Conference
         Proceedings
    Protecting Ground
    Water From The
    Bottom Up:
    Local Responses To
    Wellhead Protection
           Sponsored By
            Reqion '
• : ijtRSROUNi, IMJLCTIOH
   HUD
 1-T.ACTiCF c, •" '. It IV li.

 --•--'•-:. I r .. ,,r..-. 7|,',N
\X/ater \X/orki
Asicx•j.itioii

-------
         Conference
         Proceedings
    Protecting Ground
    Water From The
    Bottom Up:
    Local Responses To
    Wellhead Protection
           Sponsored By

          &EPA
            Region 1
UNDERGROUND INJECTION
 PRACTICES COUNCIL
 RESEARCH FOUNDATION         / : 111 i^BSSS Association
                     New England
                     Water Works

-------
         Protecting Ground Water £rjim the Bottom Up:

            Local Responses to Wellhead Protection

                         Sponsored By

         The Environmental Protection Agency Region I
 Underground  Injection  Practices Council Research Foundation
             New England Water Works Association
Ground  water  is America's  silent,  hidden source of drinking
water.   It lies  in  vast stores below ground, flowing softly
through  bedrock  and  unconsolidated  deposits  of  sand and
gravel.    Ground  water   is an  essential  component  of the
nation's ground water supply, and is critical to our economic
growth,  national agricultural  productivity  and  the overall
quality of life.

In  New  England,  ground water  Is  a  particularly precious
resource.  As a whole, more than 50^ of the region's drinking
water  comes  from  underground  sources,  whereas  residents in
rural  areas  are nearly  100%  dependent.    But  this   important
resource  is  threatened  - in  recent years, hundreds of water
supply  wells  in  New England  have  been  shut  down due to
contamination.

Although  there  are  numerous  federal  and state regulations
that  prevent  contaminants  from entering  the ground, much of
the power  to protect water  supplies rests at the local level,
with  land  use planners  and local  regulators responsible for
future  land   use  development  within  the  resources  and the
tools which can be used  to  protect them.

This ground water conference is designed to share experiences
gained  both  nationally  and  regionally,  and  to  develop a
better   understanding   of   the   technical   and   regulatory
interrelationships   involved   in   protecting  New   England's
ground water resources,  now and for the future.
October 2-3, 1989
Danvers, Massachusetts

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                        PAGE #

1.    Agenda                                                (i)

2.    The Wellhead Protection Program:  A National and      1
     Regional Overview - Steven Roy

3.    Developing and Passing State-wide Aquifer Protection  3
     Programs Connecticut:  A Case Study - Eric Brown

4.    Walpole Board o£ Health:  Ground Water Protection     31
     Program Implementation - Robin Chappell

5.    Case Study of Regional Effort:  Wellhead Delineation  37
     as a Tool for Fostering Regional Cooperation -
     Marilyn Cohen,, Timothy Brown

6.    Model for Rural Communities to Assess Threats to      53
     Their Ground Water Quality - Lynn Rubinstein

7.    The Fox(borough) Guarding the Aquifer Coop: Local     71
     Control at Work - Kimberly Noake

8.    Ground Water Protection Evolution:  Acton's           103
     Experience - Duncan Wood, Ronald Bartl

9.    Easton's Experience and the Canoe River Aquifer       105
     Advisory Committee - Wayne Southworth

10.  Wellhead Protection for Public Drinking Water Wells   109
     in N.  Windham, Maine - D_ajaa_ Perkins

11.  Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. Aquifer Protection Plan -    111
     Mark Johnson

12.  Aquifer Protection Through Large-Scale Computer       119
     Modeling, Westfield, Massachussetts - David Edson

13.  Determining the Area of Contribution to a Wellfield:  123
     A Case Study and Methodology for Wellhead Protection
     - James Griswold. Jack Donohue

14.  The Use of Time of Travel in Zone of Contribution     137
     Delineation and Aquifer Contamination Warning -
     James Hal 1

15.  Ground Water Modeling and Particle Tracking           145
     Analysis of Recharge Areas to Public Water Supply
     Wells in Stratified Drift Aquifers - Paul Barlow

-------
                                                         PAGE #
16.   Development of Aquifer Protection Zones and           167
     Evaluation of Contamination Potential in the Town
     of Chelmsford, Massachussetts Water Supply Well -
     Donald W.  Podsen.  Charles Myette

17.   Determining the Development Potential Within          183
     Wellhead Protection Areas and Resulting Impacts
     from Nitrogen Loading - Scott Hnraleyr Jon Witten,
     Mark Wilson

18.   Evaluation o£ Local Regulatory Efforts in             191
     Identifying and Controlling the Threat of
     Underground Fuel Storage Tanks - Charlotte Stiefel,
     George Heufelder

19.   Federal-Local Partnerships for Implementing the       213
     Class V Program:  Two Case Studies - John Malleck,
     Susan Osofsky

20.   The UIC Class IV-V Well Survey in Maine, a Multi-     215
     Faceted Approach to Inventory, Assessment and
     Compliance - Mary Rudd James, Tony Pisanelli

21.   Planning Techniques for Estimating Ground Water       237
     Impacts of On-Site Systems - Carol Lurie, Elizabeth
     Beardsley

22.   Road Salting Impacts in Massachussetts - James        255
     Barrett, Matthew Dillis

23.   Creation of Ground Water Protection Programs: A       257
     EPA/Local Partnership at Work - Stuart Kerzner

24.   A Computerized Data Management System for Wellfield   271
     Protection - Thomas Jenkins,. Guy Jameson

25.   Ground Water Resource Based Mapping:  Nashua          287
     Regional Planning Area, New Hampshire - David Delaney

26.   A Model Community Program for Private Wells - Roy     293
     Jeffrey, Karen Filchak

27.   Board of Health Protection for Private Wells and      303
     Ground Waters - Marcle Benes (this paper was
     presented by William Domey on behalf of Ms. Benes)

28.   Private Well Protection in Coastal Sand and Gravel    309
     Aquifers - William Kerfoot

-------
                PROTECTING  QRQUND WATER FROM THE
                 BOTTOM UP«  LOCAL RESPONSES  TO
                      WELLHEAD PROTECTION

       The  Sheraton-Tar a Hotel,  Danvers,  Massachusetts
                       October 2-3, 3.989

                              AGENDA
SUNDAY,  Qsisb.gr. I

 6:00 -  7:30  Hospitality

MONDAY,  October £

 8 : 00 -  8:45  Speaker s / Mod er at or Br ea k fast
 8 : 00 -  9 : 00  Reg i st r at i on
 9 : 0 0 —  9:2 0  Open i n g R e m a r k s 2

          Paul  Roberts, President,  UIPC Research Foundation
          Raymond Raposa, Executive Director,  NtlWWA
          David A. Fierra,  Director, Water Management Division,  EPA

SESSION  I  ~ Setting t he Stage for. Ground  Water  Pro.tl.llil.ojl Programs

Moderator  - Jerome J. Hssaley^ Chief,  Ground Water Management  and
             Water Supply Branch, U.S. EPA Region I

 9: 2O —  9:40   The Wellhead Protection Programs  A National  and
                Regional Overview - STEVEN ROY,  Office of Ground
                W a t e r P r o t e c t i o n , LJ . S „ E! F' A H e a d q LA a r t e r' s

 9: 40 -  10:00  Developing  and Passing State- wide Aquifer Protection
                Programs Connecticut!!  A Case Study - ERIC BROWN,
                M u. r t h a. , C u 1 1 i n a ,  R i c h t e r ?< P i n n e y

1 0 : 0 0 -  1 0 : 2. 0  W a 1 p o 1 e B o a r d o f  H e a 1 1 h s G r o u n d  W a t e r P r o t e c t i o n
                Program Implementation - ROBIN CHAPPELL, Walpole
                Board of Health

10:20 ••-  10:30  Discussion
10:30 -  10:45
SESSION  II  - Cr ea^t i_n_g RecLi.OQ.aL arid. L2£.§.L  til.J2.yjld. Water.. Pr.og.rams

Moderator  - Robert E. Mondoxa,  Chief, Ground  Water Management
             S e •:: t i o n , U.S.  E F1 A R e g i o n  I

1 0 : 4 5 -  1 1 : 0 5  C a s e S t u d y  o f R e g i o n a 1 E f f o r t s  We? 1 1 h e a d D e 1 i n e a t i o n
                as a Tool  for Fostering Regional Cooperation  —
                MARILYN COHEN,  North Kingstown  Planning Department,
                Timothy Brown,  Kent County Water Authority
                                   (i ')

-------
11:05 - 11:25  Model  for  Rural  Communities to Assess Threats  to
               Their  Ground  Water  Quality - LYNN RUBINSTEIN,
               Franklin County  Planning Department

11:25 - 11:45  The FoxCborouqh)  Suardinq the Aquifer Coops  Local
               Control at  Work  - KIMBERLY NQAKE, SEA Consultants

11:45 - 12:15  Ground  Water  Protection Evolutions Acton's  Experience
               - DUNCAN WOOD, Goldberg-Zed no & Assoc., Ronald Bartl,
               Acton  Town  Planner

12: 15 - 12:30  DifflCUlBtttiOn
12:30 - Is 45   Lunch  on Own

SESSION III - Water Ut i 1 i t i es'  Experience i,n, Gr oun.d Water  Protection

Moderator ~ Savos D«no«,  Superintendent, Littleton Water Department

 1:45 - 2:05  Easton's Experience  and the Canoe River Aquifer-
              Advisory Committee - WAYNE SOUTHWORTH, Easton Water
              Department

 2:05 ~ 2:20  Wellhead Protection  for Public Drinking Water Wells  in
              N. Windham,  Maine -  DANA PERKINS, Portland Water
              District

 2s 20 •- 2:40  Bridgeport  Hydraulic Co. Aquifer Protection  Plan  -
              MARK JOHNSON,  Bridgeport Hydraulic Company

 2:40 - 3:00  Aquifer  Protection Through Large-Scale Computer
              Modeling, West field, Massachusetts - DAVID EDSON,
              D LI f r e s n e—H e n r y C o m p a n y

 3:00 - 3:15  Dins CUM ion
 3:15 -- 3: 30
SESSION IV - Delineation  of  Recharge Areas to. Water Supply  We 1,1s,

Moderator - Michael Frimpter,  Chief,  Water Resources Division,  U.S.
            Geological Survey,  Boston,  Massachusetts

 3:30 •-• 3:50  Determining  the  Area of Contribution to a Well field:
              A Case Study and  Methodology for Wellhead Protection  -
              JAMES QRISWOLD,  Jack Donohue, BCI Seonetics

3:50 - 4:10   The Use of  Time  of  Travel  in Zone of Contribution
              Delineation  and  Aquifer Contamination Warning  -•-  JAMES
              HALL, U.S.   Geological  Survey

 4:10 	4:30  Ground Water Modeling and  Particle Tracking Analysis
              of Recharge  Areas to Public Water Supply Wells in
              Stratified  Drift  Aquifers  ~ PAUL BARLOW, U.S.
              Geological  Survey
                                 Cii >

-------
 4:30 - 4:45   Di»eu*«ion
 4:45 p.m.     Session Adjournment

                 GROUND WATER PROTECTION VIDEO SESSION

7s30 p.m.   A  selection of videotapes on ground  water protection
            will  be shown at this time

1 •   " The Power  to Protect a  TJie Local Role in. ground  Water
Protect ion " .   1989.   A 25 minute documentary about  four  communities
which have  gone through the process of developing ground water
protection  programs.   This program, which is sponsored by U.S. EPA.,
Massachusetts  Audubon Society,  New England Water Works Association,
and others, will  be unveiled at this time.

2.   "Your  W«t«?r ,  Your Li fa".  1988.  A 30 minute program on  the
importance  of  community awareness in ground water protection.
Produced by the Public Interest Video Network, Washington,  D.C.
3.  "The CI ean  Water  Gam®" .   1989.  A 10 minute  video  describing the
importance of developing a state clean water strategy.   Produced by
the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control  Commission,
Boston .

4.  "Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. . .Little  Time Bombm Ticking":
1987.  A 25 minute  program about the LUST problem,  by  the
Connecticut Department  of Environmental Protection, Hartford.

5-  "The Planning Pro.ce, tiff for Local Ground Water  Protection"-   1988.
This 25 minute  video  describes the process used  by  the? community of
La Moine, Maine to  develop a ground water protection program.
Produced by the Maine State Planning Office.
SESSION  I  ~   Con t ami nant Source Inventory and Risk  A s s e s s m e ri t

Moderator - David  Edson,  P.E., Def resne-Heriry, Inc.

 8:30 —  8:50   Role  of  Local  Gover rimentsi n Implementing a Class V —
               Underground Injection Control Program  •-• FRANCOISE
               BRASIER,  Chief,  UIC Branch, Office  of  Drinking Water,
               EPA  Headquarters,  Washington, DC

 8:50 -  9:10   Development of Aquifer Protection Zones and Evaluation
               of Contamination Potential in the Town of  Chelmsford,
               Massachusetts  Water Supply Wells -  DONALD  W.  PODSEN,
               Charles  Myette,  Wehran Engineering

 9:10 -  9:30   Determining the Development Potential  Within Wellhead
               Protection  Areas and Resulting  Impacts from Nitrogen
               Loading  •-•• SCOTT HORSLEY, Jon Witten, Mark  Wilson,
               H o r s 1 e y  Witt e n H e g e m a n n , Inc.
                                 ( i i i )

-------
9:30 - 9:50   Evaluation  of  Local  Regulatory Efforts  in  Identifying
              and Controlling  the  Threat of Underground  Fuel  Storage
              Tanks - CHARLOTTE  8TIEFEL, George Heufelder,
              Barnstable  County  Health Department

 9:50 - 10:05  DiflCUWliion
10:05 - 10:20  Break

SESSION II - Contaminant  Source  Inventory, and Risk. Assessment
             Cont i lined

Moderator - Jeffrey S. Lynn, UIPC,  Technical Director

10:20 ~- 1O:40  Federal-Local Partnerships for Implementing  the Class
               V Program:  Two Case Studies -- JOHN MALLECK,  Susan
               Osofsky, U.S. EPA,  Region II

10:40 -- lls 00  The UIC Class IV-V  Well Survey in Maine,  a Multi-
               Faceted Approach  to Inventory, Assessment, and
               Compliance -  MARY RUDD JAMES, Maine Department of
               Environmental Protection, Tony Pisanelli, U.S.  EPA
               Region I

11:00 - 11s20  Planning Techniques for Estimating Ground Water
               Impacts"of  Gn-Site  Systems - CAROL LURIE, ELIZABETH
               BEARDSLEY,  Camp Dresser ?< McKee,  Inc.

11:20 - 11:40  Road Salting  Impacts in Massachusetts  - JAMES
               BARRETT, Matthew  Dill is,  Mormandeau Engineering

11:40 - 11:55  D i sc uss i on
11:55 •••- 1: 15   Lunch

SESSION III - GejDgjraj2.hJcja_l Illfj^ODJliiGIl Systems and Data  Man.aqe.ment
              111 Ground Water_  Programs

Moderator - Gregory P. Charest,  GIS Coordinator, Information
            Man ag ement Br anch, U.S.  EPA Reg ion I

 1:15 - 1:35  Creation of  Ground Water Protection Programs:   A EPA/
              Local Partnership  at  Work - STUART KERZNER, U.S.  EPA
              Region III

 1 s35 -1:55  A C omp u teri zed Da t a  M an a g em en t System for  We11f i e1d
              Protection  - THOMAS  JENKINS,  Guy Jamesson, Malcolm
              Pirnie, Inc.

 1:55 - 2:15  Ground Water Resource Based Mapping;  Nashua  Regional
              Planning Area, Mew Hampshire - DAVID DELANEY, u".S.  EPA
              Region I

 2:15 - 2:30  Discussion
 2:30 -•- 2:45  Break
                                 C i v)

-------
SESSION  IV  ~  Ground Water Protection and.  Private Wei Is

Moderator ~ Michael Rapacx, Program Manager,  Division of Water-
            Sup p 1 y y Mas s a c h u s e 11 s D e p a r t m e n t  o f  E n v :i. r o n m e n t a 1
            Quali ty

2s 45 - 3:O5   A  Model  Community Program for  Private Wells •-•• ROY
               JEFFREY,  Karen Filchak, University of Connecticut-
               Cooper at i ve Ex t en si on

 3:05 --  3:25   Board of  Health Protection  for  Private Wells and
               Ground Waters - WILLIAM DOMEY,  P.E., Marcia Benes,
               Massachusetts Association of Health Board

 3:25 ~  3:45   Private Well Protection in  Coastal Sand and Gravel
               Aquifers  - WILLIAM KERFOQT, K-V Associates, Inc.

 3:45 -  4:05   Massachusetts Private Well  Guidelines - CYNTHIA
               TOMLINSON, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
               Quali ty

 4:05 -  4:20   Discussion

 4:20 -  4:30   Wrapup and Adjourn
                                   Cv)

-------
       THE WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM -
              NATIONAL OVERVIEW
       Steven Roy, US. EPA,
       Office of Ground-water Protection
       Washington, D.C.  20460
       The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) formalized the concept of State Wellhead
Protection (WHP) Programs to protect wellhead areas to
public water supply wells from contamination.  The Act
contains requirements for the minimum program elements
necessary to develop and implement a WHP program.

       June 19, 1989 was the statutory deadline for
submission of state WHP programs.  This paper presents
a summary of those programs that have been submitted
and provides a status report on the review and
approval process.  Specific state examples are
presented to demonstrate innovative approaches to each
of the program elements.  Implementation issues and
the role of the local government are explored.
Transfer of WHP concepts from other areas of the
country to the northeastern states is provided.

-------
                            Steven P- Roy
                       Source Management Unit

                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                  Office of Ground-Water Protection
                           401 M St., S.W.
                       Washington, B.C. 20460
    Steven Roy is currently the manager of the Source Management
Unit in EPA's Office of ground-Water Protection.   His
responsibilities include overseeing the management of the Wellhead
Protection Program and developing technical assistance materials
for state and local officials on ground-water protection.

    Prior to joining EPA,  Mr. Roy worked for eight years as
Ground-Water Program Manager and Water Management Director for the
State of Massachusetts.  There he developed numerous ground-water
protection programs including the Aquifer Land Acquisition Program
and a water allocation/permit program.

    Also, Mr. Roy worked for the Berkshire County Regional Planning
Commission in Pittsfield,  Massachusetts as an environmental
planner.

    Mr. Roy has a B. S. in Forestry from the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst and an M.  S.  in Water Resources from the
State University of New York, Syracuse,  N.  Y.

-------
           DEVELOPING AND PASSING STATEWIDE WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAMS

                             CONNECTICUT:  A CASE STUDY


                                   Eric J.  Brown

                        Murtha,  Cullina, Richter and Pinney
                                     CItyPlace
                          185 Asylum Street, P.O. Box 3197
                            Hartford,  Connecticut 06103
     Designing a comprehensive  statewide wellhead protection program which is
effective, workable, and politically feasible poses serious challenges to any
state.  The process  is particularly difficult for those regions such as the
northeast where the  general public has yet to perceive of severe shortages or
widespread contamination of their drinking water supplies.  Yet proactive
approaches to address the growing pressures on ground-water supplies can be
successfully developed and are  clearly preferable to the potential health and
financial costs associated with reactive approaches.  One example of such a
proactive approach Is the aquifer protection legislation recently adopted in
Connecticut.

     There are many  methods and approaches which a state may use to develop
ground-water legislation.  In Connecticut, a legislative task force supported by a
committed Department of Environmental Protection and spearheaded by strong
legislative leadership proved to be an effective mechanism for generating the
structure of their aquifer protection program.  The open and cooperative process
which the task force utilized in formulating recommendations was a major factor in
the program's ultimate success  in the legislature.  Other important, yet distinct
processes included forging the  task force recommendations into sound legislative
proposals, designing a legislative strategy, and shepherding the proposals through
an often treacherous legislative process.

     Although the obstacles to  developing comprehensive, statewide wellhead
protection programs  are many, the unanimous votes in both chambers of the
Connecticut General  Assembly offer strong evidence that such hurdles can be
overcome.
I.   Introduction

     Clean drinking water is generally considered to be a basic right of every
citizen and is a resource which most take for granted.  How is a concept so
fundamental and seemingly uncomplicated as clean drinking water becoming a
controversial issue giving rise to a growing number of angry well owners, heated
local debates, and environmental lawsuits?  The answer, at least in part, is
uncertainty about how clean is "clean" coupled with a philosophy of "don't tread
on me."  The federal government continues to release updated standards on what
constitutes clean drinking water.  These standards are, for the most part, a list

-------
of six syllable chemical names with concentrations which are difficult to
envision, subject to change,  and meaningless to the average citizen.
Additionally, "clean" is a relative term whose meaning and significance varies
with the individual.  Most of us remember our dad or uncle taking a big gulp from
a canteen or bottle of soda and passing it over to us.  Some of us heartily
grabbed the container taking an equally big swig without giving a single thought
to germs or bacteria.  For others,  the unsterilized bottle neck held the seeds
from which the world's next great plague would surely sprout.

     Coupled with the issue of what constitutes "clean" drinking water is the
problem that protecting ground-water supplies means protecting specific areas of
land which lie above it.  Most of us are willing to send money to help storm
victims we have never met, pitch in and work for weeks to help a neighbor rebuild
a house or a barn lost to fire, perhaps even risk our lives to save a friend,
neighbor or even a stranger facing some imminent peril.  Just  don't try to tell us
how we can and cannot use our land,  particularly when our neighbor may not have to
abide by the same constraints.  Upon consideration of the societal notions of
private property along with public uncertainty regarding the severity of the
threat to their drinking water supplies, the concept of clean  groundwater and its
protection assumes a very couplex nature with a strong emotional component.

     In light of these underlying tensions,  how can a local, state, or federal
government effectively assure its citizens a plentiful supply  of safe drinking
water to which they have a fundamental right?  The answer is they cannot--at least
not unilaterally.  Ultimately, the people must decide how much government
regulation they are willing to endure in ensuring themselves a drinking water
supply which will remain reasonably plentiful and safe.  Realizing this fact, many
have advocated a grass roots  educational approach to protecting groundwater
drinking water supplies.  Unfortunately, educating the public  about one specific
issue in today's complex society generally requires either a tremendous amount of
time and money or a major catastrophe.   Attempting to address  an issue with the
complexity of ground-water protection in a proactive,  grass roots fashion could
involve a prohibitive time span as  growing development, population, and land
prices place increasing pressures on drinking water supplies from groundwater.

     The remainder of this paper offers an alternative to a purely grass roots
approach to generating wellhead protection legislation.  The contents are based on
the experiences of Connecticut which recently passed broad,  flexible, and
effective wellhead protection legislation at the state level using a team
approach.  It is hoped that some of  the material herein will be useful for
individuals and organizations seeking to institute state groundwater protection
measures as well as to communities working to protect their ground-water drinking
water supplies at the local or regional level.


II.   Team Approach

     A.    Legislator

          The most important  person  in  the process of developing and passing
     ground-water legislation is  likely to be the legislator who will ultimately
     be  the chief sponsor  of  a wellhead protection bill.   This  person acts as
     coach and general  manager of a  widely diverse team.   The  legislator must be
     willing to place wellhead protection at the top of his  pr  her priority  list
     for  perhaps  several legislative sessions and therefore  will probably
     represent a  district  having  a major interest in protecting ground-water

-------
resources.  Because of their critical role in the process, only legislators
who are committed to the successful development of wellhead protection
legislation are likely to be successful.  It is also advantageous for this
role to be filled by a member of the majority party and of the legislative
committee responsible for environmental matters as this is the first
legislative committee which will have to approve the wellhead protection
bill.  While neither extensive experience nor possession of a legislative
leadership position is necessary to achieve a successful result, political
savvy and having the respect of their legislative colleagues are strong
benefits.

B.   State Agency

     A second critical player in developing successful wellhead protection
legislation is the state agency responsible for environmental protection.
The agency must be willing and able to actively support the project by
providing personnel and technical assistance as required.  In most instances,
the agency will have extensive experience in resource management as well as
knowledge of what types of protection programs have proven to be workable and
effective.  This experience and knowledge are vital to the ultimate success
of the project.

C.   Task Force

     Once the legislator and the environmental agency are in a position to go
forward with the project, the most efficient way to proceed may be to have
the agency and the legislator work together in formulating legislation.
However, this method will probably fail as it likely is too far removed from
a purely grass roots approach.  Input from a wider variety of interested
parties is required.  Accordingly, the legislator and agency should work to
establish a legislative body charged with studying and making recommendations
regarding wellhead protection legislation.  Such a body is not only necessary
to flush out and address the many complex issues involved in wellhead
protection, but also lends credibility to the ultimate proposals.  In
Connecticut, the General Assembly allocated funds for the creation of a
legislative task force to study and make recommendations for protecting the
state's public drinking water supplies drawn from groundwater.  The task
force provided the forum for identifying issues, along with developing and
evaluating proposals.  So critical was Connecticut's Aquifer Protection Task
Force that a closer look at the structure and operation of such an entity is
merited.

     1.  Composition

         The goal of a task force is ultimately to advise the legislature on
     how to address the issue of protecting groundwater resources used for
     drinking water.  Accordingly, the legislator who will be the bill's
     chief sponsor should chair the task force.   If feasible under
     legislative rules, a colleague from the other legislative chamber (House
     of Representatives or Senate) of the General Assembly should act as co-
     chair of the task force.   This is an important consideration as
     successful legislation will require a "champion" to politically usher it
     through many potential pitfalls in both chambers of the General
     Assembly.

-------
    Other House and Senate members, both Republicans and Democrats,
should also be named to the task force.  As discussed below, task force
legislators will likely be the most knowledgeable sources regarding the
legislation on the floor of the General Assembly.  Having informed
legislators in each political "camp" will be important as the bill makes
its way through the legislative process.

    In addition to legislative members, the state Environmental
Protection Agency should be represented at the highest level possible.
Having a highly-ranked and experienced agency representative on the task
force will help assure that the maximum possible amount of Agency
resources will be available to the task force and will also reflect the
level of commitment which the Agency holds for wellhead protection.

    The remaining members of the task force should be chosen as
carefully as the co-chairs.  It is important to have members who are
knowledgeable, committed to the project, and have flexible schedules
which will allow them to attend meetings arranged on short notice or on
an inconsistent time basis.  Most critical to the selection process is
to ensure that many different perspectives are represented on the task
force.  A valid approach in this selection process would be to list all
the broad interest groups which one would typically expect to oppose
land use control and increased commercial or industrial regulation.
These groups are generally well organized and often politically
powerful.  It is therefore imperative that they be brought into the
process at the outset and that their concerns are understood and
addressed early.  To this list should be added local, state, and
possibly federal governmental representatives whose agencies and
constituents might ultimately be affected by the recommendations of the
task force.  The task force membership should be geared to represent as
many of these listed individuals, groups, or agencies as possible.  Care
should be taken not to underestimate the importance of the agency which
handles state finances.  Comprehensive wellhead protection is not free
and the task force needs to have an indication of the state's fiscal
response to its developing proposals.

    Examples of those groups represented on the Connecticut Aquifer
Protection Task Force include:  Connecticut Business and Industry
Association, Home Builders Association, town planners,  local first
selectmen, environmental lawyers, private and public water utilities
along with representatives of the state Departments of Agriculture,
Health Services, and Environmental Protection.

    The final critical element in assembling a task force is full-time
staffing.  There are a multitude of administrational demands in
operating an effective and efficient task force for which the members
themselves cannot possibly take responsibility.  Specific
responsibilities and suggestions on effectively staffing a task force
are discussed below.

2.  Operation and Function

    In Connecticut,  Task Force meetings were conducted in formal
surroundings with room for interested citizens who wished to attend.
This setting provided an excellent forum for raising issues and
discussing well researched and concisely presented proposals.   However,

-------
          the meetings proved  to be  a  rather  ineffective forum for debating
          specific problems  in detail.  Members often had difficulty with
          effectively debating a point of contention with another task force
          member who could be  20 feet  away and only visible above the circular
          committee dais  from  the  neck up while two dozen other heads looked on.
          For this reason, the meetings of the Connecticut Task Force were
          generally designed to raise  issues  and review specific proposals on how
          major issues might be addressed.

              Once the major skeletal  elements of the protection program were
          defined, the co-chairmen of  the Connecticut Task Force requested that
          members volunteer  to serve on subcommittees formed to address specific
          issues associated  with each  element of the program.  Examples included
          the agriculture, water softener, land acquisition, regulation, and
          mapping subcommittees.   The  subcommittees generally consisted of 4-7
          persons and often  included non-Task Force members as well.  Groups of
          this size were  able  to work  informally around small tables, over coffee
          or lunch and hammer  out  innovative  and mutually agreeable proposals.
          Each subcommittee  was responsible for assembling and presenting a report
          to the task force  outlining  their discussions and proposals.  Each task
          force member was then given  an opportunity to review these reports prior
          to discussing them collectively at  a subsequent task force meeting.  The
          subcommittee approach proved very successful in Connecticut and was a
          critical element in  efficiently achieving a consensus on detailed
          solutions to specific problems.

          3.  Use of Staff

              Having at least  one  full-time employee to staff the task force is an
          important element  in maximizing its efficiency and productivity.  The
          main role of the staff is  to act as a facilitator.  Specifically, staff
          should organize and  monitor  task force, subcommittee, and other
          meetings; conduct  research on issues related to the task force's goals;
          maintain and utilize an  updated mailing list of interested individuals
          and organizations  keeping  them informed on the progress of the task
          force; be available  to quickly address crises as they arise; and
          generally act as a vehicle of communication for the task force co-
          chairs.  It is  important that the staff be able to work well with all
          parties involved in  the  process including task force members, lobbyists,
          and other legislative staff  involved with researching and writing
          environmental legislation.   The staff may also play a significant role
          in writing and  editing reports which will be used to communicate the
          work and proposals of the  task force to legislators, lobbyists, interest
          groups, state and  local  government  officials, and interested citizens.

IV.  Other Resources

     The task force should be  prepared to take maximum advantage of all the
resources at its disposal.   This section highlights three examples of resources
which played important roles in assisting Connecticut's Aquifer Protection Task
Force.

-------
A.   Lobbyists

     Lobbyists are often portrayed as legislative mercenaries ready to carry
any flag for a price.   In the vast majority of cases, this is not only a
false perception, but can be a terminal mistake for many legislative
proposals.  Lobbyists should rather be viewed as potentially vital assets to
the task force in developing successful legislation as they represent a
valuable source of both technical and political knowledge.  Additionally,
lobbyists who are incorporated into the process of developing proposals, will
often feel an extra incentive to work for the legislation ultimately written.
When the bill actually makes its way to the General Assembly, lobbyists can
be valuable foot soldiers responding quickly and competently to sudden
circumstances which may threaten the legislation.  Again, it is important to
emphasize that having the environmental, conservation, and water company
lobbyists on your side is very helpful.  The proposals have a significantly
better chance of surviving, however, if you can also count organizations
which represent developers, municipalities and business organizations as your
allies.  A bill which protects clean drinking water and has the support of
such organizations is very difficult to vote against.  However, such support
is likely to be achieved only if representatives of these organizations are
brought into the process early and given every opportunity to participate in
the development of the proposals.

B.   Municipalities

     Early on in the process of developing proposals, Connecticut's Aquifer
Protection Task Force arranged a trip for themselves and interested
individuals to visit two towns facing different challenges related to
protecting drinking water supplies from groundwater.  The group heard
presentations from local officials regarding their efforts to develop
ground-water protection measures and the frustrations they encountered during
this process.  Present and future wellfields were visited on tours of each
town hosted by local planning, utility, and conservation officials.  During
these tours, different types of land uses near the wellfields were observed
in order to instill an appreciation for the real life issues which face
individual towns attempting to unilaterally protect their groundwater.  The
trip proved valuable not only as an education experience, but also helped to
established a close relationship between the task force and the towns.  These
communities constituted a continually expanding resource of knowledge gained
through experience which the task force could consult with as their work
proceeded.

C.   Private Consultants

     Inviting a private consulting firm to make a presentation to the task
force may serve several purposes.   If skillfully constructed, such a
presentation can help improve the technical understanding of task force
members on the scientific aspects of protecting groundwater.  Additionally,
such an event can help to establish a working relationship whereby the firm
could be called on informally for technical advice and expertise.

     In Connecticut,  task force members needed to expand their understanding
of groundwater cleanup technology in order to weigh this as an option in
designing a wellhead protection program.  The presentation, along with

-------
     follow-up  discussions,  allowed  the  task force to make an Informed decision on
     this matter  and  to  effectively  communicate their decision in the annual
     report.


V.   Annual Report

     For each legislative  session, the task force should prepare an annual report
to the  legislature.   This  should be  done even  if not required as such a report
documents the work  and proposals of  the  task force for the year and helps to
define  the challenges yet  to be faced.   Most importantly, a well written report
will enhance the  reputation  of the task  force  and lend credibility to its
proposals.

     There are  several issues to consider regarding the report.  Most importantly,
the report should be  well  written, contain clear and understandable visuals which
assist  the reader in  synthesizing the scientific and socio-political elements
involved with wellhead protection, and be readable to a wide range of citizens.
It is fair to assume  that  many readers will not even know what a wellhead or
aquifer is.  Protecting  these resources, even  at the state level, will involve
local officials and board  members many of whom are volunteers with little or no
understanding of  groundwater and the complex issues involved in protecting it.
Therefore, the  report should start the reader  at this elementary level and
gradually lead  them to an  understanding  of the issues considered by the task force
and conclude with an  explanation of  the  ideas  proposed to address these issues.
It is a good idea to  have  several persons unfamiliar with the work of the task
force, but experienced in  writing public information documents, review the draft
and make editorial  suggestions.  In  Connecticut, a draft version of the 1989
report was widely circulated utilizing the mailing list mentioned earlier.
Additionally, a public hearing was held  by the task force solely to gather
testimony regarding the  draft report.  A copy  of the finished report should be
sent to each state  legislator in order to raise their awareness of groundwater
issues, the work  of the  task force,  and  the specific proposals.


VI.  Legislation

     Writing the  actual wellhead protection legislation involves a substantially
different process than that  of writing the task force report.  Here the emphasis
must be on technical  correctness.  As the proposals are likely to be broad in
scope and detailed  in nature, writing the bill will be an arduous and painstaking
process for those unfamiliar with the intricacies of the proposals.   For this
reason,  it is important to have the  legislative staff responsible for writing
environmental legislation  fully informed on the progress of the task force and its
evolving proposals.    The more involved these staff people are with the task force,
the more skillfully and efficiently they will be able to draft language which is
readable,  understandable,  and technically accurate.   Furthermore, as the
legislation makes its way  through the legislative process, it will likely be
subjected to close  scrutiny and intense  debate making some changes to the bill
inevitable.   Having a  staff attorney who is fully familiar with all the subtleties
of the bill will permit these changes to be made with maximum efficiency and in
such a way as to minimize  their impact on the carefully constructed framework of
the legislation developed by the task force over months or years.

-------
VII. Legislative Process

     Once the task force proposals have been synthesized into a legislative bill,
the final major challenge is shepherding the bill through the legislative process.
Much of the success in meeting this challenge will depend upon the political sense
and savvy of the chief legislative sponsor who must develop a strategy to guide
the bill through a legislative process full of pitfalls and trap doors.

     The overall goal of the legislative strategy should be to anticipate problems
before they arise and to have all of the various resources cultivated during the
task force deliberations on hand and solidly prepared to address, in an efficient
and effective manner, any challenges which may threaten the bill.

     In Connecticut, part of this strategy consisted of writing the legislation as
a House bill.  In doing so, the larger chamber, composed of a wider range of
backgrounds and perspectives, had the first opportunity to debate the bill.  If an
agreement could be reached which would allow the bill to pass by a comfortable
margin in the House, it was hoped there would be a greater opportunity for
successful consideration of the bill in the generally less volatile Senate.

     A fundamental consideration in developing a legislative strategy is that not
every member of the legislature need be an expert on the details of the bill.
Those legislators who served on the task force will be the primary "experts"
within the legislature along with members of the Environment Committee to a lesser
extent.  These legislators will provide the first line of defense, on both sides
of  the isle, against any technical questioning or sudden attacks on the bill
occurring on the floor of either chamber.  Assuming that not every member of both
the task force and the Environment Committee will be strong advocates of the bill,
it will be important for those who do support the bill to work actively on its
behalf.  Off the floor, the corps of lobbyists who participated in developing the
bill should be kept up-to-date on any challenges or changes to the bill during
legislative debate.  As major allies of your efforts, lobbyists must be totally
familiar with at least those portions of the bill which affect their clients in
order to function as effective advocates as the tense hours of legislative debate
unfold.

     Along with legislators opposed to the bill, procedural pitfalls of the
legislature may pose a threat to the bill's survival and should not be
underestimated.  Task force staff should have a good rapport with the staff of
legislative leadership and where possible, with the legislators themselves.
Keeping track of deadlines, filing requirements, and other procedural formalities
is extremely important as even a small oversight in this area can extinguish the
bill's chances even to be considered by the legislature.

     Eventually, debate on the bill will come to a close.   Months, perhaps years
of preparation, attention to detail, and dozens of concerted attempts to address
everyone's concerns will stand against the ultimate legislative test.   A certain
sense of accomplishment is justified in having reached this point.  Hundreds of
bills will have died in committee,  been amended beyond recognition, or are doomed
as they lie dormant on the legislative calendar.

     In Connecticut, most of the major concerns regarding the bill were identified
prior to the start of debate on the floor of the House.   The cooperative efforts
of legislators, lobbyists,  and staff allowed these concerns to be quickly
                                        10

-------
addressed with clarifying language and reasonable compromises.   Formal debate on
the floor was principally composed of answering questions for the record in order
to provide a clear documentation of legislative intent.

     Ultimately, HB 6594 "An Act Concerning Aquifer Protection Areas ..."
unanimously passed the House of Representatives 137-0 and quickly won unanimous
approval in the Senate after a predictably short debate.
                                    11

-------
          Substitute House Bill No. 6594

              PUBLIC ACT NO. 89-305
AN  ACT  CONCERNING AQUIFER PROTECTION AREAS,  AND
LOCAL FLOOD AND EROSION CONTROL BOARDS.
    Be  it  enacted  by the Senate  and  House  of
Representatives in General Assembly convened:
    Section 1.  (NEW) The  general  assembly finds
that  aquifers  are an essential natural  resource
and a major source of public  drinking water; that
reliance  on  groundwater  will  increase  because
opportunities for development of new surface water
supplies are diminishing due to the rising cost of
land and  increasingly  intense  development; that
numerous    drinking   water   wells   have   been
contaminated by certain  land  use  activities and
other wells are now threatened; that protection of
existing and future  groundwater  supplies demands
greater action by state and local government; that
a   groundwater   protection    program   requires
identification  and  delineation  of  present  and
future water supplies in stratified drift aquifers
supplying    drinking   water   wells;   that    a
comprehensive and  coordinated  system of land use
regulations  should be established  that  includes
state regulations protecting public drinking water
wells  located in stratified drift aquifers;  that
municipalities  with  existing  or proposed public
drinking  water wells in stratified drift aquifers
should designate aquifer protection  agencies; and
that the state should provide technical assistance
and education programs  on  aquifer  protection to
ensure a plentiful supply of public drinking water
for present and future generations.
    Sec. 2. (NEW) For the purposes of this act:
    (1) "Regulated  activity"  means any action or
process    the   commissioner   of   environmental
protection determines,  by  regulations adopted in
accordance  with section 3 of this act, to involve
the production, handling, use, storage or disposal
of material that may pose a threat to groundwater,
including structures and appurtenances utilized in
conjunction with the regulated activity;
    (2)  "Commissioner" means the commissioner  of
environmental protection;
    (3) "Well  field"  means  the  immediate  area
surrounding a public drinking water supply well or
group of wells;

-------
          Substitute House Bill No. 6594

    (4) "Area  of  contribution"  means  the  area
where  the  water  table is  lowered  due  to  the
pumping of a well and  groundwater  flows directly
to the well;
    (5) "Recharge area" means the area from  which
groundwater   flows   directly   to   the  area of
contribution;
    (6)  "Aquifer"  means a  geologic   formation,
group of formations  or  part  of a formation that
contains sufficient saturated, permeable materials
to yield significant  quantities of water to wells
and springs;
    (7) "Affected water company" means any  public
or private  water  company  owning  or operating a
public   water  supply  well  within  an   aquifer
protection area;
    (8) "Stratified drift"  means  a predominantly
sorted  sediment laid down by or in meltwater from
glaciers and includes sand,  gravel, silt and clay
arranged in layers;
    (9)    "Municipality"    means    any    town,
consolidated town and city,  consolidated town and
borough, city or borough;
    (10) "Aquifer protection area" means any  area
consisting of well  fields,  areas of contribution
and recharge areas, identified on maps approved by
the commissioner  of    environmental   protection
pursuant   to   sections  22a-354b   to   22-354d,
inclusive, of the general  statutes, as amended by
this  act,  within which land uses  or  activities
shall be required  to   comply   with  regulations
adopted  pursuant to section 8 of this act by  the
municipality where the aquifer  protection area is
located; and
    (11)   "Best  management  practice"  means   a
practice,   procedure   or   facility   designed to
prevent,  minimize  or control  spills,  leaks  or
other releases that pose a threat to groundwater.
    Sec.  3.  (NEW) (a) On or before July 1,  1990,
the commissioner of environmental protection shall
adopt regulations in accordance with chapter 54 of
the  general  statutes for land  use  controls  in
aquifer protection  areas.   The regulations shall
establish   (1) best management practice  standards
for existing regulated activities located entirety
or  in part within aquifer protection areas and  a
schedule for compliance of nonconforming regulated
activities   with   such   standards,    (2)   best
management practice standards for and prohibitions
of  regulated  activities proposed to  be  located
entirely or in  part   within  aquifer  protection
                          13

-------
          Substitute House Bill No. 6594

    (b)  The soil and water conservation  district
where the aquifer protection area is located shall
establish  and  coordinate  a  technical  team  to
develop each  plan.   Such  team  shall  include a
representative  of the municipality in  which  the
land is located  and  a   representative   of  any
affected  water  company  upon  request  of   such
municipality or  water  company.   In developing a
plan,   a   district   shall  consult   with   the
commissioners  of   environmental  protection  and
agriculture,   the  college  of  agriculture   and
natural   resources    at    The   University   of
Connecticut,    the    Connecticut    Agricultural
Experiment Station, the soil conservation service,
the state agricultural and conservation  committee
and any other person or  agency the district deems
appropriate.
    (c)  The  plan shall  include a  schedule  for
implementation and shall  be  periodically updated
as required by the commissioner.  In developing  a
schedule  for  implementation,  the technical team
shall  consider  technical  and  economic  factors
including, but not limited to, the availability of
state  and federal funds.  Any person  engaged  in
agriculture in  substantial compliance with a plan
approved  under this section shall be exempt  from
regulations adopted under section 8 of this act by
a  municipality in which the land is located.   No
plan shall be  required  to  be  submitted  to the
commissioner  before July 1, 1991, or  six  months
after  completion of level B mapping where the farm
is located, whichever is later.
    (d)   On   or   before  July  1,   1990,   the
commissioner  of   environmental   protection,  in
consultation with  the commissioner of agriculture,
the United States  Soil  Conservation  Service, the
cooperative extension service at The University of
Connecticut and  the  council  for  soil and water
conservation,   shall   develop   regulations   in
accordance with chapter 54 of the general statutes
for    farm   resources  management  plans.    Such
regulations shall  include,  but not be limited to,
provisions  for  manure  management,  storage  and
handling of pesticides,  reduced use of pesticides
through pest management practices, integrated pest
management, fertilizer management and the location
of  underground  storage tanks.  In adopting  such
regulations,  the   commissioner   shall  consider
existing   state   and   federal   guidelines   or
regulations affecting  aquifers  and  agricultural
resources management.

-------
          Substitute House Bill No. 6594

    Sec.    7.    (NEW)  The  zoning   commission,
planning  commission   or   planning   and  zoning
commission  of each municipality with  an  aquifer
protection area shall delineate on any map showing
zoning  districts  prepared  in  accordance   with
chapter 124 or 126 of  the general statutes or any
special  act the boundaries of aquifer  protection
areas,   including   areas   of   contribution and
recharge  areas as shown on level A maps  approved
pursuant  to  section  22a-354c   of  the  general
statutes, as amended by section 22 of this act.
    Sec.  8.  (NEW) (a) Each municipality in which
an  aquifer  protection   area  is  located  shall
authorize   by  ordinance  an  existing  board  or
commission to act as  such  agency  not later than
three months after adoption by the commissioner  of
regulations for aquifer protection  areas pursuant
to  section  3  of this act and  approval  by  the
commissioner of mapping  of  areas of contribution
and recharge areas for wells located in stratified
drift aquifers  in  the  municipality  at  level B
pursuant   to  section  22a-354d  of  the  general
statutes.  The  ordinance  authorizing  the agency
shall   determine  the  number  of   members   and
alternate members, the  length of their terms, the
method  of  selection and removal, and the  manner
for filling  vacancies.   No  member  or alternate
member  of  such agency shall participate  in  any
hearing or decision of  such agency of which he  is
a  member upon any matter in which he is  directly
or   indirectly   interested   in   a  personal  or
financial     sense.     In    the    event     of
disqualification,  such  fact  shall be entered  on
the records of the agency and replacement shall  be
made from alternate members of an alternate to act
as  a member of such commission in the hearing and
determination of the particular  matter or matters
in which the disqualification arose.
    (b) Not more than six months after approval  by
the commissioner of  mapping  at level A, pursuant
to  section 22a-354d of the general statutes,   the
aquifer protection  agency  of the municipality  in
which such well is located shall adopt regulations
for aquifer protection.
    (c) At least one member of the agency or staff
of the agency shall be a person who has  completed
the course in technical training formulated by the
commissioner  pursuant to section 16 of this  act.
Failure to have  a  member  of the agency or staff
with training shall not affect the validity of any
action of  the  agency  and  shall  be grounds for
                        15

-------
          Substitute  House  Bill No.  6594

revocation  of  the  authority of the agency  under
section 13 of this act.
    Sec.  9.  (NEW)   (a)   The  aquifer  protection
agency  authorized by section 8 of this act shall,
by regulation, provide for  (1) the manner in which
the  boundaries of aquifer  protection areas  shall
be established  and   amended  or  changed, (2) the
form  for  an  application   to  conduct  regulated
activities  within  the   area,   (3)  notice  and
publication   requirements,   (4)   criteria   and
procedures for the  review  of applications and (5)
administration and enforcement.
    (b)  No regulations of  an  aquifer  protection
agency  shall  become  effective  or be established
until   after a public hearing in relation  thereto
is held by the agency at which parties in interest
and  citizens  shall  have  an  opportunity  to  be
heard.  Notice  of  the  time  and  place  of such
hearing shall be published in the form of a  legal
advertisement,   appearing    at  least twice in a
newspaper having a substantial circulation in  the
municipality  at  intervals  of  not less than two
days, the first not more than twenty-five days nor
less than fifteen days, and the last not less than
two days, before such hearing, and a copy of  such
proposed  regulation  shall   be filed in the office
of  the town, city or borough clerk, as  the  case
may be,   141   such   municipality,   for   public
inspection  at least ten days before such hearing,
and may be published  in  full  in  such paper.  A
copy of the notice and the proposed regulations or
amendments  thereto   shall   be   provided to the
commissioner of environmental protection, the town
clerk and any  affected  water  company  at  least
thirty-five   days  before  such  hearing.    Such
regulations  may  be  from  time  to time amended,
changed  or   repealed  after a public  hearing  in
relation  thereto is  held  by  the agency at which
parties  in   interest and citizens shall  have  an
opportunity to be heard and for which notice shall
be  published  in  the manner  specified  in  this
subsection.   Regulations or  changes therein shall
become  effective at such time as is fixed by  the
agency, provided  a  copy  of  such  regulation or
change  shall be filed in the office of the  town,
city  or  borough  clerk,   as  the  case  may be.
Whenever  an agency makes a change in  regulations,
it  shall  state upon  its records the reason why the
change  was   made.   All  petitions  submitted  in
writing and  in a  form  prescribed  by  the agency
requesting  a change in the regulations  shall  be
                            16

-------
          Substitute House Bill No. 6594

    (f) Any regulations adopted by an agency under
this section shall  not  be  effective  unless the
commissioner    of    environmental     protection
determines that  such  regulations  are reasonably
related  to the purpose of groundwater  protection
and not inconsistent  with the regulations adopted
pursuant  to section 3 of this act.  A  regulation
adopted  by  a  municipality  shall  not be deemed
inconsistent  if  such  regulation  establishes  a
greater level  of  protection.   The  commissioner
shall  provide written notification to the  agency
of approval or the reasons such regulations cannot
be  approved  within sixty days of receipt by  the
commissioner of  the  regulations  adopted  by the
agency.
    Sec.   10.   (NEW)  (a)  The  commissioner  of
environmental protection  or  any person aggrieved
by  any regulation, order, decision or action made
pursuant to sections 8  to  14, inclusive, of this
act,  by the commissioner or municipality,  within
fifteen days after publication of such regulation,
order,  decision  or  action  may  appeal  to  the
superior court for the judicial district where the
land  affected is located, and if located in  more
than one judicial  district,  to said court in any
such  judicial district, except if such appeal  is
from a contested case, as defined in section 4-166
of  the general statutes, such appeal shall be  in
accordance with the provisions of section 4-183 of
the  general  statutes and venue shall be  in  the
judicial  district   where   the  land affected is
located,  and if located in more than one judicial
district to  the  court   in   any  such  judicial
district.  Such appeal shall be made returnable to
said court in the same  manner  as that prescribed
for  civil actions brought to said court.   Notice
of such appeal shall  be  served  upon the aquifer
protection  agency  and  the  commissioner.    The
commissioner may appear  as  a party to any action
brought  by  any other person within  thirty  days
from the  date  such  appeal  is  returned  to the
court.   The  appeal shall state the reasons  upon
which  it  is   predicated   and  shall  not  stay
proceedings  on the regulation, order, decision or
action, but the  court  may,  on  application  and
after  notice,  grant a restraining  order.   Such
appeal  shall  have  precedence  in  the  order of
trial.
    (b)  The court, upon the motion of the  person
who applied for such  order,  decision  or action,
shall  make such person a party defendant  in  the
                         17

-------
          Substitute House  Bill  No.  6594

appeal.   Such defendant may,  at  any  time after the
return  date  of  such appeal,   make a  motion  to
dismiss  the appeal.   At the hearing  on such motion
to  dismiss, each appellant shall  have the  burden
of proving his standing  to bring  the appeal.  The
court  may,  upon  the record,  grant or  deny  the
motion.   The court's order  on such motion shall be
a final  judgment for the purpose of  the appeal  as
to each  such  defendant.   No  appeal may be taken
from  any  such order except within  seven days  of
the entry of such order.
    (c)  No appeal taken  under   subsection  (a) of
this section shall be withdrawn  and  no  settlement
between  the parties  to  any  such appeal shall be
effective unless and until  a hearing has been held
before  the  superior  court  and  such  court has
approved such proposed withdrawal  or settlement.
    Sec.   11.  (NEW) (a) If upon  appeal  pursuant
to section 10 of this  act,  the  court finds that
the   action   appealed   from   constitutes   the
equivalent of a taking  without   compensation,  it
shall  set aside the action or  it  may  modify  the
action so  that it does not  constitute a taking. In
both instances the court shall  remand the order to
the  aquifer  protection  agency  for  action  not
inconsistent with its decision.
    (b)  To carry out the purposes  of sections 8 to
14, inclusive, of this act,  a municipality may at
any  time  purchase land or  an interest in land  in
fee simple or other  acceptable  title, or subject
to  acceptable  restrictions  or  exceptions,  and
enter  into   covenants    and   agreements   with
landowners.
    Sec.   12.   (NEW) (a) If the aquifer protection
agency or  its duly authorized agent  finds that any
person  is  conducting or maintaining any activity,
facility or  condition which violates any provision
of  sections 8  to 14, inclusive, of  this  act,  or
any   regulation  or   permit   adopted  or  issued
thereunder,  the  agency  or its  duly  authorized
agent may  issue a written order by certified mail,
return   receipt    requested,   to   such   person
conducting   such  activity   or  maintaining  such
facility   or  condition  to  cease  such  activity
immediately  or  to   correct   such  facility  or
condition.   The agency shall send a copy of  such
order to any affected  water  company by certified
mail, return receipt requested.  Within ten days of
the issuance of such order  the agency shall hold  a
hearing to  provide  the person an opportunity to be
heard and   show  cause  why  the  order should not
                          18

-------
          Substitute House Bill No. 6594

remain  in effect.  Any affected water company may
testify at the hearing.  The agency shall consider
the facts presented at the hearing and, within ten
days of the completion of  the hearing, notify the
person   by   certified   mail,   return   receipt
requested, that  the  original  order  remains  in
effect, that a revised order is in effect, or that
the order has been withdrawn.   The original order
shall be effective upon issuance and shall  remain
in effect until  the  agency  affirms,  revises or
withdraws  the  order.  The issuance of  an  order
pursuant to this section shall not delay or bar an
action pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.
The commissioner  may  issue  orders  pursuant  to
sections 22a-6 to 22a-7, inclusive, of the general
statutes,  concerning  an  activity,  facility  or
condition which is in violation of said sections 8
to 14, inclusive,  if  the  municipality  in which
such  activity,  facility or condition is  located
has failed to  enforce   its   aquifer  protection
regulations.
    (b) Any person who commits, takes part in,  or
assists  in  any  violation  of  any  provision of
sections  8 to 14, inclusive, of this act, or  any
ordinance    or    regulation    promulgated    by
municipalities  pursuant to the grant of authority
herein  contained,   shall   be  assessed  a civil
penalty  of not more than one thousand dollars for
each offense.   Each  violation  of  said sections
shall  be a separate and distinct offense, and, in
the case of  a  continuing  violation,  each day's
continuance  thereof  shall  be  deemed  to  be  a
separate and  distinct   offense.    The  superior
court,  in an action brought by the  commissioner,
municipality, district  or  any  person shall have
jurisdiction to restrain a continuing violation of
said sections, to issue orders  directing that the
violation  be corrected or removed, and to  assess
civil  penalties  pursuant  to  this section.  All
costs,  fees and expenses in connection with  such
action shall  be  assessed  as damages against the
violator  together with reasonable attorney's fees
which may  be  allowed,  all  of  which  shall  be
awarded  to the municipality, district  or  person
bringing such action.
    (c) Any person  who   wilfully   or  knowingly
violates  any  provision  of  sections 8  to   14,
inclusive, of this  act,  shall  be fined not more
than  one  thousand  dollars for each  day  during
which such violation  continues  or  be imprisoned
not   more  than  six  months  or  both.   For   a
                        19

-------
          Substitute House Bill No. 6594

subsequent violation,   such  person shall be fined
not  more  than two thousand dollars for each  day
during  which  such   violation  continues  or  be
imprisoned not more than one year or both. For the
purposes of  this  subsection,  "person"  shall be
construed  to  include any  responsible  corporate
officer .
    Sec.  13.  (NEW)  (a)   The   commissioner  of
environmental protection may revoke the  authority
of a municipality to  regulate  aquifer protection
areas pursuant to sections 8 to 14, inclusive,  of
this, act upon  determination after a hearing that
such  municipality  has,  over a period  of  time,
consistently failed to  perform  its  duties under
said   sections.    Prior  to   the   hearing   on
revocation, the  commissioner  shall send a notice
to  the  aquifer protection agency,  by  certified
mail, return receipt requested, asking such agency
to  show  cause,  within  thirty  days,  why  such
authority should not  be  revoked.   A copy of the
show  cause  notice  shall be sent  to  the  chief
executive  officer   of   the   municipality  that
authorized  the  agency and to any  water  company
owning or operating  a  public  water  supply well
within such municipality.  Such water company may,
through  a  representative,  appear and be heard at
any   such hearing.  The commissioner shall send  a
notice to  the  aquifer   protection   agency,  by
certified mail, return  receipt requested,  stating
the  reasons    for   the    revocation    and '  the
circumstances  for  reinstatement..  Any municipality
aggrieved by a decision of  the commissioner under
this  section  to revoke its authority  under  said
sections  8 to  14,   inclusive, may appeal therefrom
in accordance  with  the  provisions of section 4-183
of the general statutes.   The  commissioner shall
have     jurisdiction    over   aquifers   in    any
municipality   whose  authority  to  regulate  such
aquifers  has been  revoked.  Any costs incurred  by
the  state  in reviewing  applications to conduct an
activity within   an aquifer  protection  area  for
such   municipality     shall    be    paid  by the
municipality.  Any  fees that  would have been  paid
to such  municipality  if  such  authority had been
retained shall be  paid  to the state.
     (b)    The  commissioner   shall  cause  to   be
published    notice    of    the    revocation   or
reinstatement  of  the authority of a  municipality
to regulate  aquifers  in  a   newspaper  of general
circulation  in the  area of such municipality.
                           20

-------
          Substitute House Bill No. 6594

    (c)  The commissioner shall adopt  regulations
in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54 of
the  general statutes establishing  standards  for
the  revocation  and  reinstatement  of  municipal
authority to regulate aquifers pursuant to section
8 of this act.
    Sec.  14.  The  commissioner  of environmental
protection and the commissioner of transportation,
within  available   appropriations,   shall  study
methods to prevent contamination of drinking water
in  aquifer  protection   areas   through  design,
construction  and  maintenance  of  transportation
routes.    In    conducting    the   study,   said
commissioners   shall  consider  prohibiting   the
transportation    of     potential     groundwater
contaminants  through  aquifer  protection  areas,
mandating containment molding and drainage control
in  the design and construction of  roads  located
within   aquifer    protection    areas   and  the
feasibility  of nonsalt-based deicing material for
roads within   aquifer   protection   areas.   The
commissioners  shall  submit  a  report  of  their
findings and recommendations to the joint standing
committee   of   the   general   assembly   having
cognizance of matters  relating to the environment
on or before February 1,  1990.
    Sec.    15.    (NEW)    The   commissioner   of
environmental    protection    shall    develop an
incentive program to provide public recognition of
users of land located  within  aquifer  protection
areas  who  demonstrate successful  and  committed
efforts to  protect  drinking  water  supplies  by
implementing innovative approaches to  groundwater
protection.   Such   program   shall  also promote
groundwater   protection   through  education   .of
members of businesses and industry and the public.
    Sec.   16.    (NEW)    The   commissioner   of
environmental  protection shall formulate  courses
in technical  training  for  members  and staff of
municipal   aquifer  protection  agencies.    Such
courses   shall   provide   instruction   in   the
regulations  developed  pursuant to  section 3  of
this act,  potential  options  for  monitoring and
enforcement,  and technical requirements for  site
plan review.  The  commissioner  may designate any
organization or educational institution to provide
such instruction.
    Sec.   17.    (NEW)    The   commissioner   of
environmental protection, in consultation with the
commissioner   of    health    services   and  the
chairperson  of the department of public utilities
                          21

-------
          Substitute House Bill No.  6594

control,  shall prepare guidelines  for acquisition
of  lands surrounding existing or proposed  public
water  supply  well  fields.    In  preparing  such
guidelines   the   commissioner   shall   consider
economic     implications     for   mandating land
acquisition  including,   but  not limited  to,  the
effect on land  values  and  the  ability of small
water companies to absorb the cost of acquisition.
    Sec.    18.   (NEW)  (a)  The  commissioner  of
environmental protection, in  consultation with the
commissioner   of   health  services   and   water
companies,   shall   provide,   within   available
appropriations,    technical,   coordinating   and
research services   to   promote   the   effective
administration  of this act at the federal,   state
and local levels.
    (b) The commissioner  shall  have  the overall
responsibility  for  general   supervision  of  the
implementation of this  act  and shall monitor and
evaluate  the  activities  of  federal  and  state
agencies and the  activities   of municipalities to
assure   continuing,  effective,  coordinated  and
consistent administration  of the requirements and
purposes of this act.
    (c) The commissioner shall prepare and  submit
to the general  assembly  and  the governor, on or
before  December  first  of each  year, a  written
report   summarizing   the   activities   of   the
department   concerning   the   development    and
implementation of  this  act   during  the previous
year.   Such  report  shall include,  but  not  be
limited to: (1) The  department's  accomplishments
and actions in achieving the  goals and policies of
this  act   including,   but    not   limited   to,
coordination  with other state, regional,  federal
and municipal programs established  to achieve the
purposes of this act; (2) recommendations for  any
statutory or  regulatory  amendments  necessary to
achieve  such purposes; (3) a summary of municipal
and federal  programs  and  actions   which  affect
aquifer protection areas; (4) recommendations  for
any programs or  plans  to  achieve  such purposes;
(5)  any  aspects of the program or  the act  which
are proving  difficult  to  accomplish,  suggested
reasons   for  such  difficulties,  and   proposed
solutions to such  difficulties;  (6) a summary of
the  expenditure of federal and state funds  under
this act and (7) a request for an appropriation of
funds necessary to match federal funds and provide
continuing financial support  for the program. Such
                            22

-------
          Substitute House Bill No. 6594

report shall comply with the provisions of section
46a-78 of the general statutes.
    Sec.  19.  (NEW) Each  water  company  serving
ten  thousand  or  more customers  with  wells  in
stratified   drift   aquifers   shall   prepare  a
municipal   assistance  program,  which   includes
recommendations for site  plan reviews, evaluation
of risks and advice on procedures for dealing with
hazardous waste spills  in aquifers.  Such program
shall  be  made available to any  municipality  in
which  wells  owned  by   the  water  company  are
located.
    Sec.   20.   (NEW)  On or  before  the  second
Wednesday after  the  convening  of  each  regular
session of the general assembly, the  commissioner
of health  services  shall  submit a report to the
joint  standing committee of the general  assembly
having  cognizance  of  matters  relating  to  the
environment,  which describes the status  of,  for
the year ending the  preceding June thirtieth, the
water  planning process established under sections
25-33g  to  25-33J,   inclusive,  of  the  general
statutes,  as amended by this act, and efforts  to
expedite the process.
    Sec.   21.   Section  25-32d  of  the  general
statutes   is   repealed  and  the  following   is
substituted in lieu thereof:
    (a) Each water company  as  defined in section
25-32a and supplying water to one thousand or more
persons or two hundred fifty or more consumers and
any other water company as defined in said section
requested by the  commissioner  of health services
shall   submit   a  water  supply  plan   to   the
commissioner of health  services for approval with
the    concurrence   of   the   commissioner    of
environmental  protection.  The concurrence of the
public   utilities  control  authority  shall   be
required for  approval  of  a  plan submitted by a
water  company  regulated by the  authority.   The
commissioner of health services shall consider the
comments of the public utilities control authority
on any plan which  may  impact  any  water company
regulated  by the authority.  The commissioner  of
health services  shall  distribute  a  copy of the
plan   to   the  commissioner   of   environmental
protection and   the   public   utilities  control
authority.   A  copy of the plan shall be sent  to
the secretary  of   the   office   of  policy  and
management  for  information and comment.  A  plan
shall be revised at such time as the water company
filing  the  plan or the  commissioner  of  health
                          23

-------
          Substitute  House Bill No.  6594

services determines   or   at  intervals of not less
than  three   years nor more than five years  after
the date of  initial  approval.
    (b)  Any  water  supply  plan  submitted pursuant
to  this  section  shall  evaluate the water  supply
needs in the  service area  of  the water company
submitting the plan  and  propose a strategy to meet
such needs.   The   plan   shall   include, but not be
limited  to:  (1)  A  description of existing  water
supply systems;  (2)  an   analysis  of  future water
supply  demands;  (3)  an  assessment of  alternative
water supply  sources which  may  include sources
receiving  sewage  AND   SOURCES LOCATED  ON  STATE
LAND; (4)   contingency    procedures  • for  public
drinking   water   supply  emergencies,   including
emergencies  concerning  the contamination of water,
the  failure  of   a   water supply  system  or  the
shortage of  water;  (5)   a  recommendation  for new
water   system   development;    (6)    such   other
information   as   the   commissioner   of   health
services,   the   commissioner  of   environmental
protection or   the    public   utilities   control
authority deems necessary^ [and) (7) a forecast of
future  land   sales^   AND   (8)  PROVISIONS  FOR
STRATEGIC GROUNDWATER MONITORING.
    (c)  The commissioner of health  services,  in
consultation    with    the     commissioner    of
environmental protection and the public  utilities
control  authority,   shall   adopt  regulations in
accordance with the  provisions of chapter 54. Such
regulations  shall  include,  but not be limited to,
a process for approval,  modification or  rejection
of plans submitted  pursuant to this section and a
schedule for submission  of the plans.
    Sec.   22.   Section 22a-354c of  the  general
statutes  is   repealed    and   the  following  is
substituted in lieu  thereof:
    (a) On or before July 1, 1990, each public  or
private water company serving one thousand or more
persons   shall  map  at  level B  all  AREAS   OF
CONTRIBUTION AND   RECHARGE  AREAS FOR its existing
[well  fields located]  WELLS LOCATED IN STRATIFIED
DRIFT AQUIFERS THAT  ARE   within  its  water supply
service  area.   On  or  before July 1,  1992,  each
public  and  private  water  company  serving  ten
thousand  or more  persons shall map at level A all
AREAS OF CONTRIBUTION  AND  RECHARGE AREAS FOR its
existing  [well  fields  located] WELLS LOCATED  IN
STRATIFIED  DRIFT  AQUIFERS  THAT  ARE  within its
water  supply service area.  The  commissioner  of
environmental  protection   may map at level B all
                           24

-------
          Substitute House Bill No. 6594

existing  [well fields located] WELLS  LOCATED  IN
STRATIFIED  DRIFT  AQUIFERS   THAT  ARE within the
water supply service area of any public or private
water  company  serving  less  than  one  thousand
pe rsons .
    (b)  Each  public  or  private  water  company
serving ten thousand or more persons shall map all
[potential well fields] AREAS OF CONTRIBUTION  AND
RECHARGE  AREAS  FOR  POTENTIAL   WELLS  that  are
located    within   stratified   drift    aquifers
identified as future  sources  of  water supply to
meet  their  needs  in accordance  with  the  plan
submitted pursuant to  section  25-33h, AS AMENDED
BY  SECTION  24  OF THIS ACT^ (1) at  level B  two
years after approval of such plan and (2) at level
A  four  years after approval of such  plan.   The
commissioner  of  environmental  protection  shall
identify  and make recommendations for mapping all
remaining significant [well  fields] WELLS LOCATED
IN  STRATIFIED DRIFT AQUIFERS not identified by  a
public or private  water  company  as  a potential
source  of  water supply within the region  of  an
approved  plan.    Mapping   of  ANY OTHER AREA OF
CONTRIBUTION  AND  RECHARGE  AREAS  FOR  potential
[well fields] WELLS  LOCATED  IN  STRATIFIED DRIFT
AQUIFERS by the commissioner shall be completed at
a time determined by the commissioner.
    Sec.  23. (NEW) (a) On or before July 1, 1995,
each  public or private water company  serving  at
least one thousand  persons  but not more than ten
thousand  persons shall map areas of  contribution
and recharge areas at  level  A  for each existing
stratified  drift wells located within  its  water
supply area.
    (b) Each public   or   private   water  supply
company serving at least one thousand but not more
than  ten  thousand  persons  shall  map  areas of
contribution  and  recharge areas for all  of  the
potential  wells   located   in  stratified  drift
aquifers  identified  as future sources  of  water
supply in  accordance  with  the plan submitted to
section 25-33h of the general statutes, as amended
by section 24 of  this  act,  at  level B not more
than  two years after approval of the plan and  at
level A not more than five years after approval.
    Sec.   24.   Section  25-33h  of  the  general
statutes   is   repealed  and  the  following   is
substituted in lieu thereof:
    (a) Each water utility coordinating  committee
shall  prepare a coordinated water system plan  in
the public water supply management area. Such plan
                          25

-------
          Substitute  House Bill No. 6594

shall   be  submitted to the commissioner of  health
services for  his  approval  not more than two years
after   the  first meeting of the  committee.   The
plan shall promote cooperation  among public water
systems  and   include,  but  not  be  limited  to,
provisions for  (1)  integration  of  public water
systems,   consistent  with  the  protection   and
enhancement of public  health  and well-being; (2)
integration of water  company plans; (3)  exclusive
service areas; (4) joint  management  or ownership
of  services; (5) satellite  management  services;
(6) interconnections  between public water systems;
(7)  integration   of   land use  and  water  system
plans;  (8) minimum design standards; (and] (9) the
impact  on other  uses of water resources^ AND (10)
ACQUISITION OF LAND SURROUNDING  WELLS PROPOSED TO
BE LOCATED IN STRATIFIED DRIFTS.
    (b)  The  plan shall be adopted  in  accordance
with  the  provisions   of   this   section.   The
committee  shall  prepare a draft of the  plan  and
solicit comments  thereon from the commissioners of
health  services  and  environmental protection, the
department  of   public   utility   control,   the
secretary  of the office of policy and  management
and any municipality,  regional planning agency or
other interested  party within the management area.
The municipalities and  regional planning agencies
shall   comment  on,  but shall not be  limited  to
commenting on, the  consistency  of  the plan with
local   and regional land use plans  and  policies.
The department  of  public  utility  control shall
comment on, but shall not be limited to commenting
on,  the  cost-effectiveness   of  the  plan.  The
secretary  of the office of policy and  management
shall comment on,  but  shall  not  be  limited to
commenting  on, the consistency of the  plan  with
state policies.  The commissioner of environmental
protection  shall  comment  on, but shall  not  be
limited to  commenting  on,  the  availability  of
water     for   any   proposed   diversion.     The
commissioner of health services  shall comment on,
but  shall  not be limited to commenting  on,  the
availability of pure and adequate  water supplies,
potential conflicts over the use of such supplies,
and consistency with the goals  of sections 25-33c
to 25-33J, inclusive^ AS AMENDED BY THIS ACT.
    (c) The commissioner of health services  shall
adopt   regulations   in   accordance   with   the
provisions of chapter 54 establishing the contents
of a plan and a procedure for approval.
                             26

-------
          Substitute House Bill No. 6594

    Sec.   25.    (NEW)    The   commissioner   of
environmental protection, in consultation with the
commissioner of health  services, water companies,
and   business   and  industry  shall  develop   a
strategic  groundwater   monitoring   plan  to  be
implemented  in aquifer protection areas not  more
than one year after  completion of level A mapping
pursuant   to  sections  22a-354b   to   22a-354d,
inclusive, of the  general statutes, as amended by
this act.
    Sec.   26.   Section  19a-37  of  the  general
statutes  is   repealed   and   the  following  is
substituted in lieu thereof:
    The commissioner of health services may  adopt
regulations in the  public health code (pertaining
to  protection  and location of new  water  supply
wells or springs for  residential  construction or
for public or semipublic use) for the preservation
of the public health PERTAINING  TO (1) PROTECTION
AND LOCATION OF NEW WATER SUPPLY WELLS OR  SPRINGS
FOR  RESIDENTIAL  CONSTRUCTION   OR  FOR PUBLIC OR
SEMIPUBLIC USE, AND (2) INSPECTION FOR  COMPLIANCE
WITH THE PROVISIONS   OF   MUNICIPAL   REGULATIONS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 9 OF THIS ACT.
    Sec.   27.   Section 22a-354e of  the  general
statutes  is   repealed   and   the  following  is
substituted in lieu thereof:
    Not later than three months after approval  of
the commissioner  of  environmental  protection of
mapping of aquifers at level B, each [municipality
in which such aquifers are located, acting through
its legislative body, shall authorize any board or
commission,  or  shall  establish  a  new board or
commission to] MUNICIPAL AQUIFER PROTECTION AGENCY
AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO SECTION 8 OF THIS ACT SHALL
inventory  land uses overlying the mapped zone  of
contribution and  recharge  areas of such aquifers
in  accordance with guidelines established by  the
commissioner pursuant to  section  22a-354f.  SUCH
INVENTORY  SHALL  BE COMPLETED NOT MORE  THAN  ONE
YEAR AFTER AUTHORIZATION OF THE AGENCY.
    Sec. •  28.   Section   22-6c  of  the  general
statutes   is   repealed  and  the  following   is
substituted in lieu thereof:
    The commissioner of agriculture  may reimburse
any farmer for part of the cost of the  completion
of a component of a farm  waste management system,
provided  such component has been certified by the
Federal     Agricultural     Stabilization     and
Conservation   Service,   and  the  cost   is   in
accordance with  said  certification.   The  total
                          27

-------
          Substitute  House Bill No. 6594

federal  and  state   grant available  to a  farmer
shall not be more  than  seventy-five  per  cent of
SUCh  cost.   IN MAKING GRANTS UNDER  THIS  SECTION
THE COMMISSIONER  SHALL  GIVE  PRIORITY TO CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS   MADE   IN  ACCORDANCE  WITH A   FARM
RESOURCES PLAN PREPARED  PURSUANT  TO SECTION 6 OF
THIS ACT.
    Sec.  29.   Subsection (a) of section 25-84  of
the general  statutes  is repealed and the following
is substituted in  lieu thereof:
    (a)  Any  municipality  may, by  vote  of  its
legislative  body,   adopt  the  provisions  of this
section  and  sections 25-85 to 25-94,  inclusive,
and exercise through  a  flood  and erosion control
board  the  powers  granted thereunder.    In  each
town, except as otherwise provided by special act,
the flood and erosion control board shall  consist
of not less  than five nor more than seven members,
who  shall  be  electors of such  town  and  whose
method of selection  and  terms  of office shall be
determined  by  local ordinance,  except  that  in
towns   having   a   population   of   less   than
(twenty-five)   FIFTY  thousand the selectmen may be
empowered by such   ordinance  to act as  such flood
and  erosion  control  board.   In  each  city  or
borough, except as  otherwise  provided  by special
act, the board of  aldermen, council or other board
or authority having   power to adopt ordinances for
the  government of such city or borough  may act as
such board.   The flood  and  erosion control board
of any town  shall  have jurisdiction over that part
of the town  outside  any  city or borough contained
the rein.
    Sec.   30.   (NEW) Not more  than  two  months
after   approval    by    the    commissioner   of
environmental  protection  of mapping at  level  B
pursuant  to  section  22a-354d   of  the  general
statutes,  the commissioner, in consultation  with
the commissioner of   agriculture,  the cooperative
extension service  at  The University of Connecticut
and any other person  or agency the commissioner of
environmental  protection  deems necessary,  shall
inventory agricultural  land  uses  overlaying the
mapped  area.   Such  inventory shall  include,  but
not  be  limited  to,  the  type  and  size of any
agricultural  operation and existing farm resource
management practices.  Any such inventory shall be
completed   not  more  than  four   months   after
commencement  and    shall   be   made available to
technical teams established pursuant to  subsection
(b) of section 4 of  this act.

-------
           Substitute House  Bill  No.  6594

    Sec.   31.   (NEW) State  regulations for aquifer
protection  areas adopted by  the  commissioner   of
environmental  protection  pursuant to section  3  of
this  act   shall  be consistent   with  regulations
adopted  by said  commissioner  for  farm reso.ur.ces
management  plans  pursuant to  section 6  of   this
act.                                      /
    Sec.   32.   This act shall take effect from  its
passage,  except that sections 1  to 13,  inclusive,
and sections 15  to  28,    inclusive,  shall   take
effect July 1, 1989.
Certified as correct by
                                   Legislative Commissioner.


                                       Clerk of the Senate.


                                       Clerk of the House.

        Approved	 , 1989



                               Governor, State of Connecticut.
                             29

-------
                                  Eric J. Brown
                              Environmental Analyst
                       Murtha, Cullina, Richter and Pinney
                                    CityPlace
                         185 Asylum Street,  P.O.  Box 3197
                           Hartford, Connecticut 06103
     Mr.  Brown received his B.S.  degree in geology from the University of Rhode
Island in 1980.  After serving as  a geological assistant for Mobil Corporation, he
entered Boston College where he worked as a geophysical analyst at the school's
Weston Observatory and received his M.S.  degree in 1985.   Mr.  Brown taught science
for five years at Greens Farms Academy in Westport,  Connecticut before leaving to
become executive director of the Connecticut General Assembly's Aquifer Protection
Task Force.  He is presently employed by the Hartford/New Haven law firm of
Murtha, Cullina, Richter and Pinney as an environmental analyst and is attending
Western New England College School of Law.
                                           30

-------
                                     ABSTRACT
                         PROTECTING GROUND WATER FROM THE
                             BOTTOM UP: LOCAL RESPONSES
                             TO WELL-HEAD PROTECTION


                             WALPOLE BOARD OF HEALTH:
                   GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

                              By Robin Chapell, R.S.
                                   Health Agent

                             Walpole Board of Health
     The Walpole Board of Health has instituted and regulated many programs
to protect its water from contamination.  Walpole has been designated as a
sole source aquifer district so it is imperative that its water not be polluted.
The Board has adopted Underground Storage Regulations/ Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Regulations/ Private Well Regulations and Mandatory Sewer Connection
Regulations.  The Board is also responsible for implementing several monitoring
programs in town to make certain, that particular landfills and industries
in sensitive areas are not contaminating our aquifer.  The Health Department
has organized Household Hazardous Waste Collection Days to help alleviate a
certain amount of illegal dumping.  The department has been responsible for
removal or testing of many residential underground tanks.  Just recently the
Board of Health strengthened Title V by requiring a bigger set back to wetlands.
                                         31

-------
                   "Walpole Board of  Health: Groundwater

                   Protection Program Implementation"


                           By Robin Chapell/  R.S.

                                 Health Agent
                          Walpole Board of  Health
     Towns and cities need to protect themselves from environmental degradation
at its local level.   This should be its first line of defense.  Towns and
cities should not wait til state and federal agencies do the work for them.
After all, pollution and degradation of the environment will first be felt
by the residents in  the community. Its the residents that have the most at
stake if something happens.  Each town has its own special problems/ history
and geography that can be more easily recognized at the local level rather
than by a state or federal agency.  Day to day situations can be more easily
monitored locally on a routine basis.  This in no way implies that well needed
protection should not occur at the state or federal level, but that it simply
cannot replace local involvement.

     One of the best governing bodies to protect the local environment are
the local Boards of  Health.  They are charged with protecting the public health
of their community under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter III Section 31.
The Walpole Board of Health has taken its importance seriously and has instituted
many varied programs and regulations to protect its groundwater from contamination
as will be discussed later.

     The Town of Walpole is located 19 miles south of Boston and 26 miles
north of Providence.  Over 19,000 residents reside in town.  Walpole is an
old mill town but now most of its residents work in Boston.

     The Town of Walpole relies heavily on its aquifer for its drinking source.
In fact/ the town petitioned to be designated a sole source aquifer district
and in 1988, EPA, so did so.  This means that Walpole has only one main source
for its drinking water. If this source is contaminated, all of Walpole's
drinking water will  be in  jeopardy.  Being a sole source aquifer district
means certain state  and federal projects in this area can be closely scrutinized
if it is  felt they can be  detrimental to the town's water.  Long before Walpole
was designated a sole source aquifer district, the town saw the need to delineate
certain sensitive areas in town where certain activities could influence the
quality of the town's water.  The town hired IEP Consultant Engineers to map
out Water Resource Protection Districts in the town.

                                       32

-------
     This map has been very useful to the Board of Health.  When the Board
of Health reviews any preliminary plan, definitive plan, board of appeals
case, or notice of  intent, the  first question that is asked, is in what protection
district is it in?   if it  lies  in the protection districts, they ask how can
the activity affect the aquifer?  In certain instances  in town, the Board
has restricted uses, turned down plans, and/or set up monitoring programs.
The monitoring programs help  the Board keep up on present and future sources
of contamination.   At least four monitoring programs have been initiated within
the town.  They monitor either  private landfills or industrial parks.  Each
program, reports in writing,  four times a year to the health agent, and in
turn is reported to the Board.  Many times, the health  agent is present during
the gathering of samples.  The  programs are continually updated.  The Board
looks for the presence of  VOCs, heavy  metals,   ph, conductivity, and ground-
water levels.  If something shows up, more samples need to be taken to explain
its presence.  If levels of an  unwanted substance are too high, rise or monitoring
ceases that would be reason enough to close the activity down.  These monitoring
programs are written in covenants and go with the land, not the owner, to
insure long term participation  of these mandatory programs.

     The Board of Health also regulates all underground storage tanks.  The
Board promulgated regulations on its registration, usage and testing of the
tanks.  In the town's most sensitive water protection districts, no new tanks
can go in.  All commercial tanks, at age 20 must be removed.  Residents have
the option to biyearly test their tanks for leaks if they choose not to remove
them.  Town owned tanks are also being removed and replaced.  All new underground
tanks must be approved by  the fire department and placement of these tanks
must be approved by both the  Water and Sewer Commission and the Board of Health.
In 1988 the health  department negotiated for the residents with a tank testing
company to come to  town and test residential tanks at a very reduced rate.
About 16 tanks were tested.   Other residents chose to remove their tanks and
replace them with basement heaters or some switched to  gas.  At age 15, all
tanks, commercial and residential must be put on a tank tightness monitoring
program.  Results are forwarded to the Health Department.  All underground
storage tanks in town must register with the Board of Health.  All the information
is computerized.  Information can easily be retrieved in regards to the age,
type, location, and water  protection district of the tank.  Since the beginning
of this program many unused tanks have been ordered to  be removed from Walpole.
All tanks that are  removed are  inspected by the fire department and the health
agent.  If the integrity of the tanks that are being removed are in question,
all surrounding soils will be treated as hazardous materials.

     The Board of Health also regulates toxic and hazardous materials used
in industries using 25 pounds or 50 gallons of hazardous materials stored
on their premises at one time.  This information has also been computerized
and shared by the fire department.  Each initial registration is followed
by a site visit by  the health agent.  All new companies in town must comply
with these Board of Health regulations before the town  will issue them an
occupancy permit.   The health agent requires proper storage of all toxic and
hazardous materials.  The  Board of Health is also sent  all Material Safety
Data Sheets| from companies dealing with hazardous materials.

     The Board of Health also regulates the town bylaw  for Mandatory Sewer
Hook Up.  Every residence, in all Water Protection Districts, must hook up


                                        33

-------
to sewer: if sewer is available.  The time allowed for compliance for this
relatively new by law depends on what water protection district they are in.
Recently, the health department, had to take a few residents to court because
they have decided not to hook up.  Fortunately, as of this writing, the town
has to contend with only one remaining stand out.

     Private Well Regulations have recently been implemented by the Board.
All new drinking water wells must be tested for VOCs, heavy metals, coliform,
bacteria, water depth, and pump rate.  If the wells do not meet federal standards
for drinking water they cannot be used.  Certain standards, such as manganese,
can be met with the aid of a filter.  All new dwellings, if on private wells,
will not get their occupancy permit until the Health Department okays their
well.  Old well owners are continually encouraged to register their wells,
but the health department knows its information is not nearly complete.  The
location of wells is very helpful in knowing how best to protect certain areas,
which areas need to be protected, and what activities should be restricted
where, there are certain flaws with the Board's well regulations.  The biggest
flaw is that only an initial test is required.  The Health Department educates
as many well owners as possible to the importance of regular testing for their
drinking waters.  The town tests its drinking water monthly.  Hopefully, this
year the Board will be reexamining these regulations and will be making them
stricter where applicable.

     The Board recognizes the problem of illegal dumping of hazardous materials
and sometimes the legal improper disposal of these materials.  In 1986  the
Board of Health started implementing a yearly Household Hazardous Waste Day.
Each year this event has become bigger and more costly to the town due to
the increasing participation of the residents.

     The Board of Health in Walpole is committed to continuing with this program
in addition to exploring other ways to solve these problems.  The Health Department,
through school visits, articles in town papers, and talking to residents  are
trying to educate the citizens in using alternative safer household products,
reducing quantities, and recycling.

     Very recently the Board of Health examined Title V and its own septic
system regulations to see if it met the town's needs.  The Board, after months
of deliberation, decided to strengthen the regulations by requiring a 100
foot set back from the septic tank and 150 foot set back from the leaching
field to wetlands.  The Board discussed distances bacteria and viruses could
travel and came up with setbacks they felt more comfortable with for the Town
of Walpole.

     The Board of Health in Walpole follows up on leads about illegal dumping,
business practices that might eventually harm the environment and any accidental
spills in town.  This way they can routinely press for clean up, monitor its
progress, and hopefully prevent disasters.

     The community has been very receptive and appreciative to the Board of
Health in protecting the environment.  Other departments have worked hand
in hand implementing these programs.  With little desention, the residents
and businesses have complied and taken an active role in voicing their concerns
and coming up with suggestions to protect Walpole's groundwater.


                                        34

-------
                               BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
                                 Robin Chapell, R.S.

                                  Health Agent
                            Walpole Board of Health
                              Town Hall/School St.
                               Walpole, Ma. 02081
Robin Chapell is the Health Agent  for the Town of Walpole.  She has a B.S. in
Environmental Studies from Worcester Polytechnic Institute and an M.S. in
Environmental Sciences  (Environmental Health Management) from the Harvard
University School of Public Health.  Ms. Chapell is also a registered sanitarian.

-------
36

-------
                  Case Study of Regional Effort:  Wellhead
                    Delineation as a Tool for Fostering
                            Regional Cooperation
                                submitted by
Marilyn F Cohen, Director
North Kingstown Department
of Planning & Development
80 Boston Neck Road
North Kingstown, RI 02852

(401) 294-3331
Timothy Brown
Executive Director
Kent County Water
Authority
PO Box 192
West Warwick, RI  02893
                                      37

-------
                                   ABSTRACT

Case Study of Regional Effort:   Wellhead Delineation as a Tool for Fostering
                                Regional Cooperation


     The presentation proposed is based on current efforts to achieve regional
cooperation in pursuit of groundwater protection.   The regional setting is the
Hunt Aquifer in Rhode Island,  an aquifer with the  capacity to deliver eight
million gallons of water per day.  The waters of the Hunt Aquifer are distri-
buted to a population of over 50,000 by three different water suppliers, the
North Kingstown Water Department, the Kent County  Water Authority, and the
Rhode Island Port Authority.  Five public supply wells lie within 1000 feet of
one another.  The primary reservoir area is located at the boundary confluence
of three municipalities, each with distinct political and land use control.

     Wellhead delineation has become the vehicle for fostering a regional
cooperative effort.  The water suppliers have recognized that the results of a
wellhead delineation study are a tool for determining future acquisition to
protect wellheads; for assigning locations for monitoring potential contamina-
tion sites; and for providing information and direction to the three
municipalities for land use regulation purposes.  Additionally, it was
recognized that the proximity of the wells and the likely pumping interaction
necessitated a joint effort.  To this end the three water suppliers have
committed funding available in July, 1989, to contract for consulting services
to conduct the wellhead delineation study.

     Since November 1988, an ad-hoc committee composed of representatives of
the water suppliers and the municipalities has been meeting to discuss issues
related to groundwater protection as well as institutional constraints to
regional cooperation.  Dissimilar municipal zoning, subdivision, and other
regulations are being reviewed.   To expand the current information base
available for the wellhead study, the water suppliers have authorized a
cooperative water quality sampling program for their wells.  The municipalities
have inventoried land uses with potential for contamination:  respective fire
departments have focussed on the well area for MSDS inventorying.  Formaliza-
tion of committee efforts is anticipated.

     In summary, wellhead delineation became a tool for fostering a regional
cooperative effort for protecting the groundwaters of the Hunt Aquifer.  This
effort has led to involvement of water suppliers and municipalities in
expanding the land use data base and pursuing techniques that address long-
term groundwater protection.

-------
Case Study of Regional Effort:  Wellhead Delineation
Tool for Fostering Regional Cooperation
Introduction

Background and Setting

     This discussion is based on efforts to achieve
regional cooperation in pursuit of groundwater protection
for the Hunt Aquifer in Rhode Island. The waters of the Hunt
Aquifer are distributed to a population of over 50,000
people by three different water suppliers;   -the Town of
North Kingstown Water Department, the Kent County Water
Authority, and the Rhode Island Port Authority, Five of the
seven public water supply wells in the Hunt Aquifer and
belonging to the three water suppliers lie within 1000 feet
of one another.  The primary reservoir area, and the site of
the five wells, is located at the confluence of three
municipalities:  the Towns of East Greenwich and North
Kingstown and the City of Warwick.

      No models existed in Rhode Island upon which to base
the regional effort for groundwater protection.  Peculiar to
Rhode Island is the fact that there are no recognized
regional planning agencies.   Additionally,  the 39 cities and
towns that comprise the Rhode Island communities
historically have operated independently of one another.
Only a few examples exist of intercommunity cooperation.

     In the idealised world a community draws  its water
resources from within its own boundaries and,  thus, would be
able to control the land use activities that could
contribute to the quality of the drinking water.  A board of
health would exist to monitor water quality and advise the
community on protection of its resources.   Unlike other New
England states, no board of health exists at the local level
in Rhode Island to monitor water quality.   The Rhode Island
Department of Health (RIDOH) does monitor water quality but
because its responsibility includes the entire state, it is
unable to focus on individual systems and land use.  The
responsibility of assuring water quality rests with the
water supplier, an agency or department that is rarely
staffed with environmental or planning capacity.  Moreover,
in the case at hand groundwater crosses municipal boundaries
such that, except for a portion of the Hunt Aquifer lying
within the Town of North Kingstown, none of the three water
suppliers is able to control the land use around their
respective water supply wells.

                          39

-------
Hydrologic setting

     The setting for this discussion is the Hunt Aquifer
located in Rhode Island along the west passage of
Narragansett Bay.   Figure 1 shows the location of the Hunt
Aquifer (Number 11).  The Hunt Aquifer is in the Potowomut
River sub-basin drained by the Hunt, Maskerchugg, and
Potowornut Rivers.  The Hunt River flows northeastward and
eventually discharges into Potowomut Pond.   The Hunt Aquifer
is a sand and gravel aquifer whose transrnissivities range
from 1000 to more than 4000 gallons per day per foot.  The
saturated thickness of the aquifer ranges from less than 20
feet to more than 100 feet.   A groundwater reservoir where
transmissivity is greatest is located generally along the
Hunt River basin.   All of the wells are located adjacent to
the Hunt River.

     The groundwater quality is considered to be generally
good.  Some chemical and volatile organic compound
contamination has become evident.  The aquifer system is
vulnerable to contamination due to high permeability of
stratified drift,  the absence of a confining layer of soil,
and in some areas, a relatively high water table.  All of
these conditions offer little resistance to the attentuation
of pollutants.
Drinking Water Supply and Demand

     The North Kingstown Water Department  (NKWD), the Kent
County Water Authority  (KCWA),  and the Rhode Island Port
Authority  (RIPA) share the Hunt Aquifer which has an
estimated potential yield of 8 million gallons per day.
This yield can be withdrawn using the existing pumping
facilities.  The KCWA has the capacity to  withdraw 1.0  mgd
from its one well;  the RIPA has the capacity to  withdraw
4.30 rngd from three wells; and the NKWD has the  capacity to
withdraw 3.67 rngd from three wells located in the Hunt
Aquifer groundwater reservoir.   Projections for  the area
served by the Hunt Aquifer indicate that the total resources
available will be necessary in order to adequately serve new
growth.   A lack of alternative drinking water resources was
documented in the Sole Source Aquifer petition for the  Hunt
Aquifer.

     Kent County Water Authority is a public benefit
corporation that supplies public water to  all or a part of
the Rhode  Island cities of Cranston and Warwick  and the
Towns of Scituate,  West Warwick, Coventry, East  Greenwich,
and West Greenwich from the Scituate Reservoir.  The
available  1.0 rngd from the Authority's well in the Hunt
Aquifer is distributed to residents and businesses in the
eastern portion of the Town of East Greenwich and the
Potowomut area of the City of Warwick to approximately  8000

                           40

-------
                                                                              Area wide Water
                                                                              lity Management
                                                                                 Plan
Figure i

-------
services in total.   During peak periods the Authority draws
the maximum capacity from the well to supplement the supply
drawn from the Scituate Reservoir,

     The Rhode Island Port Authority, a state agency and
subset of the State Department of Economic Development, is
the governing body for over 1500 acres of industrial land
located within the Town of North Kingstown.   This land is
known as the Quonset Foint/Davisville Industrial Park and
was acquired by the State from the Federal government
following the withdrawal and closure in 1973 of most of the
Navy facilities once located at Quonset Point and
Davisville.   The Port Authority also acquired the water
supply wells that provided public water to the Navy base.
One of those wells is located in East Greenwich and two are
located in Warwick.   Figure 2 shows the location of the
wells in the confluence of the three municipal boundaries.
The Port Authority has available to it in its three wells
4.30 rngd; in 1988 the average daily use was only 0.80 rngd.
The Port Authority expects to reach its pumping capacity in
several years as expansion continues at the Park with
additional industrial development.  Several industrial firms
with large water demands have recently made commitments to
locate at Quonset Point,

     The Town of North Kingstown had an estimated 1985
population of 25,100.  Ninety percent of the homes in the
Town are serviced by the public water supply system.   It is
anticipated that the majority of new development will be
connected to public water.   The Town at present is wholly
dependent on the use of individual septic disposal systems
for the treatment of domestic sewage.  North Kingstown still
has extensive potential for additional growth  due to the
availability of land for suburban development.   The North
Kingstown Planning Commission has granted final approval for
in excess of 600 lots over the last two years and
approximately 550 lots exist in the review pipeline.
Projections based on build-out growth scenarios indicate all
water resources now available to the Town would be required
to serve the potential development.   In addition to its
wells in the Hunt Aquifer,  the Town draws groundwater from
two other aquifers--the Annaquatucket and the
Pettaquamscutt Aquifers--which are hydrogeologically
connected to the Hunt and were part of the Sole Source
Aquifer designation.   The Annaquatucket has a potential
yield of 3 6 mgd and the Pettaquamscutt a potential yield of
1.8 rngd.  The two aquifers combined would not provide
sufficient yield to deliver the peak demand of 7.38 rngd
(July, 1988) required by the Town.  Unlike the Hunt, both
the Annaquatucket and the Pettaquarascutt Aquifers lie within.
the Town bounds.
                            42

-------
Land Use Setting

     Six wells are proposed for the wellhead delineation
study.   Five of these wells lie within 1000 feet of one
another near the intersection of Frenchtown and Post Roads
(see identified area in Figure 2); the sixth well lies
approximately 3500 feet west of the Frenchtown and Post Road
intersection.

     Post Road is U.S.  Route 1 and has been a primary
transportation route since the founding of the colonies.
Today this area is densely developed with residential,
commercial, and industrial land use.   None of the area
around the wells is sewered.   Yet residential development
densities range from two-acre lots to 7000 square foot
parcels.  Industrial development is not as extensive as the
commercial development activities.  A large tool and die
manufacturer has a private sewer treatment system that
discharges to the Hunt River approximately 1200 feet from
the location of three of the wells.   Commercial development
is varied but includes automobile repair and service
facilities, several hair salons,  and several shopping plazas
including one that pre-dates current soiling and septic
disposal regulations.

II.  Impetus for Wellhead Delineation Study

     The Town of North Kingstown took the initiative to use
wellhead delineation to protect groundwater.   The Town has
had a history of groundwater protection beginning in 1974
with the adoption of groundwater reservoir and recharge
overlay districts within its zoning ordinance.   By late
1987, however, there was evidence to suggest the need to
review and refine the mapping upon which the zoning was
based and the effectiveness of the existing regulations.
Whatever new mapping or regulations might be adopted, it was
apparent that in the Hunt Aquifer, unlike the other Town
aquifer systems, a regional approach to protection would be
needed.

     At least three factors led to a decision by the North
Kingstown Town Council to authorise undertaking wellhead
delineation studies for the four wellfield areas in which
the Town's ten public water supply wells lie.   First, there
existed a heightened consciousness among Town officials and
residents about groundwater protection as the Town undertook
efforts to halt the expansion of an existing demolition
debris landfill located within the drainage basin of the
Annaquatucket Aquifer.

     Secondly, a growing awareness of the vulnerability of
local groundwater reserves, as well as a recognition of
limited alternatives,   was  one product of research
conducted by the Towns of East Greenwich and North Kingstown

                           43

-------
Figure 2:   Boundary Line  Confluence
                                    44

-------
in the preparation of a  joint petition to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency  (USEPA) for Sole Source
Aquifer status.   This petition was prepared in the Fall of
1987.  The aquifer system was designated a sole source
aquifer in May,  1988 by  USEPA.

     Additionally, North Kingstown Planning and Public Works
Department staff had attended area wellhead delineation
conferences where the mandate of the federal legislation and
the underlying concepts  of wellhead delineation were
explained.  What was made perfectly clear was the fact that
wellhead delineation would be required in the future.  But
more importantly, it was evident that wellhead delineation
was a technique that could be used to refine aquifer mapping
and allow for the determination of the sones of contribution
to existing and future public water supply wells.  In turn,
the delineation could provide the basis for decisions in:
assigning appropriate land use;  identifying parcels for
acquisition in pursuit of groundwater protection;  and
identifying sites of potential contamination and
establishing monitoring  programs.  Town staff conveyed the
conference messages to Town officials and the Planning
Commission who pressed the Town Council for funds to
accomplish wellhead delineation studies,

III.   The need for a regional effort

     At the request of the North Kingstown Planning
Commission, the Town Council approved the creation of a Town
Groundwater Committee to undertake necessary wellhead
studies to insure Town planning and development activities
were in concert with protection of the drinking water.  The
newly formed Groundwater Committee established a
prioritisation of the wells and wellfielcls based on quantity
and quality of the supply.  With their ability to each
deliver 1.5 million gallons per day, the Town's two Hunt
Aquifer wells located in East Greenwich and Warwick were
given the highest priority.  Planning Department to proceed
with the necessary steps to accomplish a delineation of
these wells.   USEPA Office of Groundwai.er Protection
representatives provided the delineation examples that led.
to the important recognition of interrelationships among
proximate wells.  For the first time, the Committee
understood that what had been anticipated as a projected
study of ten wells would, actually be one of four wellfields.

IV,   Getting underway with regional efforts

     In November, 1988, the Town of North Kingstown hosted a
meeting to which representatives of the three Hunt water
suppliers and. the communities that underlie the Hunt. Aquifer-
were invited.  Also invited to the meeting were
representatives of state agencies whose purview includes the
protection of the state s drinking water resources:   the

                           45

-------
Rhode Island Department of Health;  the Rhode Island Water
Resources Board;  the State Division of Planning; and the
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.  The
primary purpose of the meeting was to bring together those
parties with vested interest in assuring the continued
quality of the Hunt Aquifer.   From the Town's perspective it
was clear already that a wellhead delineation study must be
accomplished.   A secondary purpose was to explore the
assistance, both financial and technical, that would be
available from state agencies for assisting in protection
efforts.

     State representatives outlined their respective
jurisdictions and the few financial assistance programs
available but no state office offerred to play key roles in
assisting what could and would become a regional effort.
The only resolution agreed upon was that the three water
suppliers and the three communities should continue to meet.
From the discussion it was evident that of far more
consequence immediately than studies of future quality was
concern about finding ways to address present quality and
the levels of VOC's that were evident in the wells.
Uppermost was the recognition that it would be difficult to
replace the 8 mgd should contamination force their
abandonment.   Impressive also was the presentation by the
Department of Health of the proposed National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations both future standards and
required water sampling analyses that were to be adopted and
mandated.

V.   Obstacles to Achieving a Regional Effort

     Over the months that followed the water suppliers and
the municipalities continued to meet on at least a monthly
basis.   One difficulty was overcoming the differing contexts
from which each participant came.  The municipal planning
officials tended to view the task in protection terms while
the KCWA and RIPA focused on the current quality of the
water.   Both water supply agencies expressed skepticism
about working cooperatively with the same municipalities
whose land use decisions were viewed as the reason for
declining water quality.

     Over the last fifteen years both the KCWA and the RIPA
had protested and, even filed suit, over municipal
development approvals near their wells.   None of the three
municipalities was without direct responsibility for the
character of the development in the wellfield areas.  Zone
changes,  subdivision approvals, and zoning board of review
variances and special exceptions have created an area with
little open space, extensive impervious area, and uses
incompatible with the long-term protection of the
groundwater quality.


                            46

-------
     Each meeting was a forum for consciousness raising
about different aspects of groundwater protection as well as
the state of the water quality.  Two possible avenues of
regional effort were most obvious:  a wellhead delineation
study for the wells lying together at the East
Greenwich-Warwick-North Kingstown boundaries; and a program
of regional planning that could use. the results of the
wellhead study for proper land use decision

     Finding a common direction towards wellhead delineation
was impossible until a number of issues had been addressed
and all parties were convinced  of the following
assumptions:  1) a wellhead delineation study was in the
best interest of each water supplier; 2) identifiying the
sources of present contamination now evidenced in the wells
would require some level of delineation; 3) such delineation
would be required by the Federal and State governments; and
4) a joint initiative would be cost-effective.  The latter
assumption was the only one readily accepted based on the
close proximity of the wells and intuitive in the general
principles associated with cost savings.

     Discussion of protecting groundwater that shows
evidence of contamination first raised questions about
whether protection should be considered at all.   Should
funds be directed at remediation instead?  Could the water-
supply be counted on as a future resource?  Was abandonment
a likely outcome?  Could protection now overcome the effects
of decades of poor land use decisions?  These questions were
raised primarily by the water suppliers  who had recognised
that the funding of such a study would be their
responsibility,   Each of these questions needed a response
prior to consideration of committing to a wellhead study.

VI.   Obstacles to Accomplishing Delineation

Funding

    Each participant in the ad hoc committee recognized that
undertaking a wellhead delineation study would require
significant funding resources.  With no available state or
regional planning grants, the municipalities viewed the
water suppliers as the appropriate funding source as several
options for funding would be available to them.   First, the
water suppliers could request rate increases to cover the
costs within a capital budget item.  Secondly, a one cent
per hundred gallons surcharge was available to water supply
systems to use for planning efforts  (pers commun. Peter
Calise, Rhode Island Water Resources Board).

Expertise

    None of the representatives of the water supply systems
or the municipalities had experience with conducting a

                           47

-------
wellhead delineation study.   In the winter of 1989 when the
committee initiated discussions about wellhead delineation
even the State had not yet prepareds the Federally required
Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program which would later be
submitted to USEPA.  The committee was armed only with USEPA
manuals describing wellhead techniques.

VII.   Accomplishments

     The efforts of the ad hoc committee have not been
without significant accomplishments.  Over the last nine
months jointly or independently the water suppliers and the
municipalities have undertaken projects that directly
support the wellhead delineation and future protection
efforts.

Land Use Mapping of Potential Contamination Sources

     In preparation for the wellhead delineation study and
in an effort to support the study, all three municipalities
undertook the mapping of land use within the Hunt Aquifer
with potential for contamination.   Commercial, industrial,
and densely developed residential areas were plotted.
Research was conducted during the summer of 1989 by an
intern shared by  North Kingstown and East Greenwich.   The
intern investigated RIDEM records regarding underground
storage tanks, RCRA sites, and similar locations in order to
map contamination sites for future monitoring programs.
While the mapping was successfully accomplished for each
community, the effort was impeded by the dissimilar scale of
town maps.  Time and financial constraints also contributed
to the inability to map the Hunt Aquifer on one piece of
paper.

Water Sampling

     In response to the evidence of low levels of VOC
contamination, the water suppliers undertook a joint program
of water sampling analysis.   This effort was also undertaken
to supplement and confirm the results of the water sampling
that is annually conducted by the Department of Health.   The
program developed by the water suppliers was designed to
present a picture of the Hunt groundwater quality,
particularly in the wellfield.   The sampling was conducted
once a month for five months.  Each sampling round included
a sample from five wells and each sample was drawn on the
same day at proximate times to insure establishing a
snapshot of impacts on the wells.   The samples were analyzed
by the University of Rhode Island's School of Oceanography.
The sampling period spanned the Spring and early Summer
months specifically to test for differences among seasons.

     The sampling effort produced results that showed
increasing levels of one VOC at one well site.  Armed with

                            48

-------
the findings of the water sampling program and evidence of
increasing contamination in a well with the ability to
deliver over 1.0 mgd,  a request for a contamination
investigation by the State DEM was made.  That study is now
in progress.  Without the supplemental sampling and without
the mutual support of the water suppliers, it is likely that
such a study would have been accomplished.

Inventory of Haaardous Materials

     The North Kingstown and East Greenwich Fire Departments
are participating in the regional effort to monitor and
protect the groundwater in the wellfield area.  To that end,
the respective fire departments have earmarked the area
around the wells for the first priority in inventorying
hazardous substances handled by commercial and industrial
uses.   Each of the Departments is equipped with computer
software that will allow an analysis and comparison of the
materials identified at business establishments with the
type of contamination evident in the Hunt wells.   Because
the Potowornut section of Warwick is non-continguous to the
rest of the city but instead lies adjacent to East
Greenwich, the East Greenwich Fire Department is responsible
for the area within the Hunt Aquifer that lies in Warwick
and East Greenwich.
 VII.  Other  Issues

Land Use Regulation

     Regional cooperation will always be constrained by the
effects of dissimilar zoning, subdivision, and other
municipal regulations.  At present, North Kingstown and East
Greenwich are preparing or modifying aquifer protection
ordinances; Warwick is awaiting the results of a wellhead
study to appropriately designate a protected area.

Staffing and Financial Resources

     To date, the Town of North Kingstown has provided the
ongoing staffing for the committee for preparation of
agenda, etc.   The Town has also agreed to provide the
necessary staffing for developing and accomplishing the
process of Requests for Qualifications and Proposals.
Necessary to the long term maintenance of a regional
organisation will be the requisite staffing and appropriate
funding to support that staff.  The regional effort would
benefit from additional funding resources.  Groundwater
resources are most likely to cross municipal boundaries and
be shared by several water supply systems.  From a public
policy point of view and based on the experience of the Hunt
Aquifer committee, regional efforts should be encouraged and.
supported with financial, legal, and technical assistance.

                            49

-------
VII.   Summary

     In spite of what may seem like many obstacles, the
three water suppliers whose wells lie within the Hunt
Aquifer are preparing to undertake a wellhead delineation
study.   At writing time, an agreement formalising an
association of the three bodies for accomplishing the  study
was expected within weeks.   The funding for the study  will
be entirely provided by the water suppliers in equal shares.
No direct funding of the wellhead study will be provided by
the municipalities.

     The proposed regional wellhead delineation study  is the
first such effort to be undertaken in Rhode Island.
Technical assistance has been available upon request from
the State Department of Environmental Management and the
USEPA.   The lack of available trained professional staff
dedicated entirely to the regional project will hinder the
effectiveness of this effort.   T?ie coordination required
among water suppliers to proceed with the wellhead effort
provided lessons for the future.

     The effectiveness of the wellhead delineation study
will depend largely on the regulations and implementation of
same by the three municipalities.  There is a vast array of
municipal programs and regulations that could be adopted.
towards groundwater protection.  Land use restrictions,
impervious surface limitations, storrnwater rnanagrnent,  and a
coordinated review of projects are just a few examples of
programs that could be implemented on a regional basis.  To
that end, coordination should be sought among trie
communities for consistency and for maximum protection.

     Beyond the regulation level of protection, there  are
additional programs that could be adopted that would serve
the goals of groundwater protection.   Land acquisition,
monitoring programs,  and the sewering of the. delineated
wellfield provide examples of joint programs that would
protect the public's investment in the drinking water
supply.

     The goal of accornplisriing a regional wellhead
delineation study is close at hand.   The delineation effort.
has been the tool for fostering regional cooperation and
interest in protecting the Hunt Aquifer.  Unknown at this
time is whether the regional cooperation will continue
following the completion of the. wellhead delineation study.
It would seem that to fail to continue and participate in
joint programs would frustrate protection efforts.  It would.
be easy to dismiss regional efforts by assigning the future
of the Hunt Aquifer to the municipalities who control  the
land use.  Protection efforts must include the involvement
of the water suppliers who have the capacity to provide

                             50

-------
leadership, program funding, and public policy initiative in furtherance
of drinking water supply protection.
References

-North Kingstown, Town of, and Town of East Greenwich.  Petition for
   Sole Source Aquifer Designation for the Hunt-Annaquatucket-
   Pettaquamscutt Aquifer Region to the United States Environmental
   Protection Agency, December 30, 1987-
-Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program, 1979, 208 Water Quality
   Management Plan for Rhode Island:  Final Plan, August, 1979:
   Providence, Rhode Island 468 p.
-Rosenshein, J. S., J.B. Gonthier, and W.B. Allen, 1968,
   Hydrologic characteristics and sustained yield of principal
   ground-water units, Potowomut-Wickford area, Rhode Island:
   U.S. Geologic Survey-Water Supply Paper 1775, 38p.
-United States Geological Survey, Wickford, Rhode Island quadrangle,
   1975.
Special Note:  The author wishes to express appreciation to Karen J.
Wilson, Rhode Island Coordinator, USEPA Office of Groundwater Protection
for her editing assistance in the preparation of this paper.  Ms Wilson has
been a constant source of information and encouragement to the Town of
North Kingstown in our efforts at groundwater protection.
                                   51

-------
52

-------
                            MODEL FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES

                     TO ASSESS THREATS TO GROUND WATER QUALITY


                         Lynn Rubinstein, Land Use Planner

                        Franklin County Planning Department
                       425 Main Street, Greenfield, MA  01301


                                      ABSTRACT

     Rural communities which rely exclusively on private water supplies, and which
rely on volunteer town boards with no professional staff, often face more difficulty
in identifying threats to their ground water quality than do communities which have
access to professional assistance and public funding for protection of their water
supplies.  The key reason for the frequent inability of rural communities to assess
the threats to their ground water is a lack of financial resources to hire
professionals to conduct the evaluation.  What we learned through a year long effort
in the town of Conway, Massachusetts is that it is possible for a volunteer effort
to produce an in-depth and valuable ground water risk assessment.

     This project was funded through the EPA 205J program and was designed to
conduct a ground water risk assessment in a rural setting, using only volunteer
effort and little or no funding.  Conway was a guinea pig.  The town's goal was a
ground water risk assessment; the 205J program goal was a model for conducting a
ground water risk assessment in a rural setting, with no public water supply, and no
hired consultants.

     Conway is a rural hilltown community in Western Massachusetts with a population
of 1300 people and an area of 40 square miles.  It relies entirely on private wells
for its drinking supply and has no professional staff supporting town government.
Businesses in town are primarily agriculture, a heavy equipment supplier, food
processing, and small scale auto repair.  It is a community of well educated,
environmentally concerned citizens that are worried about the health and safety of
their water supply.

     Included in the volunteer effort were a town wide survey, door-to-door
interviews, mapping, historic records review, geologic examination, public meetings
and presentations, and a final report and recommendations. The intent of the survey
was to locate all wells, septic systems, underground storage tanks, abandoned wells,
and land uses.  The one-on-one interviews were critical for gathering information as
well as public outreach and participation.  Existing documents were used for
identifying the geology and hydrology of the community.

     After identifying their aquifers and potential threats to ground water quality,
final recommendations were developed for future action by the town.  These
recommendations included a program of water quality testing and amendments to board
of health regulations and zoning.
                                             53

-------
     Without staff,  money, or expertise, how is a rural community expected to  find
out what threats may exist to the quality of its ground water?  Why even bother  to
delve into the question in the face of such obstacles?  In Franklin County,
Massachusetts half of the towns rely exclusively on private wells for their water
supply.  There are only three towns in the county which have any surface water
drinking supplies.  Ground water quality is a pressing issue in such a setting,  but
a lack of funding on the local or state level makes professional studies out of  the
question, and thus the towns are left to wonder about what risks may exist to  their
sole source of drinking water.

     This is ironic because the threats to ground water quality in a rural setting
are usually a less complex and more controllable set of variables than exist in
urban settings.  The key reason for the frequent inability of rural communities  to
assess the threats to their ground water is a lack of financial resources to hire
professionals to conduct the evaluation.  This model is designed to provide a  basic
framework for a rural community to define threats to their ground water in the
absence of professional assistance.

     What is a "threat to ground water?"  As used here, ground water quality is  at
risk if a land use presents the capacity to leach contaminants into a ground water
supply which is used for drinking water, and that the contaminants are of sufficient
quantity and type to present the potential for adverse health impacts.  In other
words, contamination into ground water which is not used for drinking does not
present a threat because there would not be the potential for health consequences.
Similarly, just because a land use MAY contaminate ground water does not necessarily
mean that there is a threat to public health.  The contamination may be in
quantities small enough that no adverse health consequences would result.  In  other
words, we are not determining that  there is or will be contamination, but rather
that under the right circumstances there could be a problem.

Step One — Community Participation

     Without the financial resources to hire a hydrologist, engineer, or other
qualified water professional, the town must rely on volunteer community efforts  to
conduct the risk assessment.  This is central to the success of the project.
Representation from all town boards is essential, as well as the highway
superintendent, the fire chief, and other concerned citizens.

     While broad representation will help the process along, the most important
members of the risk assessment committee will be volunteers with backgrounds in
geology, planning, and engineering.  Without some in-house expertise in geology  and
ground water dynamics, the committees efforts will be significantly more difficult.
Often, local colleges and universities can provide students that may assist the
community effort in return for academic credit.  In this way, the necessary
technical support can be supplied without significant financial commitment.

     Once the committee is formed, a "leader" needs to be identified.  Most likely,
it will be a representative from the board which was the catalyst for the ground
water risk assessment effort.  It is also possible that this leader could be from
outside the community.  Assistance may be able to be obtained from the Regional
Planning Agency, local colleges, or the local Conservation District.  Leadership is
important to provide direction, coordinate efforts, and do such mundane chores as


                                             54

-------
organize meetings, do mailings, and keep the community informed of the ongoing
efforts.

     The committee should plan on meeting as a group at least once a month, with
substantive work being done between meetings.  While this is a volunteer effort, it
will not be cost free.  The town should appropriate enough money for the committee
to do a town-wide survey mailing, mail meeting reminders and press releases,
xeroxing, purchasing office supplies, mapping supplies, and copying of their report.
Ideally, there will also be funding for water quality testing.  A budget of anywhere
from $1,000 to $5,000 could be sufficient.

Step Two — Collecting Existing Data

     The town probably already has access to a surprising amount of information
concerning the town's geology, hydrology, water supplies, and risks to water
supplies.  Once the committee is formed their first task will be to start collecting
this information.  Their base goals will be to:

     understand the geology of the town,

     gather information on aquifer(s),

     identify ground water research already done in the community,

     locate and learn about wells in  town,

     locate underground storage tanks,

     locate septic systems,

     locate businesses which may present threats to ground water quality,

     learn what town regulations and  by-laws are already in place, and

     identify town and state public works practices.

     This information can be gathered from a variety of sources. Below is a list of
sources to consult for this information:

     USGS Surficial Geology map for your town,

     USGS Ground-Water Availability map,

     USGS — ask whether there are any ground water or geology studies pertaining to
        your community,

     Soil Conservation Service  (SCS)  Soils Maps,

     DEP Water Supply Atlas Sheet for the town,

     Colleges and Universities -- check geology departments and college  libraries
        for theses addressing geology or ground water in the town,
                                           55

-------
Contact consulting engineering firms in the area and ask whether they have  any
   information on ground water or geology in the community.  If they do, they
   may indicate who the work was done for and, therefore, who has possession of
   the report,

Other towns — If the town is in the watershed or aquifer of a neighboring
   community with a public water supply, that town may have pertinent
   hydrogeologic information,

Town Hall — look for Open Space and Recreation Plan (the local Conservation
   District will also have a copy of this),

Town Hall — the Board of Health should have records on all private wells
   constructed in the past ten years.  If the records are incomplete, the state
   Department of Environmental Management (DEM), Water Resources Division,  can
   provide copies of the well logs.  Well logs include information on the depth
   of the well, type of construction, depth of water table, yield of well,  and
   materials passed through during construction,

Town Hall — the Board of Health should have records on all septic systems.
   The DEP, Division of Water Pollution Control, may have copies as well,

Town Hall — the Town Clerk should have permits for all businesses in town,

Fire Department — The Fire Department should have  permits for all underground
   storage tanks in town,

Town Hall — Collect copies of all town by-laws, zoning by-laws, and Board  of
   Health regulations,

Local Highway Department — Interview about road salt application practices and
   storage,

State Department of Public Works — If there are state roads in town, the same
   questions should be asked of the state,

Town Right to Know Coordinator — May have information on businesses in town
   which are using hazardous materials.  DEP will have this information if  it
   is not available locally.

Town Hazardous Waste Coordinator — May have information on businesses in town
   which produce hazardous waste.  The DEP, Division of Hazardous Waste, also
   has listings of registered generators of hazardous waste by community,

DEP — Water Pollution Control Division may have data on any streams in town
   concerning water quality,

DEP — If the town abuts the Connecticut River, there is a study that was done
   pertaining to pesticides and ground water contamination which may be of  use,

Regional Planning Agency — May have information about the community use, or
   may be able to indicate where else to look.
                                         56

-------
     Old Town Maps — can be important for historic land use information.
        Interviewing senior members of the community and reading books on town
        history can also be important for learning about past land uses which could
        have left behind potential sources of contamination,

     CCAMP    Is a multi-agency ground water protection project which has produced
        an excellent handbook on contamination sources for wellhead protection. It
        includes detailed information on types of threats to ground water; including
        descriptions of contaminants, their fate in soils and water, and description
        of land use categories.  Their matrix of land uses which present threats to
        ground water quality is attached as appendix 2, and,

     Massachusetts Audubon Society — Has an excellent series of flyers on
        ground water protection, including basic information hydrogeology and town
        strategies for protecting ground water resources.

Step Three — Filling in the Data Gaps

     Despite the reams of valuable information which can be accumulated from the
sources listed above, it is unlikely that this process will have provided all of the
information needed to know about threats to a particular community's ground water.
At this juncture, a town-wide survey is very important.  The goal of the survey is
to learn as much about specific sites as possible in order to determine what risks
to ground water quality which may exist.  For example, the survey will try to
identify patterns of land use, relative siting of wells, underground storage tanks,
and septic systems, proximity to roads to wells, location of abandoned wells, and
more.  In this way, a detailed picture of the town will begin to develop, as opposed
to the generally broader sweep of information provided by gathering existing data.
A sample survey is attached in appendix 1.

     Conducting the survey will present several problems.  In our experience there
is tremendous community resistance to providing information about private property
to anyone— especially the town.  The fear is that the information will somehow "be
used against them."  Because of this, it is important that there be adequate
publicity about the survey, the reasons for it, and assurances that the information
is not intended to be used as a basis for action against any individual.  Assurances
should also appear on the survey itself.

     The survey should be mailed to each address in town.  Be sure to include town
owned buildings in the survey.  Return postage should be provided, as well as a
convenient location in town for people to drop off their completed surveys.  For
example, the library or town hall could have a box out to accept surveys.  A name
and phone number for questions should be included on the survey.  Publicity
containing reminders to complete the surveys, their importance, and, again,
assurances about their use as part of a study and not as a way of "checking up" on
people should be highlighted.  A deadline for returning surveys should be included.

     After about two months have gone by and less than the whole community has
responded, it is time to go door-to-door.  This is hard work, but very important.
Speaking with individuals serves two important roles: 1) it helps diffuse community
suspicion and concern about what you are "up to," and 2) provides a more complete
survey response.
                                            57

-------
   On the other hand, door-to-door may not be a feasible approach.  One possible
strategy would be to focus on certain key areas of town which are the most likely
sources of contaminants,  and restrict the door-to-door canvasing to that area.
Also, if there is a similar pattern of development throughout town, then detailed
information town-wide may not be necessary.  Or, it may be that there are two
distinct geologic settings in town and having a core of good data in each is
adequate to determine levels of potential threat to ground water.  If you have
enough time and volunteer energy to cover the entire community, this is always
preferable, but obviously not always realistic.

     While the surveys are circulating,  committee members should start conducting a
windshield survey of the  town to locate  activities and businesses not previously
identified which may present risks to ground water.  Interviewing the owners of
these facilities is a good idea.  It helps to develop support for the risk
assessment process, and can provide important information.  It also helps prevent
people from feeling that  they are being  singled out for attack.  A listing of
enterprises which may present risks to ground water quality is attached in appendix
2.

     What is going to be  done with the town-wide and windshield survey results, and
well logs?  Plot them on  maps.  This is  not as difficult as it may sound.  A good
"base map" will be necessary from which  to work.  USGS topographic maps are
excellent for this.  If there are areas  of dense development in town,  the scale of
the USGS map will probably be too small.  In this case, enlarging the base map to a
scale of perhaps 1:200 would help.  This provides plenty of room for plotting of
detailed information.  Using a town road map as the base map can also work quite
well.  Again, changing the scale may make it more useable.  The Regional Planning
Agency in your area can help to arrange  the production of a base map and, if
necessary, can teach a member of the risk assessment committee how to plot the
information on the overlays.  By using sheets of transparent mylar over the base map
layers of information can be developed.

        Mapping all the information accumulated through the process described above
would be difficult and not necessarily helpful.  Key pieces of information to plot
on the overlays are:

1) sand and gravel deposits identified on USGS surficial geology map,

2) locations and depths of private wells,

3) locations and identification of land  uses which present threats to ground water
   quality,

4) locations of underground storage tanks,

5) septic system locations,

6) wells within 100 ft. of a septic system, and

7) wells within 20 ft. of a roadway.
                                           58

-------
     These overlays are a critical first step in determining what threats to ground
water quality may exist in town.  Through the use of the overlays it is possible to
begin to see the relationship between activities and wells, and can highlight areas
of critical concern in, a clear and simple way.

Step Four — Which Land Uses Constitute A Threat to Ground Water Quality?

     Not all threats to ground water quality are of equal significance.  Some land
uses, while appearing on a list of enterprises which present risks for ground water
contamination, present a low risk.  This determination is based upon the type of
contaminants, how they interact with the environment, how they degrade in soil and
water, how fast they move, and how dangerous they are to human health.  It is
important in the analysis of threats to ground water that the specific
characteristics of the community are taken into consideration.  Many types of
activities will be identified on the attached lists which do not occur in a specific
town.  Therefore, it is an important step is to identify which land uses with
potential risk to ground water do occur in a given community and to determine the
level of risk which they present according to the charts given in appendix I.  In
addition, identifying any other types of activities that there is reason to be
concerned about which have not appeared on the list should be included.

     Do not rely on the level of risk identified on the charts.  For example, if
there is a textile dying enterprise in town it is considered to present a slight
risk to ground water.  But, in a particular town the business has been illegally
dumping its waste for years, or has a failing septic system, or has five shallow
wells within thirty (30) feet of the site, or any other possible combination of
circumstances that could make this a potentially severe risk for this community.
Using common sense and knowledge of a specific setting to make determinations about
what constitutes a threat to ground water is the key to a complete ground water risk
assessment.

Step Five — Learning From What Has Been Collected

     There should now be enough information gathered to critically assess the
potential for ground water contamination in town.  It will be important to study the
geologic maps, location of sand and gravel deposits, clay layers, and depths of
wells to determine general patterns of ground water use in town.  It is in this step
that the assistance of someone with geologic and hydrogeologic expertise is
critical.  That person will be able to study the well logs, geologic maps, survey
results, and DEP and USGS studies to describe the hydrogeologic setting of the town.
Once this is understood the types of land use and risks that they may present can be
analyzed by using the attached charts in combination with a detailed understanding
of the specific site.  For example, some land uses present great risks to shallow
wells, but may present little to no risk to bed rock/deep wells.  There may also be
settings were septic system failures are more likely due to hydrogeologic settings,
and this can be analyzed by the expert in geology.

     Once the hydrogeologic setting is defined and understood, the land uses can be
carefully examined to determine what risks they may present and to whom.  For
example, the town may store its winter sand and salt pile out of doors.  This may
present a ground water contamination threat to shallow wells in the vicinity.  By
knowing that there are shallow wells nearby, rational judgements can be made about
water testing programs and appropriate town response to protect against
contamination.

                                            59

-------
Step Six — Now What

     By studying the proximity of various land uses with private wells, the depth of
those wells, and the degree of risk presented by the land use, decisions can be made
about what to do next.   At this point it should be apparent what activities in town
may have already contaminated ground water,  or which may in the future.  If there is
reason to believe that  ground water may already be contaminated, the community
should immediately implement a water quality testing program.

     The water quality  testing program should be designed to test for the
contaminants which are  believed to be present.  For example, if the study indicated
that septic system failure may have occurred in proximity to shallow wells, the
tests would be looking  for nitrates and coliform contamination.  If the threat is
presented by road salt, saline concentration would be highlighted.  On the other
hand, perhaps the threat is seen to be from agriculture.  It will be necessary to
identify the types of pesticides believed to have been used in order to test for
them in the ground water.  An annual community water testing program will help
monitor long term and changing ground water conditions.

     It is a good idea  for the town to sponsor and pay for the water quality testing
program.  First, it helps ensure community cooperation with the testing program.
Second, it ensures that copies of the test results come to the town. If the town
does not pay for the test, then homeowner permission for copies of the test results
to go to the town will  have to be obtained.   Third, by conducting a community
program, the cost can be negotiated down below that charged for individual tests.
If contamination is found, be sure to immediately notify DEP, Division of Water
Pollution Control.  They can often provide technical support for solving or
remediating the situation.

     Without water quality testing it will not be possible to know if there is an
existing problem with ground water quality.   If there is a problem, it is important
to take remedial action to protect the health of the water users.  If there is no
contamination, then it  is important to take steps to ensure against future
contamination.  Town regulations and by-laws, as well as public education can be key
in safeguarding future  water quality.  Examples of town regulations and by-laws
which can work to protect ground water quality include: aquifer protection zoning,
private well regulations, hazardous materials and underground storage tank
regulations, required septic tank pumping regulations, unregistered motor
vehicle by-laws, and, wetlands protection by-laws.  The Regional Planning Agency
should be able to provide more information about these strategies.  Other town
actions can include: covering of salt piles, decreasing use of road salt, land
acquisition and protection activities, town supported water quality testing, public
education efforts, hiring of professional health agent and planning staff, and,
cooperation in regional efforts to protect ground water.

Step Seven -- Finally

     It is key that the results of the volunteer risk assessment be well publicized
and presented to the community.  Public education and support for the effort are
essential if behavior is to be changed and town regulations and by-laws passed.
Copies of your report should be distributed around town and made generally
available.  Be sure to  send copies to the Regional Planning Agency and Conservation
District.
                                          60

-------
     Unless the town takes affirmative steps as a result of the study about threats
to ground water quality, it is inviting contamination to occur.  Perhaps the most
important result of this study will be to educate the town officials about the
threats to public safety which exist in town and the actions which they can take to
protect the public.
                                     APPENDICES


1.  Sample survey.

2.  Lists of Land Uses Which Present Risks to Ground Water.
                                            61

-------
 APPENDIX 1.
Sample Survey
          62

-------
                              APPENDIX 1

              SURVEY OF PRIVATE WELLS AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS
                 FOR GROUNDWATER RISK ASSESSMENT STUDY

     The Town Boards are conducting a study to determine potential
threats to the quality of our drinking water.  We need your help.
Please provide the information requested below to the best of your
ability.  THIS INFORMATION WILL NOT BE USED BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY
AS A BASIS FOR ACTION AGAINST YOU.  IT IS SOLELY FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES.

     In order to determine what could potentially harm your drinking
water, we need to know where your well is, your septic system, and
other land use features.  In this way we will be able to accurately map
threats to ground water supplies, and just how close they are to
private drinking supplies.

     Please take a few moments to draw a diagram of your property,
including: house, well, septic system, abandoned wells, underground
storage tanks, railroad tracks, power lines, and other structures.  We
would also appreciate any information you have about your well: type,
depth, water table level, how far it is from the road, septic system,
and underground storage tanks.  If you have a business on the site,
please describe the type of enterprise.  If you have any questions,
please call 	, at 	.

     Return postage has been provided.  Please complete this form and
return no later than 	.  Surveys can also be dropped off at the
library.  Thank you very much for your assistance.
PLEASE DRAW RELATIVE LOCATIONS OF HOUSE, WELL, SEPTIC SYSTEM,
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK, HIGH POWER LINES, RAILROAD TRACKS, AND OTHER
STRUCTURES, AND SHOW DISTANCES BETWEEN   (or guess at distances).

YOUR NAME:
STREET:                         ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER:                     63
COMMENTS:

-------
                      APPENDIX 2.
Lists of Land Uses Which Present Risks to Ground Water.

-------
                      APPENDIX 2.






Lists of Land Uses Which Present Risks to Ground Water.
                              65

-------
                         GROONDWATER
                   RELATIVE LEVELS OF RISK
   Taking into Consideration Volume, Likelihood of  Release,
            Toxicity of Contaminants, and Mobility

 Compiled and Analyzed by Vermont Department of Health,  1988
SEVERE -

Dry Cleaners
Gas Station
Car Wash with Gas Station
Service Station — full or minor repairs
Painting and Rust Proofing
Junk Yards
Highway Deicing — application and storage
Right of Way Maintenance
Dust Inhibitors
Parking Lot Runoff
Commercial Size Fuel Tanks
Underground Storage Tanks
Injection Wells: automobile service station disposal  wells;
   industrial process water and waste disposal wells
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Land Fills
Salt Stock Piles

SEVERE TO MODERATE -

Machine Shops: metal working; electroplating; machining;  etc
Chemical and Allied Products
Industrial Lagoons and Pits
Septic Tanks, Cesspools, and Privies
Septic Cleaners
Septage
Household Cleaning Supplies
Commercial Size Septic Systems
Chemical Stock Piles
Clandestine Dumping

MODERATE -

Carpet and Upholstery Cleaners
Printing and Publishing
Photography and X-Ray Labs
Funeral Homes
Pest Control
Oil Distributors
Paving and Roofing
Electrical Component Industry
Fertilizers and Pesticides
Paint Products
Automotive Products
Home Heating Oil Tanks Greenhouses and Nurseries

                                  66

-------
Golf Courses
Landscaping
Above Ground Fuel Tanks
Agricultural Drainage Wells
Raw Sewage Disposal Wells Abandoned Drinking Wells

MODERATE TO SLIGHT -

Water Softeners
Research Laboratories
Above Ground Manure Tanks
Storm Water and Industrial Drainage Wells   "  --
Stump Dumps
Construction

SLIGHT -

Beauty Salons
Car Wash
Taxidermists
Dying/Finishing of Textiles
Paper and Allied Products
Tanneries
Rubber and Misc. Plastic Products
Stone, Class, Clay, and Concrete Products
Soft Drink Bottlers
Animal Feedlots, Stables, and Kennels
Animal Burial
Dairy Waste
Poultry and Egg Processing
Railroad Tracks, Yards, and Maintenance Stations
Electrical Power Generation Plants, and Powerline Corridors
Mining of Domestic Stone
Meat Packing, Rendering, and Poultry Plants
Open Burning and Detonation Sites
Aquifer Recharge Wells
Electric Power and Direct Heat Reinjection Wells
Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant and Effluent Disposal
   Wells
Radioactive Waste
                             67

-------
           LAND USE/PUBLIC-SUPPLY WELL  POLLUTION  POTENTIAL  MATRIX
             Land U*« Consideration*
                                           Potential
                                           Contaminant*
Ovar*J] Thual lo Public Health
Mot-lily
ttaluial B>ckground
L-M
M
M
I.M
L

L
«
ifW;
U
H
^
L
M
fe.
H
L H
^

H

t
L

H
LM


M


M


L.H
m

H
&!§$
&S«sj3
lEpgBpra

H


"
Pi

H

Overall Threat
Land Us. Cai.gorl.m » Pub»« W»*«' Supply*
                  re Stripping and Pa ml ing

             Industrial Lagoons and Pill
             Jvwelry and Maul Plal.ng
             Machine Shopi/Metal Wwkirv

             RaMaich L»bt/Umv«riili«i/Hoipiial*
             Road ind Miiniamnce Oepoli
                 « Lagoon* and S1udg«
             Sepix; Srtltmi. C«»pooti and W.lei


                  The contaminants) released from this land-use category
                  accordance with federal and state maximum contaminant
                                   may render groundwater at a public-supply well undrinkable in
                                  it levels.
L
                  This land use category is not generally associated with the release of the particular contaminant in quantities that would
                  render the groundwater at a public-supply well undrinkable. However, the contaminant may be associated with a particular
                  activity.
                         • Low Threat
                                                               M   = Medium Threat
                                                                                                               H   = High Threat
           This Matrix is based on a literature review and the combined field experience of the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project (CCAMP) '
           THISMATRIXSHOULDBEUSEDASAGUIDEANDHANDYREFERENCE.Itisnotasubstituteforlookingatapanicularlanduse
           in detail. There will always be the potential for a business to use an unusual process using chemicals not normally associated with that
           business. The land-use categories included in the Matrix and Guide to Contamination Sources for Wellhead Protection are those that
           might be found in the primary recharge area of a public-supply well in Massachusetts. This Matrix may be misleading or erroneous if
           applied to low-yield private wells.

           I. Niuaie has a cumulative Impact on 9rOUndW8tef quality No one caiegorv is responsible lor the releau&f nitrate. A variety of land use categories release nitrate These
             mclude an.mal leedlots, landl.lls. sopi.c sysiems, sepiage lagoons, municipal waElew3ler end agrlcullurai activities including rurf maintenance
             There are no known insianc
             groundwaier from this land u
                  o fiuirir 1f> Confnmin
                                                                       mintenance


ol beeuly parlors contaminating well waler in Massachusetts  More research is needed to determine the severity of a threat to
                                         s fn, Wullhnad Pro
                                                                             68

-------
                                 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

                          Lynn Rubinstein, Land Use Planner
                                   425 Main Street
                                Greenfield, MA  01301

     Lynn Rubinstein is the Franklin County Land Use Planner, specializing in ground
water,  hazardous waste, and rural preservation.  She is a member of the Massachusetts
Hazardous Waste Advisory Committee, and a member of the Board of Directors of the
Valley Land Fund, Inc.  Previously, she was the Coordinator of the Franklin, Hampden,
and Hampshire Conservation Districts.  Before moving to Massachusetts, Ms.  Rubinstein
was a trial attorney with the Department of Justice.  She has a B.A. from Wesleyan
University in geology.  Publications include: "What Choices Do You Have Besides
Selling Your Farmland For Development?," "Forest and Farm Land Preservation
Techniques,: and "Affordable Limited Development: A Model for Housing in Rural
Communities."
                                            69

-------
70

-------
                              THE FOX(BOROUGH)  GUARDING
                                  THE AQUIFER COOP:
                                LOCAL CONTROL AT WORK


                      Kimberly D.  Noake,  Project Hydrogeologlst

                               SEA Consultants Inc.
                              485 Massachusetts Avenue
                           Cambridge,  Massachusetts   02139


Abstract

Both the elected officials and citizens of the  Town of Foxborough, Massachusetts have
made a serious commitment to groundwater quality protection and management of potential
contamination sources.  Foxborough's wellhead protection strategy is not a product of
a federal or state  mandated program, rather,  it evolved over a  five  year period in
response to local needs.

Due to the nature of the groundwater resource,  it must be identified and protected at
the local level.  Unlike hazardous waste and leaking underground storage tanks which
can be regulated by federal or state legislation regardless of location,  occurrence,
or quantity,  the identification of aquifers and the development of wellhead protection
strategies is a site-specific process.

The  delineation  of  a wellhead  protection  area   depends upon the  hydrogeologic
characteristics of the aquifer, the pumping rate and number of wells,  and the amount
of recharge  the aquifer receives  from precipitation and  induced infiltration from
surface water bodies.   In  Massachusetts,  for example,  a wellhead protection area in
a buried river valley  aquifer will have a different configuration than one in a glacial
outwash plain aquifer.  Foxborough recognized  the importance of  local resource-based
groundwater protection five years  ago when it delineated its wellhead protection areas
and adopted a Water Resource Protection District bylaw in 1984.

Recently, over  40 Massachusetts  communities  have  lost major municipal  groundwater
supplies to contamination or have experienced  severe water shortages.   The plight of
neighboring communities prompted Foxborough officials to engage SEA Consultants Inc.
to update the 1984 bylaw and  redefine  the wellhead  protection areas to conform with
recently adopted state guidelines for delineating primary (Zone II) and  secondary (Zone
III)  aquifer recharge  areas.  The goal of the town was to have a technically defensible
wellhead protection strategy.

Several carefully tailored approaches were used to delineate the  Zone  II and Zone III
areas for Foxborough's 11  existing wells  and  6 proven well sites.  Monitoring wells
were  installed  and performance tests conducted at each of the town's pumping stations


                                             71

-------
using an automated  data  gathering and processing system.  This  data logger  supplied
aquifer property data collected under uniform ambient conditions for use in a detailed
town-wide aquifer simulation model which delineated the Zone II and Zone III areas  for
the 17  wells.   Existing pumping  test  data was re-evaluated  using current  computer
programs and incorporated into the town-wide model where necessary.

A mass balance analytical nitrate  loading model was also used to  determine the nitrate
loading in the Zone  II areas under maximum build-out conditions.   A new  Water Resource
Protection District bylaw was written to protect both the Zone II and Zone  III areas.
The bylaw includes a comprehensive list of prohibited uses and uses allowed by special
permit  that are  subject  to  stringent performance standards.  Minimum  lot sizes  for
various uses were also  included to ensure  that nitrate concentrations at  the  wellhead
do not  exceed  drinking water standards.   To further  strengthen the town's  wellhead
protection strategy, SEA wrote a new Toxic and Hazardous Materials bylaw, recommended
changes  to subdivision  rules  and  Board of  Health  regulations,  and  designed a
groundwater monitoring program.


Introduction

Over forty municipalities in  Massachusetts have lost all or part of their municipal
groundwater supplies to  chemical and bacterial contamination due  to  the siting of
inappropriate land uses  in  the primary recharge areas of  their public supply wells.
All across the state, increasing development pressures threaten  the supply of clean,
abundant water; the very resource that enables the economy of a  town to flourish.

The primary responsibility  for groundwater protection lies not  with the federal  and
state  governments but  with  local boards  and citizens.   Although  the tracking  and
disposal of  hazardous  waste  and  leaking  underground  storage tanks are  managed by
federal and state legislation, many other  point and nonpoint potential contamination
sources are more effectively controlled by municipal regulations.

The federal Wellhead Protection  Program,  authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1986,  authorized Congress to distribute  grants and  technical assistance
to states that develop wellhead protection programs.  Massachusetts recently submitted
a wellhead protection program to  meet federal  guidelines.   Existing programs at  the
state level offer grants for land acquisition in sensitive recharge areas and technical
assistance  in   delineating   wellhead  protection  areas   and  drafting  protective
legislation.   The philosophy at  both the state and federal  level is  that  wellhead
protection strategies should  be  resource-based and thus are  inextricably linked to
municipal governments.

Comprehensive  local  groundwater protection   strategies   begin  with  an  accurate,
scientifically-based delineation  of primary and  secondary aquifer recharge areas.
Historically,  the use of land in  the vicinity  of  public supply wells,  excluding  the
400 foot protective  radius required by the  state, was not stringently controlled. This
occurred  for  two reasons:  (1)   the  threats to the  groundwater  resource  were  not
completely understood, and (2) the aquifers and well recharge areas were  not accurately
delineated.  Now, however,  several tools are available to communities  to enable them
to  identify,   define,  and  protect  existing  and  potential  groundwater   supplies,
including:  sophisticated  three-dimensional  numerical computer  models  that  simulate
groundwater flow; innovative zoning and general bylaws; subdivision regulations;  and
Board of Health regulations.  Conscious land use  decisions must be made by  citizens
and local  boards in order  to protect  groundwater supplies from contamination.  An
                                             72

-------
         VT
                         NH
              r"
              f
     MASSACHUSETTS
             )
             *
0    15



 MILES

             I; • ..•.....•• . -..... . -.;. :.\,

             /.•TOWN OF ;.;•..:.;...:>,

             "••FOX BOROUGH: ;•';'£
             • •.' •. *
                Town Location Map


           Foxborough, Massachusetts
                           73

-------
exceptional example of  a  town that has taken  substantial  steps toward developing  a
comprehensive groundwater protection strategy is Foxborough, Massachusetts.

The Town of Foxborough,  Massachusetts is located in Norfolk County, approximately 25
miles southwest of Boston.  The town comprises approximately 21 square miles  and its
entire population of over 15,000 people is served by groundwater from 11 wells.  The
wells are between 30 and 40 feet deep and are screened in the unconsolidated  glacial
deposits of four buried  river valley aquifers.  These four aquifers, the Wading River
Aquifer, Neponset Reservoir  Aquifer,  Billings Brook/Rumford River Aquifer,  and the
Canoe River Aquifer, derive a significant amount of recharge by induced infiltration
from nearby surface water bodies.  The combined safe yield of the  town's 11 wells is
approximately four (4) million gallons per day.  Foxborough also has six proven well
sites that will supplement the current system when needed.


Hydrogeology

Foxborough is located in the  Eastern Plateau physiographic province of Massachusetts.
In this area, the bedrock forms a flat, well-dissected plateau that gently slopes to
the  east.     According  to  the  U.S.  Geological  Survey  Bedrock  Geologic   Map  of
Massachusetts (Zen, et  al. ,  1983), four northeast/southwest  trending bedrock units
underlie Foxborough.   They are, in order of occurrence from north to south, the Sharon
Syenite, the Dedham Granite,  the Wamsutta Formation, and the Rhode Island Formation.

During the Pleistocene  Epoch, New  England was  glaciated  several times.   The  glacier
plucked and scoured the bedrock, entraining sediments  that ranged in size from huge
boulders (glacial erratics)  to  cobbles,  pebbles, sand, silt, clay and  rock  flour.
As the  glacier  advanced and  retreated,  it  deposited some of  its  entrained  debris,
called till, directly on the ground.  Till is a poorly sorted, heterogeneous  mixture
of sand, silt, clay and  angular rocks of various sizes.  The glacier smeared till over
bedrock knobs and along  the walls of bedrock valleys and deposited it in elongated till
hills (drumlins) . In some cases,  till flowed or slumped off the surface of the  melting
ice.   This "flow till" can sometimes be observed within sand and gravel deposits.

Over time,  the climate changed and  the earth experienced a gradual  warming trend that
continues  to  this  day.    As   a result,  the glacial  ice  began  to  melt.   Along the
irregular margin of wasting ice,  meltwater streams poured from subglacial tunnels or
through valleys  carved  in the  ice.   In  the  openings between the wasting  ice and
till-covered bedrock  knobs,  these   streams sorted  and deposited sediments  in their
channels  (glaciofluvial  deposits)   as  well  as  in  ice-marginal   lakes  and ponds
(glaciolacustrine deposits).   These  unconsolidated deposits are  called stratified
drift.

Meltwater  streams  transported,  sorted and  deposited glacially  entrained sediments
according to grain size.  High velocity meltwater streams deposited cobbles,  gravel,
sand and minor  amounts  of silt and clay in major  outwash  plains  and valley  trains.
The bulk of  the fine  grained sediments  (silt  and clay)  was held  in suspension and
eventually deposited by slow  flowing streams  in glacial lakes.   In Foxborough, the
glacial meltwater streams  filled the ancient north/south trending bedrock valleys with
varying thicknesses of  interbedded gravel,  sand,  silt  and clay.   Thus,  the  Town's
buried river valley aquifers  were created.
                                             74

-------
Aquifer Delineation and Mapping

In order to identify the extent of Foxborough's aquifers, locate sites  favorable  for
future groundwater  exploration and  designate  groundwater protection  areas,  it  was
necessary  to  delineate areas  underlain predominantly by coarse-grained  stratified
drift.  Unfortunately, detailed  surficial  geologic maps  were not available for Fox-
borough.    In  the  absence  of such maps,  soil survey maps provided much  useful infor-
mation.  Although soils  maps are a reflection of  only the  top two to  three feet of
soil, this top  layer  is  generally indicative of subsurface materials.  Soil maps  and
an  Interim Soil  Survey Report for Norfolk  and  Suffolk  Counties  are   available  for
Foxborough from the U.S. Department of Agriculture,  Soil Conservation Service.  Certain
soils, such as those of the Charlton-Hollis Association,  are  typical  of  glacial till.
Because till  does not  readily  transmit  water,  areas underlain by glacial  till soils
are  considered  to be non-aquifer areas.   Other types of soils  are  more  typical of
stratified  drift, which  are more uniform sands  and gravels generally  capable  of
transmitting  large quantities  of water.  Areas underlain by  stratified  drift-derived
soils such as the Hinckley  or  Merrimac  series are  considered to be aquifer areas.

Topographic features were also  used in mapping glacial deposits.  Flat-topped terraces
surrounded by steep slopes are  typical of  stratified drift, for  example,  whereas
uniform slopes  are generally characteristic of glacial till.   Field verification  was
an  important adjunct  to reconnaissance  mapping  based  upon  topography  and soils.
Bedrock  outcrops  were  noted,  as  were  natural  exposures  of   soil   and man-made
excavations.   The "micro-topography" of  the land,  the  number,  size,  and shape of
boulders, drainage, and other factors were also utilized in mapping surficial deposits.

Well and boring data from over  300 locations in Foxborough were also used to delineate
the  unconsolidated aquifers (see  Plate 1).  The surficial geologic units shown on Plate
2 are divided into the two distinct types  already discussed:  glacial  till and strati-
fied drift.  The  limits of the  non-aquifer glacial till areas are delineated on Plate
2 by the diagonal hatched areas and are  labeled as "Qt"-   The limits  of  the remaining
aquifer areas,  the stratified  drift deposits, are  labeled as  "Qsg".

Aquifer Saturated Thickness

Within the stratified drift aquifer areas shown on Plate 2, the characteristics of  the
aquifer were  further  evaluated by determining  the aquifer saturated thickness.    The
saturated  thickness, or vertical  thickness of  the aquifer,  is a measure of the size
of  the  groundwater reservoir.    The  aquifer saturated thickness  is  calculated from
boring and well log data by subtracting  the top  of aquifer (water table  surface) from
the  bottom of aquifer (till  or  bedrock surface).  Areas of highest saturated thickness
(over 30 feet)  are generally the most favorable for high yield well  development.

The  Wading River Aquifer  is  the most extensive aquifer in Foxborough,  with a saturated
thickness exceeding 50 feet in  the vicinity of Lake Mirimichi.  The Neponset Reservoir
Aquifer appears,  based upon existing data,  to  have a high favorability area limited
to a northeast-southwest trending trough extending from the  H.C. Morse  proposed well
site to the Foxboro Company.   The vertical extent  of  the  groundwater aquifer at Well
Pumping Station No. 4, off  of  Route 1,  is also limited in extent.

The northern portion of the Billings Brook/Rumford River Aquifer in Foxborough has been
extensively explored and  developed and  is  considered to  be close to its safe yield.
SEA recommended no further  well development  beyond the existing  and proven well
sites.  There is, however,  the potential for future well  development in the southern
                                           75

-------
                                                                   SUBSURFACE DATA POINTS  MAP
                                  SURFACE WATERSHED BOUNDARY

                                  EXISTING PUMPING STATION

                                  FUTURE PROVEN WELL SITES

                                  TOWN LINE

                               •  TEST BORINGS (NUMBER-YEAR)
                               '-• SEISMIC PROFILES
                                                                   TOWN-WIDE GROUNDWATER
                                                                   PROTECTION STUDY
                                                                   FOXBOROUGH, MASSACHUSETTS
                                                                                SEA Consultants Inc.
                                                                                Engineers/Architects
2000 1000   0       2000     4000

      SCAI F  IN FFFT
                                          76

-------
                  SURFICIAl GEOLOGY  AND
                  AQUIFER SATURATED THICKNESS
                  MAP
                  TOWN-WIDE GROUNDWATER
                  PROTECTION STUDY
                  FOXBOROUGH,  MASSACHUSETTS
                             SE A Consultants Inc
                             Engineers/Architects
77

-------
portion of the Rumford River Aquifer south of Route  140  (Cocasset Street)  and east  of
Morse Street.   The Canoe River Aquifer is  the only known aquifer in Town which is not
currently being utilized as  a source of water  supply.   SEA recommended additional
exploration in  this  aquifer east of  East Street and southwest of  Beaumont  Pond  to
better define the favorability of this aquifer.

Aquifer Transmissivity

In addition to  the aquifer  saturated thickness map, a map of Aquifer Transmissivity
(Plate 3) was prepared.  Aquifer transmissivity  is a better indicator of potential well
yields  than saturated  thickness alone.   Aquifer  transmissivity  is  equal  to the
saturated  thickness  of  the  aquifer  multiplied  by  the  hydraulic  conductivity
(permeability).

Hydraulic  conductivity  is   a quantitative  description  of the  water-transmitting
characteristics of the  soil  materials comprising the aquifer.   It is defined as the
volume of water at the existing kinematic viscosity (field conditions)  which  will move
in  unit time under  a  unit  hydraulic gradient  through a  unit  area normal to the
direction of  flow.   For this study,  the  pumping test  analyses  and previous  reports
describing the aquifer  in terms of geology and hydraulic conductivity were  reviewed.

Available pumping tests were  evaluated using computer pumping test analysis  programs
(Hall Groundwater Consultants, Inc. , 1986)  for time versus drawdown and distance versus
drawdown.  The  transmissivity of individual  test well locations was also calculated
using the boring  log descriptions and assigning average hydraulic conductivities  to
the various grain size  distributions  (sand, gravel,  silt, clay) which were  reported.


Field Exploration Program and Prolonged Pumping Tests

SEA designed a field exploration program and  conducted four pumping  tests  to expand
the aquifer property data base and calibrate the zone of  contribution groundwater flow
model.  Based upon the data compilation and review, and the aquifer hydrogeologic maps,
specific  areas were identified  adjacent to  the   existing pumping  stations  where
additional  data was needed  to  determine  aquifer   stratigraphy  and  the  following
properties:   saturated  thickness,    hydraulic  conductivity,   transmissivity  and
storativity.  Following site inspections at each pumping station, a field exploration
program was designed  consisting of observation well installation,  water table  elevation
surveying, and completion of  a prolonged pump test.

A total of 13 new observation wells  were constructed using the drive-and-wash method.
The wells consist of 2.5 inch steel  casing with five feet of screen set  at either the
bottom  of  aquifer  (deep wells)  or just below  the surface  organic sediment  deposits
(shallow wells).  Clustered wells, consisting of a  shallow  and deep well at  the same
location, were  utilized at  Stations No.  1, No.  2 and No. 4 to  evaluate the  induced
infiltration  from adjacent  surface  water bodies  and  allow  for  a more   accurate
calculation of aquifer  properties.

Four  pumping  tests  were conducted  at each of the  four   existing  pumping  station
locations (Nos.  1-4)  during January 1989.  The 13 new observation wells and 10 existing
observation wells were  used  to monitor water table  drawdown in the vicinity  of each
pumping station.  Each  pumping station was shut down for a  minimum of two days prior
to commencing the three day pump  test  to allow the water table to recover to  (or close
to) its static  elevation.    The  pumping test itself was conducted for  approximately


                                          78

-------
                       AQUIFER  TRANSMISSIVITY MAP
                       TOWN-WIDE  GROUNDWATER
                       PROTECTION STUDY
                       FOXBOROUGH,  MASSACHUSETTS
                                  SEA Consultants Inc.
                                  Engineers/Architects
79

-------
three days followed by  two  days of recovery readings.   The  actual duration of well
shutdown prior to the test,  length of the pump test,  and recovery, after the test, were
performed as the normal operation of the water supply distribution system allowed.

In order to obtain water level measurements simultaneously from four observation wells
during the pump tests,  an automated computer storage and retrieval system consisting
of pressure  transducers  linked to a data  logger  was used for  both  the  pumping  and
recovery phases of the test.

Water level sampling interval  times were programmed into the data logger to correspond
to the Massachusetts Department  of  Environmental  Protection  Water Supply guidelines
(DEP, 1989):  10 readings taken at six second  intervals,  followed by 10 readings taken
at one  minute intervals,  followed by  10  readings  taken  at ten  minute  intervals,
followed by one reading taken each hour for the duration of the pump  test.  Recovery
sampling intervals were identical to the pump test drawdown intervals.


Zone of Contribution Modeling

A three-dimensional finite difference groundwater flow model was used  to delineate  the
zone of contribution recharge  areas for  Foxborough's 11 existing wells and 6 proven
future well  sites.  SEA chose  the U.S.  Geological Survey's MODFLOW  computer model
(McDonald and Harbaugh, 1984) to simulate groundwater  flow in the heterogeneous aquifer
system.   MODFLOW  simulates groundwater  flow in  both  steady  state  and transient
conditions.  The program code  for the Foxborough model was adapted to  run on a Digital
Microvax  II  computer which allowed the  simulation of  anisotropic,   nonhomogeneous
aquifers under varying pumping scenarios.  In Foxborough,  induced infiltration from
surface waters provides a significant amount of recharge to the public supply wells.
Therefore, the model also simulated the exchange of water between surface waters  and
groundwater.

The primary objective of  the numerical computer model was to provide a  sound technical
basis for delineating water supply protection zones  in accordance with Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)  definitions, which are given below:

Zone I:   The 400-foot wellhead  radius  designated  by DEP for  the  protection of  the
supply which is owned or controlled by the water supplier.

Zone II:   The area of an aquifer which contributes water to a well  under the most
severe recharge and pumping  conditions that can be realistically anticipated (180 days
with no recharge and continuous pumping at the maximum rated "safe yield"  capacities
of the pumping stations).  It  is  bounded by the groundwater divides which  result from
pumping the well(s), and by  the contact of 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 III:   That  land  area  beyond the  area of Zone  II  from  which  surface water  and
groundwater drain into  Zone  II.  The surface drainage area as  determined by topography
is commonly coincident with  the groundwater drainage  area and will be used to delineate
Zone  III.    In  some  locations,  where  surface  and groundwater  drainage  are   not
coincident, Zone III shall  consist of  both the  surface drainage and  the  groundwater
drainage areas.

Zone I  is defined  here  for  the sake  of  completeness; all  land  within  Zone  I is


                                              80

-------
currently owned by the Town  of  Foxborough.   Zone II is the primary zone of interest
in  this   investigation,  and the  aquifer modeling discussed  below was  performed
specifically to meet  the requirements of defining  Zone  II.   Zone III is integrally
connected to Zone II via surface runoff and surface water bodies which form recharge
boundaries .

Mathematical Model

MODFLOW's aquifer simulation program calculates the hydraulic head in an aquifer under
various recharge and  pumping conditions.   This  is achieved by solving the following
partial differential equation governing the two-dimensional flow of groundwater in an
aquifer :


                                                      = S
         Where:      T    -    transmissivity of the aquifer
                     h    —    head
                     x,y  -    rectangular coordinates
                     S    -    storage coefficient of the aquifer
                     t    -    time
                     Q    —    net groundwater withdrawal/recharge rate per unit surface
                               area

MODFLOW calculates  the  solution to  this equation by solving each node equation of a
column of the model while all the terms in the other columns are held constant.  Column
by column and then row by row,  the process continues until a convergence is achieved.

Aquifer Hydraulic Properties

The hydraulic properties of the aquifers,  including recharge, hydraulic conductivity,
storativity,  initial water  table  elevation,  and bottom of aquifer elevation were
entered into MODFLOW by superimposing a variable spaced grid system  over maps of the
aquifer  properties  and  then  interpolating values  at  each  grid  node.    Plate  4
illustrates the finite  difference grid which was developed to assemble the model data
base.  The variably spaced grid consists  of a 91 column by 96 row grid superimposed
over  the entire  Town of Foxborough  and the upgradient Billings Brook Aquifer in the
neighboring Town of  Sharon.  Grid size ranges in size from 200 by  200 feet to 800 by
800 feet.  The smallest grid spacing was used over existing and proven well  sites to
provide  greater resolution and calibration of the  model in areas where water table
drawdown during  pumping is greatest.   Output from  the  model  consists of calculated
water table elevations  at  each node .

The  estimated average  annual  recharge to  the aquifer  within the  study  area from
rainfall and snowmelt,   based  on U.S. Geological  Survey Hydrologic Atlas  data and
rainfall data, was assumed to be  15  inches per year for stratified drift aquifer areas
and 6 inches per year for  glacial till  (nonaquifer) areas.

Hydraulic  conductivity  at  individual  nodes within  the stratified  drift  areas was
calculated from pumping tests and boring logs.   Each hydraulic  conductivity value was
plotted onto the base map and interpolated between data points  to define  the  value at
each  node.   A value  of  1  foot  per day was used for all nodes within  the glacial till
areas .


                                           81

-------

                                                                         FINITE DIFFERENCE GRID
                                                                         WITH  SURFACE  WATER BODIES
                                                                         TOWN-WIDE GRDUNDWATER
                                                                         PROTECTION STUDY
                                                                         FDXBDROUGH MASSACHUSETTS
                                                                                    SEA Consultants Inc
                                                                                    Engineers/Architects
PLATE  4

-------
The Initial, non-pumping water table elevation was  determined using surveyed water
levels from prolonged pumping tests, evaluation of  static  water levels recorded on
boring logs, and interpretation of surface water elevations  from the  topographic base
map.  Plate 5 is a map illustrating the  simulated steady  state,  or long-term average,
water table elevation.

The aquifer bottom, or bedrock, elevation was calculated  by  subtracting  the saturated
thickness value  for each node from the water table elevation for  each  node.   The
surficial geologic map and field investigations were also incorporated into  the bedrock
elevation data base.

The storativity  (or storage coefficient) of an aquifer  is  defined  as the volume of
water released from or taken into storage per unit surface area of the aquifer per unit
change in  the  component of hydraulic head normal  to that  surface.   For unconfined
aquifers,  like  those in Foxborough,  the principal  source  of  water  is  from gravity
drainage, the volume of water  derived from expansion of the water and compression of
the  aquifer being negligible.    Thus,   in  the  case  of  unconfined aquifers,  the
storativity is virtually equal to the specific yield.  The specific yield of an aquifer
is  defined  as  the  ratio  of the volume  of  water  which the saturated portion  of an
aquifer will yield by gravity drainage to the volume which is subject  to such drainage.

Storativity  values were  calculated from available  pumping tests by  the following
formula:

                          S  -   0.3  Tt
         Where       S    —    Storativity  (dimensionless)
                     T    -    Transmissivity  (gpd/ft)
                     t    -    Time  since pumping started  (days)
                     r0    -    Intercept  at zero drawdown of  extended straight line
                               of distance-drawdown graph  (feet)

The calculated storativity values range from 0.03 to 0.50 indicating unconfined aquifer
conditions  and,  at  the higher  end of  the  range,  significant amounts,  of induced
infiltration from surface waters.  Storativity values were also calculated by comparing
soil  logs  to  values reported  in the literature for  specific  yield.   These analyses
suggest that a value of 0.20  for Foxborough's  sand and gravel aquifers  is appropriate.
Storativity was  considered to be  a constant throughout the modeled stratified drift
aquifer area.

Boundary Conditions

The numerical  simulation model extends  beyond the  Foxborough town line and includes
the entire upgradient watershed area for each aquifer and, most  importantly, the Town
of Sharon wells  which are within  the Billings Brook Aquifer.   The surface  watershed
boundaries along the edge of the model were simulated as no-flow boundaries. This was
necessary  in  order to  depict the physical system  as accurately  as  possible.   The
southern limits  of the model, south of the Foxborough.town line,  were simulated as
constant head boundaries; the water table elevation was held constant.  The direction
of groundwater flow along  the  southern town line is to  the  south,  or  out of town.
                                             83

-------
                                                         LEGEND

                                                   SUk; -
-------
Thus, the  constant head water  table  elevations along this  boundary are lower  than
elsewhere in town and the model effectively "drains" water out of the aquifer  in  this
area.

The MODFLOW "river package" was used to simulate the significant  effect  that  surface
water bodies  (streams,  rivers,  ponds,  wetlands and  lakes)  have  on recharging the
groundwater aquifer when  the  wells  are  being pumped.   Plate 4 illustrates the nodes
which were  designated as induced infiltration,  or river nodes.   The surface water
elevations at each river node were set equal to the input static water table elevation.
Bottom sediment  hydraulic conductivities  were varied from 0.7 ft/day to 2.0 ft/day
depending upon the substrate observed along the  individual induced infiltration areas
during the field  investigations.

Model Calibration

The purpose of model calibration is  to confirm that the model  simulates observed field
conditions.   The  initial  step of model  calibration involved development of a steady
state static  water table map.   The final  calibration procedure involved comparing
computer-generated water table elevations  and drawdowns with those measured during the
field pumping tests.

Contouring of the static  water table was  initially performed manually  and was  then
supplemented by water levels measured during  the four pump tests.  The static steady
state water table map generated by  the  computer simulation model as a result of the
boundary  conditions,  starting  head distribution,  aquifer properties,  and recharge
values discussed  above is presented as Plate  5.  Comparison of the two maps provided
documented verification of  the  reliability of the  model  to accurately represent the
behavior of the actual system under the given conditions.

Water table  contours illustrating  groundwater  discharge into  the  surface drainage
system are evident in both the regional contouring and the model runs.  The water table
contours  from the program runs, however,  do not have the sharp  distinction of the
manually  prepared map.    This  dampening of groundwater contours  occurs  because the
surface water  is  modeled  as  a node-centered system, and  is averaged over the entire
grid area.   The effect of the  rivers  cannot be modeled  as  sharply as  actual field
conditions would  indicate.  However, the overall correspondence between  the observed
field conditions  and the model-generated contours is quite good with simulated water
levels being  within one  to two  feet  of the surveyed water  levels  and  water levels
indicated on  the  topographic  base for the various  ponds  and streams.  Comparison of
drawdowns observed during the  pump tests performed by SEA and simulated  by the model
for the same duration and  pumping rate were also quite good with a  residual difference
of one foot or less.

Delineation of Water Resource Protection Zones

Following calibration, MODFLOW  was  used to simulate the  worst-case Zone II scenario
by pumping all existing and proven future  wells  at  their maximum-rated capacities for
180  days  with no recharge  to the  aquifers.   This simulation  included  the  Town of
Sharon's existing and proven  wells  within  the  Billings  Brook Aquifer upgradient of
Foxborough's  Station  No.   3  and No.  3A.    The pumping  rates used  in   the  Zone II
simulation are listed in Table 1.1.

-------
                                     Table 1.1
                     Well Pumping Rates for Zone II Simulation
                            Well No.

                            Sta. #1,  Well #1
                            Well #2A

                            Sta. #2,  Well #4
                            Well #5
                            Well #6
                            Sta. #3,
                            Well #8
                            Well #9
                            Sta.
                            Sta.
         Well #7
     #3A, Well #10
     #4, Well #12
          Sharon
Lamson Road #71
Mill Street #74
Witch Pond  #3-87
Witch Pond  #1
H.C. Morse  #4
West Street #16

Sta. #5
Sta. #7
Wolomolopoag Pond
Pumping Rate

         400
         350

         400
         400
         400

         250
         150
         400
         500
         325

         350
         300
         500
         700
         350
         500

         300
         350
         280
Plate 6 is  a  map of the Simulated Water  Table Drawdown for Zone  II Conditions and
illustrates water table drawdown after 180 days of  pumping with no recharge.  Water
table drawdown was calculated by subtracting the water table  elevations simulated after
180 days of pumping with no recharge from a second simulation performed for  180 days
with no recharge and no pumping.  The difference  between the two simulations is the
water table drawdown due solely from well pumping.

The groundwater divides resulting from pumping form the downgradient limits of Zone
II for both the Witch Pond proposed wells and the Billings  Brook/Rumford River wells
(Station No. 3 and 3A).  The  lateral limits  of Zone II  are the contacts between the
stratified  drift  aquifer  deposits and  the  glacial  till  (Zone III) deposits.   The
upgradient  limits of Zone II  were delineated by extending  the simulated water table
drawdowns upgradient to the prevailing hydrogeologic  boundary, which for the three Zone
II areas,  is the groundwater divide  forming the limit of the  sand and gravel  aquifer.
Following the  delineation of Zone II,  the Zone III areas were determined by delineating
the surface watersheds which  contribute recharge  into Zone II.   Plate  7 is  a map of
the Water Resource Protection District  calculated for  Foxborough's  aquifers  and
illustrates the extent of the Zone II and Zone III areas.

Future Potential Aquifer Areas were also delineated on Plate 7 and are included within
the Water  Resource Protection District.  These areas,  including the Canoe River Aquifer
and the southern portion of  the Rumford River Aquifer, were delineated  to  include the
stratified  drift aquifer deposits with  a saturated thickness  greater  than  10 feet.
These areas may, upon further test well exploration, prove suitable for the development
of high-yield water supply wells.
                                           86

-------
                               SIMULATED WATER TABLE
                               DRAWDOWN FDR  ZONE  II
                               CONDITIONS
C.'JP'r A.CF WATERSHED BOUNDARY

Fx;;,rING PUMPING STATION

FUTURF: PPDVLN WELL SITES

T[;VN LINE

SIMULATED WATER TABLE 3RAVDUVNS
                               TOWN-WIDE GROUNDWATER
                               PROTECTION STUDY
                               FDXBORDUGK MASSACHUSETTS
                                           SEA Consultants Inc.
                                           Engineers/Architects
                               APRIL  1989
2noo 1000   o      2000      4000

     SCALE IN FEET
      87

-------
                                                                 WATER RESOURCE
                                                                 PROTECTION DISTRICT
                                     SURFACE WATERSHED BOUNDARY


                                     EXISTING PUMPING STATION


                                     FUTURE HROVEN V/ELL SITES

                                     TOWN UNE

                                  0  ;ONF. II


                                   '  ZONE III


                                     FUTURE AQUIFER AREAS
TOWN-WIDE GROUNDWATER
PROTECTION STUDY
FOXBOROUGH.^MASSACHUSETTS
            SEA Consultants Inc
            Engineers/Architects
APRIL 1989
2000 1000  0      2000

          F IN FFFT
                                        88

-------
Potential Sources of Contamination

Foxborough  is  a  relatively urbanized  town that  contains single  and multi-family
residential developments  and typical  service-oriented commercial  businesses.   The
Foxboro Company,  which has  several  locations  throughout  the  town, is Foxborough's
primary industrial business.

Stratified drift  aquifers  are highly susceptible to contamination by a wide variety
of  land uses.    Contaminants may  enter the groundwater  as leachate  from historic
industrial sites and associated waste disposal areas, illegal dumping sites, accidental
spills, or agricultural areas.  However,  contamination  is much more commonly associated
with  heavily  developed  commercial  or  industrial  areas,  solid  waste  landfills,
industrial and commercial wastewater disposal,  septic  system  effluent,  and septage
disposal facilities.

Working with  town officials, SEA  targeted for  investigation  three  categories of
potential contamination sources, underground storage  tanks and the storage of toxic
and hazardous materials, road salt storage and application, and septic system effluent.
Best Management Practices  (BMPs) designed to mitigate the threat to groundwater quality
posed  by  these  potential  contamination   sources  appear  in  the bylaws,  revised
regulations, and  recommendations prepared by S E A.

Underground Storage Tanks  and Toxic  and Hazardous Materials Storage

Most commercial  and industrial  facilities  store fuel  and/or  hazardous materials in
underground storage tank  systems,  above  ground tanks  or drums.  Accidents involving
these storage facilities can and will occur.  In the absence of an adequate containment
structure  for  drums or above ground tank  storage  areas,  secondary containment for
underground storage tanks  (including piping), and a spill  response  contingency plan,
spills or leaks from these  facilities pose  a serious threat to groundwater quality.

Underground  storage tank  systems  (USTs)  are  also  a  serious  threat  to groundwater
quality.  Many types of commercial and industrial  facilities store gasoline,  diesel
fuel, waste oil, heating oil, solvents and other hazardous materials in  USTs.  Highway
departments, trucking companies,  and  service stations may have several different tanks
of  varying capacities  for  the  storage  of gasoline,  diesel  fuel and waste  oil.
Municipal facilities and  public  or private institutions such as hospitals,  schools,
libraries, and households  store heating oil in USTs.

In Foxborough,  tank capacity for USTs varies from 275 gallons to 50,000  gallons.  Each
underground tank is a potential threat to local  public water supplies. Defects in tank
materials, improper installation,  corrosion or mechanical  failure  of  the  pipes and
fittings may result in  leaking USTs.   Most  early underground tanks were inadequately
designed and manufactured  from bare  carbon  steel.  The corrosion of these bare steel
tanks is by far the most common cause of leaking USTs.  Although the installation of
bare  steel  tanks  is  now  illegal,  many of the bare  steel tanks  still  in use in
Foxborough have exceeded their life expectancy  (commonly 15 years)  and  have little or
no protection against the  corrosive action of the soil  and water.   Moreover, the exact
age,  condition and location of many  existing  tanks  may  not  be  known,  making it
extremely difficult to predict or prevent leaks.

A complete inventory and mapping of  the location of each residential,  commercial and
industrial underground  storage  tank  was beyond  the scope  of S E A's  investigation.
However, a preliminary  list of  94 commercial and  industrial  tanks and 17 municipal


                                             89

-------
tanks (with capacities greater than 250 gallons) registered with the Foxborough Board
of Selectmen and Fire  Department  was compiled.  Eighteen of  the  111 commercial and
industrial underground storage tanks are located  in Zone II  areas or  the Future
Potential Aquifer areas.   The age  of only  seven of these eighteen  tanks  is known.  At
least one of these  tanks  has  exceeded its  15-year life expectancy.  It is likely that
the remaining 11 tanks are at or near their life expectancy.  The remaining  93 tanks
are located over till and bedrock in secondary aquifer recharge areas or in  sections
of town outside the proposed Water Resource Protection District.

Road Salt Storage and Application

Both the storage and excessive application of road salt in sensitive aquifer  recharge
areas are potential  sources  of groundwater contamination.  Several  of Foxborough's
existing wells  have come  close  to,  or  have  periodically  exceeded,  the  secondary
drinking water standard for sodium which is 20 milligrams per liter (mg/1).

The amount of salt  (sodium chloride,  NaCl)  used to keep streets and highways  clear of
snow and ice has  steadily increased since the  mid-1940's.   Salt is  an abundant,
affordable and very effective de-icing agent.   Motorists in many states expect "bare
pavement" road  conditions  throughout the  year,  regardless  of seasonal or  climatic
conditions.  As a consequence, state and local highway officials in New England bear
the responsibility  of providing the highest level of  vehicular mobility possible, some
to the point of using straight salt instead of a sand and salt mixture.

Sodium chloride is  composed  of approximately  40 percent sodium ions  and 60 percent
chloride ions by molecular weight.  When salt  comes  in contact with water, the sodium
and chloride ions disassociate  and move with the surface water  or groundwater.   The
degree to which road salt will impact aquifers  and public water supplies depends upon
several  factors  including:  the amount, and method of salt applied to  roadways,  the
amount and method of salt storage, soil types,  the distance between the source of salt
and the water supply, and groundwater movement.

Both the Massachusetts Department of Public Works facility,  located on Route 140 and
the Foxborough  Department  of Public Works facility  located on  Elm  Street,  maintain
large road salt  stockpiles in Foxborough.  However, because both facilities are located
outside  the  boundaries of  the proposed Water Resource Protection District  and both
facilities  store  their  road  salt  in  enclosed sheds,  the  risk  of groundwater
contamination is relatively low.

The Massachusetts Department of Public Works applies a mixture of 4 parts salt and 1
part calcium chloride  (4:1)  on state  highways  and Interstate  roadways.   The Town of
Foxborough applies  a 3:1 sand to salt mixture  to town roads.  To mitigate the impact
of  road salting  within  the  proposed  Water  Resource   Protection  District,  SEA
recommended that the Foxborough Board of Water and Sewer Commissioners work with the
town Public  Works  Department  to  implement the following Best  Management Practices
(DEQE,  1981):

          o    All  road crews  should be  aware of the location  of sensitive aquifer
               areas.

          o    Reduced application rates should be developed for roads within the Water
               Resource Protection District.
                                            90

-------
          o    Levels of  service  should be determined  prior to the  winter season.
               Depending upon road type, weather conditions and traffic volumes, these
               levels of  service  can  range  from no salt use, to mainly plowing and
               using sand,  to straight  salt  application  on heavily  traveled road
               sections and critical intersections.

          o    Various mixtures of salt, calcium chloride and sand should be used in
               the Water  Resource Protection  District.    The State  of Connecticut
               recommends that a 7:2 sand-premix mixture  should  be used in sensitive
               aquifer areas.  Premix is 3 parts sodium  chloride and 1 part calcium
               chloride by weight.

Septic System Effluent and Nitrate Loading Analysis

In Foxborough, septic systems provide for disposal of household sanitary wastes and
sanitary wastewater from a variety of commercial  and industrial operations.  The 20,000
square foot lots  in the center of town  are served by a sanitary sewer system.  Although
the town has developed a long range sewering plan, most  of the sanitary waste in the
community is currently disposed of via septic systems.

The most common contaminant identified in groundwater is dissolved nitrogen in the form
of  nitrate  (Freeze  and  'Cherry,  1979).   A  nitrate  nitrogen loading  analysis  was
performed in order to evaluate  the  future potential  impact,  at  100  percent buildout
under current zoning,  that septic system effluent, fertilizers, and  roadway runoff
might have on groundwater quality.  The goal of the  nitrate  loading analysis was to
determine, for each Zone  II area,  the  maximum nitrate  loading which can be allowed to
occur while  maintaining  an  acceptable  margin  of safety  below the  drinking  water
standard.  As a  result of the nitrate loading  analysis,  the  sewage  disposal density
and minimum lot size  requirements  in the Water Resource Protection District bylaw were
developed.

The current federal and state drinking water standard for  nitrate nitrogen in drinking
water is 10 mg/1.  To allow for an acceptable margin of safety, SEA recommended that
a management guideline of 5 mg/1 be adopted for the following reasons:

          o    to statistically ensure that actual concentrations which are likely to
               fluctuate due to analytical variability,  changes  in  aquifer recharge,
               and inherent sampling error, are  maintained  below 10 mg/1 at least 90%
               of  the time  (Cape  Cod  Planning  and Economic  Development Commission,
               1979);

          o    to allow for  plumes  of higher concentration which could result from
               periods of high nitrate loading and low groundwater  recharge; and

          o    to allow for localized plumes of higher  concentration resulting from
               a continuous point source in a uniform flow field;  and

          o    to be  consistent with the findings of several studies performed on Long
               Island.

The Long  Island  studies  statistically evaluated nitrate concentrations measured in
numerous groundwater samples and  concluded that when  the mean concentration was 5.8
mg/1,  10 percent of  the  samples  had concentrations exceeding 10 mg/1.   In order to
achieve better than  90  percent compliance with the  10  mg/1  regulation,  an average


                                            91

-------
concentration of less than 6 mg/1 would be required, thus the recommended management
guideline of 5 mg/1.

Nitrate nitrogen concentrations are typically calculated using a mass-balance approach
over a unit area to determine the  appropriate housing density (sewage  disposal volume
and minimum lot size).   Nitrate  levels are  thus  evaluated on an individual lot basis.
The basic concept of this approach is  that the water quality beneath a lot will be the
result of mixing nitrates  from sewage, fertilizers,  and road runoff with the recharge
from precipitation and septic system effluent.

The basic procedure for determining the future buildout  (saturation density)  nitrate
concentration was as follows:

          1.   Calculate total recharge from precipitation and sewage  disposal within
               each Zone II;
          2.   Calculate  total  nitrate  loading from  sewage,  fertilizers  and  road
               runoff;
          3.   Calculate nitrate concentration by diluting the total  loading with the
               total recharge.

As described earlier, the average recharge  rate within Zone II was determined to be
15 inches per  year.   For the purposes  of  this  analysis, it  was  assumed that water
pumped from individual wells  is recycled back into  the same aquifer such that there
is no net gain or loss of water to the aquifer.

The buildout analysis conducted for the  Town  of Foxborough  by the Metropolitan  Area
Planning Council (MAPC)  and dated May, 1988  was  used as  the  data base  for  calculating
the total number of buildable lots within each of zone of contribution.  The individual
assessors' sheets were used to determine which of the lots listed by MAPC  were within
each respective Zone II.

Nitrate loadings were estimated for individual residential lots using the  loading rates
specified in the Water Resource Protection District bylaw as follows:

          o     4 persons per dwelling unit
          o     7 pounds per person per year
          o     2 pounds nitrate per 1000 square  feet per year from fertilizer (assumed
                6,000 square feet of  lawn per lot)
          o     69.35 pounds nitrogen per lane  mile per  year

It was estimated that 7  percent of Zone II consists of roadways and other impervious
areas.  The total number of  equivalent  lane miles was  then  calculated.    The  results
of the nitrate loading analysis are presented in Table 1.2.
                                            92

-------
                                     Table  1.2
                        Results of Nitrate  Loading Analysis

                                 Wading River                  Neponset/Rumford
                                 Aquifer	                  River Aquifer

          Zone II Area                 3.89                        1.85
          (sq. miles)

          Total Recharge               3.8xl09                      1.8xl09
          (liters/year)

          Total Nitrate               21.4xl09                     12.7xl09
          Loading
          (mg/yr)

          Nitrate                      5.6                         7.0
          Concentration
          (mg/D

Because the  projected saturation development  nitrate concentration  (under current
zoning) exceeds the recommended management guideline of 5 mg/1,  SEA recommended that
the minimum  residential  lot size within  the Water Resource Protection  District be
60,000 square feet.  With this minimum residential lot size,  the saturation development
nitrate loading will be below the guideline of 5 mg/1.

Groundwater Protection Strategy

Unlike some towns which have their entire water  supply at  one  location,  the Town of
Foxborough is fortunate to have an existing water supply system consisting of eleven
wells which tap four separate aquifer systems throughout  town.  The Town also has six
proven future well  sites for which the required 400 foot protective radius has already
been acquired.  Four of the proven future wells will be located  in  areas (two at Witch
Pond and  two at Daniels  Street/Mill Street) where  the  groundwater aquifer  is  not
currently being tapped.  This spatial diversity provides an  added degree of protection
from potential groundwater contamination and loss of  a majority  of the water supply
from a single contamination incident.

Having wells located in several areas throughout town,  does, however, have significant
implications in terms of  groundwater  protection.   Instead of concentrating on a small
area for aquifer protection,  local officials must realize that a significant portion
of  the town  is  within  a water  supply well  zone of contribution.    Foxborough's
groundwater  protection  strategy  must  be  flexible,   innovative,  and be  applicable
throughout the town.  SEA, working closely with the Foxborough Board of Water and
Sewer Commissioners and the Planning Board, developed a groundwater protection strategy
that included a new Water Resource Protection District bylaw and Toxic and Hazardous
Materials bylaw,  revisions to the  Planning Board's subdivision rules and additions to
the Board of Health regulations. SEA also developed a groundwater monitoring program
to provide the town with an early warning system and a  tool  to better identify sources
of contamination.
                                            93

-------
Water Resource Protection District Bylaw

Zoning  has  long been used  as  a  means  for  municipalities  to  control  growth.
Massachusetts General Laws (M.G.L.) Ch.  40A and its 1975 amendment, which is known as
the Zoning Act,  list  conservation  of natural  resources as one  of the purposes  of
zoning.   Communities  have  the authority to  enact zoning  restrictions to  protect
groundwater and often do so by regulating the density of development,  allowable uses,
exemptions, and uses allowed by special permit.

The most common  zoning technique  used to protect groundwater supplies  is an Aquifer
Protection  or Water  Resource  Protection District bylaw.   These bylaws  are "overlay
districts," areas superimposed on  the existing zoning map. The rules of the underlying
district continue  to be in effect,  except where the  overlay district  imposes  more
stringent  requirements.   These  overlay district  bylaws  are  designed to  prevent
contaminants from entering the groundwater by regulating land uses in the Zone II and
Zone  III  areas  of  public  supply  wells.   Where  induced  infiltration supplies a
significant source of  recharge to a well,  surface  water bodies are  also protected.
Generally, the regulation of various types of land use is divided into four categories:
prohibited uses, restricted uses,  permitted uses, and uses allowed by special permit.

Foxborough adopted a  Water Resource Protection District bylaw in 1984, four years prior
to hiring SEA.  This overlay district bylaw defined three protected areas:  Area 1A
-  the  cone of depression generated by  a municipal well  after  7 days  of continuous
pumping at  its rated capacity or  a 600-foot protective  radius, whichever is greater;
Area IB - 600-foot protective radius around test wells  designated as future  municipal
wells; and Area  2A    the  surface  of the land lying above the aquifer and designated
recharge areas  and  a  250-foot protective strip  around surface water  bodies.  The
aquifer and aquifer recharge areas in Area 2A were delineated based upon data obtained
from the U.S. Geological Survey's  Hydrologic Atlases and an estimated travel time for
certain contaminants.

The bylaw  listed permitted uses,  prohibited uses, and  special permit  uses.   Overall,
the bylaw  was  fairly comprehensive and  included,  under the special  permit process,
requirements for wastewater quality standards  and limits  on the volume  of wastewater
discharged  to a lot.   Minimum residential lot size in Area 2A was  60,000 square feet.
Oil  and grease  traps   and  sediment traps  were required before  stormwater can be
recharged  to the  groundwater.   Uses allowed in Area 1A and Area IB were limited  to
conservation of soil and water, non-intensive  agricultural  uses, outlook recreation,
hunting, fishing, boating, and foot or bicycle paths.  All other uses were prohibited.
Prohibited  uses  in Area 2A included  the disposal  of  solid waste, hazardous  waste,
liquid  or   leachable wastes,  process wastewater,  and  the  storage  of  petroleum  or
hazardous wastes.

Although the list of  activities regulated under the bylaw was comprehensive, the method
used to  delineate  the  wellhead protection areas and aquifer recharge  areas  did not
accurately determine  the extent of the town's four buried river valley aquifer systems,
nor  did  it consider   the  effect  of  different  pumping  and  recharge scenarios.
Consequently, the land area protected under  the bylaw was much smaller than the actual
area in the town  that  serves  as primary and secondary aquifer recharge areas to the
11 existing wells and 6 proven future well sites.   SEA drafted a new Water Resource
Protection District bylaw specifically designed to protect the extensive primary (Zone
II) and secondary (Zone III) aquifer recharge  areas  that  had been  delineated using
                                             94

-------
MODFLOW.  The  bylaw regulates Zone II and  Zone  III  areas,  Future Potential Aquifer
Areas, and Body of Water 250-foot Setback Areas.  On May 11, 1989, the new bylaw was
passed at the Foxborough Town Meeting.

The new bylaw contains an expanded list of prohibited uses which enables the Town to
control the siting of a host of businesses  that  store hazardous materials or generate
hazardous wastes or wastewater.  For example, dry cleaning businesses,  painting or wood
preserving  businesses,  and  printing or  photocopying  establishments,  store  many
different  types of  hazardous chemicals on-site  and generate  contaminated process
wastewater.  The disposal of this  wastewater  into on-site septic systems could pose
a serious threat to  groundwater quality.

Based upon the  results of the nitrate loading analysis,  the bylaw requires that the
minimum lot size for any single or two-family residential lot be 60,000 square feet
(sf) with a minimum of 30,000 sf of upland area.  For Zone II areas, the design sewage
flow for new development cannot exceed 165 gallons per day (gpd) per 10,000 square feet
of upland lot area.   In Zone III, design sewage  flow cannot  exceed  165 gpd per 10,000
sf of total lot area.  The bylaw also limits the amount of impervious  surface area for
each type of lot in  the Water Resource Protection District.

The Planning Board,  as Special Permit Granting Authority (SPGA). has final authority
over the  special permit provisions of the bylaw.  Special  permits are required for
certain types  of new development and the  expansion  of existing non-residential and
multi-family residential development.   Provisions for  review by other town agencies
and for public hearings exist within the bylaw.   The bylaw also encourages the use of
BMPs for  the management  of  toxic and hazardous  materials by specifying the types of
materials which must be submitted  to the  SPGA  by the applicant.   These  materials
include:

          o     a  complete  list of   all  chemicals,   pesticides,   fuels,  and  other
               potentially toxic or hazardous materials to be used,  generated, stored,
               or disposed of on the premises;

          o     a description of proposed measures  to protect  hazardous  materials
               storage areas  from vandalism, corrosion and leakage;

          o     a description  of proposed methods  to  recharge site runoff which must
               pass through oil and grease traps before  it is discharged to the ground;

          o     an erosion and sedimentation control plan; and

          o     projections of nitrogen concentrations and other relevant solutes  in the
               groundwater at the downgradient property boundary using the standards
               listed  in the  bylaw.   The projections  may also be required for down-
               gradient drinking-water wells.


Toxic and Hazardous Materials Bylaw

Foxborough also has the authority to pass local  bylaws  it considers necessary for the
protection of  the health and welfare of its  residents.   A commonly adopted general
bylaw is a Toxic and Hazardous Materials bylaw.  The purpose of this regulatory tool
is to require certain safeguards for handling and storing toxic and hazardous materials
rather than to  regulate  specific land uses.  A  general  bylaw differs from a zoning


                                             95

-------
bylaw in that pre-existing  uses  can be regulated by a  general bylaw while they  are
protected (grandfathered) as non-conforming uses  under  zoning bylaws.  In  addition,
unlike the new Water  Resource  Protection District adopted  by Foxborough,  a general
bylaw regulates specific practices throughout the town.  Many existing small businesses
that use toxic and hazardous materials would not be regulated under the Water Resource
Protection District bylaw including:

          o    Dry cleaners
          o    Motor vehicle service and repair shops
          o    Photographic processing or printing businesses
          o    Electroplating/metal working shops
          o    Furniture stripping/woodworking shops

A Toxic and Hazardous Materials bylaw serves a dual purpose:   it protects the town's
water resources  and ensures  the safety of people who work with the  chemicals  and those
who respond to  spills,  leaks or other emergencies.  Many  communities  in Massachusetts
have  adopted  general  bylaws that  control materials  such  as  pesticides,  petroleum
products and toxic or hazardous chemicals.

The residents of  Foxborough, recognizing the importance of controlling the  storage  and
use of hazardous  materials by small businesses and industries, had  adopted  a  Hazardous
Materials bylaw several years before this  study was undertaken.  SEA recommended that
the town strengthen and expand its existing control over toxic and hazardous materials.
The new Toxic and Hazardous Materials bylaw proposed by S E A  included the  following
important BMPs:

          o    the development of spill control and countermeasure plans
          o    requirements  for  areas  where   hazardous materials   are  pumped  or
               transferred
          o    guidelines for air emissions of solvents
          o    expanded requirements for registration of toxic and hazardous  materials
          o    expanded requirements for the above ground and  underground storage of
               toxic and hazardous materials
          o    registration requirements for existing underground storage tanks
          o    notification  requirements  for  the  application  of  herbicides  or
               pesticides

The Board of Health is designated to enforce the bylaw and  issue permits.   To aid in
the enforcement of a Toxic  and Hazardous Materials bylaw,  SEA also  recommended that
a local hazardous waste coordinator be  appointed to periodically update both the list
and the map of potential contamination sources prepared by  S E A.


Subdivision Rules and Regulations

Under M.G.L. Chapter  41,  sections  81A-81J,  known as  the  Subdivision  Control Law,
Planning Boards  are given  the  power and  duty  to adopt  regulations  that govern  the
design and construction of ways, drainage, and utilities  within proposed subdivisions.
With the appropriate regulations, the  Foxborough  Planning Board can be effective in
protecting the water resources of the Town.

Toward this end,  SEA proposed  revisions  to  the  existing regulations that included
additional requirements under the subdivision design standards and  expanding the Board
of Health's role  in the  review of  subdivision  plans.   The existing  regulations gave


                                           96

-------
the Planning Board discretion to require the developer to pay for the services of an
independent  consultant  to  evaluate  the  environmental  impact  of  the  proposed
development.  Under  the existing regulations,  any report would have  to assess the
impacts to:

         o     surface water quality, level, and runoff;
         o     groundwater quality and level;
         o     surface and subsurface soils;
         o     traffic;
         o     town services;
         o     physical environment;
         o     human environment; and
         o     entire town.

Additionally, the report should include a detailed statement of:

         o     any adverse effects which cannot be avoided if the plan is implemented;
         o     possible measures to mitigate the impact; and
         o     alternatives to the proposed plan.

SEA  recommended  that the report also  include an assessment of the  impact  of the
proposed project  on the  town's  water supply,  and any proposed  water conservation
measures.

Foxborough's subdivision rules and regulations contain detailed design standards for
streets, curbs,  sidewalks, storm drainage,  utilities,  signs and easements.   SEA
recommended the addition of the following design standards that focus on groundwater
protection.

Design and construction shall reduce, to the extent possible, the following:

          o     encroachment within any wetland or floodplain;
          o     volume of  cut and fill;
          o     area over  which existing vegetation will be disturbed, especially if
                within 200 feet  of  a river,  wetland or waterbody or in areas having
                a slope of more than  15 percent;
          o     number of  trees  removed having  a diameter at breast height (dbh) of
                over 12-inches;
          o     extent of  waterways altered or  relocated; and
          o     dimensions of paved areas (including streets) except as necessary to
                safety and convenience, especially in aquifer recharge areas.

In  order  to reduce  erosion accompanying the  installation of ways,  utilities,  and
drainage,  and the resultant pollution of streams, wetlands  and natural drainage areas,
SEA  proposed  that  the Planning Board  require the applicant  to submit a sediment
control plan,  including  control methods  such  as berms,  dikes,  detention  ponds,
mulching,  and temporary sodding.  SEA also recommended that the Planning Board limit
the use of  de-icing  chemicals  on ways located  within  the Water Resource Protection
District.

The Foxborough Board of Health  has  a very important role in the subdivision review
process (M.G.L.  ch.  14,  Section  81U).  The Board may approve or disapprove definitive
                                              97

-------
plans based upon deficiencies  in drainage, sewer lines, on-site sewage disposal or the
potential  contamination  of  municipal  wells,  or  any  other  area  within  their
jurisdiction.

The Planning Board's current subdivision rules and regulations contained no  specific
review guidelines for the Board of Health.  Instead, the Board of Health approves or
disapproves definitive plans based upon a determination as  to whether any of  the land
in the proposed subdivision can be used as building sites without injury to  the public
health.  In order to provide for a more thorough review of subdivisions proposed for
location within the Water  Resource Protection  District and supplement the powers of
the Planning Board, SEA  recommended  that  the Subdivision Rules and Regulations be
strengthened  to reflect  the Board  of  Health's broad scope  of  jurisdiction and
authority.

SEA revised the regulations to give the Board of Health specific criteria  by which
to  review Definitive Plans  for  subdivisions  within  the Water  Resource  Protection
District.

When reviewing  subdivision plans within  the Water Resource Protection District, the
Board of Health would be required to evaluate the following issues:

          o   The geologic characteristics and percolation of each lot,
          o   Downgradient surface water impacts due to the migration of sewage-derived
              contaminants. To assist them with their evaluation, the Board of Health
              may require  the project  proponent to  submit  relevant hydrogeologic
              information pertaining to the proposed subdivision that includes:
                      a geologic description of the parcel  that includes the  location
                      and depth of confining layers (silt and clay)
                      approximate aquifer thickness throughout the parcel,
                      groundwater flow directions,
                      determination of downgradient surface water features and wetlands
                      (on and off-site)
                      the projection of  nitrogen concentrations  downgradient  of the
                      subdivision,
                      the impact of nitrogen, phosphorous,  and other contaminants on
                      downgradient wetlands, ponds, streams and  rivers.

Board of Health Regulations

The Town  of  Foxborough  Board of Health  Regulations  were updated during  1988.  The
update focused primarily on increasing setback distances required between septic system
components  and wetlands,  and revising  sewage  flow  estimates.    In  general, the
regulations are very  comprehensive.   SEA proposed two important  additions  to the
Board of  Health regulations to  provide a greater degree of groundwater protection.
They were:

          1.    Increase the vertical separation distance between the maximum  seasonal
                high water table and the bottom of leaching trench (pit, galley,  etc.)
                from 4 feet to 5 feet.   This  will provide a greater degree of filtering
                and nutrient attenuation  and reduce  the potential for septic  system
                failure due to excessive  water table  mounding which would flood the
                system.
                                              98

-------
          2.    Establish  a permanent  monitor  well network  (using  existing  wells
                outside areas of pumping well influence) and monitor the wells monthly
                for groundwater level.  The groundwater levels should be compared to
                the statewide monitoring performed by the U.S. Geological Survey and
                a procedure established for applying correction factors to water level
                data submitted from septic system deep test holes.  The purpose of this
                established correction  factor  is to ensure that  septic  systems are
                designed using  maximum historical water table elevation,  and  not a
                single, uncorrected  value recorded  during  a  below normal,  or dry,
                springtime.


Groundwater Monitoring Program

Another component of Foxborough's groundwater protection strategy is the groundwater
monitoring program developed by S  E A.   In the past, water quality has been monitored
at the wellhead as required by the  Massachusetts DEP.  Currently, water from the Town's
11 public  supply wells is  treated for corrosivity.   Contaminants of concern from
nonpoint sources  include sodium from road salt application and nitrates  from subsurface
sewage disposal.   However,  the major  nonpoint source  of contamination  is the effluent
from the on-site systems which  serve various  residential,  commercial and industrial
uses in the Town.  Underground storage tanks and hazardous industrial and commercial
land uses are significant point source threats to groundwater quality.  Contaminants
of concern from these point sources include solvents, petroleum products,  metals, and
compounds with an extremely high or low pH.  S  E A's recommended groundwater monitoring
program will provide the Town  with an early warning system as well  as a tool to better
identify sources of contamination.

The monitoring well locations, upgradient  of the wellhead protection areas delineated
by S E A as well  as around certain surface water bodies, were chosen based on existing
land use and development patterns  and hydrogeologic conditions.  For example, induced
infiltration of surface water provides a significant  source  of recharge to several of
the Town's wells, while the types  and amounts of toxic and hazardous materials stored
on-site  and  the  wastes   generated   by  several  identified  potential  sources  of
contamination dictated the placement of certain monitoring wells.

The  new  monitoring  wells  will   be  screened  at  various  depths  depending  upon
site-specified parameters.    After  the  implementation of  the monitoring  program,
Foxborough can, with minimal  cost, strengthen its early  warning  system  by expanding
the proposed  monitoring well network to  include  wells installed  by  private  sector
businesses, industries and residential developments.  SEA  recommended that the Town
incorporate into their monitoring well network the monitoring wells required for the
installation of new  underground storage tanks  and the wells  required under the new
Toxic  and  Hazardous  Materials bylaw.  Foxborough's  recently  adopted Water Resource
Protection District bylaw requires special use permits  for many land uses within the
district.  SEA  recommended that  the town require permanent on-site monitoring wells
for every special permit  use within the district boundaries.  These wells could then
be incorporated into the  well network.

For the first several years,  SEA recommended that  water quality samples should be
collected from the monitoring wells two times each year  in order to establish baseline
water  quality  data and spot  any  significant trends.   After  that,   samples can be
collected on an annual basis.   At a minimum,  the water  should be tested for volatile
organic compounds (U.S. EPA Method 524), synthetic organic compounds (U.S. EPA Method

                                           99

-------
504), sodium, nitrates, pH, and specific conductance.  The Town should also  test  for
the parameters for which the DEP has  established primary and  secondary drinking water
standards.
Conclusions

While many other towns have experienced  severe  water shortages and lost all or part
of their municipal water supply to contamination, Foxborough has hired consultants who
have identified six  proven future well sites,  delineated  the primary and  secondary
recharge areas  to  the 11  existing  wells and 6  future well  sites,  and written new
groundwater protection bylaws and regulations.  In addition to  the work performed by
its consultants, Foxborough has conducted household hazardous waste collection days
and aggressively acquired  conservation  land to protect open space and critical aquifer
recharge areas.

In Foxborough, it is clear that the local response  to wellhead protection has been
diligent, creative,  and successful.   The protection  of  groundwater resources requires
a strong, unified local commitment to developing  comprehensive  groundwater strategies.
The residents of Foxborough know that in order to ensure the future viability of their
community,  they must manage  growth at  the  local  level.   Foxborough,  through its
development of an  innovative groundwater  protection  strategy,  will be better equipped
to maintain the delicate balance between the  ability of the groundwater. resource to
support growth and its ability to assimilate the resulting wastes.


Acknowle dgements

The material  discussed herein  is based upon  the  work performed  for the Town  of
Foxborough by S E A  Consultants Inc. under the  direction of Anthony J. Zuena,  P.E.,
Principal-in-Charge  and  Michael  J.  Hudson,  Project  Manager.   Kosta Exarhoulakos
executed the  MODFLOW Model.  Richard W.  Heeley, P.G. , is also recognized for  his sound
hydrogeologic  contributions  to  this  study.    Mr.  Warren  McKay,   Foxborough  Water
Superintendent, the Foxborough Board of Water  and Sewer Commissioners,  the Foxborough
Planning Board and the residents of  Foxborough  are  all recognized for their contri-
bution of data, as well as their cooperation and dedication to  this project.


Selected References

Canter, L.W.  and R.C. Knox.  1986.   "Septic Tank System Effects on Ground
       Water  Quality."  Lewis  Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, Michigan.  336 pp.
Cape Cod Planning  and Economic Development  Commission.  1979.    "Water
       Supply Protection Project, Final Report."  Barnstable,  Massachusetts. 20  pp.
Freeze, R.A.  and J.A. Cherry 1979.  "Groundwater." Prentice-Hall, Inc.
       Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.  604  pp.
Frimpter, M.H., J.J. Donohue, and M.V. Rapacz.   1988.  "A Mass-Balance Nitrate Model
       for  Predicting the  Effects of  Land Use  on Groundwater Quality in Municipal
       Wellhead Protection Areas." Cape Cod Aquifer Management  Project. Boston,
       Massachusetts.  37 pp.
Hall Groundwater Consultants,  Inc.   1986.  "Pumping Test Programs Version 7.0."  St.
       Albert, Alberta, Canada.
                                            100

-------
Hughes, B.F., J. Pike  and  K.S.  Porter.   1985.   "Assessment of Ground-Water Contami
       nation Nitrogen and  Synthetic Organics in Two Water Districts  in Nassau County,
       New York."  Center for Environmental Research, Water Resources  Program.  Cornell
       University.  Ithaca,  New York.
Massachusetts Department of Environmetnal Quality Engineering, Office of Planning
       and Program Management.   1981.  "Road Salts and Water Supplies: Best Management
       Practices."   Boston, Massachusetts.   10pp.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Division of Water
       Supply, Office of Planning and Program Management.   1985.  "Groundwater Quality
       and Protection:  A Gude for Local Officials."  Boston, Massachusetts.   107pp.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Supply.  May
       1989.   "Guidelines  and Policies  for  Public Water  Supply  Systems."   Boston,
       Massachusetts.  160pp.
McDonald, M.G. and A.W. Harbaugh.   1984.  "A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Differ-
       ence Ground-Water Flow Model."  U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological
       Survey.  Reston, Virginia.   480pp.
Metropolitan  Area Planning Council.   1988.   "Final Results of the Foxborough Build-
       Out Analysis  by Selected  Scenarios."  Presented to  the Foxborough Growth Policy
       Committee.   Boston,  Massachusetts.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation  Service.   "Interim Soil
       Survey Report for Norfolk and Suffolk Counties."   U.S. Government Printing
       Office.  Washington, D.C.
Zen, E-an, Editor.   1983.  "Bedrock Geologic Map of Massachusetts."  U.S. Department
       of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey,  In Cooperation with the Commonwealth
       of Massachusetts, Department of Public Works.  Reston, Virginia.


                                 Biographical Sketch

                      Kimberly D.  Noake,  Project Hydrogeologist
                                SEA Consultants Inc.
                              485 Massachusetts Avenue
                           Cambridge,  Massachusetts  02139
                                   (617) 497-7800


Kimberly D.  Noake is a hydrogeologist with  SEA were  she  is responsible for projects
related to aquifer  identification and protection.  Prior to joining S E A, Ms. Noake
was employed by the CEIP Fund, Inc.  as the Principal Investigator for a hydrogeologic
and land use  study of Silver Lake,  the  water supply for Brockton, Massachusetts.  While
employed by  the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality  Engineering,  she
participated  in the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project (CCAMP) and authored the Guide
to Contamination Sources for  Wellhead Protection.   Town-wide aquifer identification
and protection  studies and working with local  communities  to develop  and implement
comprehensive  groundwater  protection  programs  are  among  Ms.   Noake's  foremost
professional  interests.  Ms. Noake received her M.A, degree  in Environmental Studies
from Boston University and B.A. degree in Geology from Smith College.
                                          101

-------
102

-------
                             ABSTRACT
      GROUNDWATER PROTECTION EVOLUTION:  ACTON'S EXPERIENCE
The  Town of  Acton,  Massachusetts  is located  25 miles  west of
Boston  and  is totally  dependent  on  groundwater  resources to
supply a population  of approximately 18,000 people.   In 1979 the
Town lost  approximately  50 percent of the developed water supply
well capacity to volatile organics contamination.

Over  the  next decade  the  various  Town  Boards  and  Committees
worked with both volunteer resources and professional consultants
to study the aquifer systems of the community, existing potential
contamination  sources,  and   possible  problems  from  future
development  under  existing zoning.    A  Groundwater  Protection
Committee  was  formed with representatives  of  each of the Boards
in  Town  with  the  authority  to  implement  some  aspect  of  a
groundwater  protection  program.    This  paper  will review the
sequence of steps, successes and  failures, undertaken by the  Town
to develop and implement  a  multi-faceted program.   The authors
are  a  resident who was  formerly  the  Chairman of the Groundwater
Protection  Committee during the  development and  passage  of the
first set of groundwater protection zones articles (1985) and the
current  Town  Planner who was instrumental  in the development of
the  revised zoning articles adopted  in 1989.   The  first author
worked  as   a  consultant  to  the  Town during  a recent  study to
technically define  aquifer protection zones prior to the revised
zoning.  The community's attitude and approach toward groundwater
management  has evolved  over  the decade  with  each new  effort
building upon the experience of the prior effort.
If you would like a copy of this paper, please contact the author
at (617) 969-0050
                              103

-------
Biographical Sketch:   Duncan W. Wood

Proposed Speaker:   "Groundwater Protection Evolution:   Acton's Experience"

Education:   Dartmouth College              - AB:   Engineering Sciences
            Thayer School of Engineering  - BE:   Environmental Engineering
            Massachusetts Institute of
             Technology                   - MSCE:  Water Resources
            Northeastern University       - MBA

Professional Experience:

Mr. Wood has 13 years of consulting experience in the water resources field.
Assignments have  ranged from  flood control planning  to permitting  for new
water  supply  wells.    Mr. Wood  has been  an active  user and developer of
computer modelling  applications  for  both groundwater  and surface  water
studies.    Mr.  Wood  is an  Associate  of the  firm of  Goldberg-Zoino  &
Associates and had overall responsibility  for the most recent geohydrologic
modelling study to establish  groundwater protection  zones for the  Town of
Acton.

Community Experience:

Mr. Wood served as a member of the Acton Planning Board from 1982  to 1985.
He  represented the  Planning Board on  the  Town's  Groundwater  Protection
Committee and served as Chairman of that Committee.  He was the presenter of
the  first  set  of aquifer  protection zoning by-laws adopted  by the  Town
meeting in 1985.
    Biographical Sketch:    Roland H.  Bartl

    Co-Author:   "Groundwater Protection Evolution:  Acton's Experience"
    Education:    Universitat  Hohenheim,
                 Stuttgart,
                 Federal  Republic  of Germany.

    Professional  Experience:
Master's Degree,
Environmental Sciences &
Agriculture.
    Mr.  Bartl  has  been  a  professional  planner with the Town of Acton since
    August  1987.   He  has  been  instrumental in formulating and coordinating
    Acton's Groundwater Protection District and Zoning Bylaw, adopted  by Town
    Meeting in April  1989.   As planning director, Mr. Bartl is in charge of
    reviewing  all  land  development plans and he coordinates Acton's
    comprehensive  growth  management plan.   Prior to his Acton experience, Mr.
    Bartl  researched  the  effects  of land development and agriculture on
    endangered wetland  species.   He also spent 5 years as a farm manager and
    teacher.
                                         104

-------
        EASTON'S EXPERIENCE AND THE CANOE RIVER AQUIFER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
                                Wayne P. Southworth

                                  Superintendent
                                  Water Division
                                  Town of Easton
                                    Easton, MA
     We all take water for granted.  We use it and abuse it, never really thinking
how it got to the faucet or if and when it will be there in the future.

     The citizens of the Town of Easton, like many communities, are very concerned
and dedicated towards protecting its groundwater and water supply.

     The Easton Conservation Commission has been actively acquiring land for many
years, presently having control of 1,364 acres.  The State Department of Environ-
mental Management controls the Boderland State Park which comprises 594 acres in
Easton.  They have also bought 1,089 acres in the Hockomock Swamp for conservation
purposes.

     The Easton Water Division owns 240 acres surrounding its 5 pumping stations,
26 acres of which were recently purchased with a $500,000 Aquifer Land Aquisition
Grant from the State Department of Environmental Protection.  There is now over 22%
of the property in Easton under state and local government control.

     In 1973 a new Zoning Groundwater Protection District Overlay was established
which consisted of an 800 foot and a 1,600 foot radius around our existing munici-
pal well sites.  Any proposed development within this area had to seek approval
from the Board of Appeals.  Construction of an on-site sewage disposal system within
800 feet of the well site was prohibited.

     In 1986 the Town hired I.E.P. Inc. of Northboro, Massachusetts to do an Aquifer
Protection Study, the purpose of which was to develop a comprehensive groundwater
protection program for the community, including the delineation of critical aquifer
recharge areas and evaluating water quality threats within these areas.  Recommenda-
tions would then be made to establish an aquifer protection bylaw.

     The study was completed in early 1987 and a model bylaw was proposed at the
Annual Town Meeting in the Spring.  The local Planning Board had a few problems with
our proposal, so it was decided to postpone action until we had their full support.

                                        105

-------
The Water Division worked with them during the year and held  several  public  meetings.

     At the Annual Town Meeting in May of 1988 the Planning and  Zoning  Board proposed
the new Aquifer Protection Districts and Bylaw themselves and it passed unanimously.

     The new overlay covers over one-third of the town.  Residential  dwellings are
permitted on one acre lots and all other uses must request a  special  permit  from the
Zoning Board of Appeals.  A few of the prohibited uses are:

     1.  Sales or storage of fuels
     2.  Junk yards
     3.  Packaged sewage treatment plants
     4.  Car washes
     5.  Dry cleaning establishments
     6.  Metal plating establishments

     In applying for a special permit the applicant must supply  a list  of all chemi-
cals, pesticides, fuels and other toxic materials that are to  be manufactured, stored
or used on the premises.  Projections of downgradient concentrations  of nitrogen and
other relevant chemicals at the property boundaries.  Appropriate groundwater models
and nitrogen loading calculations must also be provided.

     The Water Division sponsored the first Household Hazardous  Waste Collection Day
in the town in 1984.  This effort was to educate the public as to the needs  of pro-
tecting the community's groundwater through the proper use and disposal of household
chemicals.  A permanent waste oil collection site was established at  the Landfill at
that time,  Since then we have worked on a regional Collection Day with the  city of
Brockton.  As of September 1989 we will have conducted seven  collection days with
the most recent including the city of Brockton, the towns of Avon, East Bridgewater,
Easton and West Bridgewater. These events have been very successful exemplifying how
communities can cooperatie with one another.


The Canoe River Aquifer Advisory Committee (CRAAC)

     The Canoe River Aquifer Advisory Committee was formed in  February  1987  after
years of discussion among the Water Superintendents of Easton, Norton and Mansfield
regarding the protection of the aquifer that supplied a good portion  of water to each
community.  The adjoining town of Foxborough joined with us in May of 1987.

     State Representative William Vernon worked with the committee to draft  and file
legislation which was approved by the State Legislature on October 22,  1987.  This
legislation has been regarded as a model for the state. This  act gave us legitimacy
specifying that each community shall appoint three members and advise the Boards of
Selectmen, Planning Boards and other committees of the member  towns relative  to
development, conservation and zoning within the Canoe River Aquifer.

     The committee has authority to review all plans of development of  land  within
the aquifer and report its findings to the appropriate agency.

     The committee must inform and educate the public about water conservation and
the condition of the Canoe River Aquifer.  An annual report shall be  prepared and
provided to the Board of Selectmen of each member town.


                                          106

-------
     The Legislation was amended to allow the Town of Sharon to join the committee
in May of 1988.

     The committee meets on the first Thursday of each month in one of the member
communities between 1:00 - 3:00 p.m.  The fifteen members, for the most part, are all
public officials from Selectmen, Planning Board members, Conservation Committee
members, Board of Health, Water Commissioners and Water Superintendents.

     Members of CRAAC have been very active since its initial formation.  On October
1, 1987, the Executive Office of Communities and Development awarded the committee
a $40,000 strategic planning grant.  I.E.P. Inc. was selected as the consultant to
develop a surficial geology map of the aquifer and provide us with a report includ-
ing a developable lot study, nutrient loading analysis, a town by town analysis
comparing the major characteristics of land use regulations for each town, recom-
mendations as to the future actions of the committee and to provide public workshops
as to its findings.

     In May of 1987, CRAAC joined the Adopt-A-Stream Program supported by the Mass-
achusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement and
adopted the entire Canoe River.  Since then, there have been sections of the river
adopted by other groups for specific reasons.

     On May 7. 1988, the committee conducted its first annual spring Canoe River
Awareness Day at the Mansfield Fish and Game Club.  This event was very successful
with over fifty in attendance.  Presentations by state officials and committee mem-
bers were followed by a canoe trip.  We received tremendous press and cable coverage
which helped to alert the public as to the needs of protecting this aquifer.

     A winter Awareness Day was held at Wheaton College in Norton on February 12,
1989.  Over fifty residents and public officials attended from the five communities.

     Some of our accomplishments have been the installation of signs indicating the
Canoe River at all road crossings, the education of Highway departments as to proper
road salting practices and the elimination of road salt in sensitive areas around
the well sites.  The Towns of Easton and Norton worked together to close an uninhab-
ited road between the two communities which had become a dumping ground since the
closing of area landfills.  This area was next to the wells of both communities.

     CRAAC held its second annual Canoe River Awareness Day on Saturday, May 6, 1989,
again at the Mansfield Fish and Game Club, which included a river clean-up in all
five towns, presentations by the D.E.Q.E., State Senators and Representatives, a
canoe trip and picnic.

     The committee applied for and  received a  $2,000 grant  from  the Department  of
Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law Enforcement  to  create  a  composite  asses-
sor's map of  the aquifer.  This map has been completed by I.E.P. and  is  now being
used to develop a list of land owners within the  aquifer.

     The committee is working with  the Natural Resources  Trusts  of Easton,  Norton,
and Mansfield  to develop a land use conference during  the winter of  1990.   We will
invite  land owners within the aquifer who have parcels that are  prone  to  development.

     The activities and accomplishments of this committee demonstrate  again how
communities can work  together to help protect our most vital natural  resource.

                                         107

-------
Wayne P. Southworth
Easton Water Division
417 Bay Road
South Easton, MA 02375

     Wayne P. Southworth is Superintendent of the Town of Easton Water  Division.
A twenty year employee of the Town of Easton, he has served as  Superintendent  since
1980.  He has a Massachusetts grade 4 certification as a Drinking Water Supply
Facilities Operator.

     He has been chairman of the Canoe River Aquifer Advisory Committee since  its
formation in 1987.  He serves on the Governors Hazardous Waste  Advisory Committee
and is the First Trustee of the Massachusetts Water Works Association.

     In 1988 the Massachusetts Municipal Association named him  Outstanding Municipal
Employee of the Year.
                                        108

-------
                            ABSTRACT

         WELLHEAD PROTECTION FOR THE  CHAFFIN  POND WELLS
                     IN NORTH WINDHAM, MAINE


                     by W.  Dana Perkins, Jr.
                   Director of Quality Control
            Portland Water District - Portland, Maine


The Portland Water District delivers water to approximately 46,000
services,  providing water  to  over 160,000  people in the Greater
Portland Area.   Most of the water comes from Sebago Lake, but the
supply  is  also supplemented   by  wells  in  North  Windham  and
Cumberland.   The North Windham system consists of 2  gravel packed
wells approximately 75 feet deep with a total short term pumping
capacity of 1000 gpm.

In  1978  the limits  of the  aquifer  were  defined  using surface
watershed delineation and geologic inference on the nature of the
subsurface.   Because Windham is a  fast growing community,  it was
desirable to better delineate  the  aquifer recharge  area  so as to
not unnecessarily restrict development within the outer boundary
of the recharge area.   Bey  doing a  computerized ground water model
of the aquifer it was possible to separate the recharge area into
3 zones, each with different land use restrictions to accommodate
the appropriate level of protection to the well.

A  hydrogeologist was  hired  to  construct  a three  dimensional
computer model  of the  recharge  area and to present recommendations
for implementation of an aquifer protection ordinance.  This report
outlines the advantages gained by use of a 3 dimensional computer
model, over a 2  dimensional model and describes the recommendation
and implementation of an aquifer protection ordinance.
                                   109

-------
Mr. Dana Perkins, Jr., the director of quality control of the



Portland Water Dist., Portland, ME., has been with the district



since 1981.  Prior to this position,  he  was  chief chemist of the



South Portland Wastewater Treatment plant.   Mr.  Perkins has also



authored and co-authored several papers related to water and



wastewater treatment in the northeastern area.
                                    110

-------
                   BRIDGEPORT HYDRAULIC COMPANY
                    AQUIFER PROTECTION PROGRAM
                       MARK L. JOHNSON, P.E.

                   VICE PRESIDENT - ENGINEERING
                   BRIDGEPORT HYDRAULIC COMPANY
                          835 MAIN STREET
                       BRIDGEPORT, CT 06601
Abstract
     Bridgeport Hydraulic Company (BHC) is the tenth largest
investor-owned water utility in the nation serving a population of
approximately 360,000 in 17 towns in Fairfield. New Haven and
Litchfield counties in Connecticut.  BHC has always had an active
source protection program for both its watershed and aquifer
areas.  Certain ground water pollution threats to its wellfields
in the mid to late 1980's required BHC to take a more proactive
stance in the area of aquifer protection.   BHC initiated a three
stage aquifer protection program which consists of an aquifer
protection plan, aquifer protection workshops, and a public
awareness program.  BHC's aquifer protection program has already
shown great benefits in helping to protect these valuable supplies
and developing better relationships with the communities in which
these wellfieids are located.  The program has gained recognition
from both federal and state regulatory agencies.

I. Introduction/Background

     Bridgeport Hydraulic Company (BHC) is the tenth largest
investor-owned water utility in the nation serving a population of
approximately 360,000 in 17 towns in Fairfield. New Haven and
Litchfield counties in Connecticut.  BHC has 15 wellfields located
in 11 of these communities.  These ground water supplies range in
capacity from 0.02 mgd to 16 mgd safe yield capacity.  BHC's
ground water sources provide a total safe yield of approximately
30 mgd or 30% of the company's total 90 mgd safe yield capacity.

     Beginning in 1984,  BHC began to experience a series of
pollution threats to several of its wellfields.  A summary of
these contamination events is summarized below:
                                111

-------
1.  Lakeville Wellfield,  Salisbury,  CT - During a pump test
   operation,  BHC detected hydrocarbon in the production water
   of its Lakeville Wellfield,,   A consultant was immediately
   retained to assist BHC in determining the source and
   rectifying the problem.  The potential source(s) were
   located and an intercepter well was installed and the
   pollution plume was diverted away from the well head.  After
   two years of aquifer monitoring,  the wellfield was placed
   back in service at a reduced pumping rate.  BHC has
   experienced a total cost to date of approximately $200,000
   in monitoring well installation and sampling/laboratory
   costs.  The well head remains clean but the contamination
   threat is still unresolved.

2.  Salisbury Wellfield,  Salisbury,  CT - In 1984 BHC experienced
   the detection of low levels of tetrachlorethylene (PCE) at
   its Salisbury wellfield.   Again,  BHC immediately retained
   the services of a ground water consultant to identify and
   hopefully remediate the situation.  Monitoring well
   installation and laboratory analysis indicates the potential
   source of pollution as a former dry cleaning establishment.
   The owners of the dry cleaning establishment have long since
   left the area and the existing owners of the property have
   virtually no assets.   BHC is forced to treat the production
   water via air stripping.   Total costs spent to date on this
   project are approximately $200,000 and future design and
   treatment costs are expected to approach $150,000.

3.  Oxford Wellfield,  Oxford,  CT - In late 1987,  BHC experienced
   a solvent pollution contamination in close proximity to its
   Oxford Wellfield.   The solvent pollution was discovered as
   part of the construction of a small shopping center.   The
   owner of the shopping center has cooperated with the company
   and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in
   removing contaminated soils.  However,  contaminated ground
   water still exists at a distance of approximately 800' from
   one of the well heads:  BHC continues to monitor the water
   quality in the aquifer through its own monitoring  wells and
   wells installed by the owner.  Recent heavy rainfall
   patterns in Connecticut have assisted in mobilizing the
   ground water contamination and BHC is finding the solvents
   traveling towards the well head.   BHC has spent a total of
   approximately $50,000 to date on monitoring and
   sampling/laboratory costs.

4.  Hamill Wellfield,  Litchfield, CT - BHC has experienced a
   number of contamination events near this particular
   wellfield.   Sodium contamination has been identified as
   coming from a local salt storage facility.  In addition, a
   Department of Transportation (DOT) garage facility, although
   remote,  has been linked to an isolated salt contamination
   problem and hydrocarbon spill.   In the first 6 months of

                             112

-------
      1989, BHC has experienced 4 hydrocarbon spills/threats
      around the perimeter of the zone of influence of the Hammill
      Wellfield.

     BHC has always had an active source protection program for
both its watershed and aquifer areas.  However, the events
documented above made it clear to management that a more proactive
stance in the area of aquifer protection was required.  In
response to this need BHC initiated a 3 stage aquifer protection
program.  The first stage included the preparation of BHC's
aquifer protection plan.  A major task in the plan was to model
each of the 15 wellfields using a two dimensional ground water
flow computer program.  Once the aquifers were modeled and the
safe yield of each supply was determined, the zone of influence of
each wellfield was plotted on a map of the aquifer area.  Within
each zone of influence, a survey was undertaken to determine  the
location of potential sources of groundwater contamination.   With
the potential sources plotted on the aquifer maps, certain
monitoring well locations were developed to provide an early
warning program for potential pollutants traveling towards the
wells.  The plan also suggested aquifer protection ordinances for
those wellfield influence areas, emergency response programs  for
contamination events and a list of the key chemicals to analyze at
each monitoring well.  The second stage involved presentation of
the plan and a review of ground water protection techniques with
the towns.  Finally, the third stage of the program consists  of a
general public awareness program on aquifer protection.

II.  Aquifer Protection Plan

    BHC solicited the services of YWC, Inc. of Monroe, CT to
assist in the preparation of BHC's aquifer protection plan.   YWC's
first task was to model each of BHC's 15 wellfields using a two
dimensional radial flow ground water computer program.  YWC
actually used 2 ground water models—Aquifer and Plasm.  BHC
supplied YWC with all available well drillers' logs, observation
well construction logs, pump test data, drawdown data, production
records, and  other historical information to assist in preparing
the ground water models.  YWC then took that information along
with information gathered from existing geological survey data
from each aquifer area, and field geological Interpretation and
developed the ground water models with their appropriate cell
configurations and boundary conditions.  As part of the modeling
process, BHC was deeply interested in a more accurate
determination of the safe yield of each wellfield and instructed
YWC to calculate the safe yield utilizing the ground water flow
models.  The criteria used for developing the safe yield was  180
days of pumping, with no vertical recharge, keeping the water
levels 5' above the screens at all times.  Utilizing this
conservative methodology for safe yield, the critical zone of
influence is that area outside the well head which had a drawdown
of 1' under that drought condition.
                                113

-------
    With the zones of influence of each wellfield determined  and
plotted on an appropriate scale map,  YWC then conducted field and
historical pollution inventories of these areas.  Of specific
interest were former gas stations,  dry cleaning establishments,
land fills,  businesses,  hazardous materials storage areas, etc.
In addition to actually surveying the entire area, YWC contacted
local officials and townspeople with historical knowledge of  the
area for leads to possible contamination spots not visibly
noticed.  Upon completion of this inventory of potential
contamination spots,  BHC and YWC selected strategic locations for
early warning monitoring well installations.  The installation of
the 15 monitoring wells'were scheduled for a two year program.
Water quality sampling from these monitoring wells will accent
BHC's regular water quality sampling program so that any pollution
activities in the aquifer will be immediately noticed and early
remediation plans could be put into effect.   The aquifer
protection plan document contains specific water quality
parameters for each monitoring well that BHC's laboratory will
analyze.  In addition,  as most wellfields were located near a
surface water feature,  stream sampling is also included as part of
the early warning system.

    The aquifer protection plan also includes sections in the
document relating to emergency response techniques in the event of
an aquifer pollution contamination event, and suggested aquifer
protection ordinances for those towns affected.  The emergency
response portion was developed to assist BHC in the event of  a
contamination event which requires swift action.  Included are
emergency phone numbers and response techniques.  Emergency
response includes not only notification of appropriate state  and
local officials but also includes a list of suppliers of portable
treatment facilities that could be utilized to treat the pollution
event.  Other remediation activities identified for each wellfield
include such things as intercepter wells and alternate sources of
supply.  BHC also presented two aquifer protection ordinances that
were developed for the town of Salisbury and the town of Wilton,
CT as suggestions to the other communities for adoption.  These
ordinances include the restriction of certain activities such as
gasoline stations, dry cleaning establishments within the zones of
influence of these wellfields and also include hazardous waste
storage regulations.

III.  Aquifer Protection Workshops

     BHC determined in the early stages that communication of its
aquifer protection plan at the local level was a necessity.   BHC
did not want this document to become placid and sit on the shelves
of local planning agencies.   The plan pertaining to each community
was forwarded to its First Selectman and five copies were provided
for the various agencies in town.  BHC engaged the services of the
Housatonic Valley Association (HVA),  a non-profit conservation
group with experience in ground water protection, to assist in
making presentations to the towns' chief elected officials,

                                114

-------
commission members and interested citizens.  Throughout  the  fall
of 1988, BHC visited all 11 communities with the HVA and presented
the aquifer protection workshops.  The workshops included, (1)  a
slide show on the basics of ground water protection and  pollution,
(2) a slide presentation on BHC's contamination experiences,  (3)  a
review of existing federal, state and local regulations  pertaining
to aquifer protection and potential future legislation,  (4)  a
review of the specifics of BHC's aquifer protection plan for the
wellfield in each community, and (5) a review of the regulatory
and non-regulatory actions each community could take to  help
protect not only BHC's supplies but ground water In general.

     The response to the workshops was tremendous with BHC being
able to get the message out to over 200 chief elected officials
and commission members.  Although geared towards public  officials,
most workshops were attended by many interested citizens.  Any
aquifer protection program must include a workshop at the local
level for public officials.

IV.  Public Awareness Program

     The third stage of BHC's Aquifer Protection Plan program
includes a public awareness program.  It is essential to Include
the general public in aquifer protection issues because  not  all
citizens are actively involved with local government.  BHC began
an active media program in 1988 during the initiation of the local
workshop program.  As mentioned previously, many interested
citizens did attend the workshops.  Once the word got out on the
workshop program, several  local associations asked BHC to provide
the workshop to their groups.  BHC has conducted the workshop for
three towns in which BHC does not have public water supply wells
and civic organizations such as the Audubon Society, etc.  In
addition, BHC has prepared press releases for all activities
concerning monitoring well installation, workshop announcements,
BHC's coordination during spill events with the DEP and  local
officials, and general interest topics on aquifer protection.
Finally, BHC has prepared an aquifer protection pamphlet which
will be available to all BHC customers and will be distributed  at
aquifer protection workshops and other presentations.

     BHC plans future media contact with the general public.  Such
items will include newspaper advertisements on the hazards of
aquifer contamination and video presentations in conjunction with
conservation groups on aquifer protection.

V.   Conclusions

     BHC's aquifer protection program has already shown  great
benefits not only helping to protect these valuable supplies but
in developing better relationships with the communities  in which
these wellfields are located.  The aquifer protection plan has
been referred to on numerous occasion by BHC's internal  source
                                115

-------
protection task force in regards to review of building development
proposals,  highway projects, open space issues, etc.  Some
examples of the effectiveness of the plan include:

   1.  Oxford Wellfield - restrictive covenants with a local
      bank constructing a branch office within the zone of
      influence.  Restrictions in their deed include such things
      as (1) no use of salt on driveways,  (2) no underground
      storage of any hydrocarbons,  (3) treatment of all parking
      lot runoff, (4) no hazardous chemical storage, and (5)  a
      complete monitoring system surrounding their proposed septic
      system.

   2.  Cornwall Springs - BHC commented on a proposed residential
      pond construction within the zone of influence.  The
      proposed pond construction could affect local ground water
      hydrology.  If it is not properly constructed, it could be a
      source of contamination during construction.  Also, most
      ponds are chemically treated at some point in their life and
      could affect ground water quality.

   3.  Westport Wellfield - The town of Westport immediately
      adopted aquifer protection ordinances as a result of BHC's
      aquifer protection plan.

   4.  All Wellfields - BHC began its own program of reviewing
      underground storage facilities at its wellfield stations.
      All underground tanks have now been removed and replaced
      with either interior tanks or switched to propane.

   5.  Salisbury Wellfield and Lakefield Wellfield - BHC's
      engineering department coordinated with the town of
      Salisbury In preparing a design and specifications for  an
      underground storage vault for underground storage tanks.

    These are just a few of the positive affects of BHC's aquifer
protection plan.  The plan has gained recognition from the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department of
Environmental Protection.   Development of a plan and
implementation of a program such as the one presented can only
benefit other utilities as a tremendous protection and public
relations tool.
                                116

-------
                       MARK L. JOHNSON, P.E.
                        BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
EDUCATION
BS Civil Engineering
MS Environmental Engineering
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
1976

University of Maine - 1977 (Phi
Kappa Phi Honor Society)

University of Bridgeport - MBA
Program - 21 Credit Hours
EMPLOYMENT

1987 - Present
1983 - 1987
1979 - 1983
1978 - 1979
Bridgeport Hydraulic Company -
Vice President of Engineering

Bridgeport Hydraulic Company -
Director of Engineering

Bridgeport Hydraulic Company -
Superintendent of System
Operations

Bridgeport Hydraulic Company -
Engineer and Assistant Project
Manager - Trap Falls Project
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

Geotelec, Inc., Norwalk, CT - Director
American Academy of Environmental Engineers - Diplomate
American Water Works Association - Member
Connecticut Water Works Association - Member
New England Water Works Association - Member
American Society of Civil Engineers - Member
CERTIFICATION

Registered Professional Engineer - Connecticut
Water Treatment Plant Operator - Class IV - Connecticut
Water Distribution Plant Operator - Class III - Connecticut
                                117

-------
PAPERS

"Bridgeport Hydraulic Company's Aquifer Protection Program" -
 Wellhead/Aquifer Protection Conference (CWWA/YWC/IWR) -
 October,  1988.

"Utility Interconnection - The Southwest Regional Pipeline
 Experience" - Connecticut Water Works Association - May, 1986.

"Designing and Constructing the Trap Falls Water Treatment
 Plant" -  American Water Works Journal - March, 1983.

"The Use of Lamellae Settlers" - New York Water Works
 Association - 1983.

"The Transition Problem in Pumped Wells" - American Geophysical
 Union - 1978.
                                 118

-------
                                   ABSTRACT

          "AQUIFER PROTECTION THROUGH LARGE SCALE COMPUTER MODELLING"

                            by David F. Edson, P.E.
                            Senior Project Manager
                      Dufresne-Henry. Inc., Westford, MA

     The Barnes Aquifer, one of the largest in central and western
Massachusetts, extends  over the eastern portion of the City of Westfield,
Massachusetts.  The City has developed six wells in this aquifer, each
producing between 1,400 and 1,600 gpm, representing 90 percent of its total
water supply capability.

     In 1985, the City  enacted a set of aquifer protection bylaws and
developed a wellhead protection district map based upon surficial geology and
topography.  In 1989, 3 sere detailed and thorough delineation of wellhead
protection areas was completed by use of large scale hydrogeologic computer
modelling.

     Wellhead protection areas were detailed using MODFLOW, a
three-dimensional finite difference groundwater flow model developed by the
U.S. Geologic Survey.   The area modelled was 14,000 feet by 32,000 feet,
represented by a 33 by  70 division grid system yielding 2,310 data nodes.
Node spacing varied between 400 and 900 feet.  Aquifer characteristics and
hydrogeologic features  incorporated into the model included:'

         aquifer permeability, saturated thickness and storativity
         initial head distribution, i.e., static water table condition
         induced infiltration from surface water bodies
         till barrier boundaries
         pumping well withdrawal and interferences

     Aquifer characteristics and hydrogeologic features were primarily
obtained from:

     1.  Analyses of City well testing records such as well logs and pumping
         test results,  and

     2.  A USGS water resource investigation of the area which at the time was
         completed but  not published.

     Wellhead protection districts were developed based on criteria contained
in Massachusetts state  guidelines for "Zone II" which includes 180 days of
continuous well pumping with no recharge from precipitation.  Described are
methods of data analyses, our modelling approach, sensitivity analyses and
results.  The advantages and disadvantages of the large scale modelling
approach to aquifer protection are discussed along with suggested guidelines
for its use in other communities.
                                           119

-------
                                                 Professional  Profile
                                                   DAVID F. EDSON, P.E.

                                                   SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER
   Specialized Professional Competence

       Ground Water Evaluation
       Water Facility Design
       Utility Management

   Representative Assignments

       Project Engineer or Manager:

       Ground water exploration and supply  development.  Zone  of contribution
         delineation and aquifer protection and management.

       Ground water quality evaluations,  contamination investigations,
         discharge permitting, and remediation projects.

       Water facility evaluation and design of:  wells, pumping systems,
         distribution and storage.

       Water quality assessments and design of water treatment facilities.

       Capital planning and economic feasibility studies.

   Professional Background

       Registered Professional Engineer in  Massachusetts,  Maine, and
         Connecticut.

       Graduate engineering courses, Nottheastern University
       M.B.A., State University of New York at Buffalo
       B.S. in Civil Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo

       Entered Profession in 1976, joined.Dufresne-Henry.  Inc. in 1986

       Member:   American Water Works Association
                 Member Ground Water Committee
                 New England Water Works  Association
                   Chairman, Ground Water Committee
                   Member, Committee on Management Development
                 National Water Well Association
                                        120
Dufresne-Henry, Inc.

-------
                                             Professional Profile

                                               DAVID F. EDSON, P.E.
                                               SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER
  Publications and Presentations

       Edson. D.F., "Re-emergence of the Wellfield",  Journal of the New
                   England Water Works Association. Vol. 102, No. 4.
                   December. 1988.

       Edson. D.F.. "Well Design", presented at Municipal Ground Water Supply
                   Seminar, sponsored by Resource Education Institute.
                   Inc., Westborough. KA.. September. 1986.

       Edson. D.F.. "Microcomputer Billing for the Small Water Utility".
                   Journal of the New England Water Works Association. Vol.
                   96. No. 4. December. 1982.
                                         121

DufresneHenry, Inc.

-------
122

-------
     DETERMINING THE AREA OF CONTRIBUTION TO A WELL FIELD:
    A CASE STUDY AND METHODOLOGY FOR WELLHEAD PROTECTION

                                          by

                   W. James Griswold and John J.  Donohue, IV
                                BCI  Geonetics,  Inc.
                              Laconia, New Hampshire


ABSTRACT

This paper presents a case study of an hydrogeological evaluation for wellhead protection
conducted in an alluvial valley-fill aquifer in central Massachusetts. The criteria for wellhead
protection in Massachusetts are set by the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
(DEQE) and are among the most technically detailed and sophisticated in the nation. DEQE defines
its wellhead protection areas as the zone of contribution to a well or wellfield under the most severe
pumping conditions that could be reasonably expected, i.e., 180 days of continuous pumping with
no area! recharge.  This report presents a practical, technically defensible, step-by-step method
which ground water professionals can employ to produce a product to address the spirit and letter
of the law aimed at wellhead protection.

The evaluation begins with the development of an initial conceptual model of the area, evaluating
such key elements as surficial and bedrock geology, associated contributions to ground water
flow, recharge potential and induced infiltration from streams. The conceptual model is tested and
revised through the installation of monitoring wells.  Detailed measurements of ambient conditions
both of ground water and surface water flows are taken to isolate the effects of the well(s) from the
natural variations in the overall flow regime. The aquifer is then subjected to the stress of a
required 120-hour pumping test. The results of analysis of the pumping test and ambient
conditions are used in a numerical model to extrapolate from the 120-hour test to the 180-day,
no-recharge conditions dictated by DEQE regulations. Finally, the modelled 180-day drawdown
results are subtracted from a potentiometric surface map reflecting average non-pumping
conditions. The area of contribution is delineated from a flownet constructed on the resultant
potentiometric surface.


INTRODUCTION

This paper presents a practical means of delineating wellhead protection zones using a case study
conducted in an alluvial valley-fill aquifer system in central Massachusetts. This approach
addresses the particular legal requirements of the State of Massachusetts' Zone n, defined as the
area that contributes recharge to a well or wellfield under the most severe pumping conditions that
could reasonably be expected, i.e., 180 days of continuous pumping with no area! recharge.
Although the wellhead protection requirements for the State of Massachusetts are among the most
technically detailed and sophisticated in the nation, several other states (e.g., New Hampshire) do
employ or are in the process of adopting regulations that incorporate many of the procedures


                                           123

-------
demanded by Massachusetts. Thus, the methods described can be modified for other states that
have related statutory requirements.

The objective of the case study was to determine the zone of contribution for the Bondsville Fire
and Water District wellfield in central Massachusetts. The Bondsville wellfield consists of three
production wells constructed in glacial outwash sand and gravel.  Two wells functioned reasonably
well, pumping a combined 225 gallons per minute. The third well had seen its yield decline
significantly from its original rated capacity of 125 gpm and had not responded to redevelopment
efforts. A new well had been drilled to serve as its replacement.  To receive approval as a new
source in accordance with Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
(DEQE) Safe Drinking Water Guidelines, the water district had to delineate the 180-day,
no-recharge zone of contribution to the wellfield.

This paper is divided into three sections. The first, relatively brief section summarizes the salient
requirements of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE).
These requirements form the basis for the implementation of the hydrogeological program to
determine the zone of contribution. The second and third sections examine the approach used in
the case study to fulfill the DEQE requirements. Section Two concentrates on the  steps taken to
formulate an initial conceptual model of the area, to test and update that model from field
investigation data. Section Three deals with the actual delineation of the zone of contribution to the
wellfield, tracking the process of moving from a conceptual to a quantitative model.


SECTION 1: REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

The commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) -
Division of Water Supply regulates the development and operation of all public water supplies.
The functional documentation of this regulatory process is entitled the "Safe Drinking Water
Guidelines and Policies," 1989 edition.

Within these guidelines, the development of a public ground water resource is governed by the
New Source Approval process. The process is a step-by-step exploratory and development
procedure that culminates in the DEQE Division of Water Supply Approval of a Public System.
The process is broken into eight major steps, the emphasis of which is the determination of zones
1,2, and 3 (wellhead protection areas) which are evaluated in relation to existing and future land
use activities, as they impact the long-term integrity of quantity and quality of the wells being
developed. The core of these requirements involves a quantitative hydrogeological evaluation to
determine Zone 2, defined as that area of an aquifer, which supplies recharge to a pumping well
under the most severe recharge and pumping conditions which can be realistically anticipated.
These requirements set forth a well-structured, long-term process intended to provide the necessary
background information for the long-term management of ground water resources. In order to
appropriately address the spirit of these requirements within the limits of realistic budgetary
constraints, creative hydrogeological techniques must be employed to ensure that theoretical and
technical considerations are not compromised.


SECTION 2:  CONCEPTUAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT

2.1 Genera!  Considerations

The development of a conceptual hydrogeologic model  begins with a compilation and thorough
evaluation of material already available about the study  area. This secondary data source material
may take the form of available hydrogeologic and geologic reports, mapping efforts by the USGS
and State Geological Surveys, published papers, university theses and dissertations, well logs and

                                             124

-------
water quality analyses.  A great deal of information can often be derived from conversations with
local drillers, many of whom keep files on work they have done. As trivial or as obvious as this
step appears, its importance is frequently overlooked, and it is often given short shrift, both from a
monetary and time standpoint in the overall project plan.  However, it takes only a couple of
instances of drilling and logging an expensive monitoring well only to find that the USGS or the
Army Corps of Engineers has excellent records of a well they drilled in the very same area some
thirty or forty years before to realize the savings that can occur from a thorough perusal of existing
data.

There are a number of ways that secondary source data can be compiled for analysis.  One
particularly useful means of obtaining a synoptic view of the study area is using map overlays and
cross sections. We have found that at least two scales of map are necessary in a wellhead
protection program study, one small scale map that provides a more regional perspective,
incorporating most, if not all, of the drainage basin, and a large scale map to show a more detailed
view of the wellfield and its immediate hydrogeologic environment. With properly sized base
maps, a series of overlay maps can be derived to display and correlate various types of data. In
general, we employ a minimum of three separate overlays, including a well location map with a
regional potentiometric surface indicated, a surficial geologic/geomorphic map and a
bedrock/structural geologic map. Other maps are frequently needed, e.g., an isohyetal map, if
precipitation shows significant area! variation, a water main distribution map, and a tax or property
ownership map.  These maps can take as simple a form as a mylar overlay on top of a blowup of a
standard USGS quadrangle or it can be input into a more sophisticated mode of storage and
retrieval, such as a computerized geographic information system. In either case, the objective is
the same: to provide first a regional and then a detailed perspective of a variety of data at a glance.

A second means of analysis is with geologic cross-sections. Constructing a series of
cross-sections forces the hydrogeologist to incorporate a number of different data sets leading to an
overall model of the region. Data inconsistencies such as a pronounced head difference across an
area that ostensibly shows little geologic variation point to areas in need of further investigation.
Additionally, cross-section construction focuses attention on the key problem of boundary
conditions to the hydrogeologic system. Ultimately, the question of whether the situation can be
analyzed accurately as a one, two or three dimensional problem must be addressed. Drawing a
number of cross-sections and incorporating various data (surficial and bedrock geology, ground
water conditions) into those sections offers a good first step in qualitatively and quantitatively
addressing those issues.

The methods of analysis described above should be synthesized to create a formal conceptual
model  It is important to make this step a written document  It forces the hydrogeologist to sift
through, think about, and organize the ideas and data that have been collected. Putting the
conceptual model in print often reveals data gaps and grey areas of information that might
otherwise have been overlooked. It provides a means by which the project team may quickly
examine the state of the project and contribute to the overall effort by offering constructive technical
input The initial model will change as the project proceeds, sometimes radically, but the written
conceptual model focuses on the salient issues of the hydrogeologic environment being studied.

2.2  Bondsville  Conceptual  Model:  Methods

In constructing the initial conceptual model for the Bondsville wellfield, the process described
above was followed. The objective was to obtain the best information possible on the prevailing
hydrogeologic conditions within time and budgetary limitations. Surficial geology was transferred
to the base maps, with particular emphasis on hydraulic properties and attention to recharge
potential to the valley fill aquifer. Well logs from local drillers, the USGS, DEQE and other state
agencies were compiled on two base maps scaled 1:960 and 1:6000. A potentiometric surface map
was drafted based on the available water level data.  Investigations into precipitation data and

                                              125

-------
possible impacts from regulated flows were made. Aerial photography was examined for the
possibility of significant bedrock structures that might represent zones of enhanced permeability.
Additionally, low-level aerials were used to better examine the surficial geology and glacial
geomorphology. A field reconnaissance of the area was made, ground truthing questions raised
during the process of establishing the data base.  In particular, staff gauges were installed on
Jabish Brook, given the potential for induced infiltration. Several geologic cross-sections and an
aquifer thickness map at a 1:6000 scale completed the efforts prior to writing the initial conceptual
model.

2.3 Bondsville Conceptual Model:  Written Description

The Bondsville Fire and Water District wellfield is located within the watershed of Jabish Brook, a
tributary of the Swift River in Palmer, Massachusetts. The wellfield lies approximately 1800 feet
above the confluence of Jabish Brook and the Swift River. There are presently three wells in the
wellfield, two on the west side of Jabish Brook and one on the east side. Well No. 3, on the east
side, is in the process of being replaced with an adjacent, newly constructed production well (Well
No. 4).

The Jabish Brook watershed is underlain by the Devonian Belchertown quartz monzodiorite
covered with approximately 15-20 feet of compact glacial till. The aquifer which supplies the
production wells is composed of glacially-derived stratified sand and gravel deposits approximately
50 feet thick in the vicinity of the production wells. The axis of Jabish Brook Valley trends
north-south and includes areas where the sand and gravel is over 100 feet thick. Several feet of
stream terrace deposits composed of sands, silts and gravels overlay the glacial outwash near
Jabish Brook.

There are several key hydrogeological factors that influence the size and shape of the zone of
contribution to this wellfield: leakage from Jabish Brook, the thickness and hydraulic conductivity
of aquifer materials, the behavior of the low permeability boundaries of the aquifer, areal recharge
and the rate and duration of pumping at the wellfield.

From the geologic setting, previous pumping test information, and field observations, it appears
that Jabish Brook acts as a significant source of recharge to the Bondsville Well Field. Induced
infiltration from Jabish Brook will slow the expansion of the cone of influence acting as a line
source of recharge. It is unknown whether this source of recharge will be continuously available
to the well. If the stream goes dry from excessive pumping and/or seasonal variations in ground
water levels, the stream will cease to act as a recharge source.

The stratified sand and gravel deposits that comprise the Jabish Brook Valley aquifer are thickest
along the central axis of the valley and grade into the lateral, north-south trending till and bedrock
boundaries.  When the Bondsville wells are pumped, the cone of influence will expand
preferentially along the axis of the valley within the aquifer materials with the highest
transmissivities. These aquifer and boundary conditions will affect the cone of influence into an
elliptical shape with the long axis  trending in a north-south direction.

2.4 Conceptual  Model  Revision: Analytical Modelling

Following its initial development, the conceptual model is subjected to testing.  Questions and
hypotheses based on the model are developed and tested to improve the overall understanding of
the hydrogeologic environment. In general, this usually entails monitoring well installation.
However, in order to provide additional guidance in the placement of observation wells,
particularly for those designed for the long term pumping test, analytical modelling should be
performed. In this case, reasonably good control had been achieved on the type, extent and
hydraulic character of the aquifer from previous pumping tests and from well logs. Boundary


                                             126

-------
conditions had been established, based primarily on surficial geologic mapping. The regional
gradient was estimated from the potentiometric surface map. Using this database, a preliminary
Zone n boundary was calculated using a uniform flow model and the superposition of radial and
one-dimensional flow fields to determine the area of contribution (Todd, 1980).

The calculations resulted in a downgradient stagnation point distance of 2280 feet and a capture
width of 7000 feet on either side of the wellfield. The 0-foot isopach for saturated sand and gravel
bordered by relatively impermeable till and bedrock was used to delimit the lateral extent of the
estimated zone. To estimate the upgradient boundary, we determined the amount of land needed to
produce the estimated 525 gpm pumped by the wellfield with a recharge rate of 17  inches/year, an
appropriate estimate for the climatic conditions and stratified drift deposits found in Bondsville.
600 acres of stratified drift was enclosed in the initial Zone n estimate.

2.5  Conceptual Model Revision: Monitoring  Well  Installation

To further refine the model, monitoring wells are installed.  Monitoring wells serve several
purposes, functioning as a means to better understand the subsurface distribution and hydraulic
character of materials, as measuring points with which to revise the potentiometric  surface map
and, later, as monitoring points for pumping test evaluation.

Well drilling in Bondsville consisted of hollow-stem augering of the hole with split-spoon
sampling at 5 foot intervals. Construction involved the installation of 2-inch, schedule 40 PVC
riser, 2-inch PVC 10-slot screen, sand pack along the screened section, backfilling with well
cuttings, a bentonite plug below a cement grout and a locking cap. Each well was developed with
a suction pump and response tested to ensure proper hydraulic connection to the aquifer. Well
locations and elevations were determined by survey to ensure water level measurements to within
0.01 feet (Figure 1).

2.6 Conceptual Model  Revision: Formal  Presentation

Following the installation of monitoring wells and the completion of regional and local testing of
the conceptual model, it is vital to revise the conceptual model to incorporate the new findings.
This stage of the program also entails  committing to writing the data and analysis gathered since the
early stages of the project  At this point, maps, overlays, well logs and cross-sections will play an
increasingly important role and should form a portion of the overall written effort.  In essence, this
is the point at which the entire project pauses and takes stock of its position. Whether this revision
takes the form of an in-house presentation, a submission to  State  authorities or to the client, it
should have the status of an formal report in a usable format for easy future reference.

The conceptual model in the Bondsville study was revised principally based on accurate geologic
logs created from the drilling of each well and updated water level measurements. The logs
revealed the original model in need of only minor revisions of some contours of the aquifer
thickness map.  Of greater importance to the model revision process was the result of the revisions
to the potentiometric surface map. With the more detailed information provided by water level
measurements in the monitoring wells, the area of influence resulting from the two operating
production wells was clearly visible.  Jabish Brook did not  function as a constant head boundary,
but did contribute water to the wells as the area of influence from the existing pumping wells
reached beneath and beyond the stream. Furthermore, the flow in Jabish Brook had decreased
from a measured 27 cfs in March, 1988 to 2 cfs in June  1988. The potentiometric map contours
were redrawn to indicate that Jabish Brook was losing water to the aquifer (Figure 1).
                                              127

-------
to
00

-------
SECTION 3:  ZONE II DELINEATION

Once the conceptual model has been updated and revised, the initial steps to move to a more
quantitative approach were taken. A critical step in the development of an accurate quantitative
model to determine the zone of contribution is die performance of a long term pumping test Both
a step test and a constant rate test were performed. The wellfield is the district's sole source of
water and could not be shut down for the duration of the test. Consequently, Wells No.  1 and 2
would pump continuously throughout all tests at their normal capacities (170 and 80 gpm) to
establish a quasi-steady state condition. Additionally, the Bondsville storage tank was to be filled
prior to all test pumping with a full day's average demand in storage at all times to ensure adequate
water supplies.

3.1  Ambient Condition Measurement

Two weeks before the beginning of the constant rate pumping test, five observations wells (MW's
12,13,14,15, and 19) were equipped with automatic recorders to measure water levels at hourly
intervals. The information from the data plots would be used to correct drawdown data from the
constant rate test for ambient conditions. At the beginning of the constant rate test, the general
trend was downward (Figure 2).  Only the change in head with time for the final section of each
curve was used to modify the results of the drawdown measurements in the monitored wells,
adjusting the measured drawdowns for the downward trend.

Two staff gauges had been installed on Jabish Brook several months prior to test pumping, one
upstream and one downstream of the Bondsville wellfield. These were monitored periodically to
acquire some sense of the  stream discharge with time. On two occasions rough estimates of the
stream's discharge were made using measured cross sections of the stream and the speed by which
floating objects passed. One measurement  followed heavy rains and was approximately 27 cfs.
Several months later, another measurement was made at the same cross section, with only about
2.5 cfs flowing. Using readings from the staff gauges on those days produced an equation used to
determine a general sense of the magnitude of the stream discharge, e.g., whether the stream was
flowing at 5, 15 or 50 cfs. The record of staff gauge readings just prior to the start of the constant
rate test showed the brook was dropping in level.

3.2  Constant Rate Test

The constant rate pumping test lasted for five days.  The pumping rate of 200 gpm was measured
with a flowmeter and with an orifice weir at the end of the discharge line. Water from the pumped
well was discharged into Jabish Brook below the downstream gauge, several hundred feet from
the nearest monitoring well to minimize any problem of recharging the aquifer. Six observation
wells were monitored automatically with automatic data loggers (MW's 12,  13,14,15,16, and
19) while all others and the pumping well were monitored by electronic hand probes.

Staff gauges on Jabish Brook were  monitored during the first day of the test Unfortunately,
temperatures dropped substantially  during the second day and large portions of the stream's water
froze, negating the accuracy and utility of staff gauge readings.

A series of water quality samples were taken on Days 1, 3 and 5 of the test, in accordance with
DEQE requirements. In addition, pH, CO2, specific conductance, and temperature were monitored
both for the pumping well and Jabish Brook.  Following pumping, recovery was monitored for
three days, the amount of time needed for the well to recover to within 2 percent of the maximum
drawdown.
                                           129

-------
   11/23/88
  -5.0
                                    FIGURE  2
                    MONITORING WELL #13: PRE-PUMPING
                                                              12/6/88
                                                                J_
  -8.0
          2000   4000   6000    8000   10000  12000  14000  16000   18000   20000
                                  TIME (minutes)
                      FIGURE 3: OBSERVATION WELL MW 13
      DECEMBER 6-11,1988       	             Q = 200 gpm    r = 72 feet
0)
0)
Z

O
cc
O
0.0
 .001
 .01       .1        1        10      100
t (time since pumping began: minutes)
                                                        1000
10000  100000
              FIGURE  4:   DISTANCE/DRAWDOWN PLOT  (All  monitoring wells)
           DECEMBER   6-11,  1988                        t  = 7380  minutes
                                        100
                   RADIAL DISTANCE FROM PUMPING WELL #4 (feet)
                                                                    1000
                                       130

-------
The pumping well essentially stabilized 20 minutes into the test with 98 percent of the maximum
drawdown of 31.6 feet occurring by that time. The time-drawdown curves of near observation
wells indicate that the pumping well began to draw upon water from Jabish Brook quite early in the
test (Figure 3).

Analysis of ambient conditions indicated water levels were generally moving downward in the
period of time prior to the pumping test, and no precipitation occurred during the test which would
alter that trend.  Consequently, the drawdowns in those observation wells monitored prior to the
constant rate test were corrected to true drawdowns, that is, drawdowns plus or minus the amount
of change that would have occurred regardless of pumping. That procedure resulted in an adjusted
distance-drawdown plot of corrected monitoring wells which was used to calculate a transmissivity
of 44,000 gpd/ft and a storage coefficient of 0.09 (Figure 4). These values are consistent with the
results of the well log analysis and overall conceptual model derived for this hydrogeologic
environment Analysis of recovery curves confirmed the estimates of transmissivity obtained
using the distance-drawdown curves.

3.3  Revisions to Conceptual  Model

The results of pumping test analysis provided an additional opportunity to fine-tune the conceptual
model in preparation for a more quantitative approach to the problem, particularly with regard to
the impact of Jabish Brook.  The aquifer appears remarkably homogeneous and isotropic in
character. Observation wells with widely differing locations and orientations from the pumping
well showed a close clustering along the distance-drawdown plot (Figure 4). Preferential
drawdowns along a general east-west orientation can be explained by two factors. First, Wells
No.  1 and 2 are fairly close to one another, along a rough east-west strike.  Interference leads to
more drawdown along that trend. With the addition of Well No. 4, that trend of drawdowns is
somewhat enhanced. Second, the presence of boundary conditions represented by the gradation of
thinning aquifer materials into glacial till uplands, particularly those to the east where till constricts
the Jabish Brook valley to a fairly narrow zone, adds to the apparent anisotropy.

The reaction of water levels in wells monitored prior to the constant rate test to a rainfall event
(Figure 2) and the evidence of a partial recharge boundary on the time-drawdown curves (Figure 3)
suggest a fairly significant effect from the stream on the aquifer. To calculate the amount of water
actually contributed from the stream during the pumping test, the distance-drawdown curve was
used to calculate the volume of aquifer affected by the pumping well. The volume was multiplied
by a storage factor to determine the amount of water actually removed. That figure was then
compared to the measured discharge of 200 gpm times the number of minutes pumped. The key
element in this calculation scheme is the storage coefficient Based on the conditions dictated by
the distance-drawdown curve and the 200 gpm pumping rate, the stream would contribute nothing
with S = 0.14, forming an upper bound to the problem.  A lower bound might be S = 0.02, which
would entail approximately 85 percent of the discharge. Physical observation of the streambed
materials suggests that the 85 percent figure is unlikely. Noting that the calculated storage
coefficient from the distance-drawdown plots was 0.09, using a storage coefficient of 0.10 results
in a stream contribution of approximately 26 percent, while a storage of 0.08 has the stream
contributing 41 percent of the total discharge.  The amount contributed changes with stream stage.
This is an expected response in this kind of stream system, since the base of the stream tends to be
armoured and hydraulically "tight" while the bank sides are sandy and much more permeable.
During periods of low flow, contribution to the aquifer by stream leakage is relatively small due to
the less permeable nature of the stream bottom.  When the stage rises, however, water flows easily
into the aquifer through the banks, prompting a rise in the water table.  During this test pumping,
more water came from the stream early in the test before the stream froze.  Less came afterwards
since available water decreased due to the decline in stage. About 30-40 percent of the water
                                             131

-------
discharged under these particular meteorological and hydrogeological conditions came from
infiltrated stream water.

3.4 Quantitative Model  Development

To achieve a more accurate delineation of Zone n and to better understand the impact of the third
pumping well in the Bondsville wellfield, we elected to employ a numerical approach to the
problem using the USGS Three-Dimensional Modular Finite Difference Model (MODFLOW),
calibrating the model with the results from the five day pumping test.  The problem is
two-dimensional (no confining layers and no flux from underlying till or bedrock), and a single
layer model was constructed.

The Jabish Brook valley was discritized into a variably spaced grid covering 3.77 square miles
(70001 x 15000'). The area of the wellfield was closely gridded to reflect the better data base and
the need for head distribution resolution.  The glacial till uplands that flank the valley were modeled
as no-flow boundaries.  Geological investigation, both surficial mapping and test drilling, had
revealed that the till in the region is quite "tight"; its water releasing capacity is low, particularly
relative to the transmissivities of the sands and gravels of the valley proper. The Swift River to the
south was modeled as a constant head boundary while the top (north) of the model was represented
as a combination of no-flow  boundaries (in the areas of glacial till hills) and constant head
boundaries (in the stream valleys).  The map of saturated sand and gravel produced for the initial
conceptual model was employed to provide initial values of aquifer saturated thickness. To
determine a value for hydraulic conductivity, we used the calculated transmissivity from the
pumping test (44,000 gpd/ft) divided by the average saturated thickness (40 feet), resulting in a
value of 146 ft/day. Hydraulic conductivity undoubtedly does vary in other portions of the Jabish
Brook valley, but because we had no direct data to that effect, we decided not to alter the K value
elsewhere in the model. Because saturated thickness varied, transmissivity varied in the model as
well. Specific yield was initially placed at 0.09.

Jabish Brook is a regulated stream. The entire flow is usually diverted upstream of the Bondsville
wellfield to the Springfield City Water System. Because of this situation, the stream can exhibit
significant variation in flow over time subject to the diversion, rainfall events, and groundwater
interflow below the diversion point. Accordingly, Jabish Brook experiences a period of seasonal
low flow in the vicinity of the wellfield.  Jabish Brook did contribute water to the Bondsville
wellfield during this test pumping, but we felt that the most stringent pumping conditions that
could be  anticipated under a 180-day, no-recharge scenario would be to have no stream
contribution to the wells. Consequently, the stream was not modeled.

The water table elevation was set uniformly at an arbitrary level and calibrated from that initial
condition. We did not have enough data to calibrate to ambient water level conditions, so the
model was employed in a "quasi-numerical" sense to generate drawdowns based on a flat water
table reflecting the varying boundary and aquifer conditions.

The model was run and calibrated using two stress periods to reflect the actual conditions of the
test pumping. The initial stress period consisted of two wells (1 and 2) pumping continuously at
rates of 170 and 80 gpm, respectively. This stress period lasted 30 days, reflecting the fact that
Bondsville's two existing wells pumped  continuously prior to, during, and after the pumping test.
The second stress period was five days long, modeling the five day pumping test. It used the head
distribution from the first stress period as an initial condition and consisted of all three wells (wells
1,2 and 4) pumping at  170,80, and 200 gpm. The output from that model run was compared
with actual drawdown values obtained in the field at the end of the five day test pumping.
Calibration involved modifying saturated thickness (using detailed well logs from the test drilling
phase of the project) and uniformly varying specific yield throughout the modeled wellfield area.
The result was a set of modeled drawdowns that compared acceptably with the actual drawdowns.


                                               132

-------
The calibrated model was re-run using first the 30-day, 2-well stress period followed by a 180 day
run with all three wells pumping, modeling the 180-day, no-recharge scenario.

3.5 Zone II Determination

To delimit the zone of contribution (as opposed to the zone of influence) to the wellfield involved
superimposing the 180-day modelled drawdown map onto the potentiometric surface map. To
manipulate these two data sets, the water table map was digitized and gridded with a random data
gridder from Geosoft®.  The gridded file was filtered using two passes from a 9-point Manning
filter, and the result was a computerized water table map that matched the hand-contoured product.
The drawdown output file from the 180-day run of the numerical model was also gridded. The
two gridded files were then subtracted, creating a new grid that when contoured, represented a map
of the water table reflecting the impact of 180 days of no recharge pumping at the wellfield. A
flow net was constructed to determine where the zone of contribution occurred.  From the results
of the flow net analysis, the zone of contribution corresponding to Zone n conditions was
established.  This resulted in a Zone n of approximately 0.5 square miles (Figure 5). The zone is
bounded to the east and west by till and bedrock uplands; to the north of a locus of points
representative of a groundwater divide between the portion of the aquifer where groundwater
would discharge to the stream rather than be diverted to the wellfield; and to the south by a locus of
points representative of the downgradient stagnation points. Zone HI, defined as the area
topographically directly upgradient of Zone n was developed utilizing the Zone n and geologic and
topographic maps.  It encompasses an area of till and bedrock uplands of approximately 1.2 square
miles.

3.6  Additional Protection Zones

With the establishment of Zones n and DI, the steps required by DEQE for a new source approval
are completed.  However, the spirit of the law is concerned with the overall protection of the
aquifer. Recognition of the stream, aquifer, and wellfield interrelationships is a very important
consideration in the formulation of a  groundwater protection strategy for this  wellfield.  Given the
definition of Zone n being "that area of an aquifer which supplies recharge to a well(s) under the
most severe recharge and pumping conditions that can be realistically anticipated," eliminating the
recharge contribution from Jabish Brook is appropriate. However, much of the time this wellfield
will be obtaining a recharge contribution (at times greater than 40 percent)  from Jabish Brook.
Under these conditions, the quality of the water in the brook will have an impact on the quality of
the water produced in the wellfield. In summary, it means that contaminant threats outside of the
Zone n and m,  but contributory to Jabish Brook may be significant to the long-term management
of this water resource.


CONCLUSIONS

The process of wellhead protection zone delineation to meet Massachusetts DEQE regulations
begins with the development and refinement of a conceptual model of the hydrogeologic
environment. This iterative approach relies heavily on secondary source material in its initial
stages, taking full advantage of published and unpublished material about the hydrogeology of the
area.  Later, field checks to ground truth the gathered data, analytical modelling to point out data
gaps and monitoring well installation  to better characterize subsurface conditions contribute to the
updating and revision of the model. Once the formal conceptual model is completed, it is possible
to move to a more quantitative approach to the problem. Designing and conducting a long term
pumping test results in the production of data that can be used to calibrate a numerical model of the
area.  Running the calibrated model to the requisite 180 days with no areal recharge provides a map
of drawdowns that can be superimposed on an average ambient potentiometric surface map,
revealing, through construction of a flow net, the zone of contribution (not just influence) to the
                                                133

-------
134

-------
well or wellfield. That 180 day zone of contribution is Zone II; Zone El is the area upgradient of
Zone n to the extent of the nearest topographic divide. Delineation of Zones n and IE complete the
legal requirements set out by the DEQE, but it must be recognized, particularly in cases of induced
infiltration from streams, that contaminant threats outside the established protection zones must be
considered for responsible, long-term aquifer management


REFERENCES

Todd,  D.K., 1980, Groundwater hydrology, J. Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.


BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCHES


W. James Griswold
BCI Geonetics, Inc.
P.O. Box 529
Laconia, NH 03247

Jim Griswold is a Staff Hydrogeologist with BCI Geonetics, Inc. of Laconia, New Hampshire.
Mr. Griswold's areas of particular interest and expertise include recharge in humid and arid
environments, well design, construction and hydraulics, and wellhead protection.  His work in the
Northeast has focused on issues of ground water protection: aquifer delineation and analysis,
contaminant threats, and technical support for protection ordinances. A graduate of Pomona
College, Griswold holds an M.A. (English) and an M.S. (Geology) from Colorado State
University.

John J. Donohue, IV
BCI Geonetics, Inc.
P.O. Box 529
Laconia, NH 03247

Jack Donohue is a Senior Hydrogeologist and Hydrogeology Department Manager with BCI
Geonetics, Inc. of Laconia, New Hampshire. In this role he directs hydrogeologically related
corporate activities which involve the characterization of ground water systems throughout the
United States. Prior to joining BCI, Jack was a Senior Hydrogeologist with the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Division of Water Supply. Jack is a Licensed
Geologist and holds a B.A. in Geological Sciences from the University of Maine at Orono. His
areas of professional concentration involve the characterization and engineering of ground water
systems.
                                            135

-------
FIGURES
Figure 1: Monitoring Well Locations and Ambient Potentiometric Surface Map
Figure 2: Ambient Water Level Changes (MW #13)
Figure 3: Time Drawdown Curve (MW #13)
Figure 4: Adjusted Distance Drawdown Plot
Figure 5: Zone n, Resultant Water Table Map and Row Net
                                          136

-------
                 The  Use of Time of Travel in  Zone of  Contribution

                   Delineation and Aquifer Contamination Warning


                               James C. Hall, PhD, PE

                                   Island Design
                                 518 Town  Hill  Road
                              New Hartford, CT  06057


      Determination of the Zone of Contribution for water supply  aquifers  tradition-
ally  depends  on the  use of drawdown information under  specified  conditions.   In
part, this  has been  due  to the availability of computer models which produce this
information.

      Recent  advances in computer modelling  make possible  determination  of travel
time  as well  as drawdown.  This  alternative  tool has advantages in determination  of
the zone of contribution  as  well as having  proved  useful in determining where mon-
itoring efforts should be  located to provide known degrees of protection in terms  of
warning  time.

      This paper  discusses  some  of  the  principle  advantages of  the  use of time  of
travel rather  than drawdown,  such as:
      1.     Freedom from the influence of  significantly sloping piezometric  surfaces.
      2.     Proper  accounting for  the  effects  of  high-permeability  strata in the
aquifer.
      3.     Proper inclusion of recharge  from nearby low-permeability areas.
      4.     Clear  delineation of where  monitoring should occur  for  definite warning
times.

      This paper also discusses the use  of computer models for travel time determi-
nation, including:
      1.     Required  input  data.
      2.     Conversion  of  conventional  (e.g.  PLASM,   MacDonald-Harbaugh)  format
models to be used  with travel time models.
      3.     Problems  with the  use of transmissivity or averaged  permeability  based
models for the determination of travel times.
                                          137

-------
      The Zone  of Contribution to an  aquifer  supplying a  water supply well is  of
considerable interest.   Not only are there practical reasons  for  this, such as  deter-
mining what threats may be  present  to a given water  supply source, but there are
now  various State and  Federal programs  requiring delineation of the Zone and  spec-
ifying  certain activities which may or may not  take place within  the Zone.   Increas-
ingly,  these  delineations are  being incorporated into  legal documents, such  as  plan-
ning and zoning regulations,  and  thus  the  need  for  accuracy  and defendability  is
great.

      The traditional approach to  determining  the Zone  of  Contribution  to  a  water
supply aquifer  takes  one  of  two forms. The  first is a  specific radius  around the
production well(s), determined either  by  de  jure means (thou  shalt  protect 400 feet)
or by  various approaches which incorporate some flexibility  for the  geology, such as
Connecticut's Level B mapping, which sets the radius as a function  of well yield and
measured or estimated  aquifer transmissivity.   This  approach,  whether  de  jure or
flexible,  does not take  into account  the  real geology  of  the area in anything more
than a cursory  fashion.   The second  approach  has  been  based on  observing (or
modelling)  the  drawdown caused  by the production  wells  under  certain  specified
conditions and  drawing the boundary at a specific value of  drawdown.   The condi-
tions and the value of  drawdown to be used may be based on the best judgement of
the investigators, or may  be  written into regulations.   Obviously,  field  observation
would  be the best approach; equally  obviously, it is  not generally  practical, as the
conditions are intentionally extreme and  there is  usually  a  lack  of  data.  All of this
leads to the use  of computer models to predict the performance of an aquifer, based
on a calibrated mathematical simulation of the performance of  the  aquifer.

      The first  question, however, is:  is drawdown  a satisfactory measure of the
Zone of Contribution in the first  place?   If not, why is it used and specified?

      One's  initial  reaction to  this question is why not?  At first  glance, it  seems
reasonable  to suppose  that  if the water  level  in an  aquifer   is  drawn down  by
pumping a well, then the water which was lost  must have been removed by the well.
This is exactly  true only for an aquifer in which  there  was  no initial movement of
the groundwater.   In such an  aquifer,  any drawdown  must have  come from  pumping
the production well.  The supposition is  not true for an  aquifer  in  which there was
some initial  slope  and  thus some initial ground water flow.   In  that situation, some
of the  drawdown down  gradient from the production  well is  not  due to  withdrawals
by the production  well, but to a  reduction  in the total quantity of through flowing
water  due to the activity  of  the  pumping  well.  There is  a point  at some  distance
down gradient  from the production well, at which  the drawdown may be large, but
where  the slope  of the piezometric surface  changes  from towards  the well  to  away
from the well.  Water farther away from  the well  than this  point does not reach the
production well, even though the drawdown  is significant.  Further, upgradient from
the well, water  will reach the  well  (in  some unspecified  time), even  though the
drawdown may be  insignificant, as there is still a slope of  the  piezometric surface
towards  the production well.   At what initial  slope of the piezometric surface does
this  effect  become significant?   That is, at what  initial  slope will  the results from
using  drawdown instead of consideration of  actual ground water  slopes under  draw-
down conditions  become sufficiently  different to warrant defense  of the later and
rejection of  the former? There can be  no single answer to that question, as  it de-
pends  on the nature  of the land  use, possible contamination problems, and land val-
ues.  Clearly in an area of low land values with no contamination problems,  it  is not
important.   Conversely, in  an area where land  values are high  and a  proposed use


                                          138

-------
of high value  may be  located within the zone defined by one approach,  but not the
other,  even small differences may become important.

      It would be possible to define the Zone of Contribution  to a  well as the entire
ground water  shed of the well  under  specified conditions  (corresponding,  presum-
ably, to those  now  used for drawdown).  That  is, it would be the entire area  from
which  water flows towards the  well under  those conditions.   However,  this  does not
seem to  me to be a particularly practical approach, particularly  for  wells located in
large  watersheds (e.g.  one I  worked on recently in the lower Housatonic valley)  as it
would  include  vast areas of land  from which  water would,  theoretically, reach the
well—assuming   the  conditions   held  constant—but  with  time  spans  measured  in
decades or centuries.

      It seems to me  that  a  more practical approach would  be to define  the Zone of
Contribution—or, better,  several zones of varying stringency of  protection—based
on  travel  time to  the  well.  As a first pass at this, I  suggest  that the innermost
zone,  perhaps  corresponding to  the State of  Massachusetts Zone I,  be defined as the
area around the well  within  which  the  travel time is  so short as  to make a change
to an alternative supply  and/or  provision of treatment, in the event of contamination
being  discovered  within  the  zone,  prohibitively  difficult:  in other words,  within
which  there is a  clear risk  of a contamination spill reaching the  public water supply
system without a chance for correction.  The next zone  (Zone  II?) would  be  the  zone
within which there  is  sufficient time  to provide emergency  treatment for the water,
but which  is  sufficiently close  to  the  well  to  be clearly  connected with it over  a
water  year:  in fact, I suggest  that  this boundary be  set at a travel  time of  one
year.    The outermost  zone  most logically would be set at a  distance corresponding
more or less to  the expected useful (or economic)  life of  the  well;  perhaps  10 years
would  be reasonable.

      A second  set of reasons  for  the use  of  time of  travel as a criterion  rather
than drawdown or pure slope is the influence of the local geology on the imminence
of  a hazard.   Consider  the  case in which  an  otherwise  uniform aquifer of,  let  us
suppose, medium sand, contains within it a rather thin,  but very elongated and  nar-
row, stringer of very  coarse sands and gravels with  a permeability  three orders of
magnitude greater than  the  general sand.   This is  not an  unusual phenomenon in
New England, and could represent a periglacial  stream  channel in a more generalized
valley  fill  (for instance).   The  presence of the small  amount of  high  permeability
material in thickness  will not  change  the  overall transmissivity  significantly   and
thus the  ground water slopes  will not  be significantly affected—but the  travel  time
along  the  path of the coarse  stringer  will  be  three orders of  magnitude less  than
from  some  other point,  not in  the vicinity of  the  lens but at  the same  distance
(discounting the  influence of vertical  motion to the depth  of the lens).   Thus the
imminence  of  hazard  from contamination from a source  along this stringer will  be
much  greater.   This will be  properly accounted for on  a travel  time model,  but not
on  a model giving only slope or  drawdown information.   It is of some practical inter-
est, however, particularly since we  often try to  site wells to take advantage of  such
stingers.   Another  situation is  the  one in  which a well is  close to a  till/outwash
boundary.   It  is common practice to assume  that the  Zone of Contribution to a well
in  outwash ends at the till contact.    In fact,   many  ground water  models which I
have had the opportunity  to  examine as a consultant also end at  the  boundary,  on
the assumption that till  is  "impermeable" (which, of course,  it  is  not, although the
permeability is  rather low  in  general).  A properly  constructed  model producing
head  (and  drawdown)  distributions,  which  takes into  account  the  influence  of


                                      139

-------
bedrock  permeability as well as the influence of  till, may  show that there is signifi-
cant drawdown in these areas.  But  is this drawdown  area  to  be considered part of
the Zone of Contribution and, if it is, which  zone?  Again, it  is not possible to an-
swer this question unequivocally  from slope  considerations  alone, but  it can  be an-
swered  directly from  time  of travel  modelling.   (From  experience  with a number of
different aquifers, the answer turns  out  to be maybe sometimes.)

      The last area which  I wish  to mention  regarding the benefits  of the  use of
time of  travel modelling is in siting  monitoring wells,  the  purpose of  which is pre-
sumably  to  give  timely  warning  of  approaching  contamination  so that  alternative
measures can  be undertaken.  Time of travel siting makes it possible  to use a com-
pletely rational approach to siting these  wells: the object is to site the well at such
a distance  that  it will sample a significant fraction of  the water (observe  the  rela-
tive concentration of  flow  lines,  which  is another output  from  the   time  of  travel
mapping) and, more important, that the time  of travel from the  monitor  to  the pro-
duction well is adequate.    Fortunately, it is very easy to define "adequate":  it is
simply the  sum  of  the sampling  interval at the  monitoring  well, plus  the time it
takes to analyze  the sample, plus the time it takes to  set up an alternative scheme.
In fact, it becomes possible to perform a  cost/benefit analysis  on various monitoring
schemes  (within limits), based on  the numbers of  wells required and   their  locations
vs. the  sampling  interval at each well.

      Time of travel  modelling  is  not particularly difficult.   There  is at least one
computer program available  to do  it which is  based directly on, and requires  no ad-
ditional data than, the underlying head  distribution model.   However, it does require
that both the underlying head distribution model be created properly  and  that ade-
quate geologic information  is provided.   Since more  information is being   retrieved
from the model,  more information is required  going into the  model.

      Specifically, it is absolutely essential that the model  adequately represent, at
each  node,  all  of  the significant  strata and  their   permeabilities,   including  the
bedrock.  (Significant  strata being those  that  differ by an order of magnitude from
some sort of average  permeability—in most cases, it is appropriate to model them all,
but in some cases, depending very much on the  judgement of the modeller,  some can
be  lumped  together).   In addition,  their  depths must be accurately represented as
much as possible,  as a high-permeability  stratum which  dries during the  pumping
does not contribute to time  of travel while it is dry, but does  when it is wet.   It is
conceivable  to have very different travel  times depending on pumping  schedule with
the same overall  gallonage  pumped,  if  a high  permeability stratum  is being  alter-
nately  dewatered  and  flooded  under one schedule, but  permanently  wet  (or  dry)
under another.

      The model  should be  constructed so that  the grid  (finite  difference  or finite
element)  covers  the entire watershed of  the  aquifer, if at all  possible.  The  use of
constant head nodes  should  be minimal (a properly constructed and calibrated  model
should not  require  any at  all),  although  constant flow nodes may  be  required at
some border locations  either if the  model does not cover  the entire aquifer (for in-
put from areas beyond the  model) or to account for exports from areas outside the
watershed being  studied.  The stratigraphy at each node must  be analyzed  and used
as input.   Ideally, of course, one would  take a core at each node.  This is, clearly,
impractical!    A  completely   satisfactory  alternative,  however,  is  to  use  available
                                           140

-------
stratigraphic  information  in combination with  a  thorough  analysis of  the  geomorph-
ology, stratigraphy, and  historical  geology of  the  area to interpolate intermediate
stratigraphy from  the  available information.

      The  model, of course,  must be able to accept this information.   The  traditional
PLASM model  and,  indeed, any strict two  dimensional  model whether  it is  finite ele-
ment  or  finite difference, cannot  do so,  as they  use either a  bulk  permeability  at
the node,  converted to transmissivity by  multiplying  by saturated thickness, or,  in
the case of confined models, the bulk transmissivity.   There simply is no  way to al-
low for the effect  of high-permeability  stringers in these models.  Three  dimensional
models can, in principle,  allow for  these  by means of using multiple  layers and can
also incorporate bedrock  characteristics properly.   There  are some real problems
with  these models  in  areas  of steeply  dipping or  heterogeneous  topography and
geology, however,  in  that a large  number of layers  may be  required.  This may not
be  feasible without  the  use  of very  large computers.   Models do  exist, however,
which are  fundamentally two dimensional as regards  head field output, but which ac-
cept the stratigraphy  at  each  node.  If possible, these should  be used as  the found-
ation for time of travel modelling  except in the  rare instances where information on
vertical  flow rates and head differences is  required.

      Calibration of models to  be used  for  time  of travel outputs must be done  with
a great  deal  of care.  As  noted  earlier, constant head nodes are discouraged, as
they  can distort the   head field in  their vicinity.   Constant flow  nodes  are usable,
provided they are real (that is, there  really is  a  constant flow of some sort  in the
area).   Streams and   lakes  must  be accounted  for  by a  scheme  which  allows  for
recharge or discharge, depending  on the relative heads.  Actual infiltration rates for
each  node  must also  be  estimated  closely, taking  into  account  soil materials and
slopes of the ground   surface.   Aquifer  recharge from interflow at points where val-
ley walls descend  onto more level areas can be  significant.  Calibration is often ac-
complished by adjustments  in  bulk permeability or transmissivity.   All that  is re-
quired  is  to  adjust the  bulk  permeability  (or  transmissivity) at  each  node of the
model to adequately reflect the influence of the  high or low permeability strata. Not
only will this  make time  of  travel calculations invalid, more subtly, it may make the
range of the model very limited:  if the  bulk  permeability  is  influenced by a  high-
permeability stratum  rather high  in the section,  the model may calibrate perfectly
under normal conditions  (and  with all available  calibration  data) and  yet  fail  miser-
ably under more extreme  conditions when the  high permeability stratum is dewatered
by  pumping.

       Instead, calibration  must be accomplished  by  carefully keeping  in mind the
real geology in the area.   Permeability  (which directly affects time of travel)  should
be  adjusted for calibration  only to the extent  that is consistent  with the materials
and the  geologic interpretation of  the area.  Stratigraphy (in  particular stratum top
and bottom elevations) must be altered  only to the extent  that the  result  is geologi-
cally plausible.  Substitution of one formation type  for another at a  particular ele-
vation at a node,  or  insertion  of  a new  stratum,  is  subject to the  same  constraint.
It is  my experience that,  if  the geology is  well thought out and reasonably correctly
interpreted, very  little adjustment  of  either  stratigraphic thicknesses or formation
permeabilities will  be   required to  complete  calibration.  Difficulties  in calibration of-
ten indicate errors in  geologic  interpretation, which  can and should be resolved with
further  field  investigation  (it  is rarely necessary to  do subsurface  work).  It may
be  necessary  to  seek consultation  from an  experienced  glacial geomorphologist  in
some  instances.


                                           141

-------
      Calibration should  be checked against all  available aquifer information.  Wet-
lands which  are not perched water  table situations should  be reflected  accurately,
and are a convenient  check in areas with few  (or no) ground water observations.  A
properly calibrated model  should simulate with  reasonable  accuracy  any pump  test
that has been  performed, as well as the actual operating records  if  they are avail-
able.   Perhaps  it  is worth noting,  in  passing, that many models do  not report the
actual level in  the  pumping well, but rather  the head at  the  node in  which the  well
is located.   If  this is  the case, calibration is impossible.   Correction must  be made to
reflect the performance of the aquifer  in the  immediate vicinity of the well and the
well itself.  The model  referred to above does this automatically.

      The  summary for calibration  is  that  the geology  must  be correct  first;  any
geologic approximations can cause large errors, although  approximations are accept-
able provided  the  consequences are carefully thought  out  and will  not affect the
validity or usability of the model.  I cannot emphasize this point enough!

      Conversion of  PLASM  and  other models,  including three dimensional  models
which  do  not  include  adequate  resolution to  show  significant,  but  thin layers, to
suitable forms  for  time of travel modelling  is  extremely  difficult.   I  do  not  recom-
mend  this, except in situations in which it is impossible  for  one reason or another to
create the  model in the first place  with adequate vertical resolution,  either by  use
of a model with allows  full stratigraphy at each  node or use of an adequate number
of layers in a  three dimensional model  (typically  ten or  more).  It is usually cheaper
(and  quicker)  to remodel  the area  in question on a model which can  handle  the
required information.

      In summary,  I  would like to emphasize that time of travel modelling  has sev-
eral advantages, among  which  are  proper accounting  for  the  influence of  initial
aquifer slope, high-permeability strata, and bedrock,  and allowing  a rational  method
for siting observation wells;  secondly,  that computer models are available  to perform
time of travel  modelling; third, that considerably more  input  information about  the
local  geology is  required to construct and  calibrate these  models,  but that the in-
formation  is readily developed by qualified geologists; fourth, that  conventional mod-
els with  inadequate vertical  resolution cannot be used as  input for  time of  travel
modelling  and;  fifth, that conventional  models with inadequate vertical resolution may
give misleading results for head  fields  under extreme  conditions.
                                          142

-------
      Dr.  Hall currently holds two positions: although working for  YWC, Inc., Monroe,
Connecticut,  he also provides  private consulting in computer programming, glacial
geomorphology, and ground  water modelling.  His address  is Island Design,  518  Town
Hill Road, New Hartford, CT  06057.

      Dr.  Hall has modelled  a number  of  water supply  aquifers in  Connecticut and
Massachusetts, including several  time of travel  studies.

      His  Doctorate in  geology  is from the University of Massachusetts, his Masters
from Purdue University, and his  BA from Carleton College.

      Dr.  Hall  has  held posts as  a college  professor,  as well as  working  for  an
environmental regulatory agency  and other environmental consulting  firms.
                                             143

-------
144

-------
            DELINEATION OF CONTRIBUTING AREAS TO PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS IN

                          STRATIFIED GLACIAL-DRIFT AQUIFERS


                                  Paul M. Barlow

                              U.  S.  Geological Survey
                              28  Lord Road,  Suite 280
                          Marlborough, Massachusetts  01752


Abstract

       Several analytical and numerical methods are available for delineating
contributing areas to public supply wells.  These methods employ variable levels
of computational complexity and require differing levels of data specification.  A
recent advance in the ability to analyze contributing areas quantitatively has
been the coupling of particle-tracking algorithms to numerical ground-water-flow
models.  A demonstration of the use of this method for delineating contributing
areas to hypothetical public supply wells pumping from a stratified glacial-drift
aquifer on Cape Cod, Massachusetts,  has shown that (1) the location of a well with
respect to areas of recharge and discharge for the aquifer will have a significant
effect on the shape of a well's contributing area, (2) the recharge rate to an
aquifer and the pumping rate of a well will have a significant effect on the size
of the well's contributing area,  (3) multiple pumping wells within an aquifer must
be considered simultaneously in the determination of a well's contributing area,
and (4) the lithology of the aquifer in the vicinity of the well must be well
defined.

       The study also has shown that contributing areas determined using
analytical modeling were similar to those determined using numerical modeling
coupled with particle tracking for wells pumping from a thin, single-layer,
uniform aquifer with simple boundary conditions, and that the use of numerical
models for the delineation of contributing areas for wells in such an aquifer may
not be warranted.  However, numerical modeling and particle tracking provide a
better quantitative tool than do analytical models for conditions normally
encountered in the field, such as thick, heterogeneous aquifers with complicated
boundary conditions in which several wells are pumping simultaneously.  Under
these conditions, analytical models  are not capable of providing sufficient detail
to predict accurately the land area which contributes water to a well.
                                       145

-------
Introduction

       The delineation of contributing areas to public supply wells is an
important component of State and Federal strategies for the protection of ground-
water quality.  The delineation of contributing areas requires first, a
conceptual, and second, a quantitative understanding of the ground-water flow
system from which the well is pumping.  Many quantitative methods are available
for analyzing ground-water-flow systems and, in particular, the delineation of
contributing areas to supply wells. However, many of the methods used to delineate
contributing areas to large-capacity supply wells are not capable of Integrating
the several hydrologic and well-design factors that may affect the size and shape
of a well's contributing area. Consequently, the accuracy of a contributing area
delineated for a supply well may be directly dependent on the method of analysis
chosen.

       A recent, advance In the ability to analyze ground-water-flow systems
quantitatively has been the coupling of particle-tracking algorithms that trace
particle pathllnes within a ground-water-flow system to numerical ground-water-
flow models.  The coupling of these methods provides a powerful tool for the
analysis of the factors that affect the response of an aquifer to the pumping of a
large-capacity supply well, and should Improve the delineation of a well's
contributing area.  The U.S. Geological Survey Is conducting a project to
demonstrate the use, and assess the effectiveness and limitations, of numerical
modeling and particle tracking for the delineation of contributing areas to public
supply wells that tap stratified glacial-drift aquifers under selected conditions
of aquifer heterogeneity and well configuration.  The results of the method are
being compared to contributing areas delineated using analytical models to gain an
understanding of the conditions under which the different analyses are most
appropriate.  The study is being conducted In cooperation with the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Management, and Bamstable County. Massachusetts.


Purpose and scope

       This report outlines two methods for delineating contributing areas to
public supply wells and presents some of the results of an ongoing study to
demonstrate the use, and evaluate the strengths and limitations, of these methods
for wells located in multilayered stratified glacial-drift aquifers.  The methods
of analysis evaluated are analytical modeling and numerical modeling coupled with
particle tracking.  A brief description of the sources of water to wells pumping
from stratified glacial-drift aquifers is presented as background to the methods
of analysis.


Sources of water to a well pumping from a stratified glacial-drift aquifer

       Perhaps the first step in the delineation of a contributing area to a
public supply well is the identification within the hydrogeologic environment of
probable sources of water to that well.  The identification of these sources aids
(1) development of a conceptual model of the ground-water-flow system, and (2)
selection of a method of analysis for the delineation of the well's contributing
area.  In general, ground water at a well that taps a stratified glacial-drift


                                        146

-------
aquifer has four  sources:  (1)  recharge  from precipitation which falls directly on
the stratified drift;  (2)  recharge  from adjacent aquitards,  such as silt, clay,
till and bedrock;  (3)  recharge from induced infiltration of  surface water, such as
a nearby stream,  river,  lake or pond; and (4)  removal from ground-water storage.
Sources (1) and (2)  constitute water that is "captured"  by a well that otherwise
would discharge at the natural discharge areas of the ground-water system; these
sources are referred to  here as captured ground-water discharge.

       The volume of water contributed  by each source to the total volume of water
withdrawn by a well  will change as  a function  of time.   Morrissey (1987) used a
numerical flow model to  investigate the transient response of a hypothetical
stratified-drift, river-valley aquifer  to the  pumping of a large-capacity supply
well located 200  feet  from a river.   Sources of water to the hypothetical well are
(1) water removed from storage,  (2)  water from induced infiltration of streamflow,
and (3) captured  ground-water  discharge.   His  results, reproduced here in figure
1, indicate that, during the first  few  hours of pumping,  the well is sustained
almost entirely by water removed from ground-water storage.   After approximately 1
year, water removed  from storage ceases and the well  is  sustained entirely from
captured ground-water  discharge and induced infiltration of  streamflow.   The
length of time that  a  supply well will  remove  water from ground-water storage will
depend on the aquifer  in which the  well is located and the screened interval of
the well.  Wells  that  are  screened  near the bottom of a  thick aquifer may remove
water from storage for a much  longer time than is shown  in figure 1.
                                                       Captured ground-water
                                                             discharge
                                                          Induced infiltration
                                                            from the river
           0.036
          (1/2 hour)
 0.36
(9 hours)
3.65           36.5
                                     TIME. IN DAYS
365
             3650
Figure 1.  Graph showing sources of water pumped from a well as a function  of  time
(modified from Morrissey, 1987, figure 27).
                                        147

-------
       Although Morrissey's results indicate that the sources of water to a well
may change over time, only steady-state (or equilibrium) conditions were
investigated for this report.  Steady state implies that there is no removal of
water from storage.  The contributing area determined for steady-state conditions
is the largest area that would be anticipated for a given average recharge rate to
the aquifer and average discharge rate of a well because the land (contributing)
area needed to sustain the discharge rate of the well decreases proportionately
with contributions from ground-water storage.

       The area of stratified drift necessary to supply a well with water may be
determined from the discharge rate of the well and the recharge rate to the
aquifer, if recharge from precipitation is the only source of water to the well.
The discharge rate of the well (Q) is equal to the recharge area of the well (A)
multiplied by the recharge rate to the aquifer (r).   Therefore, the area necessary
to recharge the well at its steady-state pumping rate is Q/r.  This relation
provides a simple means of determining if the recharge area delineated for a well
is large enough to sustain its withdrawal rate.


Methods for delineating contributing areas

Analytical modeling

       Several analytical models can be used to delineate contributing areas to
public supply wells.  These models require that simplifying assumptions be made
about the ground-water system from which a well is pumping and the geometry of the
well itself.  These assumptions include simplifications or idealizations of
aquifer boundary conditions, homogeneity of aquifer properties (such as hydraulic
conductivity), and simplification of well design (such as a fully penetrating well
screen).  Several of these models are discussed by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (1987), Morrissey (1987), van der Heijde and Biljin (1988), and Newsom and
Wilson (1988) and need not be reviewed here.

       The aquifer chosen for study is located in Eastham and the southern part of
Vellfleet, Cape Cod, Massachusetts.  The aquifer consists of stratified glacial
outwash approximately 100 feet thick underlain by lacustrine silt and clay
approximately 400 feet thick.  These deposits are underlain by granitic bedrock.
Precipitation which falls on the outwash is the only source of recharge to the
aquifer; recharge has been estimated to be 17.4 in/yr (inches per year) (LeBlanc
et al, 1986).  Several ponds in the study area are in hydraulic connection with
the aquifer and may be sources of water to wells located near them.  A map of
water-table altitudes for the aquifer (figure 2) indicates that ground-water flows
from the central area of Eastham toward Town Cove, Cape Cod Bay. Blackfish Creek,
and the Atlantic Ocean.

       Contributing areas to two hypothetical supply wells completed in the
aquifer underlying Eastham were delineated by superimposing (or subtracting)
steady-state drawdowns determined using the Theim-Dupuit method (Kruseman and de
Ridder, 1983) onto a map of prepumping water-table altitudes.  The Theim-Dupuit
equation is used to determine steady-state drawdowns in the vicinity of a fully
penetrating well pumping from an unconfined aquifer.  The Theim-Dupuit method of
analysis was chosen for this study because the aquifer is unconfined and because
                                        148

-------
                                                                  WELLFLEET
   4»*4rpo"
                                   ro*oo'oo"
                                      42*00'00"
                 Cape  Cod Bay

                       STUDY AREA
                                                                     Atlantic
                                                                       Ocean
        EXPLANAT ION
        -S-WATER-TABLE CONTOUR — shows
           altitude of water table,  in  feet.
           Dashed where location approximate.
           Contour intervals are variable.

           Datum is sea level.
Town Cove
        2 MILES

          KILOMETERS
Figure 2. Location of study area and average water-table altitudes for the
stratified glacial-drift aquifer of Eastham and south Wellfleet, Massachusetts,
                                     149

-------
there are no impermeable or surface-water boundaries that might influence the
distribution of drawdowns in the vicinity of the wells.  It was assumed that the
pumping rate of well B  would not cause a landward encroachment of the
saltwater/freshwater boundary at the shore of the Atlantic Ocean, located 2,500
feet downgradient from the well, because the drawdowns were anticipated to be
small for the simulated discharge rate of 0.5 Mgal/d (million gallons per day) and
because a discharge rate of 0.5 Mgal/d Is less than approximately four percent of
the total discharge from the aquifer.  The assumption that the
saltwater/freshwater boundary is unaffected by pumping at well B might not be
valid for increased discharge rates.  Application of the Theim-Dupuit method to
the determination of drawdowns produced by wells A and B requires that several
assumptions be made.  These are (Kruseman and de Ridder, 1983)--

       (1)  The aquifer Is of infinite lateral extent, homogeneous, isotroplc and
       of uniform thickness over the area influenced by the well;

       (2) the water-table surface is nearly flat prior to pumping;

       (3) the aquifer is pumped at a constant discharge rate;

       (4) the well fully penetrates the aquifer and flow is horizontal and
       uniform everywhere In a vertical section through the axis of the well;

       (5) the velocity of flow Is proportional to the tangent of the hydraulic
       gradient;

       (6) the aquifer is unconfined;

       (7) flow to the well Is In steady state; and

       (8) a concentric boundary of constant head surrounds the well.

       One further condition which must be specified in the Theim-Dupuit method is
a radial distance from each pumping well at which drawdown is known.  For this
analysis, two distances were used at which drawdown was assumed to be equal to
zero.  The distances used were 2,300 feet and 11,500 feet.  The first distance,
2,300 feet, was chosen because It is the distance required to intersect an area of
stratified drift necessary to sustain the pumping rate of each well for the
condition of a flat water-table surface prior to pumping, for a pumping rate of
0.5 Mgal/d and recharge rate to the aquifer of 17.4 in/yr.  The second distance,
11,500 feet, which is five times the first distance, was chosen for comparison.
It must be realized that the assumption of zero drawdown at these distances is
simply a means to compute a rough approximation of drawdown within the cone of
depression of each well, and is a limitation of the analytical model.  In
actuality, the cone of depression extends to the concentric boundary of constant
head listed in assumption 8.  Assuming a fictitious drawdown of zero at some
distance from a supply well is an arbitrary assumption which might not be
appropriate in many cases.  The errors Introduced by using this assumption should
have a negligible effect on the pathlines used to delineate the contributing area
for each well, for the assumption to be valid.

       Drawdowns were calculated for several points in the vicinity of two
hypothetical supply wells located in the aquifer.  The well locations are shown in


                                        150

-------
figure 3.  Well A is near the crest of a natural recharge mound where the
hydraulic gradients are very flat; well B is located between this ground-water
mound crest and the discharge area of the Atlantic Ocean.  Hydraulic
characteristics used in the calculations of drawdown are given in Table 1. These
characteristics were determined from well logs in the area of the hypothetical
wells and from the results of aquifer tests that have been conducted in the
stratified-drift deposits of Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Guswa and LeBlanc, 1986).
Drawdowns were calculated at distances of 500; 750; 1,000; 1,250; 1,500; 1,750;
and 2,000 feet from the pumped wells.  Calculated drawdowns were subtracted from
the map of prepumping water-table altitudes to produce new maps of water-table
altitudes in the vicinity of each well (figure 3).  Contributing areas were
delineated by constructing a flow net near each supply well.  Flow lines were
drawn perpendicular to lines of equal water-table altitudes because the aquifer
was assumed to be homogeneous and isotropic (Freeze and Cherry. 1979).

          Table 1.--Parameters used  in the determination of drawdown for
                     wells A and B using the Theim-Dupuit method.

               Hypothetical well                             A     B

              Horizontal hydraulic conductivity (ft/d)    150    170
              Aquifer thickness  (ft)                       81     46
              Transmissivity  (ft2/d)                   12,150  7,820
              Discharge rate at  the well  (Mgal/d)         0.5    0.5

       Contributing areas for the two wells determined using the analytical model
are shown in figure 3.  The drawdowns computed using the two assumed distances to
zero drawdown differed in each of the two hypothetical cases.   However, the
differences between the drawdown determined using each of the two assumed
distances were not great and did not affect significantly the delineation of
contributing areas to each well.  The contributing areas determined using each of
the assumed values did not differ significantly because the accuracy of the hand-
generated pathlines was insensitive to the differences in these drawdowns. Figure
3 shows only the results for the radius of influence equal to 2,300 feet.   The
results indicate that the shape of the contributing areas are strongly dependent
on the location of the well in the aquifer.  The contributing area delineated for
well A, near the crest of the recharge mound, is ovoid-like in shape;  water is
captured about equally from all areas around the well.   The contributing area
delineated for well B, located between the crest of the ground-water mound and the
discharge areas of the aquifer, is elongate in shape; water is captured primarily
from areas which lie upgradient from the well.

Numerical modeling and particle tracking

       Numerical ground-water flow models have been used extensively for the
conceptual and quantitative analysis of ground-water flow, including the
delineation of contributing areas to public supply wells.  Numerical models are
used to determine ground-water heads at specified locations within a simulated
aquifer.   Ground-water flow nets then are constructed from these computed heads to
delineate a well's contributing area.  The construction of a two-dimensional
ground-water flow net for a three-dimensional flow problem is a time-consuming
task that may yield inaccurate results because it is necessary to ignore flow in
the third dimension.
                                        151

-------
 East
                                                                 T
                                                                We I I f leet
                                            2 VILES
1
                                           3 KILOMETERS
                   (b)
                   (t)

           EXPLANATION
           -s-WATER-TABLE CONTOUR— -shots oltitudc of water tabU, in feet
               Dashed where location approximate. Contour intervals are
               variable. Datum it sea level.
           - ...... Contributing area determined using analytical model.
           B  Location of hypothetical  supply veil.

Figure 3. Water-table contours and contributing areas for hypothetical  supply
wells A and B, each pumped at 0.5 Mgal/d, determined using an analytical model.
                                    152

-------
       Particle tracking offers a relatively simple yet quantitatively powerful
alternative to the construction of ground-water flow nets.  Particle tracking Is
the tracing of fluid particle pathlines through a ground-water-flow system over
time (Pollock, 1988).  The steps in the mathematical determination of pathlines
are as follows: A numerical flow model is used to compute ground-water heads at
individual cell nodes within a simulated aquifer.  These nodal values of head are
used to compute intercell flow rates by Darcy's Law; ground-water-velocity vectors
derived from these flow rates may be computed for every point In the flow field.
Pathlines are then determined from the ground-water-velocity vectors.

       Particle-tracking algorithms differ in their method of determining ground-
water-velocity vectors.  Pollock (1988) has developed a semianalytical particle-
tracking algorithm for use with block-centered, finite-difference, ground-water-
flow models, and has written a computer program based on this algorithm for use
with the modular ground-water-flow model of McDonald and Harbaugh (1988) .   The
mathematics of the particle-tracking algorithm may be found in Pollock (1988).
                                                         Nt
                                                    EXPLANATION


                                                    D Activ«  cell

                                                    HSpecifi«d-h«nd c«ll
                                                    0 Inoctiv« c«l I
                                                      (or to not mode ltd)
                                                               I yiLES
                                                               KILOMETERS
                                                It
                             COLUMN
Figure 4.  Grid and boundary conditions for the two-dimensional and top layer of
the three-dimensional ground-water flow models.
                                       153

-------
                 COLUMN
    o
    oc
COLUMN
tl        25
                                           2 MILES
                               0   1   2     KILOMETERS
         EXPLANATION
                                                                  31
       -5-CALCULATED WATER-TABLE  CONTOUR—Shows altitude of calculated
          water-table altitude,  in  feet. Datum  is sea level.

        • Specified-heod cell.
Figure 5. Calculated water-table altitudes for (a) two-dimensional model and (b)
layer 1 of three-dimensional model.
                                   154

-------
       Two-dimensional and three-dimensional ground-water flow models were
developed for the unconfined aquifer of Eastham and south Wellfleet, Massachusetts
(figure 4) to demonstrate the use of numerical modeling and particle tracking for
the delineation of contributing areas to supply wells located in stratified
glacial-drift aquifers, and for comparison to the analytical model results
described previously.  The three-dimensional flow model consists of 5 layers, with
48 rows and 39 columns of grid cells in each layer.  The simulated aquifer is
bounded laterally by specified-head cells in the top layer and by no-flow
boundaries in the four lower layers; it is bounded on the bottom by a no-flow
boundary.  The two-dimensional flow model consists of a single layer, with 48 rows
and 39 columns of grid cells.  The single layer, two-dimensional model is bounded
laterally by specified-head cells and vertically by a no-flow boundary.  Each of
the models is bounded on the top by a water table that receives a uniform rate of
recharge from precipitation.

       The models were calibrated using average ground-water altitudes measured in
16 observation wells and by 7 pond gages in the study area during 1963-88.
Horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivities were estimated from the
lithologic logs of several test holes completed in the aquifer.  Values of
hydraulic conductivity were varied both horizontally and vertically within the
simulated aquifer.  Initial estimates of hydraulic conductivity and recharge to
the aquifer were modified during calibration to obtain a root-mean-square error
between observed and simulated ground-water altitudes of 0.8 feet for the two-
dimensional model and 0.9 feet for the three-dimensional model.  These mean errors
are consistent with the accuracy of the map of water-table altitudes made for the
study area and with the level of understanding of both the distribution of
hydraulic conductivity within the aquifer and recharge rate to the aquifer;
additional calibration could not be justified on the basis of available data.
Ground-water altitudes determined for the top layer of each model are shown in
figure 5.  The similarity of these simulated water-table altitudes with those
shown in figure 2 is clearly evident.

       Contributing areas to two hypothetical supply wells, shown in figure 3,
were delineated using the particle-tracking computer program for both the two-
dimensional and three-dimensional ground-water flow models.  Particles were placed
at the water table of the simulated aquifer and their pathlines traced through the
model.  The area defined by the starting locations of particles that reach a
particular supply well constitutes the well's contributing area.  Several
simulations were completed to demonstrate the value of the technique in the
analysis of a multllayered stratified-drift aquifer with multiple pumped wells.

       In the first six simulations, each well was pumped individually at three
separate pumping rates, 0.25 Mgal/d, 0.50 Mgal/d, and 1.0 Mgal/d (figure 6).  The
results of the particle-tracking analysis indicate that the size of a well's
contributing area depends on the pumping rate at the well. Recharge from
precipitation to the stratified drift is the only source of water to these wells;
therefore, the area necessary to supply each well with water Is equal to Q/r.
This relation was verified for each simulation directly from the results of the
particle-tracking program.  The simulations also agree with the observation made
from the results of the analytical model that the shape of a well's contributing
area depends on the location of the well with respect to the recharge and
discharge areas of the aquifer.
                                       155

-------
                                                                     N
                           •t
                                                        (b)
                                           2 MILES
                               1
KILOMETERS
          EXPLANATION

          	 Contributing  area  for  pumping  rate  of 0.25  Mgal/d.

          	Contributing  area  for  pumping  rote  of 0.50  Mgal/d.

          	 Contributing  area  for  pumping  rate  of 1.00  Mgal/d.

          •   Location  of  hypothetical  supply  well.


Figure 6. Contributing areas for pumping rates of 0.25 Mgal/d,  0.50 Mgal/d and
1.00 Mgal/d for (a) well A and  (b) well B, determined  using the two-dimensional
ground-water-flow model.


      The values of hydraulic  conductivity and aquifer recharge used  in the
development of a ground-water-flow model commonly are  only best estimates of the
true field value.  One way of evaluating the effects of uncertainties  in the
estimates of these properties to the delineation of contributing areas is to
                                    156

-------
complete a series  of  simulations in which the value  of each property is varied
over what is  felt  to  be a realistic range of values.  As an example, three
simulations were run  using the two-dimensional numerical model in which the
recharge rate to the  aquifer was varied from 75 to 125 percent of the calibrated
value (figure 7).   Because recharge from precipitation is the only source of water
to the well,  the size of the well's contributing area is directly dependent on the
value specified for recharge.  Figure 7 indicates that the value of aquifer
recharge specified in the model has a significant effect on the area that
contributes water  to  the well.
                                                2 MILES
                                                KILOMETERS
         EXPLANAT ION
        	Contributing oreo  for  75 percent  of  average recharge.
        	Contributing area  for  100 percent of  average  recharge
        	Contributing area  for  125 percent of  average  recharge.

        •  Location  of  hypothetical  supply well.
Figure 7.  Contributing areas to well A for recharge rate to the aquifer equal to
75,  100,  and  125 percent of calibrated model  value, determined using the two-
dimensional ground-water flow model.
                                      157

-------
       In order to investigate the effects caused by multiple  pumped wells  to  the
delineation of recharge  areas, a two-dimensional simulation was  run in which both
wells A and B pumped simultaneously at a rate of 0.5 Mgal/d.   The  results of the
simulation are shown with  the results of two simulations  in which  each well was
pumped individually at a rate of 0.5 Mgal/d (figure 8).   The results indicate  the
importance of considering  simultaneously the effects of multiple wells on the
delineation of contributing areas.  Contributing areas to two  or more supply wells
can not overlap simultaneously because a particle of water that  reaches the water
table can flow either to one of the wells or to a natural discharge area of the
system; it can not flow  to more than one discharge point.   The area of overlap in
the contributing areas shown in figure 8a is not possible.
                                              2 MILES
                             0     1     2      KILOMETERS

            EXPLANATION

            	Contributing  area for well  A.

            	Contributing  area for well  B.

              •  Location of hypothetical  supply well.

Figure 8.  Contributing areas to wells A and B for (a) each well pumped
independently  at 0.5 Mgal/d and (b) both wells pumped simultaneously at 0.5
Mgal/d,  determined using the two-dimensional ground-water flow model.
                                      158

-------
       Vertical and horizontal heterogeneities in aquifer properties  can have a
significant  effect on ground-water flow,  and, therefore, would be  expected to have
an effect  on the  location and shape of a  supply well's contributing area.  The
effect of  aquifer heterogeneity to the delineation of contributing areas was
investigated using the three-dimensional  numerical model by introducing a
discontinuous zone of material of low hydraulic conductivity,  representative of
clay,  in the vicinity of well B (figure 9).  The simulated layer of clay was
placed in  layer 2 of the model.  The screened interval of the  supply  well was
located in layer  3 of the model and the well was pumped at a rate  of  0.5 Mgal/d.
                            0
                            i—
                            0
2 MILES

KILOMETERS
           EXPLANATION
           	 Contributing  area for well  B.

                Location  of hypothetical  supply  well  B.

                Location  of zone  of  low  hydraulic  conductivity.
Figure 9.  Contributing areas to well B,  for  (a) simulation of the  natural  system,
and (b) simulation of a zone of clay in  the  vicinity of the well.  Pumping  rate is
0.5 Mgal/d.
                                      159

-------
       The results  of  the simulation (figure 9) show  that  the surface layer
contributing water  to  the well is greatly changed by  the introduction of the
discontinuous zone  of  clay,  which diminishes the rate of vertical movement of
water in the vicinity  of the well.  As can be seen in figure 9,  the surface area
that contributes water to well B does not surround the well.  Water which reaches
the water table in  the vicinity of well B discharges  to the  natural boundary of
the aquifer (the Atlantic Ocean) downgradient of the well.   The  bifurcation of the
contributing areas  shown in  figure 9 is the result of spatial variations in both
the horizontal and  vertical  hydraulic conductivities  in the  third and fourth
layers of the model and the  location of the eastern boundary of  specified-head
cells.  Pathlines of particles initiated at the water table  in the row of the
model in which well B  is located are also shown in cross section (figure 10).
These pathlines indicate the vertical flow path that particles of water follow
from the water table to discharge points at the well or the  specified-head cells.
The results of figures 9 and 10 point to the importance to the determination of a
supply well's contributing area of defining accurately the lithology of an aquifer
in the vicinity of  the well.

                                                                WELL
                                                                  t
        E
        W
              0
              L
_L
J_
                               10
  5000 feet
J	I
                                                  20
                                                                             34
                                       COLUMN
              SCALE GREATLY EXAGGERATED
       EXPLANATION

Zone of low hydraulic conductivity
Specified-head cells

Screened-interval of well

Pathlines of particles discharged
 at well

Pathlines of particles discharged
 at specified-head cells
Figure 10. Cross-section of particle pathlines in row  28  for simulation in which a
zone of low hydraulic  conductivity overlies the screened-interval of well B.
Pumping rate  is  0.5  Mgal/d.
                                         160

-------
Evaluation of delineation methods

       A comparison between the contributing areas delineated for the two
hypothetical supply wells using the analytical model and the calibrated two- and
three-dimensional numerical models coupled with particle tracking is shown in
figure 11. The differences in the contributing areas delineated using the three
models are greatest at points farthest from the wells.  The uniformity in the
horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivities of the upper layers of this
aquifer produces similar results for the three methods.  Part of the difference in
the recharge areas delineated using the three models is the result of differences
in the distribution of ground-water heads in each of the model aquifers.   The map
of water-table altitudes used in the analytical model was constructed from field
data on ground-water heads.  The water-table altitudes represent the average
response of the ground-water system to recharge, given the geologic framework and
natural boundary conditions of the aquifer.  The distribution of heads simulated
by the numerical models are somewhat different than the field-derived map of
water-table altitudes because the models do not replicate exactly the real ground-
water system.  Uncertainties in the understanding of the geologic framework of the
aquifer, recharge to the aquifer, and the boundary conditions of the aquifer
result in a distribution of ground-water heads that is only an approximation of
the natural system.

       The three methods of analysis presented in this report for the delineation
of contributing areas to public supply wells completed in stratified glacial-drift
aquifers represent three levels of computational complexity that require
increasing levels of data specification.  Each of the techniques has several
advantages and disadvantages which should be considered in the selection of a
method of analysis.

       The primary advantage to using analytical models of ground-water flow is
that the models generally are computationally simple and require less data than do
numerical models.  Data requirements for the analytical model discussed in this
report are a map of water-table altitudes, an estimate of the thickness and
hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer, and the discharge rate of the well.  The
primary disadvantage of using analytical models is that they are based on
simplifying assumptions of the ground-water flow system.  For instance, the
analytical model used in this report assumes that the aquifer is of infinite areal
extent, homogeneous and uniform in thickness.  Additionally, simple boundary
conditions must be assumed, such as an impermeable boundary, an infinite boundary.
or a fully penetrating river boundary.  In this report, it was necessary to assume
a distance at which drawdown produced by each well was known.  Simplifications of
the hydrogeologic framework and boundaries of the ground-water system may result
in poor predictions of the contributing area to wells located in aquifers which
are arealy and vertically heterogeneous or contain complex natural boundaries.
However, for single wells pumping from uniform aquifers with simple boundary
conditions, the use of analytical models may be justified.  Inspection of figure
11 indicates that the delineation of contributing areas to wells pumping from a
thin, single-layer, uniform aquifer,  such as the aquifer underlying Eastham and
south Wellfleet, is not greatly enhanced by the use of the more complex numerical
models and particle-tracking algorithm.
                                       161

-------
                              »t
,t
                                                      b)
                                         2  MILES
                        0    1     2       KILOMETERS

  EXPLANATION
 	Contributing  area determined  using analytical  model.

 	Contributing  area determined  using two-dimensional  numerical model.

 	Contributing  area determined  using three-dimensional  numerical model.

  tt   Location  of  hypothetical  supply  well.

Figure 11.  Comparison of contributing areas  to  (a) well A and (b) well B for
pumping rates  of  0.5 Mgal/d, determined using different modeling approaches.


       Numerical  ground-water flow models  coupled with particle tracking offer a
powerful computational tool for the analysis of supply-well contributing areas.
The primary advantage of using numerical modeling and particle tracking is  that
these procedures  provide a more detailed  description than do analytical models of
the factors that  affect the location and shape of contributing areas for wells
pumping from complex two- and three-dimensional aquifers.  The disadvantage to the
numerical methods is the large amount of data that must be specified.   Data
requirements include a map of ground-water altitudes for the aquifer,  estimates of
recharge rates and hydraulic parameters throughout the aquifer, the specification
                                      162

-------
of aquifer boundary conditions, and the location and rate of withdrawal of supply
wells.  Furthermore, results of the numerical models are limited by the
understanding of the hydrogeologic framework of the aquifer, the accuracy of the
boundary conditions specified for the model, and the estimates of system
properties.  In effect, the numerical models determine an exact solution to a
complex, yet ill-defined, two- or three-dimensional ground-water-flow problem.
However, the numerical models are not limited by as many simplifying assumptions
as are analytical models.  The results of numerical models should improve an
understanding of the aquifer under study, and, in particular, help to
conceptualize the effect of a large-capacity supply well on ground-water flow.
This study has shown that particle tracking is of considerable aid in the
delineation of contributing areas in aquifers that are heterogeneous.


Summary

       The delineation of contributing areas to public supply wells is an
important component of State and Federal strategies for the protection of ground-
water quality.  The delineation of contributing areas requires first a conceptual
and second a quantitative understanding of the ground-water flow system in which
the well is located, so that predictions of the response of the system to the
pumping of a large-capacity supply well can be made.  The identification within
the hydrogeologic environment of possible sources of water to a supply well is an
important first step in the development of a conceptual model of ground-water flow
in the study area and in the selection of a method of analysis for delineating a
well's contributing area.

       A recent advance in the ability to analyze quantitatively ground-water flow
systems has been the coupling of particle-tracking algorithms to numerical ground-
water flow models.  A demonstration of the use of this method for the delineation
of contributing areas to hypothetical supply wells pumping from a stratified
glacial-drift aquifer of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, has shown that (1) the location
of a well with respect to areas of recharge and discharge for the aquifer will
have a significant effect on the shape of a well's contributing area, (2) the
recharge rate to an aquifer and the pumping rate of a well will have a significant
effect on the size of a well's contributing area, (3) multiple pumped wells within
an aquifer must be considered simultaneously in the determination of a well's
contributing  area, and (4) the lithology of the aquifer in the vicinity of a well
must be well defined.

       The study also has shown that contributing areas determined using
analytical modeling were similar to those determined using numerical modeling
coupled with particle tracking for wells pumping from a thin, single-layer,
uniform aquifer with simple boundary conditions, and that the use of numerical
models for the delineation of contributing areas for wells in such an aquifer may
not be warranted.   However, numerical modeling and particle tracking provide a
more powerful quantitative tool than do analtyical models for conditions normally
encountered in the field, such as thick, heterogeneous aquifers with complicated
boundary conditions in which several wells are pumped simultaneously.  Under these
conditions, analytical models are not capable of providing sufficient detail to
predict accurately the land area that contributes water to a well.
                                        163

-------
References

Davis, S.N.  and R.J.M.  DeWeist,  1966,  "Hydrogeology",  John  Wiley and  Sons,  New
  York, New York, pp.  201-203.
Freeze,  R.A.   and  J.A.   Cherry,   1979,   "Groundwater",   Prentice-Hall,  Englewood
  Cliffs, New Jersey,  pp  168-172.
Guswa, J.H.  and D.R.  LeBlanc,  1986, Digital  models of  ground-water flow  in  the
  Cape Cod aquifer  system, U. S. Geological Survey Water-Supply  Paper 2209,  p.  6.
Kruseman,  G.P. and  N.A.  de  Ridder,  1983, "Analysis and evaluation  of pumping test
  data",Bulletin 11,  International  Institute for  Land Reclamation and Improvement,
  The Netherlands,  pp. 104-107.
LeBlanc,  D.R.,  J.H.  Guswa,  M.H. Frimpter, and C.J.  Londquist,  1986,  Ground-water
  resources of  Cape Cod, Massachusetts, U.  S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas
  692, 4 plates.
McDonald,   M.G.   and  A.W.  Harbaugh,  1988,  A  modular  three-dimensional  finite-
  difference ground-water flow  model, U. S. Geological Survey  Techniques of Water-
  Resources Investigations, Book 6,  Chapter Al, 586 pp.
Morrissey, D.J.,  1987, Estimation  of the recharge  area contributing water to  a
  pumped  well  in a  glacial-drift,  river-valley  aquifer, U.  S.  Geological  Survey
  Open-File Report  86-543, 60 pp.
Newsom, J.M.  and J.L. Wilson, 1988, Flow of ground water  to a  well  near a stream
  Effect of ambient ground-water  flow direction,  Ground Water, vol.  26,  no.  6,  pp
  703-711.
Pollock,   D.W.,   1988,  Semianalytical  computation  of   path  lines   for  finite-
  difference models,  Ground Water, vol. 26, no. 6, pp 743-750.
Reilly, T.E.,  O.L.  Franke, and  G.D.  Bennett,  1984,  The principle of  superposition
  and  its  application in ground-water  hydraulics,  U. S.  Geological  Survey Open-
  File Report 84-459,  36 p.
van  der  Heijde,  P.  and M.S.  Beljin,  1988,  Model  assessment  for  delineating
  wellhead  protection areas,  U.   S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Office  of
  Ground-Water Protection, 271  pp.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, Guidelines for delineation of wellhead
  protection areas,  U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Office  of Ground-Water
  Protection, pp. 4-1   4-32.
                                       164

-------
This page intentionally left blank.
                165

-------
This page intentionally left blank.
                166

-------
                       DEVELOPMENT OF AQUIFER PROTECTION ZONES
                     AND  EVALUATION OF CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
                        IN TOWN OF CHELMSFORD MUNICIPAL WELLS
                       Donald W. Podsen and Charles F. Myette
                           Wehran Engineering Corporation
                                   100  Milk Street
                            Methuen, Massachusetts 01844
Abstract

     The Town of Chelmsford,  Massachusetts,  obtains  its entire municipal water supply
from  22 groundwater  wells.     Periodic  testing  since  1979  has  detected  trace
concentrations of volatile organic compounds in nearly all of the  Town's municipal well
fields,  with concentrations  in excess  of 50  ppb (total volatile organics observed) in
some wells.   As a pilot  study for protecting public water supplies in developed towns
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
assigned Wehran Engineering the task of evaluating contamination that has been detected
in Chelmsford water supply wells.  The study focused on delineating aquifer protection
zones around these  wells, identifying potential past and present contamination sites
in these areas,  and prioritizing these sites with respect to  their potential to impact
the Town's water supply wells.

     To  provide a  current assessment  of the quality of  Chelmsford's  municipal water
supply,  all accessible wells  (18 of 22)  were  sampled in June,  1987 and analyzed for
volatile organic compounds.   Analytical results at  that time showed; a  maximum of
15 ppb in one well,  trace concentrations  in two other wells, and either non-detectable,
or below detection limit, concentrations  of volatile organic compounds  in the remaining
wells.

     Aquifer protection  Zones I, II, and  III were delineated for  each of the municipal
supply wells in conformance  with Massachusetts Division of Water Supply Guidelines.

     A records search was conducted to identify and locate potential past or present
sources  of contamination that might  impact Chelmsford's municipal water supply wells.
A total  of 121 potential contamination  sites  were  identified  and  located.   Of these
sites, none were located in Zone I areas, 81 were located in Zone II areas, and 40 in
Zone III.   An additional 69  sites  were identified,  but  could not be located.

     A ranking system was developed to  prioritize  sites  in  terms  of  their potential
to contaminate municipal  supply wells.  The system is based on such factors as aquifer
                                     167

-------
protection zone designation, relative distance  within a zone from a well,  the  types
of chemicals potentially  used,  the volume of spills,  and the ranking of watersheds
according to the degree  of contamination that has been detected in wells.   The ranking
system is designed to divide potential sites into groups, with each group assigned a
priority ranking relative to one another.

     The 121 potential contamination sites that could be located were prioritized using
this  ranking  system.   It was  recommended that,  in order  to  identify  sources  of
contamination that are impacting Chelmsford's municipal supply wells, preliminary site
assessments be conducted  for potential sites  in the highest priority groups.   These
assessments are likely to reveal that many of these sites can be reassigned to  lower
priority groups.  Those sites, however,  that  are found to have a high potential  for
contamination will be recommended for additional site investigations.

     The DEP has acted on  these recommendations  by completing preliminary assessments
at over 15 of the  highest  priority  sites.   Based on  the results of these assessments,
the DEP is currently planning a site investigation (with the installation of monitoring
wells and sampling of groundwater)  at the highest priority site.


Introduction

Background

     The Town of Chelmsford, Massachusetts, is an industrialized,  suburban residential
community that obtains all of its drinking water from groundwater.  Periodic testing
of groundwater in  municipal  supply wells  since 1979  has detected  trace concentrations
of volatile organic  compounds in nearly  all  of  the Town's well  fields.   As a pilot
study for protecting  public water supplies in developed towns in Massachusetts, the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)  assigned Wehran Engineering the task of
evaluating contamination  that has been detected in  Chelmsford water supply wells by
delineating aquifer protection zones surrounding the  Town's  municipal supply wells,
identifying  potential past  and present  contamination  sites in  these   areas,  and
prioritizing these sites  with respect to  their  potential to  impact the Town's water
supply wells.   Based on  the results  of  this  study, the  DEP  may  conduct similar
investigations in other  Massachusetts Towns.

     The Town of  Chelmsford  covers  approximately 22.5 square miles  in areal extent
and is located  in  Middlesex County,  Massachusetts.  It is bordered to the north by the
Towns of Lowell and Tyngsborough,  to the  west by Westford, to the south by  Carlisle,
and to the east by Billerica (Figure 1).   In  1980,  the population of Chelmsford was
31,174, and approximately 90 industrial  building units were located in the  Town.

     Water in the  Town is  supplied by three privately owned water  districts designated
as; the East, North and Central Districts.  All commercial  and industrial users, as
well as the majority of residents are  supplied by these three districts.  The  remaining
residents obtain  water  from private wells.   Presently,  the three  Districts have a
combined total of 22  supply  wells  (including one well  (field)  consisting of 49, 2-
1/2 inch tubular wells).   Of  these 22 wells, the North District operates 4 wells, the
East  District  operates  2 wells,  and the  Central  District  is  responsible for the
remaining 16 wells.
                                     168

-------
 t
                                                                     'RIVER MEADOW  }
                                                                        BROOK
                                                                      WATERSHED
LEGEND:
 •   Municipal Well

     Till / Bedrock

     Stratified Drift
Groundwater Flow
Direction
	Surface Water Divide


	Town Boundaries
                                       APPROXIMATE
                                       SCALE. IN MILES
     Figure 1.   Site map showing  Town of Chelmsford municipal water supply wells, associated watersheds

                         and distribution of  stratified drift versus till/bedrock

-------
     Laboratory  analyses for  volatile  organic  compounds  in water  collected  from
Chelmsford municipal  supply wells  have been performed since 1979.  Volatile  organic
compounds  (primarily  chlorinated  solvents)  were detected  in  ten of the  eleven  well
fields.     The  chemicals  most   commonly  reported   were  trichloroethylene   and
tetrachloroethylene.  In any given sampling round, volatile organic concentrations are
typically on the order  of one  to  two parts  per billion (ppb), or none detected.   In
one well, however,  a maximum of 340 ppb was detected.

     Growth in the Town has been  relatively uncontrolled  with  respect  to allowing
development in some of the more environmentally sensitive groundwater recharge areas.
As a result,  the contamination that is found in any one  of  the municipal  supply wells
could be attributed to a number of potential contamination  sources.

Purpose and Scope

     The purposes  of  this  pilot study are  to  delineate aquifer protection Zones  I,
II, and III for each municipal supply well according to Massachusetts Division of Water
Supply Guidelines,  to perform a records search to  identify  and locate potential  past
and present sources of contamination in these zones,  and to  prioritize sites in terms
of  their potential  impact  on  the Town's  water  supply  wells.   The  scope  of  this
investigation is limited to identifying contamination sources in only those areas  that
impact Chelmsford public water  supplies.  The identification of contamination  sources
is based solely on information obtained from the records search and does  not  include
additional site  investigation  activities.   Furthermore, the  delineation of  aquifer
protection zones  is based on  available data  only.   Wehran  identified  significant
hydrogeologic data  gaps prior to initiating the investigation,  however, Wehran  and DEP
agreed that it would not be cost-  effective to acquire  new data to fill  these gaps.
Rather, it was decided  that Wehran would utilize existing data and make  assumptions
where necessary.  These assumptions were made conservatively, so that the end result
would be to increase the size of Zone  II areas relative to  Zone III.


Hydrogeologic Setting

     The boundary of the study area is defined by the surface water divides  surrounding
the Town of Chelmsford's municipal wells/well fields, as obtained from drainage maps
prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)  in Boston,  Massachusetts,  (Figure 1).
This area covers approximately 45 square miles,  and  incorporates nearly the entire Town
of Chelmsford,  small portions of the Towns of Lowell, Billerica,  and Carlisle, and a
large portion of Westford.   The study area is bordered to the north by the Merrimack
River and is  located entirely within  the  watershed  of that river.  Figure  1 shows the
four  major sub- basins, or watersheds,  within the study area as  defined by the USGS.
The major streams within each watershed (from west  to east across the study area) are
Stony Brook,  Black Brook, River Meadow Brook, and  Hales Brook.

     Groundwater in the study area occurs in three principle formations;  1)  bedrock
underlying the  entire area, 2)  till deposits which  overlie bedrock throughout  most of
the  area  and  which   are   exposed  on   hills  and  ridges   (Baker,  1964),  and
3) stratified-drift  deposits  which  occur   in  valleys   and  on the  lower  slopes of
hillsides.
                                      170

-------
     Bedrock in  the vicinity  of   Chelmsford is  composed of a variety of Paleozoic
igneous and metamorphic rocks.   Because  these rock types are relatively impermeable
compared to the stratified-drift deposits, none of the Town's wells have been completed
in bedrock.  Individual wells  completed  in bedrock typically yield 2-10 gallons per
minute (Brackley and Hansen, 1985).

     Throughout most of the study area, bedrock is overlain  by glacial  till which has
an average  thickness  of fifteen feet.   Due to the poor  sorting  of  the till, wells
completed in these  deposits generally yield less than  10  gallons per minute (Brackley
and Hansen, 1985).

     In terms of groundwater resource  potential,  the  stratified-  drift deposits are
the most important stratigraphic unit  in the Chelmsford  area because they have much
higher hydraulic conductivity than either the bedrock or till.   All municipal supply
wells in the Town  of  Chelmsford are screened  in  the  stratified  drift deposits.   In
addition,  the  majority of  private wells  in  Chelmsford  and surrounding towns  are
completed  in this  unit.  Individual  wells generally yield  hundreds  of gallons  per
minute  (Brackley  and  Hansen,  1985).    These deposits  are generally sorted  and
stratified, and consist of sand and gravel with subordinate  amounts of  silt and some
boulders.  The  stratified drift deposits  occur in river valleys and range in thickness
from less than  one  foot, where  they pinch out against valley walls, to  140 feet in the
pre-glacial channel  of the Merrimack River.

     The general direction  of groundwater flow  is from upland areas to  the east, west,
and south of the  four major stream valleys towards the  Merrimack River  on the northern
border of  the  study area (Figure 1).  The altitude of the  water table ranges from
approximately 90 feet along the Merrimack River,  to more  than 250  feet at the western
edge of the study area (Feldman, 1978). The depth to the water table is generally less
than ten feet below land surface in low-lying areas and less than 30 feet below land
surface in hilly areas (Baker,  1964).

     According  to the  Water District  Superintendents,  safe yield for the wells/fields
ranges from 250  to  700 gallons/minute and the average pumping rate  for each well/field
ranges from  250  to  850  gallons/minute.    It  should be noted that not  all wells  are
continually pumping;  in  some cases a well is normally shut down while an  adjacent well
is pumping, and vice versa.

     Available  boring logs for 12 of  the 22 wells indicate  that  all  wells  are water
table wells, completed in an unconfined sand and gravel aquifer.  Available pump test
data in the vicinity of the  wells indicate transmissivities ranging from approximately
3,350 to 15,000  squared  feet/day,  saturated thicknesses of 40 to 65 feet, and average
hydraulic conductivities of 70  to 230 feet/day.  The proximity of the wells to various
streams suggests that,  depending  on  their pumping rate,  they may cause significant
induced stream  infiltration.


Current Groundwater Quality Assessment

     One round of  groundwater  samples was  collected  from  the  Chelmsford  municipal
supply wells by Wehran personnel on June  1st and 3rd,  1987.   The samples  were analyzed
for volatile organic compounds  using USEPA Test Method 624.
                                        171

-------
     The analytical results show  that  one well  (the well with highest concentrations
detected in the past) contains 15 ppb  total  volatile organics.  Two other wells  show
trace levels  (<10 ppb)  of  volatile  organic compounds  (defined as less than 10 times
the detection limit), while  the  remaining wells contained  either non-detectable,  or
below detection limit (1.0 ppb),  levels  of volatile organic contamination.


Delineation of Aquifer  Protection Zones

     The Massachusetts Division of Water Supply has established guidelines (1986) for
the  delineation of  aquifer  protection  zones  surrounding  municipal  supply  wells,
referred to as  Zones I, II and III  (Figure  2).   Zone  I areas are  defined  as those
portions of aquifers which lie within  a  400  foot radius of  the wellbore.  Because  of
their close proximity, contamination sites in these areas have the greatest potential
impact on water quality in the wells.

     Zone II is defined as "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 groundwater divides  which result from pumping the
well and by the contact  of the edge  of  the  aquifer  with less permeable materials such
as  till  and  bedrock.   At  some locations,  streams  and  lakes  may form  recharge
boundaries".  The Guidelines  specify the most severe recharge and pumping conditions
as pumping at safe yield for  180 days without recharge.   Under these conditions,  the
locus of 0.1 feet of drawdown  is the predicted area of influence.  These drawdowns are
then subtracted from the pre-pumped water table configuration, and subsequent analysis
of flow lines identifies the  zone of contribution  (Zone II  area)  for each well.
        LEGEND:

        *— Groundwater Flow Direction

        -*- Water Table Surface
ZONE III
                            Surface Water
                            Divide
                                                                   Till/ Bedrock
                                                   Stratified Drift
                                          Water Supply Well
 Figure 2.  Conceptual block diagram  of  a stream valley illustrating Massachusetts
     aquifer protection zones  I,  II and  III  in relationship to a pumping well.
                                    172

-------
     Zone III  is  defined as "that  land  area beyond the area  of  Zone II from which
surface water  and groundwater  drain into  Zone  II.   The  surface  drainage  area as
determined by topography is  commonly coincident with the groundwater drainage  area and
will be used to delineate Zone  III.   In  some locations,  where surface  and groundwater
drainage are not coincident, Zone III shall  consist of  both the surface drainage and
the groundwater drainage areas".

     Using these definitions, the delineation of the outer boundaries of Zones I and
II is relatively straight forward.   After field verification of the well locations,
a line drawn at a radius  of 400 feet around each well  defines the outer boundary of
the Zone I area.  The outer  boundary of  Zone III  coincides with surface water divides
for the tributary.  This information was obtained from  drainage maps prepared by the
USGS.

     The major effort associated with mapping aquifer protection zones is delineating
the boundary between Zones II and III.  Defining this boundary first requires locating
the  contact  between  the   edge  of  the  aquifer  with  less  permeable  materials
(till/bedrock).    This   geologic   contact  was  obtained   from  the  Hydrogeologic
Investigation  Atlas  of the   study area  (Brackley and  Hansen,   1985) and  is  shown on
Figure 1.

     The identification of "that area of an aquifer  which contributes water to a well
under  the  most severe recharge and pumping conditions  that   can  be realistically
anticipated" requires an evaluation  of groundwater flow to the well.  Because numerous
hydrogeologic variables affect groundwater flow,  it is difficult to calculate this area
manually.    As  a  result, a digital  computer model  was developed to  perform  the
calculations.

     Two-dimensional  groundwater flow models  of the  study  area were  designed  and
calibrated to  compute hydraulic-head changes in  the  stratified-drift aquifer under
natural and man-made  stress  conditions.   For these  models,  Wehran utilized the USGS
three-dimensional groundwater flow model  (MODFLOW) developed by MacDonald and Harbaugh
(1984).

     The models use a  finite-difference  method  in which differential  equations that
describe groundwater flow are solved numerically.   The equations require definition
of the geologic and hydrologic properties of the area modeled, the boundaries, and the
pumping stresses.

     The study area was divided into two regions to simplify the modeling effort.   A
finite-difference grid composed of equal size blocks (500 by 500 feet) was developed
for all areas underlain by stratified drift deposits.  The active modeled area covers
approximately 14 square miles and includes over 1,500 active nodes.

     Boring logs indicate that  the stratified-drift  deposits in both model areas are
unconfined aquifers overlying much  less permeable  till and  bedrock.   As  a  result,
although the computer model that was  utilized has the capability of simulating a series
of layers  within the aquifer (i.e.,  a three-dimensional flow model), both areas were
modeled as a two-dimensional single  layer.

     The groundwater  flow  models   were  calibrated under  steady-state  conditions.
Calibration consisted  of  adjusting  input  hydrologic  parameters to the  model until
                                        173

-------
differences  in  water table  elevation between  model simulations  and a  groundwater
contour map of the area were within acceptable limits (i.e., within  10  feet  over the
majority of the modeled area).   A sensitivity analysis of the steady-state models was
then conducted to assess the limitations of the conceptual model and the  uncertainty
in the selection of input data values and boundary conditions.

     After calibrating the models under steady-state conditions, several transient runs
were made with each model to predict  the  areas of  influence and zones of contribution
for the wells as a result of a specific stress  on the aquifers.  This stress is defined
by Division of Water Supply Guidelines as pumping at safe yield without recharge for
180 days.   The computed  steady-  state heads for each model were used as starting heads
for each transient run.   All wells were pumped simultaneously, and at safe yield, to
simulate worst-case conditions.

     To evaluate the zones of contribution to the wells,  the amount  of drawdown caused
by pumping the wells at  safe yield (with no recharge) was subtracted from the  observed
heads, i.e., the average steady-state aquifer head distribution.  On  the downgradient
side of the  pumping wells,  the creation of localized groundwater  divides (lines of
stagnation) where water  flows back to the  wells were predicted by the models.  In these
areas, the model predicts that pumping the wells will cause the natural gradient and
direction of groundwater flow to be reversed  causing  groundwater to flow back towards
the well,  in a direction that is contrary to the "natural" regional  flow  (Figure 2).
As a result, these local divides (lines of stagnation) form the downgradient margins
of the zones of contribution (Zone II) where contaminated groundwater could  potentially
be directed  towards the well.   Analysis of  flowlines  was  performed  to  extend  the
upgradient boundaries of these  capture zones  to the hydrogeologic contact  between the
stratified-drift deposits and till/bedrock.  The zones of contribution (Zone II areas)
are then defined as the  areal extent  of stratified-drift  deposits upgradient  of these
boundaries.   Inasmuch  as  the   pumping  stress was  designed  to  simulate  worst-case
conditions (i.e.,  all wells pumping  simultaneously) the  zones  of  contribution  were
delineated for groups of wells as opposed to each individual well.   Although  this
analysis  produces   larger  zones  of   contribution than if  each  well were  pumped
separately,  it  provides a  better simulation  of  aquifer protection as  opposed to
considering only wellhead protection.

     The aquifer protection zones delineated in this study for the Town of Chelmsford's
municipal water  supply wells are shown on  Figure 3.  Zone  I consists of the  area within
a 400 foot radius around each wellbore.  Zone  II  areas  begin at the outer margin of
Zone I, and extend  to the margin of the zone of contribution.  The lines of stagnation
defining the downgradient margin of the zones of contribution is  shown on Figure 3 for
various groups  of  wells.   Zone  III  areas for  each group  of  wells  extends  along
flowlines from the outer boundary of  Zone  II  (contact between stratified-drift  with
till/bedrock) to the watershed  boundary.   It  should  be  noted that  portions  of  Zones
II and III overlap  between the  various groups  of wells.   Specifically, within a given
watershed, the areas within  Zones II  and  III for upgradient wells are included in the
corresponding Zones of all downgradient wells.  Therefore, moving downgradient within
a given watershed,  Zones II and III become successively larger as they incorporate the
aquifer protection zones of all upgradient wells.
                                        174

-------
Contaminant Sites:
a   High Priority Sites

•   Medium Priority Sites

A   Low Priority Sites
 LEGEND:
 Hi Zone No. I

 I    ! Zone No. II

      Zone No. Ill

 V///M Outside Zone

 	Lines of Stagnation

 	Surface Water Divides

 	Chelmsford Town Boundary

Figure 3    Site map showing potential  contamination sites in relation  to  acmif
associated lines of stagnation.  For simplification, the 17 groupsidentified i
system   Figure 4)  have been  assigned either a high, mediunf,  o/lowpriority
high priority (Groups  1-7),  mediu* priority (Groups 8-13),  and low priority
                                      APPROXIMATE
                                      SCALE. IN MILES
                                                                                        --
                                                                                     Priority

-------
Identification of Potential Sources of Contamination

     A records search was conducted to identify and locate past  or  present potential
sources of  groundwater  contamination that may  impact Chelmsford's municipal  supply
wells.  This  search addressed the area bounded by  the watersheds of all  the  Town's
municipal supply wells,  which includes the majority of Chelmsford and portions  of the
Towns of Westford, Carlisle, and, Billerica.

     The records  search expanded upon  a list that had been  compiled  by the  DEP's
Northeast   Regional    Office    based   on   their   files   of   hazardous    waste
violations/complaints.   Wehran  identified and  located additional  potential   sites
through interviews  with Town  employees,  reviewing Federal,  State  and Town  files,
library searches,  and a  site reconnaissance survey.   The site reconnaissance consisted
of visual observations  made while driving along various  streets in the study  area.
It should be noted that  no attempt was made to gain access to any potential  sites that
were identified.

     A total  of 121  potential  contamination  sites  were identified and located.   The
majority of these  sites  fall into  several  broad  categories;    known  spill  sites,
facilities  with  past  hazardous waste   violations,   National   Pollution   Discharge
Elimination  System  (NPDES)  permit sites,  landfills,  industries  or businesses  that
typically use hazardous chemicals (i.e., dry cleaners), and gas  stations.

     A table with brief descriptions of each potential contamination site was compiled;
however, because the records search was  based on available information,  as  opposed to
site assessments,  many site descriptions are  incomplete.   In particular,  it often was
not possible to identify the type of operation, the  types  of chemicals that were used
and/or stored, or precisely when a facility was in operation.

     A total of 69 potential contamination sites could not be located.  The majority
of these sites have  gone out  of  business  and documentation regarding their location
was not readily available.   An attempt was made to locate the more recent sites during
the site reconnaissance survey.

     It should be  noted  that because the  organic compounds that have been detected in
the water  supply wells are chlorinated  solvents,  the  records  search placed  less
emphasis on types of operations that would utilize different types of chemicals.  In
particular,  it was not considered cost-effective to  attempt to  identify  the locations
of all underground petroleum storage tanks in the study area.


Prioritization of Potential Contamination Sites

Priority Ranking System

     The records search  identified and located a total  of 121 potential  contamination
sites which are distributed as follows;  no sites in Zone I, 81 sites in Zone II,  and
40 sites in  Zone III.  Because future site assessments may be conducted as a first step
in eliminating these potential sources of contamination, a system has been developed
to rank the  sites  in terms of their potential health impact on the Town's water supply
wells.  It should be noted that because chlorinated solvents are the types of compounds
that have been detected in  the water  supply  wells,  the ranking system places higher
                                        176

-------
priority on sites which may  have  potentially used chlorinated solvents.  The system
is designed  to divide the  sites  into groups,  with each group  assigned a relative
ranking, from  highest  (Group 1)  to  lowest priority (Group 17).   The 69 additional
potential contamination sites that were identified, but  which could not be located were
excluded from the priority ranking system.

     Figure 4 is a flow chart  which summarizes the ranking system.  The first criteria
used to rank the sites is  the determination of whether they are located in Zones I,
II, or  III.   Any site located  in Zone I is assigned  to  the  highest priority  group
(Group 1) because these sites are  located within 400 feet of a  well.   In general, Zone
II  sites have  the  next  highest  priority, because  they  lie  within the  zone  of
contribution and there is  a high  potential for  contaminants to flow  into wells.
However, as shown on Figure 4, several types of Zone II sites  are considered to have
lower priority than some Zone III  sites.   Such  Zone II  sites include  those which are;
1) located more  than  15,000  feet  from any  supply well  because of the potential for
substantial dilution and degradation of a contaminant release  (Group  16),  2) highly
unlikely to have used  chlorinated  solvents (Group 14),  and 3)  spill  sites where very
low volumes (less than 30 gallons) were released  (Group 14).

     The remaining Zone II  sites are divided into  Gr-oups 2 through 7.   These sites are
first subdivided according  to watershed, based on  the amount of contamination that has
been  detected  by laboratory analysis  in  water  supply  wells within  a particular
watershed.  Past and present  analytical data indicate that wells in the River Meadow
Brook watershed  have  been more affected by contamination  than wells  in  the   other
watersheds.  Several wells in  the Hales Brook and Stony Brook aquifers  have shown  minor
contamination,  therefore,  Zone II  sites in  these  watersheds have lower priority than
Zone II sites  in the River Meadow Brook  watershed.   Similarly, Zone  II sites in the
Black Brook watershed have lowest  priority,  because the one well in this watershed has
shown only trace levels of contamination.  Within each watershed,  sites that are known
to have used chlorinated solvents  are  assigned  a higher  priority  than  sites that have
only the potential to have used these compounds.  It should be noted  that because of
the limited nature of the data collected in the records search, for many sites  it is
not possible to rule out the  potential  for  use  of  chlorinated  solvents.  For example,
gas stations were included  in these high priority groups because of the potential that
chlorinated solvents were used in automotive repair work (degreasing, painting, etc.)
Similarly, industries  that  use chlorinated solvents  in  the  manufacture  of  certain
products were  included in high priority groups  even  though,  in some  cases,  it  is
unknown whether  the site was used for manufacturing, or  purely  retail purposes.   A
preliminary assessment that includes interviews with officials of various facilities
may indicate that chlorinated solvents were never used at many sites, in which case
those sites could be  reassigned to a lower priority group.

      Because of their location, some Zone  III sites were given higher priority than
the Zone II sites in Groups  14 and 16.  The criteria used to select these Zone III
sites was that they were located in close proximity to a Zone  II boundary (less than
1000 feet), and within 10,000 feet  of a water supply well.  Within this  category,  those
sites that were unlikely to have used chlorinated solvents, or which had spills of less
than 30 gallons,  were given a  low priority ranking (Group 15).   The  remaining Zone III
sites were then subdivided  into  Groups  8  through 13 using  the  same criteria that were
applied to the  Zone  II  sites.
                                     177

-------
                                  POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION SITES
                   ZONE I
                                  < 15.000'
                                 from well
                                                                ZONE III
> 15.000'
from well
                                May contain
                                 chlorinated
                                  solvents

                                 Yes  I  No
                       Spill > 30 gallons

                          Yes  I No
           RIVER MEADOW BROOK

              WATERSHED
                             Known
                             solvents
           HALES BROOK & STONY

            BROOK WATERSHEDS
              BLACK BROOK

               WATERSHED
                                           y
               Less than 1000' from
             Zone II Boundary and Less
                than 10,000 from
              Municipal Supply Well

                  Yes I  No
          May contain chlorinated solvents

               Yes  1 No
                                                     Spill > 30 gallons

                                                       Yes    No
                                                 RIVER MEADOW BROOK

                                                    WATERSHED
                      Known    —...
                      solvents   other
                                                 HALES BROOK & STONY

                                                  BROOK WATERSHEDS
        BLACK BROOK

        WATERSHED
                                                                                 y
Figure 4.   Flowchart  of priority ranking system of potential contamination  sites
  The  system ranks  respective  sites  from highest priority  (Group 1)  to  lowest
                                       priority (Group  17).
                                              178

-------
     Zone III sites located more  than 1,000 feet from a Zone II  boundary were assigned
to the lowest priority group (17) because of  their low potential  to  impact wells.   In
addition, Zone III sites located downgradient of lines of stagnation were assigned  to
the lowest priority group because groundwater in these areas will not flow toward the
wells.  These sites were included in the ranking, however, because they lie within the
watershed and could impact future supply wells.

Results of Prioritization

     The priority ranking of the  121 sites into the 17 groups was  based solely on data
obtained from  the records search.   Additional data  which is  subsequently obtained
regarding a particular  site may require an adjustment in the relative priority group
to which a site has been assigned.  Because of the limited nature of available data,
a  conservative  approach was utilized  in the  ranking of sites  so  that  in general,
additional information will likely shift  the priority  ranking of many sites to a lower
group.

     To simplify the presentation of results,  sites in the  17 priority ranking groups
have been assigned either a high, medium, or low priority as follows:  high priority
(groups 1  through 7),  medium  priority  (groups 8  through 13),  and  low  priority
(groups 14 though  17).  As  shown  on  Figure  3,  all high priority sites are located  in
Zone II areas, however,  some Zone II sites are ranked as low priority.  In general,
the majority of low priority sites are located in Zone III, or in a Zone II but many
miles upgradient of municipal supply wells.


Summary and Conclusions

     The objectives of this  investigation were to evaluate contamination that has been
detected in  the  Town  of Chelmsford's municipal water supply wells  by assessing the
current quality  of water in the wells, delineating  aquifer protection zones  around
these wells,  identifying potential past and present contamination sites in these areas,
and prioritizing these sites with respect to their potential to impact the Town's water
supply wells.

     Eighteen of the Town of Chelmsford's twenty-two water supply wells were sampled
and analyzed for volatile  organic  compounds.    Analytical results  showed  that  the
highest levels of contamination were 15  ppra  in one well, trace amounts of contamination
in  two  wells, and the remaining wells  contained  either non-detectable,  or  below
detection limit, levels of volatile organic contamination.

     Aquifer protection Zones I,  II,  and  III were delineated for  the municipal supply
wells (in conformance with Massachusetts Division  of Water Supply Guidelines)  using
existing hydrogeologic data.

     Well locations were field checked during  collection of groundwater  samples,   to
confirm the location of Zone I areas  (400 foot  radius  around each wellbore).  Zone  II
areas were delineated utilizing the  USGS three dimensional groundwater flow model  to
predict the zones of contribution  to the wells based on 180 days of continuous pumping
with no  recharge.   Zone  III  areas were  delineated  through  the  use  of  the  USGS
Hydrologic Investigations Atlas  of the area, USGS watershed boundary information, and
the results of the Zone II analysis.
                                       179

-------
     A records search was conducted to identify and locate potential past or present
sources of contamination  that  might impact Chelmsford's municipal  supply wells.  A
total of  121  potential  contamination sites were  identified and  located.   Of  these
sites, none were located  in Zone I, 81 were located in Zone II, and 40 in Zone III.
An additional 69 sites were identified,  but could not be located.

     A ranking system was developed to prioritize  sites in terms of their potential
to contaminate municipal supply wells.  The system is based on such factors as aquifer
protection zone designation, relative distance within  a zone from a well, the  types
of chemicals potentially  used, the  volume of spills,  and  the ranking of watersheds
according to the degree  of contamination  that has been  detected in wells.  The system
is designed  to divide potential sites  into 17 groups,  with  each  group  assigned a
priority ranking relative  to one another.  Using this system to rank  the 121 potential
contamination sites in Chelmsford indicated that some Zone II sites have lower priority
than some Zone III sites.
Recommendations

     Based on the results of this investigation, Wehran Engineering makes the following
recommendations for additional work in the evaluation of the contamination potential
of Chelmsford's municipal supply wells, and for the future protection of those wells
and their associated aquifers.

     1.   To  identify  sources  of   contamination  that  are  currently  impacting
          Chelmsford's municipal water supply  wells,  preliminary assessments should
          be completed for all high priority sites.  These assessments would consist
          of a records search,  site visit, and  possibly,  interviews with officials of
          the facility.  Because the  ranking of  sites was made conservatively using
          limited available data,  it is anticipated that many of these high priority
          sites will be reassigned to  lower priority  groups  based on the results of
          the preliminary assessments.

     2.   After conducting preliminary assessments, it is recommended that those sites
          that  remain  in high  priority  groups  be  further  evaluated  with  site
          investigations.    These  investigations will  include the compilation  of a
          detailed site history with  some  sampling  and analysis.  The results of such
          an investigation will provide the data necessary to  further evaluate whether
          a particular site is potentially impacting any of the Town's municipal supply
          wells and whether there will be  a need for either monitoring or some form
          of remediation.

     3.   The Town of  Chelmsford should utilize the aquifer protection zones that have
          been delineated in this study for future  land use planning and water supply
          siting.

     4.   With  regard  to aquifer/wellhead  protection,  this  pilot study  should be
          expanded to include the following.   First,  there should be an educational
          program at  the  local level  to explain  the need  for  aquifer protection.
          Second,  there should be coordination between various groups such as planners,
          lawyers, public  health officials  and water  resource specialists  in the
          development of groundwater  protection  strategies.   These strategies would
                                        180

-------
          typically involve modifying existing towns by-  laws or creating new aquifer
          protection overlay  districts.    The intent of  these  by-laws would  be to
          prohibit certain types of  development  or  activities  in the more sensitive
          groundwater recharge areas, or  to  place  specific performance standards on
          those developments.   Finally, this pilot program should be  expanded to other
          industrial towns that are  dependent upon  groundwater  resources.   The same
          general approach used in  this  pilot study can  be applied to other States
          that  have  different aquifer  protection  zoning systems,   providing  those
          systems are based on hydrologic principals.


References

Baker,  J.A.,  1964, Groundwater resources of the Lowell area, Massachusetts:
     U.S.  Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1669-Y, 37 pp.
Brackley,  R.A.,  and Hansen,  B.P., 1985, Hydrogeology and water resources of tributary
     basins  to  the Merrimack River from   Salmon Brook to  the  Concord  River,
     Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-662, 3
     pi.,  1:48,000.
Feldman,  L.,  1978, Groundwater resources of Chelmsford,  Massachusetts:  Boston
     University, unpublished PhD dissertation, 242 pp.
McDonald,   M. G., and Harbaugh, A.  W., 1984,  A  modular  three-dimensional
     finite-difference   groundwater  flow  model: U.S.  Geological  Survey Open    File
     Report 83-875, 551 pp.
Massachusetts Division of Water Supply,  1986, Hydrogeologic study requirements for
     delineation of Zone II and Zone III for new source approvals, 10 pp.


Biographical  Sketches

Donald W.  Podsen
Wehran Engineering Corporation
100 Milk Street
Methuen,  Massachusetts   01844

     Donald W.  Podsen  is  a  senior  geologist  with Wehran  Engineering Corporation in
Methuen,  Massachusetts, where  he has been employed for four years.   Before  joining
Wehran,  Mr. Podsen worked in petroleum exploration with ARCO Alaska, for five years.
He has  a  B.A.  in geology (1977) from  the University  of Vermont and an M.S.  in geology
(1981)  from the  University of  Colorado.  Since working at Wehran, Mr. Podsen has been
the project manager of  numerous hydrogeological  investigations  of hazardous  wastes.
He is a Certified Professional Geologist with the American Institute of Professional
Geologists.
                                          181

-------
Charles F. Myette
Wehran Engineering Corporation
100 Milk Street
Methuen, Massachusetts  01844

     Charles  F.  Myette  is  the Manager  of  Hydrogeological  Services  with Wehran
Engineering Corporation in Methuen, Massachusetts where he has been employed for the
past three years.   Prior  to joining Wehran, Mr. Myette worked 10 years with the Water
Resources Division of  the  U.S.  Geological Survey in Minnesota and Massachusetts as
project manager of numerous hydrogeologic investigations specializing in water resource
management and groundwater flow  modeling.  He has a M.A. in Hydrology (1977) from the
University of  New  Hampshire.   Since joining Wehran,  Mr.  Myette has  been an expert
witness and project manager of numerous hazardous waste investigations.
                                      182

-------
   DETERMINING  THE  DEVELOPMENT  POTENTIAL  WITHIN  WELLHEAD
         PROTECTION AREAS  AND  RESULTING  IMPACTS FROM
                        NITROGEN  LOADING
                        Scott  W.  Horsley
                    Christine  A.   Coughanowr
                           Mark  Nelson
                       Jon D.  Wit ten,  AICP

                 Horsley  Witten  Hegemann,   Inc.
                  Water  Resources  Consultants
                       Cambridge,   MA  02139
INTRODUCTION

Considerable progress has been made over the past decade
concerning the delineation of wellhead protection areas  (WHPA's).
Protection zones based upon fixed radii have evolved into more
accurate approximations of zones of contribution to pumping
wellfields based upon sophisticated modelling approaches.

Protection strategies for WHPA's have included the development  of
overlay zoning districts within which specific potentially
hazardous land uses are prohibited.  Such uses may include
landfills, industries or businesses using or producing hazardous
materials, underground fuel storage tanks,  sewage treatment
plants, salt storage areas and so forth.  Another common approach
in protecting wellhead protection areas has been to require
Environmental Impact Reports for large proposed development
projects which exceed specific thresholds.   Project proponents  are
usually required to evaluate potential impacts of such large-scale
projects in excruciating detail.

Although these protection strategies are important, they do not
address cumulative impacts of land development within wellhead
protection areas over time.  Ground water contamination  from
dispersed, non-point residential and agricultural uses can
contaminate public water supplies as effectively as a poorly-sited
landfill.  A recent case study on Cape Cod, Massachusetts has
documented a clear correlation between housing densities and
nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in ground water (Nelson  et al,
1988).   See Figure 1.
                               183

-------
     HOUSING UNITS TO OBSERVED NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS
        1960
   1965       1970

if HOUSING UNFTS/TIMESTEP
1975
  1980       1985

TOTAL INORGANIC N
Figure  1
The approach which is outlined in this paper is a methodology for
examining the cumulative effects of land development within WHPA's
and is comprised of two principal steps:  1) determination of the
development potential; and 2) prediction of the resulting nitrate-
nitrogen concentrations.


DETERMINING  THE  DEVELOPMENT  POTENTIAL

Clearly the first consideration in impact assessment within
wellhead protection areas is the delineation of accurate wellhead
protection area boundaries within which the analysis will be
conducted.  A variety of methods have been developed to accomplish
this, ranging from drawing fixed radii around a wellfield, to
mapping based on detailed hydrogeologic field investigations and
modelling.  An in depth discussion of appropriate delineation
techniques is beyond the scope of this paper, however, the
importance of an accurate delineation cannot be overemphasized.
Delineation of wellhead protection areas based on fixed radii are
not appropriate for assessing cumulative impacts; some site-
specific hydrogeologic data are required for a meaningful
analysis.  In addition to existing public wellfields, potential
water supplies and areas used extensively for private water
supplies should also be considered in a comprehensive aquifer
protection strategy.

Once an accurate understanding of the ground-water flow dynamics
and the WHPA is developed an land use analysis must be undertaken.
The land use analysis should first determine the type, intensity
                                184

-------
and distribution of existing land uses.  This can best be
accomplished utilizing assessors' tax maps, aerial photographs and
field checking.  This analysis is then supplemented by determining
the development potential of all vacent parcels within the WHPA.
This is done by evaluating the highest development potential of
each parcel according to existing zoning, subdivision and other
land use codes.  Wetlands and soil limitations should be
considered during this analysis.  Certain parcels may have
permanent conservation restrictions or easements as restricted
open space and therefore should be considered undevelopable.

State land use enabling legislation throughout the country
dictates that once a community programs itself through zoning and
subdivision control, it is tied into a development "blueprint"
which is difficult to alter.  Unfortunately, this blueprint often
allows for land development that exceeds the assimilative capacity
of drinking water supplies with respect to a variety of
contaminants, particularly nitrate-nitrogen.

A particularly difficult issue to resolve, in controlling land use
within WHPAs is that of "grandfathered" lots.  Most zoning bylaws
and ordinances allow for significant protection of subdivided but
still vacant land from proposed zoning changes.  In Massachusetts,
for example, once a preliminary subdivision plan has been filed
with the local planning board, the property owner is protected
from any new zoning changes for a period of 7 years.  If during
that time, individual lots are sold to different property owners,
the right to build upon these lots may be protected indefinitely.
Consequently, WHPAs may contain a significant number of small,
vacant lots, which, if developed, could result in significant
contamination of the water supply.

The total development potential of the WHPA is determined by
summing existing development and future potential development.
This calculation will result in a quanitification of the
"saturation" development or "build-out" population.  An
illustration of this analysis is provided in Figure 2.

CALCULATING  THE  NITROGEN  LOADING

Once the developable lot analysis has been completed all potential
sources of nitrogen are assessed and tabulated.  These sources
typically include wastewater, residential and agricultural
fertilizers, road run-off and precipitation.  Several analytical
models have recently been developed to predict nitrate-nitrogen
concentrations in ground water using a mass balance approach
(Nelson et al 1988; Frimpter et al, 1988) .  These models predict
nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in ground water by dividing the
annual nitrogen loading from the various sources by the annual
dilution due to natural and artificial ground-water recharge.  The
primary source of error in these analytical methods has been in
the assumed nitrogen loading and dilution values used in the
model.  To test and verify the conventional nitrogen loading
                                185

-------
LEGEND
   DEVELOPED LAND
   SUBDIYTOABLE/DEVELOPABLE LAND
   RESTRICTED OPEN SPACE
CATEGORY
Developed land
Subdividable/Developable Land
Restricted Open Space
Total
ACRES
31
337
243
611
UNITS
95
219
-
314
   2. Developable Lot Analysis of a Wellhead Protection Area
                         186

-------
variables typically used, the authors recently developed an
analytical model which was calibrated using actual water quality
data collected on Cape Cod, Massachusetts over a 25-year period
(Nelson et al.,  1988) .  This model was presented at the NWWA FOCUS
Conference in 1988.  The results of this nitrogen loading
analysis, when applied to the WHPA depicted in Figure 2, are
presented in Table 1.  This analysis shows that under saturation
development conditions a nitrate-nitrogen concentration is
predicted.

The results of the nitrogen loading assessment are then compared
to acceptable nitrate-nitrogen concentrations within ground water.
The US EPA has established standard of 10 mg/L for nitrate-
nitrogen concen-trations in drinking water; concentrations above
this limit may cause health problems in infants.  Using this
standard as a planning guideline is not recommended however.  A
statistical analysis of drinking water samples collected on Long
Island revealed that median nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of
less than 5.4 mg/L are required to meet the 10 mg/L federal
drinking water standard 90% of the time  (Porter, 1978).   Many
communities in Massachusetts have therefore adopted a 5 mg/L
nitrate-nitrogen standard as a conservative planning guideline.

TOOLS  FOR  CONTROLLING  NITROGEN  LOADING  WITHIN  WHPA'S

If the "programmed" development  (existing development plus
potential growth) within a WHPA exceeds the assimilative capacity
of the water supply, a variety techniques can be used to mitigate
for existing development and control future growth to achieve
acceptable nitrate-nitrogen concentrations.  These techniques can
be grouped into three categories: regulatory, non-regulatory and
legislative approaches  (Coughanowr et al, 1989).

Regulatory techniques include zoning, subdivision control and
sewage disposal regulations and are generally implemented at the
local governemntal level.  Examples  include raising the minimum
lots size or limiting the amount of sewage per lot area.  These
techniques are often highly effective in that they can be tailored
to meet*'the physical and political needs of specific communities.
However, grandfathering provisions within zoning codes limit their
effectiveness as noted earlier in this paper.

Non-regulatory techniques include the aquisition of open space and
and structural solutions such as sewering or construction of
private sewage treatment plants.  These approaches are often
costly and may be more appropriately used where regulatory
techniques are not sufficient to control growth or where existing
development already exceeds the carrying capacity of the aquifer.

Legislative techniques refer to the establishment of  special
legislation where existing legal authority is inadequate.
Examples include cases where wellhead protection areas or aquifer
recharge zones cross jurisdictional boundaries.  Special
legislation may be required based upon a "hydroregional" approach
                               187

-------
TABLE 1
NITROGEN LOADING CALCULATIONS UNDER SATURATION BUILD OUT CONDITIONS
Project: Sample Wellhead Protection Area
Date: 21 July, 1989

INPUT FACTORS

Sewage flow  (gal/day)

N-conc. in effluent (mg/1)

Lawn area (square feet)

Pavement (square feet)

Roof area (square feet)

Natural area (square feet)

Recharge rate for pervious
area (in/yr)

Recharge rate for impervious
area (in/yr) *
1

103620 I

I 33.9 |

1

1

1

1

1

1 '
3140000 |

1269629 I

628000 |

23147531 |

18 I

40 I
           INPUT
                                             CALCULATIONS
RESULTS
Sewage (gal/day)
103,620

Lawn area (sq ft)
3,140,000

Pavement area (sq ft)
1,269,629

Roof area (sq ft)
628,000

Natural area (sq ft)
23,147,531



Recharge from sewage (eal/day)
103,620

Total pervious area (sq ft)
26,287,531

Total impervious area (sq ft)
1,897,629

x N-conc (mg/1) x 3.785 1/gal x 365 days/yr : 454000 mg/lb


x 0.0017 IbN/sq ft


x 0.00031 IbN/sq ft


x 0.00015 IbN/sq ft


x 0.000005 IbN/sq ft

TOTAL NITROGEN LOADING (LBS/YR)


x 365 days/yr : 1,000,000 gal/million gal


x 18 in/yr /12 in/ft x 7.48 gal/cu ft : 1,000,000 gal/million gal


x 40 in/yr /12 in/ft x 7.48 gal/cu ft : 1,000,000 gal/million gal

TOTAL RECHARGE (MGAL/YR)
TOTAL NITROGEN LOAD/TOTAL RECHARGE X 454,000 MG/LB : 3.785.000 L/MGAL
•RECHARGE NITROGEN CONCENTRATION (mg/1 or ppm
CALCULATED LOADING (LBS/YR)
10689


5338


394


94


116

16631
TOTAL RECHARGE (MG/YR)

37.82


294.95


47.31

380.08

5.25
 PREPARED BY HORSLEY WITTEN HEGEMANN, INC.
                                                      188

-------
where a new management commission may be created to regulate land
uses within the newly delineated area.


REFERENCES

Coughanowr, Christine A., Witten, Jon D., and Horsley, Scott W.,
    "Cumulative Impacts of Land Development Within Wellhead
    Protection Areas:  Assessment and Control",  National Water Well
    Association Proceedings Focus on Eastern Regional Ground Water
    Issues, 19 October 1989.
Frimpter, Michael H., Douglas, S.J., and Rapacz, M.V., "A Mass-
    Balance Nitrate Model for Predicting the Effects of Land Use  on
    Groundwater Quality in Municipal Wellhead Protection Areas",
    Commonwealth of Massachusetts,  July 1988.
Nelson, Horsley, Cambareri, Giggey and Pinette.   "Predicting
    Nitrogen Concentrations in Ground Water - An Analytical Model,"
    National Water Well Association Proceedings  Focus on Eastern
    Ground Water Issues,  27-29 September 1988.
Porter, K.S., "Nitrates" in The Long Island Comprehensive Waste
    Treatment Management Plan:  VII Summary Documentation,  Long
    Island Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge, New York (1978) .


BIOGRAPHICAL   SKETCHES

Scott  W.  Horsley,  Horsley  Witten  Hegemann,  Inc.,  P.O.  Box
7,  3179  Main  Street,  Barnstable,  MA  02630

Scott Horsley is Vice President of Horsley Witten Hegemann, Inc.
where he provides expert consultation in water quality science and
planning.  He has prepared aquifer protection mapping and plans
for over three dozen local governments, has assisted in the
development of four sole source aquifer petitions and has served
as an expert witness in several court cases involving critical
water issues.  He serves on National Water Well Association's
Aquifer Protection Committee and was a former member of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Ground-Water Steering Committee.
Scott has authored numerous publications on ground-water resource
delineation and protection.  Scott was employed under EPA-funding
with the Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission
where he developed an analytical model and mapped critical zones
of contribution to 130 public supply wells throughout Barnstable
County, Cape Cod, Massachusetts.  He holds a Master's degree from
the University of Rhode Island and a Bachelor of Science degree
from Southeastern Massachusetts University with academic training
in geology, biology,  planning and environmental law.  Scott is an
Adjunct Professor at Tufts University in Massachusetts.

Christine A.  Coughanowr,  Horsley  Witten  Hegemann,   Inc.,
P.O.  Box  7,  3179  Main  Street,  Barnstable,  MA  02630

Christine A. Coughanowr is a hydrogeologist and partner with
Horsley Witten Hegemann,  Inc. where she provides consultation in
                             189

-------
ground water, wetlands, and coastal processes.   She has recently
developed a spread-sheet based methodology for assessing
cumulative impacts of nitrogen loading to ground and surface water
resources.  Christine has a Bachelor of Science degree in geology
from Duke University and a Master of Science degree in geology
from the University of Delaware.

Mark  Nelson,  Horsley  Witten  Hegemann,  Inc.,  P.O.  Box  7,
3179  Main  Street,  Barns table,  MA  02630

Mark Nelson is a hydrogeologist with Horsley Witten Hegemann,
Inc..  He has directed numerous projects delineating wellhead
protection areas, as well as critical ground water resource areas
surrounding lakes, coastal ponds, and estuaries.  Together with
Scott Horsley, Mark has recently developed an analytical nitrogen
loading model used to determine land use impacts on ground water
quality.  Mark has a Bachelors degree in geology from Brown
University and will receive a Masters degree in environmental
science and engineering from the Oregon Graduate Center in the
spring of 1990.

Jon  D. Witten,   Horsley Witten Hegemann,  Inc.,  P.O.  Box  7,
3179  Main  Street,  Barnstable,  MA  02630

Jon Witten is President of Horsley Witten Hegemann,  Inc. where he
directs the firm's land use planning program, and provides public
and private sector consultation in land use planning strategies.
he is currently assisting EPA's Office of Ground Water Protection
to develop training programs for state and local officials.   Jon
has successfully authored several hundred local ordinances
designed to protect ground-water resources and developed a unique
regulatory approach for assessing the cumulative water quality
impacts of land development in sensitive water resource protection
areas utilizing a nutrient loading method.  He has lectured
nationally on appropriate strategies to mitigate the impact of
land development on natural resources.  Jon was the Planner and
Administrative Director for the Town of Falmouth,  Massachusetts
for three years and has taught training courses on land planning
and development in Boston for the past four years. He has a
Master's degree in Regional Planning from Cornell University and
is certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners.  Jon
is an adjunct assistant professor at Tufts University in
Massachusetts.
                                  1.90

-------
    EVALUATION OF LOCAL REGULATORY EFFORTS IN IDENTIFYING AND

    CONTROLLING THE THREAT OF UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS


             Charlotte Stiefel and George Heufelder

       Barnstable County Health & Environmental Department
                       Superior Courthouse
                 Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630


Abstract

    For  the   past  two  years,   the  Barnstable  County  Health  and
Environmental Department, a  regional  advisory agency,  has coordinated
a  county-wide  effort  to  assist towns  in  formulating  an  overall
underground  storage  tank   (UST)  management  plan  for  groundwater
protection.   Certain key  elements for  initiating a  residential UST
program have  been identified and include passage  of  a comprehensive
regulation, support of regional and local  agencies and public education
initiatives. The  level  of  regulation  determines the overall reduction
of threat to the groundwater, as evidenced by number of tank removals.
When only registration of residential UST was required,  up to  10% of the
residential UST are  removed  annually-   Passage  of a comprehensive UST
regulation which also includes testing and removal requirements resulted
in up to 18% tank removal.  Reduction  in the number of residential UST
can be greatly enhanced if the local municipality takes initiatives to
reduce the removal  costs,   such  as  allowing disposal  at  the  local
landfill. Administration of  an effective  UST control program requires
a  significant  time  commitment;   in  Barnstable County  this has  been
supplied at  a regional  level,  with help from  local fire  and health
departments.

    Regarding  commercial UST, despite comprehensive state regulations,
over 20% of  the tanks in the study  area were not  in  compliance with
testing  requirements.    Local initiatives  in  the form  of a single
notification letter  resulted  in an almost-immediate reduction of this
figure to 11%.


Introduction

     Leaking underground storage  tanks (UST)  constitute  one of  the most
significant threats  to  groundwater quality in the  United States. The
increased awareness  of  this problem is demonstrated by the number of
                                  191

-------
state and federal UST regulations which  have been adopted in the last
few years.  A comprehensive wellhead protection program, however, should
also include local efforts at UST control.

     In Barnstable  County,  Massachusetts (which  includes the fifteen
towns comprising Cape Cod) the need for such  regulation was underscored
by the  1977  contamination of Provincetown's  public  water supply from
leaking underground tank. Shaken by  this catastrophe,  many Cape towns
adopted local  health regulations on UST in the early  1980's.  These
regulations, like  the present  state/federal regulations,  focused on
"commercial" tanks  leaving many tanks exempt from strict controls. In
1986, the Barnstable County Health and Environmental Department  (BCHED),
under funding from the US EPA Office of Underground Storage tanks, began
to assist towns  in  developing a comprehensive  UST  management program
which addresses not  only  the commercial installations but  the remaining
threat of on-site (mostly residential) heating oil tanks.

     The role of the Barnstable County Health & Environmental Department
is  strictly  advisory;   we  do not   have the  authority to  mandate
residential  UST  regulation.   Therefore, our  approach   has  been  to
encourage  towns  to  adopt   regulations and  then  assist  them  in
implementing  a comprehensive  UST management program.    As might  be
expected,  our  recommendations are  followed  to varying  degrees among
different towns. This paper  evaluates which  aspects of  a UST program
are the most effective and those  factors to consider when instituting
various components.  Also included is an analysis of the efficacy of
local efforts  in the enforcement of the state/federal  regulation of
commercial tanks.


Residential UST Program

     The BCHED program includes the  development and presentation of a
model Board of Health regulation,  tank testing by soil-vapor analysis,
public education, data management and enforcement assistance.

     The model  regulation,  which  is included  in Appendix  A,  covers
mandatory tank registration and tagging along with  various  installation,
maintenance, testing,  spill/leak  reporting  and removal   requirements.
Briefly, all heating oil UST  are  registered  with the  local health
department and given a numbered tag  to  attach to the  fill  pipe.  Oil
distributors  are  then required  to report  unregistered  tanks  to  the
health department.  New installations  are required to be  double-walled
with interstitial space monitoring. Existing tanks must be tested at age
15 and annually after age 19  and removed  at age  30. At this time, 11 of
the  15  Cape  towns  have revised their   original  UST regulations  in
response to  our  recent  efforts.  As  mentioned  above, many  towns have
revised or adopted  only parts of the model regulation.

     Under the EPA grant,  BCHED developed  a UST testing program involving
the  use of  soil-gas  analysis as  an easy  and inexpensive  method of
testing heating oil tanks. The method and materials used are explained,
in detail,  in  REGULATION AND TESTING OF RESIDENTIAL UNDERGROUND FUEL
STORAGE  TANKS  (Stiefel   &  Heufelder,   1988).  Using  this   method,  a
                                 192

-------
residential tank  can be  tested  at a  first  year cost  of under $200;
testing in subsequent years would cost under  $50.  The existence of this
testing program  was a  very important  factor  in the acceptance  of a
testing requirement on residential UST. Most Boards of Health would have
been reticent to impose expensive restrictions on "innocent" homeowners.
The inclusion of a testing requirement in a town's regulatory effort is
an important factor in the overall success of the program.

     The public education efforts of BCHED are another important, though
unquantifiable,  factor in  the  overall  success  of UST  regulation in
Barnstable  County.  Efforts  to  speak  to  appropriate  groups  and,
especially, to members of the media are  critical to the success of any
effort. Foremost, personnel in the fire  and health departments must be
made  aware of  the  threat,  and,  more  importantly,  be  compelled to
alleviate the threat. This is often a problem; Boards of  Health and fire
officials  have  so  many  responsibilities  that they  are  sometimes
unwilling,  or  actually  unable,  to  take  on  another  project.    In
Barnstable  County,  this  problem  was  partially  addressed  by  the
assistance that  BCHED could supply  under the auspices of  the grant.
Regardless of  the time spent,  the philosophy  of these  departments is
very important. Statements made by local officials as to the importance
of tank testing and removal go a  long way toward making it a reality.

     Education of  the  general  public  is also essential.  The average
tankowner must be convinced that the  costs involved with testing and/or
removal of UST are outweighed  by the protection these measures afford
to the  groundwater.   This education process must also  extend to  oil
dealers.  Their  first  reaction,  fear  of losing  customers,  must be
alleviated by  convincing them that  cooperation with these regulatory
efforts is in  the best interest of their customers.  Since oil dealers
have the most  complete information on the locations of UST, obtaining
their cooperation is essential.  Many Cape oil  dealers  have agreed to
send form letters to their customers notifying them of the regulations
- this has proven to be the best  way of  getting the word  out.

     An additional  BCHED  activity  offered  to  local   UST  management
programs is data management. Computer programs have been  written which
allow rapid  inquiry,  sorting and listing of UST records, facilitating
the issuance of testing and removal  notifications in an  efficient and
economical  manner.  These programs  were  written  in a  commonly-used
database system and operated from a Personal Computer.

Results and Discussion

     To determine which of the towns' programs were the most effective
at reducing the overall risk to groundwater and which components of the
program lead most to its success, we partitioned the towns' actions  into
four  "levels":  registration,  tagging  and testing;  registration and
tagging only;  registration only (no oil-dealer  participation  in the
notification  process);  and those taking no  action.   The  evaluation
criteria used is the number of tanks taken out of service and is based
on the  assumption that  a tank  removed from service translates  to a
reduction in the overall threat  to groundwater.
                                  193

-------
     Figure  1 indicates the number of tanks taken out of service in each
of five  of  the  nine towns which  have accepted  the full  regulation.
These five  towns were selected  for analysis based  on the ability  to
obtain reliable  tank-removal  information  for  both pre-regulation  and
regulation periods.  The regulations in each of these towns were passed
during 1987 and  became  effective  in  the  latter part  of that  year.
Therefore, 1988 is considered  the first regulatory year in these towns.
These data  are compared  with  that  of five towns  (Figure  2) which have
promulgated regulations  requiring  only registration of tanks  (Dennis,
Harwich and Sandwich) or towns having no regulation at all (Eastham and
Yarmouth).  These  data show that there  were greater increases  in tank
removal activity  in towns having a  complete regulation  compared with
towns which do not.   Towns with a comprehensive regulation generally had
a  4-60 fold increase in tank  removals  across pre-post regulatory years
(Figure  1)  and greater  than  5%  of the  UST population  taken out  of
service each year (Table 1) .  This compares with towns which do not have
a  comprehensive  regulation and  generally exhibit  less  than a  5-fold
increase  in activity across years 1986-1989  (Figure 2)  and have less
than  5 % of the UST population removed each year (Table  1).
                    ORLEANS
                                                  BREWSTB*
                                IVsl 138"
                                         UTTX 19B9
   Figure 1 Numbers  of  residential UST  taken  out  of service  in
   selected towns having  comprehensive UST  regulations.  Barnstable
   County,  Massachusetts 1987-1989.
                                  194

-------
1DO
ISO -
140 -
130 -
8 120-
> 110 -
B 100 -
80 -
BO -
70 -
60 -
30 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -















27
iSH il --= i:>ia
DB*JIS H«iRWICH SANDWICH EASTHAM YARMOUTH
\7~7\ 1880 INNl 1987 V777X 19B8 [?^3 1989

















  Figure 2  Numbers  of residential  UST  taken out  of  service  in
  selected towns  without  comprehensive UST regulations. Barnstable
  County, Massachusetts 1986-1989. ND= no data.
Table 1:  Percentage of total  residential  underground  tanks removed in
the years  1986-1989.  Numbers  in  parentheses represent  the estimated
number of USTs present in 1987.
1987
1988
1989
             Towns with comprehensive UST regulations
Orleans
 (440)
  .2%
 14%
 18%
Chatham
 (380)
  3%
 13%
  7%
Barnstable
  (900)
    2%
   13%
   16%
Falmouth
  (650)
   .6%
  3%
  5%
Brewster
 (300)
  2%
  9%
  6%
            Towns without comprehensive UST regulations


1986
1987
1988
1989
Dennis
(305)
1%
2%
6%
10%
Harwich
(226)
ND
ND
2%
10%
Sandwich
(350)
ND
ND
1%
2%
Eastham
(325)
.6%
3%
4%
.7%
Yarmouth
(600)
.5%
1%
2%
3%
Total number  of tanks  is estimated,  numbers  removed  are  from fire
department records.  ND= No data.


    Among towns having a comprehensive regulation, there are differences
in the success of the  program  as evidenced by the number of tanks taken
                                  195

-------
out of  service. Although  it  is  difficult  to totally  isolate those
factors which account for the success of residential UST programs, our
experience in nine towns allows us to draw some conclusions.

    The  most successful programs exist in  the towns  of  Orleans and
Barnstable.  Several factors  contribute to  the  success  in Orleans.
Foremost, since they were the first town to adopt the regulation, they
received maximum input  from our department.  Also,  both the health and
fire departments made strong commitments toward addressing the economic
and regulatory  issues  associated with tank  removal.   In  early 1987,
while the costs of removing tanks were high due to the absence of Cape
companies  in this   industry,   officials  in Orleans,  following careful
research  of  the   regulations   involved,   established  policies  and
procedures which minimized the  costs to the  average tankowner.   In
short, Orleans  encouraged  individuals to take  advantage of a two-year
abandonment period  (following removal of product from the tank), which
spreads the costs of tank removal and replacement over a broader period.
In  addition,  this  town allows  the  disposal  of tanks  at  the local
landfill  (a practice  not allowed  in some  other  Cape towns),  thus
reducing the overall costs of removal.

    The  success of  the  program in Barnstable can largely be attributed
to the commitment of the town in  terms of personnel and effort.  This
town's hazardous waste specialist was designated the  responsibility for
overseeing the  UST  program and some of the  five town fire departments
are quite committed  to the program. In addition, the health department
aggressively  solicited  the participation  of  the  oil dealers  in the
notification  process.  In  the Town of  Chatham,   where there  was  an
intermediate  level   of  success between  Orleans  and Barnstable,  the
alternate was true.   In this town, the fire department took the more
aggressive role in the enforcement of the UST regulation.  In addition
to the supportive agencies  in each of these three most-successful towns,
another factor, that of the economic  level  of  the community, may come
into play  in determining the overall number of UST  removals.   It is
interesting to note  that the Cape towns exhibiting the highest estimated
per capita income levels are  Orleans  and Chatham (U. S. Bureau of the
Census, 1985) .

    Among  the  Cape  towns  which  opted to adopt only the registration
requirement of the UST regulation or which opted not to update their UST
regulation, there was,  again, varying degrees  of success in eliciting
removals.  In the towns of Dennis and Harwich which have mandatory UST
registration   (Dennis   requiring  oil-dealer   participation   in  the
notification process),  it  is projected that nearly 10% of the UST will
be removed from service during 1989. When the Town of Harwich recently
adopted  a  comprehensive regulation,  the fire  department  immediately
received numerous inquiries regarding tank  removal. The experience in
Dennis and Harwich contrasts with that of Sandwich,  Eastham and Yarmouth
which generally remove less than 5% of their tanks/year.

    In summary, our experience indicates that a reduction in the threat
to groundwater is related to the level of  regulation adopted. When there
was no  residential  UST regulation  or  public education  program,  we
                                  196

-------
observed   annual  removal rates  of  1%  or  less.  The  general public
education which  occurs when  there  is an  aggressive  regional program
seemed to also benefit  towns  which  did not adopt any regulation  (1-4%
annual removal).  Towns actively registering tanks, but having no further
regulation,  had up to 10% of  their  UST removed annually.  Adoption of
a comprehensive  UST  regulation  resulted in  an  annual removal rate as
high as 18%.  The most  important factors in determining the  success of
the UST  program  in Barnstable County were the  support  of a  regional
agency, commitment of fire and health department personnel  at the  local
level  and  a  public   education  effort.     The  acceptance  of  the
comprehensive regulation  was  significantly fostered by the development
and use of inexpensive  testing and removal methods.


Commercial UST Program

     Existing  Massachusetts  regulations  (527  CMR  9.00   Tanks  and
Containers)   impose various restrictions  on motor  fuel UST.  Part of
BCHED's  program   is  to  assist  the  local fire departments  with the
enforcement of the sections which require these  tanks to be  registered
and to be tested at certain ages. Our experience in the last two years
has indicated that although compliance with the registration requirement
is quite good (99.5%),  many tanks are not being  tested as they should.

     In the summer of 1989, visits were made to  15 of the  19  Cape  fire
departments  (at  present,  visits  to  remaining   departments  are  being
arranged). Records on  approximately 770  tanks  were reviewed, updated,
and records of previous tightness  tests were  checked.  Letters were  then
sent to  tank  owner/operators  whose  fire  department files did not  show
appropriate tests. Of the 194 (25%)  tanks in  this  category, 31  (16%)
responded with records showing either that the tanks had previously been
removed  or  that  the  required testing had been done. The reason for
inaccurate fire  department records  in these  31  cases could  be because
the tank owner/operators  were negligent  in sending the information to
the fire departments,  or because the fire departments lost/misplaced the
information. Of the remaining 163  tanks which still  appear  to have  been
out of compliance at the beginning of the  summer, owner/operators  of 76
(47%)  have  responded  to  our  letter with  schedules  for testing and/or
removal of the tanks. At  the  time of this writing,  owner/operators of
87  tanks  (53%)  have   yet  to respond to  our  letter,  however   some
notifications have only recently been issued.

     In summary,   the  passage  of   comprehensive state  commercial UST
regulations does  not mean, of  itself, that the threat to groundwater has
been alleviated.  Indeed,  over 20% of the active commercial UST in our
area were out of  compliance with state testing regulations  prior to our
efforts.   However, with  a fairly-minimal effort  such as  sending a
reminder letter,  a significant increase in compliance can  be obtained.

References

Stiefel, C.L. and  G.R.  Heufelder. 1988. Journal of New England  Water
Works Association, Volume 102(4): 254-266.
                                  197

-------
Appendix

                   FUEL STORAGE SYSTEM REGULATIONS

Whereas,  leaking  fuel storage  systems  pose an  immediate and  serious
threat to Cape Cod's sole source aquifer, and,

Whereas, the Town of  (      )  does not have records to locate all  such
systems installed within the Town,

Therefore, under Chapter 111, Section 31, of the Massachusetts  General
Laws, the(     ) Board of Health hereby adopts  the following regulation
to protect the ground and surface waters from contamination with liquid
toxic or hazardous materials.

     DEFINITIONS:  "Toxic or  hazardous  materials"  shall be defined as
all liquid hydrocarbon products  including, but not limited to, gasoline,
fuel  and diesel  oil,  and  any  other  toxic  or corrosive chemicals,
radioactive materials or  other  substance controlled as being toxic or
hazardous by  the Division of Hazardous Waste of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts,  under the  provisions of Massachusetts  General Laws,
Chapter 21C, Section 1, et. seq.

     The following regulations apply to all toxic or hazardous material
storage systems:

Section 1.  Installation of Fuel Storage Tanks

1-1.  Following the effective date of this  regulation, the installation
of all underground fuel, gasoline or other  chemical  storage tanks shall
conform  with  the  following  criteria:  In that   the   United   States
Environmental  Protection Agency  designated the Town  of  (       ) as
overlying  a sole  source aquifer,  secondary  containment  of  tank and
piping and an approved  in-tank  or  interstitial space monitoring system
shall be required for new or replacement tanks.
1-2.  Following the  effective date  of  this regulation,  all    tanks
installed  aboveground outside  shall be  of material  approved    for
outside use.

Section 2.  Tank Registration

     The  following regulations  shall  apply  to A) all underground tanks
containing toxic or hazardous materials  as  defined  above which  are not
currently regulated under 527 CMR 9.26 - Tanks and Containers,  to B) all
tanks  containing fuel  oil,  whose  contents are used  exclusively for
consumption on  the premises,  and  to  C)  farm  and residential tanks of
1,100  gallon  capacity,   or  less,  used for  storing  motor  fuel  for
non-commercial purposes.
2-1.  Owners shall  file with the Board of Health,  on or before  (
      ) the size, type, age and location of each tank, and the  type of
fuel  or chemical stored  in  them.   Evidence  of date  of purchase and
installation,  including  fire  department   permit,  if  any,   shall be
included along with a sketch map  showing the location of such tanks on
                                 198

-------
the property.  Upon registering the tank with the Board of Health, the
tank owner will receive a permanent metal  or plastic tag, embossed with
a registration number unique to that tank.  This registration tag must
be affixed to the  fill  pipe or in such a location as to be visible to
any distributor when  filling the  tank and to any inspector authorized
by the Town.
2-2. Effective  (                  )  every petroleum and other chemical
distributor, when filling an underground storage tank, shall note on the
invoice  or bill  for  the  product delivered, the  registration  number
appearing  on the  tag affixed to the tank  which  was  filled.   Every
petroleum  and  other  chemical distributor  shall  notify the  Board of
Health of  the  existence and  location  of  any unregistered or untagged
tank which they  are  requested to fill.   Such notification  must be
completed  within  two  (2)   working  days of  the time  the distributor
discovers that the tank  registration tag is not present.
2-3. Prior to the  sale of  a property containing an underground  storage
tank, the  fire department  must receive from the current owner a change
of ownership form  for the registration of the underground storage tank.
Such form  can be obtained  from the  fire department.

Section  3.   Testing

3-1.   The  tank owner  shall have  each tank  and  its  piping tested for
tightness  fifteen and  twenty years  after  installation  and annually
thereafter.  A tank shall be tested by any final or precision test, not
involving  air  pressure,  that can  accurately detect  a leak  of 0.05
gal/hr,  after  adjustment  for  relevant variables,  such as temperature
change and tank end deflection, or by any other  testing system approved
by   the   Board  of   Health,  as   providing  equivalent   safety  and
effectiveness.   Piping shall be tested hydrostatically to 150  percent
of the maximum anticipated pressure of the system.   Certification of the
testing  shall be submitted to the Board of Health by the owner,  at the
owner's  expense.   Those tanks subject to  the testing requirements of
this regulation shall  submit the  certification of testing  to the Board
of Health by (            ) . Tanks which  are currently  tested under the
provisions of 527  CMR 9.13 are exempt  from this section.   For purposes
of this section, tanks of unknown  age are assumed to be 20  years  of age.

Section  4. Maintenance  of  Fuel Storage Systems

4-1. All underground fuel  lines which do not have secondary containment
shall be replaced  with an approved double-containment system at which
time any service to the  system requiring a permit is performed.
4-2.  All  above-ground  elements  of a  fuel  storage   system  shall be
maintained free of leaks and visible rust.
4-3.  All  in-tank  or  interstitial-space  monitoring systems  shall be
checked  on a monthly basis to verify system integrity-  Records of these
checks shall be sent  to  the Board of Health  on an annual basis.

Section  5.   Report of  Leaks or Spills

5-1. Any person who is aware of a  spill, loss of  product, or unaccounted
for increase in consumption which may indicate a leak shall report  such
                                   199

-------
spill, loss or increase immediately to the head of the fire department
and to the Board of Health.

Section 6.  Tank Removal

6-1. All fuel, gasoline or other chemical tanks not regulated under 527
CMR  9.00  (farm  or residential  tanks of  1,100 gallons  or  less and
underground tanks storing fuel for consumptive use at the property) in
service on  the effective  date of this  regulation,  shall  be removed
thirty  (30)  years after  the date of installation.    If the  date of
installation  is unknown, the  tank  shall  be assumed to be twenty  years
old.  All  underground storage tanks  currently subject  to the removal
regulation (30 years or older) must be removed by (           ) .
6-2. Prior to the removal of an underground  storage tank governed by
this regulation, the owner shall first obtain  a permit from the head of
the fire department, pursuant toM.G.L., C. 148.
6-3, Any person granted a permit by the Marshal or the head of a  local
fire department to remove a tank under the  provisions of M.G.L., C. 148
or  527  CMR 9.00,  shall  within  72 hours provide the  permit granting
authority  with  a receipt  for  delivery  of  said  tank  to  the  site
designated on the permit.
6-4.  Before any person is granted a permit by the Marshal or the head
of  a  local  fire department to  remove a tank under  the provisions of
M.G.L., C. 148 or 527 CMR 9.00, and said tank is not being transported
to an approved tank yard, the person requesting the permit  shall provide
the   permit-granting   authority   with  written  approval   from  the
owner/manager of the disposal site.  (Reference:  502 CMR  3.00 for tank
removal and disposal procedure).

Section 7.  Costs

7-1.  In every case,  the  owner shall  assume  responsibility for  costs
incurred necessary to comply with this regulation.

Section 8.  Variances

8-1.  Variances from  this  regulation may  be  granted by  the  Board of
Health after a hearing at which the applicant establishes the following:
(1)   the  enforcement thereof  would  do manifest  injustice;  and (2)
installation  or use of  an underground storage tank will not adversely
affect public or private water  resources.  In granting a variance, the
Board will  take into consideration the  direction  of the ground  water
flow, soil conditions, depth to ground water, size,  shape and slope of
the lot, and  existing and known  future water supplies.

Section 9. Severability

9-1.  Provisions of this  regulation are severable and if any provision
hereof  shall  be  held  invalid under any circumstances, such invalidity
shall not affect any  other provisions  or circumstances.
                                    200

-------
    EVALUATION OF LOCAL REGULATORY EFFORTS IN IDENTIFYING AND

    CONTROLLING THE THREAT OF UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANKS


             Charlotte Stiefel and George Heufelder

       Barnstable County Health & Environmental Department
                       Superior Courthouse
                 Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630


Abstract

    For  the   past   two  years,   the  Barnstable  County  Health  and
Environmental Department, a  regional  advisory agency,  has coordinated
a  county-wide  effort  to  assist towns  in  formulating  an  overall
underground  storage  tank   (UST)  management  plan  for  groundwater
protection.   Certain key  elements for  initiating a  residential  UST
program have  been identified and include passage  of  a comprehensive
regulation, support of regional and local  agencies  and public education
initiatives. The  level  of regulation  determines the overall reduction
of threat to the groundwater, as evidenced by number of tank removals.
When only registration of residential UST was required,  up to  10% of the
residential UST are removed  annually.   Passage  of a comprehensive UST
regulation which also  includes testing and removal requirements resulted
in up to 18% tank removal.  Reduction  in the number of residential UST
can be greatly enhanced if the local municipality takes initiatives to
reduce the removal  costs,   such  as  allowing disposal  at  the  local
landfill.  Administration of  an effective  UST  control program requires
a  significant  time  commitment;   in  Barnstable  County  this has  been
supplied at  a regional  level, with  help from  local fire  and health
departments.

    Regarding commercial UST, despite comprehensive state regulations,
over 20% of the tanks in the study  area were not  in  compliance with
testing requirements.    Local  initiatives  in  the form  of a  single
notification letter resulted in an almost-immediate reduction  of this
figure to 11%.


Introduction

     Leaking underground storage tanks  (UST) constitute  one of the most
significant threats to  groundwater quality  in the  United States.  The
increased awareness of  this  problem  is demonstrated by  the  number of
                                  201

-------
state and federal UST regulations which  have  been adopted in the last
few years.  A comprehensive wellhead protection program, however, should
also include local efforts at UST control.

     In Barnstable  County,  Massachusetts  (which  includes the fifteen
towns comprising Cape Cod) the need for such regulation was underscored
by the  1977  contamination of Provincetown's  public  water supply from
leaking underground tank. Shaken by  this catastrophe,  many Cape towns
adopted local  health regulations on UST  in  the early  1980's.  These
regulations, like  the present  state/federal  regulations,  focused on
"commercial" tanks  leaving many tanks exempt  from strict controls. In
1986, the Barnstable County Health and Environmental Department  (BCHED),
under funding from the US  EPA Office  of Underground Storage tanks, began
to assist  towns  in  developing a comprehensive  UST  management program
which addresses not  only the  commercial installations but  the remaining
threat of on-site (mostly residential) heating oil tanks.

     The role of  the Barnstable County Health & Environmental Department
is  strictly  advisory;   we   do not   have the  authority to  mandate
residential  UST  regulation.  Therefore,  our  approach   has  been  to
encourage  towns  to  adopt   regulations  and  then  assist  them  in
implementing  a comprehensive  UST management program.   As  might  be
expected,   our  recommendations are  followed  to varying  degrees among
different towns.  This paper  evaluates which  aspects of  a UST program
are the most effective  and those  factors to  consider when instituting
various components.  Also included is an analysis of  the efficacy of
local  efforts  in the enforcement of the  state/federal  regulation of
commercial tanks.


Residential UST Program

     The BCHED program  includes the  development and presentation of a
model Board of Health regulation,  tank testing by soil-vapor analysis,
public education, data management and enforcement assistance.

     The model  regulation,   which  is included  in Appendix  A,  covers
mandatory tank registration and tagging along with various  installation,
maintenance, testing,  spill/leak  reporting and removal  requirements.
Briefly, all heating oil UST  are  registered  with the  local health
department  and given a  numbered tag  to  attach to the  fill  pipe.  Oil
distributors  are then  required  to   report unregistered  tanks  to  the
health department.  New  installations are required to be  double-walled
with interstitial space  monitoring. Existing tanks must be tested at age
15 and annually after age 19  and removed  at age  30. At  this time, 11 of
the  15 Cape  towns  have revised their   original UST  regulations  in
response to  our  recent  efforts.  As  mentioned  above,  many  towns have
revised or adopted  only parts of the  model regulation.

     Under  the EPA grant, BCHED developed  a UST testing program involving
the  use of  soil-gas  analysis  as  an easy and  inexpensive  method of
testing heating oil tanks. The method and materials used are explained,
in detail,  in  REGULATION AND TESTING OF RESIDENTIAL UNDERGROUND FUEL
STORAGE  TANKS  (Stiefel  &   Heufelder,   1988).  Using  this   method,  a
                                202

-------
residential tank  can be  tested  at a  first  year cost  of  under $200;
testing in subsequent years would cost under  $50. The existence of this
testing program  was a  very important factor  in the acceptance  of a
testing requirement on residential  UST. Most Boards of Health would have
been reticent  to impose expensive restrictions on "innocent" homeowners.
The inclusion  of a testing requirement in a town's regulatory effort is
an important factor in the overall success of the program.

     The public education efforts of BCHED are another important, though
unquantifiable,  factor in  the  overall  success  of UST  regulation  in
Barnstable  County.  Efforts  to   speak  to  appropriate  groups  and,
especially, to members of the media are critical to the success of any
effort. Foremost, personnel in the fire and health departments must be
made  aware of  the  threat,  and,  more  importantly,  be compelled  to
alleviate the  threat.  This is often a problem; Boards of  Health and fire
officials  have  so  many  responsibilities   that  they  are  sometimes
unwilling,  or  actually  unable,   to  take  on  another  project.    In
Barnstable  County,  this  problem  was  partially  addressed  by  the
assistance that  BCHED could supply  under the auspices of  the grant.
Regardless of  the time spent,  the philosophy  of  these  departments  is
very important. Statements made by local  officials as to the importance
of tank testing and removal go a long way toward making it a reality.

     Education of  the  general  public  is also essential.  The  average
tankowner must be convinced that the  costs involved with testing and/or
removal of UST are outweighed  by  the protection these  measures afford
to the groundwater.   This education process must also  extend  to   oil
dealers.  Their first  reaction,  fear of  losing  customers,  must  be
alleviated by  convincing them  that  cooperation with  these regulatory
efforts is in the  best  interest  of their customers.  Since oil  dealers
have the most complete  information on the locations of  UST, obtaining
their cooperation  is  essential.  Many Cape oil  dealers  have agreed  to
send form letters to their customers notifying them of the regulations
- this has proven to be the best way of getting the word out.

     An  additional  BCHED  activity offered  to  local   UST  management
programs is data management. Computer programs have been written which
allow rapid inquiry, sorting and  listing of  UST records,  facilitating
the issuance of testing and removal  notifications in an efficient and
economical manner. These  programs  were written  in  a commonly-used
database system and operated from a Personal Computer.

Results and Discussion

     To determine  which of the  towns'  programs were the  most effective
at reducing the overall risk to groundwater and which components of the
program lead most  to its success, we partitioned the towns' actions into
four  "levels":  registration,   tagging and  testing;  registration  and
tagging only;   registration only  (no  oil-dealer participation  in  the
notification   process);  and  those taking  no  action.   The  evaluation
criteria used  is the number of  tanks taken out of service and is based
on the assumption that a  tank removed  from service  translates to a
reduction in the overall threat to groundwater.
                                  203

-------
     Figure  1 indicates the number of tanks taken out of service in each
of  five  of  the  nine  towns which  have  accepted the  full regulation.
These five  towns were selected  for  analysis based on the ability to
obtain reliable  tank-removal  information for both  pre-regulation and
regulation periods.  The regulations  in  each  of  these towns were passed
during 1987 and  became  effective in  the latter  part  of  that  year.
Therefore, 1988 is considered  the first  regulatory year in these towns.
These data  are compared with  that  of five towns (Figure  2) which have
promulgated regulations requiring  only  registration  of  tanks (Dennis,
Harwich and Sandwich)  or towns having no regulation at all  (Eastham and
Yarmouth).  These  data  show that there were  greater  increases in tank
removal activity  in  towns having a  complete regulation  compared with
towns which do  not.  Towns with a comprehensive regulation generally had
a  4-60 fold increase  in tank  removals across pre-post regulatory years
(Figure  1)  and greater  than  5%  of  the  UST population  taken out  of
service each year (Table 1) .  This compares with  towns which do not have
a comprehensive  regulation and  generally exhibit  less than  a  5-fold
increase  in activity  across years 1986-1989  (Figure 2)  and have less
than  5 % of the UST population removed each year (Table 1).

14O -
13O -

12O -
6: 1OO -
90 -
80 -
TO -

OO -
50 -
4O -
30 -
SO -
W -
0 -






60


i
J=\\

v/
Y7/,
I
%



11
V~7
V/









47
I
^



122
110
:v





22
^ V/
\\

o\
X^
§

\\
P
w/

yy/
y//
%

%






22
P~7TsN










31
I
W
ORLEANS CmTWM BAKNSTABIE FALkd/TH










5
P"7










27
\\^^











BRE»STEH
V /\ 19B7 |\ \] 1388 V77X 1909
  Figure  1  Numbers  of residential  UST  taken  o".t  of  service  in
  selected  towns having comprehensive  UST regulations.  Barnstable
  County, Massachusetts 1987-1989.
                                  204

-------
              100

              13O -

              140

              130 -

              120 -

              110 -

              100 -

               90 -

               60 -

               70 -

               60 -

               SO -

               •SO -

               30 -

               20 -

               10 -
                          IX XI 1987
   Figure  2' Numbers  of  residential  UST  taken  out of  service  in
   selected towns without comprehensive UST  regulations.  Barnstable
   County,  Massachusetts  1986-1989. ND= no data.
Table 1: Percentage of  total  residential underground tanks removed in
the years  1986-1989.  Numbers  in parentheses represent  the estimated
number of USTs present in 1987.
             Towns with comprehensive UST regulations
1987
1988
1989
Orleans
 (440)
  .2%
 14%
 18%
Chatham
 (380)
  3%
 13%
  7%
Barnstable
  (900)
    2%
   13%
   16%
Falmouth
  (650)
   .6%
  3%
  5%
Brewster
 (300)
  2%
  9%
  6%
            Towns without comprehensive UST regulations


1986
1987
1988
1989
Dennis
(305)
1%
2%
6%
10%
Harwich
(226)
ND
ND
2%
10%
Sandwich
(350)
ND
ND
1%
2%
Eastham
(325)
.6%
3%
4%
.7%
Yarmouth
(600)
.5%
1%
2%
3%
Total number  of tanks  is  estimated,  numbers  removed are  from fire
department records.  ND= No data.


    Among towns having a comprehensive regulation, there are differences
in the  success of the  program as evidenced by the number of tanks taken
                                  205

-------
out  of service.  Although it  is difficult  to totally  isolate  those
factors which account for the success of residential UST programs,  our
experience in nine towns allows us to draw some conclusions.

     The most successful  programs exist in  the towns  of  Orleans  and
Barnstable.  Several  factors  contribute  to  the  success  in  Orleans.
Foremost, since they were the first town to adopt the regulation,  they
received maximum  input  from our department.  Also,  both the health  and
fire departments made strong commitments toward addressing  the economic
and  regulatory  issues associated with  tank  removal.   In  early  1987,
while the costs of removing tanks were high due to the absence of Cape
companies  in this industry,  officials  in Orleans,  following  careful
research  of the  regulations   involved,   established  policies   and
procedures which  minimized the  costs to  the  average tankowner.   In
short, Orleans encouraged  individuals to take  advantage of a  two-year
abandonment  period (following removal of product from the  tank),  which
spreads the costs  of tank removal and replacement over a broader period.
In  addition, this  town allows  the disposal  of tanks  at  the  local
landfill  (a practice  not  allowed  in  some  other  Cape towns),  thus
reducing the overall costs of removal.

     The success of the  program  in Barnstable can largely be attributed
to the commitment of the  town  in terms  of  personnel and effort.  This
town's hazardous waste specialist was designated the   responsibility  for
overseeing the UST program and  some  of  the five town fire departments
are quite committed to the program.  In addition, the health department
aggressively solicited  the participation  of  the  oil  dealers in  the
notification process.  In  the  Town of  Chatham,  where there was an
intermediate level  of  success  between Orleans  and Barnstable,   the
alternate was true.   In this  town,  the  fire department  took  the more
aggressive role in the enforcement of the UST  regulation.  In  addition
to the supportive  agencies  in each of these  three most-successful towns,
another factor, that of the economic  level of  the community,  may come
into play  in determining the overall number of UST removals.  It is
interesting to note that the Cape towns exhibiting the highest estimated
per capita income levels  are Orleans  and Chatham (U. S.  Bureau of  the
Census, 1985).

     Among  the  Cape towns  which opted to adopt  only the  registration
requirement of  the UST regulation or which opted not  to update  their  UST
regulation,  there was,  again, varying degrees  of success  in eliciting
removals.  In the towns of Dennis and Harwich which have mandatory  UST
registration   (Dennis   requiring  oil-dealer   participation   in   the
notification process), it is projected that nearly 10% of  the  UST will
be removed from service during 1989.  When the Town of Harwich  recently
adopted a  comprehensive regulation,  the fire  department  immediately
received numerous inquiries regarding tank removal.  The experience in
Dennis and Harwich contrasts with that of Sandwich, Eastham  and  Yarmouth
which generally remove less than 5% of their tanks/year.

     In summary, our experience indicates that a reduction in the threat
to groundwater  is  related to the level of regulation  adopted. When there
was  no  residential UST regulation  or  public education  program,  we
                                 206

-------
observed   annual  removal rates  of  1%  or  less.  The  general public
education which  occurs when  there  is an  aggressive  regional program
seemed to also benefit  towns  which  did not adopt any regulation  (1-4%
annual removal).  Towns  actively registering tanks, but having no further
regulation,  had up to  10%  of  their  UST removed annually.  Adoption of
a comprehensive UST  regulation  resulted in  an  annual removal rate as
high as 18%.   The most important factors in determining the success of
the UST program  in Barnstable County were the  support  of a  regional
agency, commitment of fire and health department personnel  at  the  local
level  and  a  public   education  effort.     The  acceptance  of  the
comprehensive regulation was significantly fostered by the development
and use of inexpensive testing and removal methods.


Commercial UST Program

     Existing  Massachusetts  regulations  (527  CMR  9.00  Tanks  and
Containers)   impose  various restrictions  on motor  fuel UST.  Part of
BCHED's program  is  to  assist  the  local  fire  departments  with the
enforcement of the sections which require these tanks to be registered
and to be tested at certain ages.  Our experience in the last  two years
has indicate'd that although compliance with the registration requirement
is quite good (99.5%),  many tanks are not being tested as they should.

     In the summer of 1989, visits were made to 15 of the 19  Cape fire
departments  (at  present,  visits  to  remaining  departments are  being
arranged). Records on  approximately  770  tanks  were reviewed,  updated,
and records of previous tightness tests were  checked.  Letters  were then
sent to tank  owner/operators  whose  fire  department files did not show
appropriate tests. Of  the 194 (25%)  tanks in this  category,  31  (16%)
responded with records  showing either that the tanks had previously been
removed or that  the required testing had been done. The  reason for
inaccurate fire department records in these  31  cases  could be because
the tank owner/operators were negligent  in sending the information to
the fire departments, or because the  fire departments lost/misplaced the
information.  Of the remaining  163 tanks which still  appear to  have been
out of compliance at  the beginning of  the summer, owner/operators of 76
(47%) have responded to our letter with schedules  for testing and/or
removal of the tanks. At  the  time of this  writing,  owner/operators of
87  tanks  (53%)  have  yet  to respond  to  our  letter,  however  some
notifications have only recently been issued.

     In  summary,  the passage  of   comprehensive state  commercial UST
regulations does  not mean, of itself,  that the threat to groundwater has
been alleviated.  Indeed, over 20% of  the active commercial UST in our
area were  out of  compliance with state  testing regulations prior to our
efforts.   However,  with  a fairly-minimal  effort  such  as sending  a
reminder letter,  a significant increase in compliance can be  obtained.

References

Stiefel, C.L. and G.R.  Heufelder.  1988.  Journal of New England Water
Works Association,  Volume 102(4):  254-266.
                                  207

-------
Appendix

                   FUEL STORAGE SYSTEM REGULATIONS

Whereas, leaking  fuel storage  systems  pose an  immediate and  serious
threat to Cape Cod's sole source aquifer, and,

Whereas, the Town of  (      )  does  not have records to locate all such
systems installed within the Town,

Therefore,  under Chapter 111, Section 31, of the Massachusetts  General
Laws, the(      ) Board of Health hereby  adopts the following regulation
to protect  the ground and surface waters  from contamination with liquid
toxic or hazardous materials.

     DEFINITIONS:  "Toxic or  hazardous  materials"  shall be defined as
all liquid  hydrocarbon products  including, but not limited to, gasoline,
fuel  and diesel  oil, and  any  other toxic  or corrosive  chemicals,
radioactive materials or  other  substance controlled as being toxic or
hazardous by  the Division of Hazardous  Waste of the  Commonwealth of
Massachusetts,  under the  provisions of Massachusetts  General Laws,
Chapter 21C, Section 1,  et. seq.

     The following regulations apply to  all  toxic or hazardous material
storage systems:

Section 1.   Installation of Fuel Storage Tanks

1-1.  Following the effective date  of this regulation, the installation
of all underground fuel,  gasoline or other chemical storage tanks shall
conform  with  the  following criteria:   In that  the  United  States
Environmental  Protection  Agency designated  the  Town of  (        )  as
overlying  a sole source  aquifer,   secondary  containment of  tank and
piping and an approved in-tank or interstitial space monitoring system
shall be required for new or replacement tanks.
1-2.  Following the  effective date  of  this regulation,  all     tanks
installed  aboveground outside  shall be  of material  approved     for
outside use.

Section 2.   Tank Registration

     The following regulations shall apply to A)  all underground tanks
containing  toxic or hazardous materials as defined above which  are not
currently regulated under 527  CMR 9.26 - Tanks and Containers, to B) all
tanks containing  fuel oil,  whose   contents  are  used  exclusively for
consumption on the premises,  and to C)   farm and residential  tanks of
1,100 gallon   capacity,  or  less,   used  for  storing  motor fuel  for
non-commercial purposes.
2-1.  Owners shall file with  the Board  of Health, on or before  (
      )  the size, type,  age and  location of each tank,, and the  type of
fuel or  chemical  stored  in  them.    Evidence  of  date of  purchase and
installation,   including   fire department  permit,   if  any,  shall  be
included along with a sketch map showing the location of such tanks on
                              208

-------
the property.  Upon registering the tank with the Board of Health, the
tank owner will receive a permanent metal or plastic tag, embossed with
a registration number unique to that tank.   This registration tag must
be affixed to the fill  pipe  or  in  such a  location as to be visible to
any distributor when  filling the tank  and  to any inspector authorized
by the Town.
2-2.  Effective  (                 )  every petroleum and other chemical
distributor, when filling an  underground storage tank,  shall note on the
invoice or  bill  for  the product  delivered,  the  registration number
appearing on  the tag  affixed  to  the  tank which  was filled.   Every
petroleum and  other  chemical  distributor  shall  notify the  Board  of
Health of the  existence and location  of any  unregistered  or untagged
tank which  they  are  requested to  fill.    Such notification  must  be
completed within  two  (2)  working  days  of  the time  the  distributor
discovers that the tank registration tag is not present.
2-3.  Prior to the sale of a property containing an underground storage
tank, the fire department must receive from the current owner a change
of ownership form for the registration  of the underground storage tank.
Such form can be obtained from the fire department.

Section 3.  Testing

3-1.   The  tank owner shall  have each  tank and its piping tested for
tightness  fifteen and  twenty  years after installation and  annually
thereafter.  A tank shall be  tested by  any  final or precision test, not
involving air  pressure,  that  can  accurately  detect  a  leak  of  0.05
gal/hr,  after  adjustment for relevant variables,  such as  temperature
change and tank end deflection,  or  by any other testing system approved
by   the   Board  of   Health,   as   providing  equivalent   safety   and
effectiveness.   Piping  shall be tested hydrostatically to  150 percent
of the maximum  anticipated pressure of the system.   Certification of the
testing shall be submitted to the Board of Health by the owner, at the
owner's expense.   Those tanks  subject to  the testing requirements  of
this regulation shall submit the certification of testing to the Board
of Health by (             ) .  Tanks which are currently tested under the
provisions of 527 CMR 9.13 are exempt from this section.  For purposes
of this  section, tanks of  unknown age are assumed to be 20 years of age.

Section 4.  Maintenance of Fuel  Storage Systems

4-1.  All underground fuel lines which do not have secondary containment
shall be replaced with  an approved  double-containment system at which
time any service to the system requiring a  permit is performed.
4-2.  All  above-ground  elements of  a  fuel  storage  system   shall  be
maintained free of leaks and visible rust.
4-3.  All  in-tank or  interstitial-space monitoring  systems  shall  be
checked  on a monthly basis to verify system integrity. Records of these
checks shall be sent to the  Board  of Health on an annual basis.

Section  5.   Report of Leaks  or  Spills

5-1.  Any person who  is aware of  a spill,  loss of product, or unaccounted
for increase in  consumption which may indicate a leak shall report such
                                    209

-------
spill, loss or increase immediately to the head of the fire department
and to the Board of Health.

Section 6.  Tank Removal

6-1. All fuel, gasoline or other chemical  tanks not regulated  under  527
CMR  9.00  (farm  or residential  tanks of 1,100  gallons or  less  and
underground tanks storing fuel for consumptive use at the property) in
service on  the effective  date of this  regulation,  shall  be removed
thirty  (30)  years after  the date of installation.    If the date of
installation  is unknown, the  tank  shall be assumed to be twenty years
old.  All underground storage tanks  currently subject  to the removal
regulation (30 years or older) must be removed by (           ) .
6-2. Prior to the removal of an underground  storage tank governed by
this regulation,  the owner shall first obtain  a permit from the head of
the fire department, pursuant to M.G.L.,   C. 148.
6-3. Any person granted a permit by the Marshal or the head of a local
fire department to remove a tank under the provisions of  M.G.L., C.  148
or  527  CMR  9.00,  shall  within 72 hours  provide the  permit granting
authority with  a receipt  for  delivery   of  said  tank  to  the  site
designated on the permit.
6-4.  Before any person is granted a permit by the Marshal or the head
of  a  local  fire  department to  remove a   tank under  the  provisions of
M.G.L.,  C. 148 or 527 CMR 9.00, and said  tank is not being transported
to an approved tank yard, the person requesting the permit shall provide
the   permit-granting   authority  with  written  approval   from   the
owner/manager of the disposal site.   (Reference:   502 CMR 3.00 for tank
removal and disposal procedure).

Section 7.  Costs

7-1.  In every case, the  owner shall assume  responsibility  for costs
incurred necessary to comply with this regulation.

Section 8.  Variances

8-1.  Variances  from this  regulation  may   be  granted by the  Board of
Health after a hearing at which the applicant establishes  the following:
(1)   the enforcement  thereof  would  do  manifest injustice;  and   (2)
installation or use of an  underground storage tank will not adversely
affect public or private water resources.   In granting a variance, the
Board will take  into  consideration the direction of the ground water
flow, soil conditions, depth to ground water,  size,  shape and slope of
the lot, and existing and known future water supplies.

Section 9. Severability

9-1. Provisions of this regulation are severable and if any provision
hereof shall be held  invalid  under any circumstances,  such invalidity
shall not affect any other provisions or  circumstances.
                                 210

-------
           BARNSTABLE COUNTY HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT
                                  SUPERIOR COURT HOUSE
                              BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02630
                                                                   PHONE: 362-2511
                                                                   EXT. 330
                                                                   LAB 337
                                                                   CLINIC 340
Biographical  Sketch  of  Authors

Charlotte  S'tiefel  is  an Environmental  Program Specialist with  the
Barnstable  County   Health  and  Environmental  Department.  '•She
received a degree  in  biology,  with  honors,  from Gustavus Adolphus
College  in  St.   Peter,   Minn.  She  has held  several   positions
related  to  environmental  regulation and  has worked   in  local,
state  and federal government offices.   She is now  in   her  third
term as an elected water  commissioner  in the North  Sagamore Water
District.
George  Heufelder  is  the  Environmental  Program Manager  with  the
Barnstable  County Health and Environmental  Department.   Following
the  receipt   of  his   Masters Degree   in  Biology   from  Eastern
Michigan University,  he was  involved  in  a number of  environmental
monitoring   projects conducted by Great  Lakes Research   Division,
University   of   Michigan.    In  his   capacity  at  BCHED  he   is
instumental   in  writing,   obtaining   and  conducting   grants  to
address critical environmental issues.
                                  211

-------
212

-------
                         JOINING FORCES:

     PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MANAGEMENT OF GROUND WATER RESOURCES

               John S. Malleck and Lisa K. Voyce
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
ABSTRACT:

This paper describes a new program designed to protect public
water supplies from contamination, the Wellhead Protection
Program; and provides a framework for implementing the Program,
through a collaborative government and business matrix organiza-
tion.

Local involvement is the key to success of any plan to protect
ground water resources; and "local" includes the town council,
planning board, health department, water and sewer authorities,
land developers, and businesses that are responsible for protect
ing, or are using, underground sources of water.  Federal and
State government also play a role in determining guidelines for
implementation, providing technical assistance, and developing
funding options for Wellhead Protection.
                             213

-------
                         John S.  Maileek
John Malleck currently manages both the Office of Ground Water
Management and Underground Injection Control Section for EPA
Region II.  He is responsible for the cross-program implementa-
tion of the Agency's Ground Water Protection Strategy, Sole
Source Aquifer Designation and- Demonstration Programs, the
Wellhead Protection Program, Agricultural Chemicals in Ground
Water Strategy, Superfund compliance with water programs, and
regulation of injection well activity for New York, New Jersey,
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Mr. Malleck has worked for EPA for ten years.   Prior to his
current assignment, he supervised the beginning stages of the
Underground Injection Control program, when no one really knew
how many wells were in the Region, or where they were.   He has
also served as project officer for EPA water and air quality
grants, and was instrumental in developing the national Sole
Source Aquifer program.

He earned a M.S.  in Water Resource Management  from the University
of Michigan, and a B.S.  in Environmental Science from Rutgers -
The State University of New Jersey.
                           214

-------
                   THE UIC CLASS IV-V WELL SURVEY IN MAINE:

                     INVENTORY, ASSESSMENT AND COMPLIANCE


          Mary Rudd James           and         Anthony J. Pisanelli

 Dept.  of Environmental Protection        Environmental Protection Agency
 State House Station #17                  Region I - JFK Federal Building
 Augusta, Maine 04333                     Boston, MA 02203-2111


                                   Abstract

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality
Control administers the Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program.  -The focus of Maine's program is on Class IV and Class V
injection wells.   In 1988 and 1989, a questionnaire requesting information on
discharges was sent to service stations.   The survey responses, in association
with field inspections and categorization of floor drain discharges served as
the basis for the development of a UIC Class IV and Class V program.

This paper will describe the program and how it relates to other state ground
water protection efforts, specifically:

- - the relationship of the UIC program to the Maine Groundwater Management
   Strategy and interagency coordination with the Wellhead Protection Program

-- the use of existing state computer database systems to provide information
   on potential Class IV and Class V injection wells

-- the use of mail surveys to inventory  the nature and extent of UIC
   activities

-- how automation of the UIC database efficiently manages survey results in
   order to expedite the mailing of regulations and best management practice
   notices,  and increases the efficiency  of compliance and initiation of
   enforcement  activities

-- the  development of a field inspection  and enforcement/compliance strategy
   with an interagency approach
                                      215

-------
--  the development of a program for municipal officials  to provide  technical
   assistance information on how communities can control Class  IV and  Class V
   UIC wells

--  the future direction of Maine's UIC program
                                     216

-------
Introduction

Underground Injection Wells are regulated by the federal Safe Drinking Water
Underground Injection Control Program.  The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) promulgated regulations  (40 CFR Parts 124, 144, 145 and  146)  to
implement the Safe Drinking Water Act  (SDWA).  The EPA regulations and the
SDWA contain provisions to delegate UIC primary enforcement authority to
states having the necessary legal authority, technical expertise, and
administrative capability.  The Maine  Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) demonstrated the necessary requirements and was awarded UIC primacy  on
September 26, 1983.  (Maine State Planning Office, 1989)

The DEP consists of  six Bureaus:  Water Quality Control; Air Quality  Control;
Land Quality Control; Oil and Hazardous Materials Control; Solid Waste
Management; and Administration.  The UIC program resides within the Bureau of
Water Quality Control, which consists  of five Divisions:  Policy, Information
and Grants; Licensing and Enforcement; Operation and Maintenance; Municipal
Services; and Environmental Evaluation and Lake Studies.  The UIC program was
initially the responsibility of the Policy Section, but now is the
responsibility of the Division of Operation and Maintenance.

In Maine, the discharge of pollutants  to ground water is a violation  of both
state and federal laws.  Appendix A contains excerpts from the applicable
state statutes:  The Maine UIC program is established by Chapter 543  of the
rules of the Board of Environmental Protection (06-096 Code of Maine  Rules
543, July 1983), which is contained in Appendix B.   The rules mandate a
program and procedures for the permitting of proposed Class I,  II,  and III
wells using the authority established  in the EPA regulations cited above.  The
Board, under the state authority of 38 M.R.S.A. Sections 420(2) and (3).
prohibits the permitting of Class IV wells.  Class V wells may also be
maintained, provided a waste discharge license is obtained from the Board and
all other applicable necessary approvals are obtained.  A waste discharge
license is not required for subsurface waste water disposal systems designed
and installed in conformance with the  Maine Subsurface Wastewater Disposal
Rules (10-144 Code of Maine Rules 241, July 1980) and used only for the
discharge of sanitary waste water.


The UIC Program, a Component of Maine's Groundwater Srategy

The Maine Groundwater Management Strategy (GWMS) was developed to accomplish
the State's ground water management goals and to implement its  ground water
policies.  The GWMS identifies in detail the necessary elements for sound
ground water management.   Contained within the element "Controlling Sources of
Contamination," is a description of the DEP UIC program and the direction it
will take over the next two years.  The UIC program plays a central role in
addressing this strategy element in a comprehensive manner.   This element,  in
combination with the others (Program Coordination;  Research; Classification;
Data Management; Compliance and Enforcement;  Technical Assistance;  Education;
and Public Involvement) describes the necessary components for  sound  ground
water management.   These elements are  interdependent and the necessary parts
of a complete state strategy.   Each of these elements depend on the
                                       217

-------
implementation of the others and is important to ensure the continued
availability of high quality ground water for the growing needs of Maine.
(Maine State Planning Office, 1989)

Due to Maine's hydrogeologic setting, the pressurized disposal of large
quantities of waste materials below the land surface is impractical and
ususally not cost effective.  Areas of the state with rocky outcrops tend  to
be fractured near the land surface.  In the majority of these settings, the
openings are saturated with ground water.  The pressurized emplacement of
liquid waste materials into the subsurface through these fractured openings is
difficult for most injection well pumps to accomplish.

Other areas of the state contain sand and gravel aquifers that typically
overlay marine clays or areas of fractured bedrock.   In these locations, the
pressurized injection of liquid waste is more feasible than in fractured
bedrock settings, yet costs are still high relative to other disposal
practices.  In addition, Maine's sand and gravel aquifers are typically used
as both public and private water supplies.  More than sixty percent of Maine
households obtain their drinking water from ground water through public and
private wells and springs.  (Maine Department of Environmental Protection,
1986)

For the above reasons, the majority of facilities considered UIC wells for the
disposal of waste are gravity feed/low technology systems.   They are usually a
dry well or septic tank/leach field system.   The term "well" is applied
loosely and in Maine relates to a specialized form of subsurface disposal.
(Maine Department of Environmental Protection,  1986)

In 1981, an inventory of injection wells in Maine found no Class I,  II, III,
or IV wells, but fourteen Class V wells were located.   In 1986,  a reassessment
found that none of the Class V wells were still in operation,  although
monitoring was still required at some of the sites.   In 1987,  additional Class
V wells were reported and actions were taken to eliminate the discharge of
pollutants at these sites.

In 1987, a report to Congress was submitted by EPA summarizing the results of
State surveys concerning Class V injection wells as  defined by the 1986
Amendments to the SDWA.   Thirty Class V well types were identified nationally
in the survey.  Class V wells determined to have a high ground water
contamination potential included septic systems, waste disposal wells,  and
automobile service station waste disposal wells.  (U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency, 1987)  Based on these results, the DEP embarked on a
comprehensive evaluation of threats to ground water  quality from service
station floor drains.  The DEP's program activities  to investigate these
threats included inventory, inspection,  enforcement/compliance,  technical
assistance,  and public education activities geared toward Class IV and Class V
UIC wells.  The components of the UIC program are described in the following
sections.   Relationships between the UIC program and other state agency ground
water protection efforts and strategy elements  will  also be discussed.   (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1987)
                                       218

-------
Administration

During 1988 and 1989, the goals of the DEP UIC work plan included:  1)
evaluating the nature and extent of selected UIC Class IV and Class V
injection activities in Maine; 2) eliminating Class IV and Class V injection
wells through voluntary compliance and/or formal enforcement actions; and 3)
providing an information program to the general public to assist residents in
better understanding the issues related to the protection of Maine groundwater
resources.

The goals of the UIC program were accomplished through the following
activities:

1.  Existing state computer database systems were used to obtain mailing
information on potential Class IV and Class V injection wells, and mail
surveys were used to evaluate the nature and extent of UIC activities.
Surveys were mailed to automobile service stations, businesses likely to have
Class IV or Class V injection wells;

2.  Field inspections of selected businesses with suspected Class IV or Class
V injection wells were performed;

3.  Facilities operating Class IV or Class V injection wells were notified of
applicable Maine statutes and requested to comply voluntarily;

4.  Formal enforcement action was initiated against selected facilities
operating Class IV or Class V injection wells; and

5.  Fact Sheets were provided to the potential violators and the general
public explaining the UIC program and the need to protect the groundwater.
The fact sheets also suggested best management practices for materials
commonly found at the targeted facilities.


Use of Existing State Computer Database Systems

Numerous businesses regulated by a variety of state and federal agencies may
have underground injection wells.   One area of concern targeted by the UIC
program was  floor drains at automobile service stations.   The potential for
locating injection wells at these facilities is very high due to the nature of
the materials used during the course of business.   Most automobile service
stations have underground oil and gasoline storage tanks,  which are regulated
by the DEP,  Bureau of Oil and Hazardous Materials Control.   Information was
already on file which would assist in the inventory of injection wells.
Tapping into existing computer databases expedited the process of
investigating potential Class IV and Class V injection wells.

The Bureau of Oil and Hazardous Materials Control licenses or registers
facilities dealing with the wholesale oil distribution,  retail oil
distribution,  oil storage at commercial and industrial establishments, oil
storage at residential,  public,  agricultural,  and federal facilities,  chemical
storage,  and hydraulic lifts.   The UIC program initially targeted retail
                                      219

-------
distributors of gasoline.  Information on contact official, address,
telephone, and potential impact on groundwater for these facilities  is
maintained by the Bureau on the State's mainframe computer.  The  information
necessary to conduct a UIC survey was downloaded to a microcomputer, and
manipulated using dBase III Plus.  The database of retail distributors  of
gasoline was further broken down by extracting only motor vehicle  inspection
stations.  This resulted in a manageable number of facilities which were
surveyed in 1988.  Surveys were sent to 1,156 facilities.  In 1989. surveys
were sent to the remaining 1,949 facilities on the retail gasoline
distribution list.

Another type of business of concern to the Department was food processors.
Very few of these businesses are licensed under the State's waste discharge
laws, making the possibility of illegal discharges to the surface or
groundwater very high.  The State Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural
Resources provided mailing information on licensed food processors.  Since the
mailing information is maintained on a microcomputer,  the database was  easily
converted for use on the DEP microcomputer.
The Use of Mail Surveys

Surveys were mailed to over 3,000 automobile service stations in 1988 and
1989.  Facility, owner, and operator information obtained from the Bureau of
Oil and Hazardous Materials Control assisted in personalizing the surveys.
The survey requested information on predominant soil type, number and location
of floor drains, the discharge location of the floor drains, distance to the
nearest water supply, and the type of water supply (public or private).   A
self-addressed stamped envelope was provided with each survey, resulting in a
nearly 100% return rate.  A copy of the survey is attached as Appendix C.

Surveys were also sent to 175 food processors in 1989.   The information
requested was similar to the automobile service station survey,  and also asked
for additional information, such as the volume of process or cooling water
used, treatment of the water, discharge location, whether or not cleaning
compounds were used, and if chlorine was added to the water discharged.
Again, the surveys were "personalized" using information obtained from the
State Department of Agriculture.

The information obtained through the survey of automobile service stations and
food processors has assisted the DEP in targeting facilities with potential
Class IV and Class V injection wells for corrective and/or enforcement action.


Automation Efficiently Manages Survey Results

As the surveys were returned, the responses and corrected facility information
were entered into the computer database.  The 1988 automobile service station
survey information has been collected and evaluated.   Of the 1,156 surveys
sent in 1988,  the following breakdown of facilities were targeted for further
attention:
                                        220

-------
      356 facilities with floor drains discharging directly to the soil
      119 facilities with floor drains discharging to septic systems
      222 facilities with floor drains discharging to publicly owned  treatment
          works
       75 facilities with floor drains discharging to surface water

Facilities with discharges to surface water were referred to the Water Bureau
Division of Licensing and Enforcement for investigation as illegal overboard
discharges.

As a courtesy, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) were notified of
facilities discharging to their treatment plant, with the request that the DEP
be notified if they took any action against the facilities.  Of the 100 POTWs
involved, about 25 wrote the DEP about inspections they made of the targeted
facilities,  or provided information on local regulation of floor drain
discharges.   Many municipal officials called the DEP to discuss the UIC
program and its impact on the town.  Overall, the response from local
officials was very good.

Facilities with discharges to the soil or septic systems were targeted for
investigation as part of the UIC program.  These facilities,  in addition to
those with discharges to a POTW, were sent a letter providing information on
applicable regulations and best management practices (BMPs) for materials
commonly found at automobile service stations.  (The "Fact Sheets" containing
this information are attached as Appendix D.)  The letters were generated
automatically based on the type of survey response coded into the computer.
The facilities were asked to respond in writing within 20 days and provide
information on their disposal practices of materials such as waste oil, spent
solvents, parts cleaners, and degreasers.  Of the 475 facilities required to
respond to the notice of regulation letter (those facilities with discharges
to the soil or septic systems), the breakdown of responses is as follows:

       69 facilities eliminated or never had a floor drain
      214 facilities discharged only water through the floor drain
        8 facilities connected the floor drain to a municipal sewer system
        5 facilities connected the floor drain to a holding tank
       18 facilities are no longer service stations
        1 facility actually discharges to the surface water,  not the soil
      156 facilities did not respond
        4 facilities were duplicates

Those facilities with continuing discharges,  and those facilities not
responding to the notice of regulation letter will be further investigated as
part of the  UIC program.

The 1989 automobile service station survey information has also been collected
and evaluated.  Of the 1,949 surveys sent, the following breakdown of
facilities were targeted for further attention:
                                       221

-------
       63 facilities with floor drains discharging directly  to  the  soil
       47 facilities with floor drains discharging to septic  systems
      216 facilities with floor drains discharging to POTWs
       17 facilities with floor drains discharging to surface water

The notification and enforcement procedure used for the 1988  survey results,
described above, was also used for the 1989 survey results.   The responses  to
the notice of regulation letter for 1989 survey responses are still being
received, and therefore have not yet been compiled.

The results of the food processing survey have not yet been  tabulated.


Enforcement/Compliance Strategy

The DEP initially intended to tie its UIC enforcement program to the State's
Wellhead Protection Program.  Injection wells located within wellhead
protection zones would receive top priority for enforcement.  However, due  to
legislative delays in the implementation of Maine's wellhead program, a
different method for prioritizing enforcement actions was established.  The
Maine Department of Human Services, Division of Health Engineering  regulates
drinking water supplies in the state, and will administer the Wellhead
Protection Program.  Staff of this agency assisted the DEP in reviewing public
water supplies in the State to determine the source and volume provided.
Public water utilities with ground water supplies serving more than 400 people
were given the highest priority for enforcement.

The 156 faci-lities not responding to the notice of regulation letter (1988
survey) were prioritized first.   A list of the 20 most critical facilities was
referred to the Division of Licensing and Enforcement for further action.  The
Division sent certified letters to the 20 facilities,  requiring them to
respond within 20 days to avoid issuance of a consent agreement with monetary
penalty.  Most of the facilities responded within the time allowed, and
voluntarily eliminated their floor drain.
Field Inspections

During 1988, assistance with field inspections of UIC facilities was provided
by the Division's field personnel during the course of their regular duties
inspecting treatment plants and investigating complaints.  About 184
inspections were made.  Field personnel also assisted in collecting Federal
Underground Injection Reporting System (FURS) data elements not collected
originally in the 1988 survey.

A Conservation Aide was hired for the summer of 1989 to perform field
inspections of facilities with potential Class IV and Class V injection wells.
Over 100 facilities were inspected throughout the state.  The facilities
targeted were in two categories:   1) those who stated in the 1988 survey they
had a floor drain discharge, then stated in their response to the notice of
regulation letter they had eliminated it;  and 2) those facilities targeted for
                                         222

-------
enforcement due  to a  lack of  response  to  the notice of regulation  letter.  The
results of the 102 facilities  inspected in  1989  is as follows:

      55 facilities eliminated the floordrain
      16 facilities discharged only water through the floor drain
       2 facilities connected the floor drain  to a municipal  sewer system
       1 facility connected the  floor  drain to a holding tank
       5 facilities are no longer service stations
      13 businesses closed
      10 facilities did not plug the floor  drain (after stating they would)


Technical Assistance  for Municipal Officials

During the summer of  1988, the Maine Department of Human Services, Division of
Health Engineering conducted  a pollution  source inventory project.  Funding
for this effort  came  from the  UIC program.  The inventory focused  on Class IV
and Class V wells considered  to  have the  potential to contaminate  the Portland
Water District ground water supply wells  (a Wellhead Protection Area) serving
the town of North Windham, Maine.

This project provided insight  to the sources of information available and
steps involved in conducting  an  inventory.  The project was successful, due
largely to the orderly and accurate nature  of town records of land use
activities.  Based upon the project findings, the water district made
recommendations  to the Town of North Windham for incorporation into a land use
ordinance.  The  intent of the  proposed ordinance is to reduce the  risk of
contamination of the  Town's public water  supply.  The results of this project
have contributed to the development of a  technical assistance program for
municipal officials.  (Maine Department of  Human Services,  1988)

The DEP is compiling  a written handbook detailing threats to  groundwater, how
those threats may be  mitigated through implementation of BMPs, applicable
statutes, and how other municipalities have managed and controlled threats to
their groundwater.  The handbook is intended as a reference book,  advising a
municipal official of the responsible agency for groundwater problems.  The
Department proposes to identify  known threats to the groundwater in each Maine
municipality.  This will be done using existing computer databases containing
information on businesses whose  activities  are likely to affect groundwater.
The Department also proposes to  present a series of public information
meetings with municipal officials to present the handbooks,  review actions
municipalities may take to control groundwater contamination,  and  receive the
municipalities input  on how the  DEP may better serve their needs to protect
Maine's groundwater.
Future Direction of Maine's UIC Program

The DEP plans to continue working with automobile service stations to follow
through on the information collected as a result of the 1988 and 1989 surveys.
All facilities not responding to the NOR letter will be recontacted or
referred for enforcement depending on the facility's proximity to underground
                                         223

-------
drinking water supplies.  In addition to investigating those facilities  not
responding to the NOR letter, all facilities with discharges located near
underground sources of drinking water will be investigated further, even if
they responded to the NOR letter.  Facilities not eliminating their floor
drain after stating they would do so will be recontacted and added to  the
enforcement list if necessary.  Any facility with the potential to endanger
underground sources of drinking water will be required to eliminate its
discharge.

As the UIC program continues, the DEP plans to investigate other businesses
with a high potential for groundwater contamination due to the nature  of the
product involved or materials used.   Some of the businesses the DEP will
review are:  funeral homes;  dry cleaners; automobile body shops and
rustproofers;  and boatyards.

It is possible floor drain discharges will not be allowed from these types of
facilities in the future, but to implement this policy may require amendment
of the existing regulations.  Under the present regulations,  a business  could
obtain a waste discharge license for a floor drain discharge if all
requirements were met.  The DEP feels there is too great a risk involved to
allow floor drain discharges from businesses dealing with materials that could
contaminate ground water supplies if handled incorrectly or in case of an
accident.  Since floor drain discharges have continued since the State's UIC
regulations were adopted in 1983, the requirement to eliminate the discharges
after this length of time may not be well received by the businesses affected.
At the very least,  the DEP must begin an extensive public education process to
smooth the way for such a major initiative.
References

Maine Department of Environmental Protection,  Maine's Underground Injection
   Control Program, Revised Interim Report,  December 1986.
Maine Department of Human Services,  Pollution Source Inventory Pilot Project
   (North Windham,  Maine),  1988.
Maine State Planning Office,  Maine Groundwater Management Strategy,  June 1989.
U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.  Report to Congress,  Class V Injection
   Wells, September 1987.
                                        224

-------
Biographical Sketches

Mary Rudd James, Maine Department of Environmental Protection, State House
   Station #17, Augusta, Maine 04333

Employed by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection since March 1986,
Mary James has been involved in the licensing of surface water discharges and
land use activities, and developed state regulations for the siting of a low-
level radioactive waste disposal facility.  She became the UIC Coordinator for
Maine in January 1989.  Prior to joining the DEP, she worked for the Maine
Attorney General's Office, the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the National Park
Service.  She attended Michigan Technological University, and received a B.S.
in Natural Resources from Michigan State University.
Anthony J. Pisanelli, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region I, JFK
   Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2111

Since 1987, Anthony J. Pisanelli, Hydrologist, has served as the Maine State
Ground Water Program Manager in the Ground Water Management and Water Supply
Branch of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Region I, Boston,
Massachusetts.  Prior to joining EPA he was employed by the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission as their Ground Water
Coordinator.

Mr. Pisanelli holds a B.A. from Clark University in Biology and Environmental
Affairs and a M.S. from the University of Vermont in Water Resources.  In
addition he has completed graduate coursework in geology,  hydrogeology and
geochemistry of ground water.  Presently he is an associate member of the
American Institute of Hydrology and a member of the National Water Well
Association and American Water Resources Association.
                                      225

-------
                               APPENDIX A
       Excerpts from Title 38, Maine Revised Statutes Annotated,
         Regulating the Discharge of Pollutants to Groundwater
Section 361-A.   Definitions

   * * *

   1.  Discharge.   "Discharge" means any spilling,  leaking,  pumping,
   pouring, emptying,  dumping, disposing or other addition of any
   pollutant to water of the State.

   * * *

   4-A.  Pollutant.   "Pollutant"  means dredged spoil,  solid waste,  junk,
   incinerator residue,  sewage,  refuse,  effluent,  garbage,  sewage
   sludge,  munitions,  chemicals,  biological or radiological materials,
   oil, petroleum products or by-products,  heat,  wrecked or discarded
   equipment,  rock,  sand,  dirt and industrial,  municipal,  domestic,
   commercial  or agricultural wastes of any kind.

   * * * *
Section 413.   Waste discharge licenses

   1.   License required.   No person shall  directly or indirectly
   discharge  or cause to  be discharged  any pollutant without first
   obtaining  a license therefor from the board.

   * * *

   1-B.   License required for subsurface waste water disposal systems.
   No  person  shall install,  operate or  maintain  a subsurface waste water
   disposal system without first obtaining a  license therefor from the
   board,  except that a license shall not  be  required for systems
   designed and installed in conformance with the State  of Maine
   Plumbing Code,  as promulgated under  Title  22,  section 42.

   * * * *
                                  226

-------
Section 420.  Certain deposits and discharges prohibited

   No person, firm, corporation or other legal entity shall place,
   deposit, discharge or spill, directly or indirectly, into the inland
   ground or surface waters or tidal waters of this State, or on the ice
   thereof, or on the banks thereof so that the same may flow or be
   washed into such waters, or in such manner that the drainage
   therefrom may flow into such waters, any of the following substances:

   1.   Mercury.

   * * *

   2.   Toxic or hazardous substances.

   * * *

   3.   Radiological, chemical or biological warfare agents.

   * * * *
Section 543.  Pollution and corruption of waters and lands of the State
prohibited

   The discharge of oil into or upon any coastal waters,  estuaries,
   tidal flats, beaches and lands adjoining the seacoast of the State,
   or into or upon any lake, pond, river, stream, sewer,  surface water
   drainage, ground water or other waters of the State or any public or
   private water supply or onto lands adjacent to,  on, or over such
   waters of the State is prohibited.

   * * * *
Section 1317-A.   Discharge prohibited

   The discharge of hazardous matter into or upon any waters of the
   State,  or into or upon any land within the state's territorial
   boundaries or into the ambient air is prohibited unless licensed or
   authorized under state or federal law.
                                   227

-------
                               Appendix B
06-096        DEPARTMENT  OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Chapter 543   RULES  TO  CONTROL THE SUBSURFACE DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS
              BY WELL INJECTION.

    SUMMARY:   These  rules specify the  State's  program to control the subsurface
discharge  of  pollutants  by  well injection,  in order  to protect  underground
sources  of drinking  water.   Well  injections  are  classified by type,  and
different  types  are  regulated differently.    Class  I  wells   (deep  well
injection), Class II  wells  (injection  of  fluids  associated with   oil  and gas
production),  and Class III wells  (injection of  fluids associated with solution
mining of  minerals)  are  regulated just  as  they would  be if no State  program
were adopted,  since  the applicable federal  regulations are incorporated in this
chapter by references.   New Class  IV wells  (injection of hazardous waste  or
radioactive waste  into  or above water-bearing  formation)  are  prohibited and
those in existence are required to be closed.  All other  types  of  discharge  by
well injection are subject to licensing under 38 M.R.S.A., §413(1-B).

1.  Definitions

    As used in  these  rules,  the  following  terms have  the  following  meanings.
Other terms used in these rules  have the  meanings  set forth at  38  M.R.S.A.,
§361-A.

    A.   Aquifer means  a geologic formation, group of  formations,  or  part of a
formation  composed  of  rock  or  sand and  gravel  that stores  and  transmits
significant quantities of recoverable  water, as  identified (or  subsequently
confirmed)  by  the Maine Geological Survey.

    B.   Board means the  Maine Board of Environmental Protection.

    C.   Fluid means any material or substance  which is capable  of  movement,
whether in a  semisolid,  liquid, sludge, gas or other physical state.

    D.   Formation means a body  of  rock  or  sand and  gravel  characterized by a
degree of  lithologic  homogeneity that  is  mappable  on  the earth's surface  or
traceable in  the subsurface.

    E.   Total Dissolved  Solids  means total  dissolved (filterable)  solids  as
determined by standard test method 92 in "Standard Methods  for  the Examination
of Water and  Wastewater," 14th edition,  1976, which is "Glass Fiber Filtration
at 180 °C."

    F.   Underground Source of Drinking Water  (USDW)  means  any  aquifer, except
those aquifers exempted in accordance  with section  5 of  these regulations.

    G.   Well  means  a bored,  drilled or  driven shaft or a dug hole, which has a
depth greater  than its  largest surface dimension.
                                     228

-------
2.  Classification of Wells

    A.   Class  I.    Wells used  to discharge  hazardous  waste  or  any  fluids
beneath  the  lowermost formation containing  an  underground source of  drinking
water, except those wells  that fall within the  definition  of  a  Class  II  or  III
well.

    B.   Class II.   Wells used to discharge fluids:

         1.   Which are brought  to  the  surface  in connection  with conventional
    oil  or natural  gas  production  and may be commingled with wastewaters  from
    gas  plants  which are an integral  part  of  production operations,  unless
    those  fluids  are classified  as  hazardous  waste  at  the   time  of their
    discharge; or

         2.   for enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas; or

         3.   for  storage  of  hydrocarbons  which are   liquid at   standard
    temperature and pressure.

    C.   Class III.  Wells used  to discharge fluids for extraction of  minerals,
including:

         1.   Mining of sulfur by the  Frasch process;

         2.   in situ production of uranium or  other metals.   This category  (C)
     (2)  includes only in situ production from ore  bodies which have not been
    conventionally  mined.   Solution  mining of  conventional  mines,  such  as
    stopes leaching, is included  in Class V.

         3.   solution mining of  salts or potash.

    D.   Class  IV.    Wells  used to  discharge  hazardous  waste  or radioactive
waste  into or above an aquifer, whether or  not the aquifer  is  an underground
source of drinking water.

    E.   Class V.  Wells not included  in Classes  I,  II, III, or IV.

3.  Prohibited Discharges.

    A.   General.   All  subsurface  discharges  of fluids into  or  through  a well
are prohibited except as authorized in accordance with these rules.

    B.   Hazardous Wastes.  The  subsurface  discharge of hazardous waste into or
through  a  Class IV well  is  expressly  prohibited.   For the  purposes  of these
rules,  "hazardous wastes" are those substances identified as hazardous  by  the
Board in  Regulations,   chapter  850,  section  3(C).    This  prohibition  is
established  pursuant  to  the  authority conferred upon  the Board by  Title  38,
M.R.S.A., §420(2),  and is subject to the following limited exception.
                                       229

-------
    A Class IV well  being  used to discharge hazardous waste  on  the date these
rules are officially proposed may continue to be  used  for such a discharge for
a period  of no  more than  six  months  after the  effective date of these rules,
provided that  during that time there is no increase in the amount, or change in
the  type,  of  hazardous  waste  discharged,  compared  to  that   previously
discharged.

    C.    Radioactive Waste.  The subsurface discharge of radioactive waste into
or  through a Class  IV well  is  expressly prohibited.   Any  discharge  of
radiological warfare  agents  or high level  radioactive waste  to  the waters  of
the  State,  directly  or  indirectly,   is  expressly prohibited by Title  38
M.R.S.A.,  §420(3).  Any  other  waste that  contains radioactivity,  regardless  of
amount  or concentration,  is  declared  to be a toxic  or hazardous substance
pursuant to Title 38 M.R.S.A.,  §420(2),  based upon the criteria stated therein,
and its discharge to the  groundwater is  prohibited.

    D.    Preservation of  Drinking  Water Quality.  Any subsurface  discharge into
or through a Class V well  that would cause  or allow  the movement  of fluid into
an underground source of drinking water that may result  in a  violation of any
Maine Primary Drinking Water Standard,  or  which may  otherwise adversely affect
human health,  is  prohibited.

    NOTE!    Maine Primary  Drinking  Standards  are set forth  in  Rules  of  the
Department of  Human  Services,  10-144A CMR c.  231.

4.  Permitted  Discharges.

    A.    Class I, II and  III  wells.   Discharges  of fluids  into or through Class
I,  II,  or  III   wells  may be  maintained,  provided that  those requirements
applicable to State  programs in  the regulations  adopted  by the  United States
Environmental  Protection  Agency pursuant to the  Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
on or  before  April  1, 1983,  are satisfied.    These  regulations  are  found  in
Title 40  of the  Code of Federal  Regulations, Parts  144,  145, 124  (insofar  as
they are  made  applicable to State  programs  by  40 CFR  §145.11)  and  146.  For
purposes  of  this subsection  4(A),  the terms "Director"  and  "State Director"
shall  mean the  Maine Board  of  Environmental Protection or  its  delegated
representative.

    NOTE:    The  subsurface  discharge  of hazardous waste  is also regulated  by
Rules of the Board of Environmental  Protection,  chapter 854,  section 5(E).

    B.    Class V Wells.   Discharges  of  fluids into or through  Class  V wells may
be maintained, provided that (1)  a  waste  discharge license  therefore is issued
by the Board prior to commencement of the  discharge  (or it is  determined by the
Board  that  the  proposed  discharge  is beyond the  Board's  waste  discharge
licensing  jurisdiction),  and (2)  any other  applicable  statutes and   regulations
administered by  the Board  are  satisfied,  including the  requirements  of section
3(D)  of these  regulations.

    NOTE:   Since Class  V wells are a catch-all  category,  it is difficult  to
specify what  other  laws  might apply,  but  for example, the Maine  Hazardous
Waste,  Septage and Solid Waste Management Act,  38 M.R.S.A.  §§1301,  et seq.,  or
the Site Location of Development Act, 38 M.R.S.A., §481 et, seq., might apply.
                                     230

-------
5.   Exemption of Certain Receiving  Waters

    After notice  and  opportunity  for  a  public  hearing,  and  subject to  the
approval of  the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, an aquifer  or  a portion
thereof may be exempted from being an underground source  of  drinking water when
the  Board  identifies  the  location  of the  aquifer  or  portion  in clear  and
definite terms,  and finds that  it meets  each of the following three criteria:

    A.    The  groundwater contained  in the  aquifer  or  its portion  has  been
classified  GW-B by  the  Maine legislature  in  accordance with  Title  38  M.R.S.A.,
§371-B;

    B.    It is not being used as a  public  source of drinking water;  and

    C.    It will not  in the future serve  as  a public source of  drinking  water
because:

         1.    It  is  so  contaminated or  so  situated  that  it  would  be
    economically or technically impractical  to recover the water  or  render  it
    fit for human consumption;  or

         2.    It is mineral, hydrocarbon or geothermal energy producing,  or has
    been demonstrated  by  a  license applicant as part of a  license application
    for a Class  II or  III well operation to contain minerals  or  hydrocarbons
    that are expected to be commercially producible,  considering their quantity
    and location.

    BASIS STATEMENT:   The  provisions of this chapter are required in  order  to
satisfy the  State  Program  requirements of  the  Underground Injection  Control
Program of  the  Federal Safe Drinking Water Act,  42  U.S.C.  §300f  ej:  seq.   The
Board  is aware  of no  existing Class I, II or  III wells  in Maine  and expects
there  never  will  be  any.   For that  reason  only,  the federal  regulations  are
incorporated verbatim  by  reference, as  the  simplest way  to  satisfy  program
"delegation" requirements.    The  remaining  provisions  of this  chapter  are
somewhat more stringent  than federal requirements because of the pervasiveness
of  groundwater  in Maine,  its  interconnectedness, and  its  present and  future
wide-ranging use as drinking water.

    After public hearing on September 22,   1982, this  rule is  adopted  this 22nd
day of June, 1983.

    AUTHORITY:      38 M.R.S.A. §343
                    38 M.R.S.A. §413
                    38 M.R.S.A. §420

    EFFECTIVE DATE:  July 4, 1983


    Accepted for filing:  June  29,  1983
                                     231

-------
                                 Appendix C
                                     State of Maine
                              DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
                                Bureau of Water Quality Control
                             State House Station #17, Augusta, ME  04333


                                 FLOOR DRAIN  SURVEY


NAME OF BUSINESS:  ELM STREET MARKET	
FACILITY  INFORMATION

     Facility ID#: MES200000001
     Street Address: ROUTE 16	ELH STREET
     Town or City: Anson	  Zip Code: 04958
     County:  	  Is the facility  on land owned by  an Indian Tribe?
     Facility Phone: 2075352503	 Facility Contact Person: 	
OWNER INFORMATION

     Type  of ownership: 	(private,  public, state,  federal or other)
     If OTHER,  please explain:   	
     Owner:  	 Organization  (if any) : JOHNSON PRODUCTS, INC.	
     Street  Address: P.O. BOX 300. 2 UEST MAIN ST.	
     Town  or City: NEWTON JUNCTION	 State:  m  Zip Code: 03859	
     Owner Phone: 0033327900	

OPERATOR INFORMATION
     Operator:   	
     Name  of Operator's Business:  HIUKLET. HARK it GIENNA
     Street  Address: ROUTE 16	ELH STREET
     Town  or City: NORTH ANSQN	 State:  ME  Zip Code: 04958	
     Operator's Phone: 2076352503	

   ***   ***   ***   ***    ***    ***   ***    ***   ***   ***    ***    ***   ***

PREDOMINANT  SOIL TYPE.  The facility is located  on (check one):

     	   Sand and gravel soils
     	   Clay soils
     	   Shallow to  bedrock soils
     	   Do not know
     	   Other  (Please explain below)
FLOOR DRAIN(S).   Does the  facility have floor  drains? (Y/N) N	

DISCHARGE  LOCATION.  If YES,  indicate the number  and discharge location
                      of the  floor drain(s).

     	   Municipal  sewer system
     	   Holding tank
     	   Septic system
     	   Pipe to stream or river
     	   Directly into the ground
     	   Other (Please explain below)
DISTANCE TO  NEAREST WATER SUPPLY:   	   feet

WATER SUPPLY.   Is the water  supply public or private? 	 pub.   	 pri.

     A self-addressed stamped envelope is enclosed for your return of the
     completed survey.

     For additional information,  please contact Mary James of the DEP at
     (207) 289-7i96.  Thank  you for your assistance and cooperation.


                                          232

-------
                                  Appendix  D
                  DEPARTMENT  OF
                  ENVIRONMENTAL   PROTECTION

                  Bureau of Water Quality Control
                           March  1989
             Underground  Injection  Control  Program
                                   Fact Sheet #1
WHAT IS THE UNDERGROUND INJECTION
OONTROLPROGRAM?

The Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program
was established by the federal Safe Drinking Water
Act. The UIC Program regulates the subsurface
discharge  of pollutants in order  to  protect
underground sources of drinking water. In Maine,
the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
administers the UIC Program, with support from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
Maine UIC Program has been in effect since 1983,
when the Board of Environmental  Protection
adopted regulations to  control the  subsurface
discharge of pollutants by well injection.

The UIC regulations identify five types of injection
wells. The term "well" is applied loosely and is
basically  a  specialized form of  subsurface
wastewater disposal. Cesspools, septic systems,
wells, pits, ponds, and lagoons are  considered
injection wells,  and are subject to the  UIC
regulations if used for the discharge of pollutants.
increasing the need for potable groundwater. The
continued high quality of this resource is of great
concern. In 1985, the Maine Ground Water Policy
was set forth in an Executive Order. The primary
goal of the Policy is to protect, conserve, and manage
Maine's groundwater resources to protect the public
health, safety, and general welfare; to meet future
water supply needs; and to sustain economic growth.
As the towns of Gray, Friendship, Saco, Winthrop
and Houlton have learned, a single pollution incident
can significantly effect  the health  and  financial
welfare of an area's residents. The regulation of the
subsurface disposal of pollutants is crucial to
protecting underground sources of drinking water.

Contamination effects from UIC sites can range
from minima] decline in water quality to the presence
of toxic  levels of heavy  metals,  organic and
inorganic contaminants, and radioactive materials.
The UIC program attempts to prevent potentially
harmful discharges from occurring, recognizing that
prevention of groundwater contamination is better
than cleanup in terms of health, engineering and cost.
WHY IS THE UIC PROGRAM IMPORTANT?

More than 60% of Maine households draw their
drinking water from groundwater through private
wells, public wells, and springs. Although most of
Maine's groundwater is still of high quality, the
growth and dispersion of Maine's population and
associated land use activities are threatening the
quality of Maine's groundwater resources and
WHO IS REGULATED UNDER THE MAINE
UICPROGRAM?

Anyone disposing of waste or wastewater through an
injection well, including a cesspool, septic system,
well, pit, pond, or lagoon is required under 38
M.R.S.A. Section 413(1-B)  to  obtain a waste
discharge license from the DEP. A license is not
required for systems designed and installed in
                                          233

-------
conformance with the Maine Plumbing Code and
used solely for the discharge of sanitary wastewater.

The UIC regulations include five classes of injection
wells. The first four classes are defined as:

Class I:       a well used to inject hazardous wastes
             beneath an aquifer.

Class II:      a well used to inject fluids associated
             with oil and natural gas production.

Class III:     a wefl used to inject fluids associated
             with mineral extraction.

Class IV:     a well used to inject hazardous waste
             or radioactive waste into or above an
             aquifer.

The DEP is not aware of any Class I, II, or III wells,
but they may be licensed under the regulations if all
requirements are met.   Class IV  wells are
prohibited in Maine.

A Class V well is any well that does not fall under the
definition of Classes I-IV and typically injects non-
hazardous fluids into or above an aquifer. Class V
wells  may also  be  licensed  under the  UIC
regulations.

Facilities which discharge wastes to municipal
sewers or directly to surface waters are not regulated
under the UIC program, but are regulated by local
ordinance and other laws administered by the DEP.

WHAT TYPES OF WASTES ARE A THREAT
TO GROUNDWATER?

Industrial and  commercial wastes discharged
through subsurface disposal systems can include
petroleum  products,  cleaning  solvents  and
degreasers, industrial and agricultural chemicals,
storrn water runoff, and a host of other chemicals.
Because the constituents of these products are often
persistent in groundwater, the cumulative impact of
continual disposal of these wastes from one or
several sources has the potential to cause widespread
contamination of the groundwater resources.

The potential for contamination to groundwater can
vary considerably based on several factors: design,
construction, and operation of the disposal system;
quality and  volume of the material discharged;
where disposal occurs in relation to the drinking
water  source;  and  localized  hydrogeologic
conditions.
HOW DO YOU OBTAIN APPROVAL FOR A
CLASS V INJECTION WELL?

Facilities utilizing Class V injection wells must
obtain a waste discharge license from the DEP.
Again, a license is not required for systems designed
and installed in conformance with the State of Maine
Plumbing Code and used solely for the discharge of
sanitary wastewater.

The first step in obtaining a waste discharge license
is to submit  an  application to the DEP.  The
application will be reviewed by the DEP and other
state agencies before a decision is made to approve
or deny the discharge.  Any discharge must meet the
requirements set forth in the laws and regulations
administered by the Department in order to be
approved.
For more information, please contact:
Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Control
State House Station #17
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207)  289-3901
                                              234

-------
                  DEPARTMENT OF
                  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION

                  Bureau of Water Quality Control
                           May 1989
              Underground Injection Control Program
                                    Fact Sheet #2
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS AND
RF.T ATED BUSINESSES

THE PROBLEM. What should be done with waste
ofl, hazardous waste, and contaminated wastewater?
At an automobile service station, these materials
include solvents, cleaners,  used oil and fluids,
detergents, heavy metals, gasoline, and kerosene. In
the past, our solution was to pour everything down
the drain, outside on the ground, or in the nearest
stream. We thought, "out of sight, out of mind."
We have become painfully aware of the ignorance of
this concept.  What we poured down the drain
yesterday is in our drinking water today. Now, we
are more aware of the danger these materials pose to
our environment, especially to our drinking water
supplies. The Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program  was created  in response to  this  new
awareness.

Danger to Groundwater.  The UIC  Program
regulates the subsurface discharge of pollutants in
order to protect underground sources of drinking
water. Many situations exist that allow damaging
materials to enter the groundwater and contaminate
drinking water supplies. One example is found at
automobile fuel and service stations, body shops,
rustproofing  operations,  and   automotive
dealerships.  These businesses often have floor
drains located in service bays.  If the drains are
connected to shallow disposal wells or septic tanks,
materials   such   as  gasoline,   oil,  antifreeze,
transmission fluid, brake fluid, and kerosene can
enter the drains and adversely effect the groundwater
around the site. Contamination of nearby drinking
water  wells could occur.  To  avoid increasing
contamination, these types of discharges are now
prohibited in Wellhead Protection Zones, which are
areas containing significant underground sources of
drinking water.

The Department of Environmental Protection has
established several Best Management Practices to
assist people located in Wellhead Protection Zones
in complying with state laws and regulations. For
example, in areas not served by a sewer, floor drains
are not permitted unless connected to a holding tank
with automatic  shut-off or high level  alarm.
Holding tanks (including oil/water separators)
containing hazardous waste must be pumped by a
licensed hazardous waste hauler and shipped with a
legal manifest (shipping document) to a licensed
factility for recyling or disposal.  Holding tanks (or
oil/water separators) containing waste oil may be
pumped by a licensed waste oil dealer and hauled to
a waste oil recycling facility.

Floor drains connected to dry wells,  cesspools,
septic systems, and other types of wells regulated by
the UIC Program are prohibited in Wellhead
Protection Zones. These disposal methods are a
major source of pollution. Leaching of motor oil,
brake fluid, anti-freeze, etc. will occur and will
contaminate underground sources of drinking
water. Corrective measures include digging up the
wells, removing the contaminated soil, installing a
holding tank, and often finding new drinking water
supplies for a neighborhood or entire town.

Danger to Surface Water. Interior floor drains
discharging directly or indirectly to surface waters
are another potential danger. Spills can occur, and
floor washdown will enter the floor drain.  The
discharge of waste oil, contaminated wastewater,
                                           235

-------
and  hazardous  wastes  would  result  in the
contamination of surface waters. Discharges of this
type are not allowed. All other discharges to surface
waters require proper treatment,  and a waste
discharge license  from the DEP.   For  more
information on discharges to surface waters, contact
the Division of Licensing and Enforcement within
the Bureau of Water Quality Control at the DEP at
289-3901.

Sanitary  Sewer  Connections.    Floor drains
connected to the sanitary sewer are subject to the
regulation of the local sewer district. State law
prohibits the unlicensed discharge of oil, gasoline,
and hazardous waste to the sanitary sewer.  In
addition, many towns have ordinances prohibiting
similar discharges to the sewer system. Some towns
allow floor drain connections to the sanitary sewer if
the discharge is pretreated. Local ordinance may
require that a floor drain be connected to an oil and
grit separator that collects heavier-than-water runoff
before discharging  the relatively "clean" water to
the sewer system. For more information on sewer
connections of floor drains, contact your local sewer
district.

Hazardous wastes. Hazardous wastes  typically
generated at automobile service stations include
waste solvents from parts cleaning, waste  paint
thinners, waste battery acid, and hot tank caustic
cleaners. These wastes must be segregated from
wastewaters, waste oil, and other wastes. Businesses
that generate less than 220 pounds or 25 gallons per
month or accumulate no more than 220 pounds of
hazardous waste at any one time may qualify as
"small quantity generators." At a minimum, such
generators are required to label, properly package,
ship, manifest and use a licensed hazardous waste
tranporter to ship the materials to a hazardous waste
facility. If you generate more waste than the amounts
described above, the  requirements are more detailed.
For more information on hazardous waste generator
requirements, contact the Division of Licensing and
Enforcement in the Bureau of Oil and Hazardous
Materials Control at the DEP at 289-2651.
THE SOLUTION. How can you help protect our
drinking water supplies?

1. Substitute. Substitute non-hazardous materials
whenever possible. Environmentally, this is the
preferred solution.

2. Segregate. Segregate waste oil for recycling.
Waste oil may be offered for sale or used as a fuel
supplement if it meets certain standards, has not been
mixed with any hazadous waste, and does not exhibit
any hazardous waste characteristics.

3. Recycle.  Use a recycling service to periodically
pick up spent solvents and other hazardous materials,
and replenish your supply. Due to the complex
nature of the requirements concerning the handling,
storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes, many
service stations have minimized the amount of
solvents, paint thinners, and caustic cleaners they use
in order to qualify as small quantity generators.
Many small quantity generators (as well as large
quantity  generators)  have  found  contractual
recycling services to be an efficient way to remain in
compliance  with  the  disposal  requirements.
Companies offering such services must be licensed
by the DEP as a hazardous waste transporter. Fora
complete  list  of  licensed  hazardous  waste
transporters, contact the Division of Licensing and
Enforcement in the Bureau of Oil and Hazardous
Materials Control at the DEP at 289-2651.

THE FUTURE. Some of the materials we use on a
daily basis cannot be "disposed of - they will be
with us forever.   Whatever was  disposed  of
improperly  in  the past  is now  part  of our
environment: the air we breathe, the food we eat, and
the water we drink. Now we must make every effort
to handle materials such  as waste oil, hazardous
waste, and contaminated wastewater properly.
Proper use and disposal of these materials is vital to
avoid further damaging one of our most precious
resources ~ water.
For more information, please contact:
Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Quality Control
State House Station #17
Augusta, Maine 04333
                                           236

-------
              PLANNING TECHNIQUES FOR ESTIMATING GROUNDWATER IMPACTS

                            OF ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS


                       Elizabeth Beardsley and Carol Lurie

                            Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
                                 One Center Plaza
                                Boston, MA  02108


Abstract

In New England and in  many other parts of  the country, a large proportion of  the
population relies on  individual on-site septic systems.  Septic systems rely  on
several processes for  purification  of vastewater and pose a potential risk of
contamination to groundwater, particularly in areas with highly permeable soils,
high groundwater, or  bedrock fractures.  Cumulative effects of septic systems
make pollution from septic systems  a serious hazard to groundwater.

There are two distinct approaches to planning and management of individual septic
systems:  maintenance/rehabilitation of existing systems, and proper siting of
future systems.  Maintenance, upgrade, and/or rehabitation of existing systems is
critical to prevent pollution of groundwater and is a method for managing
existing situations.   Planning for  the adequate siting of systems, however, can
prevent future contamination problems.

Two analytical planning techniques  can be used to assess the impact of individual
septic systems from residential development on groundwater quality:  residential
build-out analysis and nutrient loading models.

A residential build out analysis is a technique for determining the number of
residences which can be built in a  given area.  This number is compared to the
number of existing residences to estimate the potential impacts of residential
growth.  An important  consideration of bulid-out analyses is that their accuracy
is dependent on that of the data.   Realistic soil data, in particular, is needed
to estimate the areas which are unbuildable, and, through the build-out analysis,
project the potential number of residences and septic systems.  Build-out
analysis is best used as a rule of  thumb analysis to give an idea of order of
magnitude of a situation,  and to identify geographical areas of concern.

Nutrient loading calculations are performed to estimate the nutrient contribution
from septic systems to groundwater.   There are several different nitrate loading
models which are in use.   These models are usually based on a loading rate which
assumes that total nitrification occurs in the system and have the advantage  of
minimal data requirements  compared  to more advanced groundwater models.  Nitrate
                                     237

-------
 loading is  an important technique because it is the most readily available  method
 for  quantifying the cumulative effects of septic systems on groundwater.
 However,  applications of this technique should be undertaken with a  thorough
 understanding of its inherent assumptions.

 Septic  system siting is regulated at the state level.  Existing septic  system
 regulations of most New England states are limited in that they do not  contain an
 upper limit on permeability,  and by the regulations' site by site, rather than
 cumulative,  approach to management of septic system siting.


 Introduction

 The  National Well Drillers Association ranks septic systems third in order  of
 importance  as groundwater pollution sources, behind landfills, and lagoons  and
 other waste pits.   Septic systems pose a potential risk of contamination to
 groundwater,  particularly in  areas with highly permeable soils, high groundwater,
 or bedrock  fractures.   In New England and in many other parts of the country,  a
 large proportion of the population relies on individual on-site septic  systems.
 Cumulative  effects from these systems make pollution from septic systems a
 serious hazard to groundwater,  and addressing this hazard becomes important  as
 water supplies become more precious.

 How  Septic  Systems Work

 Septic  systems are economical on-site structures designed to dispose of household
 wastewater  underground.   They are designed to perform three functions:  trap  oil
 and  grease,  digest solids,  and percolate remaining wastewater into nearby soils.

 A schematic diagram of a typical system is shown in Figure 1.   A septic system is
 made up of  a septic tank and  a leaching area, both located underground.  The
 septic  tank is a watertight concrete tank with an inlet,  an outlet,  and manhole
 covers  which allow access.  Household sewage, including wastewaters from the
 bathroom, kitchen,  and laundry room,  flows by gravity to the tank,  where solids
-settle  to the bottom and form a sludge.   Oil and grease float to the surface  and
 form a  scum.
          Typical Household Septic Tank System
                                                Cross Section of Typical Concrete Septic Tank
                         Figure 1:   Typical Septic System
              (Source:   Lake Cochituate Watershed Association, 1985)
                                          238

-------
If the septic system is operating properly,  bacteria grow in the septic  tank  and
reduce some of  the  sludge and scum to liquid by digestion and partial
decomposition.   Oil and grease are not  fully digested,  but are trapped until
removed from the tank by pumping.

The remaining "conditioned" wastewater  flows through the outlet to the leaching
area.  The outlet  is positioned below the water surface so that the oil  and
grease scum remains in the tank.  The leaching  area may be a leaching field,
leaching pit, or leaching trench, and essentially consists of a distribution  box
and several perforated pipes laid in gravel-lined trenches.   The purpose of the
leaching area is to disperse wastewater  into the soil.

As wastewater percolates from the pipes  through the stone and soil, contaminants,
including nutrients, are removed from the wastewater in several purifying
processes.  Viruses, nutrients, and bacteria adhere to  soil particles, nutrients
are then consumed  by organisms in the soil,  and consumed by plants.  If  the
septic system is functioning correctly,  the  wastewater  will be of non-polluting
quality by the  time it reaches groundwater resources.   Figure 2 illustrates these
processes.
                                                 EVAPORATION
             PRODUCTION
           111111 M 1111111
IIIIIIIIIIIIIUIllllllllllllll
                                                              f
                   IIMIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
                   2 feet
                                                                   mposition
                                                                nitrification
                                                                danttriflcation
                                                                adsorption
                      • SURFACE WATERS
          Adapted from Quadn ,1984-,Frimpter at al,1988.
                     Figure 2:   Subsurface Disposal Processes
Impacts of Septic  Systems on Groundwater

Household sewage  typically contains subtantial  concentrations of ammonia-
nitrogen, phosphorus,  and oil and grease, as  well  as biological oxygen demand
(BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and suspended and dissolved solids.  Average
characteristics of household wastewater discharged to septic systems are shown  in
Table 1.
                                       239

-------
    Table  1:   Characteristics of Influent Wastewaters to Septic Tank Systems

CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATION (mg/l)
^m^^mm^u^^^^^^*^^*^^^^*^^
BOD
COD
TOO
TS
S3
TKN
Ammonto-N
TP
PhmhaU
OlandQnu*
•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•^•••^•^•^•^•••••V
300
750
200
780
250
38
12
25
84
04
                           Souie*: BaiMr. Conrad, and Shtrman. 107B
As septic systems rely on several processes to purify wastewater,  there  are
numerous conditions which can cause systems to fail to treat household sewage
adequately.  The numbers and densities of septic systems make pollution  of
groundwater from septic system effluent a significant concern.

One recent public education brochure puts the problem in these  terms:

    "The indirect discharge of pollutants from improperly located, malfunctioning
    or crowded septic systems plus pollutant-rich urban stormwater discharges
    cause major problems to the waters of New England.  The addition of  nutrients
    and pathogenic organisms present a potential hazard to both human health and
    the water quality of our lakes." (Lake Cochituate Watershed Association,
    1985).

The Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission (CCPEDC) has correlated
the increase in groundwater nitrate concentrations with an increase in housing
and septic system density.   Contamination from septic systems is a serious  threat
to the groundwaters of New England.

Groundwater pollution from septic systems has several different causes:

    (1)  poor siting of system
              soils that do not adequately filter the wastewater before  it
              reaches groundwater (including excessively permeable soils)
              too many systems in a given area,  leading to significant cumulative
              impacts

    (2)  poor design and/or construction
              tank and/or leaching area undersized
              designed for  seasonal use and converted to year-round

    (3)  maintenance or operations problems
              leaks in pipes or in the tank
              sludge build-up in the tank, leading to overflow and soil  clogging
              scum build-up
                                         240

-------
Groundwater contamination from septic systems with maintenance and/or operational
problems can be prevented by remediation.  However, groundwater contamination
from septic systems that are poorly sited cannot easily be mediated.  For  this
reason, individual and overall siting of septic systems is extremely important.

The main concern, then, for groundwater pollution is  the quality of the effluent
from the septic tank portion of the system, and the efficiency of contaminant
removal in the soil underlying the leaching area (Gather, 1985).  This efficiency
in constituent removal is affected by several criteria:

         the soil character
         soil permeability and percolation rate
         depth of soil below leaching area to groundwater
         presence of clay or impermeable layers
         presence of cracks in bedrock

The importance of this concern is supported by the literature, although most
studies cited in the literature appear to have been concentrated on the
efficiency of the septic tank portion, with fewer studies investigating the
leaching area.  One research study involved sampling  of groundwater under and
adjacent to leaching fields (Cogger et al, 1988).  A  strong relationship between
wastewater loading rate and nitrate concentration was observed.  In addition,
there was a direct relationship between the depth to  groundwater and the level of
denitrification which occurred.

For wastewater to be adequately filtered, a certain contact time between the
water and the soil is required.  If the soil is not permeable enough, or if a
clay layer is present, a failure will occur, and wastewater may be diverted, such
as through horizontal movement.  Furthermore, if the  soil is excessively
permeable, it is not able to provide attentuation of  contaminants because of the
speed at which the wastewater moves.  The depth from  the leaching area to
groundwater is important because it is related to the contact and filtering time;
if the depth is insufficient, water will not be sufficiently treated.  The
combination of excessively permeable soils and high groundwater conditions is
especially prone to insufficient wastewater purification.

Although septic systems are regulated at the state and local levels, most
regulations are based on a maximum percolation rate (i.e., limit slow
permeability), and do not have a minimum percolation  rate.  The regulations
neglect to consider potential pollution resulting from siting in excessively
permeable soils.   As a result,  overall siting of septic systems is inadequate to
protect groundwater.

Planning to Prevent Potential Contamination

An ample body of knowledge exists on how to prevent septic system failure and
malfunctioning through proper maintenance.  Recently, it seems that much interest
has been shown in improving the public awareness and  use of preventive measures
such as pump-outs at regular intervals and water conservation.  From our
observations,  cities and towns are becoming interested in enforcing septic system
repairs; in some cases they are mandating septic system maintenance (for example,
the Rhode Island On-site System Maintenance Act).

Repair and maintenance are important;  however, they come into play after the
septic system is in place.   An important consideration is proper siting of the
                                       241

-------
system.  If improperly placed, failure and/or groundwater pollution is  inevitable
if soil characteristics and other site conditions are not conducive to  wastewater
treatment.  For example, nitrate-nitrogen, a known public health problem  in
groundwater, may persist if sited in excessively permeable soils even if  a system
is properly maintained.  Groundwater contamination may occur even if the  system
has not visibly failed (i.e., if there are no back ups).

Maintenance, upgrade, and/or rehabitation of existing systems is critical to
prevent pollution of groundwater and is a method for managing existing
situations.  Planning for the adequate siting of systems, however, can  prevent
future contamination problems.  If the cumulative contamination of groundwater by
septic systems is to be prevented, the siting of septic systems must be improved.


Planning Techniques

While on-site septic disposal systems are generally not a problem to groundwater
(unless sited too close to wells) when considered individually, the cumulative
impact of many septic systems in areas characterized by unsuitable soils or other
conditions suggests the need for the development of a land use management
strategy to reduce or offset this potential cumulative impact.

This paper examines two related analytical planning techniques used in
determining the impact of individual septic systems from residential development
on groundwater quality:  build-out analysis and nutrient loading.

A residential build-out analysis is a technique for determining the number of
residences which can be built in an area served by septic systems, as permitted
by regulatory requirements as well as environmental constraints.  This number is
compared to the number of existing residences to study the impacts of residential
growth.  Nutrient loading calculations are used to estimate the nutrient
contribution from septic systems to groundwater.  Nutrient loading analyses for
nitrates are examined, and conditions and assumptions which limit the
applications of nutrient loading are discussed.

Build-out Analysis

The first step in understanding the magnitude of the possible or existing impact
from septic systems in an area served exclusively by on-site septic disposal
systems is to estimate the potential for development of dwelling units with
associated septic systems in the area.  This can help determine possible future
environmental and water quality conditions.   One method of determining the
current and future development potential of an area, and by implication the
cumulative impact of septic systems, is by conducting a build-out analysis.

A build-out analysis estimates the maximum amount of dwelling units that can be
built in a defined area based on current zoning and land use regulations,  and
regulations governing the location of septic systems.    Environmental factors,
including soil characteristics,  wetlands, topography,  and groundwater levels are
specifically taken into account,  often using a series of graphic map overlays.
The estimated number of septic systems in a study area can then be used as a
basis for the nutrient loading calculation to project potential impacts from
septic systems to groundwater resources.
                                       242

-------
The build-out analysis assumes that the major current regulatory requirements are
followed.  For Massachusetts, these regulations include:

         Zoning Regulations
         the Wetlands Protection Act
         Regulation of Septic System Location and Design (Massachusetts Title V)

There are two main approaches for conducting a build-out analysis:

    1)   Parcel-by-parcel build-out (tabular or graphical)
    2)   Generalized build-out (graphical)

In the town of Hopkinton, Massachusetts, we applied the first methodology to
determine the different impacts on land use between residential development using
traditional on-site septic disposal systems versus the use of small private
treatment plants.  In the town of South Kingstown, Rhode Island, we conducted a
generalized build-out analysis for several watersheds, the results of which were
used to project the impact of development through nutrient load modeling and
resultant water quality implications.

Build-out Methodology

Essentially, the build-out analysis has three major steps:

    A)   Determination of vacant developable land

    B)   Determination of vacant developable land by zoning district

    C)   Calculation of the potential number of dwelling units (and septic
         systems) that could be built in an area

The analysis is conducted by developing a series of map overlays.  We have in
some cases used a Geographic Information System (GIS) as a tool in this process.
These steps and components of the build-out analysis are detailed below.

    A)   Determine vacant developable land

         1.   Map soils that cannot be built on

              Soils cannot be built on for two reasons:  (1) the soils
              (topography) are too steep to build a residence economically,  or
              (2) the soils do not meet the minimum requirements to install a
              septic system to serve the residence.

              For the town of South Kingstown,  a map overlay was developed based
              on the classification of soils by the U.S.  Department of
              Agriculture, Soils Conservation Services (SCS).  Soils are
              classified as severe for septic systems when they exhibit a high
              groundwater table,  slow percolation rates,  susceptibility to
              flooding,  presence of rocks and boulders,  slope, and/or excessive
              permeability.   Unsuitable areas were then mapped on an overlay.

              For the town of Hopkinton, the Soil Conservation Service data was
              translated into the criteria specified by Title V, the state
              regulation which governs the location and design of septic systems.
                                        243

-------
          Areas which did not meet minimum criteria, according to SCS data,
          were mapped as unbuildable on an overlay.

     2.    Map wetlands

          Wetlands are a constraint to development because federal and state
          regulations often restrict filling of wetlands.  An overlay map of
          wetlands is compiled based on the best available data.  This may be
          town maps,  the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Inventories,
          U.S.G.S. topographic maps, or aerial photographs.

     3.    Create composite environmental factors map

          The next step is the creation of a composite map of soils and
          wetlands that shows the environmental factors that limit
          development potential.

     4.    Map existing land use and developed/undeveloped land

          An existing land use map is then developed which shows areas in the
          study area that are used for different purposes such as
          residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, transportation, and
          recreational uses.   Maps are either developed from existing
          information, or through interpretation of aerial photographs.

          The land use categories are divided into two groups - developed and
          undeveloped.  Developed uses would include those already committed
          for use such as residential, commercial, industrial, paved areas
          such as highways, and conservation land.  Land uses considered
          undeveloped include vacant areas,  agricultural land (not under
          permanent development restrictions), golf courses,  or any land
          within a community that has the potential for being developed.
          Land use categories vary according to study area.  Areas which are
          undeveloped are identified for input to the next step.

     5.    Map vacant developable land

          The next step in the process creates a map showing land that is
          vacant and can be developed (developable).  The environmental
          constraints composite map is overlain with the land use map.  A map
          is created showing only land which is undeveloped and has no
          environmental constraints, termed "vacant and developable" land
          (see Figure 3).  This map thus takes environmental factors as well
          as existing land use into account.

B.   Determination of vacant  developable land by zoning district

     Once the vacant and developable land is identified, the zoning of the
     municipality is taken into consideration.

     6.    Map zoning districts

          The zoning map of the municipality is then superimposed onto the
          vacant developable  land map.  This composite map forms the basis
                                     244

-------
                            Single Family
                            Multi-Family
                          S Agricultural
                          39 Water
                          QD Educational
                          59 Commercial
                          QD Institutional


                          LAND USE
   Developed Land
£3  Environmental
D  Vacant Land


   VACANT
DEVELOPABLE
   LAND
             Figure 3:  Land  Use  and Vacant Developable Land
          for calculating  the potential number of dwelling units by zoning
          district.

C.   Calculations

     7.   Measure vacant developable land by zoning district

          All areas of  vacant developable land falling within each zoning
          district are  measured.   This calculation is simplified if the
          mapping is done  using a Geographic Information System (CIS).

     8.   Subtract a percentage for roads and infrastructure

          In order to estimate future residential dwelling development
          potential, a  percentage must be subtracted for land that would be
          used for roads,  utilities,  service easements and other municipal
          uses.  Typically a  factor of fifteen percent is used for
          residential development.

     9.   Calculate the number of new dwelling units

          After the total  area of land available for building lots is
          calculated, the  next step is to calculate the number of possible
          dwelling units for  each zoning district.   This is based upon the
          minimum lot size requirements as specified by the zoning code.
          Each vacant developable area is evaluated in terms of the
          permissable number  of dwelling units per acre.  If the build-out
          analysis is being conducted on a parcel-by-parcel basis, several
          scenarios may be developed  to project different development
          patterns which are  possible.

     10.   Calculate the total number  of dwelling units and septic systems

          Based on the above,  the next  and final step is to add the potential
          number of dwelling  units  that could be built to the number of
          dwelling units that already exist in the study area.  The existing
                                    245

-------
              number of dwelling units, or base case,  is determined  through
              examination of aerial photographs,  field  checking,  and examination
              of septic system permits and other  town  records.

              The total number of existing and potential dwelling units  and
              associated septic systems serving these  residences  is  used as a
              basis for calculating nutrient loading on water resources  of the
              study area.

The build-out analysis thus gives an estimate of  the current and  future
development potential of an area, and the potential number and location  of
on-site septic systems that could be built.

Nutrient Loading Analysis

Nutrient loading analysis is a technique which has been used increasingly as  a
tool for determining the density of development that can be sustained given soils
conditions.  Nutrient loading utilizes the location and/or number  of septic
systems and loading rates to determine the nutrient load to groundwater.   It  is
sometimes carried further and is used with groundwater flow and quality  data  to
project the concentration of a parameter resulting from a specific development.

While nutient loading analyses can be performed for phosphorus and other
parameters, this paper focuses on nitrogen, specifically nitrate-nitrogen.

Nitrogen Loading Analysis

Nitrogen loading analyses may take several varied forms.  In general, the
analysis involves multiplying the number of septic systems by the  quantity  of
nitrogen present in the effluent over a given period of time.  In  different
models or applications, this quantity may be input to other equations to
determine concentration.

The simplest nitrogen loading calculation involves multiplying the number of
actual or potential septic systems in the study area by a loading  rate:

    N03 load = (Ibs/system/yr) X (systems)

    N03 load = (Ibs/person/yr) X (persons/residence)(# residences)

The loading rate is usually in Ibs/person/year,  with the result in Ibs/year.  It
may be necessary to understand the demographic characteristics of  the study area
to determine the average  number of persons per residence or septic system.

This technique was used in South Kingstown in conjunction with the build-out
analysis.   In the South Kingstown study,  the town wanted to predict  the effects
of development on several salt ponds which were largely fed by groundwater.
Using nitrogen loading rates,  an annual nitrogen budget was developed to  show the
nitrogen contribution,  in pounds,  from different sources such as septic systems,
agriculture, fertilizer,  roads,  runoff,  and precipitation.   These  calculations
were performed for the existing situation, and also for the build-out condition,
under which many more houses and septic systems  would be present in  the
watershed.
                                       246

-------
Several models have been developed for Cape Cod, Massachusetts.  Cape Cod  is
characterized by sandy soils which are well to excessively drained, and  is a sole
source aquifer.  The combination of  these environmental conditions and rapid
development rates have caused concern over septic system effects, leading  to
modelling efforts, notably by the Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development
Commission (CCPEDC).

The model developed by CCPEDC models the dilution of nitrate moving from septic
systems into groundwater (Quadri, 1984).  The model assumes a complete mixture of
two volumes - recharge and septic system effluent - and the formula solves for
the mixture concentration:
     N03
concentration
     in
 groundwater
(recharge vol)(recharge cone.) + (system vol)(system cone.)
              recharge volume + system volume
The nitrate concentration of septic system effluent is estimated using standard
septic system flow estimates, and per-person nitrogen loading rates.  (This
assumes total conversion of ammonia to nitrate.)  CCPEDC has used this model to
estimate the density that can be supported while maintaining desired nitrate
levels in groundwater.

A more advanced version of this nitrogen loading model was developed as part of
the Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project (CCAMP) (Frimpter et al, 1988).  The
model presented is more detailed, and is adapted for use specifically in
predicting nitrate concentrations in municipal wells.  This model allows for
inclusion of sources other than septic systems:

   N03
concentration = nitrate from precipitation + nitrate from sources
in groundwater              total volume

                                                                (simplified form)

Precipitation and well withdrawal take the place of recharge.  Generally,
however, the two models operate on the same principles of total mixing and
dilution.

Other models, such as for Winnebago County, Illinois, involve extensive
groundwater sampling to construct complex mass balance relationships (Jaffe and
DiNovo, 1988).

To assess the impacts of a proposed residential and resort development, one
method used nitrogen loading as a check for a more sophisticated and complex
solute transport model (Atwood, 1989).  The solute transport model is more
advanced, but has greater site-specific data requirements, including groundwater
flow, quality,  boundary conditions, water table contours, and hydraulic
conductivity.  This data is used in solute transport equations which solve for
concentration at different locations of the site.  A more advanced model such as
this has the advantage of probable greater accuracy and gives concentrations for
various locations on the site (rather than a single value); however, required
data is often not available, especially for large-scale planning applications.
                                       247

-------
Nitrogen loading calculations similar to those developed by CCPEDC were  used  to
check the validity of the solute transport model.

In Acton, Massachusetts, a different approach was used (Jaffe and DiNovo,  1988).
In this case, the base flow water quality of streams in the study area was
assumed to be proportional to the number of septic systems in the drainage basin.
Once this proportion was established for the existing condition, the effect of
build-out on groundwater could be estimated.  This model was used to determine
the maximum density to result in a certain concentration without reliance  on  a
per-person type rate.

Nitrogen and other nutrient loading models vary from the very simple to  the very
complex.  Generally, models are based on the concept of septic systems as  a
significant, or in some models as the significant, source of nitrate-nitrogen to
groundwater, and are based on a loading rate in the units Ibs/systern/year.

Applications and Implications

Build-out and nitrate loading analyses can be used to assess present and future
effects of septic systems on groundwater.  These techniques are useful in
large-scale applications or where limited site-specific data is available.  These
planning methods have many different applications and also involve certain
assumptions and implications, as discussed below.

Build-out Analysis

The purpose of the build-out analysis is to estimate the development potential of
an area.  The build-out analysis is a very useful tool,  but like any simplifying
model, must be only used where appropriate.

Applications.  There are many different applications and forms of build-out
analysis.This paper applies the build-out analysis to residential development
utilizing septic systems, which can then be used with nutrient loading analyses.
Build-out analysis of this type is only suitable in an area that is exclusively
served by septic systems.  Some other applications of build-out analysis include
maximizing the area of commercial development,  and making population and
infrastructure estimates.

Build-out analyses vary in complexity and scale.   Some analyses are conducted on
a parcel-by-parcel basis, involving the use of  assessors'  maps.   Generalized
analyses utilize available land use and natural resource maps, usually at a
smaller scale which precludes consideration of  individual parcels.   Build-out
analyses can be very simple,  utilizing existing data, or complex, requiring
extensive data collection and scale transformation efforts.  Most build-out
analyses are based on spatial relationships.

Parcel-by-parcel analyses have a greater degree of accuracy and of precision.
However, there may be some loss of accuracy in  the application of soil and
wetland constraints, if soil and wetland data is available only at a coarser
level of detail than the parcel size.   Also, the parcel-by-parcel analyses are
more time-consuming.  Generalized build-out analyses can be somewhat less
accurate than the parcel-by-parcel,  but the result is valid as an estimate of the
magnitude of potential growth, rather than a precise number of dwelling units.
                                     248

-------
Accuracy of Data.  A build-out analysis  is  only  as  accurate  as  its  data.   In  most
cases there are several different data sources involved,  each at  a  different
level of detail and from different base  years.   Soil  and  wetlands data  vary
substantially in accuracy, and it is  imperative  that  inconsistencies  or
limitations of the data are factored  into the analysis.

Soils data, in particular, are problematic.  If  the goal  of  the analysis  is to
determine the number of units which can  be  built  in compliance with regulations,
the soil parameter values which are selected as  constraints  must  be the same  as
those unsuitable in the regulations.  Translating municipal  or  regional data
sources to these site-specific parameters can be  difficult.

For a build-out analysis in Haverhill, Massachusetts,  Soil Conservation Service
soil maps were found to be misleading in terms of whether the area  could  actually
be developed with a septic system.  For  many areas, the SCS  data  indicated
inadequate permeability; however, Board  of  Health records showed  that very few
lots failed to pass a percolation test.  Since SCS  data suggested that
development could not occur, yet local experience showed  that these areas were
allowed to develop, soil factors (in  the form of  percentages of watershed area)
were developed to account for the soil developability, based more heavily on
slope and rock outcrops than permeability.

The actual areas where septic systems cannot be  built  could  also  depend to some
extent on the rigorousness of the Board  of  Health or  agencies permitting  the
systems.

In states where regulations do not limit septic  system siting in  excessively
permeable soils, such soils should not be considered  to be constrained  from
development.  Although these soils may be unsuitable  from a groundwater pollution
standpoint, they can (and will) be developed with a septic system and be  in
accordance with the regulations.

Validity of Result.  While the build-out analysis projects the state  of
development when all available land is built upon,  the build-out  does not imply
that the development will actually happen.  The  likelihood of development
occuring is dependent on inter-related factors such as the economy, real  estate
market, and population trends in the  region.  In  view  of  these considerations, it
is difficult to bring in a temporal factor, which would be needed to  estimate the
phasing of potential development.

Use of Result.  Build-out analysis is best  used  as  a  rule of thumb  analysis to
give an idea of order of magnitude of a  problem.  It  is also well-suited  to
identify areas of concern - such as large developable  areas without
infrastructure or conservation protection.

Nitrate Loading

Nitrate loading is an important technique because it  is the most  readily
available method for quantifying the  cumulative effects of septic systems on
groundwater.  The purpose of nitrate  loading calculations is to project the
potential impact of septic systems to groundwater.  The result of calculations is
usually in the form of Ibs/year, and  can be used  as input to further  calculations
to project a concentration (i.e. in units of mg/1 or  ppm).
                                       249

-------
Nitrogen loading is important to consider because excess nitrogen  loading to
soils can result in conditions of elevated nitrate or ammonia  in groundwater
which in turn can cause health problems and/or contaminate wells beyond  use.   An
understanding of nitrogen loading prior to development is imperative  if  nitrogen
contamination of groundwater from septic systems is to be minimized.

Applications.  There are numerous ways in which nitrate loading calculations  are
used.  Nitrate loading can be used:

    a)   for site-specific impacts
    b)   to evaluate the use of septic systems versus treatment
    c)   to determine the maximum number of septic systems that could be
         supported
    d)   for an existing situation to determine the percentage of  nitrogen
         contributed by septic systems
    e)   to assess future conditions in conjunction with build-out analysis

The loading rate is often applied in site-specific applications as part  of
overall nitrogen budgets or in predicting nitrate concentrations in groundwater.
For example, the South Kingstown study calculated nitrogen loads to salt  ponds
from septic systems and other sources within the watersheds for the present
situation and the future.  These numbers were used to determine the relative
present and future importance of each source of nitrate.   Other applications  use
nitrogen loading on proposed development sites to determine if on-site septic
systems could be used, or if wastewater treatment is required.

In some circumstances, the calculations are used to make non-specific findings,
such as a general determination of the maximum number of septic systems which
could be supported while maintaining groundwater quality at a certain nitrate
level.  For example, nutrient loading was used in a general application  by CCPEDC
to calculate the lot size appropriate for septic systems on Cape Cod.  When using
the results of a general analysis like this in large-scale planning, it  is
imperative to consider the nature of the model, which by nature does not  consider
existing nitrate levels, groundwater flows, hydrogeology,  and other nitrogen
sources.

Nitrate loading calculations can be dependent or independent of build-out
analysis.  In some cases, it may be desired to compute nitrogen loading  for an
existing situation, without consideration of future development.   For example,
nitrogen loading calculations might be used to determine whether septic systems
are a significant contributor to known groundwater pollution compared to  other
sources within a watershed.  This might be done through comparison of annual
loads without needing to calculate nitrate concentrations.   This has the
advantage of avoiding inherent uncertainty associated with assumptions involved
in the concentration calculations.

To project future groundwater pressures,  nitrogen loading calculations must be
used in conjunction with build-out analysis.   The result  could again be either an
annual load or a projected concentration.

Accuracy of Data.  The simplest of nitrate loading models  requires for data the
number of existing or potential septic systems, and the nutrient loading  rates.
The number of existing septic systems is generally readily estimated, and the
number of potential systems can be projected with the build-out analysis  to a
                                       250

-------
certain level of accuracy.  The accuracy of  these  simplified  nitrate  loading
analyses hinge on the appropriateness of the nitrate  loading  rates.

Nitrate-nitrogen loading rates vary; values  used in studies cited  herein  ranged
from 5 Ibs/person/year  to 10 Ibs/person/year.  Nitrate  loading  rates  are  based on
research which was focussed on estimating  flows and contaminant  loads to
treatment works, and on some actual monitoring of  effluent.   These rates  are
based on assumptions which include the  level of nitrification and  the degree  of
attenuation through the soil.  One rate assumes total nitrification in the  septic
system, with no removal of nitrate in underlying soils  (Frimpter et al, 1988),
while another assumes 50% nitrification only (COM, 1988).

Nitrogen loading rates were originally  developed from septic  system research  in
1960s and 1970s which was concerned with flow volumes and with  the load to  the
septic tank rather than the effluent from  the leaching  area.  Recent  research in
the area of the actual quality of effluent which leaching fields are  discharging
to the ground, and the actual degree of attentuation  which various soils  are
acheiving in view of different groundwater conditions appears to be lacking.

It is valuable and important to consider the assumptions involved  with a
particular rate before  its application.  It  may not be  accurate  to apply  the  same
rate to different soil and geohydrologic conditions.  Septic  tank  and leaching
field performance will shape the degree of nitrification which  occurs, while
underlying on-site soil conditions and  the depth to the water table will  affect
the degree of attenuation of nitrate.

One main advantage of nitrate loading is its minor data requirements.  The  data
necessary to use a more advanced model, such as a  solute transport model, is
often not available.  Nitrate loading,  with  all its inherent  assumptions, is  a
valuable tool for estimating the nitrate contribution of septic  systems relative
to other nitrate sources, or for projecting  the increase in nitrate load  with
development.  The projection of nitrate concentrations  in groundwater should  be
made only with an understanding of the  assumptions of the analysis.

Use of Result

In view of the assumptions used in nitrate loading analyses,  there are several
ideas to consider in application of the analyses and  results.   First,  there are
problems with transferring loading rates and other absolute numbers from  one
study area to another.  These rates were developed in part from  well-used data
concerning sewage generation, but are also based on nitrification, attenuation,
and other processes which may be shaped by site-specific conditions.   An
understanding of on-site soil properties and the processes assumed in the
development of a specific loading rate  are advisable.

One good use of the analysis is to estimate  the nitrate contribution  from septic
systems relative to other sources.  While  this application still relies on  the
loading rate, the same assumptions involved can be used when  estimating the
contribution from the other sources.  The result of this application  is a
relationship, rather than an absolute number.  The use  of nitrate  loading with a
build-out analysis is also useful to project change in  nutrient  load  and  relative
contribution of nitrate.
                                      251

-------
Regulation of Septic Systems

Build-out and nutrient  loading  analyses are techniques which help to assess
cumulative impacts of septic  systems  and development.  In order to minimize  the
potential for contamination of  groundwater from septic system effluent,  siting of
septic systems should consider  cumulative effects.   Currently, however,  siting of
septic systems is mainly  regulated  on an individual system basis.

The siting, as well as  the design and installation, of septic systems are
regulated on a state and  local  level.   Regulations  typically use parameters  such
as soil type or classification,  percolation rate,  depth of permeable soil, depth
to seasonal high water  table, and depth to bedrock to site septic systems.
Regulations also contain  setback requirements  and  detailed sizing and design
guidelines.  Table 2 lists selected standards  for  septic system siting for
several New England states.

             Table  2:   Septic System Regulations of Selected  States
/
SITE CONDITIONS
PERCOLATION RATE:
SLOW LIMIT
FAST LIMIT
SOIL DEPTH ABOVE
HIGH WATER TABLE
SOIL DEPTH ABOVE
IMPERVIOUS LAYER
OR BEDROCK
SLOPE

pHHAyHBBH
30 min/in
None
4 feet
4 feet
slope constrained
by lateral distance
requirements

J^HdHHHH
40 min/in "
None
4 feet
5 feet


HmAiB^B
60 min/in •
4 feet
6 or 8 feet
35%
.--.: - - ' '
Kara
60 min/in
1 min/in
3 feet
3 and 4 feet
10% (trench)
20% (bed or pit)

•nin^Hi
system baaed on
soil profile tenure
15 - 48 inches
15-48inchee
10% (trench)
20% (bed or pit)
           (1) Regulations shown apply to leaching bed systems.
            " Certain soil types that are floodplain soils or very poorly drained
           ** 20 min/inch over 2000 gpd.

Analysis of these regulations show that  in  most  states,  there is no consideration
for excessively permeable soils.  That is,  siting  regulations rely upon minimum
percolation rates.  The installation of  a septic system in excessively permeable
soil (i.e., with a percolation  rate of 1 min/inch) will be acceptable from a
regulatory standpoint, but is likely to  be  a  potential source of contamination.
When systems are placed in such excessively permeable soils,  and high groundwater
and/or shallow depth  to bedrock is present, that septic system has a strong
potential for contamination of groundwater.

Other problems with regulations are that often,  percolation tests may be repeated
until one test is adequate, although the soil may  not be suitable for attenuation
of wastewater on a daily basis.  In some areas,  soil  testing  can be done at any
time of year.   The depth to groundwater  distance (i.e.,  high  water level) may not
be accurate if measured in fall or winter.

The most serious limitation of  the regulations in  general is  their site by site,
rather than cumulative, approach to management and location of systems.  Nitrat
loading analyses show that when considered  on a  cumulative basis, the impact is
considerably greater  than the impact of  individual systems is believed to be, and
support the need to reevaluate  the way that the  management and siting of septic
systems is approached.
                                      252

-------
Finally, current regulations generally do not provide  for  planning on a
large-scale basis.  Municipal subdivision regulations  often allow for wastewater
planning, but where land is developed by individuals,  there is  currently no  real
method for bringing in considerations of cumulative  impacts.

Regulation of septic systems began with the goal of  protecting  human health  from
failed systems and from direct well contamination.   Now, regulation of septic
systems must have the goal of protecting groundwater as well as  the need to
accommodate development at some level.


Conclusion

Septic systems represent a significant threat to groundwater, as there are
various conditions under which insufficiently treated  wastewater can reach
valuable groundwater resources.  There is a now serious need for the
consideration of cumulative effects in planning and  regulation.  This need is
reinforced by results from different build-out and nitrate loading applications.

Build-out and nitrate loading analyses are methods that help to assess cumulative
impacts, but the application and validity of these and other methods must be
developed further.  Improvement of septic system siting can occur with increased
research on leaching area effluent volume and quality, the development of
different and realistic loading rates for different  hydrogeological conditions,
and development of practical methods for accurately  estimating  the purification
value of a soil sample.

Regulations in most New England states must be changed to address excessively
permeable soils as a first step, and to allow for large-scale siting and planning
as a second step.  Innovative development of ways to incorporate these and other
techniques into general planning must occur to protect groundwater while allowing
development.

In conclusion, build-out and nitrate loading analyses  indicate  that septic system
are a potential threat to groundwater quality.  While  maintenance of systems is
important, planning for and regulation of septic system siting must be improved
so that cumulative impacts and excessively permeable soils are considered.
                                    References

Atwood, Heather M.  1989.  "Quantifying Septic System Impacts to Groundwater
  Systems."  IEP Inc.
Bauer, D.H.,  Conrad, E.T., and Sherman, D.G.  1979.  "Evaluation of On-Site
  Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Options."  U.S. EPA.  Cincinnati, Ohio.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.  1988.  South Kingstown Wastewater Management Study.
Canter, Larry W. and Robert C. Knox~I1985.  Septic Tank System Effects on Ground
  Water Quality.  Lewis Publishers, Inc.  Chelsea, Michigan.
Frimpter,  Michael H., John J. Donohue IV, and Michael V. Rapacz in conjunction
  with The Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project (CCAMP).  1988.  A Mass-balance
  Nitrate  Model for Predicting the Effects of Land Use on Groundwater Quality in
  Municipal Wellhead Protection Areas.26 pps.
                                       253

-------
Cogger, C.G., L.M. Hajjar, C.L. Moe, and M.D.  Sobsey.   1988.   "Septic System
  Performance on a Coastal Barrier Island," J.  Environmental  Quality, Vol.  17,
  no. 3.
Jaffe, Martin and Frank DiNovo.   1987.  Local  Groundwater  Protection.  American
  Planning Association.  Washington DC.  262 pps.
Persky, James H.  1986.  The Relation of Ground-water  Quality to  Housing Density,
  Cape Cod, Massachusetts?U.S.  Geological Survey,  in cooperation with the Cape
  Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission.  Boston,  Massachusetts.   28
  pps.
Quadri, Claire Garrison.  1984.   The Relationship Between  Nitrate-Nitrogen  Levels
  in Groundvater and Land Use on  Cape Cod.Cape Cod Planning and  Economic
  Development Commission.
Teal, John M.  1983.  The Coastal Impact of Ground Water Discharge;   An
  Assessment of Anthropogenic Nitrogen Loading  in Town Cove,  Orleans,
  Massachusetts.Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole,
  Massachusetts.
Valiela, Ivan and Joseph Costa.   1988.  "Eutrophication of Buttermilk Bay,  a  Cape
  Cod Coastal Embayment:  Concentrations of Nutrients  and Watershed Nutrient
  Budgets,"  Environmental Management, Vol. 12, no. 4,  pp. 539-553.

Carol Lurie, AICP
Community Planner

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
One Center Plaza
Boston  MA 02108

Carol Lurie is a community planner with extensive experience  in developing
watershed protection programs, comprehensive planning  and community
participation.  She coordinated the Haverhill,  Massachusetts, Watershed
Management Plan, and the South Kingstown,  Rhode Island Wastewater
Management District Plan both of which dealt directly with protecting
groundwater quality in fragile environmental areas.  She has  a Masters
degree in City Planning from the Massachusetts  Institute of Technology, and
is currently assisting the City of Providence in developing the city's
Comprehensive Plan.

Elizabeth Beardsley
Environmental Engineer

CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
One Center Plaza
Boston  MA 02108

Elizabeth Beardsley is an environmental engineer and planner with
experience in water quality and watershed  protection projects.  She was
involved in technical analyses for the Haverhill,  Massachusetts, Watershed
Management Plan,  including review of  water quality data, development of
protection measures,  and recommending a water quality monitoring program.
She is also involved with a project  for Lake Quannapowitt,  in Wakefield,
Massachusetts,  under the Clean Lakes  program.   She holds a Bachelor's
degree in Civil Engineering from Stanford  University.
                                     254

-------
                  ROAD SALTING IMPACTS IN MASSACHUSETTS

                            James K. Barrett
                           Matthew P. Dillis2
     Normandeau Engineers, Inc. has completed an evaluation of impacts
from snow and ice control activities on the Massachusetts State Highway
network.  This analysis was done for the Massachusetts Department of
Public Works' (MDPW) Snow and Ice Control Program Generic Environmental
Impact Report (GEIR) released in April, 1989.  The GEIR evaluated MDPW's
snow and ice control program and the social, environmental, health and
economic implications of deicing chemicals and abrasives use.

     Statistical analyses were performed to develop relationships
between road salt application rates and accident frequency using MDPW's
Material Control System, a computerized data bank listing total salt
use, application rates and spreader route length for each spreader truck
and storm event.  An extensive literature search provided statistical
relationships between road salt application rates,  annual corrosion
costs and health impacts.  Literature searches were also used to develop
the environmental impact costs and economic benefits to commerce related
to snow and ice control.

     This analysis concluded that snow and ice control provided economic
benefits in the categories of traffic safety and commerce but created
costs in the categories of corrosion, public health and the environment.
Surprisingly, health effects related to sodium in drinking water were
found to be very low in comparison to corrosion costs.  Environmental
costs were also small compared to corrosion but this may be due to the
lack of quantitative information.  The GEIR concluded that road salt
impacts could be significantly reduced and substantial financial savings
achieved by optimizing road salt use.
   Group Manager, Normandeau Engineers, Inc., Concord, New Hampshire.
2
   Staff Engineer, Normandeau Engineers, Inc., Concord, New Hampshire.

                             255

-------
James K. Barrett, a Group Manager for Normandeau Engineers, Inc.
possesses degrees in engineering and geology.   During his 15 years of
professional experience, he has performed and managed numerous ground
water investigations for municipal and industrial water supply
developments, contamination assessments and hazardous waste
investigations.   Mr. Barrett's experience includes dewatering
investigations and water quality impacts analyses for major mining and
mill tailings disposal projects; water supply well field design and
installation; hazardous waste investigations at NPL sites throughout the
U.S.; design of ground water monitoring programs and water quality
sampling networks; aerial photography interpretation; isotopic studies;
and computer modeling.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Works has decided to extend
their level of research, therefore the project is still ongoing.
If you would like a copy of the final paper, please contact the author
at (603) 224-5770
                                  256

-------
                AN EPA/LOCAL PARTNERSHIP AT WORK -

        THE CREATION OF A GROUND WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM


                          Stuart Kerzner

                        US EPA,  REGION III
                 GROUND WATER PROTECTION SECTION
                      841 CHESTNUT BUILDING
                      PHILADELPHIA,  PA 19107

Abstract

     The Region III Ground Water Protection Section is using
Geographic Information System (CIS) technology to work with
local water resource agencies to develop and implement county-
wide ground water protection plans.  The purpose of working with
local agencies is to identify and target for priority regulatory
attention those areas that are susceptible to contamination. The
GIS technology enabled EPA to provide technical assistance to
local agencies in a program with limited federal resources.

     The GIS case study demonstrated the use of GIS technology in
ground water protection applications and illustrates how the
Region and the local officials worked together to develop a
mutually beneficial ground water protection program.  Program
development, data collection, map coverage construction,
composite map construction and evaluation are topics of
discussion.  Emphasis is placed on the application of GIS, its
potential for protecting underground sources of drinking water,
and its impact on management-making decisions.  Major project
benefits to the local agency and to EPA are also presented.


Introduction

     GIS is a computerized system used for the storage,
manipulation, display and analysis of spatial environmental data.
It is a data integration tool which combines sophisticated
mapping capabilities with a large computing capacity-

     It enables extensive multi-media analysis and evaluation in
geographic areas which were previously too time consuming or
difficult to investigate.
                              257

-------
     In 1988, the Region obtained the GIS, as well as ARC/INFO
software, PRIME computer expansion, a digitizer, plotter and
other mapping accessories.  The project team staff time, coupled
with increased PRIME computer use, represent a considerable
investment of resources.  This pilot project in Ground Water
Protection applications was undertaken to explore the full use of
this tool in the Region.

     The Regional CIS pilot project had these objectives:

* Develop a management tool which would help the Region more
  effectively and efficiently address ground water problems
  and protect underground sources of drinking water

* Develop Regional expertise and procedures for the use of
  GIS software and hardware

* Demonstrate several applications of this technology which
  yield tangible results to Regional managers

* Provide recommendations to managers regarding GIS uses
  to assist in determining environmental and program
  priorities, and directing compliance monitoring and
  enforcement efforts of the Region.

Project Description

     The project sought to demonstrate an application on a
county-level scale.  New Castle County (NCC), Delaware was
selected as the study site:

* It is one of the most vulnerable and ground water dependent
  counties in the Region

* Large amounts of digitized data were readily available
  for use through a cooperative arrangement with the USGS and
  NCC Water Resources Authority (NCC WRA)

* The County has an ongoing interest in implementing wellhead
  protection measures.

     Initially, the project goals were broadly defined: to
identify public water supplies and potential contamination
sources; to study areas that were susceptible to contamination;
to evaluate risks to ground water; to delineate wellhead
protection areas, and to target areas for priority regulatory
attention.

     The initial project was to implement the data collection,
conversion and evaluation.  The NCC WRA had an abundance of
digitized information available, but was on a different GIS,
called AERI.  The USGS also provided data which was already
digitized in ARC/INFO format.  In order for the AERI data to be
                                  258

-------
scanned, the data was first converted to ARC/INFO format.  Once
converted, the data was examined and the necessary information
was extracted for this project.  Test plots of facility site
locations were constructed and compared to source maps to
evaluate the quality of the data.  Upon completed, these map
coverages were constructed:

* Locations of EPA regulated facilities; including NPDES major
  discharges, CERCLA sites, and RCRA facilities

* Location of high risk (ie., older than 15 years) underground
  storage tanks  (USTs)

* Location of public water supply  (PWS) wells

* Location of PWS surface water intakes

* County/subcounty DRASTIC evaluation

* Population density

* Land use applications

* Septic tank suitability evaluation

* Recharge areas

* Aquifers

* Slope

* Soils

* Geology

* Hydrology

     Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the methodology and construction
of the map coverages, locating the potential sources of
contamination relative to the public water supply wells, ground
water recharge areas and wellhead protection areas.  Site data
for a specific facility can be retrieved from the INFO file (of
ARC/INFO) and displayed as illustrated on Figure 1.  Other data
files were constructed (not shown) that contain such information
as: PWSs using ground water that are in violation of maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs), population dependency on ground water,
reported incidents of contamination and status of remediation.

     The next aspect of the project was to identify areas that
were vulnerable to contamination.  The "DRASTIC" methodology,
developed by the National Well Water Association (NWWA) and EPA,
was used to evaluate ground water pollution potential to assess
the county's vulnerability to ground water contamination (refer
to Figure 3).  DRASTIC is an acronym representing the most
                                  259

-------
Figure 1
SAWIC
sin D
i
2







B
•ro D»u ru - uaaaniM siouct TAHCS
ricurr B
j-oooocn
J-OOOOOJ
1-OOOW7
J-000008
5-OOODB
J-4007JI
j-ooon
}-000207
3-OOOBft
3-ODOT79
UK
•as Aino KPus
DCU«««t AUTO SttVM
KT KM MC
ranou row HC
M VAUTY mwuuucs
Tcnco
HCIAWUC mxx STOP
9CU S1ATUH
CMtSLW C0»
tamw
SO! S IUIWT ST.
•03 >D« AVt
2H< COKOU •«
300 [ UI »VD
j?5 ouarr n.vt
Ul CUTW «OAO
(M s Dtpan mrr
D22 MLAWAH AVI
550 S COLUCt AVC
•WKirwK ran noiucTs en rmM
USX
HOH
WH
10«
10*
10*
low
LOW
HCH
WH
UGH
sunc
a* D
i
2








wo nu - KGUUTID ncxms
ncs w
MO«OJ7O«
KDOHSJnOI
DCOOOOSU
KDDOOewT
MUMOJBM9
OCD0008U
DCBME5JU1
DCOOOOOIS
DCD0039T31M
KDOM7093I
HAM
mr (suit ue LWDTU)
HOCXISSH rOOD COT
HCOICSSH WCU HO G-J
WKU.IS K.
Kins 4 KCVB a
-------
            LOCATION OF POTENTIAL  SOURCES  OF CONTAMINATION
RELATIVE TO GROUND WATER  RECHARGE  AREAS/WELLHEAD  PROTECTION AREAS
                        NEW CASTLE  COUNTY,  DELAWARE
                                                                IIUMD
                                                     HICH-FIIOtm
                                                     uutciciouue stoiAGi
                                                     CCICLA rion [ft t*u
                                                     CCUU riOK «[f CASH! CO  DAT*
                                                     PIS
                                                   .  «cm
                                                  //  iAJOS HIGHWAY
                                                  N  COUUTI iOUKDABT

                                                  Q  COCKt YJV 1 Ll£ KCHAieC P»OHCIIO« AHA
                                                  ^  »IUHIA6 PIOIICIIOII AHA
                                                  ^  KCHAICt PI011CTIOH AtfA
                                                  ICA1I 1:110 too
                                    FIGURE 2
                                           261

-------
POTENTIAL  VULNERABILITY BASED  ON DRASTIC INDEX
                                                          UCDffl

                                                 DMS1KWK
                                                 P IBS 1HM01
                                                 g DM2D
                                                 g BI-UO
                                                 £] MI-BO
                                                 B n-oo
                                                 g CSIA1U DUD BO
                                                 QJ G80IMI VAIDI ttOUJCl mtCCIlM AHA
                                                 CO IWO l»r FKID RAMS MTre AltOIN)
                                                 "" heuc »Ans SUPCIY wou
                                            SCALE tCD.DDO
                                                      n.arm momt 7. BJB
                           FIGURE  3
                                 262

-------
important factors controlling ground water pollution potential,
including: Depth to ground water, net Recharge, Aquifer media,
Soil media, Topography, Impact to the vadose zone, and hydraulic
Conductivity of the aquifer.  DRASTIC ratings, assigned by the
NWWA to 5.5 acre grid cells, were aggregated and categorized to
reflect the county's total vulnerability range (less than 101 -
greater than 180).  The higher the DRASTIC score, the greater the
vulnerability to contamination.

     To delineate Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) boundaries
around PWS wells, the arbitrary  fixed radius method was employed.
A two-mile radius was selected to minimize underprotection
resulting from not directly incorporating processes of ground
water flow.  In the map on Figure 4, WHPA's and Recharge Areas
containing highly vulnerable hydrogeologic settings - where
DRASTIC scores exceed 160 - were identified for further analysis.
These areas were evaluated relative to each other by this
equation:

     RATING = 2 (MCL VIOLATIONS) * 2 (RCRA RELEASES)
              * 2 (USTs 15 YEARS OR OLDER) * # of CERCLA
              SITES * 2 (RCRA SITES) * 3 (USTs)

     The equation incorporates a range of risk-related factors
including potential sources and  known incidents of contamination.
The map on Figure 5 shows the ten areas of highest risk for
ground water contamination.  Their characteristics are summarized
in Table 1.

     Based on this evaluation, the Wellhead Protection Area in
the city of New Castle appeared  to be undergoing the highest
degree of environmental stress.  It is this area that would
receive the highest priority of  EPA compliance monitoring and
enforcement.

Project Results

     The CIS project for ground  water protection resulted in
both tangible and intangible benefits to the Region and the NCC
WRA.  The following are tangible results:

* A true Federal/local partnership was developed to work towards
  a common goal - with no money  other than in-kind services from
  both parties

* The development of a management tool to assist managers in
  determining environmental and  program priorities

* Delaware and New Castle County were assisted in the development
  and implementation of their Wellhead Protection Programs

* EPA provided a technical assistance vehicle for states/locals
  in a program where Federal resources are limited
                                263

-------
    WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS AND RECHARGE AREAS
CONTAINING HIGHLY  VULNERABLE HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTINGS
                                          SC*Lt
                                              nusncMH
                                              f IBS 1HUDI
                                              g BI-BJ
                                              g Bl-ttO
                                              g w-to
                                              Q (MO
                                              Q OU1Q THAU BO
                                              Q CIOIM VAin HOUSa WOUCIBd AIU
                                              pa two iu FKD uous surrcts AROUD
                                              ™ hsuc WATH sumir wus
                                                   dorm OCTCMU 7, BU
                          FIGURE 4
                               264

-------
TARGETING  OF  HIGH RISK GROUND  WATER  AREAS
                                          UIHICIOlUt SIOItGC UIKS
                                          HUN DISK
                                          UltCltlOUID HOIAtt Ul(]
                                          ctuu  no* crt t«ii
                                          ccicu  noil net CASUC co
                                          • PKS
                                          NiJOl HUHfAti
                                          counn
                                          two nur FIKD KOIUS lurms
                                          AIDUIt PU11IC •*![» SUPPK »CHS
                       FIGURE  5
                               265

-------
             TEN GEOGRAPHIC AREAS AT HIGHEST RISK FOR

                    GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION
WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS

        AREA 1
  RATING 119
    25 PWS WELLS
    26 USTs
    16 HIGH RISK USTs
    9 CERCLA SITES
    POPULATION SERVED-5,500

        AREA 2
  RATING 113
    15 PWS WELLS
    20 USTs
    19 HIGH RISK USTs
    13 CERCLA SITES
    POPULATION SERVED-30,000
RECHARGE PROTECTION AREAS

        AREA 1
RATING 59
   12  PWS WELLS
  13 USTs
   7 HIGH RISK USTs
   6 CERCLA SITES
   POPULATION SERVED-5,500

        AREA 2
  RATING 34
    1 PWS WELL
    2 CERCLA SITES
    1 RCRA FACILITY
    14 RCRA RELEASES
    1 MCL VIOLATION
       AREA 3
  RATING 36
    2 PWS WELLS
    2 HIGH RISK USTs
    2 CERCLA SITES
    1 RCRA FACILITY
    14 RCRA RELEASES
        AREA 3
  RATING 21
    4 PWS WELLS
    5 USTs
    3 HIGH RISK USTs
       AREA 4
  RATING 26
    6  USTs
    5  HIGH RISK USTs
    2  CERCLA SITES
         AREA 4
  RATING 15
    3  USTs
    3  HIGH  RISK USTs
       AREA 5
  RATING 26
    8  USTs
    1  HIGH  RISK UST
          AREA 5
  RATING 12
    4  PWS WELLS
    2  CERCLA SITES
    5  HIGH RISK USTs
                            TABLE  1
                                  266

-------
* The Region's understanding and assessment of the scope and
  nature of environmental problems was dramatically improved

* GIS techniques proved useful to others in the Region and
  states.
Future Directions

     Based upon successful experience with the GIS project,
the Region committed program resources for a number of GIS
projects.  For the Ground Water Protection Program, the
identification of Regional ground water sensitive areas will be
initiated to oversee and direct EPA-funded activities in states
under the Clean Water Act (CWA).  Further, a detailed analysis
(on a larger scale) will be implemented for those counties
undergoing environmental stress, due to the number of
contamination sources and higher degree of ground water
vulnerability.

     Also proposed are a number of Federal/state/local
cooperative initiatives to use the GIS technology and Regional
expertise to further their ground water protection programs:

* Delaware: To assist in data sharing on pollution site locations
  and WHPP assistance.

* Pennsylvania: To identify ground water areas most vulnerable to
  contamination, and to assist with their WHPP development.

* West Virginia: To assist the Department of Natural Resources
  and the Department of Health promote WHPP development and the
  tracking of ground water trends.

* Jefferson County, West Virginia: Begin joint GIS initiative to
  facilitate a pesticides management plan.

* Anne Arundel County, Maryland: To explore joint GIS approaches
  and WHPP development.

* Carroll County, Maryland: Begin joint GIS initiative to
  facilitate WHPP development.

* Lancaster County, Pennsylvania: Begin joint GIS initiative to
  facilitate a pesticides management plan.
                                    26T

-------
                        Ac knowledgements

     The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance provided by
the following people at EPA, Region III:  Jon Capacasa, Chief of
the Drinking Water/Ground Water Protection Branch, Dr. Ava Nelson
Zandi of the Ground Water Protection Section, and David West of
the Information Resources Management Branch.
                                   268

-------
                       Biographical Sketch


Stuart Kerzner, Chief
Ground Water Protection Section
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pa. 19107


     I am a 1972 graduate of Ohio State University with a B.S. in
Geology, and have completed graduate work in Water Resources
Engineering.  I have spent the last 16 years working in the
related fields of environmental engineering and hydrogeology-  My
initial involvement was with the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resources, where I
worked as a ground water geologist and later as an environmental
engineer.

     Since 1976, I have been working on the federal level for
EPA, Region III. I have been involved in virtually all existing
surface and ground water related programs. In 1983, I became
involved in the ground water protection program. As a member of
the Ground Water Task Force, I helped develop the Agency's
National Ground Water Protection Strategy in 1984.

     Currently, my position is Chief of the Ground Water
Protection Section, which is primarily responsible for the
coordination of all ground water-related programs in the Regional
Office. I oversee the State Ground Water Protection Strategy
Program, the Regional Geographic Information System (GIS) Ground
Water Program, and the Wellhead Protection Program.
                                269

-------
270

-------
    A COMPUTERIZED DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR WELLFIELD PROTECTION
                  Thomas F- Jenkins and Guy Jamesson
                         Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
                         6161 Busch Boulevard
                         Columbus, Ohio 43229
Abstract
    The City of  Columbus,  Ohio operates a municipal wellfield capable
of producing approximately  30  million  gallons  per day (mgd).  Water is
withdrawn from a glacial aquifer by four  collector wells adjacent to
the Scioto and Big Walnut rivers. The wellfield land area is presently
subjected to  pressures  of urban  housing,  commercial  and  industrial
development,  sand  and  gravel  mining,   and  highways  frequented  by
hazardous material cargoes.
    The pressures of development and  the  resulting pollution sources
in the  area have  created  potential for wellfield  contamination.  The
"Wellfield Protection and Management Plan" prepared by Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc.  for the City in July, 1988 proposed  creation  of a comprehensive
ground water monitoring  network  covering  a two-mile radius  around the
wellfield. The monitoring network is expected to generate a large amount
of data regarding the water quality  and flow  characteristics  of the
surface and  ground water.
    Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. developed for the City of Columbus an easy to
use computerized database management system to effectively manage this
large database.   This paper  will  describe  the  major components of this
system.  The system can  store  and  retrieve data, prepare reports and
create graphics.  The  graphics  program can compare  the  collector well
discharge to the water quality  parameters  over the time span  of the
data.  Having established the  background  water quality,  the  database
system can readily show any changes in water quality. In addition, the
water quality data can be exported to a spreadsheet or other programs,
to develop Piper  water quality diagrams  or perform other more complex
forms of analysis.
    The  database  system  generates  graphic  data  presentations  as
information  is  collected. This allows the City to make quick,  reasoned
and appropriate decisions regarding wellfield protection.
COSWF.R/tdg
0228-48-1143                       271

-------
Introduction
    Any successful  wellfield protection program  includes three major
phases.   First,  the aquifer and  its relation to  surface features  is
studied and a  suitable  protection program is developed.   This is the
foundation of  the  program,  where  the  contamination-susceptible areas
are delineated and a plan of action is developed.  Second, the program
is implemented by protecting the areas  vital  to the wellfield.  This  is
frequently  the most  difficult  phase  because  it typically involves
controlling and  often  changing the  land use  within  the  wellfield.
Third, a monitoring  system must be developed to detect potential adverse
impacts on water quality and quantity.   If this  last phase  is omitted
or  if the data  collected  is  not analyzed,  the  long  term wellfield
protection may be jeopardized.
    This  paper outlines a data management system  which was developed
for  the  City  of Columbus,  Ohio,  as  part  of  a complete  wellfield
protection program.


Background

    The City of Columbus operates a 30 mgd wellfield south of the City
referred  to as  the South  Wellfield  (Figure  1) .    The  situation   in
Columbus is somewhat unusual, because although the wellfield draws water
from an area of approximately 9 square miles, the  City controls only a
very small portion of the land.
    The Columbus South  Wellfield  obtains water  from a glacial outwash
valley  fill aquifer  deposited  in  a  pre-glacial  valley.   Water   is
withdrawn  from four collector  wells,  three  located along the Scioto
River and one located along Big Walnut  Creek  as shown on Figure 1.  The
water withdrawn represents a mixture  of approximately 87 percent ground
water and 13 percent stream water induced by pumping (Sedam, 1988).
    Figure  2  shows three  geologic cross  sections  drawn  through the
wellfield.  In general,  the glacial outwash deposits can be  subdivided
into  lower  and upper sand  and  gravel  units separated by  a  clay till
which thins toward  the  center  of the valley.  Where the  clay till  is
absent, the upper and lower outwash  units  coalesce.   In some areas  of
the  wellfield,  outwash  deposits are  separated from  the bedrock  by
another clay till layer deposited directly on bedrock.
    Underlying the  glacial  valley  fill is  the Devonian age  Ohio shale
and  Columbus   limestone.    The  Silurian  age Bass  Islands dolomite
underlies  the  Columbus  limestone.   In  the  southern portions  of the
wellfield, the Columbus limestone thins and may  be absent (Schmidt,
1958).  The  shale-limestone contact bisects  the  wellfield with shale
underlying glacial deposits  to the east and limestone  underlying glacial
deposits to the west.
    Under the natural ground water flow  system in  the South  Wellfield,
recharge to the glacial  outwash flows down  the valley to the  south with
a large percentage discharging to the Scioto River.  This natural ground
water flow system has been  locally  affected by ground water withdrawal.
Figure 3 shows  water levels  in the glacial outwash aquifer measured July
COSWF.R/tdg
0228-48-1143                      272

-------
1,  1986.  Two prominent cones of depression have developed in the area
as a result of pumping.   The first  is  associated with quarry dewatering
north of the wellfield, the second is associated with pumping from the
South Wellfield.
    The potentiometric  surface  in  the bedrock aquifer is dominated by
pumping from  a  private limestone quarrying firm.   Most  of the ground
water flow  in the  bedrock is in the  limestone and dolomite carbonate
formations which are  recharged  in  outcrop areas to the  west.   A per-
centage of  the carbonate  bedrock water  discharges into  the glacial
aquifer, the remainder flows downdip  into  a deeper  bedrock flow system.
The degree  of interconnection between the glacial  outwash aquifer and
the carbonate bedrock aquifer is controlled by the presence or absence
of the clay till layer on the bedrock surface.
    The water treatment facilities in the  South Wellfield were designed
to handle a mixture of ground water  and  surface water drawn from the
glacial valley  fill aquifer.   Because of the high concentrations of
dissolved  solids  in the  carbonate bedrock water  an  increase  in the
percentage of water from the carbonate bedrock aquifer  could affect the
treatment  process.  Several  authors  have  evaluated the  character of
ground water  in the South Wellfield  (de  Roche,  1984,  Schmidt,  1958).
Schmidt (1958)  obtained  an  average hardness  of 386 ppm total hardness
from 6 well samples in the glacial  aquifer as  compared  to an average of
1129 ppm  total hardness  from  11  samples  from wells  in the Columbus
limestone and Bass  Islands dolomite.  Ground water from  the Bass Islands
dolomite is particularly  high in hardness and total dissolved solids,
and is very difficult to treat.

Factors Potentially Affecting the Wellfield

    The south side of the City of Columbus is  principally an industrial
area, with several manufacturing  facilities, landfills,  and quarrys. The
landfills are having an effect on ground water quality (deRoche, 1985)
however, they are located   near the  large limestone quarry located to
the north  of the wellfield  (Figure  1) .  Presently, the  large cone of
depression  created  by  quarry dewatering  intercepts a large portion of
the ground water flow. If the quarry dewatering were to  cease, and the
wellfield was   expanded, the possibility exists that landfill affected
water would migrate towards the  wellfield.  In  addition, within the zone
of contribution to the wellfield there is  a jet fuel pipeline, two gas
stations, several residential developments and a racetrack.  The water
quality  of the Scioto  river   is  affected by urban  runoff and  the
discharge of  treated wastewater  from the Jackson Pike  sewage treatment
plant located upstream. Most of the land use  in the South Wellfield is
currently agricultural,  however because  of the value  of the sand and
gravel deposits in the area an increasing percentage of  the area is
being mined.  Therefore,  there  are several factors that  could have an
adverse impact  on the South Wellfield:

              surface  spills,
               infiltration  of contaminated river water,
              quarry dewatering,
COSWF.R/tdg                       273
0228-48-1143

-------
         -    sand and gravel mining,
         -    landfill leachate in ground water,
              mixing of bedrock water,
              droughts
              man-made reductions in recharge.

In order to assess the impact of  these  factors,  the City must monitor
precipitation, surface water quality and flow, and ground water quality
and flow.  These factors may be subdivided  into two categories: water
supply  and  water  quality.    The water supply  factors that require
monitoring are:

              effects of local quarry dewatering
         -    effects of riverbed siltation
              effects of reduced precipitation
              effects of sand and gravel mining
              effects  of  wellfield discharge  on local  private water
              supplies

The water quality factors that require monitoring are:

         -    the influx of bedrock water induced by pumping
              the quality of stream water
              the impact of surface land use
              the impact of nearby landfills

    In  order  to  assess  the impact  of  these  factors,  a  wellfield
monitoring plan  was designed.   Figure  4  shows  the  location  of  the
proposed surface  and ground water  monitoring  locations.    Under  the
proposed monitoring plan:

    1.   Surface water  will be monitored  for flow and  water quality
         within a two mile radius of the wellfield.

    2.   Ground water level will  be monitored continuously at several
         locations near the collector wells  and semiannually within a
         two mile radius.

    3.   Ground water quality will be monitored within a one mile radius
         of the wellfield.

The monitoring program developed was designed to expand on the wellfield
monitoring already being  conducted  by the US Geologic  Survey and the
Ohio EPA. To  provide  adequate  protection,  a large  area  must be moni-
tored; therefore,  the volume of data generated is considerable.

Database Management System


 For  the amount of  data generated,  manual  data  reduction  would be
neither efficient nor practical.   Therefore,  the City required an easy-
COSWF.R/tdg                       274
0228-48-1143

-------
to-use data management  system  to quickly demonstrate changes in water
quality  and/or quantity.    Therefore,   a  customized  application  was
developed using the dBASE III PLUS1 database management software  and its
programming language. dBASE III PLUS was chosen for the database system
because of its wide use and compatibility with other programs.
    Figure 5 depicts  the structure of the data base system developed.
All files are  linked to a master  data  file a the site identification
number.  The master data file contains information on  the location, date
of installation and construction particulars of a particular monitoring
station. The program is operated  by responding to a  series  of  menu
driven prompts. Information can be easily input and retrieved via this
menu driven system, and output to printed reports or data files.
    Even with a data base which allows easy retrieval  of data, the vast
amount of data  available makes meaningful interpretation very difficult.
To help solve this problem, a graphics capability was developed within
the database system using the DGE2 program.  A user-specified time period
of for  any of  the database parameters  can  be graphed by entering the
starting date.   The mean, standard deviation  and best-fit lines can be
displayed as  an  option.   An  example of  a yearly graph  of chloride
concentration in a collector well is shown in Figure  6.  Another option
available is a  time series  graph.  This graph displays the entire data
set on a particular parameter by moving the data horizontally across the
screen, similar to an oscilloscope.
    Single parameter graphs are useful for identifying changes from the
historical background, but do not provide much information regarding the
possible causes of changes in background.  In order to provide a method
to  evaluate  changes  in background  information,  several  graph types
showing various data comparisons were developed for the database system.
Presently,- the three following graph types  can be generated:

         -     Collector well discharge  versus monitoring  well water
               level  and precipitation,
               Collector well  discharge versus  collector well  water
               quality parameters,
         -     Stream discharge versus  stream water quality.

    Examples of each of these graphs are shown on Figures 7 through 9.
As  the database  system is used  and  enhanced,  additional  comparison
graphs will be  developed.  Figure 7 shows the comparison of water levels
in a  monitoring well near collector well  101,  the  combined collector
well  discharge,   and  the stream  discharge  measured  upstream  of  the
wellfield.  The relation between pumping rate and water level for this
monitoring well is not clearly evident because it  is  in a location that
          1  dBASE III PLUS is a trademark of Ashton-Tate Corpora-
     tion

          2  DGE is a  registered  trademark of Pinnacle Publishing
     Inc.
COSWF.R/tdg                         275
0228-48-1143

-------
occasionally floods.  As the wellfield monitoring system is developed,
additional  continuous water  levels  recorders will  be  installed to
provide  a  better  picture  of  the  relation  between  collector  well
discharge and water levels in the area.
    Figure  8 shows  changes  in concentrations of hardness, calcium and
alkalinity when collector well number  103 (CW-103) is pumped at a higher
discharge rate of 5.6 mgd.   These changes are presumably related to an
increased influx  of bedrock water,  from either the Columbus  limestone
or the Bass Islands  dolomite.  To date, the other collector wells in the
wellfield have not shown  the same increase in these parameters.  Because
CW-103 contributes only  18% of the water pumped, the treatment  process
has not been affected by the water quality changes observed.  Figure 9
shows  the  same   concentrations  in  CW-101  when  pumped  at  a   higher
discharge rate  of 7.2 mgd.   There  is  no apparent  increase  in  these
chemical parameters  associated with the higher discharge rate in  CW-101.
Apparently, in  the  vicinity  of  CW-103,  there  is a  better connection
between the bedrock aquifer and the glacial aquifer.
    Figure  10  shows the stream discharge in  the  Scioto River  and  the
5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand  (BOD5)  and  Dissolved Oxygen  (DO)  con-
centrations.  This  graph shows a good  correlation  between low  DO  and
low stream flow.  This is probably because there is a sewage  treatment
plant upstream of the wellfield  and  at  low  flow a large percentage of
the streamflow is treated waste water.
    In  addition  to  the  above comparisons,  water quality  data  can be
exported to a Lotus 1-2-3 file and graphed in Piper or Stiff  diagrams.
A  program developed  by Cheng  (1988)  can  be  used  to  develop  Piper
diagrams.   Additional  graphs could  be developed  to  compare   quarry
dewatering  discharge,  wellfield discharge,  to monitoring well  water
levels,  combined raw water  chemical  character to total   wellfield
discharge and collector well pumping  level to  collector well discharge.
Data  comparisons  like these  need  to be evaluated  frequently  for  any
wellfield to identify problems in the early stages of development.

Summary

    All  too often,  data on wellfield parameters  is  collected  but  not
evaluated for trends or  changes in background until a problem has been
developing for some  time. The database system developed  allows the City
of Columbus plant operators to evaluate  wellfield data as soon as it is
collected.
    Conducting  a  wellfield  protection  study  and   implementing  the
wellfield protection plan is  the first  step in safeguarding  municipal
groundwater supplies.  However, a comprehensive monitoring plan and an
easy  to use data management  system are necessary to  provide  early
detection  factors having an  of  adverse impact  on water quality or
quantity.

Acknowledgements

    We appreciate the assistance provided by Bill Eitel, Mike  Brown  and
the staff of the Parsons Avenue Water Plant in  conducting  this  study-
COSWF.R/tdg                         276
0228-48-1143

-------
References

Cheng, S. 1988,  Trilinear Diagram Revisited: Application, Limitation,
and an Electronic  Spreadsheet Program, Groundwater,  v.26,  no. 4, pp.
505-510

de Roche, J.T.,  and Razem, A.C.  1984,  Water Quality of a Stream Aquifer
System,  Southern  Franklin  County,  Ohio,  U.S.   Geological  Survey,
Columbus, Water Resources Investigation Report 84-4238, 29 pp.


de Roche, J.T.,  1985, Hydrogeology and Effects of  Landfills on Ground-
Water Quality, Southern Franklin  County, Ohio, U.S. Geological Survey,
Columbus, Water Resources Investigation Report 85-4222, 58 pp.

Schmidt, J.J., and Goldthwait,  R.P.,  1958, The Ground-Water Resources
of Franklin County, Ohio,  Ohio Department of Natural Resources,  Division
of Water, Columbus, Bulletin 30,  97 pp.

Sedam, A.C.,  Eberts,  S.M.,  and  Bair,  E.S., 1988,  Ground-Water Levels,
Water  Quality,   and Potential  Effects of Toxic-Substance  Spills or
Cessation of  Quarry Dewatering Near  a  Municipal Ground-Water Supply,
Southern Franklin County, Ohio.  U.S.  Geological Survey, Columbus, Water
Resources Investigation Report 88-4138, 111 pp.
COSWF.R/tdg
0228-48-1143                       277

-------
LEGEND


COLLECTOR *«LL

LIMESTONE QLMWW

LANDFILL
                                      PARSONS AVE.
                                      WATER PLANT
                                    APPROXIMATE ZONE OF
                                    CONTRIBUTION TO WELLFIELD
                       LOCATION MAP

             COLUMBUS SOUTH  WELLFIELD

                         FIGURE 1
                           278

-------
   LEGEND

Cd   CLAY

      SAND

CHI   SAND & GRAVEL

      SHALE

      LIMESTONE
LOCATION OF CROSS SECTION
                               0  2000 4000  6000  8000
                               '    '    '    '    '
                                 HORIZONTAL SCALE
                                   50   100  150  200
                                   I    I    I    'I
                                  VERTICAL SCALE
                 GEOLOGIC  CROSS SECTIONS
                                                      279
                                       FIGURE  2

-------
                                                       PARSONS AVE
                                                       WATER
                                                       PLANT
                                                                                  M.
           LEGEND
   A     COLLECTOR WELL
   •     WELL
— 690—  POTENTIOMETRIC LINE
	POTENTIOMETRIC LINE,
         APPROXIMATE EXTRAPOLATION
         PAVED ROAD
         GROUND-WATER FLOW PATH
         GROUND-WATER DEPRESSION
                   GROUND  WATER  LEVEL MAP
                           JULY  1,  1986
280
       QUADRANGLE LOCATION
                                                            0   2000   4000   6000   8000
                                                                     SCALE
                                                            CONTOUR INTERVAL = 10 FEET
           FIGURE  3

-------
                                          LEGEND
SEMIANNUAL STATIC WATER-LEVEL
O  EXISTING
SEMIANNUAL WATER QUALITY AND STATIC WATER-LEVEL
•  EXISTING

+  PROPOSED DRILLING LOCATION

CONTINUOUS WATER-LEVEL RECORDER
A  EXISTING LOCATION, PROPOSED WATER-LEVEL RECORDER
m  AND SEMIANNUAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING
                                                    SURFACE WATER  SAMPLING LOCATIONS
                                                    ,0.  EXISTING SURFACE-WATER AND SEDIMENTATION
                                                    W  SAMPLING STATION (OEPA)

                                                    .A,  PROPOSED SURFACE-WATER AND SEDIMENT
                                                    ^  SAMPLING LOCATION
A
    PROPOSED  WATER-LEVEL RECORDER  AND SEMIANNUAL
    WATER QUALITY MONITORING

    PROPOSED  WATER-LEVEL RECORDER  LOCATION
                                                                          QUADRANGLE LOCATION
                                                                       0    2000   4000   6000   8000

                                                                                 SCALE
                                                                       CONTOUR INTERVAL = 10 FEET
                      PROPOSED  MONITORING  NETWORK
                                                                    261
                                                                              FIGURE  4

-------
                                                SOUTH WELLFIELD
                                                  MASTER FILE
ro
CO
to
                                                                     MONITORING STATION FILES
WATER
LEVEL

CONTINUOUS
WATER
LEVEL

GROUND
WATER
QUALITY

COLLECTOR
WELL DAILY
PUMPING
RATE

COLLECTOR
WELL
WATER
QUALITY

WELL
CONSTRUCTION
RAINFALL
DATA

STREAM
DISCHARGE
DATA

STREAM
WATER
QUALITY
DATA
                          DATABASE  MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STRUCTURE
FIGURE 5

-------
         CALCIUM CONCENTRATION IN CW-103  (mg/1)
                  From 03/O1/B8 to O2/S8/89
  aoo -

  IBO -

  16O -
 c
 A 14O -
 L
 j 120-
 U
 M 10O -
O9/06/89
  O3/01/8B
              O5/3O/88      O8/28/8B
                       DATE
                                      11/26/88
  02/24/89
                        FIGURE 6
RAINFALL
    10/O1/B4
                12/3O/B4     O3/3O/8S     O6/2S/BS
                DATA COMPARISON GRAPH - COLUMBUS SWF
                                                    O9/26/8E
                        FIGURE 7

                            283

-------
ro
CO

                                           n
                                     n  n

                                x     x    x
                                                          XX
                                               i	1	1	1	r
                                                                                 ~i	r
                                  WATER  QUALITY COMPARISON  GRAPH - COLUMBUS  SWF

                                  COLLECTOR WELL  CW1O3 :   07/15/87 TO  O7/14/89
                                                       FIGURE 8

-------
rO
CC'
             HARD .

             + mg/1
              CALCIUM 100 -
                             WATER  QUALITY COMPARISON GRAPH  - COLUMBUS SWF

                             COLLECTOR WELL  CW1O1 :  O7/15/87 TO O7/14/B9
                                               FIGURE 9

-------
tvji
CO
20 -
IB-
BODS. 1B~
mg/1 14 -
12-

10-
D.O.
8-
O mg/1
8-
4 -
2-

STREAM15000-
DISCH'ioooo-
CFS 5000-
0 -



>X

X '








X
^>










1
ill





x
k)







X

< '



X

<

































































x.



X
X
,>5*




\,
f



X
/
>







1
X'





Ofc







1,
X

' ^









xxj
<
V
/





X
^
s,





X



















X
*< ^





X

X
1













X
















,1
X








X





1









f



WATER
i

'

QUALITY
STREAM GAUGE


1

1



1
COMPARISON GRAPH -
AT
SWFSTWQ

)(c
**



Xxx •><
X
X
" X'X x
X SR^X \y X X
^ 'pV^ Xv X
/\ ^ s\



, 1,

L
III 1,
Ul 	 L... Ill
i i i i
COLUMBUS SWF
: 01/01/84 TO 12/31/85
                                                 FIGURE 10

-------
               Ground Water Resource Based Mapping
                  Nashua Regional Planning Area
                          New Hampshire

                          David Delaney
                           Hydrologist

         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region I
             J.F.  Kennedy Federal  Building  (WGP  2113)
                          (617)  565-3615

                           INTRODUCTION

The EPA and New England environmental protection, water resource
planning and economic development agencies are becoming
increasingly aware that the collective consideration of water
resources, waste disposal and land use is critical to sound
environmental decision making.  EPA, Region I is actively
involved in four principal ground water resource management
initiatives: wellhead protection area delineation and management;
sole source aquifer designation; ground water resource
classification; and, Geographic Information System technology
use.

The New England states and the EPA share a common goal to protect
valuable and highly vulnerable environmental resources.  The EPA
is working to improve ground water resource protection by
continuing to develop and use Geographic Information Systems.
Geographic Information Systems  (GIS) can facilitate use of
environmental resource data to support in Federal and State
environmental program decisions and work products.  Use of Region
I GIS is helping EPA better identify environmental problems and
to assess their nature and importance. Environmental program
management can be enhanced by using GIS to develop more
comprehensive technical bases for regulatory decisions.

EPA encourages proactive environmental protection.  Resource
information displayed through GIS is improving our ability to
focus regulatory activity to protect critical resources.
Further, successful integration of EPA data bases with GIS can
improve use of limited staff and contractor resources.  Staff
evaluating permits, conducting compliance monitoring and site
inspections and pursuing enforcement can be assigned to
regulatory activities impacting priority resources that are most
at risk.  EPA program use of GIS can increase the consistency and
success of EPA environmental decisions resulting in more
efficient water resource planning and protection.  GIS link of
EPA data bases will increase our ability to better respond to
EPA, State and Local need for data and technical assistance to
support ground water resource protection and management programs.
                               267

-------
                             PURPOSE

The often close proximity of contaminant sources to potable water
resources place human health at risk.  The purpose of this
mapping initiative is to use CIS to depict ground water resources
in two New England pilot study areas and to show the geographic
relationship between these resources and potential contamination
sources.  Maps and information compiled will be used to support
the following Office of Ground Water Protection goals to:


     improve EPA and State capability to identify, environmental
     problems and to assess their nature and importance,

     support state development and implementation of wellhead
     protection programs,

     promote inter- and intra- agency program coordination of
     resource protection efforts, and

     demonstrate use of resource mapping to support prioritiz-
     ation of EPA program activities.

                              SCOPE

There are extensive hydrologic, environmental and geographic data
base for New England.  The EPA, Region I, Ground Water Management
Section has compiled these types of information to support the
Branch River Basin, Rhode Island, and the Nashua Regional
Planning Area, New Hampshire, mapping initiatives.  These pilot
mapping demonstration areas were selected because GIS compatible
digital US Geological Survey maps describing the availability of
ground water in stratified drift aquifers and digital line graph
data are available.

Most of the people living within the pilot areas drink ground
water, a resource that is susceptible to contamination by many
land use activities.  Release of contaminants associated with
some land use activities can degrade water resources and other
important environments.  A major goal of this initiative is to
show the close geographic relationship between resources and
potential contaminant sources.  These pilot areas were chosen
partly because there are a manageable  number and a good spectrum
of Federal and State regulated facilities that can contribute to
environmental contamination.  State and Federal efforts to
identify contamination sources and critical environmental
resources in these pilot areas offer an opportunity to combine
our water resource protection efforts.  These small scale
initiatives support development of a broader regional
understanding of surface and ground water resources as a
framework for addressing issues related to regional water
resource protection, water supply allocation and waste disposal.


                                2138

-------
               Ground Water Resource Based Mapping
                   Nashua Regional Planning Area
                           New Hampshire
       NASHUA  REGIONAL  PLANNING AREA

                   NEW  HAMPSHIRE
EPA initiated a ground water resource-based  mapping pilot project
in New Hampshire to provide assistance with ground water protec-
tion.  Discussion  with the New Hampshire Department of Environ-
mental Services  (NH  DES)  resulted  in  selection of  the  Nashua
Regional   Planning  Area  pilot  study area.     The  Groundwater
Protection Bureau of NH DES is  actively  inventorying Underground
Injection-Class V wells,  solid waste dumps,  contaminant releases,
wastewater discharges and underground storage tanks and delineating
wellhead   protection  areas  and  water resources  in  support  of
groundwater protection within the Nashua Regional Planning Area.
NH DES indicated that  they  have access  to the University of New
Hampshire Geographic Information System (CIS) that will  provide the
state with capability  to use  CIS products.
                              289

-------
The Nashua Regional Planning Area is located in south central New
Hampshire.   The area  includes  the towns  of  Amherst,  Brookline,
Hollis, Hudson, Litchfield,  Lyndeborough, Merrimack, Milford, Mont
Vernon, Nashua, Pelham  and  Wilton,  Hillborough County-   This 322
square mile  area  was chosen  because  of its manageable  size and
because the project area is close to Region I, Boston, minimizing
travel and facilitating field work.

There  are  a  number of Federal and  State  data management systems
containing  information describing  the Planning  Area  hydrology,
water  resources,  water supply, potential  contamination sources,
and geography.  Approximately 160,000 people live in this rapidly
growing part of southern New Hampshire.  Drinking water is provided
primarily by public water supply  and  private  wells.   The project
area has  cultural  and hydrologic  characteristics  common to rural
New England.  Within the project area there are approximately:

          198 wells providing  public  water supply (68 community
                 wells and  130 noncommunity wells),

          5 community surface water supply intakes,

          41 national pollutant discharge  elimination  system
          permitted outfalls,

          7 national priority listed CERCLA sites,

          43 non national priority listed CERCLA sites,

          20   facilities   reporting   as   per  SARA   Title  III
          regulations,

          186 Resource  Conservation and Recovery  Act regulated
          facilities  (Nashua Facilities not inventoried), and

          110 agricultural  chemical application sites

Maps  and  information compiled  can  be used to support proactive
environmental   protection.     Resource  and  contaminant   source
information displayed through CIS can  improve  our  ability to focus
regulatory activity to protect critical resources.

The CIS data bases developed allow identification and delineation
of important Nashua area water resources and facilitate evaluation
of  impact  of   potential  contaminant   sources  near  water   supply
sources.  This information helps provide a data intensive forum for
discussion of water resource and waste disposal management options.
                              290

-------
David Delaney, Hydrologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,



Ground Water Management and Water Supply Branch, Region I, Boston.








Worked from 1967-1979 with U.S.  Geological Survey, Water Resources



Division,   New   England  District,   conducting   water  resource



investigations in Massachusetts.   Since 1979,  worked with EPA as



a senior Water Management Division hydrologist providing program



technical support and conducting special projects associated with



water  resource  protection  and  management.    Provided technical



support on Waste  Management  Division RCRA and Superfund enforcement




projects.
                             291

-------
292

-------
           A MODEL COMMUNITY PROGRAM FOR PRIVATE WELLS
               Roy F. Jeffrey and Karen K. Filchak

                    University of Connecticut
                  Cooperative Extension System
                       Storrs, Connecticut
Abstract

     Successful   implementation  of  a  comprehensive  municipal
groundwater protection program requires knowledgeable  consumers.
The  University  of  Connecticut Cooperative  Extension  System's
"model  town"  program was set up in order to  bring  individuals
into  the groundwater protection process.   Implemented in  1989,
the program provided groundwater information to residents of  the
rural  towns of Brooklyn and Pomfret so that they could  properly
assist  in the management of their private and public groundwater
supplies.   A  variety of delivery systems were used to  transfer
drinking  water  supply  information to individuals  in  the  two
municipalities.   A key part of the program was the formation  of
community  advisory  groups  which  included  the  chief  elected
official (first selectman), representatives of municipal agencies
and organizations as well as other interested persons.

     The  "model  town"  program  methodology  was  designed   to
supplement   Connecticut's  aggressive   groundwater   protection
program.   The  State's effort is targeted at the major  aquifers
where  most  municipal and industrial supplies are  located,  but
does not directly address many of the more rural areas where over
one-sixth  of  the  population derives its  drinking  water  from
individual and smaller community wells.

Introduction


     Protecting groundwater quality has become a major concern in
Connecticut  during  the 1980's.   Because of this  concern,  the
State  has  begun an aggressive groundwater  protection  program.
                                  293

-------
The  program is multifaceted and is targeted to a wide variety of
audiences.   A major focus of this program is the development and
implementation  of  protection measures in  areas  which  overlay
major public water supply aquifers.

     The  University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension  System
(UConn  CES)  is  part  of a  unique  national  public  education
organization  that  serves  as a link  between  knowledge and its
useful application.   In Connecticut, this means taking research-
based   information  to  more  than  one-half  million  residents
annually.

     The  design and implementation of educational  programs  for
the  protection  of  water quality is a major initiative  of  the
Extension System at both the national and state level.   A  state
Extension  project  team  received United  States  Department  of
Agriculture  (USDA) funding to develop educational programs about
the importance of regular testing of rural water supplies, how to
interpret  water test data and treatment methods to  assure  safe
drinking   water.    Thirteen  Water  Quality  Fact  Sheets  were
developed to supplement this program.

     As part of the USDA water quality grant, in March 1989 UConn
CES  initiated  a  demonstration  "model  town"  program  in  the
municipalities of Brooklyn and Pomfret.

The Setting

     Connecticut has a population of 3.2 million people with over
32% deriving their drinking water from groundwater sources (Table
1).

Table 1.  Groundwater Supply Statistics (Environment Committee,  1989)

                             (1985 Data)

               Pop.      % of      Water     % of all water drawn
Supply Source  Served    Pop.   Withdrawn*     from all sources
1400 Commun.
Supply Wells   518,190   16.2   65.6 MGD              16

250,000 Ind
Homes          514,990   16.1   38.6 MGD              10
TOTAL        1,033,180   32.3  104.2 MGD              26

*Million (s) gallons per day (MGD)
                                 294

-------
                Figure 1 Model Town Location Map
     The  two  towns  selected  for  the  program,  Brooklyn  and
Pomfret,  are  in northeast Connecticut (Figure 1) and are served
entirely  by  groundwater sources.   Although  part  of  Brooklyn
overlies a public water supply aquifer,  most persons residing in
the  two  municipalities  rely on individual  groundwater  supply
wells (Table 2).   Most of these individual wells are located  in
areas  outside the aquifer areas targeted for protection  through
the State program.

 Table 2.  Water Supply Service Systems (State of Connecticut, 1986)
Brooklyn
     Population on community wells
     Population on individual wells
     Total population
Pomfret
     Population on community wells
     Population on individual wells
     Total population
2484
3346
5830
 250
2500
2750
(43%)
(57%)
(100%)
(1%)
(99%)
(100%)
                                 295

-------
     Planning  projections  indicate these two  communities  will
face  growth  pressures  during the next several years  from  the
Hartford,  Providence and Worcester metropolitan areas.   Most of
the  growth in Brooklyn and Pomfret is expected to occur  outside
any major public water supply aquifer area which may be  targeted
by  the  State for protection.   As a result,  there will  be  an
increasing  need for local government  and citizen involvement to
protect water quality.

Why the Model Town Approach

     The Connecticut Aquifer Protection Task Force was charged in
1987  by  the State Legislature to examine means and  methods  to
protect the State's groundwater supplies.    In their February 15,
1989  report to the legislature the Task Force indicated  a  need
for  education  to  play a major  role,  (Environment  Committee,
1989) .
               "The  Task Force feels the  role  of
               education in protecting groundwater
               cannot be overstated.  As with many
               environmental issues,  a successful
               program        for       protecting
               Connecticut's    drinking     water
               requires  a change in the attitudes
               of  society  based  on  enlightened
               sensitivities    to   the    finite
               resources upon which it depends."

     In  order  to implement a  comprehensive  local  groundwater
protection program, it is important to educate citizens about the
topic  so they may become willing and knowledgeable partners with
the governmental sector.   A program of this sort differs from  a
more    traditional   municipally-operated   program   such    as
transportation planning and management which is usually initiated
and  carried  out almost exclusively at the  governmental  level.
The  "model  town" program was designed to bring  the  individual
into  the process of groundwater protection by helping  residents
understand  how  to manage their groundwater supplies as well  as
learn how public and private actions can influence water quality.
It  was  hoped  that,  if successful  in  the  "model  community"
setting, the program could be used by other municipalities in the
State.

     Brooklyn and Pomfret were selected because all the residents
in  each community received their water from public  and  private
groundwater sources.   In addition, each town had a chief elected
official  (first  selectman) who was interested and  involved  in
water quality issues.
                                 296

-------
Implementation

     A variety of delivery methods were used to transfer drinking
water  supply  information to the  local  residents.   Approaches
included  direct mailings,  educational forums,  activities  with
community  organizations,  interaction with the media and one-to-
one consultations.

     It  should  be noted that the issue of water quality is  not
one in which one agency or organization has sole  responsibility-
For  this  reason  UConn CES recognized the need to network  with
others  interested  in  water  quality  and  coordinated  project
activities with the State Health Department,  District Department
of Health and the local Council of Governments.

     A  key part of the program was the formation of an  advisory
group in each community.   Membership in the groups included  the
chief elected official  (first selectman), town commission members
and other interested persons.  Individuals in each community were
identified and contacted by the first selectman.

     Advisory  group meetings were held to explain  the project's
goals,  present an overview of the town's water supply situation,
discuss possible role(s) of the advisory group,  review available
Extension   resources   and   consider   means   to   disseminate
information.   Advisory  group  members could become involved  in
several ways:

     1.    Advisory  - recommend  methods or potential  audiences
with which the Extension project team might work.

     2.    Coordinating  - be  involved in  scheduling  programs,
exhibits, etc.

     3.    Participation  - be  available to respond  to  certain
inquiries   or   assist  in   information   dissemination   (i.e.
distributing fact sheets, staffing exhibits, etc.)

     The  importance of the advisory groups should be emphasized.
These  groups were able to  bring local knowledge,  guidance  and
ideas  to  the Extension project team that might  otherwise  have
been overlooked.   As a follow up to the meetings, advisory group
members were kept informed by a newsletter.

Activities

     Program  activities  were conducted during the  seven  month
funding  period  which began in  March  1989.   These  activities
included:

     1.    Special  Mailing - Because Brooklyn and  Pomfret  have
relatively small populations (5830 and 2750 respectively), it was
                                  297

-------
felt  that  a  direct  mailing to all  residences  would  achieve
maximum exposure,  while still being economically  feasible.   An
informational  packet  was mailed to 2356 residential units  with
private  wells.    The  packet  contained  a  cover  letter  that
described   the  groundwater  quality  issues  and  outlined   an
opportunity  for  residents to take advantage of a  reduced  rate
standard  parameters  water test.   Also included were  the  fact
sheets  "Testing the Private Well" and "Maintaining  Your  Septic
System" plus an order form for other Water Quality Fact Sheets.

     Informational  packets  were also mailed to 260  residential
units on a public water supply.  They received the same materials
except  that  the  fact  sheet "Testing  the  Private  Well"  was
replaced with "Customers on Public Supplies."

     A follow-up packet with information on how to participate in
the reduced rate water testing was sent to all who inquired.

     2.    Educational Presentations - Brooklyn and Pomfret had a
limited   number   of   groups  to   which   formal   educational
presentations  could  be  made.   However,  targeted  groups  did
include local churches, school PTO's and horticultural societies.

     3.    National  Drinking  Water Week - This was  a  national
effort to increase public awareness of the drinking water supply.
The  project  team participated in this  effort  by  distributing
information packets.   One packet was distributed through a local
garden  center  in  Brooklyn and contained information  on  water
quality  and the home landscape.    This packet included  a  cover
letter about National Drinking Water Week (NDWW),  a NDWW sticker
and the Extension fact sheet "Well Water and the Home Landscape."
Another  packet  was  distributed  in  conjunction  with  a  well
drilling  and  treatment  company's efforts to  promote  National
Drinking Water Week.   This packet provided information about how
people with a private water supply could get a water  test.   The
packet  included the same NDWW information but with the Extension
fact sheets "Testing the Private Well" and Nitraties."

4.    Water Quality Quiz Board - A self-contained quiz board  was
developed  and  offered at fairs and other public  gatherings  so
that  participants could determine their knowledge of basic water
facts.   The  portable board was designed with  a  light-response
mechanism which indicated the correct answer.   This board served
to   facilitate  discussions  about  water  quality  issues  with
representatives of the project team.

5.   Media - A variety of media outlets provided an important and
cost-effective opportunity for information dissemination.

     An  interview  about  the program  was  conducted  on  radio
station  WINY  in Putnam.   Several public service  announcements
(PSA's)  about  various aspects of the home water  supply  (water


                                  298

-------
testing,  septic system management,  and the home landscape) were
developed and aired.

     The  two  major  newspapers in  the  two-town  area  carried
articles  about the program.   An article in the Norwich Bulletin
promoted  the  program  and an article in  the  Patriot  Observer
provided information on understanding the home water supply.

     A  one minute educational spot on residential water  quality
was  produced  and aired on Connecticut Public Television   (CPTV)
Channel  24.   CPTV's  viewing audience includes the  model  town
area.

     6.    School Programs - The project team initiated work with
Ragged Hill Woods,  a non-profit environmental education  program
in northeastern Connecticut,  to provide water quality curriculum
to participating area schools.  Extension water quality materials
were incorporated  into  the curriculum used in the  Ragged  Hill
Woods program.

     7.   Regional Council of Governments - A presentation by the
project  team  was  made  to  the  ten  chief  elected  officials
represented  on  the  Northeast  Council  of  Governments.    The
presentation provided an overview of the program.    The potential
for similar programs region-wide was highlighted.

     8.    Agency  Coordination - A key component of the  program
was  coordination  with a variety of state,  regional  and  local
organizations.   Cooperative Extension,  like most other agencies
which  have a responsibility in the groundwater protection  area,
is  a  relatively small organization with a  state-wide  delivery
system.   For  this reason it is extremely important for agencies
to   work   together  to  achieve   common   objectives.    Close
coordination with representatives of the State Health Department,
Northeast   Regional  Health  District,   Northeast  Council   of
Governments  and  a non-profit  environmental  education  program
enabled the project team to move forward with the program.

Evaluation

     Since project activities ended in September,   1989, a formal
evaluation  has not been completed.   Requests for water  testing
information  and additional facts sheets,  however,   indicates  a
strong level of interest in this area.

     The  evaluation  instrument  that will  be  administered  to
residents of the model town area will determine the:

     .Amount of information received
     .Source of the information (mailings, media,  etc.)
     .Value and usefulness o'f the information
                                  299

-------
     .Readability of the fact sheets
     .Any additional information sought or actions taken (i.e.
      water tests) as a result of the model town program.

Summary and Conclusions

     This  program addressed the need for citizen education about
groundwater  protection.   The small population size of  Brooklyn
and  Pomfret  presented  limited  opportunities  for  formal  and
informal  presentations but did provide an excellent  opportunity
for  the  dissemination  of information by  direct  mailings  and
follow-up contacts.  Involvement and support of the chief elected
officials was a critical factor to the success of the program.

     Based  on discussions with representatives of the  Northeast
District  Department  of Health and the Council  of  Governments,
expansion  and transferability of this sort of citizen  education
program should include consideration of the following:

   .  Delivery  methods should be expanded through  workshops  for
     local  and regional organizations which deal with topics  in
     this   area  and  have  direct  contact  with  the   public.
     Organizations   should  include  realtors,   water   testing
     laboratories,   health   departments   and  local   building
     inspectors.

   .  Recognition  that local and regional  government  leadership
     should  be  prepared to respond to  increased  interest  and
     participation by citizens in protecting groundwater quality.

     Implementation methods may vary in other geographic regions,
specific  to  those locations,  such as  population,  sources  of
drinking water and community involvement.

References

1.   Department of Environmental Protection,  1986.   Connecticut
     Natural Resources Atlas Series:   Community Water Systems  in
     Connecticut.  State of Connecticut.  Hartford, CT.

2.   Environment   Committee,   1989.    Report  of  the  Aquifer
     Protection   Task  Force.   State  of  Connecticut   General
     Assembly.  Hartford, CT.  72 PP.

Biographical Sketches

     Roy  F.  Jeffrey  has  been an Extension Educator  with  the
University  of  Connecticut Cooperative  Extension  System  since
1980.    He   is   responsible  for  working  on  a  variety   of
                                300

-------
environmental   management  programs  at  the  municipal   level,
including  composting,  groundwater protection  and  agricultural
land preservation.

     Mr. Jeffrey received his BS and MS degrees in Plant and Soil
Sciences from the University of Maine.  He has worked extensively
in  environmental planning and has previously been a planner with
the  City  of  Bangor,  Maine,  the  Southwestern  New  Hampshire
Regional  Planning  Commission,   and  Prince  George's   County,
Maryland.

     Mailing Address:    Roy F. Jeffrey
                         University of Connecticut
                         Cooperative Extension System
                         562 New London Turnpike
                         Norwich, CT 06360

     Karen  Filchak  has  been  an Extension  Educator  with  the
University  of  Connecticut Cooperative  Extension  System  since
1977.

     Ms. Filchak has worked with a variety of audiences including
the   general  public,   professional  organizations,   teachers,
agencies and the media.  Among topics addressed in public service
announcements, interviews and articles with television, radio and
newspapers  are residential water  testing,  household  hazardous
wastes and septic system maintanance.

     Ms.  Filchak  received  her  BS  and  MA  degrees  from  the
University  of Connecticut in Design and Resource Management  and
Higher Technical and Adult Education,  respectively.   Additional
graduate studies in public health and water policy were completed
at  the  University  of Massachusetts.   She has  also  completed
Cornell   University's  course  "Local  Groundwater   Management:
Aquifer Contamination Protection and Community Response."

     Ms.  Filchak  has had statewide program  responsibility  for
residential water quality since 1985.

     Mailing Address:    Karen K. Filchak
                         University of Connecticut
                         Cooperative Extension System
                         139 Wolf Den Road
                         Brooklyn, CT 06234
                                 301

-------
302

-------
      BOARDS OF HEALTH PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE WELLS AMD
                   Haroia  Elizabeth. Benes

                     Executive  Director
         Massachusetts Association of Health. Boards
            56 Taunton St   Plainville^ Ma.  02762
                           Abstract
    In Massachusetts,  people depending- upon private
are unprotected against  improper siting, poor installation
a.±id. eoxvfc.timd.xta.-fc.xoxi t  except where1 local health boards have
adopted regulations. Effective private well protection
utterly depends upon the local board of health adopting a
veil protection policy which is consistent with local
needs and conditions.  In addition to specific private well
regulations,  there  are other actions which local boards
oan take as part  of an overall groundwater protection
program.

    The following paper  ± a brief summary of the local
initiatives available  for the protection of private wells
and groundwater.  For more detailed information, please
refer to the  Board  of  Health Handbook for Private Well
Protection and the  references cited therein. To obtain a
copy 
-------
                        PRIVATE  WELL PROTECTION
               THE  LEGAL  AUTHORITY  OF BOARDS OF HEALTH

    Boards of health in Massachusetts are potentially the single
most effective agent for environmental protection, particularly .for
ground and surface waters. Mass. General Law Ch. Ill s. 31 grants
health hoards broad powers to prevent and abate threats to public
health. State Supreme court rulings have in recent years tended to
affirm and even expand the interpretation of these local powers. For
example, in United Reis Homes. Ino.  v. Planning Board of Natick, 359
Mass. 621 (1971) the Court stated,  "Boards of Health have plenary
power to make reasonable health regulations and to remove or prevent
nuisances, sources of filth and causes of sickness."  In a more
recent case , Independence Park, Inc. v  Board of Health of the Town
of Barnstable (S J C. No.  4817 August, 1988), the Supreme Court
ruled that, "If we did not defer to the board of health's conclusion
that an existing regulation mandating sewers in some circumstances
did not preclude an order to build sewers in different
circumstances, we would be forcing boards of health to be
omnisciently comprehensive in writing their regulations.  That would
be an intolerable burden and an unattainable objective." In this
broad interpretation of the board of health's authority under MGL
Ch. 41 s.81U, the court recognized that it is impossible for health
boards to foresee and prevent through regulation every circumstance
which might lead to groundwater contamination. And while the board
cannot contradict its own regulations, neither is it limited to them
when it makes binding recommendations on subdivision plans.

    Board of health regulations also take precedence over zoning.  If
nitrate loading or private well regulations result in the necessity
for larger lot sizes than required under town zoning, the board of
health regulations must be met.  It is important to note however,
that local health boards do not have statutory authority to regulate
growth, and therefore, the intent of the regulation must be the
protection of public health and the prevention of nuisances.

    In theory, a board of health's regulatory authority is limited
only by its ability to track and measure the causes of groundwater
contamination.   Whenever scientific evidence  links environmental
and public health,  boards of health have a unique ability  to
extend their authority quickly and efficiently. As long as a
regulation is neither illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable nor
inconsistent with its stated purpose, there is a legal presumption
in favor of the regulation
                                  304

-------
      Urtfortunately.. only a  small  percentage of health boards
actually utilize their  full  authority.   In some communities the
digging or drilling of  private  wells remains completely unregulated.
It is entirely legal in many parts of the state for a well to be
drilled within a few feet of a  septic system.

    A strong board of health that  is committed to groundwater
protection can act much more efficiently than state or federal
government. To begin with, the  local board and its agent should be
familiar with areas of  critical environmental concern, such as
aquifers, wetlands and  recharge areas.  The board of health can also
adopt or amend regulations without going through a lengthy hearing
process. Board of health regulations take effect after they are
voted, published in the local paper and posted with the Town Clerk.
A copy should also be sent to Department of Environmental
Protection. This ability to  move swiftly  is necessary so that
health officials can act effectively to protect the public health.
If a developer or any other  aggrieved party wishes to challenge the
board of health's action in  court, the burden is on the complainant
to prove that the contested  actions do not tend to protect the
public health.

    Across the country, there is a growing recognition of the
economic value of private water supplies and the public health
necessity for protective regulation.  It is now recognized that
regions which are served only by private water supplies should be
treated as environmentally sensitive  For example .  some underground
storage tank regulations and hazardous waste cleanup standards
provide the same level  of protection to areas relying upon private
wells as to the zones of contribution to public wells

    There are no comprehensive  state regulations governing private
wells  Although this may be  partly due to political and economic
considerations, it would also be very difficult to administer
uniform  standards governing private wells in Massachusetts.  Natural
conditions vary considerably across the state and result in very
different problems and  requirements.  Local variables include
geology, groundwater flow  arid  other hydrologic factors .  and land
use  For example, in the stratified drift ,  sole source aquifer of
Cape Cod, regulators must protect  relatively shallow wells which are
at risk from rapid transmission of pollutants  through porous soils
and which are sited on  comparatively small lots within a  larger
setting of explosive growth  patterns.  At the other hydrogeological
extreme are deep drilled wells  in  bedrock,  where yields may be
marginal, and the incidence  of  natural  contaminants such as arsenic
or radon is occasionally high.

    Local geology and soil conditions should be addressed in private
well regulations.  These conditions include the characteristics of
the aquifer, the soil percolation  rate,  the depth of the  well and
groundwater flow.  Local land use patterns should also be  considered.
For example, if the well sites  are on or near  agricultural land, it
may be necessary to test for pesticide  contamination.  If  there are


                                    305

-------
 major  sources o£ pollution, such, as auto junkyards or landfill*
 there  should  be special setback and groundwater monitoring
 requirements  to map the migration. of any contamination plumes


                 Creating A. Local Private Veil Policy:

                Seven Decisions Which. Define This Policy

 1.  Water quality standards must be defined.

 2.  Minimum distances for  setback of wells  from sources of
 contamination      must be established.

 3.  Will board  of health regulation  be  extended to include
 construction  and quality  control?

 4.   What well  water  tests will be  required?

 5.   When will  water  testing be performed?

 6.   When and under what conditions will water
 treatment systems allowed?
\
 7    Will non-potable wells be permitted?
                                   306

-------
   Other Board CXf Health Actions Which Should Be Part 0£ An Overall

                    Groundwater Protection Strategy

1.  Household & small generator hazardous waste pickups

2.  Nitrate loading regulations

3.  Underground storage tank registration & testing

4.  Subdivision review (required under M&L Ch. 41&81U)

5.  Public & Environmental Health Review Regulations

6.  Registration oJE Private Wells Hear Utility Rights of Way
   (333 CMR 11 04:(2)(c), 1986)

7.  Banning septic system "cleaners"
 \
8.  Local pesticide use regulations

9.  Local Emergency Response Planning Committees
   (required under Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right to
Know Act o* 1986)

10.  Toxic materials registration

11.  Solid waste disposal regulations

12.  Septic system siting and construction regulations
    (heyond Title 5)
                                   307

-------
                          Biographical Sketch
                             Marcia Benes
                            56 Taunton St..
                         Plainville,  Ma.  02762


    Ms. Benes is the Executive Director and past President of the
Massachusetts Association of Health Boards. She is also the founder
and Executive Director of MassCLEAH, a non-profit organization
dedicated to educating and networking local environmental advocates
She is the founder and President of the Natural Resources Trust, of
Plainville, Inc., which maintains the Benjamin Shepard Millt a
nature sanctuary and site of one of the oldest water-powered cotton
mills in the country.  She has also served on her local Conservation
Commission and Board of Health.
                                   308

-------
         PRIVATE  WELL PROTECTION IN SAND AND GRAVEL  AQUIFERS
                          William B. Kerfoot

                            K-V Associates
                           281 Main Street
                         Falmouth, MA  02540
                               ABSTRACT

     No  state laws  exist governing  the sighting  of  private  wells
relative  to septic  systems.    Current state  laws  concentrating  on
the sighting  of  septic systems  relative to private wells are  quite
limited.   Three  municipalities  on  Cape Cod (Falmouth, Mashpee,  and
Wellfleet)  have   enacted  public  health  bylaws  to directly  provide
for private well  protection.   The procedure Is currently applied  to
proposed  subdivisions and  to private  lot  positioning of  well  and
septic systems In  partially bullt-out subdivisions.

     The need for  private well  protection was demonstrated from  the
results of  a  survey  of  private  well contamination  In the Mares Pond
region  of  Falmouth,  Massachusetts.   The private  well survey  found
that 29  of our  44 wells  had  elevated Indications  of contamination.
Impacted wells were  being affected  by plumes of wastewater leachate
from on-lot  of  neighbor Ing—1ot  septic systems,  a  phenomenon termed
"short-circuiting" or  "cross  connecting".  The source of contam-
ination  was more  often  the  next-door neighbors septic system than
the on-lot system.  The  frequency  and Impact of "short-circuiting"
was related  to  ground water  flow velocity (direction and rate)  and
to  recharge (local  precipitation).   The special  Importance of  the
Mares Pond  residential  well  study was that It demonstrated that  the
frequency  of  nitrogen  contamination  was  related  to orientation  of
septic system and well within  the  groundwater flow field, not Just
simple distance of separation.

     The  private  well  protection procedure  Is devised specifically
for unconflned  (watertable)  sand and  gravel  aquifers like Cape  Cod
and southeastern  Massachusetts     Local  watertables mapping direct
flow measurements and  a  small   pump  test are  combined  to  obtain
information about  the hydraulic  conductivity of the local aquifer,
groundwater flow  directions  and  velocities.   Precipitation recharge
values  are obtained  from  the  USGS  Water Resources  Division.    A
sensitivity  analysis  of   the factors of  velocity,  recharge,  and
anisotropy  (vertical versus  horizontal hydraulic conductivity) was
                                309

-------
conducted to evaluate  the relative Impact  on  zones of contribution
of the private wells.

     An elliptical  approach  is  strongly recommended  over circular
distances regions in which groundwater  velocities exceed .5 ft/day.
A  line  is  extended  upgradient  from the  proposed  position of the
well.  The  length of the  upgradient  line is  determined by the local
groundwater flow velocity, anisotropy,  field porosity, and recharge
rate.  Tables  of  probable distances  can be  generated  for differing
regions of  coastal  aquifers.   A  protective  distance of 100 ft from
the  line  is  provided as  added protection for  seasonal variation in
flow and recharge consistent  with current circular (fixed distance)
approaches.   Civil   engineers  are required  to plot the protective
zones  on  plat  maps  of  proposed subdivisions showing  position of
septic systems, road catch basins, and  fuel  storage regions.
                             INTRODUCTION

     Except for the  limited  municipal  sewer  systems in the towns of
Barnstable, Chatham  and  Falmouth,  Cape Cod  residents rely upon on-
site septic  systems for  wastewater disposal.   Roughly  1/3  of all
residents  obtain  their  drinking water  from  private on-lot  wells.
While  municipal  regulations  and the  state  environmental code for
location  of  on-site septic  systems  have  emphasized  placing  the
septic  leaching  facility  away  from  the  private   well,  as of 1989
there are no comprehensive guidelines  for  private  well construction
and  protection.   The  purpose of this  report is  to review current
regulations  for  the  sighting of  private wells  and  to  propose  a
strategy for protecting private  wells  based  upon the natural  motion
of groundwater.
Existing Regulations
     There  are  no  state  laws  governing  the  sighting  of private
wells  relative  to septic  systems.    Current  state laws govern only
the  sighting  of septic  systems  relative  to  private wells  and are
quite  limited.    They  are   inadequate   to   ensure  protection of
drinking water  sources  from chemical pollution.   The Massachusetts
Environmental  Code   (Title  V;  DEQE,   1977)  is  the   primary law
governing septic  systems.    The  code requires  a  four foot vertical
separation between the bottom  of a  septic leaching facility and the
maximum  water   table  height,  as   well   as  a   minimum  100-foot
horizontal  distance  between  the  leaching  facility  and drinking
water  wells.   The  rationale for setting the horizontal  separation
distance was based  largely on  the migration of  indicator  bacteria.
                             310

-------
The Contaminaiton  Threat

     The  family of  microorganisms known  as  coliform bacteria 1s a
common  Indicator  of pathogenic  (I.e.  disease-causing)  pollution.
Coliform  bacteria  are  attenuated (largely  through natural die-off
and some  filtration) as they  move from  a septic  leaching facility
through the soil Into  the  groundwater and then with the groundwater
through an  aquifer.   The  Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection  (DEP) considers 100 feet  a sufficient distance to remove
collforms In addition  to  bacteria, there may be viruses In domestic
wastewater  that flow  Into the  household  septic system  from which
the leachate  mixes with groundwater.   Since tests for the presence
and concentration  of  bacteria are simple,  while tests for viruses
are complex, mandated  separation distancees between well  and septic
system are  generally based on  bacterial indicators.

     Two  non-biological  components   of  septic  system  effluent are
major  threats  to  private  wells:    nitrate-nitrogen  and organic
chemica1s.

     The  effluent  from a  typical household  septic system  with a
mean flow of  65  gal/day  has  an average  nitrogen  concentration of
over 30  ppm (CCPEDC,  1979).    Typically this  nitrogen  reaches the
aquifer  as  nitrate-nitrogen   (NO3 -N)    In concentrations  of more
than 10  ppm,  NO3 -N  is  known  to cause  oxygen  deficiency  in infants
being  breast  or  formula-fed.   Physiologically,  methemog1obin is
produced  instead  of  normal hemoglobin,  impairing the proper supply
of oxygen to  the tissues.   Increased methoglobin concentrations in
the blood stream have  been shown  on  a physiological continuum down
to about  two  ppm  in children  in day nurseries exposed to elevated
nitrate-N in their Ingested water (Subbotin,  1961).

     Even minute  amounts  of  organic  chemicals  in  drinking  water
present  serious  health   hazards.    Such  chemicals  like  solvents
(TCE,benzene)   have   been   shown  to   cause  many  types   of cancer
(especially  cancers  of  the   digestive  system  and  liver),  kidney
diseases, diseases  of the nervous system,  congenital malformations
and fetal deaths (Tardiff  and  Youngren,  1986).

     It is  all  too easy to attribute  pollution by organic chemicals
solely  to  commercia1/industria1  establishments-e.g.,   paint  and
autobody  shops,  filling stations, printing  enterprises,  etc.  Yet,
sinks  1n kitchens and  bathrooms,  toilet bowls  and careless  disposal
of substances  in  driveways should also be a major concern.  Almost
every  household on Cape Cod uses and  discards  several or  all of the
following substances:   household cleaning agents  and degreasers;
oven   cleansers;  paint   and   paint   thlnners   (trupent1ne); septic
cleaners  (acid-organic   types);  spray  deodorants;  and   garden
herbicides and  pesticides.
                             311

-------
     Small  capacity  home  wells   are   particularly  susceptible  to
organic  chemical  contamination.    Whereas  municipal   wells  derive
some protection from  their  large  volumes of mixing and withdrawal,
private wells are not so protected.  Domestic sewage has  frequently
been found  to  contain  trace  amounts  of  petroleum distillates  as
well  as   benzene,   toluene,   chlorinated   hydrocarbons   such   as
trichloroethane,      trichloroethylene,       tetrachloroethylene,
dichlorobenzene and alkyl phenois.

     It  should  be  noted  that  unlike  nitrogen  and   biological
pollutants,  organic  chemicals   do  not  enter  household   sewage
continuously.     Gasoline,   paint   thinners,   solvents  and  even
pesticides  are typically  discharge  only  at  irregular  intervals.
Furthermore, once discharged  into  sewage, some proportion  of these
chemicals  is  absorbed  into  soil  particles  or  broken  down  by
bacterial  action.    That  not-withstanding,  some  organic chemicals
are very  persistent,  and  if a neighbor's septic system lies  within
the  recipient  well's  zone  of  contribution,  a  quantity  of  a
discharged chemical  will  probably  enter that well and, as  shown  in
Table  II,  the  volume  of  such  chemicals  sufficient  to  exceed
recommended concentraion levels in drinking water is very small.

                          TABLE I
           Quantity of organic materials disposed through
        a  home  septic   system   sufficient  ot  achieve   critical
         concentrations   in   drinking   water   lying   within  the
        contribution  zone  of   a   well  with  300  gallons  per  day
                            wi thdrawa 1 .
                  Concent rat i on
                   in product
  Substance
Gasoline, unleaded
  Benzane             1 . 0-2 . 1
  Toluene             2.2-9.9
  Xy1ene              0.7-3.4

Pest i ci des
  Aldicarb              1.5-50
  Chlordane            varies

Sol vents
  Trich1oroethy1ene       1-5
 Recommended
  maximum
concentration
   in  drinking
 water (ppb)
       5
   2, 000
     440
    Quantity
to achieve
    critical
   1 eve!
 50
 10
 1  pint
gallons
gallons
                     1/10 pints
                     less than
                    1/100 pint

              1/10-1 pint (TCE)
 1986 amendments to EPA Safe Drinking Water Act.
 Does not include removal through treatment by the septic system or
 adsorption/dispersion in sewage plume.
                              312

-------
The Mares  Pond Study

      In  the  summer of  1982,  the Town  of  Falmouth,  in  cooperation
with  the  Barnstable  County  Public  Health  Department,  conducted a
survey of  private wells  in the Mares  Pond area.  The  survey
results  indicated high  levels of iron,  ammonia and  nitrate-nitrogen
in  numerous  wells.    The  Town  health officials and  local  residents
expressed  concern  that  a  health hazard  might be developing, hence
the  Town  undertook   a  special   study  of  sources  of  private well
contimination (Kerfoot,  1987).

      The results of  the private well study were revealing.   In the
region adjacent to Mares  Pond, 29 out of  44 wells had  elevated
                                           MARES POND
                 IOO 200 FT
     KEY

II HOUSE

 • WELL
   LEACHING FACILITY

   SEPTIC PLUME SHOWING
   SEASONAL SHIFT


   PLUME INTERCEPTING WELL
              Figure 1  The location of wells, septic  systems
                       and septic  plumes in  a small section
                       of Mares Pond area.
                                  313

-------
-indicators   of   contamination.     The   study  showed   that   the
contaminated  wells were  being  impacted  by  plumes  of  wastewater
leachate   from   on-lot   or   neighboring-lot   septic   systems,   a
phenomenon  termed  "short-circuiting"  or  "cross-connecting."    The
source  of  contamination  was  more  often  the  next-door  neighbor's
septic  system  than the on-lot  system.    Apparently more  care  was
exercised in positioning septic systems  in relation to on-lot  wells
than  to  neighbor ing-1ot wells.   The Mares  Pond area was developed
primarily  in  single  family  half-acre  lots  and  exhibited   a  rapid
groundwater  flow,   ranging   from  one  to  five  feet  per  day,   in
sand/gravel soil conditions.

     To  demonstrate   that   the   septic   system  plumes  could   be
contaminating  the  wells,  the  frequency  of  short-circuitings  was
projected  for   the  study  region  using  a  dispersion  plume  model
(Wilson  and  Miller,   1978).     The  observed  frequency  showed  no
significant  difference from  the  model's predicted  occurrence  of
short-circuitings .    (See  Figure  2.)  The  lengths of  the projected
plumes ranged from 150 to 250 feet (using one  ppm total  nitrogen  as
the  edge  of  the  plume).    Three  wells  were  found to  have  N03-N
concentrations from 14 to 27 pprn during  a drought period  from  March
to  June  1982.     By   1983,  when  the  rains  increased  groundwater
recharge,  the  nitrate  levels  dropped to below  10 ppm  (the EPA-
recommended level for safe drinking water).

     Large  lot  size  did  not  guarantee  adequate protection  for  the
private wells.   One  house studied was sighted on a lot  larger than
one  acre,  but  its  well was  nevertheless  contaminated.   The  study
showed that the orientation of the septic systems relative  to  wells
and  groundwater flow  was  the important  factor in producing  "short-
circuiting . "

     The  problems   identified   in  the   Mares  Pond  study  are  not
unprecedented   A 1978 report prepared for the Health Department  of
the  Town  of  Barnstable showed  a  significant  correlation   between
nitrogen  concentration at muunicipal  water  supply wells  and  the
expected nitrogen  content based  upon on-lot  septic system  and lawn
nitrogen  loadings  (KVAr  1978)    The first  detailed report  devoted
entirely to  private  well-water  quality  on  Cape Cod found  that  the
Barnstable County planning guideline of  five ppm NCT-N was  exceeded
at 273 wells  and the  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency  drinking
water standard  of  10  ppm was  exceeded  at 93  wells (Persky,  1986).
Figue  3(ibid.)  shows  the correlation  between nitrate-nitrogen  in
the  private drinking  water  supply and the density  of housing  units
per  acre.   The  special importance of the  Mares  Pond  study  is that
it demonstrated that the frequency of nitrogen contamination  is  not
just a simple matter of housing density,  but also of the  orienta-
tion  of  private wells and  septic systems  within  the  groundwater
f1ow field.
                                 314

-------
         UJ
       II
       li
       I- U-
       2 O
       LU
       O CE
       2 UJ
       O H-
       Q -I
       UJ _J
       2 5
                  SLOPE = 0.752
                  INTERCEPT =0.351
                  CORRELATION COEFFICIENT = 0.802
                           HOUSING UNITS PER ACRE
 Figure 2  Median nitrate concentration as a function of housing density
An Explanation Of Short-Circuiting

     How  does  the  short-circuiting  of  private  wells  and  septic
systems  occur?   In  general,  groudwater  moves through the  aquifer
(the  water-yielding  subsurface   soils)  from  higher  elevation to
lower  elevations.    Note  that the word  "elevation"   as  used  here
refers  to  elevations  of  the  groundwater  (or water   table)  not to
elevations  of  land.

     Groundwater is  quite mobile  and flows  continually beneath the
land  surface.    Figure  6  (Kerfoot,  1987)  is a frequency  diagram of
measured  velocities  of  groundwater  from over 100 locations  in the
Town of  Falmouth.   With a  velocity  mean of  2.5  feet  per  day and a
mode of  1  2 feet  per day,  groundwater  flow is a significant  factor
that  must   be  taken  into account   to  protect  wells from  sources of
contamination.  These  flow  rates   have  been confirmed  by  the  United
                                315

-------
   States  Geological  Survey  (LeBlanc, et  al.,  1987).  An  independent
   tracer  study at a  site in  the northern  end of Falmouth  yielded  a
   mean  velocity of  1.5  feet  per  day and maximum velocities as  great
   as three feet  per day.   As the velocity of flow increases,
FREQUENCY
— _ ro
3 en O ui o
i i i i i

13
13

17

9

10

14

7 ., .
6 >7
[A

0 0 	 	
"-11
                01      23456      7

                     GROUNDWATER VELOCITY  (FT/DAY)
Figure 3  Frequency distribution of groundwater flow rates in Falmouth, Massachusetts
   constituents  of  a typical sewage  plume can travel farther from  the
   source and the threat  of  contamination increases.

        When  a  well   is  placed  in  the  aquifer  and  pumped, thus
   withdrawing groundwater,  the  configuration of the water table about
   the  well  is  modified.   (See  Figure 4)   This  modification is known
   as  a  "cone  of   depression,"  and  is  accompanied  by  changes   in
   groundwater  flow  directions   in  the  vicinity  of  the pumping well
   (Driscoll,  1986).   These rniodified  conditions,  coupled  with   the
   natural  (or   static)  groundwater  conditions,  dictate the  area   of
   capture, or zone  of  contributionn  (ZOC), to the well.

        While the  volume pumped  is  considerably smaller  for a  private
   well than  for a  public supply well, pumping of a private well also
   causes  a  depression  in  the  nearby  water  table  and   influences
   groundwater  flow conditions.   A  methodology has been developed  to
   predict these flow conditions and  subsequently to deliniate  an area
   of capture for  the well  (Kerfoot,  1985).   This  method is based  on
                                    316

-------
  the determination of  groundwater flow  directions and velocities  In
  the vicinity  of  the  well.   The  boundaries  of  the ZOC  are  then
  extrapolated  from this  basic  Information.   Water table mapping  in
  combination with  a  small pump test,  to  obtain information about the
  hydraulic  conductivity  of  the   local   aquifer,  can  be   used  to
  determine groundwater flow directions and velocities.

       Based  on  a  typical  pumping  rate  for  a  private  on-lot  well
  (approximately five  gallons per minute  for 60 minutes each day) and
  typical  groundwater flow  velocities (approximately one to two  feet
  per day),  a  zone of  contribution  can  be  calculated that measures
  over  150 to  200  feet  in   length  and over  40 to 60 feet laterally,
  This  zone  clearly  exceeds the  State Environmental Code's 100-foot
  regulatory distance  in the upgradient direction.
  1    i
              i    i
              i    '
                                                RAINFALL
                                                I   I
  I    I    I    i    i     i
  \   t ORIGINAL WATER TABLE
                      WELL
                                                                    0
                                                                     1  I
                                                                       i
                                                                       z
                                                                     2  -i
                                      10 GW
                                                       I  i
    \  \  \ \ Jv  CONE OF
     "   v   \ \ \  DFPRF<
^   \\\
                  DEPRESSION
 \
X
       \
                                    'ZONE OF
                                     CONTRIBUTION
40
        20
   0
                           DISTANCE IN FEET
20
40
Figure 4  Cross-section through a cone of depression.(Adapted from Strahler, 1972)
       When  houses  are  built  fairly  close  together  on individual
  lots, each  of which  contains a private  well and septic system,  the
  possibility  of  short-circuiting  between  wells and  septic systems
  from nearby  lots must be of concern.
                                  317

-------
Delineating The Zones Of Contribution For  Private  Wells

     To understand how private wells derive their  water  and  how the
zone of contribution  develops  and is shaped,  it is  helpful  to look
at three examples, starting with  the simplest  conditions and adding
complexities that  better reflect  actual  hydrogeologic  conditions.
An  assumption  common  to  the  three  examples  is  that   the well's
pumping rate is 300 gallons/day.

Example 1:   A  well  pumping in an area where there is  no horizontal
            groundwater flow:

     In areas  where  there  is no significant groundwater gradient
and  thus  no detectable  horizontal  groundwater  flow,  a  well  will
pull equally  in  all  directions  from the  surrounding  strata.   The
immediately  surrounding  groundwater subsides  symetrical1y,  causing
a  "drawdown"  cone of depression  around the well  pipe.    After the
pump is  run for  a  brief period,  the  cone no  longer  deepens,  but
reaches a  steady state.   At this  time,  the  volume of  groundwater
being  withdrawn   through  the  well  is  balanced   by  an   equivalent
volume of recharge water.  The displaced water volume  moves  outward
until  it  1s balanced by  the volume of infiltrating recharge.   The
recharge  area  or  ZOC  of  the  well  becomes  a  circle  whose  daily
recharge  matches the daily  withdrawal  (i.e., 300  gallons/day)  of
the wel1.

     In  this  simple  case,  neither the   well  depth  nor the  well
screen  configuration  nor  three-dimensional  hydraulic conductivity
differences  of  the  geological  strata  are  significant  variables.
The  ZOC  will  be  circular  with  an  area sufficient  to produce a
volume of  recharge  equal  to  the   wel 1 's withdrawal,  if the recharge
varies between 18 inches per year  (.004 ft /square foot/day)  and  24
inches  per  year  (.0055  ft 3/square  foot/day),  the  area  of the
circular  ZOC would  be  between  10,000  ft3  and  7,399  ft5   with a
radius between 56 and 48 feet.   (Note-.  A higher rate of  groundwater
recharge  results  in  a smaller  ZOC for a well  pumping  at  a constant
rate.)

     The  recharge values  for a   particular   area  can  usually  be
obtained  from  publications  of  the  USGS   Water Resources Division.
Generally,  during  summer  the   ZOC  areas  enlarge   as  withdrawal
Increases   with    lawn   watering   and    recharge    decreases   with
evaporat ion.

     It is  worth  repeating  that  the current Massachusetts sanitary
code  (Title V)  requires  a  100-foot  separation  between  an  on-lot
septic leaching facility and a private well.    For  this example,  the
Title V requirements  add  a  protective zone of about 50  feet  beyond
the normal  recharge  zone.   If  there were  no horizontal  groundwater
flow, this protective zone would   be effective.
                               318

-------
  Example  2:
  A  well  pumping  -in  an  area  where groundwater flows
horizontally  beneath the site  at a  rate of one foot/day
and   in   which   the   hydrogeologic   conditions    are
"isotropic"  (i.e., water will  flow  into a pumping  well
at an  equal  rate  from both the  vertical and horizontal
di rections):
            -50
                             I     I     I
                            IOO    ISO    200    250   300   350   400 FT
                 20
           SIDE VIEW


        TOP VIEW
           -10 -
           -5 -
            0 -
            5 L-  STAGNATION
                  ZONE
                               REAR VIEW
                               V
                                        ISOTROPIC
                                        HORIZONTAL FLOW = I ft/d
                                        WELL PUMPAGE = 40 f t3/d
                                        VERTICAL RECHARGE = 22 3 in/yr
Figure 5  Computing the recharge zone (ZOC) by flow  streamline analysis following
        water particle movement


        The  conditions of  Example  2  are common  in  the area  midway
   between  the  center  of  a  groundwater  lens  and  the shoreline when
   there is  a  mixed  medium  sand  substrate.    A  gentle gradient  of
   groundwater exists  across the  area  in which  the  well is dug, often
   about  0  3%  (0.3   feet   vertical  drop   across  100  feet  lateral
   distance)     Two aspects have  changed from  Example  1.   First, the
   circular   ZOC   now   begins   to  extend   upgradient,  becomes  more
   elliptical   in   shape,   and   develops  a groundwater  divide  on  its
   downgradient side.  Second,  the shape  becomes  more sensitive to the
   depth  of  penetration  of   the   well  screen   into  the  aquifer.
   Basically,  there  are  two flow  fields, one originally exist ng as a
   constant  regional   flow from elevations  of  higher  water   eve!  to
   lower water  level,  and  a second induced by water  being withdrawn
   from  the well.   These  combine  to form a  unique  flow field  (Figure
   5).
                                   319

-------
     Figures  5 and  6 show  cross-sections  of the flow  fields.   The
rainfall  recharge  Intercepted  by  the  well  now  extends  farther
upgradient  than  downgradlent.    The pathway  of  the recharge  moves
downward  and  Is  pushed  horizontally  by  the  background  flow and
pulled by the  well withdrawal.   With varying  rates  of recharge, the
boundary of  the ZOC changes   One  can  look at the dimensions of the
well  withdrawal  field  by  tracing  the  pathway  of recharge  water
particles (Figure 10).  If the  recharge Is 18 Inches/year  and  there
1s an  effective  porosity  (I.e., void  space between soil particles)
of  0.25  (25%)  in the  sandy substrate,  the  vertical  movement  of a
water  particle   1s   six  feet/year  downward,  assuming  a  constant
groundwater  gradient across  the  site.    A   three-foot  long  well
screen  with  a   uniform  withdrawal   pattern   would  pull  In  water
recharged as far  as 350 feet upgradient.
             POROSITY'.25
             Q = 300g/d or 40fl3/d
                             RECHARGE:
                                 	26in/yr
                                 	 22.3 in/yr
                                 	18 in/yr
       RECHARGE
                       50    100    150    200   250   300    350 FT
                                     ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION
                                                      1fl/d
                 -10

            -50    0    '50    IOO    150   200   250    300    350 FT

1-
UJ
UJ


--30
--20
[•-10
- 0
r«IO
••30
^ ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION ^ 	

-------
             hydrogeologlcal conditions;  that 1s,  with water flowing
             Into   tha  well  screen   four  times   faster  from  the
             horlzonal direction  than  from the vertical:

      The most  common condition observed  on Cape  Cod  1s  represented
rLn^lJ1        u  ^  ^^  C°d  ^u1fer  generally conducts water more
readily in  a  horizontal  than  a vertical direction    This occurs
because the  substrate  was deposited   In  layers (stratified) during
the   last   glacial  period.     Commonly,   the  ratio  of  vertical to
            conduct-iv^y varies from  1:3  to 1-10 (Guswa and  LeBlanc,
    _  If  one  substitutes  a  1:4  vertical  to horizontal conductivity
ratio  for  the Isotroplc  conditions of  Example  2  and computes the
flow  changes,  the  ZOC   flattens  out   substantially  and  shortens
This   is  because   the   physical  arrangment   of  sand   and  sllty
alternating  layers  causes  water  to run  Into  the  well more easily
laterally  than   vertlcallly.      Since  the   vertical   withdrawal
shortens,  the  distance of upgradlent  withdrawal  lessens.   Given a
recharge rate  of 18  Inches/year,  the  lateral  distance  across  the
ZOC increases from  about   40  to  more than 80 feet and the  length of
the  ZOC  Is  shortened  to  about   125  feet.    The  area   of  the ZOC
remains   constant   at  10,000    ftz  ,    balancing  the   dally  mean
withdrawal.   As  before,   recharge from  rainwater  falling  Inside the
ZOC flows  Into the well.   Figure 7

     The distance from  the well  to the  upstream  origin of Incoming
flow lengthens as the regional  groundwater  flow  rate Increases.
              VERTICAL VERSUS HORIZONTAL
               HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
             TOP
             VIEW
                            PROTECTION ZONE
                           0    50   100 FT
RECHARGE RATE • 22 3 .n/yr
FIELD POROSITY . 25
FLOW RATE -I ft /d
             SIDE
             VIEWS
                         ISOTROPIC I/I
                                            HETEROTROPIC 1/4
                   Figure 7  Variation in  Anisotropy.
                               321

-------
A Simple Procedure  For  Private Well Protection

     Using   a   short  and   simple  procedure,   health  agents  and
engineers  can  delineate an  effective  protective  zone for typical
residential  private wells.   The  procedure  is  based on the initial
determination  of groundwater  flow  direction and  velocity, using a
water  table  map and  data  on  the  hydraulic  conductivity  of the
regional  aquifer  and/or  direct  measurements  using  a groundwater
flow meter  (Kerfoot,  1987).

     First,  the well is sighted.   From  that point  a  line is drawn
directly  upgradient,  i.e.,  the  upgradient  line.    Its  length is
dependent  upon the  recharge rate  and velocity  of  the groundwater.
If the groundwater  flow  rate is zero, Its  length is zero,  and there
is  essentially  no   upgradient   line.     Under  these conditions, as
                                ZOC  to   the  residential   well  is a
                                 of  about  53  feet.    The  Title V
                                region, out to  100  feet, and provide
                                 (Figure  8)   Where  there 1s regional
                                 be  a  significant   upgradient line,
       will  Increase  in  length  with   increased   flow velocities.
       II  can  be  used  as  a   guide  for  the  relationship between
outlined  in  Example  1,  the
circular  area  with  a  radius
guidelines  extend  beyond this
an effective  protection zone.
groundwater  flow,  there  will
which
Table
groundwater flow  velocity and the length of  the  upgradient line.
                             B. Flow = 1.0 «t/d
           A. No flow
                       PROTECTIVE ZONE
                          Well


                    ZONE OF CONTRIBUTION
                                           GROUNDWATER FLOW
                                                UPGRADIENT
                                                   LINE
          Figure 8  Protective Zones

          A. Contrast between the fixed  protective distance of the
            current Title V regulations.
          B. The proposed upgradient protective distances.
                                322

-------
                               Table  II
          The relationship between groundwater  flow  velocity
                and the length of the upgradient  1-fne.

               Groundwater                    Length of
                  Flow                     Upgradient Line
                (ft/day)                         (ft)

                 0                                   0

                  -5                               65

                 1-0                               125

                 1.5                               190

                 2-0                               250

                 2-5                               315

                 3.0                               375

     A three-foot well  with a five-foot vertical  zone of capture  1s
assumed.   A  hydraulic  conductivity  ratio (vertical to horizontal)
of  1:4  is assumed.   A  field porosity of  .30  is used for the broad
sandy  outwash  plains.    A  mean  annual  recharge  of  18 inches  is
assumed.   The  upgradient  line represents an upgradient extension  of
the  midpoint  of  the  vertical   intercepted  flow  withdrawal by the
well screen  (Kerfoot,  1988).

     An  approximation  of  the length  of the upgradient line can  be
obtained  from  the following equation:

                     Length of Focal  Line

                     F  =   365 SnV
                              R

 Where:
          R = Recharge (ft/yr) =  1.5  ft/yr
          n = Field  porosity   =  .30
          V = Transport  Velocity  = 1  ft/day
          S = Depth  of Influence  of Screen = 5 ft
          a = Vertical Hydraulic  Conductivity = 1
          b = Horizontal  hydraulic conductivity - 4

                          F = 125 ft

     The  actual  vertical  withdrawal  zone should be confirmed   on
site with a  small  pump  test and direct  measurement of hydraulic
conductivity variation.
                                323

-------
     As  a  final  step,  a  100-foot buffer  zone  is  drawn  about the
upgradient line  and  its  two end points.   For and area  where  there
is no  groundwater gradient,  the  well protection  zone  would  be the
same circle  as  that  mandated  by  Title  V,  but  for  areas  with more
usual  hydrogeologic  conditions the  result  of  this  procedure  would
be an ellipse-like protective zone as shown in  Figure  128.

     The elliptical approach has four advantages:

     1)  It changes  the  protective zone  into  a  shape which  accounts
        for the flow dynamics in an aquifer;

     2)  It  is  consistent  with  the concept of  the Title V  mandated
         100-foot  protective  buffer zone  between  septic system and
        we 1 1 ;

     3)   It   provides   additional   protection   against   seasonal
        groundwater  fluctuations   in  the direction  of  groundwater
        flow (up to 30-degree directional changes);

     4)  Its  larger  size  compensates for  increased withdrawal  rates
        and enlargement  of the ZOC  area during summertime periods
        of low recharge.


Summary And Recommendations

     There  are  no  state   laws  or   regulations   for  private  well
construction and  protection  as  there are for public water  systems.
While  the  Massachusetts  Environmental   Code  (Title  V)  requires  a
septic system to  be at  least 100  feet  from  a drinking  water  well,
the regulation does not require that  a new well  be located  100 feet
from an  existing  septic  system.   Furthermore,  Title  V  does  not
consider  local  or  regional  groundwater  flow  conditions  that  may
make  this  distance  inadequate  to  protect   the   private  well from
biological    and   chemical   contamination   introduced   into   the
groundwater  by   the  homeowner  or  his   near  neighbors.    Adequate
protection  can   be  assured  by orientation   of  septic  systems and
private  wells,  on-site  and -on  adjacent  home  lots,  that  considers
this  essential   factor.    Models  for   delineating the   zone  of
contribution (ZOC)  of groundwater  to a  private well are  presented
in this report.   They are based on typical hydrogeo1ogic conditions
for  Cape Cod.    Simple  procedures are  described that  will  enable
health  agents  and  engineers  to  delineate an  effective protective
zone for local  residential wells.

     As knowledge of both the characteristics of groundwater  on the
Cape and potential health risks from  contaminated  private  wells has
increased,  it is  essential  to use this  information  to  adopt  better
approaches for preventing pollution problems.
                              324

-------
     In  the  interest  of  the  public  health  of  all  private well
users, the  following  recommendations are made:

     1) The adoption  of  local  health regulations which require that
        well  and septic  system  placement  be  based on groundwater
        direction and  rate of  flow.   Health regulations should also
        include  provisions  for  water quality  testing  of new wells
        to determine  existing  sources of contamination.

     2) Development  of state  regulations  more stringent than Title
        V for private  well protection.

     3) A county-wide  education  program to explain the health risks
        involved  in  groundwater  cross-contamination  of  wells  by
        septic systems.

     4)  Development  by  appropriate  state  and  federal agencies of
        procedures   for   identifying   private   well   zones   of
        contribution  in varying  geological  conditions for  use by
        professional  civil engineers.
5)  Support  for  more  basic  studies  by  the
   define   groundwater    gradients,    flow
   hydraulic   properties,    recharge   rates
   dispersion characteristics.
                                                    USGS  to further
                                                    characteristics ,
                                                      and   chemical
                       ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

     The author  would like to  thank  Scott Horsley for his comments
during formulation  of the  procedures and  Victoria Lowell  for  her
views  and   critical   editing  of  the  APCC  Bulletin  No.  10.    The
support  of  the  Association  for  the  Preservation of  Cape Cod  is
gratefully appreciated.


                          REFERENCES

APCC,  1988.   Private Well  Protection.   Informational Bulletin No.
     'lO,  Association  for the Preseravat 1on of  Cape  Cod,  Box  636,
     Orleans, Massachusetts   02653
CCPEDC,  1979.    Water Supply Protection  Final  Report.   Cape  Cod
     Planning  and  Economic   Development   Commission,  Barnstable,
     Massachusetts .
DEQE, 1977.   State Environmental  Code,  Minimal  Requirements for the
     'subsurface  Disposal  of Sanitary  Sewage, Title V.  Department of
     Environmental Quality  Engineering,  Boston,  Massachusetts.
Driscoll, P.G.,  1986.   Groundwater  and  Wells.    Johnson  Division,
     ST.  Paul, Minnesota.
                               325

-------
Eckard,   D.,  Pllpse,  W.J.  and  Oaksford,  G.T.,  1980.   USGS  Water
     Resources Investigations Report  86-4142.
Guswa,  J.H. and LeBlanc, D.R.,  1981.   Digital  Models  of  Groundwater
     Flow  in   the  Cape  Cod  Aquifer   System,  Massachusetts.   U.S.
     Geological  Survey  Water-Resources  Investigations,   Open  File
     Report 80-67.
Horsley, S.,  1983.    Delineating  Zones  of  Contribution for  Public
     Supply Wells  to  Protect  Groundwater.    Proceedings, National
     Water  Well   Association   Eastern   Regional   Conference   of
     Groundwater Management,  Orlando,  Florida.   National  Water Well
     Association, Worthington,  Ohio.
Kerfoot, W.B.,  1985.    The  Use of  Direct-Reading Groundwater  Flow
     Meters and  Water Levels to  Determine  the  Recovery  Zone  of a
     Pumping  Wei 1.     Fifth  National   Symposium  and   Exposition  on
     Aquifer Restoration and  Groundwater  Monitoring,  National  Water
     Well Association, Worthington, Ohio.
Kerfoot,  W.,   1987.     Is   Private  Well   Protection   Adequate  when
     Groundwater  Flow  is   Ignored?    Proceedings  of the Focus  on
     Eastern Regional  Groundwater  Issues:   A  Conference.   National
     Water Well Association,  Dublin,  Ohio.
Kerfoot, W.B.,  1988.    Private  Well  Protection  for Sand  and  Gravel
     Aquifer,  Groundwater (submitted  for  publication).
K-VA,1978.   On-Lot  Waste Disposal  Systems:  Public  Health  and  Water
     Quality   Implications.     Prepared   for  Department   of  Public
     Health, Town of  Barnstable,  Massachusetts,  by K-V  Associates,
     Falmouth, Massachusetts.
K-VA,  1984.    Geotechnical  Newsletter  on  Groundwater  Flow  Meter
     Technology; Vol.2,  No.  1,  pp 2.
LeBlanc,  D.R.,  Guswa,  J.H., Filmpeter,  M.H.  and  Londquist,  C.J.,
     1986.    Groundwater   Resources   of   Cape  Cod,  Massachusetts.
     Hydrological Investigations Atlas  MA-692.
LeBlanc, D.R.  Garabedian,  S.P-, Wood, W.W.,  Hess,  K.M.  and Quadri,
     R.D.,   1987.  Natural  Gradient  Tracer  Test  in  Sand  and Gravel:
     Objective,  Approach  and  Overview  of  Tracer  Movement.  U.S.
     Geological   Survey    Program    on    Toxic   Waste-Groundwater
     Contamination:     Proceedings  of   the Third  Technical Meeting,
     Pensacola, Florida, March  23-27, 1987.   USGS  Open  File  Report
     87-109 .
Persky,   J.H.,  1986.   The  Relationship  of  Groundwater  Quality  to
     Housing   Density,   Cape  Cod,   Massachusetts      USGS  Water-
     Resources Investigations Report  86-4093.
Subbotin,  F.N.  1961.    The  Nitrates   of  Drinking  Water   and  Their
     Effect On The  Formation  of  Methenmog1obin.   Gig.i  San.  pp.
     2—1 3
Strahler, A. N., 1972.   The  Environmental  Impact  of Groundwater  Use
     on  Cape  Cod   Association for  the  Preservation of  Cape Cod,
     Inc.,  Impact Study  No.   3.  Orleans,  Massachusetts.
                              326

-------
Tardiff, R.G. and  Youngren,  S.H.,  1986.   Public Health Significance
     of  Organic  Substances  in  Drinking  Water.    In  Ram,  N.M.,
     Calabrese,   D.J    and   Christman,   R.F-,   editors.   Organic
     Carcinogents  in Drinking  Water,  New  York,  N.Y., John Wiley &
     Sons.  Chapter  16,pp.405-436
Wilson,  J.L.  and  Miller,   P.J.,  1978.    Two-dimensional  Plume in
     Uniform  Groundwater  Flow.   J   Hydraulics  Div  ,  Amer.  Soc.
     Civil Eng., Paper  No.   13665,  HYS,  pp. 503-514.


                   BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF AUTHOR
                          William 8.  Kerfoot

     William   B.   Kerfoot   is   currently   the   president  of  K-V
Associates,  Inc.,  281  Main  Street,  Falmouth,  Massachusetts 02540.
He  holds  a B.A.  from  the  University of  Kansas  (1966) and a Ph.D.
from  Harvard  University  (1970).     In  1979  K-V  Associates,  Inc.
introduced   the  first   commercial   flow   meter   for  documenting
groundwater  flow  patterns  surrounding   porous bottom  kettle lakes.
He is currently a member  of  the Ground  Water Technology Division of
the  National   Well  Water  Association and  a  nationally  recognized
water quality  consultant.
                               327

-------