
within the protection area
• A program that contains, as appropriate: technical
assistance; financial assistance; implementation of
control measures; education; training; and
demonstration projects to protect the wellhead areas
from contaminants
• Contingency plans for alternative water supplies in
case of contamination
• Siting considerations for all new wells
• Procedures for public participation
This program must be submitted to the Administrator of EPA
within three years after enactment. The State is expected to
implement this program within two years after it has been
approved by the Administrator. The only impact on a State for
failing to participate in the Wellhead Protection Program,
however, is the loss of related funds.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II - 3
The statute is structured to allow States maximum
flexibility in formulating their programs. The Administrator
will disapprove a program only if it is not adequate to protect
public water wells from contamination. Any disapproval must be
made within nine months of submittal and should a program be
disapproved the State must modify the program and resubmit its
plan within six months.
The Administrator shall make 50-90 percent matching grants
to the State for costs for the development and implementation of
the state program. The Congress has authorized $20 million for
each of FY 1987 and 1988 and $35 million for each PY 1989 through
1991 for these purposes.
Each State which receives funds under this section must
submit a biennial State report describing its progress in
implementing the program and any amendments to the program
resulting from new wells. The Act further specifies that all
Federal programs are subject to and will comply with the
provisions of a state program. However, the President may exempt
any potential sources of pollution from the law if he determines
that the exemption serves the paramont interest of the United
States.
WHP Technical Guidance
One of the requirements of an adequate state program is that
it contains a determination of wellhead protection areas for each
public water supply. The term "wellhead protection area" is
defined in the SDWA as "the surface and subsurface area
surrounding a water well or wellfield, supplying a public water
system, through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move
toward and reach such water well or wellfield." The precise
delineation of the area is not specified in the law, but is left
to be determined by the individual State.
EPA is required to issue technical guidance by June 1987
which States may use in determining the extent of the WHP area.
According to the statute, the guidance may consider factors such
as radius of influence around a well or wellfield, the depth of
drawdown of the water table by such well or wellfield at any
given point, the time and rate of travel of various contaminants
in various hydrologic conditions, and distance from the well or
wellfield.
The terminology used to describe wellhead protection areas
is exhibited in Figure II-1 on the following page. In general, a
wellhead protection area represents a portion of an aquifer which
includes all or part of the area of influence around a pumping
well and sometimes portions of upgradient recharge areas or
portions of the surrounding aquifer as well. The "area of
influence" is the area surrounding a pumping or recharging well
-------
II - 4
within which the potentiometric surface has been changed. The
"recharge area" is that permeable layer through which
precipitation and surface water may percolate to the aquifer and
eventually reach the well. It is important to remember that the
Amendments allow considerable flexibility to the States in
defining which portion of this theoretical model would apply in
specific cases.
Some governments have defined wellhead protection areas to
be only hundreds or a few thousand feet from the well. Other
governments have defined them to be a mile or several miles from
the well. Wellhead protection areas are fairly common in Western
European countries such as Germany, Switzerland, and the
Netherlands and are being used in parts of the United States such
as Dade County, Florida and Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
FIGURE II - 1
DRAWDOWN CONTOURS
of Contribution
II head
til! Area of Influence
| xjj Additional Recharge Area
| | Remaining Ponion of Aquifer
Generalised Ground-water Flow Directions
TERMINOLOGY FOR WELLHEAD
PROTECTION AREA DELINEATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II - 5
SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER (SSA) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
This new Section, 1427 of the Act, builds upon the existing
Sole Source Aquifer program, Sec. 1427(e) of the SDWA. It is a
demonstration program establishing critical aquifer protection
areas (CAPA) within designated sole source aquifers to ensure the
maintenance of ground-water quality for the protection of human
health, environment and ground-water. The purpose of any
demonstration is to assess the impact of programs on ground-water
quality and to identify protection measures that are found to be
effective in protecting ground-water resources. EPA must develop
by June 1987 a rule including hydrogeological, social, and
economic criteria that will be used to identify critical aquifer
protection areas. Finally, using information obtained by the
states on their programs, EPA must provide to Congress by
September 30, 1990, a report assessing the accomplishments of the
demonstration program.
Any State or local government, municipality or other
political subdivision which identifies a CAPA over which it has
jurisdiction may apply to the EPA Administrator to have that area
selected for the demonstration program. The Governor must be a
co-applicant. An area can be defined as a CAPA if it is a
designated sole source aquifer or is part of a sole source
aquifer for which an application and designation has been
received and approved within twenty-four months of enactment and
meets CAPA criteria. Designated SSAs with an approved area-wide
ground-water quality plan under section 208 of the Clean Water
Act as of the date of enactment are defined as CAPAs under the
statute.
An applicant for a demonstration program approval must
prepare or complete several activities including the development
of a comprehensive management plan for the proposed critical
aquifer protection area (CAPA). This plan must contain the
following:
• A map detailing the boundary of the critical aquifer
protection area
• Existing and potential point and non-point sources of
ground-water contamination
• An assessment of the relationship between activities on
the land surface and ground-water quality
• Proposed actions and management practices to prevent
adverse ground-water quality impacts
• Identification of the authority adequate to implement the
plan, estimates of costs, and sources of matching funds
-------
II - 6
An applicant can include optional components in the
management plan including an assessment of the quality of
existing ground-water recharged through the area and a
comprehensive statement of land use management. If an applicant
has an approved ground-water quality management plan at the time
of enactment under Section 208 of the CWA this can be submitted
in place of the comprehensive management plans. During the
development of the plan the applicant is required to hold public
hearings and consult with all affected governmental entities.
The Administrator must approve any application received
within 120 days based on a determination that the application
meets the definition of a critical aquifer protection area and
meets the objectives of the sections. Should the application be
rejected it may be modified and resubmitted.
If the demonstration program application is approved the
Administrator may enter into a cooperative agreement with the
applicant to establish a demonstration program. The applicant
may receive 50 percent matching grants for both the development
and implementation of the program. However, the total amount of
the grant cannot exceed $4 million per year per aquifer. The
program has been authorized $10 million for FY 1987, $15 million
for FY 1988, and $17.5 million for each of the three fiscal years
1989 through 1991.
The State must prepare a report assessing the impact the
program on ground-water quality and identify those measures found
to be effective in protecting ground water. A report is due from
the State to EPA by December 31, 1989. EPA must submit a com-
bined report to the Congress by September 30, 1990.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II - 7
CURRENT STATE ACTIVITIES IN WELLHEAD PROTECTION
Within the past five years most states have initiated ground
water protection programs. The structure and scope of these
programs is variable and reflects differing demographic, political and
hydrogeological conditions.
A handful of states and municipalities have developed
wellhead protection programs as part of an overall ground-water
protection program. The main focus of these programs is the
delineation of wellhead or recharge protection areas within which land
use controls are often imposed to protect water supply wells.
Numerous methods have been developed to delineate these
protection areas. Six of the most common techniques used in the
U.S. and in Western Europe in these delineations are listed in
Figure II-2.
FIGURE I1-2 WHPA DELINEATION METHODOLOGY
CRITERIA, AND USE RELATIONSHIPS
METHOD
1. Arbitrary Fixed Radius -
A circle of standardized
dimensions having little to
no hydrogeologic basis.
2. Calculated Fixed Radius -
A circle of standardized
dimensions determined
mathematically with
hydrogeologic basis.
3. Simplified Variable Shapes -
Standardized recharge areas
derived from analytical
calculations.
4. Analytical Flow Model -
A mathematical determination
of the area in which ground-
water contributes to a
pumping well.
5. Geologic/Geomorphic - An area
defined by flow boundaries
detected through geologic
field study and observation.
Numerical Flow/Transport Model
A computerized approximation
to the solution of
differential equations (e.g.,
ground-water flow and/or
solute transport).
or being considered
CRITERIA
RELIED ON
Distance
Distance
Time of Travel
Time of Travel
Drawdown
Drawdown
Physical Features
Physical Features
SELECTED
LOCATIONS
WHERE USED*
Nebraska
Florida
Edgartown, MA
Duxbury, MA
Florida
Time of Travel
Drawdown
England
Cape Cod, MA
Duxbury, MA
Edgartown, MA
West Germany
Holland
Vermont
Midstate Reg.
Planning Agen.,
CT
Duxbury, MA
Dade Co., FL
Broward Co.,FL
Palm Beach, FL
-------
II - 8
The methods range in sophistication from those which can be
applied simply by non-technicians (e.g.. Fixed Arbitrary Radius)
to very complex methods which require a highly trained, technical
specialist (e.g., Numerical Flow/Transport Model). Each has
inherent strengths and limitations which must be considered in
method selection and program implementation. The less
sophisticated forms can be easily applied and are relatively
simple to administer. They are, however, less likely to
reproduce actual conditions. They may therefore provide
"inadequate" or "excessive" protection in different settings.
More sophisticated methods more closely reproduce actual
conditions, however, they are more expensive to implement and
more complex to administer. Thus, certain tradeoffs or method
combinations may be required when designing WHPA programs in
order to adequately define the area to be protected.
A brief review of wellhead protection activities in selected
states follows. While not exhaustive, this survey will give
workshop participants an indication of what is already being done
at the state and local level in wellhead protection.
State of Florida
Florida's state and county governments have some of the most
sophisticated ground-water protection program in the nation. The
state has also proposed amendments to Chapter 17-3 of the Florida
Administrative Code that would establish a wellhead protection
program for highly vulnerable aquifers. The program would
require protection zones around wellheads in which land use
controls would be used to restrict activities that could
potentially contaminate the ground-water supply.
The proposed law establishes two protection zones around
major public community drinking water supplies (with an average
daily withdrawal of at least 100,000 gallons of ground-water).
The zones are defined as two concentric areas around the major
public water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) of 200 feet and five
years ground-water travel time respectively.
Discharges into the ground-water from storm water
facilities, underground storage facilities, underground
transportation pipes and other sources are subject to varying
degrees of control depending on their proximity to the wellhead.
The proposed law, for example, prohibits new discharges and
new installations within the 200 foot zone of protection. Within
the five year zone of protection, new discharges from several
types of facilities are subject to varying levels of control and
monitoring requirements. New discharge of industrial waste that
contains hazardous constituents is prohibited and new discharge
of treated domestic waste effluent is allowed provided a number
of conditions are met.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• A water management program, including canal
•construction, to protect wellfield recharge areas from
existing contamination, and a monitoring program to
verify the results
I* A regulatory program including extensive permitting
and inspection of all non-residential activities in
wellfield areas plus extensive design criteria for
• development
* • A land use control program prohibiting or limiting
certain land uses in proximity to wellfields as a
I function of hydraulic travel time.
I
II - 9
Dade County, Florida
Dade County has developed a comprehensive wellhead
protection program. The County's program consists of five
elements: water management, water and wastewater treatment, land
use policy, environmental regulation and enforcement, and public
awareness and involvement. The program consists of an array of
prohibitions, restrictions, permit requirements, land use tools
and management controls designed to protect all of Dade County's
public water supply wells from contamination by the approximately
900 substances the county has identified as hazardous. Features
of the county's program include:
* Delineation of recharge areas around wellfields, using
computer modeling
• An array of restrictions applied within designated
wellfield protection zones. Examples include
- No new activities involving hazardous materials
- Annual permitting and inspection of all
non-residential uses
- Density restrictions within protection zones
Expedited sewering of unsewered protection areas
Expedited clean-up of known areas of contamination
• Information programs to educate the public concerning
the importance and methods of protecting drinking
water
• Treatment programs to adequately purify drinking water
(including air stripping of volatile organics) and for
safe disposal of wastewater and other wastes.
Clean-ups of known sources of contamination are
included
-------
II - 10
Furthermore, Dade County maintains a computerized inventory of
contaminant sources and issues approximately 10,000 operating
permits per year to recognized, non-residential, users within the
delineated wellfield protection zones.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts implements its wellhead protection program
through the Aquifer Land Aquisition Program (ALA). The goals of
the program are to.help local officials define the primary water
recharge areas around public water supply wells, to work with
local officials to properly address land uses within the recharge
areas of these wells, and to reimburse eligible applicants for
land aquired in the recharge area for water supply protection
purposes. The program encourages a mix of strategic land
aquisition and effective land use controls to achieve water well
protection.
As part of the program the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) has defined 3 zones of
contribution that compose the total recharge areas to a public
well. Theoretically these 3 zones constitute the geographic area
in which land uses may impact the drinking water supply well.
• Zone 1, the 400' radius or other designated area
surrounding a water supply well, must be in compliance
with DEQE Drinking Water Regulation (310 CMR 22.00)
• Zone II is that area of an aquifer which contributes
water to a well under the most severe recharge and
pumping conditions that can be realistically
anticipated. It is bounded by the ground-water
divides which result from pumping the well and by the
edge of the aquifer with less permeable materials such
as till and bedrock. At some locations, streams and
lakes may form recharge boundaries.
• Zone _II_I is that land area beyond the area of Zone II
from which surface water and ground water drain into
Zone II. The surface drainage area as determined by
topography is commonly coincident with the
ground-water drainage area and will be used to
delineate Zone III. In some locations, where surface
and ground-water drainage are not coincident, Zone III
shall consist of both the surface drainage and the
ground-water drainage areas.
The delineation and management of these 3 zones forms the
basis of a competitive ALA grant program through which local
governments compete to obtain funds from the state to purchase
land for water well protection purposes.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11-11
The Commonwealth has restricted the reimbursement for land
purchases to Zone II. The rationale for this decision was that
Zone II areas consist of relatively permeable surficial deposits
and represent the area of the municipality in which land uses
have the greatest potential for adversely impacting the local
water well(s). Zone I was eliminated from the reimbursement
scheme because under Massachusetts law the water supplier is
already required to control land use within the 400 foot radius
surrounding the well.
The program requires applicants to supply four major
categories of information: aquifer/water supply information,
land use information, resource protection plans, and land
aquisition information. Under the first category, Zones I, II
and III must be delineated and mapped. Any pump tests or
modelling used to delineate zones must be documented.
Some level of land use information must be supplied for all
three zones. All major land use activities such as commercial,
residential, agricultural, and industrial uses in Zone II must be
mapped and public transportation and corridors identified. For
areas in Zone III, only those land use activities that pose
significant threats to ground water such as hazardous waste
sites, surface impoundments, landfills, auto junkyards,
underground storage tanks, salt storage sheds, and sand and
gravel operations that occur in the zone, need be documented.
A water resource protection strategy that identifies
existing and/or proposed land use controls designed to protect
the supplies must be included in the package on the suggested
land and/or easement purchase. The state uses this information
to determine whether there is a sound basis for the locality
aquiring the land and whether the town will indeed be able to
complete the land aquisition should an award be granted.
All applications are ranked and prioritized based on two
major criteria: the value and use of the resource and the degree
of resource protection that can be expected from the proposed
water protection strategy.
Vermont
The state is in the process of developing a state wide
wellhead protection program. As part of this program, the Agency
for Environmental Conservation is developing regulations that
will be used to map the cone of influence, the primary recharge
areas and the secondary recharge areas of water wells in Vermont.
These maps will be used by AEC and other regulatory agencies in
their permitting activities.
-------
II - 12
One tool currently available to state regulatory agencies in
making management decisions are the existing maps of recharge
areas or Aquifer Protection Areas that were delineated in the
Vermont Aquifer Protection Area (APA) Project in the 1970's. The
APA project resulted in 209 individual APA's located in 104 of
Vermont's towns. These APAs are defined as the land surface area
that encompasses the recharge, collection, transmission, and
storage zones for a town's well or spring.
Eight categories of APAs were delineated based on
hydrogeological factors:
• Wells in unconfined and leaky unconsolidated aquifers
with available engineering pump tests.
• Wells in unconfined and leaky unconsolidated aquifers
without engineering pump tests.
• Wells in confined unconsolidated aquifers.
• Bedrock wells, using an infiltration model
• Bedrock wells, using a leakage model
• Springs in unconsolidated material and at the
interface between unconsolidated material and bedrock,
with high relief in the upgradient direction
• Springs in unconsolidated material and at the
interface between unconsolidated material and bedrock,
with low relief in the ungradient direction
• Springs emanating from bedrock
There are no regulations associated with mapped APAs but existing
state regulatory programs use APAs to flag areas needing special
consideration during the review process on development
applications.
European/Experience
At least eleven European countries have developed some form
of wellhead protection concept, with West Germany and the
Netherland having the most extensive experience in this area.
In both countries, the first protective zone lies
immediately around the wellhead, with a secondary zone
representing the distance that ground-water will travel in 50
(West Germany) or 60 (Netherlands) days. This second zone is
designed to protect the well from microorganisms.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II - 13
Each country then has a "water protection" area, comparable
to the WHPA boundaries seen in the United States. In West
Germany this zone extends to 2 kilometers from the well (until
aquifer boundaries are reached) while in the Netherlands, the
"protection zone" extends to 10 and 25 year travel times. These
correspond approximately to distances of 800 meters and 1200
meters from the wells. Finally, an outermost zone is drawn,
in each country, to the recharge area boundary. Within these
zones, restrictions are imposed on a number of activities
including, but no limited to, waste disposal sites, the transport
and storage of hazardous chemicals, wastewater disposal, and the
application or leachable pesticides. The degree of restriction
decreases as the distance from the wellhead increases.
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER III
DEFINITION OP AN "ADEQUATE" STATE WHP PROGRAM
The previous chapters provided background material for the
wellhe'ad protection (WHP) and sole source aquifer (SSA) programs.
The remainder of this workbook is devoted to presenting nine major
issues that address key aspects of the programs. As mentioned
before, the emphasis of this workshop is on the WHP program. The
first issues, presented in this chapter, deal with the focus and
timing of the WHP program; the next two chapters concentrate on the
components of the program; and the final chapter assesses
institutional relationships between states and localities.
Each chapter has the same format: a statement of the issues,
statutory references, a set of options, and advantages and
disadvantages of each. The options are presented as a starting
point for discussion. They illustrate the range of viewpoints
heard in earlier discussions on each issue. Participants should
evaluate each option and are encouraged to combine options or to
create new ones in order to recommend what they believe is most
appropriate and realistic for the program.
This chapter addresses the orientation of an "adequate"
program to protect wellhead areas. This is the first step in the
process of developing a state WHP program as shown by the shaded
area in Figure III-I. The two broad issues presented here differ
from those presented later that deal with the specific components
of an adequate state program. Those components are enumerated in
the statute (see Subsection 1428 the Appendix I and also Chapter II
in the workbook). According to Webster, "adequate" is defined as
sufficient for a specific requirement, or as barely sufficient.
EPA is not, then, charged with approving and providing funds for
the best possible program, but for a satisfactory one. The
guidance will, by necessity, allow for a great deal of flexibility
on the part of various states to develop programs that adequately
meet the goals of the Act; those that do are eligible to receive
funds.
In this session, participants will address two questions. The
first is the key issue in' determining whether or not the
Administrator will approve a state-submitted program:
1. Which general programmatic approaches should EPA view as
adequate?
The second considers the timing of actions taken in a state
program:
2. On what basis may an adequate state program phase-in its
delineation of wellheads and identification of sources?
-------
PROGRAM
DESIGN:
ACTIVITIES:
ROLES AND
RELATIONSHIPS:
III - 2
FIGURE III - 1
Major Stages in Developing and
Implementing a State WHP Program
Definition
or an'Adequate"
Program
Designation of
WHP Area
Inventory
tne Sources
institutional
Considerations
Define
Contaminant?
Assessment of
Potential
Threat
Define
Sources
Management
and
Control
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III - 3
ISSUE 1. WHICH PROGRAMMATIC APPROACHES SHOULD EPA VIBW AS
ADEQUATE?
According to the statute, the EPA Administrator must
disapprove a State program, or any portion of it, which is not
adequate to protect public water systems from contaminants which
may have any adverse effect on human health. In addition to this
rather explicit statutory directive, the Congress has also directed
EPA, in the conference report that accompanied passage of the law,
to give states a great deal of flexibility in defining wellhead
protection areas (WHPAs) and attendant protection programs. In the
guidance, EPA must determine what overall standard it will use to
determine whether a state program is "adequate" to meet the goals
of the Act.
This general view of "adequacy" will have implications for
the options discussed in later sessions on questions such as which
potential contaminants and sources should be identified and what
control measures should be applied.
Unlike later issues, where one or a few options may clearly be
best for a particular issue, the question of what makes an adequate
program has no single answer. There are many forms that an
adequate program could take: it could be linked to a specific
standard of ground-water quality, or it could be based on applying
certain management practices to various potential pollutants.
In order to help OGWP develop its guidance on this matter,
workshop participants will address the following question — should
EPA view the following programmatic approaches as adequate? If
yes, are there certain conditions or circumstances under which a
particular approach may not be adequate?
Given the breadth of this first issue, participants may
conclude that all of the following options are acceptable; on the
other hand, some may not fit in. Participants are encouraged to
develop additional options as well. In reviewing any options,
participants should consider the feasibility of implementing
various options, and the statutory language.
Option 1 - One which provides for no degradation of ground-water
quality
Advantages
• Would theoretically provide the highest level of protection
to the ground-water resource and drinking water supply
• A number of states currently use this standard for the
entire state or for highly sensitive areas
-------
III - 4
Disadvantages
• Implementation may well be infeasible in urban settings and
beyond the financial and technical capacity of states and
local entities
• States would have to develop elaborate models to show the
program was working
Option 2 - One which provides wellhead protection by achieving
drinking water standards for raw water entering the wellhead
Advantages
• Allows flexibility for source control measures as long as
standards are met at the wellhead
• Extends requirements of the Act for finished water to raw
water at the wellhead
Disadvantages
• Protects drinking water, but not necessarily the
ground-water resource as a whole
• Does not address contaminants for which drinking water
standards have not been issued
• States would have to develop models to apply this approach
• May be infeasible in urban and other areas
Option 3 - One which improves raw water quality to the extent that
drinking water standards may be met using existing drinking water
treatment technology^
Advantages
• Easy to implement
• Would ensure that drinking water at the tap meets standards
Disadvantages
• May be inconsistent with the goals of the Act
• May discourage innovative source controls and encourage
treatment of raw water
• Does not address contaminants for which there are no
drinking water standards
• Inconsistent with most Federal and State ground-water
programs which do not permit degradation of current
drinking water supplies below drinking water standards
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III - 5
• Nearly all small systems drawing from ground water lack the
ability to finance or maintain the sophisticated level of
treatment needed to remove man-made chemicals
Option 4 - One which applies best management practices (3MP)/best
engineering judgment (BEJ) to all sources of contamination within
the WHPA
Advantages
• Focuses on attainment of technically and economically
feasible quality standards in a given location
• Is similar to approach used in other EPA programs such as
the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act
Disadvantages
• BMP/BEJ may not lead to adequate levels of contaminants in
ground water
• Requires definition of BMP/BEJ for a variety of sources
Option 5 - One that the State demonstrates is comparable with the
approach of an adequate program as defined by the Technical
Committee
Options 5 and 6 differ from the first four since adequacy is
measured more subjectively. The first four options link adequacy
to measurable indicators of water quality or to application of
technology standards. Option 5 presumes development, by EPA's
management protection plan committee, of a program scenario
composed of elements selected from review of the options presented
in both workshops. The State must then demonstrate how its program
elements will produce effects similar to the EPA scenario.
Advantages
• The State is not limited to an overall goal that is
infeasible or impractical in some cases
Disadvantages
• States must demonstrate how the effects of their approach
compare with the effects of an acceptable program
• The program must describe the actions to be taken and their
implementation; states could expand considerable effort in
program development and rationalization
-------
I
I
III - 6
Option 6 - One that the State certifieshas an objective that meets
the statute's goal and its six specificelements I
Like Option 5, Option 6 proposes a more subjective measure of
adequacy. The State does not follow specific EPA guidelines, but •
instead certifies that its program will achieve the goal of the Act •
and includes the six elements listed in Section 1428(a).
Advantages •
• Most flexible for the state
Disadvantages
• EPA would have difficulty ascertaining the effectiveness of _
the program •
• States would lack a basis on which to judge EPA's action on
their applications •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III - 7
ISSUE 2; ON WHAT BASIS MAY AN ADEQUATE STATE PROGRAM PBASB IN ITS
DELINEATION OF WELLHEADS AND IDENTIFICATION OF SOURCES?
Section 1428(a) states that:
"The Governor or Governor's designee of each State shall,
within 3 years of the date of enactment of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, adopt and submit to
the Administrator a State program to protect wellhead ares
within their jurisdiction from contaminants which may have
any adverse effect on the health of persons."
Subsection 1428(d) further states that:
"After the date 3 years after the enactment of this
section, no State shall receive funds authorized to be
appropriated under this section except for the purpose of
implementing the program...."
The statute provides that after June 1989 States may receive
funds only to implement their EPA-approved WHP programs that meet
each of the program elements described in subsection 1428(a).
States, therefore, will be ineligible for development funding after
year three. In order to qualify for implementation funding, States
will be required to submit their developed program plans to EPA for
review and approval by the end of FY 89. Approved plans, then, will
be eligible to receive implementation funding for subsequent program
years.
EPA may have some latitude in interpreting the program
requirements in subsection 1428(a) that States must meet in order to
qualify for funding after FY 89. In considering this issue, EPA has
determined that four of the six requirements present little problem
in determining what must be required by year three. For example,
1428(a)(1} requires States to specify the duties of governmental
entities that will have a part in the development and implementation
of the State WHP program; States, therefore, would be required to
provide EPA with a listing of each governmental unit involved. Such
a requirement would place little burden on the State and is feasible
within three years. A more complicated requirement is in Section
1428(a)(3):
"identify within each wellhead protection area all
potential anthropogenic sources of contaminants...."
These options deal with the timing of this requirement.
-------
III - 8
Option 1 - Within three years states must identify each WHPA
around all public water systems* within its borders and identify
specifically all sources o? anthropogenic pollution within each"
wellhead; all activities for these elements are ineligible for
funding after FY~89"
Advantages
• Is the simplest option for which to provide implementation
guidance to States
• Requires States to expedite their programs and would speed
actual work for addressing potential WHP problems
• May help direct WHP funds to implementation rather than
program development
Disadvantages
• Is not an implementable option in most States
• Does not take into account the limited amount of funds that
States will probably receive and have available within the
State to accomplish these actions
• Stresses completion of the program at the expense of more
thorough planning and priority setting
• May limit State participation in the WHP program because
the requirements are too strict
Option 2 - Within three years states must determine, through a
mechanism such as a general rule, all WHPAs within its borders and
identify generically all sources of anthropogenic pollution within
each wellhead"
Advantages
• States may refine (e.g., more fully characterize specific
characteristics of WHPAs) these elements after FY 89 as a
part of program implementation
• May help direct WHP monies to implementation rather than
development; also would help expedite the actual "field
work" of delineating and inventorying
• Better takes into account a State's financial and other
resource limitations
Public water systems include community water supply systems
and non-community water supply systems, e.g., truck stops,
restaurants, schools.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III - 9
Disadvantages
• Presents problems in strictly definng "development" vs.
"implementation" in guidance to recipients/applicants. Also
may complicate EPA audits of recipients' financial records,
since it may be very difficult to distinguish where development
ends and implementation begins
• May limit State participation in the WHP program because the
requirements are too strict
• May still be impractical to implement
Option 3 _- Within three years states must detennine WHPAs only for
large (e.g./serving over 500 people) community l^ater systems, and
reserve smaller CWS and non-CWS for FY 90 and after; contamination
sources are addressed generTcally
Advantages
• Provides clear priority for areas with higher population
risk
• More realistic to implement
* Consistent with rules regarding public water system testing
and State well registration programs
Disadvantages
• Phasing is inconsistent with statute
• Ignores factors other than population that may increase risk
in a wellhead
Option 4 - Within three years states must submit only plans for
determining WHPAs and identifying pollution Sources; costs for
ng PC
igibl
developing these plans are ineligible for funding after FY 89, bat
States can receive funding for implementing these plans later
Advantages
• More time available to set priorities
* Takes into account States' differing capabilities, resource
availability, and workloads
• Will allow for more State participation in the WHP program
than either Option 1 or 2
-------
Like Option 2, may pose a problem to EPA in defining the
exact
begins
I
I
III - 10
Disadvantages I
Does not fulfill the statutory requirements of Section
1423(d) •
Directs a higher proportion of WHP authorized funds to
planning rather than delineating wellhead areas and ^
inventorying sources I
exact point where development ends and implementation •
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
CBAPTER IV
IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS AND SODRCES
During this session of the workshop, participants will
address three issues (see Figure IV-1). The first two define key
terms in the statute that specify important parameters to be
considered in EPA's grant guidance for the WHP and SSA programs:
1. How should EPA define the term "contaminants" in the
guidance for states or implementing agencies in the
two programs and
2. How should EPA define a source of contamination in the
guidance?
The third incorporates these definitions in setting the scope
of the source identification program:
3. What is an "adequate" program to inventory sources of
contamination under the two programs?
FIGURE IV-1
Major Stages in Developing and
Implementing a State WHP Program
PROGRAM
DESIGN:
ACTIVITIES:
ROLES AND
RELATIONSHIPS:
Definition
or an'AOequate"
Program
Designation of
!
Inventory
tne Sources
Institutional
Considerations
i»
Define Se'ir.e
* uoniamlfiaius *"> Screes
' •-/... 1 \ .
Assessment of Management
* Potential * anc
Threat Control
The statutory reference for these three issues comes from
Section 1428(a)(3) which requires states to:
"Identify within each wellhead protection area all
potential anthoropogenic sources of contaminants which
may have any adverse effect on the health of persons;"
The resolution of these issues depends largely on the
program goals and objectives discussed in the earlier session. In
subsequent sessions participants will discuss management and
-------
IV - 2
Encouraging state participation in the programs.
I
I
control of these sources, so these issues also provide the •
context for later. •
In evaluating the various options under each issue, the •'
participants should consider: |
• The goals and objectives set out in the earlier session M
• The technical and practical capability of the imple-
menting agency(ies)
• The interests of affected parties in the states and 8
localities, and
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
IV - 3
ISSUE 1; HOW SHOULD EPA DEFINE "CONTAMINANTS?"
The statute specifies that, as part of an adequate program,
the state must identify all potential anthropogenic sources of
contaminants within each wellhead protection area. The
definition of contaminants will have a substantial effect on the
scope and focus of the program. The different options combine
elements of two basic questions: how extensive is the list of
contaminants and who selects them.
A very broad contaminant definition implies that states
must consider a wide variety of sources. As a result, one
would expect a broad definition to lead to a more protective
program, while adding to the burden of assessing all of the
listed contaminants and implementing the program. As we
consider narrower sets of contaminants, the implementation burden
decreases, but so does the completeness of the inventory and
assessment. On the other hand, adding more contaminants may not
always increase benefits since in some cases we may not have an
adequate scientific basis for acting on all possible
contaminants. The key to resolving this question is how to
strike the balance between technical scope and implementation
feasibility.
The second basic question is who selects the contaminants.
One option is that the guidance could identify lists of
contaminants from Federal programs. As the definition becomes
more open-ended, i.e., a broad Federal list with flexibility for
states to add other contaminants, the coverage of contaminants
will become less uniform across programs and more subject to
local pressures.
The following five options lay out different aspects of
these two basic questions; they range from most to least broad
in terms of coverage of contaminants. Each option is accompa-
nied by a list of advantages and disadvantages. As in each
session, participants should evaluate these options, but should
not be limited to only these five; these are intended as a
starting point for discussion.
Option 1 - Contaminants regulated under key Federal environmen-
tal programs, those of the specific state, and any others that~
the state determines are appropriate
Advantages
• Programs include a comprehensive set of contaminants
• Enables states to factor in their own specific problems
Disadvantages
• Resource intensive for the states
• May be inconsistent with a more targeted approach
-------
• Not all contaminants that may cause health problems are
regulated under Federal laws
Option 3 - Contaminants regulated under the State's programs
Advantages
• Gives states flexibility to target the most important
contaminants in these areas
• State programs may include larger numbers of contaminants
Option 4 - Contaminants regulated and included in health
advisories under the SDWA
I
IV - 4 £
Option 2 - Contaminants drawn from all Federal statutes and
regulations (e.g., SDWA, RCRA Appendix Vj
ground-water or drinkingwater standards
Advantages
regulations Ce.g., SDWA, RCRA Appendix VIII) thatspecify I
• Important contaminants, as defined by the Federal
government, are addressed in each State
• Health effects data are available for many of these li
contaminants
• Lists already exist and are familiar •
• States can always add to list _
Disadvantages ™
I
I
to
than Federal programs •
Disadvantages
• Some states have embryonic ground-water programs and •
might not address a full range of contaminants
• National program will not have common constituents across •
states
• Some states may exempt certain classes of contaminants •
due to economic or political considerations «
I
Advantages ^
• These contaminants have documented effects on human 9
health
• A relatively simple, short list will provide national £
consistency and not tax technical capabilities of states
to implement program ^
I
-------
I
1
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
IV - 5
• Links the WHP program to the other parts of the SDWA
• The number of contaminants in this category is being
expanded significantly over the next few years
• States can add to the list
Disadvantages
• Only a limited number of contaminants are addressed under
the SDWA compared to the number that appear in ground
water
Option 5 - No definition in guidance
The State would determine for itself which contaminants to
address in a WHPA. EPA would not even provide a basic list to
which States could add contaminants.
Advantages
• Provides maximum flexibility for states
Disadvantages
• States may not include all contaminants that have
potential effects on human health
• Shifts burden to states to develop list or definition
• Does not provide EPA with a standard against which to
measure the adequacy of a state's program
-------
IV - 8
sources listed in the OTA Report
Advantages
• List covers a majority of the source categories of
concern
I
I
Option 3 - All sources that are currently regulated by the •
Federal government or the State *
Advantages •
• All currently regulated sources will be addressed in the
program M
• Sources are already identified; less resource intensive
• States can add to their list •
Disadvantages
• Does not include sources of contamination that are |
unregulated
Option 4 - Sources of contamination are defined as the 33 I
sfMirr-^s 1 i shprlTil t-.hp OTA Rf»nor"h ™
I
I
i
• List has served as the basis for Congressional hearings
• States can add to their list
Disadvantages
• List is not comprehensive I
• Source categories are not always consistent with EPA or
state programs •
Option 5 - No specific definition of source would be provided in
the guidance •
As with the final option in the previous issue, states are
on their own to determine which sources would be considered in an
adequate program. I
Advantages
• Maximum state flexibility J
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IV - 9
Disadvantages
Uncertainty regarding what states would consider in their
programs
Implementing agency would have to expend considerable
effort to develop a methodology and list
State could choose not to include some sources
-------
IV - 10
ISSUE 3; WHAT CONSTITUTES AN ADEQUATE PROGRAM FOR INVENTORYING
SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION UNDER THE STATE PROGRAM?
I
I
I
The statute, referenced at the beginning of this chapter, _
requires states to "identify" sources within each WHPA. Inventory •
means to identify in some fashion. The acceptability of an ™
inventory program clearly depends on the definitions discussed
above. More detailed definitions imply that a more complete •
inventory is necessary and that substantial resources are required. |
At the same time, practical considerations suggest that even an
extensive list of sources and contaminants need not imply a census ^
of, for example, every single septic system. I
The inventory must provide the basis for assessing sources'
potential for affecting the wellhead. As such, it dictates the •
level of detail with which sources are addressed. The key |
difference between the options discussed below is the extent to
which they address individual, as opposed to classes of, sources. «
If the inventory focuses on individual sources, subsequent <•
assessment and control decisions will tend to be very specific. If *
some or all of the sources are included in categories, e.g., septic
systems within the WHP area, assessments will be broader and the •
implementing agency might consider categorized approaches to p
controls, such as the use of best engineering practices.
In evaluating these options, participants should consider I
additional options or combinations of existing ones.
Option 1 - A full inventory of every specific source within the m
wellhead protection areas
Advantages |
• Each source is identified, enabling the state to assess
individual sources and design individualized management
and control actions
• The statute could be read to require this detailed
response
Disadvantages «
• The inventory will require extensive effort and "
resources
• The effort may not be cost-effective for unregulated J
sources and non-point sources
I
I
I
-------
IV - 1 1
Option 2 - Identification of all currently regulated sources with
a'general categorization of unregulated or diffuse sources (e.g.
septic systems)
advantages
• Currently regulated sources are addressed individually
while resources are conserved by grouping smaller
or diffuse sources
• Effects of unregulated or diffuse sources are assessed in
combination, which is the level at which these sources
(e.g., septic systems, pesticides application) may pose a
ground-water problem
Disadvantages
• May still be resource intensive
Option 3 - General, uniform inventory of each source category
(e.g., pesticide useT
Advantages
• This is the least resource intensive option
Disadvantages
• May be incompatible with statutory language
• Assumes that currently regulated sources are
appropriately controlled by existing programs
• Cannot identify and assess individual, currently
regulated sources
Option 4 - The type of inventory, individual or group, is
justified by the state based on a broad performance standard (see
Issue 1 of first session)
Under this option, the inventory approach is linked to the
program scope established in the first session (Issue 1). If,
for example, water quality standards are already met in a WHPA,
the inventory may be very limited.
Advantages
• Inventory is tailored to match program goals
-------
I
I
IV - 12
Disadvantages •
• Must justify the inventory method chosen in each case
based on the program goals I
• In WHP areas of secondary concern, currently regulated
sources will not be identified and assessed individually M
• Statute requires all potential sources to be inventoried *
I
Option 5 - Details of the inventory are left to the states
The State would determine for itself the level of detail m
in the inventory, without EPA's stipulation of a minimum •
approach.
Advantages •
• Maximum flexibility for states
Disadvantages p
• Additional resources required from state to develop ^
process I
• SPA cannot compare the inventory to a standard, so will
spend more reviewing its adequacy ft
• Major sources may be overlooked due to local pressures
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
CHAPTER V
ASSESSMENT AND CONTROLS — WHEN AND HOW
TO RESPOND TO POTENTIAL THREATS
After addressing the scope of the WHP program by defining
the WHP area, the sources, and contaminants, state programs must
consider the assessment and response to sources within the WHP
area. This is shown schematically in Figure V-1 .
FIGURE V - 1
Major Stages in Developing and
Implementing a State WHP Program
PROGRAM
DESIGN:
ACTIVITIES:
ROLES AND
RELATIONSHIPS:
Definition
or arfAdequate"
Program
Designation of
t
Inventory
the Sources
institutional
Considerations
Define
Contaminants
Assessment of
Potential
' \ Threat
Define
1 *| S'JUI (.Kb
!
Management
|~~ *" ana
Control
In this session, participants will address two related issues; the
first deals with the assessment of sources:
1. What assessment is necessary to determine which inven-
toried sources must be addressed in an adequate
program?
The second issue shifts the focus to the means by which sources
are addressed.
2. Must an adequate program include a specific control or
other management approach for each source of contamina-
tion identified in a WHP area?
-------
V - 2
Both issues are based on the same statutory language, found in
Section 1428 (a). The state program shall:
I
I
"(4) describe a program that contains, as appropri- —
ate, technical assistance, financial assistance, •
implementation of control measures, education, W
training, and demonstration projects to protect
the water supply within wellhead protection •
areas from such contaminants...." |
In reviewing the range of options presented under each issue, —
the participants should keep in mind the standards for adequacy •
discussed in the previous session, the technical and practical •
capability of the implementing agency(ies), and the relationship
between states and localities. Participants will focus on state •
and local relationships in the final session on institutional £
arrangements, but these issues may also surface in the context of
considering controls or management approaches. m
Participants in the concurrent session are beginning with ~
issues surrounding the identification of sources of contamination
within a WHP area. Participants in this session should assume, •
therefore, that a list of sources will be available. •
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V - 3
ISSUE 1; WHAT TYPE OF ASSESSMENT IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHICH
INVENTORIED SOURCES MUST BE ADDRESSED IN AN ADEQUATE PROGRAM?
This issue focuses on the assessment of the inventoried
and what controls might be appropriate. The assessment is a key
provision on which a state can base its determination of
appropriateness. The language of the statute suggests that states
do not have to impose control measures on every inventoried
source; instead, measures are imposed as appropriate.
Participants should bear in mind the range of controls or
management approaches listed in the statute: technical and
financial assistance, implementation of controls, education and
training, and demonstration projects.
The options presented vary depending on the level of
complexity of the assessment. We begin with a presumption that
all inventoried sources pose a potential threat to ground water
and must be addressed. To justify exclusion of some sources,
states may consider different types of assessments. On the one
hand, the guidance might require states to conduct risk
assessments of sources in order to determine their impact on the
WHP area. The level of information required to complete such an
assessment would add to the resources required for the program and
would require a rather specific inventory of sources.
Alternatively, the guidance may require a much simpler screen
based on qualitative criteria. Individual states could then
determine how much more extensive an assessment they will require
in the assessment part of the program.
Option 1 - Any source within a WHP area is assumed to pose
contamination risks and require some level of control or other
management approach
Advantages
• No individual assessments are performed or required
• All sources are controlled
Disadvantages
• No sources are exempt from controls
• Resources may be wasted controlling sources that do not
pose a risk to human health
• Statute describes use of controls or other management
approaches "as appropriate"
-------
V - 4
• Risk assessments also require high levels of staff
expertise
• The assessments are, therefore, very expensive
Advantages
I
Option 2 - Risk assessment must be used to show that no problem •
exists and therefore that no controls or other management|
approaches are needed
Unlike the first option, the subsequent options describe how M
states can justify exclusion of some sources from controls or *
other management approaches. This option has the most stringent
hurdle, completing a risk assessment. B
Advantages
• Sources posing risk are identified and ranked •
• Potential impacts of sources can be quantified
• Would result in the most efficient allocation of control m
resources
Pi sadvantages M
• Formal analyses require large amounts of data ^
I
• Because of the expense required to delete a source, some ^
sources posing no risk may be controlled •
Option 3 - A general assessment is sufficient to show that some
sources pose no contamination threat and therefore need nofl
controls or other management approaches|
This option provides for a slightly less stringent standard «
if a state wishes to exclude some sources from responsibility for •
controls or other management approaches. ™
I
• The state saves resources in situations in which controls
are obviously unnecessary •
• Resources are redirected to more serious sources *
Disadvantages fl
• General screens may eliminate too many or too few sources
• Sources may tie-up state with requests for these •
exemptions
I
I
-------
1
1
1
1
^•w
1
I
1
1
V
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
V - 5
Option 4 - The State may exempt sources from controls or other
management approaches, based on its program's goals
This option includes no standard for a state to employ in
deciding which sources are free from responsibility for controls
other management approaches. The state may make its own
determination.
Advantages
• The assessment of sources needing control is linked to
overall program goals
• Less stringent proof required to show that no control
needed
Disadvantages
or
is
• The relationship between sources and contamination could
be more easily challenged
• It may be difficult and expensive to establish this
relationship consistent with the goals
• May lead to inconsistent levels of protection across the
country
.
-------
I
V - 6 (
ISSUE 2; MUST AN ADEQUATE PROGRAM INCLUDE A SPECIFIC CONTROL OR —
OTHER MANAGEMENT APPROACH FOR EACH SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION •
IDENTIFIED IN A WHP AREA? •
The inventory and assessment are likely to address a range of •
source types, some of which are currently regulated by the federal ||
or state government and some that are not. The range of options
included for discussion consider leaving currently regulated _
sources alone, enhancing existing controls, or imposing new I
controls. States could choose similar approaches for ™
non-regulated sources, adding new controls only to these sources
or focusing exclusively on already regulated sources. The range •
of control or other management approaches described in the statute •
is quite broad: technical and financial assistance,
implementation of control measures, education, training, and •
demonstration projects. Many of these may be directed at control •
measures already on the books in states, but which may require *
additional enforcement or publicity.
States may also choose to set priorities for controlling W
sources independently of existing regulations and controls. Given
the number of sources that may exist in a WHPA this approach would *
require a detailed assessment of individual sources and source I
categories.
A final consideration is the range of management techniques I
applied. One might expect controls to differ between different m
source types, but even within a source category (e.g., storage
tanks) a range of control or other management approaches may be A
appropriate, depending on the characteristics of the WHPA. jj
Option 1 - In an adequate program, each source is addressed by a —
new control orother protection measure, selected to achieve the •
State's program goal ™
Advantages •
• States have discretion in determining appropriate
responses for all identified sources —
Disadvantages ™
• EPA must review program based on completeness of coverage •
and suitability of the measure chosen |
• Duplication and disruption of existing programs is likely ^
• May undermine credibility of existing regulatory "
requirements
I
I
-------
V - 7
Option 2 - In an adequate program,creation of new or enhancement of
existing control and otherprotection measuresareconsidered for alf
identified so arces
Advantages
* Takes into account current programs and controls
• Provides a review of all identified sources
D i sadvan tag e s
• Review of existing measures may be resource intensive
• Invites challenges to definitions of enhancements and
existing measures
• Some states' laws prohibit imposition of standards that
are more stringent than those federally required
Option 3 - in an adequate program, only sources not addressed by
existing state or federal programs need to beCovered by a control
or other protection program
Advantages
• Most flexible for states and localities in terms of
imposing controls or other management practices
• Duplication and disruption of existing programs are not
problems
Disadvantages
• Information on these sources may be difficult to obtain
• Existing programs could be inadequate to protect wellhead
areas as required by the Act
Option 4 - In an adequate program,L the need for additional
controls or management is revleweoT only for federally-regulated
sources
Advantages
• Most focused option in terms of targetting sources
Disadvantages
• Implies that other sources are of lesser importance in
protecting the wellhead
• Implies that existing programs do not. protect ground water
adequately, causing conflicts within EPA and with states
• Some States' laws prohibit imposition of standards more
stringent than those federally required
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER VI
INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
During this session of the workshop, participants will be
asked to address the final topics of concern, namely the roles and
relationships of state and local authorities in effectively
implementing and enforcing a wellhead protection program (see
Figure VI-1}. The key questions are:
1
To what extent would an adequate program make use of or
enhance existing state and local programs and regulatory
requirements to carry out protection for WHP areas?
To what extent must the implementing agency demonstrate,
in the program application, its ability to ensure
coordination in implementation of the plan by appropriate
state and local entities?
FIGURE VI-1
Major Stages in Developing and
Implementing a State WHP Program
PROGRAM
DESIGN;
ACTIVITIES;
ROLES AND
RELATIONSHIPS:
Designation of
1
Inventory
trie Sources
institutional
Considerations
Define
Contaminants
Assessment of
Potential
Threat
Define
* 5uUI(.tb
Management
^ano
Control
The applicable statutory language, Subsection 1428(a),
requires that an adequate program:
"specify the duties of state agencies, local governmental
entities, and public water supply systems with respect to
the development and implementation of programs required
by this section."
Underlying these issues is EPA's recognition of the
sensitivity that it must bring to bear in dealing with the state
-------
VI - 2
and local governments in areas such as land use and ground-water
protection. To the extent possible, EPA wants to ensure that the
WHP program is administered in a manner that is consistent with
existing State ground-water protection strategies and plans.
The major question for participants to address is how does
EPAf while respecting the primary role of the states, ensure that
sufficient coordination will occur to allow for the implementation
of an adequate program?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VI - 3
ISSUE 1 - TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD AN ADEQUATE PROGRAM MAKE USE OF OR
ENHANCE EXISTING STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS AND REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS TO CARRY OUT PROTECTION FOR WHP AREAS
The subquestion to this issue is, in implementing an adequate
program, should the state create a new agency or institution, or
should it employ existing state and local programs.
Option 1- An adequate program will utilize, to themaximum extent
possible, existing state statutes, regulations, and agencies
Advantages
• No need for new state bureaucracy
• Avoids duplication of effort
• More expeditious implementation
Pi sadvantages
• May have program conflicts within existing agencies
• May lack authority in dealing with non-related state
agencies or with federal agencies
Option 2 - Encourage, where possible, new institutions to implement
the programs
Advantages
• Institutions could be specifically tailored to the needs of
the program
Disadvantages
• Could lead to duplication of effort with existing State and
local programs
• May be more costly to the states
Option 3 - An adequate program need not address this question
Advantages
• Maximum flexibility to state
Disadvantages
• Could limit integration with existing state programs
• Would not fulfill statutory requirement to indicate the
roles of state and local agencies in developing and
implementing the programs
-------
VI - 4
ISSUE 2 - TO WHAT EXTENT MUST THE IMPLEMENTING AGENCY DEMONSTRATE,
IN THE PROGRAM APPLICATION, ITS ABILITY TO ENSURE COORDINATION IN
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN BY APPROPRIATE STATE AND LOCAL ENTITIES
Implementation of an adequate program may well require that a
number of diverse agencies and services operate together in new
ways. For example, local zoning agencies may have to coordinate
efforts with public health agencies.
The means of achieving such coordination could include:
• New state legislation authorizing a designated implementing
agency to manage and coordinate all State agencies and
local entities for the purposes of carrying out the WHP
program
• A Governor's executive order establishing a special task
force, commission or oversight committee to manage and
coordinate all State agencies and local entities
participating in the WHP program
• A Governor's designation of a lead agency to manage and
coordinate all State agencies and local entities
participating in the WHP program
In all cases, the test of adequacy will be whether there is
sufficient management and coordination authority to administer the
program's operational requirements.
Option 1 - Require that the identified State Implementing Agency
demonstrate some statutory authority by which it can manage and
coordinate the program among all participating entities^
Advantages
• Would provide a legal basis for adequate program management
and coordination among several agencies and entities at
both the State and local levels of activity
Disadvantages
• May not be legally feasible
• May take too long
Option2-Require a demonstration of some administrative mechanism
(e.g.,aGovernor's Task Force or Oversight Committee) by which
program management and coordination will occur
Advantages
• Could provide adequate program management and coordination
without need for new legislation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VI - 5
Disadvantages
• May not be effective without statutory underpinning
Option 3 -Require identification of a lead agency to be
responsiblefor managing and coordinating the efforts of program
implementation'
Advantages
• Is the simplest means of providing program management and
coordination
Disadvantages
• Mere designation of a lead agency may not adequately ensure
needed coordination
• May cause "turf" problems within a state
Option 4 - Require no showing of management and coordination
ability; simply require a listing of duties by Agency or
jurisdiction
Advantages
• Maximum flexibility to the states
Disadvantages
• This option is the least likely to provide adequate program
management and coordination
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX I
Ground-Water Portions of Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1986
-------
I
I
I
I
i
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4»
?
I
1 It^Sj
**
1^
I!
15
il*
*» ^»es>
SSc<«c -s g-^s
5 a sVe « ,. o a's
PI *J«1
w V 3 ii{iiiW
n^ji^ ^1.,.=
!t^i^8^§iii
*3fc1wlT
c.hsicfe ««§!
§<£§.5§5
•^
*•*?
«5g|2
,-•- Qj.C -
a
o>
-------
I
I
I
00
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
*•«* 3 c fe^
'gS-S£S5
§3 a* S*
• * $.1 -
* %% $
53 *8
-j £a %
% * ?
^I'llll
a £»-2 o-'a •*
^a^^^gj
^g^TSoF-
3go-s^8o3a'"§.a"'U(3a5t
Ill^lllllllfllll"
II-S &5 g 0,.$ a*!r.a fe a 1 c'8 § g §
> ** £ Q M *"*» > 3
Cj O ^ S C5 -«^ «,
c « c-^ ^ a •* <**
.-o c-;-: w
'li-||§|
II p
411-
eoo^ e-a^
3^ c a c
'•S&SJ
J' n "*** "*•*• ^* O
-- l!ijs3*6
i *~ S ° O! ^t O
5-5 5,fc-3
3 c
§iEy|i
^jfe^i**
S ^"S^ S-c
|-§153|"
B^l§-jl"
33T
-------
'. -va ^ ^ P • **
• -S a £ ^ ci:iS'S'"SS5
o
-c
"•i -b
cj S? *~T O A-*I»*X3"^
_J"S *». -_i _i _ !••* t*» S:
a 13-2 Q.
2
. *»
t'S
•limps'?
S«J3ji-~ » tt,l»-«raU)W^.Mosj-v;.-
<2. =>:=§,£ ^o ^ o.-^; $ S^, g"-a ^g -s
^qj |; jgisin*!§g-l i
I >> »- !5c^> a4i?* '-•»i«x i; 2-^» o) tj-,» a -^ Sfcfc¥^fc
"8
g>~i^
" •** C-S
i^ial
•« C «K}
•^-a^^-H
I1!?-
^.afc,^s
|S
8§«
.2 -5 K
rt -^ •«•
u
-8f L
§ si s?8
••^"«
uk«;5Sis^^^
lU^ilM
sl°.a5=3^*?e::
•S Sj: o'.S'o'-S S S<-o
i^r^ilil
r
'S-S 3 S
1
y I ^l^-si^
^l^^^^
?l-il5«^?.
: ai^*5 c 12
:-o7s^*
*Ut
l*il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
(I
I
•S%- g^S I'Sf * « «""* a £ M^ -S"? f ° ° a-S ?T*2<2i
^ll^l^^Sf^^IlHimi^^II^
•i « e
•u-3***
il>l i. s^a-a*«|^b-
*
II"5
•a-sb Si-g,5^M|l?
5 3«3 >^*» ..I* SP.
!.!?!
- i !•»
^ -«•* >> ft 2 O 2 2*<3t*Mk^* O
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5 le-t^e
* llhS?J
§
•2 fe P o O t
tSl|-So
**&!&*
- o-s P v-3
^ B-« "S^
3
3 P&
5 H 5s •«
J
3
|l
££
PH|
¥0ll
si-a
ie
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX II
Ground-Water Portions of House/Senate
Conference Committee Report on the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments
of 1986 (House Report 99-575)
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
>• CB a B ^« a T3 S! ^ a-— —• B H^<
1 il II
£
•<
a:
§
e:
2
ONSTRATIO
RCE AQUIFER DEM
D
O
co
_2
S
1
1
O
o
tZ
0
ij
•J>
d)
§
Q
SI
"3
"2
'S
"s
-a
03
S
te bill establishi
s
c
CO
o
-C
^-4 .
1
1
-Q
a
^
^
<_
•1
i
i
(0
•a
cd
o
"«
«^
0)
0)
"a
B
«-*
c
O)
S
a,
_o
"3
o
"^
i)
-
i.
o
•f
• CD
U
a>
"S
-B
3
O
bo
1
"o
u
a
2
•a
, OJ
bp
09
O>
•a
rams
^£
u
f~*
~
o •
2
f~-
^
—
er areas.
w«
'a
o1
a)
4)
U
k,
O
00
"o
-a
5i
^j
"O
E '
"s.-
> •
'Q
iT
— ;
^J
C
31
S
tj
33
2J
°
X
O
£
%a
C
Ic
5
•o"
1)
u
'3
L.
O
^
Ut
^5
•—
•5
-3
j«
o
r-
: c
*j
u
s
0.
k.
<—
3
a-
a
"3
u
'w
identifying "cri
u
.— *
l-»
•^
L^
CJ
~ "
*^
•^ ^
'ft
z>
C
o
o
o
-a
3
-a
"3
c
2?
0
•u
S
£
=3
L.
^^
3
CT
jource
2 '
o
•j>
„
~.
— .
•^
ate of enactment
-3
>^
•°
*_l
^*
**
^
-^
CJ
~
-------
•> o
w§
$3
1*8
JltJ
t<
t*
5|
13
«-> £
«"O as ai p
a oo
•XJ e C "
i-S«Ma.:a
"&«SMit-a3ss
I-1 Hi; ill
SE
y
12«l
hUgMs!
2 s c M>2 « ®s 3 »
« §.13.2
•*r 25 .3 *!
S S-3 *•
in^tumr
a
[w'H
;S 3 «i
» o-n -3
-<£ a
"•°"«
•F*< O
> -?
fHl!.^l!.i^iil
-•-| i|||t
Illl^lfl
- CJS
>^=
u. O
£W .5 3 .S1*
6.23^r -"cS^g
3^0) fe-O^ "c P
«o r?_e «2<-u § C
o a c h
ai ., * C a>
I
<5^C n 3 d> •>
111 iJllel
••• 9> z » u T 5
">'3 O^
2 ST"""
a£ gc
«* w'i
5 ffi-r *.
x
»
I'iSsll
o
2«i.2^|
J
^•g«g 5o«
05 S ° ° I? «M
7 gi L. O^l
0) _ 2! 9> -^H
>•
03 -3
i
ce
a.
i
f
lllll^Ii^li-iliM5
^''Illlsli^laiiiyli
II
A 1.
EJ; 00 i>-O ,. 9)
"S ȣ* *^ 00
njE —^^TJ O
8.S ^^Z •s'r?'?
<0 -Z
o
—i
e- Ix c-
3^" "3
^ll«lllll
g'S§lSJ|
I
S^ u « "-5 *-
£§8.ls5le^c
SPef-^^SsIS
J=J3.)S E S
flJ « M ^_, ki
a. uj ^^ cpr>ti-o£o.cl»-or >S
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
atones of potential sources of contamination
ources that are man-made and contribute pri-
mtaminants and those sources created by
result in the concentration and movement n|
ntammants in or toward a well. Specifically
swing down of water in a well should not be
pogenic source".
responsibility of determining how best to de-
irotect the water supply within each protec-
Ine provision is structured to afford Stales
n formulating a protection strategy. A State
lop a regulatory program unless it chooses to
irporatmg one or more of the following ele-
tinancial assistance, education and traininy
•ojecta— could be determined by a State to
rotection.
ted to take a wide variety of approaches to
areas within their jurisdiction, and it is con-
ite could develop its own unique approach
nay also vary for different protection areas
amendment recognizes that States are best
problems within their jurisdictions, and to
t necessary protection measures. As a result
tication assigned by the Administrator is to
ection assigned to an aquifer by the State in
irea.
s granted authority to disapprove a State's
include one or more of the required enumer-
therefore, not adequate to protect public
red by this section. If after nine months, the
disapproved a program, it will be deemed to
rtant State role in protecting groundwater
approval authority should be used judicious-
ram is disapproved, the Administrator must
" a written statement of the reasons for dis-
* must modify and resubmit the program
re of a State to have an approved program
>t be eligible for Federal funds to implement
? three years after enactment. This is the
to develop an adequate plan/
ing jurisdiction over any potential source of
yt \ program must comply with all
8 of the State program, including payment
and fees, in the same manner and to the
ier person. The President may exempt indi-
ermming it to be in the paramount interest
1 do so, but no exemption can be made be-
Is unless the President requested adequate
led to appropriate them. This provision is
y or alter obligations and responsibilities
State laws. Moreover, it cannot operate to
•S3 o
(8 o
S 3 O
c: c
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
-------
------- |