REFERENCE DOCUMENT FOR
SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER PROGRAM OPERATION
PREPARED BY REGION !I
NOVEMBER, 1980
-------
v UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATE 21NOV1980 REGION H
ECT Sole Source Aquifer Program 1424(e)
ROM Charles S. Warren
Regional Administrator (2
i TO Victor J. Kimm
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
Regional Administrators (Regions I, III-X)
Region II has compiled a document of reference materials for program
development and operation under Section 1424(e). I would like to take this
opportunity to share this information with you and our Regional counterparts.
I trust you will find our experiences useful in developing and implementing
an effective sole source aquifer protection program.
Interest in Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act is rising across
the nation and as a result there is an urgent need for a)guidance and
assistance from Headquarters, b) accurate resource assessments and commit-
ments at the Regional and national levels and c) final program regulations.
Nationally, there are eight designated sole source aquifer areas. Within
Region II, two areas are already designated, a recommendation is on its way
to Headquarters for designation of another area, and three additional areas
are under formal petition review. We understand that there are at least
ten more petitions being considered nationally under Section 1424(e).
The operation of our sole source aquifer program in Region II since January
1979 has been successful but is not without problems. We have encountered
numerous technical and programmatic shortfalls in implementing Section 1424(e),
For example, during the past two years we have continually experienced
difficulties in securing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Small Business
Administration and the Economic Development Administration. Attempts to
communicate at the Regional and national levels have been fruitless thus
far. Within our own Agency, conflicts have arisen with relation to ground-
water protection and the importance placed on incentives for alternative
waste treatment technologies which discharge to the ground.
Our experiences to date have also resulted in several successful endeavors.
We have'established an effective screening mechanism to assist Region II
in handling project review. Furthermore, project review responsibilities
among the various media within Region II have been formally defined and
adopted by all participating branches and divisions. Our activities under
1424(e) have also fostered the development of a local groundwater manage-
ment commission which has assumed responsibility for control of non-federal
development in a designated aquifer area.
form 1320-4 (Rev. 3-76)
-------
-2-
Our problems and successes are not unique to Region II. Yet, to date there
has been little opportunity for staff in our ten Regions to discuss and
compare their experiences. Clearly, all could benefit from such an exchange.
The attached document of reference materials for program development and
operation under Section 1424(e) is our attempt to address this need.
The reference document covers program topics such as petitions, public
hearings, designation determinations, regulatory requirements for project
review, and project review criteria. Also included in the document are
numerous prototype arrangements which we have developed and currently
utilize to meet our responsibilities under Section 1424(e)
The information pertaining to program implementation in Region II may not
be directly transferrable to other parts of the United States; however, I
offer it here in the absence of other formal guidance. My staff is more
than willing to address any questions which may arise with respect to this
information.
In addition, I would like to recommend that you consider the practicality
of creating a special task force (similar to that established to develop
the Implementation Plan for the Underground Injection Control Program)
which could assist you in identifying and addressing the numerous issues
which surround the sole source program. I believe that the first priority
of the task force should be to promulgate final regulations for 1424(e).
I might also suggest that you employ resources from the Regions to assist
in this endeavor. You can certainly count on Region II representation.
If I, or my staff, can be of any assistance to you, please do not hesitate
to contact us. Andrea Sklarew, Chief of the Drinking Water Protection Section
and John Mateo of her staff will be the key contacts. They can be reached
at 8-264-7675 or 4447, respectively.
Attachment
cc: Alan Levin, ODW(w/attachment)
Thomas Belk, ODW(w/attachment)
Water Division Directors ( Regions I, III-X)
Water Supply Branch Chiefs (Regions I, III-X)
-------
Region II
Reference Document for Sole Source Program Operation
Chapter Topic paqe
1. Introduction '
2. Procedures for Designation
2.A. Petition Submittals
A.I Complete Petition: Requirements
A. 2 Flow diagram: Predesignation Procedures
2.B. FR Notice on Designation Request
B.I Petition Federal Register Notice
2.C. Public Hearings '^
C.I Public Hearing Newsrelease
C.2 Guidelines for arranging and conducting hearings
C.3 Excerpt: Opening Remarks, 1424 (e) hearing
2.D. Designation Decisions
D.I Basis of Designation Decision
D.2 USGS contracts under 1424 (e)
D.3 Designation Recommendation: Action Memo ^
D.4 Determination Federal Register Notice
2.E. Public Presentation
E.I Public Presentation Newsrelease ^
E.2 Presentation Agenda
E.3 Publics to Notify 6
3. Project Review "'
3.A. Project Review: Conceptual Overview "^
A.I Regulatory Requirements
A.2 Project Review: Flow Diagram
3.B. Respective Roles of Review Participants °
B.I The Role of Lead Federal Agencies
B .2 The Role of State and Local A-95 Agencies °'
B.3 EPA Region II Review responsibilites
Part I- for other Federal Agency projects '^
Part II - for Sec.201 Construction Grants projects
1 no
3.C Project Review Criteria IUO
C.i Standards for Compliance with 1424 (e)
C.2 Guidelines for Review of EIS's Subject to Section 1424 (e)
C.3 Detail Guidelines for Preliminary Phase I Assessment
C.4 Questions for Preliminary Phase I Assessment
C.5 Questions for a 1424 (e) Project Review
-i-
-------
Chapter Topic PAGE
4. General Program Briefing Package 126
A.I Speakers copy 126
A.2 Visual slides 146
5. Region II Resource Commitment to 1424 (e) 190
A. FY79 Estimated Timelines 192
B.I FY80 Work and Resources Planning Form 196
B. 2 Summary of Project Reviewed in FY80 1 98
C. Projected work and Resource Planning Form 202
-n-
-------
Chapter I Introduction
Although Region n recommended Long Island for sole source designation in
June 1978, it was not until January 1979 that a bonafide program to handle
the implications of designation was in full operation. Since that time, the
Region has encountered several of the technical, political,and programatic
issues which surround 1424 (e) . The Region has made a significant effort to
establish a working relationship with the other Federal Agencies impacted by
the designation. Furthermore, the active participation of State and local A-95
agencies and interested publics has been solicited in an attempt to avoid un-
necessary duplication of review effort. This undertaking has, for the most
part, been successful. In order to share experiences and solicit suggestions,
the Region has prepared the following resource document.
As evidenced in the Table of Contents, this package is essentially divided into
the two major components of 1424 (e): a) designation and b) review of projects in
sole source aquifer areas. An oral presentation on the sole source program is in-
cluded in Chapter 4 to serve as a "boiler-plate" for briefings on 1424 (e) . Finally,
project review experience to date and estimates on resource commitments for the
Region II program are included for the readers' information.
This document is organized to assist the reader in locating specific items related to
the 1424 (e) program without the need to read the entire package. The document is
not a novel on 1424 (e) . Rather, it is designed to serve as a reference guide to
information on distinct elements of the Region II sole source program. As such,
the "Table of Contents" is an invaluable roadmap through the extensive informa-
tion contained herein.
In the absence of any formalized guidance, this document was prepared to
illustrate several mechanisms which are currently utilized to handle sole
source petitions, designations, and project reviews. If you have any questions
or suggestions regarding the content of this document, please contact John
Mateo (8-264-4447) or John Malleck (8-264-1347) in the Water Supply Branch.
-------
-------
Chapter 2 Procedures for Designation
Essentially, the designation process can be broken into the following activities (as per
the 29Sept77 Proposed Regulations) :
o Any person may submit petition requesting Administrator of USEPA to determine
that an area has a sole or principal source aquifer.
o Administrator may consider designation of an area on his own initiative, or the
initiative of a Regional Administrator, or in response to a public petition.
o The Administrator determines whether the Regions should initiate designation
procedures.
o Once designation procedures begin, notification is placed in the Federal Register.
o The Regional Office will review all information available and make a determination.
o If significant public interest is demonstrated, the Regional Administrator will hold
a public hearing.
o Administrator makes recommendations based on Regional input and public hearings.
Chapter 2 is organized under the following subchapters:
A - Petition Submittals
B - FR Notice on Designation Requests
C - Public Hearings
D - Designation Decisions
E - Public Presentations
Subchapter 2A identifies (2.A.I) the requirements for a completed petition and (2.A.2)
a flow diagram on petition review procedures.
Subchapter 2B includes (2.B.I) a typical Federal Register Notice announcing a petition
is under review, a request for available information, a notice of a public meeting or
hearing and a contact person within the Agency who is responsible for overseeing the
designation request.
Subchapter 2C includes (2. C.I) a typical Newsrelease on the Public Hearing, (2.C.2)
a general guideline document describing particulars for arranging and conducting
informal, legislative type hearings, (2.C.3) and an excerpt from the opening remarks
of a 1424 (e) petition public hearing.
Subchapter 2D covers action under (2.D.I) designation decisions. Included herein is
information on (2.D.2) securing the assistance of USGS in gathering data on the petitioned
area; (2.D.3) an action memo including essential information for Headquarters (AX) to
make a decision on the designation recommendation; and (2.D.4) a model for
preparing the Federal Register Notice for a determination.
-------
Subchapter 2E includes a (2.E.I) newsrelease and (2.E.2) agenda for a general program
presentation which Region II makes following each designation. We find this presentation
is very helpful in educating the public as to the implications of sole source designation
as well as identifying roles for the public in program implementation. The text of the
presentation is available to interested parties on request; however, most of the visual
slides and information are already included herein under Chapter 4, Also included,12.E.3)
is a general list of publics to notify on proceedings relevant to 1424 (e) petition and
designation activities.
4
-------
2A- Petition Submittals
PETITIONS:
-CONTENT 2.A.1
-REVIEW PROCEDURES 2,A,2
-------
2.A.I
COMPLETE*PETITION INCLUDES FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
' NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL
OR ORGANIZATION
' STATEMENT ON WHY AQUIFER SHOULD BE DESIGNATED
DESCRIPTION ON SUSCEPTIBILITY OF AQUIFER HL
CONTAMINATION
MAPS DEPICTING LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES OF THE
"SOLE SOURCE" AREA, AQUIFER AND RECHARGE/STREAM-
FLOW SOURCE ZONES
AVAILABILITY OF ALTER NAT WE JOUR CES Oc DRINKING
WATER ~ """
ESTIMATES OF THE AREA POPULATION AND NUMBER OF
PEOPLE SERVED BY THE AQUIFER
IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR THE AREA
WHICH MAY CONTAMINATE
*—It is not the purpose of the Agency to frustrate the intentions
of a responsible petitioner; therefore, the adequacy of the peti-
tion to provide all essential information appears to be variable
and dependent upon the discretion of the .receiving Regional Office.
If insufficient information is available to the petitioner, EPA is
empowered to contract (albeit resources are limited/refer to sub-
chapter "C") to obtain the necessary information upon which a desi-
gnation decision can be made.
-------
-------
2.A.2
SOLE SOURCE PROGRAM: PETITION REVIEW PATHWW
(AS PER DRAFT FINAL REGULATIONS—SEPTEMBER J979)
START
START
n
Petition Received
by Region
Petition Received
by Headquarters
Review Petition for
ompleteness under
148.10
Incomplete
RA considers all available
information and determines
whether to begin FORMAL
designation procedures
within 30 days
Return to Petitioners
Federal Register
Notice
Public Hearing
Notice in newspapers
Notify state and local
agencies
Notify environmental
organi zations
RA shall make his determination on
designation no later than 18 month
after the acceptance of a complete
petition
I
Publish Notice]
Notify Federal Agencies
within 30 days
8
-------
-------
2B- FR Notice on Designation Request
REGISTER NOTICE
-ANNOUNCES INFORMATION REQUEST
-ESTABLISHES PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
-ANNOUNCES PUBLIC HEARING
-INITIATES TIME CLOCK FOR DESIGNATION
DECISION
-IDENTIFIES EPA CONTACT PERSON
2.B.1
10
-------
\8732
Sample Petition Notice
2.B.I
NOTICES
16560-01-M]
[FRL 1082-7)
REGION II; GROUNDWATER SYSTEM OF THE
BURIED VALIEY AQUIFER SYSTEM OF*WEST-
CRN ESSEX AND EASTERN MORRIS COUN-
TIES. N.J.
•equett lor EPA Determination Regarding
Aquifers
A petition has been submitted by the
City of East Orange, New Jersey and
the Passaic River Coalition, pursuant
to Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act. Pub. L. 93-523. request-
ing the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to make a
detemination that the aquifer under-
lying western Essex and eastern
Morris Counties, New Jersey is the
sole or principal drinking water source
for the central basin of the Passaic
River Watershed which. If contami-
nated, would create a significant
hazard to public health.
This petition Is reprinted in full
below:
Before the United States Environmental
Protection Agency: Douglas M. Costle. Ad-
ministrator, and Eckardt C. Beck. Region II
Administrator.
In the matter of the Petition of the city of
East Orange. New Jersey and the Passaic
River Coalition Under Section 1424 (e> of
the Safe Drinking Walr-r Act of 1974 with
Respect to tho Buried Valley Aquifer
System of Western Essex and Eastern
Morris Counties, New Jersey.
" PETITION
1. The City of East Orange. New Jersey
was inrroporated In 1909 and Js located in
Essex County (northeastern). New Jersey.
The City has a population of B8.000 and Is
totally dependent on the Buried Valley
Aquifer System, that is the subject of this
petition, as a sole source of drinking water
for It* residents. City HaU is located at 44
City Hall Plaza. East Orange. New Jersey
07017. (201. 675-fl049>.
The Passaic Rlvrr Coalition is a non-profit
(Incorporated In 1971) urban watershed as-
sociation concerned with water quality,
water supply, land use. and the overall qual-
ity of the environment in the Passalr River
Basin In northern New Jersey. Its main
office Is located at 246 MnxlLsonville Road,
Basking Ridge. New Jersey 07920. (201. 766-
7550).
2. A petition to the Administrator and
Rcfflon II Admlnislralor of the United
Stales Environmental Protection Agency,
requesting that the Pleistocene Buried
Valley and Associated Bedrock Aquifer
System In I he Central Basin of the Passaic
River Watershed. New Jersey, be designated
as « sole source aquifer as provided, under
Section 1424 (e) of the Snfe Drinking Water
Act (Pub. L. 93-523). which provides as fol-
lows:
"(e) If the Administrator determines, on
his OUTI Initiative or upon petition, that an
area has an aquifer which is the sole or
principal drinking water source for the area
In which. If contaminated, would create a
significant hazard to publlf health, he shall
publish notice of that determination In the
FF.DEHAL REGISTER. After the publication of
nny such nollre, no commllment for Federal
financial assistance (through a grant, con-
tract, loan guarantee, or otherwise) may be
entered Into for any project which the Ad-
mlnistralor determines may contaminate
such aquifer throuch a recharge «me so as
to create a significant hazard to public
health, but a commitment for Federal fi-
nancial assistance may. If authorized under
another provision of law, bo entered Inio to
plan or design the project to assure thai It
will not so contaminate the aquifer."
3. President Jimmy Carter's Urban Policy
consists of an Integrated set of commit-
ments to urban America Including Policy
Statement number nine:
"Improve the urban physical environment
and the cultural and aesthetic asp<-cts of
urban life."
Protection of the Burled Valley Aquifer
System under Section 1424 (c) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act would help protect the
environment of the urban centers In north-
ern New Jersey (hat are dependent on this
aquifer as a source of drinking water, there-
by responding to objectives of the Presi-
dent's Urban Policy.
4. The area proposed for Sole Source
Aquifer designation is a portion of the Cen-
tral Basin of the Passaic River Watershed In
southeast Morris, west Essex and portions
of Union and Somerset Counties. New
Jersey. Geologically, the area lies within the
Piedmont Physiographic Province and is un-
derlain by Triasslc-Jurassic (about 190 mil-
lion years old) shales and sandstones of the
Brunswick Formation, along with Inter-
spaced basaltic lava flows (the Watchung
Mountains). The Brunswick Formation is
overlain by a thick covering of Pleistocene
(14,000 to 80.000 years ago) glacial deposits,
consisting of unconsolldaled sands, gravels.
silts and clays. The proposed designation
would apply to buried valley and channel
deposits of glacial origin and the associated
bedrock (Brunswick Formation and Wat-
Chung Basalt).
6. The boundary of the proposed designa-
tion Is shown in Figure 1. The area being
proposed is generally the Central Basin of
the Passaic River Watershed as defined by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with
some modifications. The area Is bordered on
the north by Hook Mountain (a basaltic
lava flow) and by a line which roughly bi-
sects the Town of Montvllle. The western
boundary Is defined by the (race of the
Ramapo Fault and the beginning of the
Highlands Physiographic Province. The
boundary to the south and the east Is
formed by the Second Watchung Mountain
range. Including portions of Union, Essex
and Somerset Counties. New Jersey.
6. The public water supply systems, as
well as a large private water company and
many industrial and private well owners
depend on this aquifer system as a source of
drinking water. Groundwater withdrawn
from within the boundary of the designated
area Is also exported to municipalities out-
side of the proposed designation area.
Therefore, a second map termed the service
area (Figure 3) shows distribution outside of
the proposed designation area for the
aquifer. The two purveyors exporting
groundwater outside of the proposed
aquifer boundary are the City of East
Orange and the Commonwealth Water
Company. The total population of the pro-
posed designation area and the service area
Is approximately 587.188 residents. A total
of 31 municipalities are Included In the serv-
ice and designation areas, and of this
number nearly DO percent of the municipal-
ities are dependent on the nqulfer as a
source of drinking water. Table I gives a
breakdown of drinking water sources by mu-
nicipality, along with population figures.
7. A listing of public m'atcr nupply R.VRUTIU
uUII/Jng the aquifer appears on Table 2.
8. Figure 2 shows an outline of the Burlr>d
Valley Aquifer System and shows the loca-
tion of major public supply and private well
fields. Figure 4 shown a cross w-cdon of Hie
aquifer and demoimtratc* the hydraulic con-
nection between the Burled Valli-y mid llir
surrounding Brunswick Formation and th*
Watchung Basalt.
9. Continued development In the arcs
makes protection of recharge areas Impera-
tive. Development In northern New Jersey
has already degraded surface wnler quality.
placing greater rellnnce and demands on
groundwater. The Borough of Chatham,
which Is totally dependent on the aquifer
for drinking water, notes In Its Natural Re-
source Inventory:
"The static water level In our No. 1 well
has dropped 31 feet from 1931 to 1969. This
ts of course due to Increased local usage, but
It Is also Indicative of Increased urbanisation
In the surrounding region. With this have
come Increased demands on the aquifer and,
at the same time, a reduced recharge capa
billty due to the construction of homes.
buildings, and paved areas In the region.
This is supported by the experience of the
well fields in Mlllburn Township and south-
western Livingston where two water compa-
nies — Commonwealth, and the City of East
Orange— operate pumping stations. Their
wells have experienced a drop In the static
water level of 54 feet from 1925 through
1965."
10. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
currently undertaking a Phase I Advanced
Engineering and Design Study of the Pas-
saic River Basin U> develop a basin-wide
plan for meeting the flood control and other
associated water resource and related land
resources needs of the basin. The Buried
Valley Aquifer Is located within their study
area. The Army Corps of Engineers. In It*
Preliminary Draft Plan of Study (August.
1978) of the Passaic River Basin, stated
that:
"The major surface water supply develop-
ments arc located primarily in the upstream
tributaries and serve the urban concentra-
tions In the Lower Valley. As a result.
groundwater Is the ma.tor water supply
source In the Central Basin and Highland
Area. Groundwater provides 75<3i of the
water used above Little Falls and represents
16% of that Area's total developed water
supply including that exported below Little
Falls."
11. The Policy Advisory Committee of the
Northeast Water Quality Planning Program
(established under Section 208 of Pub. L.
92-500) recognized the necessity of protect-
ing sole source aquifers and their recharge
areas and recommended the following
"The required Information for 'sole source
determination' of the Buried Valley Aquifer
In east Morris and west Essex Counties. New
Jersey, should be developed and submit led
to the U.S. EPA for Sole Source Designation
pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act
(42 U.S.C. 300F. 3001) 3(e); 88 Slat.. 1660 el
seq. Public Law 93-523)."
12. The City of East Orange, New Jersey
(population: 88,000) depends entirely on
groundwater from wells overling the
Burled Valley Aquifer System. A 1976 study
by Geraghty and Miller, consulting ground-
water geologists. Port Washington. New
York, of the eroundwater conditions at the
East Orange Water Reserve determined
that inereased pump.ice and loss of re-
charge area to urbanl/.ition In the region
has had a significant effect on the ground
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 44, NO. 62—THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 1979
11
-------
NOTICES
18733
•csouroe* of the water reserve. The
it? and Miller study made the follow-
I'rvallorL
quality of groundwater within the
Is more than adequate to meet the
at a potable water mpply but has
•ended over the past 20 years by the
>( changing land-use patterns in the
unrounding the reserve and'from the
in of highways and sewer line*
Die Reserve."
1918 study by Geraghty and Miller
cd a »ectlon of the Burled Valley
• near Pine Brook. New Jersey (see
2) which could provide an additional
0 mgd of groundwater. Until further
arc completed. Geraghty nnd Miller
ed that the designated arm should
arily be set aside and any land devel-
L there should be halted until each
> be thoroughly tested as to Its poten-
croundwatcr development.
he Morris County Master Plan Water
Element (1971) recognized the 1m-
11- of groundwater In the County:
pile the extensive development of
• supplies within the County, the
source of supply for consumption
the county Is from well water sup-
>vcr I he past three years, surface sup-
i the County have accounted for only
fcnt of the consumption from public
supplies within the County."
The Township of Uvlnpston. New
(population: 32.500) Is totally de-
it on groundwaU-r from the Burled
Aquifer System. The 1976 Gernghty
iller study for the East Orange Water
e made the following reference to
slon:
LmnpKton, most of the areas overly-
jmi.sinK sites for groundwater develop-
have been urbanized. In addition, re-
• has been reduced due to the covering
ne aquifer recharge areas with impcr-
surfaces, resulting in a reduction of
I uroundwater avnllnbillly. A third
m Is the preponderance of potential
s of groundwater pollution. For exara-
enTJtl well sites have show n that
dwalcr quality has been Impaired as a
of leakage from nearby gasoline and/
storage tanks."
Thompson (1932> showed the impor-
of the grouncKiater resource in sup-
drinking water to the area. In the
nuon GROUND WATER SUI't'LlES
HE PASSAIC RIVER VALLEY NEAR
'HAM, NEW JERSEY.
f prmlrpal supply of groundvialei LS
icd from beds of sand and tfrrucl. of
ocene age, which lie at n drplh of ftp-
mitcly 100 to 135 feet and which are
icd lo pre-placial channel* rut in the
rk. El.si-whert In the region the bed
which consists of red sandstone nnd
and trap rock of Triasslc age. Ls struck
plhs as shallow as 60 to 75 feet, and
'verlylng material consists largely of
vhich yields little or no water. In the
fields that have been studied, "the
-biwiiiK formation Is overlain by rein-
Impervious clay and there Is little If
erhargr directly from rain In the 1m-
ile vicinity. An unresolved problem is
whether there la sufficient recharge to
thr'presenl and future draft."
addition, Thompson noted that the
M II was drilled In the region In 1899
In the COMPUTER SIMULATION
EL OF THE PLEISTOCENE VALLEY-
AQUIFLR IN SOUTHWESTERN
X A\D SOUTHEASTERN MORRIS
V7V£\S. NEW JERSEY. Harold M.-isler.
Geological Survey. Wairr—Hr-sources
Investigations 76-25. the Importance of the
Buried Valley Aquifer a* a water supply
source Is noted In the following Inlroduc-
. lory statement:
"Sand and travel deposit* of Pleistocene
age have been an Important source of water
for communities and Industries In couth-
western Essex and soulhetsU-m Morris
Counties for several decades. Withdrawal
from these deposits hai Increased from an
estimated 5 Mgal/d during the period 1900-
29 to approximately 28.5 Mgal/d durine the
period 1972-71. Yet virtually all this water
was withdrawn from a burled valley-fill
nqulfer occupying an area of approximately
20 mi'."
IB. Current land use and water quality
laws do not adequately protect the Burled
Valley Aquifer System or Its recharge areas.
19. The highly developed and IndiLstrtal-
b-ed environment of northern New Jersey
provides for many sources of ground water
contamination Including septic systems, ac-
cidental spills, landfill leachate. waste la-
goons, etc.
20. We. therefore, conclude: The Buried
Valley Aquifer System Is a sole source of
drinking water for municipalities and pri-
vate well owners In the region, and contami-
nation of this aquifer would create a signifi-
cant hazard lo public health.
Therefore, we respectfully request that
the Administrator and Region II Adminis-
trator of the United Slates Environmental
Protection Agency Determine that the
Burled Valley Aquifer System In eastern
Morris and western Essex Counties. New
Jersey, be designated as the sole or principal
drinking water source for the area and that
this determination be printed In the FEDER-
AL RECISTEB. as required by Section 142-lie)
of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
Respectfully submitted.
Dated: January 16. 1979.
THOMAS H. COOKE. Jr.,
Muyur. City of East Orange,
New Jersey
Dated. January 16. 1979.
ELLA f. FILIPPONE.
Eicrutirr Administrator. Passatc
Ruvr Coalition, Ranking Ridge,
A'cir Jersey.
EPA intends to decide whether to
make the requested determination at
the earliest time consistent with a
complete review of the relevant data
and informal ion. and a full opportuni-
ty for public participation. In this
regard. I lie Agency is developing a full
factual record, and solicits comments,
data, and references to additional
sources of information relevant to the
determination required by Section
1424(e). In particular, information Is
sought concerning the hydrogeology
of the Buried Valley Aquifer System.
the boundaries of the aquifer and its
recharge areas. In addition. EPA re-
quests Information concerning the
area or areas dependent upon the
aquifer for drinking water, the signifi-
cance of current or anticipated pro-
jects receiving federal financial assist-
ance that may result in contamination
of the aquifer, the prospects that such
contamination will occur as a result of
current activities or events that may
be anticipated, and any other relevant
information.
Comments, data, and references In
response to this notice should be sub-
mitted In writing to Eckardl C. Beck.
Regional Administrator. Region II.
Environmental Protection Agency. 26
Federal Plaza, Room 1009. New York,
N.Y. 1007. attention: Burled Valley
Aquifer; within 60 days of thU Notice.
Information concerning the Burled
Valley Aquifer System will be availa-
ble for inspection at the above ad-
dress.
In addition to considering public
comments sent to EPA, the Agency
will hold a public hearing on May 23.
1979. 7 p.m., at the Northland Recre-
ational Building. Jefferson Court-
Rooms 1 and 2, Livingston, N.J.
Persons who wish to present pre-
pared statements at the public hearing
are urged to give notice to Mr. John S.
Malleck, Water Supply Branch.
Region II. Environmental Protection
Agency. 26 Federal Plaza, New York.
N.Y. 10007. (212) 264-1347. If possible.
written copies of these statements
should be submitted at the hearing for
inclusion in the record.
Dated: March 26. 1979.
ECKARDT C. BECK,
Regional Administrator.
(FR Doc. 79-9000 Filed 3-28-79: 8 45 am)
[6560-01-M]
[FRL 1085-8)
THIRD REPORT OF THE INTERAGENCY TESTING
COMMITTEE
Extemton of the Public Comment P-eriod;
Correction
Notice is given that the Environmen-
tal Proteciion Agency is extending the
period for public comment on the
Third Report to the Interagency Test-
Ing Committee (ITC) from March 30.
1979. to May 1. 1979.
In the Availability section of the
Agency's request for comments on
ITC's Third Report, published on Oc-
tober 30, 1978 (43 FR 50630), it'was
stated that the Committee would
transmit the information dossiers It
usod in- developing its recommenda-
tions to EPA within a few weeks. Be-
cause of difficulties encountered by
EPA in printing the dossiers, they did
not become available to the public
until March 15. 1979: as a result, the
period for public comment is being ex-
tended by 30 days, to May 1. 1979.
In transmitting the dossiers to EPA.
the ITC sent a correction to an exam-
ple cited In the rationale for carclno-
genicity testing for the category "Gly-
cidol and its Derivatives." The second
sentence under the heading "Carclno-
geniclty" in Chapter 3.3.C of the ITC
Report (at 43 FR 50034) is changed to
read:
In view of the potential alkylatlng
properties of these compounds, and
the demonstrated carcinogenicity of
triethylcne glyrol diplycidyl ether and
FEDERAl REGISTER, VOt. 44, NO. 65—THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 1979
12
-------
2C- Public Hearings
PUBLIC HEARINGS INVOLVE:
-ANNOUNCEMENTS 0 r ,
NEWSRELEASE SOLICITS PUBLIC INPUT Z.1,1
-PROTOCOL
HOW-TO" CONDUCT HEARINGS 2.C.2
-RELIANCE UPON PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE 0 r 7
EXCERPT FROM A TYPICAL 1424E HEARING A I, :>
13
-------
Slates
mnntal Protection
2.C.I
Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10007
New J
New
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
jsmess
r Private Use
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
IW!
79(44)
Richard Cahill (212) 264-2515
John Malleck (212) 264-1347
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
EPA SCHEDULES PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSAL TO INCREASE PROTECTION OF
ESSEX AND MORRIS COUNTIES' GROUNDWATER
NEW YORK CITY — The Regional Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has scheduled a public hearing on May 23rd in Roseland,
New Jersey in response to a petition by the City of East Orange, New
Jersey and the Passaic River Coalition requesting protection for the
Buried Valley Aquifer System underlying western Essex and southeastern
Morris Counties. The petition asks EPA's Regional Administrator to
determine that groundwater in the central basin of the Passaic River
Watershed is the sole or principal drinking water source for approximately
587 thousand residents of southeast Morris, west Essex and portions of
Union and Somerset Counties which, if contaminated, would crea'te a
significant hazard to public health.
Designation as sole source aquifer under Section 1424(e) of the 1974
Safe Drinking Water Act means that any future project in counties served
by the Buried Valley Aquifer System, which involves federal assistance
(through a grant, loan guarantee, contract or otherwise), will be subject
- more -
14
-------
to review by EPA for its potential impact on the groundvater system.
Major projects to be affected include EPA construction grants,. Depart-
ment of Housing and Urban Development housing projects and Federal
Highway Administration Projects.
In addition to considering written public comments on this matter,
EPA will hold a public hearing on May 23rd, 7 p.m. at the Essex County
Center for Environmental Sciences, 621 Eaglerock Avenue, Roseland, N.J.
Any interested persons unable to attend the public hearing are invited
to send their written comments to Eckardt C. Beck, Regional Administrator,
Region II, Environmental Protection Agency, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1009,
New York, New York 10007. If received on or before May 29th of this
year these comments will be included in the public record.
Persons who wish to present prepared statements at the public hearing
are urged to give notice to Mr. "John Malleck, Water Supply Branch, Region
II, Environmental Protection Agency, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York
10007, (212) 264-1347 prior to the hearing they wish to attend. If
possible, written copies of these statements should be submitted at the
hearing for inclusion in the record.
15
-------
2. C. 2
Guidelines for Arranging and Conducting Informal, Legislative Type Bearings
Under the CWA, CAA and SDWA.
Heretofore the Regional Coinsel's Office has made arrangements for
public hearings of an informatioial or legislative type (including the
reservation of hearing rooms and the ordering of reporting services) and-
has designated one of its attorneys to act as presiding officer. Here-
after, all such hearings are to be arranged for and chaired by the respon-
sible program divisions. Such hearings will include those concerned with
(1) nonadversary initial NPDES licensing under the CWA, (2) SIP revisions
of provisions promulgated by EPA and PSD permits under the CAA,(3) desig-
nations of sole source aquifers under the SDWA and (4) the preparation of
environmental impact statements under NEPA.*
These guidelines set forth the steps and procedures to be followed in
arranging and conducting such he-rings.
I Regulations
In all cases the applicable regulations should be consulted. They are:
(a) -General regulations-cc/ering public participation in programs
under RCRA, SDWA and CWA (4] CFR Part 25, 44 FR 10268, Feb. 16, 1979)
(b) Specific regulations ipplicable to NPDES ^permits including
current regulations (40 CFR Part 125) and proposed regulations
(43 FR 27111. Aug. 21, 1978)
(c) Specific proposed regulations applicable to the designation of
sole source aquifers (40 CR Part 148, 42 FR Sept. 29, 1977)
(d) SIP revisions and PSD permits under CAA (40 Part 52, 43 FR
26403, June 19, 1978)
(e) Regulations on the preparation of EIS (40 CFR Part 6).
* EIS hearings are currently arranged and chaired by 2WA-EI.
16
-------
2 Public File or Docket
When it is determined to hold a public hearing, a public
file or docket should be opened and placed under the supervision of a
record clerk. There should be placed in this file the application or
petition with respect to which the hearing is to be held and all documents
relating thereto, including those generated within the Agency and those
submitted by interested outsiders. If such outside submissions are
made orally a memorandum of the substance of the conversation should be
prepared for the public file. All similar future documents, including
transcripts of the hearing and tentative or final determinations, should
similarly be incorporated in the file.
3 Place of hearing
Reservations for a hearing room should be made in such places
as Federal facilities, if available, or in city or village halls, schools,
colleges or civic organizations. Assistance in such endeavors can be
obtained from-the Office of Public Awareness and from Rose Ferrara, the
Regional Hearing Clerk.
Some outside organizations will sometimes ask for EPA indemnity
>thoffl against any damages or claims arising out of hearings at their
facilities. Such requests must be refused and if insisted upon, other
arrangements should be made.
4 Reporter services
The Agency has a contract with a reporting service for recording
the testimony at public hearings and preparing an original and two copies
of a transcript.' Arrangements for this service are made by 2PM-FAS on the
receipt of a completed Procurement Request/Requisition from the program office.
17
-------
When the transcripts are received, the original is placed in
the public file and the two copies go to the person in charge in the
program office and to the attorney in the Enforcement Division who has
been assigned to the case. One or both of these individuals should review
the transcript for the correction of errors and such corrections should
then be noted by interlineations on the original.
Although government1:agencies are required by law to make copies
of the. transcript available to those who request them at the actual cost
of duplication (P.L. 92-463), members of the public should be encouraged
to make their own arrangements with the reporter, which under its contract
with us is obligated to supply copies at 20 cents per page. This is no
higher than our own cost of duplication.
5 Notice of hearing
The several program offices have adopted their own forms of
public notice all of which are satisfactory with two exceptions:
(a) Where no specific time was specified in the applicable regulations
forthe giving of notice, .the usual period between notice and hearing
was 30 and sometimes 20 days. However, the RCRA, SDWA and SWA regulations
issued on February 16, 1979 (44 FR 10286) specify a period of at least
45 days, except in cases where there are no substantial documents to be
reviewed and there are no complex or controversial matters involved,
in which cases the notice may be shortened to no less than 30 days. The
CAA regulations specify no time periods. It is suggested that the 45-day
period be used in all cases. Arrangements for publication in local
newspapers can be made through the Office of Public Awarenesss
18
-------
(b) Al most public hearings requests are made to keep the record
open-for an additional period of time for the submission of further
statements. These requests are always granted. In addition, the CAA
regulations require that at PSD hearings the applicant for a permit shall
have 10 days after the close of the hearing to submit responses to the
public comments made at the hearing. All submissions made after the
hearing is closed are ex parte communications which have recently been
the subject of some judicial criticism because other interested persons
have no opportunity to reply to them. It is suggested that this problem
be handled by expanding the provision typically appearing in public notices
about the availability of documents for public inspection to read as
follows:
Copies of information, materials and documents
submitted by the applicant which were considered
by the Administrator in making his preliminary
determination and a copy of that determination
are contained in a public file which is available
for inspection by any interested persons during
normal business hours at the following locations:
To that file will be added the transcript of
the hearing and any further submissions made before,
at or after the hearing, which are relevant to the
subject matter of the application. After the close
of the hearing the applicant and any^other interested
persons shall have 10" days within.to submit
gi
19
-------
additional comrrenrs. IT the applicant makes such a
submission, the record will be held open for a further
10-day period for replies by interested members of
the public.
6 Publicity
Press releases based on the information contained in the public
notice plus such additional facts as the program office make available
will be prepared by the Office of Public Awareness.
7 The Hearing
At the hearing an EPA representative should be at the door with
registration cards to be signe'd by all attendees on which they are asked
to indicate whether or not they wish to testify. The Office of Public
Awareness will sometimes perform this function. If "it does not, the
registration forms can be obtained from it.
Before the start of the hearing the cards that have been signed by
prospective witnesses should be turned over to the presiding officer and
separated into groups as follows;
1. Government officials in descending order of stature, - federal,
state and local.
2. Representatives of the applicant.
3. Public interest associations
4. Members of the public.
After the preliminary Opening statements by EPA personnel, witnesses
should be called in the order indicated above.
-------
The reporter will set up his equipment including microphones for
the panel members and for the witness. These microphones are connected
to his recording equipment and do not serve as amplifiers for the public.
If the hearing room has a loud speaker system, it will be under the con-
trol of someone at the building.
All those who testify must come forward and speak into the witness
microphone.
8 Opening statement by presiding officer
The following is the type of opening statement used by the Regional
Hearing Officer in previous public hearings:
Ladies and gentlemen will you please come to order.
My name is and I shall be acting as
the presiding officer at this hearing today. With me
on the panel are, beginning on my left,
This hearing is being held under the
Act to consider (take in introductory material from
the public notice)
The purpose of the hearing is to give persons interested in the
pending proposal before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
an ample opportunity to comment thereon. The hearing will be
informal in nature and the procedure will be kept as simple as
possible consistent with the maintenance of order.
21
-------
Oaths or affirmations will not be administered to witnesses
and there will be no cross-examination of witnesses although mem-
bers of the panel reserve the right to question witnesses for the
purpose of amplifying or clarifying their testimony. Relevant
and material statements or documents will be received without
regard to their admissibility under the legal rules of evidence.
Interested persons may present oral comments or may submit
written statements or may do both. However, for accuracy of the
record, witnesses are encouraged to submit their statements in
writing. Any witness who presents a written statement and who
also wishes to testify orally, is urged to limit his oral testi-
mony to a summarization of his written text. Any" written state-
ments submitted to us will be made part of the record and will
be considered by EPA in its final determination. It is unneces-
sary, therefore, to read the full text of such statements at
this hearing. Those who do testify will please come forward and
use the lectern here on my right. Witnesses are asked to make
available to the reporter an extra copy of their written state-
ments.
The record of the hearing will be kept open as specified
in the public notice of the hearing for the purpose of submitting
further statements after the close of the hearing. Written
statements are to be submitted in triplicate and, are to be sent
to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10007
22
-------
A verbatim record of the hearing will be made. Persons
wishing copies should make arrangements with the reporter.
A copy will be available for inspection at the EPA Regional
Office at 26 Federal Plaza, New York. Room No.
As Presiding Officer, I am authorized to impose reasonable
limitations on the nature or amount of written material or
testimony giving due regard to its relevancy, to the issues
before us, and to the avoidance of undue repetiveness. I
may, in my discretion, ask a witness to shorten his presen-
tation, if it is overly repetitious of previous testimony.
Witnesses will be heard in the following order:
(1) An EPA representative who will summarize the
pending proposal.
(2) Representatives of other Federal departments
and agencies, including members of Congress.
(3) Representatives of State, interstate and munici-
pal agencies.
(4) Representatives of affected industries.
(5) Representatives of environmental and civic
organizations and similar groups.
(6) Members of the public.
We will now hear from Mr. , an EPA
who will discuss some of the details of the pending proposal.
23
-------
2.C.3
UNITED'STATES OF AMERICA
Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
Petition for Sole Source Aquifer
Designation, Roseland, New Jersey
May 23, 1979
7:15 P.M.
Essex Counties Center
For Environmental Sciences
621 Eagle Rock Avenue
Roseland, Nev? Jersey
PRESIDING OFFICER: John Malleck
S. & S. REPORTING CO., INC.
Court Reporters — Notaries
132 Nassau Street
New York City
?**
24
-------
1
2 PRESENT
3 JOHN MALLECK
Presiding officer, Water Supply Planner,
4 EPA, Region II
5 GRANT KIMMEL
Hydrolog ist, EPA, Region II
6
JOHN MATEO
•7 Water Supply Planner, EPA, Region II
8 HARRY SMITH, Chief
Water Supply Branch, EPA, Region II
9
SHERYL FORSTER
Water Supply Planner, EPA, Region II
MAYOR THOMAS H. COOKE, JR.
Mayor, East Orange
12
ELLA FILIPPONE
13 Executive Administrator,
Passaic River Coalition
14
NANCY UPDERGRAFF
Passaic River Coalition
16 JOHN WILFORD
Division of Water Resources,
Department of Environmental Protection
MAYOR JOHN GRADY
Mayor, Livingston
19
CAMERON BOEHME
2Q Natural Resources Director,
League of Women Voters
21
BARRY DAVIDOFF
Morris Action Coalition
BETTY LITTLE
N.E. 208 PAC Education Committee Chairman
VINCENT LEO
_- Committeeman, East Hanover
S. & S. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
25
-------
1
2 PRESENT - Continued
3 DAVID MILLER
Geraghty and Miller, Inc.
4
HERB CANNON
5 Boro Engineer, Borough of Chatham
6 JO-ANN DIXON
Chairman of Board of Directors
7 Passaic River Coalition
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
S. &. S. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
26
-------
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
PRESIDING OFFICER: As
Presiding Officer, I would like to call
4
this meeting to order. My name is
John Malleck, and I'm with the Water
6
Supply Branch of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region
8
II.
9
Over on my left we have Harry
Smith, Chief of the Water Supply Branch,
Sheryl Forster,Water Supply Planner,
on my right. Grant Kimmel, a hydrologist
with our Branch.
14
The hearing is being held
under the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act,
submitted by the City of East Orange, and
PL-93-523, to consider the petition
the Passaic River Coalition, pursuant
to Section 1424(e) of that Act, requesting
that EPA make a determination that the
Buried Valley aquifer system, which underlies
Southeast Morris, Western Essex, and portions
of Union and Somerset Counties, is the
sole or principal drinking water source
"" for the Buried Valley area, of the Central
S. & S. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
27
-------
1
2 Basin of the Passaic Fiver Watershed,
3 which, if contaminated, would create a
4 significant hazard to public health.
5 The purpose of tonight's
r
6 hearing is to inform the public about
7 the petition and the program involved in
8 designating a sole source aquifer, and
9 to hear any comment, and to hear any
10 comment or input you would like us to
H consider, regarding this possible
12 designation.
13 The hearing record will
14 remain open until Tuesday, May ?9,
15 for those who wish to inc.lude their
16 comments in the public record. Those
17 comments should be submitted in writing
18 to Eckardt C. Beck, Regional Administrator,
19 U. S. EPA, Region II, Room 1009, 26
20 Federal Plaza, New York, New York, 10007,
21 Attention: Buried Valley Aquifer.
22 The public hearing record will
23 be available for public inspection
24 at the EPA Library, Room 1002, at that
25 same address. For those who wish their
S. <&. S. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
\Y'<1tl, ">.•>(•)]* VV'Orrli "> H"<
28
-------
1
2 own copy of the public hearing record,
3 please see the hearing recorder here
4 on my right, at the conclusion of the
5 hearing.
6 At this point, I would like
7 to highlight some of the major
8 points presented in the Buried Valley
9 Petition before us. The area which is
10 the subject of this petition is generally
11 the Central Basin of the Passaic River
12 Watershed, as defined by the U. S. Army
13 Corps of Engineers, with some modifications.
14 The area is bordered on the north by
15 Hoo^ Mountain, and by a line which roughly
16 bisects the town of Montville. The
17 western boundary is defined by the trace of
18 the Ramapo Fault, and the beginning of
19 the Highlands Physiographic Province.
20 The boundary to the south and the east is
21 formed by the Second Watchung Mountain
22 Range.
23 Because the petition does not
24 outline in greater detail, the proposed desig-
25 nation area, EPA has requested that the
S. & S. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
29
-------
1
2 U. S. Geological Survey assist us in
3 defining the boundaries of the Pleistocene
4 Buried Valley and Associated Bedrock
5 Aquifer System, in the Central Basin of
6 the Passaic River Watershed.
7 The aquifer lies within the
8 Piedmont Physiographic Province, and is
9 underlain by Triassic and Jurassic shales
10 and sandstones, of the Brunswick Forma-
11 tion, along with interspaced basaltic
12 lava flows. The Brunswick Formation
13 is overlain by a thick covering of Pleistocene
14 glacial deposits, consisting of uncon-
15 solidated sands, gravels, s'ilts, and clays.
16 The proposed designation would apply
17 to Buried Valley and channel deposits of
18 glacial origin, and the associated
19 bedrock (Brunswick Formation and Watchung
20 Basalt ) .
21 The population of the proposed
22 designation area, and the service area
23 is approximately five hundred eighty seven
i
241 thousand residents. The petition states
25 that nearly ninety percent of the municipalities
S. & S. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
SO
-------
1
2 in the proposed designation area and
3 service area, are dependent on the
4 aquifer, as a sole drinking water, the
5 sole source for drinking water.
6 Continued development in the
7 area makes the protection of this recharge
8 area imperative. Development in northern
9 New Jersey has already degraded surface
10 water quality, placing greater reliance
11 and demands on groundwater.
12 The petition then sites examples
13 of how important groundwater is within
14 ' the proposed designation area. In the
15 face of limited available1 alternate supplies,
16 and the potential for contamination of
17 the Buried Valley aquifer system, the
18 City of East Orange and the Passaic
19 River Coalition, have requested the
20 designation of the area, as a sole source,
21 sole or principal drinking water source,
.
22 I under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
23 I would like to talk now,
24 ; a little bit about designation as a sole
25 source aquifer, and what it actually means.
S. &_ S. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
31
-------
1
2 The petition before us
3 is submitted under Section 1424(e),
4 of the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act,
5 which states that, and I quote, "If
6 the Administrator determines, on his
7 own initiative, or upon petition, that
8 an area has an aquifer that is the sole or
9 principal drinking water source for the
10 area, and which, if contaminated, would
11 create a significant hazard to public
12 health, he shall publish notice of that
13 determination in the Federal Register.
14 After the publication of any such notice,
15 no commitment of federal financial
16 assistance, through a grant, contract,
17 loan guarantee, or otherwise, may be
18 entered into, for any projects which the
19 Administrator determines may contaminate
20 such aquifer, through a recharge zone,
21 so as to create a significant hazard to
22 public health. But, a commitment for
23 federal financial assistance may, if
24 authorized under another provision of
25 law, be entered into, to plan or design the
S. & S. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
32
-------
1
2 project, to be assured that it will
3 not so contaminate the aquifer."
4 In summary, Section 1424(e)
5 authorizes, a) designation of,, an
6 area as having an aquifer which is the sole
7 or principal drinking water source for
8 that area, and b) review of federal
9 financially assisted projects, which may
10 contaminate the aquifer.
11 Currently, EPA is implementing
12 the sole source program, under the
13 proposed regulations published in the
14 Federal Register, 42 FR 51620, on
15 September 29, 1977. These regulations
16 cover the necessary requirements for
17 establishing a designated area, and offer
18 suggestions on discussing project reviews,
19 under the intent of the Act.
20 The purpose of this sole source
21 program is to prevent grants of federal
22 financial assistance to projects
23 which may contaminate the sole source
24 aquifer, so as to create a significant
i
25 hazard to public health.
S. & S. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
33
-------
1
I think it is fair to say
3 that the real objective of the
^ program at hand is to ensure that ground-
water considerations are built into the
design, construction and operation of
7
projects, which are sited for the sole
8
source area.
9
As you may know, there are
four sole source designations already
established throughout the country since
the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water
Act. In June of 1978, a major portion
4 of Long Island was designated as a sole
1-* source aquifer. I would like to draw on
our experience there, to give you an
• idea of how the program might work, should
1 Q
xo designation of the Buried Valley aquifer
occur.
We are currently negotiating
21 memoranda of understanding, with the most
22 active financing federal agencies in our
23 region. Specifically, they are the
24 Federal Highway Administration, the
25 Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service,
~J COMPANY, INC.
35
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2i
22
23
25
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Small Business
Administration, Federal Aviation r
Administration, Department of Energy,
Farmers Home Administration, Economic
Development Administration, and ourselves,
Environmental Protection Agency.
The memoranda of understanding
identify the types of projects, such
as projects requiring federal Environmental
Impact Statements, or facilities for
storage of handling of hazardous materials,
which we would like to know about, for
sole source review. EPA is not interested
in reviewing small isolated commitments
of federal financial assistance, and we
do not have the jurisdiction under this
program, to review private development
activities, or direct federal actions.
Each federal agency I
mentioned before is responsible for
submitting the appropriate projects, that is,
the type we agreed to, for EPA sole source
S. & S. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
36
-------
1
2 review.
3 We can also review other
4 projects on our own initiative, or
5 by request. To facilitate the sqle
6 source review process, avoid unnecessary
7 project delays, and provide a check on
8 the financing federal agencies' reviews,
9 we are utilizing existing programs, such
10 as A-95 Clearinghouse, the 208 designated
11 agencies, and the NEPA process, to
12 assist us in conducting our review.
13 I should make it clear that
14 the review authority, under the program,
15 cannot be delegated to other entities.
16 As identified in the memorandum of understand-
17 ing, EPA will conduct its review of
18 significant projects, within the same time
19 frame allowed the financing federal agencies,
20 so as not to create any additional
21 delays in project funding.
22 In the course of a year's
23 program operation, Region 10 in Washing-
24 ton State, has reviewed ninety projects,
25 within the sole source designated area.
S. & S. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
37
-------
1
2 Of that total, no projects were
3 vetoed. In the few months we have
4 operated the sole source program in
5 Long Island, we have not had to cjonduct
6 a single sole source project review,
7 I would like to reemphasize at this time,
8 that our intentions to implement
9 this program, where requested and
10 appropriate, are based on the need to
11 elevate and, elevate the responsibility
12 of other federal agencies to groundwater
13 protection.
14 At this point, I would like
15 to take care of some business items,
16 and then we can move right into the
17 testimony.
18 The panel before you is
19 here to clarify points regarding you state-
20 ments, so that we understand the positions
21 that are being presented, and you under
22 stand the sole source aquifer designation
23 program, that we have. It is our
24 intention to, it is not our intention
25 to cross examine, or become involved in
S. & S. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
38
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
debates on the merits of various issues.
We are going to be recording the entire
proceeding, with the court reporter
you see here in front. I would ask
that whenever you speak, or ask a question,
begin- by stating your name and
affiliation. When you give testimony,
please step up to the podium here, and
also give a copy to the court reporter,
and myself.
Other items are, bathrooms are
out that door and to the left, and if
anyone hasn't registered, please do
so by seeing Mr. Mateo, in the back
of the room.
So, what I'd like to do
now is open the floor for testimony,
and, I'd like to ask the petitioners
if they'd like to say something first?
Mayor Cooke? Would you
like to present a statement?
MAYOR COOKE: Thank you very
much. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. My name is Tom Cooke. and I'm
S. & S. REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
39
-------
40
-------
2D- Designation Decisions
DESIGNATION DECISIONS:
-ITEMS TO CONSIDER 2.D.1
-ASSISTANCE BY USGS 2.D.2
-ACTION MEMO (RA:AX) 2.D.3
-DETERMINATION NOTICE 2 D 4
MODEL EXAMPLE TO FOLLOW ' '
41
-------
2.D.I
DESIGNATION DECISIONS WILL BE BASED ON A CONSIDERATION OF:
AQUIFER LOCATION
SUSCEPTIBILITY OF THE AQUIFER TO CONTAMINATION
AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF DRINKING
WATER
i.
OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS
42
-------
43
-------
2.D.2
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
..ir;s. GEOLOGIC AI/ SURVEY
EIfVIRONMENTATj;PROrE(TriON AGENCY
gUHPOSE
Tlie J>\y:jpoEe7>f thl6 Stgreemcnt is to'gpffily the arrangement
tli&U, S; Geolo'glcal Survey (U^GS) lyjll insist £hc
. Protection "Agency (SEAT,- C^cs of :Watej5 Supply,
ga&erinf of tfre hydi*bgeolo£ica}/data feq^pd fcefd&ttgnate
^|ers imderfiectiDii ^424(e) of tJie Safe
ACt.-l^Iiis Jp^j^al^gi'eerficrit has b^enpoiP^^^
to a MemoraatlilJS of Under etandirig between the
Protection Wgettcy ami th'fe Dep>ar^tfli€nt of the.
c6llclat^ to Degradation bf the SubsiIMaco
Envlrdninent,1:,rj|ign^d by.EPA Md DO! on Jiiljj24^1973.
file ttter agency AgrlQemeat for cMendar;y§a^^l07?
SCOPE .OF. WORE:
Whenever an aquMe^ is~under"considoration
miiie?:SeGtioTi4424(e) of the Safe-B
I/SGS in"X9iutin&£AUSGS agi-eeB to~fl6 no J
-------
movement
md ^Ojrosity, flCj>th to tvaterlaud
iri leveis^efficientrof BtoJ-aBC^sMldfjBpftttoS of
and tlfe f ec«?£Fge_zpne wMcb jSayltoef assist EPA and
other Federal Tigeiicies in evaluating the ifdg^sjt^i
i^der al iinrmciaily-assisted g^j^cts on the
to b6foreli?mdr ttu fi
based oil cxistlhg information
data -will ftot be collected;
a Em drinking\/at^y sources foF-aa area
J ,and towns pj^Beatly jd^^ndent 6n
the ^titionccl aciQif ei* as their Hole or pxt^^P3! ^xirc
ol 'water supply,
alternative sources of water supply!
in the .area «nd treat-
by such
PresentWd prj>jecte13 Watfer consumption from the
ptJ-ltioned acniilor.
A. USGS will furnish tlie ty]5!5B of InfofmatiolvddBcribed
SCOPE OP WOIII^ of tills Agreement ;to EPA through. t^e fol
living arrangements;
After EPA hag notified VSG&tl\at an aquirer 1§ being
considered -lor dfeGignation -as som or
ource fo^an.area," ajid'tife USGS has
tKe^tutly iu tliat ^PSLilic area,i%o USGS wiU,
iir consultation Avitti^EPA's r'e^ional MPJGcttifficcT,
fin area Bnej^iiic ^'worR t>X3li purjsuantrto II
thc:work to EPA.
2k
-------
JU) Aft^r EPA has notified USGS in Writing that life
estimates ai c acceptable , ^ork?»iU be^Ttyid be
JlV tinitfs mut£T5Uyj^rccdHl5]3;ri,._. i-
ch&ffges Iff funding^ sacteWone lit the -lesgth of
the sfaidy/l&mi Changes iin"6tud3^ecojifi^llt1b_etw«'
dnl^J^Jvgreement betv?t«n USGS imd EPA,
of
^ USGS will bill EPA oft
for :eadn^«irer study ;iuid win iiiclude^jm cost^such
imt not lihiited to,s^
piles , -. matfelflnl , : Jquipoi cat / '%&& ~, -far an mnount thiat is
agreed to ^tothTpjiitieB of this agreement before worKr
^ -Most iblfe source aquger studies covered "
^greementioec oxp.gctea to f ec^if e'lfess tlian one-
man -year : of • WS orfc. •
This itgr^^nent'^vill cover .work p'g^/oi^i8c
-------
OFFICER
i War igJjt? *~<1?H~550)
U, £L-j£nvtronmentol Protection Agency;.
GJfic e of WatSr" Sujgply"
401M-Street^ W/f ,
Washington; JE>,C:»'20400:.-:
A. Wdbd
U.S. Geological Survey ^
Water Resources Division «
National Center^ MS-411
EeBt6~fi • JSr'ginia r 22092
E&ch:EPA regional office involved will designate apxpjcct officer to
jyide/or local coordination \vith TJSGS, r-J5ubjept: to the
fend JtersonnelT
EPA lias allocated tlie Sum of $160^000 forttie doDiplcJfonbf the
tasks diiriiig: calettdtoyear407B/*-Additiorial-l^ -
allocated dutfblg 19751$?Amendment to this aereem
of *furids an<3 pit>ssonnel."" USGS v/ill
amount fiot; to exceed $!£P, 000 in FY 1978 by
. -Eiivironmcnt'al Protejttion Agency, Financial Management
,-^ W/V.Washington,j D, G>
for reJfebursement^SSd related (J6rresp_pnde'nce slsMd cite tHe
agreement together with'the follOTPing information;
i'- C88/00108 :•
No, 5-06574011033
- Control Ko. ;.V^-E 00003 -
Class ^ r25
^fi*--
47
-------
3,* 'AXJTHOIlirY '
Economy. A^t of 1032
EHVIRQNMENTAaL:PRarECridN AGENCY
FEB Is7-t37B-
ir,S;-GEOLOGIGAL SURVEY
.
. Grant_J ' "
Adminlstratioa -
48
-------
49
-------
MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
C. * LJ •
.IE: J^-,' 23 1330
•CT Designation of the Buric-d Valley Aquifer System of Western Essex and
Southeastern Mom's Counties, New Jersey -"ACTION MEMORANDUM
'Ot* Richard T. DcVf|>ip
ActiP. 3 Regiofial U>^.
\
T0 Douglas Cos tie '
Administrator
1 • GENERAL DHSCRJMION_QF THE PROPOSED ACTION
a. Tvt]_e_ and Statutory Basis: Title XIV, Public Health Service
Act, as amended by the Safe Drinking Water Act, P.L. 93-523, Section
1424(e) as follows:
(e) If the Administrator determines, on his own
initiative or upon petition, that an area he.s an
aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking
water source for the araa and which, if contam-
inated, would create a significant hazard to public
health, he shall publish notice of that determination
in the Federal Register. After the publication of
any such notice, no commitment for Federal financial
assistance (through o. 2rar|t, contract, "
-------
c. Recommended Course of Action: Designation of the area is recom-
mended by publication of the attached FEDERAL REGISTER Notice (Appendix B)
It has been demonstrated in the background document (Appendix C) that
the aquifer system is the sole source of drinking water for approximately
D87.000 people.
2. MAJOR DECISION ISSUES
The basic issue is whether to designate the Buried Valley Aquifer System.
After the aquifer system is designated, projects will be reviewed under
the National Proposed Regulations for Sole or Principal Source Aquifer
Areas published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on September 29, 1977.
Option A: Make the designation as requested by the petitioners.
Pro 1: The aquifer system is the sole source of drinking
water for the city of East Orange, New Jersey and
the municipalities in the Buried Valley Area.
Pro 2: Alternative supplies, the communities and water
companies surrounding the Buried Valley Area, as
well as the remainder of northern New Jersey, do
not have significant water resources which can
be exported to the area under consideration.
Pro 3: If the aquifer system were to become seriously
contaminated, exposure of the persons served
by the system would constitute a significant
hazard to public health.
Pro 4: Once introduced to a groundwater supply, con-
taminants may have an extremely long residence
time.
%Pro 5: Designation can be viewed as a moral impetus to
solicit local officials into a more responsive
role regarding groundwater management and pro-
tection.
Con 1: Once designated, the area remains designated and
there is no provision for delegation of project
review to State or local agencies.
Con 2: Designation may simply add another review pro-
cess. Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water
Act, which provides for review of any project
in the case of imminent hazard, may be a better
mechanism for effective groundwater protection.
51
-------
Con 3: As a direct result of the public hearing on this
matter, an increased groundwater awareness has
developed among the people in the Buried Valley
Area. As a result a special groundwe.ter protection
committee has formed. Its membership consists of
municipal officials and environmentalists from
this area. This committee could draft ordinances
on groundwater protection for local municipalities
and encourage state officials to enforce all the
existing state laws and regulations that protect
groundwater.
Option B: Do not designate the area at this time.
Pro 1: Designation is not necessary because the State
Department of Environmental Protection intends
(within 1980) to expand its activities in ground-
water protection. One of the first steps will
be to adopt groundwater quality standards. Over
a longer period, the Department will undertake
a comprehensive planning process, to identify
current groundwater quality and supply potential,
delineate aquifers, develop policies concerning
acceptable quantities of groundwater diversion,
and work with municipalities, to develop or-
dinances to protect groundwater red -,rge area.
Pro 2: Designation may simply add another r -view process
while dealing only with a limited ty,je of project
(Federal Financially assisted).
Con 1: The Buried Valley Aquifer System does meet the
requirements for designation.
Con 2: A decision not to designate would be difficult
to sustain since there is no economically feasible
alternative for drinking water in this area.
Con 3: The EPA would risk a potential law suit by the
petitioners.
Recommendation: Designate the Buried Valley Aquifer System as stated
in Option A.
-------
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A notice of receipt of the petition, together with a request for comments,
was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER ON March 29, 1979. A public hearing
was held in Roseland, New Jersey on May 23, 1979. Nine people presented
testimony at the public hearing. The petitioners submitted 648 signatures
of persons supporting the petition request.
EPA - Headquarters and Region II have received a total of 44 letters
supporting the designation. A breakdown follows: Members of Congress -
5; Members of State Assembly-2; Municipal Officials-21; Organizations-
6; Environmental Groups-8; 'Private Citizens-2. One of these letters
from the Morris Action Coalition also contains written comments on the
petition request. Basically the comments supported the petition but
also stressed the need for sole source status to prevent a state highway
from being built in the area.
All those who testified at the public hearing were in support of
designation. However, there were some who had reservations with the
designation process. These people wanted to see how the project screening
and review phases would operate.
4. SUMMARY OF THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
a. Cost and Economic Impacts: Increased emphasis on assessment
of ground-water impacts of projects is expected to increase the cost
of environmental analysis for projects reviewed under 1424(e). The
project review program is sufficiently flexible to require extensive
data collection and analysis only where necessary to protect public
health. At present it is impossible to project such costs since the
number of future projects is unknown.
b. Intermedia Effects: If EPA review of projects is to protect
the aquifer system, it is possible that certain project discharges
must be prevented from entering the aquifers. Treatment or removal
of contaminants could result in an increased solid waste problem or
discharge to surface waters away from the aquifers' recharge zone. In
accordance with PL 92-500, such discharges to surface water would be
handled through the NPDES program; ground-water discharges are not
subject to the NPDES program.
c. Programmatic and Resource Consequences: We expect that review
of most projects will be handled by the existing EIS review staff. A
minimal increase in level of effort is expected. For projects reviewed
upon petition, workload forecasts are impossible. It is likely, however,
that we will be petitioned to review all EPA construction grant projects
where an EIS is not prepared. These reviews can be handled by the pre-
sent staff which already reviews grant applications for environmental
impacts.
53
-------
d. Energy Consequences: None are expected.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Administrator sign the attached FEDERAL REGISTER
Notice of Determination for the Buried Valley Aquifer System.
Concurrences
PM-224, Drayton
A-130, OGC
RD-672, Gage
EN-229, Enforcement
A-101, Roush
A-102, Warren
A-104, Federal Facilities
AW-443, Hawkins
Attachments
Appendix A - Designation Petition
Appendix B - FEDERAL REGISTER notice of Determination
Appendix C - Background Document
Approve:
Disapprove
Date:
Concur
Concur
Concur
Concur
Concur
Concur
Concur
Concur
.
Non Concur
Non Concur
Non Concur
Non Concur
Non Concur
Non Concur
Non Concur
Non Concur
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
54
-------
55
-------
2.D.4
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 27. 1980 / Notices 57165
ertns and Conditions
Section 214(a) of the Act gives ERA
le authority to include terms and
anditions in any order granting an
xemplion. Based upon the information
iibmittud by Georgiu Power and upon
ic results of the staff analysis, the Staff
f KRA has tentatively determined and
^commends that any order which
wuld granl the requested peakload
owerplant exemption should, pursuant
j Section 214 of the Act, be on the
allowing conditions:
A. Georgia Power shall not produce i
lore than 24,600,000 Kwh during any 12-
lonlh period with the proposed unit.
leorgia Power shnll provide annual
Blimatnu of the expected periods (hours
uring specific months) of operation of
Vansley CT for peakload purposes (e.g.
:00-10:00 am and 3:00-6:00 pm during
ic June-September period, etc.).
.stimates of the hours in which Georgia
ower expects to operate Wansley CT
uring the first 12-month period shall be
ornished within 30 days from the date
f this order.
^B. Georgia Power shall comply with
le reporting requirements set forth in 10
IFR 503.41(e). In addition, whenever
leorgia Power operates Wansley CT in
on-specified peakload periods (periods
?t specified in condition A above)
leorgia Powe.r shall report annually the
:ason(s) for such operation.
C. The quality of any petroleum to be
urned in the unit will be the lowest
•ade available which is technically
,'asible and capable of being burned
insistent with applicable
nvironmental requirements.
Issued in Washington, D.C., on August 21,
»80.
obert L. Davies, *4
sai'slunt A diiu'nistrotor, Office of Fuels
onversion. Economic Rt'gululory
dministrutiun.
R Doc. 80-28230 Filed B-26-80-, 8:45 am)
LUNG CODE 6450-01-M
NVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
GENCY
•RL 1590-2 J
mbient Air Monitoring Reference and
qulvalent Methods; Receipt of
ppllcatlon for a Reference Method
etermlnatlon >_
Notice Is hereby given fhal on July 8,
J80, the Environmental Prelection
.gency received an application from
loriba instruments Incorporated, Irvine,
alifornia, to determine if its Model
.PMA 300E/300Se Carbon Monoxide
lonitoring System should be designated
y the Administrator of the EPA as a
reference method under 40 CFR Part 53
(40 FR 7044, 41 FR 11255). If, after
appropriate technical study, the
Administrator determines that this
method should be BO designated, notice
thereof will be given in a subsequent
issue of the Federal Register.
Allen Hirsh,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Research
and De velopment.
August 19,1980.
|FR Doc 80-281 n Filed «-»-«, H5 am|
BILLING CODE 6560-01-M
IFRL 1488-1]
Maryland Piedmont Aquifer
Determination
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 111.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: Notice Is hereby given that
pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (Pub. L. 93-523) the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency has determined that
the portion of the Piedmont aquifer
which underlies parts of Montgomery,
Frederick, Howard and Carroll Counties,
Maryland is the sole or principal source
of drinking water for such parts of these
counties and that such portion of the
Piedmont aquifer, if contaminated,
would create a significant hazard to
public health.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jack J. Schramm, Regional
Administrator, EPA Regional III, 6th &
Walnut Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19106.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Safe
Drinking Water Act was enacted on
December 16,1974. Section 1424(e) of
the Act states:
If the Administrator determines, on his own
initiative or upon petition, that an area has an
aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking
water source for the area and which, if
contaminated, would create a significant
hazard to public health, he ahull publish
notice of that determination in the Federal
Register. After the publication of any such
notice, no commitment for Federal financial
assistance (through a grant, contract, loan
guarantee, or otherwise) muy be enlored Into
for uny prujuct which the Administrator
determine* muy contamiuutu such aquifer
through a rocharge zone BO as to create a
significanl.hazard to public health, but a
commitment for Federal financial assistance
may, If authorized under another provision of
law, be entered into to plan or design the
project to assure that it will not so
contaminate* the aquifer.
In summary, Section 1424(e)
authorizes EPA to: 1. Designate sole or
principal drinking water source uqulfers.
2. Review Federal financially assisted
projects which may contaminate a sole
or principal drinking water source
aquifer through its recharge zone so as
to create a significant hazard to public
health.
On September 12,1975 the Tenmile _
Creek Conservation Committee
petitioned the Regional Administrator of
Region 3, pursuant to Section 1424(a) of
the State Drinking Water Act, to
designate a portion of the Maryland
Piedmont aquifer denominated "Tenmile
Creek" as the sole or principal source of
drinking water for such area which, if .
contaminated, would create a significant
hny.urd to public health. An additional
petition requesting a sole source aquifer
designation for this area was submitted
by the Clarksburg Community
Association on October 1,1975. A notice
of these petitions with a request for
comments was published in Ihe Federal
Register on June 8,1976, 41 FR 111.
On June 28,1976, the petitioners
requested that, in accordance with their
original intention, the petitions be
considered under Section 1424(e) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act rather than
under Section 1424(a). EPA granted this
request but indicated to petitioners that,
unless additional information was
submitted precisely delineating the
"Tenmile Creek" area, their request for
designation would have to be denied.
On May 5,1977, the petitioners
responded by providing EPA with a map
which showed a triangular area which
represented the area they wanted
designated. EPA, however, felt that this
triangular area was unacceptable
because it was not defined
hydrogeologically. Discussions with the
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
revealed that the area requested by
petitioners for sole source aquifer
designation could best be defined
hydrogeologically by drainage basins.
Therefore, after EPA consultation with
petitioners, petitioners agreed to modify
the triangular petitioned areu lo include -
the drainage basins which most nearly
encompassed the triangular area. Seven
drainage basins are required to
encompass the triangular area.
EI'A commissioned the USGS lo study
this seven drainage basin area lo obtain
information necessary to help EPA make
a determination. This study was
completed by the Towson, Maryland
office of the USGS and received by EPA
in August, 1979. Aflur receipt of Ihe
USGS study, EPA published notice of
public hearing in the Federal Register on
October 15,1979, 44 FR 200 and held two
public hearings on November 15, 1979 to
further solicit the views of persons
5G
-------
57166
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 1G« / Wednesday, Augusl 27, 1960 / Notice^
interested in the aquifer designation
issue.
On the basis of the information which
is available to this Agency, the
Administrator has made the following
findings, which are the basis for the
determination noted above: 1. The
portion of the Maryland Piedmont
aquifer underlying the designated area
is the principal drinking water source for
the designated area. Approximately 62
percent of the domestic drinking water
used in the area is supplied by this
ground water aquifer.
2. There is no existing alternative
drinking water source which provides 50
percent or more of the drinking water to
the designated area. The Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC)
extends service into small portions of
the designated area and has plans to
expand this system in the future.
However, it does not presently provide
or have the capability of presently
providing a majority of the drinking
water for the designated area. •
3. The designated portion of the
Marylnnd Piedmont aquifer is
susccptibJe to contamination through the
recharge zone from abandoned wells,
septic tanks, leaking fuel tanks and
leaching from open dumps and
improperly operated landfill sites. There
is present evidence of localized
contamination of the aquifer from
individual disposal systems and leaking
fuel tanks. Since groundwater
contamination can be difficult or
' impossible to reverse, and because this
aquifer is relied upon for drinking water
purposes by the general population,
contamination of the aquifer could pose
a significant hazard to public health.
4. The recharge zone is that area
through which water enters the aquifer.
Wnler enters the designated portion of
the Maryland Piedmont aquifer through
locnl precipitation which creates water-
table conditions throughout the
designated area. The recharge zone,
streamflow source zone, and the
designated area are in this designation
the sumc.
, 5. The streams in the designated area
constitute the headwaters of the
Monocacy, Patuxent, and Patapsco
Rivers which become major rivers of the
State in their lower reaches. These
streams are ground water controlled
during low flow periods so any ground
water that becomes contaminated
would have the potential of causing
stream contamination.
Description of the Designated Portion of
the Maryland Piedmont Aquifer and Its
Recharge Zone .
The area in which Federal financially
assisted projects will be reviewed is the
area which includes the designated
portion of the Maryland Piedmont
aquifer, its streamflow source aone, and
its recharge zone, which are one and the
same. This area consists of the following
drainage and sub-drainage basins: 1.
Little Seneca Creek Basin from the
headwaters of Little Seneca Creek to the
confluence with Great Seneca Creek,
including the Tenmile Creek and
Bucklodge Creek drainage basins.
2. Little Monocacy River Basin.
3. Little Bennett Creek Basin from the
headwaters of Little Bennett Creek to
the confluence with Bennett Creek.
4. Bennett Creek Basin from the
headwaters of Bennett Creek to the
confluence with Little Bennett Creek.
5. Fahrney Branch Creek Bdsin from
the headwaters of Fahrney Branch
Creek to the confluence with Bennett
Creek.
6. Patuxent River Basin from the
headwaters of the Patuxent River to the
confluence with Cabin Branch Creek.
7. South Branch Patapsco River Basin
from the headwaters of the South
Branch Patapsco River to the confluence
wilhGillisFalls!
An enlarged map of the designated
area is available to the public and may
be inspected during rftrmal business
hours at the office of the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 6th and
Walnut Streets, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19106.
Information Utilized In the
Determination
The information utilized in this
determination includes the petitions,
written and verbal comments submitted
by the public, the USGS report entitled
"Ground Water in the Piedmont Upland
of Central Maryland", in-house
technical reports, and a detailed map of
the area within which projects which
receive Federal financial assistance may
be subject to review. The above data is
available to the public and may be
inspected during normal business hours
at the office of the Environmental
I'lotoction Agency, Region III, 6th and
Walnut Streets, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19106.
Project Review
EPA proposed national regulations for
implementing Section 1424(e] of the Safe
Drinking Water Act on September 29,
1977, 42 FR 51620. The proposed
regulations contain procedures for
review of Federal financially assisted
projects which could contaminate "sole
or principal source" aquifers through a
recharge zone so as to create a
significant hazard to public health. They
are being used as interim guidance until
promulgation of final regulations.
Questions and comments concerning the
possible effect of the regulations on
Federally assisted projects in the
designated portion of the Maryland
Piedmont aquifer should be directed to
Region III, Environmental Protection
Agency, 6th and Walnut Streets,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19100.
EPA Region III is working with the
Federal agencies which may in the
future sponsor projects in the area of
concern to develop interagency ~
procedures whereby EPA will be
notified of proposed commitments for
projects which could contaminate the
designated aquifer. EPA will evaluate
such projects and, where necessary,
conduct an in-depth review, including
soliciting public comments where
appropriate.
Although the project review process
cannot be delegated, the Regional
Administrator in Region III will rely to
the maxjmum extent possible upon any
existing e'r future State and local control
mechanisms in protecting the ground
water quality of the aquifer underlying
the designated area. Included In the
review of any Federal financially
assisted project will be coordination
with the State and local agencies. Their
determinations will be given full
consideration and the Federal review
process will function ao as to
complement and support State and local*
mechanisms.
Summary and Discussion of Major
Public Comments
Public Participation
EPA received several comments
which indicated that there was
insufficient or inadequate public
notification. After closely reviewing the
public's comments in relation to 40 CI'R
Part 25 "Public Participation in Programs
Under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, The S;ifr Drinking Wairr
Ac\, and the Clean Water Ai.l." I-.PA
disagrees that insufficient or inadequate
public notification was provided.
EPA's first means of notifying all
interested agencies and the public was
to publish notice in the Federal Register
on Tuesday, June 8, 1976 that a
determination would be made regarding
sole source aquifer petitions filed by the
Tenmile Creek Conservation Committee
and the Clarksburg Community
Association. As of that Federal Register
notice, the public record for this
determination was opened and anyone
Interested in providing comments to
EPA could have done so. It was not until
January 15,1900 that the public record
wns formally closed. This provided over
three and one-half years of opon record.
In addition, after the USGS study was
57
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 45. No.t 168 / Wednesday, August 27. 1980 / Notices 57167
mpleted, EPA held a public hearing to
licit comments regarding sole source
uifer designation of the requested
ea. EPA supplied all interested parties
th notification of the hearing by:
1. Providing notification in the Federal
igister
2. Issuing a press release;
3. Sending letters directly to interested
rties; and
4. Publishing notification of the
aring in the State of Mnrylund
iparlmonl of Nutural Resources and
iirylund Regional Planning Council
wsletters.
Public hearing notification in the
deral Register was provided 30 days
Tore Ihe public hearing. Publication 30
ys prior to the hearing was justified
cause there were "no substantial
'Lumenls" which hud to be reviewed
r "effeclive hi-aring participation",
d, bused on Ihe available information
pplied to EPA before the hearing,
ere were "no complex or controversial
alters" which had to be addressed at
e hearing. See 40 CFR § 25.5(b). A
ntral and easily accessible location
is made available to the public for the
view of documents relative to this sole
urce aquifer determination. The public
IB ulso permitted review of all sources
informiillon in the EPA Region III
[ices.
One commenler felt that EPA should
ve provided them with notification of
e study conducted by the United
ates Geological Survey (USCS) and
rther allow them input into the study.
iere is no requirement that the public
i provided with an opportunity to
irticipate in a background study such
the USGS study before thai study is
mpleted. It is sufficient that the public
: provided, as it was here, with an
iportunity to comment on the1**
mpleted study.
ate, County, and Local Responsibilities
A couple of commenters expressed
e opinion that the sole or principal
urce aquifer program is a major
Irusion into State, County and local
sponsibilities. EPA does not believe
at this is the case. Although only EPA
authorised to make a sole or principal
urce aquifer designation under the
ife Drinking Water Act, this docs not
eclude Stale or loca) jurisdiction from
oviding EPA with information to help
ake the determination. In addition, the
le source aquifer program only affects
deral financially assisted projects.
irthermore, Ihe Regional Administrator
lends to rely to the maximum extent
issible upon existing State or local
echanisms to protect the the ground
alcr qualify of the designated area,.
Review'of Federal Financially Assisted
Projects
One commenter felt that EPA has not
developed adequate procedures for
implementing review of Federal
financially assisted projects. EPA
believes that an adequate procedure has
been developed for implementing review
of Federal financially assisted projects.
After a sole or principal source aquifer
designation has been made EPA will
develop "Memoranda of Understanding"
with other Federal agencies-that are
likely to have Federal financially
assisted projects in the area of
designation. The Memoranda of
Understanding will require each Federal
agency to: 1. Prepare and maintain a list
of projects located in the designated
area from which they have received
applications for Federal financial
assistance, and submit the list to EPA;
2. Revise the list at regular intervals
and submit revisions to EPA; and
3. Make the list available to the public
upon request.
EPA will analyze any proposed
project located in the designated area
which has applied for Federal financial
assistance and which EPA feels may
nffcct ground water quality. If the
prdimliHiry assessment indicates the
project may contaminate the aquifer, a
more comprehensive review will be
made. EPA may at any time request
additional information from the
applicant seeking Federal financial
assistance, the Federal agency which
has received the ajplication,
appropriate State and local agencies,
and other persons.
One commenter indicated that there
were no Federal actions planned for the
area being requested for designation.
The presence or absence of Federal
financially assisted projects within the
designated area is irrelevant to a sole or
principal source aquifer determination.
Even if there are no such projects
presently planned for the designated
area, this does not preclude the possible
presence of such projects in the future.
Inadequate Rationale for Delineation of
the Sole or Principal Source Aquifer
Area
Several commenters expressed the
opinion that EPA's rationale for
delineating the designated area is
inadequate. EPA disagrees and feels
that the background data included in
this notice will clarify any
misconceptions.
Interpretation of Public Law 93-523,
"The Safe.Drinking Water Act"
Severaj commenters expressed the
opinion that the'Safe Drinking Water
Act is limited to the regulation of
injection w J' • ^nd public water
supplies and cannot legally be applied
to sole or principal source aquifer
designations! Part C of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, of which Section 1424 is a
pait, is entitled, "Protection of
Underground Sources of Drinking
Water." This is an all-encompassing title-
which directs EPA to develop programs
to protect ground water resources not
only from underground injection but
also from all Federal financially assisted
projects which may contaminate a sole
or principal source aquifer through a
recharge zone so as to create a
significant hazard to public health.
Section 1424(e) specifically authorizes
the Administrator to designate an area
as a sole or principal source aquifer and
to require that Federal financial
assistance be withheld from any project
in this urea which may contaminate Ihe
aquifer.
Population
A couple of commenters were in
disagreement wilh the population
statistics contained in the United States
Geological Survey (USGSJ Report. EPA
feels that the USGS report has estimated
thn population as ficcurnlcly us possible.
KPA's review of these comments reveals .
Ihut there is confusion about the use of
these population figures as a basis for
designation. The commenters are of the
opinion that 50 percent or more of the
population within the area requested for
designation must rely on ground water
from the aquifer. The definition of sole
or principal source aquifer in the
proposed regulation is, "an aquifer
which supplies 50 percent or more of the
drinking water for an area." Population,
therefore, is not mentioned in the
proposed-regulations as a criterion for
designating a "sole or principal source
aquifur."
Existence of an Aquifer
A number of comments were received
which questioned the existence of a
distinct aquifer. The proposed sole or
principal source aquifer regulations
define an aquifer as "a geological
formation, group of formations, or part
of a formation Ihut contains sufficient
saturated permeable material to yield
significant quantities of water to wells
or springs." Johnson (Ground Water and
Wells, 1975) defines an aquifer as, "a
water saturated geologic unit that will
yield water to wells or springs at a
sufficient'rate so that the wells or -
springs can serve as practical sources of
water supply." EPA believes that the
designated area has an aquifer which
meets the above criteria. As noted in the
United States Geological Survey report.
58
-------
68
Federal Register / Vol. 45, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 27, 1980 / Notices
crystalline rocks underlying the
jy area constitute an aquifer even
ugh the lithology varies within the
nation.
drogeologic Similarities to the Rest of
Piedmont
)ne comment staled thai the
iignated area, which is located in the
domont physiographic province, is no
Ferent hydrogeologically from any
.or area of the Piedmont and,
rcfore, the whole.Piedmont could
ssibly qualify for designation. EPA
•PCS that the hydrogeology of the
jingated area is similar to the rest of
> Piedmont. However, EPA does not
isently have enough information to
signate other areas of the Piedmont.
erefore, until other petitioners provide
A with information supporting the
signation of other areas of the
idmont, EPA will only take steps on
s particular request.
i Issue of Ground Water in Another
mnty
Two comments were received which
ited that the designation of portions of
; Maryland Piedmont aquifer was a
jund water issue relevant to only one
unty. Although the petition(s)
bmitted were from two environmental
ganiza lions in Montgomery County,
aryland, the designated area contains
lotal of seven drainage basins which
e shared between counties. Ground
ater flow knows no boundaries when
comes to county jurisdictional lines.
lerefore, to protect an entire drainage
isin from ground water contamination,
election is extended to any portion of
at drainage basin, whether it crosses a
mnty line or not.
vailability' of Alternative Drinking
'ater Supplies
Several comments were received
hlch slated thul an alternative
•inking water supply is presently
failable to the designated nrea and
iflt (his supply will be further extended
iroaghout the area In the future.
llhough anolher water supply, other
lan ground water, is available to the
esignated area, It supplies loss than 40
nrccnl of the drinking water lo the
cslgnnted area. The alternative supply
inruforc docs not supply enough
rinking watnr lo prevent the designated
rea from being considered a sole or
rinclpal source aquifer. EPA has taken
ic existence of the nlternntive walor
upply Into account In mnklng Us sole or
rincipal source designation, but does
ot consider the prospective increase in
ii's supply to provide sufficient basis
ar withholding such designation.
Widespread Contamination
One commenter stated that cased on
the hydrogeology of the designated area,
it is unlikely that widespread
contamination of the entire area could
occur. EPA is required to determine
whether the aquifer is susceptable to
contamination, nol whether
contamination will be widespread.
Groundwater movement in this
Piedmont aquifer is fracture controlled.
The fact that areas of this aquifer have
above average fracturing, that a high
ground water-table normally exists, and
that local ground water contamination
has occurred is sufficient to indicate to
EPA that the aquifer is susceptible to
contamination.
Federal funding may be withheld from
any project which, upon review, may
contaminate the aquifer through a
recharge zone so as to create a
significant hazard to public health.
Dutod: August 22, 1900.
Barbara Blum,
A cling A (Jministrator.
[FR Due. 80-2(1108 Filed 8-20-80: 8 45 «m)
BILLING CODE 6560-01-M
IFRL 1590-1]
Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and
Equivalent Methods; Equivalent
Method Designation
Notice is hereby given that EPA, in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 53 (40 FR
7044, 41 FR 11255), has designated
another equivalent method for the
measurement of ambient concentrations
of ozone. The new equivalent method is
an automated method (analyzer) which
utilizes a measurement principle based
on the absorption of ultraviolet radiation
by ozone at a wavelength of 254 nm. The
method is:
EQOA-0000-047, "Thermo Electron
Modnl 49 U.V. Photometric Ambient O,
Analyzer," operated on a range of either
0-0.5 ppm or 0-1.0 ppm, with or without
any of the following options:
49-001 Teflon Particulate Filter
49-002 19 Inch Rack Mountable
Configuration
49-100 Built-in Ozone Generator for
Zero and Spnn.Checks
4SMWI GPID (General Purpose
Interface Bus) IEEE-108
This method is available from Thermo
Electron Corporation, 108 South Street,
Hopkinton, Massachusetts 01748.
A notice of receipt of application for
this method appeared In the Fodornl
Register, Volume 45, June 6,1980, page
38142.
A t(!st analyzer representative of this
method has been tested by the
applicant, in accordance with the test
procedures specified in 40 CFR Part 53.
After reviewing the results of these tests
and other information submitted by the
applicant, EPA has determined, in
accordance with Part 53, that this
method should be designated as an
equivalent method. The information
submitted by the applicant will be kept
on file at the address shown below and
will be available for inspection to the
extent consistent with 40 CFR Part 2
(EPA's regulations implementing the
Freedom of Information Act).
As an equivalent method, this method
is acceptable for use by Stales and other
control agencies for purposes of 40 CFR
Part 58, Ambient Air Quality
Surveillance (44 FR 27571, May 10, 1979).
For such use, the method must be used
in strict accordance with the operation
or instruction manual provided with the
method and subject to any limitations
(e.g., operating range) specified in the
applicable designation (see description
of the method above). Vendor
modifications of a designated method
used for purposes of Part 58 are
permitted only with prior approval of
EPA, as provided in Part 53. Provisions
concerning modification of such
methods by users are specified under
Section 2.8 of Appendix C to Part 58 (44
FR 2758r>).
Part 53 requires that sellers of
designated methods comply with certain
conditions. These conditions are given
in 40 CFR 53.9 and are summarized
below:
(1) A copy of the approved operation
or instruction manual must accompany
the analyzer when it is delivered to the
ultimate purchaser.
(2) The analyzer must not generate
any unreasonable hazard to operators or
to the environment.
. (3) The analyzer must function within
the limits of the performance
specifications given in Table B-l of Port
53 for at least 1 year after delivery whrn
maintained and operated in accordance
with the operation manual.
(4) Any analyzer offered for sole as a
reference or equivalent method must
bear a label or sticker indicating that It
has been designated as a reference or
equivalent method in accordance with
Part 53.
(5) If such an analyzer hns one or
more selectable rangns, the label or
sticker must be placed in close
proximity to the range selector and
indicate which rangn or ranges have
been Included In the reference or
equivalent method designation.
(6) An applicant who offers analyzers
for sale as reference or equivalent
methods is required to maintain a list of
ultimate purchasers of such analyzers
59
-------
2E- Public Presentations
PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS FOLLOWING DESIGNATION:
-NEWSRELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS OF MEETING 2,E.I
-AGENDA FOR TYPICAL POST DESIGNATION ? F ?
MEETING /..I-.*.
-GENERAL LIST OF PUBLICS TO NOTIFY
(ALSO APPROPRIATE FOR PUBLIC
HEARINGS UNDER 2.C)
2.E.3
60
-------
I
-------
The aquifer system underlies the following communities: Berkeley Heights,
rnards Township, Caldwell, Chatham, Chatham Township, East Hanover, East Orange,
sex Fells, Fairficld, Florhnm Park, Hanover, Harding Township, Irvington, Living-
on Township, Madison, Maplcwood, Millburn, Montville, Morris Plains, Morristown,—
rrls Townsliip, New Providence, North Caldwell, Parsippany-Troy Hills, Passaic
wnship, Roseland, Springfield, Summit, Warren Township, West Caldwell and West
ange.
Other municipalities that will be affected by the "sole source" designation are:
rnardsville, Boonton Township, Denville, Dover, Jefferson, Kinnelon, Lincoln Park,
ndham Borough, Mendham Township, Mine Hill, Mountain Lakes, Mount Arlington, Ran-
Iph, Rockaway Borough, Rockaway Township, Roxbury, Sparta, Victory Gardens and
arton.
For further information about the July 16th public meeting contact John Malleck
EPA's regional water supply branch at (212) 264-1347.
0 -
62
-------
OURCE AQUIFER PROGRAM 212
MEETING - JULY 16, 1980
EPA - REGION II
[ Welcoming address - Andrea Sklarcw, Chief
Drinking Water Protection Section
A. Purpose of Meeting
B. Philosophy Toward Program
C. Ground Water Strategy (National & Region)
II 1424 (e) Regulations - John Mateo,
Water Supply Branch
A. Safe Drinking Water Act Section 1424 (e)
B. Definitions
C. Regulations - Draft; Obvious Changes; Reasons
For Delay - UIC Regulations & Ground Water Strategy
D. Standards for Compliance
III Program Status - Eileen Reilly-Wiedow,
Water Supply Branch
A. National
B. Regional
C. Introduction to Buried Valley
TV Program Operation in Region II - John Malleck,
'Water Supply Branch
Charles Zafonte,
Office of Federal Activities
A. Project Review
B. Key Actors
C. Commitment from Key Actors (Memorandum of Understanding)
D. Flow Diagrams of Process
V Status of Regional Reviews.- John Malleck,
Water Supply Branch
A. Long Island
B. Buried Valley
VI Summary and Questions
63
-------
64
-------
2.E.3
Publics to Notify
Government
Senators
Congressmen
State Senators
Assemblymen
Freeholder District
Administrator
Mayors
Media
Newspaper
Radio
Television
Federal State and Local Agencies
U.S. Geological Survey
Environmental Protection Agency
Housing and Urban Development
Federal Highway Administration
Farmers Home Administration
Economic Development Administration
Urban Mass Transit Administration
Department of Energy
Health, Education and Welfare
Small Business Administration
State
State Department of Environmental
Protection
Statewide A-95 Clearinghouse
State Department of Health
State Department of Planning
Local
Area-wide A-95 Agencies
County Planning Boards
County Soil Conservation Districts
Environmental Groups
Consulting Firms
Local Libraries
Major Industry in Area
Purveyors
Home Builders Association
65
-------
-------
Chapter 3 Project Review
Chapter 3 is organized under the following subchapters:
A - Project Review: Conceptual Overview
B - Respective Roles of Review Participants
C - Project Review Criteria
Subchapter 3A identifies (3.A.I) requirements for project review as spelled out in the
September 1977 proposed regulations. In addition, (3.A.2) gives a brief "walk-through"
a conceptual representation of the project review process which operates in Region II.
Additional details and further descriptions are found in Suchapter 3B.
Subchapter 3B identifies the respective role of agencies and groups which assist EPA in
undertaking the 1424 (e) review directive. Included in this Subchapter is a discussion on
(3.B.I) the role of Lead (or grant providing) Federal Agencies and (3.B.2) the role of State
and local A-95 Agencies, with respective Memoranda of Understanding attached. (3.B.3)
discusses standard operations procedures for handling 1424 (e) within EPA Region II.
This subchapter is divided into two parts:
(3.B.3) - Part I identifies the responsibilites of various EPA programs for handling
1424 (e) review of other Federal Agency projects
(3.B.3) - Part II identifies EPA participants and responsibilities for 1424 (e) review of
Sec. 201 Construction Grants projects.
(Since EPA is the lead Federal Agency for Sec. 201 Grants, 1424 (e) review has
been incoporated into the Findings of No Significant Impact (FNSI) assess-
ment. )
Subchapter 3C includes various guideline documents on the type of information to collect
and analyze in the determination of significant hazard to public health. Included herein
is (3.C.I) Standards for compliance with 1424 (e) (as per the proposed and most recent
version of the proposed final regulations); (3.C.2) cover sheet and excerpt from the
"Guidelines for Review of EIS's Subject to Section 1424 (e) of the SDWA". issued 16
December 77 in draft form from Washington; (3.C.3.) "Detail Guidelines for 1424 (e)
Ground Water Assessment developed by EPA II- Water Supply Branch in March 1979" ,
(3.C.4) "Questions for Preliminary Phase I Assessment" and (3.C.5) "Questions for
1424(e) Project Review". While this information is useful, the lack of specificity or
standard (for land application as an example) on different development proposals
prevents EPA from issuing clear consistent directions on how to demonstrate and evaluate
that a project will not pose a significant hazard to public health. More work on uniform
criteria and standard needs to be undertaken.
67
-------
-------
\- Project Review:
Conceptual Overview
PROJECT REVIEW:
-REQUIREMENTS AS PER 1977 REGULATIONS 3.A.1
-FLOW DIAGRAM OF REVIEW IN REGION II 3,A,2
69
-------
3.A.I
PROJECT REVIEW FOLLOWING DESIGNATION
• No subsequent commitments of federal financial assistance may be made
to projects which the Administrator determines may contaminate the
aquifer so as to create a significant hazard to public health.
• Any person may request the Regional Administrator to review a
project to determine 1f it may contaminate the designated aquifer.
• The Regional Administrator may also decide to review a project on his
own initiative.
• A Request to Review must contain:
1. the name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organi-
zation or other entity submitting the petition;
2. a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional
Administrator1s determination;
3. the name of the project and federal agency involved;
4. a statement of applicable action already taken by State and local
agencies;
5. a statement of any actions taken under the National Environmental
Pol icy Act;
6. the potential contaminants involved;
7. the means by which the contaminant might enter the aquifer; and
8. the potential impact of the proposed project.
0 The Regional Administrator will assess the Information submitted to
determine whether the project should be reviewed. The preliminary
assessment will include consideration of the location and nature of
the project.
0 If the Regional Administrator decides, upon completion of a preliminary
assessment to review a project, he will notify both the public and the
federal agency from which financial assistance is being sought of such
review.
0 If there is significant public interest a public hearing may be held.
0 The Regional Administrator will review the project taking all relevant
factors into account, including:
1. the extent of possible public health hazard presented by the project;
2. planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance and monitoring
measures included on the project which could prevent or mitigate the
possible health hazard;
70
-------
3. the extent and effectiveness of state or local controls over
possible contaminant releases to the aquifer;
4. the cumulative and secondary impacts of the proposed project; and
5. the expected environmental benefits of the proposed project.
• If an environmental assessment or draft Environmental Impact Statement
prepared by the federal funding agency does not contain a comprehen- -
sive chapter on groundwater impacts, the Environmental Protection
Agency may request the agency to prepare a groundwater assessment.
• EPA will not review minor actions such as individual home mortgage
loans. However, EPA will generally review impact statements when the
cumulative impact of a large number of homes is of concern.
• Following review of all available information, EPA will determine
whether or not the project may contaminate the aquifer through the
recharge zone so as to create a significant hazard to public health.
• Notice of the decision will be published in the Federal Register.
71
-------
3.A.2
FLOW DIAGRAMS OF PROCESS
o PATHWAY FOR PROJECT REVIEW
» ' BASED ON A SET OF CRITERIA AIM. QUESTIONS (WHICH EPA DEVELOPED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE LFA AND THE A-95), THESE AGENCIES UNDERTAKE
PHASE I REVIEW TO DETERMINE IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
COULD PRESENT A POTENTIAL THREAT TO THE DESIGNATED AQUIFER,
o A PROJECT WHICH DOES M REOJIRE AN_EJS_ (AS DETERMINED BY THE LFA)
BUT WOULD OTHERWISE POTENTIALLY REOJIRE A
FALL OUT OF THE MQU CRITERIA AND/OR THE A-95 BACKUP SYSTEM. _
EPA"RECEIVES!OTIFICATION QN POTENTIAL PROBLEI PROJECT^
PROJECT REFERRALS ARE EVALUATE) BY EPA (PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT -
PHASE II).
72
-------
9 EPA-WSB HAS 1^ DAYS.TO AGREE/D1SAGRE WITH PRELIMINARY ASSESSfOT -
PHASE I REFERRALS IF EPA AGRES TWT THERE COULD BE A PROBLEM WE
SEEK FURTHER INFO,
• REGION II ENVISIONS TWO AVENUES FOR OBTAINING MORE INFO: AN
JNFQRMAL REQUEST (INFORMAL IN THE SB^SE THAT EPA DOESN'T GO TO
. FR NOTICE ETC, WE'RE ADMITTING WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TO GO ON
BUT PERHAPS THE INFO IS AVAILABLE Aid A DETERMINATION COULD BE
EASILY REACHED), SHOULD THE INFORMAL REQUESmEULSUEEJC.IBIC
JNFO TO CLEAR PROJECT OR SHOULD THE INFORMAL REQUEST RESULT IN
Tit PROJECT so IT DOES"NOT POSE POTENTIAL PROB
THE PROJECT WILL RECEIVE 1424 (E) CLEARANCE OR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND THE W24(E) REVIEW WILL BO, "
o SHOULD THE INFORMAL REQUEST NOTJE_ANS1£REI). IDENTIFY POTENTIAL
MSJDR NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFO TO GIVE W24(E) CLEARANCE,
EPA WILL ANNOUNCE ITS INTENTION TO CONDUCT I^(E) REVIB-J.
IF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR DECIDES, UPON COMPLETION.QEJL
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT TO REVIEW A PROJECL. HE WILL NOTIFY
BOTH THE PUBLIC AND THE FEDERAL AGENCY FROM WHICH FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE IS BEING SOUGHT OF SUCH REVIEW,
IF THERE IS SIGNIFICANT RJBLIC INTEREST A RJBLIC HEARING MAY
BE HELD,
EPA WILL REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM Tl€ LEAD FEDERAL
AGEJCY, 6TI7S "
ONCE THE GW INFORM! ION IS COMPLETE AND SUMTTED FOR REVIEW,
EPA WILL UNDERTAKE REVIB4 WITHIN 30 DAYS.
EPA WILL DETERMINE WETHER OR NOT THE PROJECT MAY CONTAMINATE
THE AQUIFER THROUGH THE RECHARGE ZONE SO AS TO CREATE A SIGNIFICANT
HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH,
NOTICE OF THE DECISION Will BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.
-------
O _IL «» ...
i . x/r 1 ^s
1 JA-95 AGENCYI ( PRELIMINARY SCREENING
LEAD FEDERAL AGENCY
LEAD FEDERAL
AGENCY
APPLICANT
-(PRELIMINARY SCREEN
NO HEND
POTENTIAL
POTENTIAL-
NO fe,
REFERRAL
EPA
'xl
(.NOTIFY)
T PROBLEM?
PHASE II
REVIEW
POTENTIAL
PROGRAMS EVALUATE FOR S I GNIFICANT V-_
AQUIFER CONTAMINATION, F^
INFORMAL REQUEST FOR\
ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONJ
INFORMATION PROVIDED )
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION REQUIRED
^7
DEIS
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
PROCESS TO DETERMINE IF EPA WILL CONDUCT
PROJECT REVIEW
-------
FORMAL
REVIEW
NOTIFY LEAD FEDERAL AGENCY
NOTIFY PUBLIC
EEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
ROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT REQUESTED
C
TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND
PUBLIC COMMENT COMPILED
(DETERMINATION]
-or
en
ADMINISTRATOR
MAKES FINAL DECISION
<*-
REGIONAL OFFICE MAKES
RECOMMENDATION
CLEARANCE
PUBLISH FEDERAL
REGISTER
DEIS
NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
APPLICANT REDESIGNS
V PROJECT
)
APPLICANT DROPS
PROJECT
1START I
FORMAL PROJECT REVIEW BY EPA REGION II
-------
3B- Respective Roles of Review
Participants
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR I^(E) REVIEW?
-ORGANIZATION CHART FOR REGION II
-THE ROLE OF FEDERAL AGENGIES 3.B.1
-THE ROLE OF STATE AND LOCAL A-95's 3.B.2
-EPA RESPONSIBILITIES FOR REVIEW OF -z D 3
OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PROJECTS J*u,j
-EPA RESPONSIBILITIES FOR REVIEW OF 7 D 7
SEC, 201 GRANTS J.B.
76
-------
ORGANIZATION CHART
r—
REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR
DEPUTY REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR
THE OFFICE OF
EXTERNAL PROGRAMS
DIRECTOR
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
WATER DIVISION
DIRECTOR
(2) DEPUTY DIRECTORS
PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT DIVISION
DIRECTOR
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
AIR & HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS DIVISION
DIRECTOR
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SURVEILLANCE AND
ANALYSIS DIVISION
-------
78
-------
3.B.I
The Role of Lead Federal Agencies
Federal agencies identified as grantors of financial assistance are:
EPA
- Federal Highway Administration
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Urban Mass Transportation Administration
- Department of Housing and Urban Development
Economic Development Administration
Veterans Administration
- Farmers Home Administration
- Small Business Administration
- Heritage, Conservation and Recreation Service
- Department of Health, Education and Welfare
- Department of Energy
In order to establish an efficient and mutually acceptable interagency process to
review projects , staff of the Water Supply Branch (WSB) and of the Office of Federal
Activities (OFA) have endeavored to complete a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with each federal agency identified above. The MOU (1) defines the types of projects
that the grantor agency will refer to EPA under 1424 (e) , eliminating, for instance,
road lighting and surfacing projects, single residence loan assistance, etc. , (2)
identifies the point in project development at which EPA review would be most
effective, (3) commits the agencies to specific review periods, and (4) identifies
agency personnel for contact. Attachment A illustrates a typical MOU.
To date, MOUs have been completed with all federal agencies identified except the
Economic Development Administration, and the Small Business Administration. The
OFA is continuing to pursue agreements with these two agencies.
79
-------
Attachment "A"
Memorandum of Understanding
Between
The Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region II, New York, N.Y.
and
The Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, New York, N.Y.
The purpose of this memorandum is to reach an agreement between the Region
II offices of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) concerning review of projects that
involve federal financial assistance, and that may affect sole source
aquifers designated pursuant to section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (PL 93-523). This memorandum outlines the steps to be followed by
HUD in determining which projects should be subject to a review and
the procedures to be followed by both agencies in meeting the requirements
of section 1424(e).
Pursuant to section 1424(e), EPA has determined that the aquifer system
underlying Nassau and Suffolk Counties is the principal source of drinking
water for these counties (FR. Vol. 43, No. 120, June 21, 1978). No
commitment for federal financial assistance may be entered into for any
project that EPA determines may contaminate a sole source aquifer through
its recharge zone so as to create a significant hazard to public health.
When other aquifers in this region are designated as sole sources, HUD
will be notified by the Region II office of EPA. This memorandum will
apply to the review of projects in all sole source aquifers in this region.
Regulations relating to section 1424(e) can be found in the Federal Register
(Vol. 42, No. 189) on Thursday, September 29, 1977-
The goal of this memorandum is that EPA and HUD, together, assure that
each subject project is designed in a manner that will protect the aauifen
and _not result in any_potential public health hazard. In order to achieve- -
this goal, HUD will notify EPA of all subject projects at the earliest
possible date. If an EIS is prepared for any project in a designated area,
HUD and EPA will coordinate at the earliest possible time so that the
draft EIS for the project contains EPA's 1424(e) determination.
I. Community Development Block Grant Applications:
A. HUD will inform all CDBG applicants in a designated area that
a 1424(e) review may be required if the proposed action falls
into one of the categories listed below. The applicant shall
be required to submit a copy of its CDBG application to EPA
prior to or at the same time it submits copies to the A-95
clearinghouses. (The applicant shall maintain a log pursuant
to these procedures.) EPA shall notify the applicant communi-
ties if more information is needed or if there are potential
problems with respect to the projects involving one or more
of the following:
. landfills
. new sanitary sewers and/or treatment plants
80
-------
. septic tanks serving more than five households
. proposals affecting waterbodies
. handling ,or storage of toxic, noxious or hazardous
materials. Attachment #1 lists these materials; EPA
will periodically update this list.
. new storm water drainage facilities, including recharge
basins
. new or expanded water supply facilities
. new parking facilities larger than an acre
. new roads longer than one-half mile
. underground tanks storing petroleum products
B. EPA shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of the application
to comment on a proposed project or activity pursuant to 1424(e)
or to request additional information to determine groundwater impacts.
1. EPA shall notify the applicant if projects, involving one
or more of the above categories, are acceptable.
2. EPA shall notify the applicant and the appropriate HUD Area
Office if a project is unacceptable or acceptable with modi-
fications .
C. A copy of EPA's "acceptable finding(s)" shall_be included^by J:he
applicant as part of its formal CDBG application submission to HUD.
D. No specific project or activity that EPA has found unacceptable
pursuant to 1424(e) shall be funded by HUD. If at the time of
application approval, EPA has not completed its negotiations for
project modifications or has not completed its review of ground-
water impacts, the specific projects and/or activities subject to
EPA review shall be conditioned. Authorization for the release of
funds shall not be granted until EPA has notified HUD that all out-
standing issues with regard to the subject projects and/or activi-
ties have been resolved. The EPA will work closely with the applicant
and HUD to minimize any delays in project review.
E. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying EPA of any new
or revised project and/or activity, involving one or more of the
categories identified under paragraph A above, that was not part
of the original CDBG application submission to HUD. EPA shall
notify the applicant and HUD if there are any problems or additional
issues to be addressed. HUD shall not authorize the release of
funds for the subject project until EPA has indicated that all
outstanding issues have been resolved.
81
-------
II. Urban Development Action Grant Applications
Upon receipt of the application, the HUD Area Office will send
all UDAG proposals within the designated aquifer area to EPA for
its review. EPA shall notify the HUD Area Office within 10
calendar days if it will conduct a 1424(e) review. EPA shall have
an additional 10 calendar days to review and submit comments to
the HUD Area Office. The HUD Area Office shall transmit EPA's
review comments to the Central Office.
III. Housing Program Applications
A. HUD shall inform all applicants for new construction in a
designated area that a 1424(e) review may be required.
B. HUD shall include the Questionnaire - see Attachment #2 - as
part of a developer's housing application package for proposed
projects in the designated area.
C. HUD shall require the submission of the completed questionnaire
from all applicants for subdivision or multifamily projects in
the designated area prior to any further funding consideration.
All completed questionnaires will become part of HUD's perma-
nent record for each project.
D. If one or more of the questions in the questionnaire are an-
swered affirmatively, HUD will forward the application to EPA
for its assessment.
1. EPA, upon receipt of a housing application, will have 20
days to review and comment. A non-response by EPA at the
end of 20 days shall be considered as a positive review
indicating an acceptable project. HUD processing of the
project can then proceed toward HUD approval.
2. EPA review comments shall be sent directly to the developer
with a copy to the appropriate HUD Area Office.
E. Local Area Certification - If a designated sole_source_aquifer
is located adjacent to or within the geographical boundaries^
of a certifiable area, the HUD Area Office shall consult with
EPA as part of the certification review process. (The con-
sultation with EPA shall, in all instances, be made prior
to officially certifying the local area.)
Note: Individual projects shall still be subject to 1424(e)
review independent of a local area certification.
82
-------
F. If EPA finds a project unacceptable as a result of its 1424(e)
review, that project shall be rejected by HUD. To minimize
delay, EPA shall work closely with the developer and HUD to
resolve outstanding ssues as quickly as possible.
IV. General Procedural Matters
A. Materials furnished EPA by HUD under this Memorandum of Under-
standing shall be addressed to the attention of the Director,
Office of Federal Activities, in EPA's Regional Office in New
York, New York.
B. The HUD and EPA will each assign a representative to serve as
a liaison. The liaison officers are:
HUD: Regional Office Environmental Officer*
EPA: E.I.S. Review Coordinator
* (Note: The HUD Area Offices' Environmental Clearance
Officer shall be the liaison on project specific
matters. )
The representatives will meet as needed to update this memorandum.
This memorandum is subject to revision upon agreement of both parties,
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
idma's Applet
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Richard TT1 Defiling, Ph
Acting Regional Admini
D
ator
ll/tf/7*
Dated f // /
Dated
83
-------
TOXIC, NOXIOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS LIST
Attachment
MPOUND NAME
•acrolein
• acryloniirile
•benzene
•benzidirie •
'carbon telrachloride
(tctrochloromethane)
•chlorinated benzenes (other than
dichlorobtnzenes)
chlorobenzene
1 .2.4 trichlorobonzene
hexacMorobcnzene
•chlorinated ethanes (including 1.2-
dichloroLihane. 1 .1 ,1 trichloro-
clhane and hexachloroethane)
I. 1.2-dichloroethane
l.l.l-trichloroethane
'. hexachlorotthane
i 1 .1 -dichlcroelhane
I. 1 ,1 ,2 trichloroPthane
i. 1 .1 ,2,2-leiracliloroeihane
i. chloroethane
•chloroalkyl ethers (chloromelhyl.
chloroethyl and mixed ethers)
'. bis(chloromethyl) ether
3. bis(2-chloioethyl) ether
). 2-chloroethyl vinyl ether (mixed)
•chlorinated naphthalene
D. 2-chloronaphthaIene
•chlorinated phenols (other than
those listed elsewhere, includes
trichloroplienols and chlorinated
cresols)
1. 2,4,6-UicMorophenol
?. paracliloromela cresol
3. 'chloroform (uichloromcthane)
"). '2-chlorophenol
*dichloroben2enes
5. 1 ,2-dichlorobenzene
6. 1 ,3-dichlorobenzene
7. 1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
'dichlorobenzidine
B. 3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
'dichloroethylenes (1 .1 -dicriloroeth-
ylene and 1 ,2-dichloroelhylene)
9. 1 ,1-dichloroethylene
0. 1 ,2-trans-dichloroelhylene
'. '2.4-dichlorophenol
'dichloropropane and dichloro-
propene
2. 1 ^-dichloropropane
3. 1 ,2-dichloropropylene (1 2-
dichloropropene)
' "2,4. 2.4-diniirotoluene
>• 2.6-diniuotoluene
* 1 2-dipher)ylhydrazinc
tluoranthene
•haloetlien (other than ihose listed
elsewhere)
40. 4
-------
Attachment #2
HOUSING APPLICATION QUESTIONNAIRE
YES NO
1. Will the project dispose of sewage through an on-site
facility (e.g. septic tanks)?
2. Will petroleum products be stored underground?
3. Is the total area of impervious surfaces (e.g. paved
areas,'buildings, etc.) greater than 30% of the
project area?
4. Will the run-off from the impervious surfaces (#3)
be drained into onsite recharge basins?
5. Will the project require more than 100,000 gallons
per day of groundwater?
6. How much groundwater supply will be required for the
project? (in gallons/day)
7- If a new well is to be drilled, what is the
expected depth?
or If an existing well is to be used, what is its depth?
(Source: well owner or water purveyor)
85
-------
86
-------
3.B.2
The Role of State and Local A-95 Agencies
In order to eliminate burdensome reviews for every proposal for federal financial
assistance within the designated areas, Region H has initiated MOUs with the
appropriate local A-95 agencies. (See Attachment B) . The MOUs stipulate that
the agencies will, as part of their usual A-95 review, consider the potential for
groundwater contamination and will refer to the regional office of EPA all those
projects that fall within EPA design and site cirteria.
Upon referral, EPA will review the project and, if EPA concurs that groundwater
contamination may be significant, will request from the applicant a detailed ground-
water assessment of the project. More probably, however, additional design de-
tails will be required before a decision to review can be reached, necessitating one
or more interfaces between EPA and the applicant. The A-95 agency and the federal
agency considering a grant of federal assistance for the project in question will, at
their own request, serve as intermediaries between EPA and the applicant; if such
request is not made, EPA will keep both agencies advised of significant developments
in the review, or potential review, of the proposed project.
87
-------
Memorandum of Understanding
Between
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
and
Tri-State Regional Planning Commission
The 'purpose of this memorandum is to develop an agreement between the
Region II office of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Tri-State Regional Planning Commission (Tri-State) concerning review of
projects that involve federal financial assistance and that may affect
sole source aquifers designated pursuant to section 1424(e) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523). This memorandum outlines procedures to
be followed by Tri-State in determining which projects should be subject
to a 1424(e) review.
Pursuant to section 1424(e), EPA has determined that the aquifer system
underlying Nassau and Suffolk Counties is the principal source of
drinking water for these counties (FR. Vol. 43, No. 120, June 21, 1978).
No commitment for federal financial assistance may be entered into for
any project that EPA determines may contaminate a sole source aquifer
through its recharge or stream flow source zone so as to create a
significant hazard to public health. Tri-State will review all trans-
portation related projects in the Nassau/Suffolk sole source area. If
any other aquifers within Tri-State's jurisdiction in New York and New
Jersey are designated as sole source, Tri-State will be notified by the
Region II office of EPA. This memorandum will apply to the review of
projects in all sole source aquifers in New York and New Jersey that lie
within Tri-State's jurisdiction. Regulations relating to section 1424(e)
can be found in the Federal Register (Vol. 42, No. 189) on Thursday,
September 29, 1977.
The goal of this memorandum is that EPA and Tri-State, together, assure
that each subject project is designed in a manner that will preclude a
public health hazard. In order to achieve this goal, Tri-State will
notify EPA at the earliest possible date of all subject projects that
may adversely affect a sole source aquifer.
The EPA and Tri-State agree that Tri-State will use as guidelines the
attached "Questions for Phase I Preliminary Assessments" developed by
EPA to review all business and industry grants and loans; all housing
project grants, loans and mortgage guarantees; all grants, loans and
mortgage guarantees for the construction, extension or improvement of
sewers, septic tanks, water supply facilities, and solid waste disposal
facilities. If Tri-State identifies a possible significant impact to
the groundwater in the designated area, Tri-State will refer the project
to EPA for consideration.
88
-------
Tri-State will, as part of its routine A-95 review procedures, under-
take this initial screening and will submit to EPA, within 30 days
after a project application has been submitted to it, its findings
with respect to the effect of such project on the aquifer. For each
aquifer EPA will provide the A-95 Agency with a map(s) of the sole
source aquifer area and its boundaries and a list of land uses or
activities that may indicate potential problems.
The EPA agrees to notify Tri-State, within forty five (45) calendar
days of transmittal, of the disposition of all projects referred by
Tri-State. Tri-State will assume that EPA does not object to pro-
ject funding if EPA does not respond within this time frame.
If the A-95 Agency findings indicate no adverse effect of the aquifer
and if EPA, after its own appraisal, accepts such findings, no further
steps will be taken by either party.
If EPA disagrees with the findings of no adverse effect or if the A-95
Agency findings indicate a potential problem, Tri-State will assist
EPA, upon request, in negotiations between EPA and applicant for federal
financial assistance in an attempt to resolve the matter.
If such negotiations fail, EPA will determine if a formal project re-
view is appropriate and will keep Tri-State informed of any action
taken by it.
If EPA decides to undertake a formal project review, Tri-State will,
at EPA's request, review any documents or other materials submitted
to EPA in connection with the project and will advise EPA of any im-
pact on the aquifer disclosed by such review.
Tri-State will package and distribute EPA and 208 Technical Advisory
Committee material on the sole source aquifer program to governmental
agencies and appropriate groups including Transportation Coordination
Committees, within designated sole source aquifer areas. Tri-State
will distribute to other governmental agencies and appropriate groups
reviewing a project within the designated sole source aquifer area a
description of the 1424(e) Sole Source Aquifer Program and the ground-
water issues applicable thereto.
Materials furnished EPA by Tri-State under this Memorandum of Under-
standing will be addressed to the attention of the Director, Office
of Federal Activities in EPA's Regional Office in New York, New York.
Tri-State and EPA each will assign a representative to serve as liaison.
The liaison officers are:
Tri-State: Director of Assistance to Local Government
EPA: EIS Review Coordinator
89
-------
The representatives will meet as needed to discuss this memorandum.
This memorandum is subject to revision upon agreement of both parties,
Tri-State Regional Planning U.S. Environmental Protection
Commission Agency
f ' ' "~^~~
Frank T. Johnson Richard T. Dewling, Ph.D.
Executive Director Acting Regional Administrator
1 / /• / n . '
Dated Dated
90
-------
ONE
\PPUC ANT
rn£. A -
OF
. A-95"
SlWDS LIST
F.PA
TAG
AGEN
SlNJD
v>i
ro
FND
OF
DAY
-------
-------
3.B.3j
The Respective Roles of Region n EPA Programs in 1424 (e) Project Review
Part I - 1424 (e) Review of other Federal Agency Activities in Sole Source Area
(Refer to Figures 1 and 2)
Review of a project pursuant to section 1424(e) does not, of itself, necessitate
issuance of an EIS. When an EIS will not be issued pursuant to NEPA, EPA will
request and review a groundwater impact assessment for potentially significant
projects. For projects that are subject to 1424 (e) and that will have EISs prepared,
EPA will endeavor to complete its 1424 (e) review expeditiously to allow inclusion
of its 1424 (e) determination into the groundwater impact discussion in the draft EIS.
This objective requires that EPA be alerted to potential 1424 (e) projects as early as
possible; MOUs with federal agencies provide for this early interagency coordination.
/
When a proposed project subject to 1424 (e) is referred to EPA by a federal agency,
the project goes to OFA and because of time constraints identified in the MOU, is
hand carried to WSB. If the project is referred by an A-95 Agency or citizen petition,
it will go directly to WSB. As appropriate, WSB requests necessary additional
information and reviews the project to determine if significant aquifer contamination
is possible. If significant contamination is unlikely, no further action is necessary,
except to notify OFA and the referring agency or petitioner, as applicable. If WSB
determines that significant contamination is possible or if insufficient information is
provided (in spite of "informal review" requests) to allow this determination to be
made, WSB issues notification of intent to review the project under 1424 (e) to the
referring agency of petitioner, state, county, town, USGS, and interested groups
and citizens with a copy to OFA.
As prescribed by the proposed rules, notification is published in the Federal Register
and a 30-day comment period, begins unless extended by the RA or unless a public
hearing is held. A public hearing is advisable when the project involves substantial
public controversy and/or when the public may possess significant relevant information
If an EIS is to be prepared for the project in question, the EPA notification (of intent
to review) to the federal grantor agency will indicate that a submittal of a ground-
water assessment to EPA is required well before EIS preparation in order to minimize
project delays. The letter of notification will substantiate EPA's decision to review
by stating those issues that concern EPA leachate contamination, cumulative
impacts, etc. It if is not clear that a certain issue is irrelevant to a project, that
issue will be included in order that the assessment address its importance. Only
if additional information comes to light, e.g. , through the public comment period,
should a followup letter be sent to the grantor agency revising the issues of concern.
-------
Review of the groundwater assessment is conducted by WSB with the assistance of
other EPA branches, as appropriate, e.g., radioactive waste involvement implies
referral to the Radiation Branch; hazardous waste, Solid Waste Branch. (See Figure
2). The OFA assists WSB in identifying, scheduling and tracking reviews by these
branches.
The WSB evaluates the groundwater assessment and related reviews comments,
reaches a determination and prepares an action memorandum detailing the pro and
con sides of the recommended 1424(e) determination, with a proposed letter to the
federal grantor agency. If the recommended determination is that the project would
not significantly contaminate the aquifer, the action memo is addressed to the RA and
a letter is drafted for the RA's signature; if the recommended determination is that
significant contamination is possible, the action memo is drafted from the RA to the
Administrator and the attached letter is drafted for the Administrator's signature.
When either letter to the federal grantor agency is signed, a notice of the 1424 (e)
determination is placed in the Federal Register.
At any point in project review that it becomes apparent that the project may con-
taminate the aquifer, WSB and all other relevant regional branches will consider,
as far as practicable, the efficacy of project redesign and/or of mitigation measures
in reducing or eliminating the potential for aquifer contamination. If an unacceptable
project can be revised to make it acceptable, EPA's determination of project con-
tamination of the aquifer will stand, but will also note the potential acceptability of
certain project revisions. If EPA's 1424 (e) determination is of no aquifer contamination,
this determination should be incorporated by the federal grantor agency into the
draft EIS or negative declaration.
Early project notification is also an opportunity for EPA to become involved in a pro-
ject in environmental media other than groundwater. To fulfill this objective and
consistent with EPA's and the Council on Environmental Quality's emphasis on in-
creased interagency pre-EIS coordination, including the scoping process, OFA has
been designated as the initial point of contact for federal interagency 1424 (e) coordina-
tion. Review of groundwater assessments will occur in the Water Supply Branch with
the exception of 201 projects, which will be reviewed by the Environmental Impacts
Branch. Reviews of projects for environmental concerns other than 1424 (e) will be
coordinated by OFA with appropriate regional branches (e.g. , with Air Programs
Branch on a highway review) in a manner identical to current pre-EIS liaison reviews.
Roles of EPA Units
(1) Water Supply Branch (WSB):
• manages the 1424 (e) designation process including: Petition Review, Federal
Register Notification, Public Hearings. Aquifer Studies, Recommendation on
Designation Decision, Background Document and Designation Delineations
94
-------
.reviews project descriptions to determine if significant aquifer contamination
is possible
• if no significant contamination is possible, notifies OFA and the petitioner, if
applicable
• if significant contamination is possible , issues public notification of intent
to review the project under 1424(e) to the federal grantor agency, OFA, state,
county, town, USGS, and the interested groups and citizens; this notice begins
a 30-day comment period
• coordinates with Federal Grantor Agency and/or applicant as necessary to obtain
needed information; keep OFA informed
i receives and assesses all comments; consults with USGS for available information
considers recommendations of any 208 plans
• seeks information from state and county groundwater offices, e.g. , NYDEC and
DOH, and seeks consistency with state underground injections control (UIC)
permits
.after reaching a decision under 1424 (e) , WSB will collaborate with OFA to pre-
pare an action memorandum and letter to the federal grantor agency
« as a result of one or more project reviews, makes areawide recommendations to
208 program office
• completes MOU's with A-95 agencies to facilitate project reviews in future aquifer
designations
• monitors compliance of A-95 agencies and Grantor Agencies with MOUs
will be responsible for tracking all EPA Action on Project Referrals.
(2) Office of Federal Activities (OFA):
• acts as focal point for coordination of 1424 (e) with other federal agencies and
A-95 agencies
• completes MOUs with federal grantor agencies regarding 1424 (e) with assistance
of WSB
-proposes revisions to MOUs to reflect changing programs, 1424 (e) experience,
etc.
• assures that aquifer designation process includes notification to affected federal
agencies
• assists WSB in completing MOUs with A-95 agencies
• receives and reviews all 1424 (e) project descriptions for section 309 review
possibilities; forwards these to WSB and other EPA units, as appropriate.
(Transmirtal of project description to WSB will be accomplished on same day
of receipt.)
• consolidates all section 309 pre-EIS comments into a single response to the
federal grantor agency
• monitors progress of all 1424 (e) project reviews
• in the case of citizen petitions, requests project data from federal grantor agency
determines 1424 (e) general applicability, advises petitioners, and requests WSB
involvement, as appropriate"
• assists WSB in monitoring compliance of LFA with MOU
-------
(3) Solid Waste Branch:
• reviews groundwater assessment, at request of OFA or WSB, for compliance
with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) , including Subtitle C
permit requirements (under EPA) and Subtitle D requirements (administered
by EPA or the state)
(4) Radiation Branch:
» reviews groundwater assessment, at request of OFA or WSB, for radiological
contamination and submits comments to WSB
(5) Water Permits Branch (WPB):
• forwards to WSB a listing of all NPDES permits or applications for discharges
in areas identified by WSB (below) as zones that have surface waters recharging
sole source aquifers. WSB will with the assistance of WP, Permits Administration
and Data Systems list the types of parameters and information necessary to monitor
inflow into a sole source area. Because NPDES permits are not federal financial
assistance, they are not subject to 1424 (e) review. However, to ignore the effect
of surface dischargers in sole source aquifer recharge areas appears to violate
the intent of the Safe Drinking Water Act. WSB will, delineate prime recharge
areas and stream flow source zones for the SSA. In states with delegated NPDES
programs WPB will assist WSB in obtaining the necessary information from the
State.
(6) Surveillance and Analysis Division:
• assists WSB in review of projects requiring Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans, e.g., fuel storage tanks.
96
-------
3.B.3,,
Part II 1424 (e) Review of Clean Water Act, Section 201 Grants
(Refer to Figure 3)
The EPA's review pursuant to NEPA of section 201 grants should, of itself, ensure
compliance with section 1424(e) requirements. Nevertheless, because of the special
treatment afforded to sole source aquifers by section 1424 (e), particular attention -
will be given to the groundwater impacts of section 201 grants proposed for sole
source aquifer recharge areas. Following is an outline of the procedures to be
followed by the Water Division branches in reviewing these grants.
Water Programs Branches (WPB)
NEW STEP I GRANTS
• 201 Project Engineers (PE) will screen initial grant applications during the
Award Phase to determine if the proposal is located in a designated Sole Source
Aquifer (SSA) . (maps of the designated aquifers will be prepared and distributed
by WSB)
• 201 PE will notify applicants in the SSA by letter (example attached) that they
must address specific groundwater issues accordingly with the nature of the
proposal (where practicable guidelines will be established by WSB for different
waste water treatment categories) .
• 2&1 PE will consult with EIB/WSB to determine if the proposal is acceptable in
concept and location. WSB will identify areas within the SSA where specific
wastewater treatment technologies are unacceptable. 201 PE will utilize this
guide to screen projects during the Aware Phase.
» After meetings/discussions with the applicant, certain essential GW related
parameters will be investigated and discussed in the Development of the
Facility Plan.
• 201 PE will monitor the progress of data collection to ensure that the appropriate
guidelines are addressed.
• 201 PE will circulate the complete facility plan to EIB for review as per usual
procedures
• WPB will develop the computer capacity to prepare a separate list and status
report on all 201 activity in a designated SSA. The listing will be prepared
and available for public inspection through EIB/WSB (as required by Para
148.21, 1424 (e) Proposed Rule-42 FR 51620, 29 Sept 77.
CURRENT STEP I AND H GRANTS
• WPB will consult with EIB/ (WSB) on all grant awards located in newly designated
SSA. EIB/(WSB) will determine which proposal may contaminate the SSA so as
to create a significant hazard to public health.
• 201 PE will inform and require applicant to provide additional information (as
identified by EIB/ (WSB)) on potential problem projects (Because of existing
informal coordination between EIB and WSB on this matter, we do not anticipate
the need to apply retroactivity to existing Step I and n grants in the Nassau/
Suffolk SSA) .
97
-------
• 201 PE is empowered (under Section 1424 (e)) to authorize funding to redesign
a proposal so it does not contaminate the SSA.
STEP III GRANTS
• Section 1424 (e) does not apply to these grants
Environmental Impacts Branch (EIB)
• EIB (in consultation with WSB, TRB and other appropriate branches) will
evaluate all 201 proposals located in a SSA (except existing Step HI grants)
against the guidelines developed by WSB.
• EIB/ (WSB) will evaluate the Environmental Information Document (EID) for
a finding that the proposed will not contaminate the SSA through a recharge
or stream flow source zone so as to create a significant hazard to public health.
(guidelines and standards for this determination will be developed by WSB) .
• EIB will make a finding (determination) that:
a. more information is needed from the applicant to make a,finding or,
b. the proposed may contaminate the SSA so as to create a significant
hazard to public health and therefore will recommend that no further
funding for that specific proposal be available; unless funding is
provided (Step I and Step n) to plan or design the project to assure
that it will not so contaminate the aquifer or,
c. the proposal is cleared under Section 1424 (e)
• Under determinations (a) and (b) , EIB will consult with WSB (where necessary) ,
the 201 Project Engineer and the applicant to resolve problems.
• EIB will incorporate determination (c) into the text of any Finding of No Significant
Impact (FNSI) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared.
• EIB is responsible for coordinating with other branches and responding to any
petitions (submitted under Para 148.22 of the Proposed Rules 42 FR 51620) per-
taining to 201 projects which were cleared under determination (c) above.
Water Supply Branch (WSB)
• WSB will prepare and distribute maps of all designated SSA.
• WSB will distribute, refine and revise guidelines for addressing and
evaluating the impacts of 201 projects on SSA.
• WSB will refine guidelines to apply specifically to the following categories
of 201 projects:
- treatment facilities, associated sewers and collection systems
- on-lot disposal (e.g. septics, small lagoons)
- land application of effluent
- sludge disposal and/or application
• WSB, in conjunction with other EPA programs, knowledgable State and
private consultants, will determine which wastewater treatment technologies
are unacceptable (and in cases where possible, which technologies are de-
sirable) for different areas.within the designated SSA. These delineations
will be distributed to EIB and WPB for utilization during the screening and
award phases of new Step I grants.
98
-------
• WSB will prepare and conduct periodic briefings on meeting the requirements
of 1424 (e) in the 201 program.
• WSB will be available for consultation regarding all aspects of 1424 (e) and the
evaluation of public health hazard.
• WSB will receive all A 4 B "preliminary screening" referrals from the Office of
Federal Activities (OFA) and consult within EIB to resolve problems.
-------
Referring
federal grantor agency,
A-95 agency
and/or citizen
project
descrip
I I
I
T
controversial
Public Hearing
(coordinated with
federal grantor agency)
EPA
section 309 comments
to federal grantor
agency
Office of
Federal
Activities
significant
non-groundwater
impacts?
Notify
Office of
Federal Activities
& Referring Agenty
Water
Supply
Branch
Significarf
aquifer
contamination
Water Supply Branch
Notification of
Determination to
review project with
30-day public
comment.
T-C- TT-OA CHATT.
A PROJECT UNDER 1424 (e)
-------
Applicant
or
Consultant
DEIS/
Neg. Dec.
redesign?
gwa
federal
grantor
agency
federal
grantor
agency
&
FR
federal
grantor
agency
&
FR
gwa « groundwater assessment
FR «* Federal Register Notice
EPA
gwa
OFA
Other EPA
branches
involved?
RA
significant
contamination
potential?
Radiation Br.,
Solid Waste,
Etc.
AX
-------
INITIALLY CLEARED
PROJECTS
EPA
request necessary information
required info
provided?
GWA submitted
INCORPORATE
FINDINGS INTO
FNSI OR DEIS
determine
Significarftl
aquifer
contamination
request ground water assessment (GWA)
-STOP FUNDING ON
CURRENT PROPOSAL
-EVALUATE POTENTIAL
FOR FUNDING REDESIGN
NO FEDERAL"FUNDS
TO SUPPORT ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL
rr Rpx/Tirw UNDER SOLE SOURCE
-------
3C- Project Review Criteria
WHAT INFORMATION OR CRITERIA IS UTILIZED
TO MAKE DETERMINATIONS ON SIGNIFICANT
HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH?
-STANDARDS FOR COMPLIANCE (AS PER REGS) 3.C.1
-GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW OF EIS's SUBJECT -? r i
TO SECTION 3424(E) OF THE SDWA
VI
E)
-DETAILED GUIDELINES FOR A 1TO(E) GROUND ? r ?
WATER ASSESSMENT J>\"->
-QUESTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY PHASE i ASSESS- ? r n
MENT 3lL'4
-QUESTIONS FOR 1^2^(E) PROJECT REVIEW 3.C.5
I 0 3
-------
3.C.I
Standards for Compliance with 1424(e)
1. From the proposed final rule for 1424(e):
a) a "significant hazard to public health" will "occur" if the
level of contaminants in an aquifer would either:
(a) exceed any maximum contaminant level set forth in any
promulgated National Primary Drinking Water Standard at any point v;here
the water may be used for drinking purposes, or,
(v) otherwise threaten public health.
In determining whether a level of contaminant would threaten public
health, the RA must consider the following factors, at a minimum:
(1) the toxicity of the contaminants involved;
(2) the volume of contaminants which may enter the aquifer; and
(3) the characteristics of the aquifer (i.e., geochemical , hydro-
logical, geological, etc.) and the attenuation capability of the aquifer.
b) In the specific case of land application projects located in the
recharge zone, the Regional Administrator must at a minimum require com-
pliance with the Case II criteria established under the Beet Practicable
Waste Treatment Technology (41 FR 6190) , and shall assure that the
project will not otherwise threaten public health.
2. From the final rule on Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices:
In the specific case of sludge disposal in a recharge zone:
(a) A facility or practice shall not contaminate an underground
drinking water source beyond the solid waste boundary or beyond an
alternative boundary specified in accordance with paragraph (b} of
this section.
(b) Only a State with a solid waste management plan approved by
the Administrator pursuant to Section 4007 of the Act may establish
an alternative boundary to be used in lieu of the solid waste boundary.
A State may specify such a boundary only if it finds that such a change
would not result in contamination of ground water which may be needed
or used for human consumption. This finding shall be based on analysis
and consideration of all of the following factors:
04
-------
(1) The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and
surrounding land;
(2) The volume and physical and chemical characteristics
of the leachate;
(3) The Quantity, quality, and directions of flow of ground
water;
(4) The proximity .and withdrawal rates of ground-waters
users:
(5) The availability of alternative drinking water supplies;
(6) The existing quality of the ground water including other
sources of contamination and their cumulative impacts on the ground
water; and
(7) Public health, safety, and welfare effects.
(c) As used in this section:
(1) "Aquifer" means a geologic formation, group of formations,
or portion of a formation capable of yielding usable quantities of
ground water to wells or springs.
(2) "Contaminate" means introduce a substance that would
cause:
(i) The concentration of that substance in the ground water
to exceed the maximum contaminant level specified in Appendix 1, or
(ii) An increase in the concentration of that substance in
the ground water where the existing concentration of that substance
exceeds the maximum contaminant level specified in Appendix !.
(3) "Ground water" means water below the land surface in
the zone of saturation.
(4) "Underground drinking water source" means:
(i) An aquifer supplying drinking water for human con-
sumption, or
(ii) An aquifer in which the ground water contains less than
10,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids.
(5) "Solid waste boundary" means the outermost perimeter of
the solid waste (projected in the horizontal plane) as it would exist
at completion of the disposal activity.
105
-------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1976
PART IV:
NViRONMENT
N
OF?
\**!-!wfe
ALTERNATIVE WASTE
MANAGEMENT
TECHNIQUES FOR BEST
PRACTICABLE WASTE
TREATMENT
Supplement
1 06
-------
NOTICES
ONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
|FRL 482-6]
riVE WASTE MANAGEMENT
IQUES FOR BEST PRACTICABLE
TREATMENT
Supplement
nt U> Section 304(d) (2) of thc
Writer Pollution Control Act
cuts or 1072 (Tub. L. 02-5001,
ironmcntal Protection Agency
cation of best practicable »'R.it« treatment
technology. Alternatives must bo considered
In thrco broad broad categories: treatment
»nd discharge, Into navigable writer*, land
uppllcatlon end \itlll7.ritlon practices, nnd
reuse of treated u-astcwatcr. An alternative
Is "best practicable" If It Is dctei mined
to be cost-effective In accordance with the
procedures set forth In <0 CFR.Tart 35
(Appendix n to this document) and If It
will meet tlio criteria set forth below.
(A) Alternatives rmploylnR Treatment
n"° mnchargo Into Navtgnblo Waters. Pub-
Ucly-owned, treatment works employing
'avc notice On Ortobcr 23, ln alternative v;a~ste managtf'
hniqucv
.tcrlft for Best Practicable Waste
nt for Alternatives employing
illca'.lon techniques nnd land
n practices required that thc
;ater resulting from land appll-
wastewater meet the standards
ilcal quality [Inorganic chcmi-
1 pesticides [organic chemicals]
In Uie EPA Manual for Evalu-
bllc Drinking Water Supplies In
ol groundwater which polen-
n be used for drinking water
n.addltlon to thc standards for
finality and pesticides, the
ogical standards [mlcrobloloEl-
iminanls] specified In the EPA
(or Evaluating Drinking Water
were required in the case of
alcr which is presently being
by the app
of secondary treatment tis defined In 40 CFn
133 (Appendix C). Requirements for addi-
tional treatment, or alternate mnnngcmcnt
techniques, will depend on ecvcrnl fnctors,
IncHidlng availability of cost-eflcctlve tech-
nology, cost and thc specific characteristics
of thc affected receiving water body.
(B) Alternatives Employing Land Appli-
cation Techniques and Land Utilization
rri:tlccs. Fubllcly-ov ned treatment wcrl:°
employing Ir-.nd application techniques and
Jc.nd utilization prs-ctlces which result In a
discharge to navigable waters shrill nii-et the
criteria for treatment nnd discharge under
Paragraph (A) above.
The fround water resulting from thc b.n'j'.
r.cpiicntloii of "AriStcwalcr, Including the af-f
i-TTd i.^tlve ground water, shall meet_.lh«
Jo!!•:••. !np criteria: /
C.i= = i: The ground writer c,in potentially
be used for drinking water supply.
(1) The maximum contaminant levels for
Inorganic chemicals nnd orgtvntc chemicals
specified In tho National Interim I'rlmary
Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141)
(Appendix D) for drinking water supply tys-
tcms should not be exceeded except as Indi-
cated below (see Note 1).
(2) If the existing concentration of n
drnkin" wafer supply The -parameter exceeds the maximum contaml-
l section of"the EPA Manual for j'n*nt lfivfls '°r lD°rK^|<; chemical, or organic
,„ r>, i n T-i • i i I.T i <~ ^-chemicals, there should not be an lncrca.se
.IS Public Drinking Water Slip- r,n thc concontr£itlon of that parameter due
. Included 03 Appendix D of the ,^0 ,n.nrt cppiicatlo:i of wr.otcwatcr.
vc Waite Management Tech»-C-. cav> 11^ Tiio ground water is used for
>r Best Practicable Wa^te Treat- ^'di inking writer supply.
'Ort. ^j (1) The criteria for Case I should be met.
'cclflcd In thc Criteria for Best v> (2) The maximum microbiological con-
We Waste Tl'eatment is that "-' tnmlnnnt levels for drinking water supply
nnlcnl. pesticides, or bacterio->^^1 "Kf^J",^. N^i°^!,^tcr,TJ
.anuards for drinking water sup- ^
:cs hereafter issued by EPA shall,
Icnily apply In lieu of thc stancl-
:hc i:PA Manual for Evaluating
Drinking V.'fiter Supplies. The
Interim Primary Drinking
Regulations were published In
m on December 24, 1D75.
mlderatlon of the forcpolnrj,
rnci Appendix D of AJtcrnil-
'!'.- Mf'.nagerncnt Techniques for
ictlcablc Waste Tref.bncnt shall?
Ipllovrs. } ""
: February 4, 1976.
RPSSELL E. TRAIN,
Administrator.
CHAPTER n
u* FOR BEET JTtACnCADLE WASTE
TSEATMENT
"H« for construction grant funds
'd by Eectlon id of tho Aot must
luitcd alternative waste, treatment
ical techniques and selected tho
0 *Mch will provide for tbo eppll-
' ccedrd In ca.^03 where the ground water Is
uced without disinfection (see Kcte 1).
C'rr:_j;7j Uses other than drinking water
supply.
(1) Ground water cilterlc. should be estab-
lished by tho Regional Administrator based
on the present or potential use of thc ground
water.
Tho Regional Administrator In conjunction
with the, appropriate State officials anrt the
grantco Khali determine- on a sltc-by-sltc
basis tho ru-cas In Die vicinity of a ppcclflc
land oppllcntlon Elto where the criteria In
Case I, 17. nnd III shall p.pply. Specifically
determined shall bo the monitoring require-
ments appropriate for the project site. This
determination thojl be made with the objec-
tive of protecting the ground water for use
BS a -drinking water supply and/or other
designated uses as appropriate n.nd prevent-
ing Irrevocable damage to ground water. Re-
quirements shall Include provisions for mon-
itoring thc cflcct on thc native ground water.
(C) Alternatives Employing Rtuso. The
total quantity of any polluiant in the c.llucnt
from a reuse project which Is directly at-
tributable to the effluent from a publlcly-
owned treatment workr shall not exceed that
vhlch would have been nllowed under I'ru-
Rgmphs (A) nnd (B) nbovc.
NOTE 1. — Any ninondmcnlR of thc National
Interim Primary drinking Water Hesitations
Bnd any National Revised Primary Drinking
\Vater Regulations hereafter Issued by EPA
prescribing standards for public water sys-
tcrr\ relating to tnorRiuilr cheinlcuJs. organic
chemicals or microbiological contamination
Bhall ftiitomatlcally ripply In thc w\me nmn-
ntr fis tho N:\tloiml Interim I'rlmary Drink-
ing Water rtrKiilrUlons.
GROUND WATTR RrQUIRTMENTS
The following ' maximum contaminant
levels contained in tho National Interim Pri-
mary Drinking V.'ater Regulations (40 CFn
141) r.ro reprinted for convenience and clar-
ity. Tho National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations were published In final
form In thc PEDHTIAL P.FCISTER on Decem-
ber 24. JP76 In sccordanco with thc criteria^
for test practicable waste trer.tmcnt. 40 CFR*
111 :hou:d be consulted In its entirety when;
-"'P'7''"-E t'i.'.- si..".ridar:ij coiunmccj therein to
v""'. r— „ n'T trcr\trr.ci't BNs'.Lrcs errpioylng
•r! ' ' I'.rpr.Ucatioii techniques nnd laud utl- '
I'-.atip.i practices.-'
Jlfulmitm contaminant levels for inoi-
patilc chemicals. The following are thc mnx-
fmum levels of Inorganic chemicals other
than fluoride:
LticJ
(mlllifrranis
, per Jf(cr)
_. ___ _____ 0.05
...... ____ ).
0.010
0 05
___ .......... 0. 05
N ___ 0.002
Contaminant:
Arsenic ____________ _.
Barium ____________
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead ______ ..... ___
Mercury
Nitrate (nsN)___ ...... . ..... .. 10.
Selenium __^ __________________ 0.01
Silver ... ..... _____ , ...... ____ 0.06
Tho maximum contaminant levels for
fluoride are:
Trmiirniluro
dr-^ras
Fahrenheit '
Drfircrs C'fMm
J-rvr!
nillhur&nn
per liter)
63 7 anrl hrlow. . 12 sfxl Ivlow
H 5 lo M 3. •. 12 1 to H ft
US < lo U S H.7 to 17 (I
WOloTOn 177 Io21 4
70.7 lo 70? 21 S to 2G2
79.3 to 00.5 26.3 to 32.5
1 4
'1 2
IS
1 6
l.<
Ar.nunl
of tli
J.'r.Timk"! contaminant larh /or orgr.utr
chemicals. 1 ho following aro tho maximum
contaminant levels for organic chemicals:
Level
(ini/iiprom
(B) Chlorinated hydrocarbons: per litet)
Endrln ( 1.2,3 ,4, 10.1 0-Hexach loro-
6,1 - epoxy - 1,4, 4a,6, 6.1,6. Oa-oc-
tahydro-l,4-cndo,endo - 6,8-dl-
methnno naphthalene) _______ 0.0002
Llndano (1,2,3,4,5,0 - llexarhloro-
cyclohcxaue, gamma lHomcr)._ 0.001
Mclhoxychlor (l,l,l-Trlchloro-2.
2-bls |p-methoxyphenyl | eth-
ane) ________________________ 0.1
Toxaphcne (C10H10C1, - Technical
chlorinated caniphene, 67 to C9
percent chlorine) ____________ 0.006
(b) Chlorophcnoxys:
2,4-D (2,4-Dlchlorophcnoxyacctlc
rcld) ... ............. _______ 0.1
2.4,6-Tl' Bllvcn (S^^-'J-rlchloro-
phenoxyproplonlc acid) ______ 0.0)
RECIS1FR, VOL. 41, NO. 3?—WEDNESDAY, FEBSUARY 11, 1976
307
-------
Fact Sheet - Trihalomcthanes (TTHM)
1. Authority: Published in Federal Register on November 29, 1979
2. Applicability: Community water systems that add "disinfectant to
"" the treatment process {ground and surface)
3. Kamimum Contaminant Level (MCL): 0.10 mg/1 (100 micrograms per liter)
"~ Total Trihalomethanes
4. Effective Dates:
System Size
MCL effective
Monitoring effective
^75,000
2 yrs
1 yr
10-75,000
4 years
3 years
^10,000
State discretion
State discretion
5. Impact in Region II
System Size
NY
NJ
PR
VI
Total
^75,000
20
14
5
0
39/5
10-75,000
131
102
' 38
2
273
Monitori no Cost
$362,400
278,400
103,200
4,800
$748, 800 z:
& Annual Monitoring Cost - 4 samples per quarter P $150=52400
£ Supplies in Region II serving over 75,000 identified on
attachment.
6. Monitoring:
7.
8.
Running annual average of a minimum of 4 samples per
quarter per plant taken on seme day. Sj-stems using
multiple wells drawing raw water from a single aquifer
may, with State approval , be considered one treatment
plant for determining the required number of samples.
Sample Locations: 25% at extreme of distribution system; 75* at
locations representative of population distribute
on,
Reduced Monitoring:
States may reduce monitoring requirements, if after
one year of data collection, TTHM levels are consistently
below 0.10 mg/1; the minimum frequency would be one
sample per quarter for TTHM.
The original frequency would be reinstated if TTHM level
exceeds 0-10 mq/1 or if the treatment or. source is
modified, and continue for at least one year before the
frequency may be reduced again
Groundwater systems may reduce monitorinq requirements.
at State's determination, upon submittal to the State
results of at least one sample analyzed for maximum TTHM
potential for each treatment plant used by the system
The original frequency would be reinstated if the TTHM
potential level equals or exceeds 0.10 mq/1 and continue
for at least one year before the frequency may be reducec
108 again.
In the event of any significant changes to either source
or treatment an additional TTHM potential sample must be
'• * - — ^"i" wiih the above requirements.
-------
109
-------
3.C.2
GUIDELINES FOR REVIEW OF EIS'S SUBJECT TO
SECTION 1424 (e) OF THE
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
Draft Report
Contract No. 68-01-4476
16 December 1977
Submitted to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Supply (WH-550)
401 M Street, S.W., 10th Floor WSME
Washington, D.C. 20460
Attn: Z. Carballeira
Project Officer
Submitted by: Curran Associates, Inc
Engineers and Planners
182 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
no
-------
j.I-1: putline of Information '.•> L-c Contained in Ground-wate^f
JLmpact Evaluations lor Fedei.illy Assisted Proje_ctsj'
I
I. Project Description and Environmental Setting
Project Area and Site Characteristics
G^olocic
- Location and extent of aquifer recharge and streamflow source
zones in relation to project site (mo[-r and description)
- Dimensions of aquifer (area, thickness, and variations)
- Hydraulic boundaries, including discontinuities, location,
and extent of horizontal and vertical Confining materials, and
perched water tables
- Description of water-bearing formations (consolidated or un-
consolidated, general proportions of clay, silt, sand, and
gravel)
- Permeability of aquifer materials in project area
Kvcroloqic
-» - - -
- Average annual precipitation and average annual recharge estimatL
- Depth to water table in project area (• specially where excava-
tions will be required), including seasonal variations, if
significant
- Magnitude and direction of hydraulic giadient in sufficient
derail to estimate general direction of ground-water movement
at project site and adjacent areas
P h vBiographic
- Topography of project area
- Drainage patterns, including lo
-------
Tat.
types \SCS maps or unpublished data) in project areas
classifications (textural characteristics, particularly
: and clay content)
Litration and transmission capacity of soils in the project
(e.g., SCS hydrologic soil groups)
^/Cultural
tion of major producing and known abandoned wells in the
ect area, and effects on hydraulic gradient
j uses, including type, development densities, and vege-
/e cover an project site and in project area
al and regional land use olans and regulations affecting
.opmer.t in project area or entire aquifer recharge zone
.•ct Cru. ictenstics
-i3, alimment, and size of improvement (number of lanes,
.dor dimensions, and impervious surface area)
::tion and magnitude of excavation and fill areas
-ecced traffic volume and mix
jcription of highway drainage facilities and provisions
ohable maintenance practices with respect to storage and
'• of dt_icinc cliemicals, petroleum products, pesticides,
* other chemicals
_i_-unit Housing Developments
op
-------
1C I I " 1
V >- ^-" ' i- J. 11 LU
[ti-uait Housing Developments (continued)
proposed wastewater management facilities (location and descrip-
tion, as applicable, of sewers, sewage treatment plants, and
receiving water bodies, or on-lot septic systems and leaching
areas); see also Sewage Facilities below.
Description of proposed water supply source(s) for development,
including treatment provided, if any, and raw water quality
Description of provisions for transportation and on-site stor-
age of fuel oil, natural gas, or other hazardous chemicals,
particularly underground pipelines and tanks
Description of provisions for solid waste collection and
disposal
Description of probable fertilizer and pesticide use and area
.uintenance practices, including lot sizes and lawn area
Desciipcion of provisions for storm drainage, including size
and location of any retention ponds, etc.
Sewage Collection, Treatment, and Disposal Fac i 1 i t i c s
• Description and location of proposed collection facilities
(collector and interceptor sewers, pumping stations, and force
.iiains)
• Description, location, and layout of proposed wastewater treat-
ment facilities (design capacity, unit processes to be employed,
etc.)
- Description and location of proposed sludge management facili-
ties, including land disposal or land spreading sites and pro-
cesses to be employed
- Initial and future populations to be served and resulting waste-
water loadings and sludge generation
- Effluent limitations and probable plant eftluent quality
113
-------
i_j_uuea ,/
Sewage Collection, Treatment, and Disposal Facilities (continued)
- Water quality characteristics and standards for receiving water
body, including nature of hydraulic interconnection with aquifer
- Quality, use, and distance to ground water in areas for oxidation
ponds,-lagoons, land spreading, and landfill sites
II. Analysis of Environmental Impacts j
r
Highways
- Estimation of effect on ground-water recharge and ground-water j
levels caused by highway construction (estimation methodology
i i
is described in DOT's Notebook 4) •
- Existing chloride concentrations in ground water and estimation '
*5*Oi~Lf-~->i-. T2jj-.Ni^'ui.~
of contributions due to application of deiciny chemicals in
aquifer recharge zone (cumulative effects over time in combina-
tion with other possible chloride sources must be considered)
- Description of quantity, quality and fate of stormwater runoff
from highway right-of-way, particularly if significant ground-
water recharge is likely
- Description of probable future land uses along the highway corri-
dor and estimation of potential for adverse ground-water quality
impacts (special attention should be given to effects of possi-
ble development over critical aquifer areas such as highly per-
meable recharge zones)
- Description of proposed maintenance practices involving pesti-
cides and other potentially hazardous chemicals; application
rates and frequency, and restrictions on use in sensitive areas
should be specified
- Description of responsibilities and methyls foi handling acci-
dental spills, including reporting, remedial actions, and moni-
toring
Multi-unit Housing Developments
- In the case of on-lot subsurface disposal of wastewater, estima-
tion of waste quantities«'and loadings, quantity of ground-water
114
-------
jit' 11-1 (continued)
ill-unit Housing Developments (continued)
.charge available for effluent dilution, existing ground-
iter quality, and definition of methods for septage treatment
id disposal
i the case of central collection and treatment of wastewater,
valuation of capacity of interceptors, pumping stations, and
reatraent facilities to accept additional sevig»; also, estima-
ion of potential ground-water quality effects of treatment-dis-
csal facilities which would be used (e.g. lagoons, land applica-
lon, sludge disposal, etc.)
Valuation of solid waste management methods, including esti-
,,iced waste generation, location, design, and operation of land-
fill (effects on ground water due to leachate production should
be considered)
Description of provisions to be made for design, installation,
and protection from leakage for buried tanks and pipelines on
the site
intimation of fertilizer, pesticide, and other chemical usage
associated with development construction and maintenance
Estimation of the effects of development on the quantity and
quality of local ground-water recharge
Estimation of the nature and probability of significant additional
development in the project area and cumulative effects on gro-ond-
vater recharge and quality
Sewage Collection, Treatment, and Disposal Facili t_i e s_
•Discharge to surface waters: Characterization of expected efflu-
ent quality, including potentially hazardous substances not re-
moved by treatment; characterization of receiving water with
respect to quality and hydraulic interconnection with ground water;
estimation of effects on ground-water quality and quantity due
to recharge of effluent discharged to losing streams
Use of lagoons or other impoundments: Description of methods
proposed to minimize lagoon leakage to ground water; evaluation
of effectiveness of lagoon lining or sealing; specification of
115
DRAFT
-------
Il-i (continued)
Collection, Treatment, and Disposal Facilities (continued)
quality and quantity monitoring (lagoon influent and efflu-
xlows as well as ground-water levels and quality should be
Larly analyzed)
application of wastewater or sludge;
. Evaluation of soils, including depth, infiltration and
percolation rates, physical and chemical characteris-
tics, and sorption capacity
, Evaluation of hydrogeologic characteristics, including
depth to w<^ter table and fluctuations, permeability,
presence of formations which could cause short-circuiting
of wastes to ground water (sand and gravel deposits,
fractured or cavernous rock, etc.), hydraulic gradients,
and location of wells
. Estimation of preapplication wastewater quality
. Description of application rates and proposed operation,
including seasonal variations, crops, harvesting, provi-
sions for wastewater storage, etc.
. Evaluation, of potential for ground-water mounding, and
provisions to counteract such effects
. Description of proposed monitoring of ground-water levels
and quality
filling of wastewater sludge:
. Description of sludge processing (dewateriny, digestion,
etc.)
. Estimation of sludge generation rates and water content
. Estimation of sludge quality (especially heavy metals and
other potentially hazardous constituents)
. Estimation of landfill space requirements
. Characterization of landfill hydrogeology and estimation
of potential leachate production and ground-water mound-
ing
. Description of ground-water protection measures (call
lining, underdrain leachate collection, or other techniques)
« *
. Description of proposed site monitoring
116
DRAFT
-------
117
-------
Guidelines for a 1424(e)
Groundv/ater Assessment
Groundwater assessments (GV.'A) are not required under 1424(e), but
are an integral part of the responsibilities imposed on federal agencies
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). EPA intends to
reviev/ an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) with a groundwater assess-
ment or a separate GWA for every potentially significant project.
I. Description of the proposed project
Show the location (map), delineation of project site, type of construction,
materials used in construction, influents in and effluents from product
storage areas, earth moving (including removal of soils, emplacement of
fill ?.nc! rearrangement of surface drainage), operation and maintenance
procedures. Also appropriate detailed plans and specifications.
11. Delineation of geographic sphere of influence
Delineate the geographic sphere of influence of the proposed project
and the reasons for the selection of those boundri&s, use USGS topo-
graphic or similar map(s) of appropriate scale; overlay associated land
use, population density, public water and sewer service areas, wells,
discharge basins; table of population and projected population.
III. Data on grouna'water characteristics in the sphere of influence
a) Map the elevation of water table, specify date. The
map should be at a reasonable scale and show the location
of observation wells for construction of the map. A table
of well depths should accompany the map.
b) Describe the geology of the aquifer(s) and the confining
beds (to about 2000 feet below land surface) including hy-
draulic conductivity (permeability), geology of the strata,
thickness of each aquifer and confining bed.
c) Show source of water in each aquifer, the location of
all recharge to the aquifers underlying the project site
with the estimated annual recharge. .For example, precipi-
tation on outcrop areas, flow from other aquifer or arti-
ficial recharge.
d) Show interconnection of ground and surface waters. For
example, rivers, streams and lakes either discharge to, or
are augmented by groundwater surrounding them.
e) Describe groundwater flow, show direction of the natural
(non-pumping) movement of groundwater without any external
influences. If there are any major pumping wells, show the
influence or potential influence on the regional system.
118
-------
f) Sample groundwater using one of the following o'ptions,
as appropriate.
1) Test for contaminants listed in the National In-
terim Primary Drinking V'ater Regulation, and as ap-
propriate, other contaminants which may have an ad-
verse health or esthetic effect (to be determined
on a case by-case basis by local health/environmental
agency and EPA). Sampling and analytical techniques
are found in the "National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations", FR Vol. 140, no. 248, section
141.23.
2) Test for all of the above plus ammonia, chloride,
carbonates, bicarbonates, sulfate, magnesium, sodium,
calcium, potassium, total trihalomethanes, purgeable
organic scan (including benzene, carbon tetrachloride,
chlorobonzene,1! ,2 dichloroethene,_l ,1 ,1 trichloroethane,__
1,1 dichloroethane, 1,1,2 trichlordethane, 1,1,2,2
tetrachloroethane, chloroethane, bis (chlcrometh.yl) ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether,_ chloroform, 1,1 dichlorpethyl_ene
1,2 trans-dichloroethylene, 1,2 dich'loropropylene, ethylbenzene,
methylene chloride,, methyl chloride, 1,2 dichloropropane,;
methyl bromide, bromofcrm, dichlorobromomethane,
trich'l orof 1 uorcmethane, dichl orodif 1 uoromethane,
chlorodibrcmomethane, tetrachloroethylene, toluene,
trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride). Sampling and
analytical techniques are found- in "Control of Organic
Chemical Contaminants in Drinking V.'ater; FR Vol. 43,
no. 28, Sec. 141.55.
3) Test for all of the above plus all priority pol-
lutants.
IV. Descriptions of project impacts to the oroundwater
a) Discuss all impacts due to direct (construction) or
indirect (induced) changes in groundwater chemistry in-
cluding but not limited to salt-water intrusion, road
salt, septic tank effluent, recharge basin effluent,
fertilizers, leakage from effluent and product storage
areas, leachates, and the handling and disposal of all residuals-
b) Discuss all impacts due to direct or indirect changes in
groundwater biology including but not limited to leachates
from septic tanks and all possible sources of pathological
bacteria, viruses and protozoa.
'c) Discuss all impacts due to direct.or indirect changes in
groundwater storage including all changes in water levels re-
sulting from an increase or decrease in recharge or storage.
119
-------
-------
121
-------
3.C.4
SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER PROGRAM
Questions for Phase 1 Preliminary Assessment
I. Project Location
1. What is geographic location and extent of project? (hectares)
2. In which hydrologic zone is the project located?
3. What is the estimated depth to the groundwater at the project site?
4. What groundwater formation or surface water body is likely to be
affected by recharge at the project site?
5. What is the probable effect of surficial geology on the amount
and rate of infiltration?
6. What is the slope of the site?
7. What is the present land use of the project site and vicinity?
II. Nature of Project
A. Construction
1. How will the site be altered during construction?
2. How much water will be used and hov; will it be altered
during construction?
3. How will water be disposed of during construction?
B. Maintenance
1. Will ther^ be any loss of recharge attributabJc to increased
run-off due to removal oi vegetation,- changes in grading,
creation of paved or other impermeable areas?
2. Will there be any loss of recharge due to sewering with
marine discharge of treated effluent?
3. Will project operation result in significant consumptive use
of groundwater? How much?
4. What techniques will be employed resulting from consumptive use?
122
-------
5. Will there be increases in pollutant loadings to the groundwater
of nutrients, organics, chemicals, heavy metals, hydrocarbons and
the like? Which contaminants might be expected as the result of
product storage and transportation, the on-site disposal and/or
pre-treatment of waste streams, use of parking lots and other
aspects of general operation?
6. Would there be increases in nutrients, organics, chemicals,
heavy metals, hydrocarbons, etc. to the groundwater as a
result of secondary impacts (induced industrial, commercial
or residential attivities)?
7. What techniques can be employed to improve the quality of the
groundwater?
C. Relationships to the Community
1. Will the project be served by existing public water supply,
sanitary sewers, storm sewers? Will the existing sources
meet future needs?
2. Can existing development in the vicinity of the project
accommodate, so as to eliminate, any component of the project?
III. Does the project pose a potential threat to groundwater quality?
123
-------
RAFT 3.C.5
Questions for 1424(e) Project Review
1. From the Groundwater Assessment, what is the extent of the possible
public health hazard presented by the project?
a. What are the changes in the concentration of any chemical or
biological constituents? Where? When?
b. What are the changes in groundwater storage? when; over what
period?
c. What are the additional secondary impacts of the project?
2. From the groundwater assessment, what measures will mitigate project
impacts?
a. What planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance and
monitoring measures are included?
b. To what extent and how effective is State or local control over
possible contaminant release of pollutants to the aquifer?
3. What is the expected environmental benefit of the proposed project?
4. Is the risk of aquifer contamination through the recharge zone
sufficiently great so as to reject project?
124
-------
125
-------
Chapter 4 - General Program Briefing Package
Included in Chapter 4 is a complete briefing package (speakers copy and associated visual
slides) covering the Sole Source Program from general description to implications for a
specific interest group. The briefing package answers the following questions:
1. What is the Sole Source Program?
2. How is the program implemented?
3. What do the terms in Section 1424 (e) mean?
4. What is designation?
5. How many areas have been designated?
6. What is Project Review under 1424 (e)?
7. How does EPA determine which projects to review?
8. How many projects have been reviewed under 1424 (e)?
9. What does the program mean to the building industry?
10. What is the builders responsibilities under 1424 (e)?
In Region II, this package, or parts thereof, has been utilized in many briefing situations
It is included herein for your information and use because of its comprhensiveness and
adaptability to various presentations needs.
1 26
-------
127
-------
4.A.I
SOLE SOURCE PROGRAM
1, WHAT IS THE SOLE SOURCE PROGRAM
SOLE SOURCE ACTIVITIES ARE AUTHORIZED BY THE 1974
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (P.L, 93-523), SECTION
SECTION 1424(E) STATES,,,,
(EMPHASIZE IMPORTANT PHASES IN READING)
IN SUMMARY, 1424 (E) AUTHORIZES:
A)- DESIGNATION OF AN AREA WHICH HAS AN AQUIFER
THAT IS THE SOLE OR PRINCIPAL DRINKING WATER
SOURCE FOR THE AREA
B) REVIEW OF FEDERAL FINANCIALLY ASSISTED
PROJECTS WHICH MAY CONTAMINATE THE AQUIFER
THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOLE SOURCE PROGRAM ARE TO:
A) FORMALLY RECOGNIZE THE DEPENDENCE OF CERTAIN
AREAS UPON A GIVEN GROUNDWATER RESOURCE
B) ESTABLISH A PROGRAM TO ENSURE THAT FEDERAL
FINANCIALLY ASSISTED PROJECTS ARE PLANNED AND
DEVELOPED SO AS NOT TO CONTAMINATE THE SOLE
DRINKING WATER SOURCE
8
128
-------
2. HOW IS THE SOLE SOURCE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED
1 EPA IS CURRENTLY OPERATING UNDER THE PROPOSED
REGULATIONS FOR SOLE SOURCE PUBLISHED IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER ON 29 SEPTEMBER 77 (42 FR 51620)
1 THE REGULATIONS ARE BROKEN "INTO 3 SUBPARTS
WHICH CORRESPOND TO THE FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS
OF THE PROGRAM:
1 SUBPART A COVERS DEFINITIONS
1 SUBPART B COVERS DESIGNATION
1 SUBPART C COVERS PROJECT REVIEW
3, -WHAT DO THE TERMS IN SECTION 1424(E) MEAN?
•> ' "AQUIFER" MEANS A GEOLOGICAL FORMATION, GROUP
OF FORMATIONS OR PART OF A FORMATION THAT IS
CAPABLE OF YIELDING USABLE QUANTITIES OF WATER
1 "SOLE OR PRINCIPAL" MEANS AQUIFER WHICH PROVIDES
^50% DRINKING WATER FOR AN AREA
ISfctSf'-'Vi-D "TO OCCOBs. yJftiM
1 "SIGNIFICANT HAZARD"CONTAMINANT CAUSES AQUIFER
TO EXCEED MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS (MCL) AT ANY
POINT WHERE WATER MAY BE USED OR MAY OTHERWISE
THREATEN HUMAN HEALTH OR RESULT IN NEED FOR AD-
DITIONAL TREATMENT
1 "FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE" FINANCIAL BENEFIT
PROVIDED DIRECTLY TO A PROJECT, INDIRECT BENEFITS
SUCH AS LOAN TO A DEVELOPER FROM A BANK WHICH IN
TURN RECEIVES FEDERAL ASSISTANCE ^DIRECT FEDERAL
ACTIONS ARE NOT COVERED BY 1424(E),
129
-------
. "PROJECT" MEANS A PROGRAM OR ACTION FOR WHICH AN
APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE HAS BEEN MADE
• "RECHARGE ZONE" ANY AREA WHERE WATER ENTERS THE
DESIGNATED AQUIFER INCLUDING STREAMFLOW SOURCE
ZONE: UPSTREAM HEADWATER AREA OF STREAMS THAT FLOW
INTO THE RECHARGE ZONE
1 "PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM" HAS AT LEAST 15 SERVICE
CONNECTIONS OR REGULARLY SERVES AN AVERAGE OF
25 INDIVIDUALS DAILY AT LEAST 60 DAYS OUT OF THE
YEAR
/I, WHAT IS DESIGNATION?
THE DESIGNATION PROCESS INVOLVES:
- PETITION SUBMITTAL
-'COMPLETED PETITION IS FORMALLY ACCEPTED WITH
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTIFICATION
- FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
A) ANNOUNCES INFORMATION REQUEST
B) ESTABLISHES PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
C) ANNOUNCES PUBLIC HEARING
D) INITIATES TIME CLOCK ON DESIGNATION REVIEW
- REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR REVIEWS AVAILABLE INFORMATION
AND MAKES RECOMMENDATION ON DESIGNATION WITHIN
SIX (6) MONTHS (IB)
- ADMINISTRATOR MAKES DETERMINATION
- DETERMINATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ARE
PUBLISHED IN FEDERAL REGISTER
180
-------
ANY PERSON MAY SUBMIT PETITION REQUESTING EPA TO
DETERMINE AN AREA HAS A SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER
PETITIONS MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
- NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL
OR ORGANIZATION
- STATEMENT ON WHY AQUIFER SHOULD BE DESIGNATED
_ DESCRIPTION ON THE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF AQUIFER
TO CONTAMINATION
- MAPS DEPICTING LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES OF
THE SOLE SOURCE AREA, AQUIFER AND RECHARGE/
STREAMFLOW SOURCE ZONES
- AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF
DRINKING WATER
- ESTIMATES OF THE AREA POPULATION AND NUMBER
OF PEOPLE (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE) SERVED BY THE
AQUIFER
- IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR THE
AREA WHICH MAY CONTAMINATE
THE ADMINISTRATOR CAN ALSO DESIGNATE AN AREA. UNDER
HIS OWN INITIATIVE
ONCE A PETITION IS COMPLETE, EPA WILL PUBLISH NOTICE
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER (AS WELL AS LOCAL NEWSPAPERS,
NEWSLETTERS ETC,) AND INITIATE THE TIME CLOCK ON THE
DESIGNATION PROCESS
DURING THE NEXT SIX(6) MONTHS, EPA WILL GATHER IN-
FORMATION PERTINENT TO THE PETITIONED AREA,
131
-------
A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WILL BE ESTABLISHED AND
A PUBLIC HEARING MILL BE HELD TO SOLICIT INFOR-
MATION
IN DECIDING WHETHER TO DESIGNATE AN AREA UNDER
), EPA WILL CONSIDER:
THE LOCATION OF THE AQUIFER
THE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF THE AQUIFER TO
CONTAMINATION
THE AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATE SOURCES OF
DRINKING WATER
OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS
THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR WILL PREPARE A RECOMMEN-
DATION ON DESIGNATION (DURING THE 6 MONTH REVIEW
PERIOD) AND ALSO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR HIS DECISION,
FOLLOWING CONCURRENCE IN WASHINGTON, THE RECOMMEN-
DATION TO DESIGNATE OR NOT IS PUBLISHED IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER
DESIGNATION NOTICES WILL IDENTIFY THE BOUNDARIES OF
THE RECHARGE ZONE AND STREAMFLOW SOURCE ZONE THROUGH
WHICH CONTAMINATION COULD AFFECT THE DESIGNATED AREA
13 2
-------
5, HOW MANY AREAS HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED UNDER 1424(E)?
1 NATIONALLY, THERE ARE SIX (6) DESIGNATED AREAS:
- SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS - EDWARDS AQUIFER: 16
DECEMBER 1975 (THIS WAS THE FIRST DESIGNATED
AREA - PROPOSED RULE WRITTEN FOR THIS AREA,
CREATES PROBLEMS OF IMPLEMENTATION ELSE-
WHERE (E,G, COASTAL PLAIN NEEDED MORE TIME
TO STUDY)
- WASHINGTON, IDAHO - SPOKANE VALLEY - RATH-
DKJJM PRAIRE: 9 FEBRUARY 1978
- GUAM - NORTHERN GUAM: 26 APRIL 1978
- NEW YORK - AQUIFERS UNDERLYING NASSAU
SUFFOLK COUNTIES: 21 JUNE 1978
- CALIFORNIA - FRESNO VALLEY AQUIFER:10
SEPTEMBER 1979
- FLORIDA - BISCAYNE AQUIFER:!! NOVEMBER 1979
1 WITHIN REGION II
- NASSAU SUFFOLK IS THE ONLY DESIGNATED AREA;
HOWEVER,
- WE HAVE FOUR PETITIONS UNDER THE FORMAL
DESIGNATION REVIEW PROCESS: (FEDERAL REGISTER
NOTICES PUBLISHED)
13 3
-------
PETITIONS RECEIVED FR NOTICE HEARING RECOMMENDATION
NJ, COASTAL
SOUTHERN NJ,
ELIZABETH ** DEC' 78 21 MAR 79 ' 79 21 SEPT> 80
BURIED VALLEY
SOUTHEASTERN 15 DEC, 78 29 MAR 79 23 MAY 79 HQ
MORRIS WESTERN
ESSEX
BROOKLYN/QUEENS
NYC-AMENDMENT 16 JUL 79 29 AUG 79 4 OCT 79
TO LONG ISLAND
BERGEN°COUNTYA ^ JUL /9 15 JAN' 8° 28 FB 8°
- VIE ALSO HAVE RECEIVED DRAFT PETITIONS FOR:
• UPPER ROCKAWAY VALLEY AREA IN MORRIS COUNTY
• RAMAPO RIVER BASIN AREA IN BERGEN COUNTY
• SOURLAND MOUNTAIN HARDROCK AQUIFER IN
PORTIONS OF MERCER SOMERSET AND HUNTERDON
COUNTIES
- FINALLY, INFORMATION REQUESTS ON 1424CE) DESIGNATION
HAVE COME IN FROM:
• THE SCHENECTADY AREA, NY
• ERIE NIAGARA COUNTIES, NY
• CORTLAND, NY
• NEWARK WATERSHED, NJ
-------
WHAT DOES DESIGNATION MEAN?
(RESTATEMENT) DESIGNATION IS THE FORMAL RECOGNITION
OF A SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER AND ITS RECHARGE ZONES,
ONCE AN AREA IS DESIGNATED UNDER M24(E), EPA WILL
NOTIFY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT THEY WILL MAKE
NO COMMITMENT OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR
ANY PROJECT EPA DETERMINES MAY CONTAMINATE THE
AQUIFER THROUGH A RECHARGE ZONE SO AS TO CREATE A
SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH
lo. WHAT IS "PROJECT REVIEW" UNDER 1424CE)?
THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR IS DELEGATED THE
AUTHORITY OF PROJECT REVIEW
BASIC COMPONENTS
135
-------
7. HOW DOES EPA DETERMINE WHICH PROJECTS TO REVIEW UNDER
1424(E).*THE SOLE SOURCE AREA?
' IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO REVIEW A PROJECT, THE'
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR MAY CONSULT WITH OR RE-
QUEST INFORMATION FROM OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES,
APPROPRIATE STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES AND OTHER
APPROPRIATE PERSONS,
1 AS IDENTIFIED IN THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, OTHER
FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE REQUESTED TO KEEP EPA APPRAISED
OF THEIR FUNDING ACTIVITIES IN THE DESIGNATED AREAS,
1 PRIVATE CITIZENS MAY ALSO NOTIFY EPA OF POTENTIAL
PROBLEM PROJECTS THROUGH PETITION, THE PETITIONS
MUST IDENTIFY THE PETITIONER, HIS INTEREST IN PRO-
JECT REVIEW, NAME OF PROJECT AND FEDERAL AGENCY
CONCERNED, ANY ACTION ALREADY TAKEN BY THE STATE
OR LOCAL AGENCIES TO PROTECT THE AQUIFER AMD WHY
THESE WERE INADEQUATE, THE POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS
INVOLVED AND THE MEANS OF CONTAMINATION,
1 ONCE EPA IS APPRAISED OF A PROJECT, THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR MUST DECIDE WHETHER A M24CE) REVIEW
IS NECESSARY, HE WILL EVALUATE THE PROJECT TO
DETERMINE:
1 IF IT IS OF THE TYPE,DESIGN,OR SIZE TO
POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATE THE DESIGNATED
AQUIFER
• IF IT HAS OR WILL BE REVIEWED IN AN EN-
VIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (PREPARED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 102(2)(C) OF NEPA)
-------
IF EPA DECIDES TO REVIEW A PROJECT UNDER
' n EPA WILL:
' GIVE NOTICE TO THE LEAD FEDERAL AGENCY
1 NOTIFY THE APPLICANT
1 NOTIFY THE PUBLIC AND INDICATE WHERE
MATERIALS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC IN-
SPECTION
1 ESTABLISH A COMMENT PERIOD OF AT LEAST
30 DAYS FROM DATE OF NOTICE
1 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING IF THERE IS
SUFFICIENT INTEREST
1 REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM LFA
PERTINENT TO REACHING A DECISION
18 ' THE REGIONAL ADMINSTRATOR WILL ASSEMBLE AND EVALUATE
ALL INFORMATION GENERATED AS WELL AS CONSIDER:
' THE PLANS, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, MAIN-
TENANCE AND MONITORING MEASURES INCLUDED
IN THE PROJECT TO MITIGATE THE POTENTIAL
CONTAMINATION TO THE AQUIFER
1 THE EXTENT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF STATE OR
LOCAL CONTROL AND THE PROJECTS COMPLIANCE
THEREOF
1 THE GROUND WATER IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT OR COMMULATIVE IMPACTS OF SEVERAL
PROJECTS
137
-------
• AT THIS POINT, EPA WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROJECT
MAY CONTAMINATE THE AQUIFER THROUGH THE RECHARGE ZONE
SO AS TO CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH,
AND PUBLISH NOTICE OF ANY DECISION (WITH DOCUMENTATION)
IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER
• NOTICES ON PROBLEM PROJECTS SERVES TO PREVENT
FURTHER FUNDING COMMITMENT UNLESS FUNDING (UNDER
ANOTHER PROVISION OF LAW) IS SOUGHT TO PLAN OR
REDESIGN THE PROJECT TO ASSURE IT WILL NOT CON-
TAMINATE THE AQUIFER,
• THERE ARE ALSO PROVISIONS FOR THE APPLICANT TO
PETITION EPA TO WITHDRAW ITS DETERMINATION IF THE
APPLICANT CAN DEMONSTRATE THE PROJECT WAS REDESIGNED
IN RESPONSE TO EPA'S OBJECTIONS,
HOW DOES REGION II IMPLEMENT PROJECT REVIEW UNDER 1424(E)?
FOLLOWING THE DESIGNATION OF NASSAU/SUFFOLK CO, AS A
SOLE SOURCE AREA, EPA BEGAN DEVELOPING A PROGRAM TO
IMPLEMENT 1424(E),
ON DECEMBER 7 1978, WE HAD REPRESENTATIVES FROM LONG
ISLAND NEW YORK STATE AND NEW JERSEY SIT IN ON A PRE-
SENTATION OF A PROCESS WE DEVELOPED FOR LONG ISLAND
THE BASIC COMPONENTS OF THE PROCESS ARE; 0*E.s«*O
NOTIFICATION BY PUBLIC PETITION HAS REMAINED UN-
CHANGED FROM WHAT I PRESENTED IN AN EARLIER DISCUSSION
IN REGION II, WE HAVE DIRECTED EXTENSION EFFORT INTO
FOSTERING THE PARTICIPATION OF THE LEAD FEDERAL AGENCIES
AND LOCAL REVIEW GROUPS IN THE 1424(E) PROGRAM.
BASICALLY, EPA IS RESOURCE LIMITED AND DOES NOT INTEND
TO GENERATE A NEW REVIEW ORGANIZATION TO HANDLE 1424(E),
138
-------
, EPA HAS ESTABLISHED MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU'S)
WITH MOST OF THE FEDERAL GRANT AGENCIES SHOWN HERE TO
ASSIST EPA IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 1424(E),
, THE MOU'S IDENTIFY THE TYPES OF PROJECTS EPA IS INTER-
ESTED IN REVIEWING FOR THE DESIGNATED AREAS, THE TIME-
FRAMES FOR REVIEWS AND THE CONTACT PEOPLE FOR THE
RESPECTIVE AGENCIES,
, EPA HAS ALSO ESTABLISHED A BACKUP REVIEW PROCESS BY
INVOLVING THE LOCAL A-95 AGENCIES, IN A SIMILAR MANNER
TO THE ARRANGEMENT WE HAVE WITH LFA, THE A-95 FLAGS
POTENTIAL PROBLEM PROJECTS TO EPA,
, A-95 AGENCIES
, I WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO A REVIEW PROCESS WE HAVE IN
CURRENT OPERATION TO HANDLE THE NASSAU/SUFFOLK DESIGNATION
TO^OWEPA BECOMES INVOLVED IN A PROJECT REVIEW UNDER
, PATHWAY FOR PROJECT REVIEW
, BASED ON A SET OF CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS (WHICH EPA DE-
VELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LFA AND THE A-95), THESE
AGENCIES UNDERTAKE SIMULTANEOUS PHASE I REVIEW TO DETER-
MINE IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD PRESENT A POTENTIAL
THREAT TO THE DESIGNATED AQUIFER,
, A PROJECT WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EIS (AS DETERMINED
BY THE LFA) BUT WOULD OTHERWISE POTENTIALLY REQUIRE A
1424(E) REVIEW SHOULD FALL OUT OF THE- MOU CRITERIA AND/OR
THE A-95 BACKUP SYSTEM,
139
-------
(?) . EPA RECEIVES NOTIFICATION ON POTENTIAL PROBLEM PROJECTS,
© , PROJECT REFERRALS ARE EVALUATED BY EPA (PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT - PHASE II),
EPA-WSB HAS 14 DAYS TO AGREE/DISAGREE WITH
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT - PHASE I REFERRALS IF EPA
AGREES THAT THERE COULD BE A PROBLEM WE SEEK FURTHER
INFO,
, REGION II ENVISIONS TWO AVENUES FOR OBTAINING MORE INFO:
AN INFORMAL REQUEST (INFORMAL IN THE SENSE THAT EPA DOES
GO TO FR NOTICE ETC, WE'RE ADMITTING WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
TO GO ON BUT PERHAPS THE INFO IS AVAILABLE AND A DETER-
MINATION COULD BE EASILY REACHED), SHOULD THE INFORMAL
REQUEST YIELD SUFFICIENT INFO TO CLEAR PROJECT OR SHOULD
THE INFORMAL REQUEST RESULT IN MODIFICATIONS TO THE
ft' PROJECT SO IT DOES NOT POSE POTENTIAL PROBLEM , THE PROJECT
WILL RECEIVE 14£4(E) CLEARANCE OR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND THE 1424(E) REVIEW WILL END,
, SHOULD THE INFORMAL REQUEST NOT BE ANSWERED, IDENTIFY
fa POTENTIAL PROBLEMS OR NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFO TO
^ GIVE i424(E) CLEARANCE, EPA WILL ANNOUNCE ITS INTENTION
TO CONDUCT 1424(E) REVIEW,
22- , IF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR DECIDES, UPON COMPLETION
OF A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT TO REVIEW A PROJECT, HE WILL
NOTIFY BOTH THE PUBLIC AND THE FEDERAL AGENCY FROM WHICH
(£) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IS BEING SOUGHT OF SUCH REVIEW,
, IF THERE IS SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INTEREST A PUBLIC HEARING
MAY BE HELD,
140
-------
EPA WILL REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE LEAD
FEDERAL AGENCY,
ONCE THE GW INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND SUBMITTED FOR
REVIEW, EPA WILL UNDERTAKE REVIEW WITHIN 30 DAYS,
EPA WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE PROJECT MAY
CONTAMINATE THE AQUIFER THROUGH THE RECHARGE ZONE SO
AS TO CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH,
NOTICE OF THE DECISION WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER .
HOW MANY PROJECTS HAS EPA REGION II REVIEWED FOR THE NASSAU/
SUFFOLK DESIGNATED AREA?
, A-95 SELECTED 55 PROJECTS FOR PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
PHASE -I REVIEW DURING THE FIRST 13 MONTHS OF PROGRAM
OPERATION,
, TWO PROJECTS WERE REFERRED TO EPA FOR PHASE II REVIEW,
EPA IS CURRENTLY NEGOTIATING (INFORMALLY) FOR ADDITIONAL
GROUNDWATER INFORMATION ON A HOUSING PROJECT AND A 201
PROJECT WAS ALREADY ADDRESSED THROUGH THE 201 PROGRAM
REVIEW,
, EPA WAS ALSO NOTIFIED OF A POTENTIAL PROBLEM PROJECT BY
A LEAD FEDERAL AGENCY, NEGOTIATIONS ARE UNDERWAY AND
IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PROBLEM ASPECTS WILL BE
ADDRESSED IN THE FEIS.
14 1
-------
, FOR THE FOUR NATIONAL DESIGNATED AQUIFERS ( THROUGH
NOVEMBER 79) EPA CONDUCTED 115 PHASE II ASSESSMENTS
(INFORMAL REVIEWS):
ONLY ONE PROJECT REQUIRED FORMAL IWCn) REVIEW
PRIOR TO CLEARANCE,
AND THEREFORE, TO DATE NO PROJECTS HAVE BEEN VETOED
UNDER THIS PROGRAM,
9. WHAT DOES THIS PROGRAM MEAN TO THE BUILDING INDUSTRY?
. ONLY APPLYsTO FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE APPLICATIONS,
, DOES NOT APPLY TO INDIVIDUAL SMALL, ISOLATED COMMITMENTS
SUCH AS INDIVIDUAL HOME MORTGAGE LOANS (E.G. FARMERS
HOME LOANS AND VETERANS ADMINISTRATION LOANS); UNLESS A
LARGE NUMBER OF SUCH PROJECTS IS OF CONCERN.
£i£
, THE BUILDER WILL NOT BE DEALING DIRECTLY WITH EPA BUT
RATHER WILL CONTINUE TO WORK THROUGH KNOWN CONTACTS OF ';>-
THE LEAD FEDERAL AGENCY,
, INFORMATION REQUESTS BY EPA SHOULD ONLY RESULT IN DELAYS
DURING THE INFORMATION GATHERING STAGE OF A FORMAL
REVIEW, CM (tevJCL -•!«£. T:\cttSS *Mi 1£^ iNTiii'
WE ARE WORKING WITH LEAD FEDERAL AGENCIES SO THAT AN
APPLICANT WILL BE AWARE OF HIS RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER
1424 (E) AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE; THAT IS WHEN HE COMES IN
FOR THE INITIAL GRANT APPLICANT,
ID- WHAT ARE THE BUILDERS RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER
, "THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION DEMON-
STRATING THE PROJECT WILL NOT CONTAMINATE THE DESIGNATED
AQUIFER SO AS TO CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO PUBLIC
HEALTH,
, BASICALLY, THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO ADDRESS: -^•^•
142 At&W-
-------
Outline of Information to be contained in Ground-water Impact Evaluations
for Federally Assisted Projects
I. Project Description and Environmental Setting
Project Area and Site Characteristics
Geologic
- Location and extent of aquifer recharge and streamflow source
zones in relation to project site (maps and description)
- Dimensions of aquifer (area, thickness, and variations)
- Hydraulic boundaries, including discontinuities, location,
and extent of horizontal and vertical confining materials, and
perched water tables
- Description of water-bearing formations (consolidated or un-
consolidated, general proportions of clay, silt/ sand, and
gravel)
- Permeability of aquifer materials in project area
Hydrologic
- Average annual precipitation and average annual recharge estimates
- Depth to water table in project area (especially where excava-
tions will be required), including seasonal variations, if
significant
- Magnitude and direction of hydraulic gradient in sufficient
detail to estimate general direction of ground-water movement
at project site and adjacent areas
Physiographic
- Topography of project area
- Drainage patterns, including location of perennial and/or
ephemeral streams relative to project site
143
-------
roil o
- Soil types (SCS maps or unpublished data) in project areas
- Soil classifications (textural characteristics/ particularly
silc and clay content)
- Infiltration and transmission capacity of soils in the project
area (e.g., SCS hydrologic soil groups)
Land Use/Cultural
- Location of major producing and known abandoned wells in the
project area, and effects on .hydraulic gradient
- Land uses, including type, development densities, and vege-
tative cover at project site and in project area
- Local and regional land use Dlans and regulations affecting
development in project area or entire aquifer recharge zone
Project Characteristics ••
Multi-unit Housing Developments
- Scope and layout of project (number and type of units, total
and per unit area, access locations, etc.)
- Description of zoning, land availability, and growth potential
of general project area
- Proposed wastewater management facilities (location and descrip-
tion, as applicable, of sewers, sewage treatment plants, and
receiving water bodies, or on-lot septic systems and leaching
areas}; see also Sewage Facilities below.
• Description of proposed water supply source(s) for development,
including treatment provided, if any, and raw water quality
• Description of provisions for transportation and on-site stor-
age of fuel oil, natural gas, or other hazardous chemicals,
particularly underground pipelines and tanks
Description of provisions for solid waste collection and
disposal
Descriotion of probable fertilizer and pesticide use and area
maintenance practices, including lot sizes and lawn area
Description of provisions for storm drainage, including size
location of any retention ponds, etc.
144
-------
145
-------
4.A.2
Sole Source Aquifer Program
EPA Presentation before the National Association of Home Builders,
Regional Advisory Committee Meeting
February 28, T980 Holiday Inn
Elizabeth, N.J.
Contents:
1. What is the Sole Source Program?
2. How is the program implemented?
3. What do the terms in Section 1424(e) mean?
4. What is designation?
5. How many areas have been designated?
6. What is Project Review under 1424(e)?
7. How does EPA determine which projects to review?
8. How many projects have been reviewed under 1424(e)?
9. What does the program mean to the building industry?
10. What is the builders responsibilities under 1424(e)?
Appendix A. Proposed Rules
B. Example Agreement between HUD and EPA
B, Including screening criteria for HUD
B? Sreeening criteria for A-95 Agency
C. Guideline for information required in Groundwater
Impact Evaluations
146
-------
1974
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
(PL 93-523)
CONTAINS
SECTION M24(E)
SOLE OR PRINCIPAL SOURCE
AQUIFER AREAS
147
-------
SECTION 1424(E) STATES:
"!F THE ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINES, ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE
OR UPON PETITION, THAT AN AREA HAS AN AQUIFER WHICH IS THE
SOLE OR PRINCIPAL DRINKING WATER SOURCE FOR THE AREA AND WHICH,
IF CONTAMINATED, WOULD CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO PUBLIC
HEALTH, HE SHALL PUBLISH NOTICE OF THAT DETERMINATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER. AFTER THE PUBLICATION OF ANY SUCH NOTICE,
NO COMMITMENT FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE (THROUGH A GRANT
CONTRACT, LOAN GUARANTEE, OR OTHERWISE) MAY BE ENTERED INTO FOR
ANY PROJECT WHICH THE ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINES MAY CONTAMINATE
SUCH AQUIFER THROUGH A RECHARGE ZONE SO AS TO CREATE A SIGNIFI-
CANT HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH, BUT A COMMITMENT FOR FEDERAL
ASSISTANCE MAY, IF AUTHORIZED UNDER ANOTHER PROVISION OF LAW,
BE ENTERED INTO TO PLAN OR DESIGN THE PROJECT TO ASSURE THAT
IT WILL NOT SO CONTAMINATE THE AQUIFER,"
***also see Appendix A
148
©
-------
AUTHORIZES:
DESIGNATION OF AN AREA WHICH HAS AN AQUIFER THAT IS
THE SOLE OR PRINCIPAL DRINKING WATER SOURCE FOR THE
AREA
REVIEW OF FEDERAL FINANCIALLY ASSISTED PROJECTS WHICH
MAY CONTAMINATE THE AQUIFER
149
-------
SOLE SOURCE OBJECTIVES:
A) FORMALLY RECOGNIZE THE DEPENDENCE OF CERTAIN
AREAS UPON A GIVEN GROUNDWATER RESOURCE
B) ESTABLISH A PROGRAM TO ENSURE THAT FEDERAL
FINANCIALLY ASSISTED PROJECTS ARE PLANNED AND
DEVELOPED SO AS NOT TO CONTAMINATE THE SOLE
DRINKING WATER SOURCE
150
-------
gOLE SOURCE REGULATIONS
FR 51620 - 29 SEPTEMBER 77)
A, DEFINITIONS
B, DESIGNATION
- SUBMISSION OF PETITION
- PUBLIC HEARING
- DETERMINATION
C, PROJECT REVIEW
- PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
- DECISION AND NOTICE OF REVIEW
- PUBLIC HEARING
- PROJECT REVIEW
- DETERMINATION
***a1so see Appendix A
151
-------
IMPORTANT TERMS IN SECTION
AQUIFER
SOLE OR PRINCIPAL
SIGNIFICANT HAZARD
FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
PROJECT
RECHARGE ZONE
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM
-------
DESIGNATION
PETITION SUBMITTAL
COMPLETED PETITION IS FORMALLY ACCEPTED WITH
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTIFICATION
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
- ANNOUNCES INFORMATION REQUEST
- ESTABLISHES PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
- ANNOUNCES PUBLIC HEARING
- INITIATES TIME CLOCK
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR REVIEWS AVAILABLE INFORMATION
AND MAKES RECOMMENDATION ON DESIGNATION WITHIN SIX
(6) MONTHS
HEADQUARTERS MAKES DETERMINATION
DETERMINATION WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IS
PUBLISHED IN FEDERAL REGISTER
153
-------
COMPLETE PETITION INCLUDES FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL
OR ORGANIZATION
STATEMENT ON WHY AQUIFER SHOULD BE DESIGNATED
DESCRIPTION ON SUSCEPTIBILITY OF AQUIFER TO
CONTAMINATION
MAPS DEPICTING LOCATION AND BOUNDARIES OF THE
"SOLE SOURCE" AREA, AQUIFER AND RECHARGE/STREAM-
FLOW SOURCE ZONES
AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF DRINKING
WATER
»*-*
ESTIMATES OF THE AREA POPULATION AND NUMBER OF
PEOPLE SERVED BY THE AQUIFER
IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR THE AREA
WHICH MAY CONTAMINATE
154
-------
DESIGNATION DECISIONS WILL BE BASED ON A CONSIDERATION OF:
• AQUIFER LOCATION
' SUSCEPTIBILITY OF THE AQUIFER TO CONTAMINATION
• AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF DRINKING
WATER
\
1 OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS (E,G, NUMBER OF PEOPLE
SERVED BY THE AQUIFER)
155
-------
STATUS OF DESIGNATIONS
NATIONALLY:
• EDWARDS AQUIFER - SAN ANTONIO TEXAS (16 DECEMBER 75)
• SPOKANE VALLEY - RATHDRUM PRAIRE AQUIFER - WASHINGTON,
IDAHO (9 FEBRUARY 78)
' NORTHERN GUAM - GUAM (26 APRIL 78)
1 NASSAU/SUFFOLK COUNTIES - NEW YORK (21 JUNE 78)
1 FRESNO VALLEY AQUIFER - CALIFORNIA (10 SEPTEMBER 79)
1 BISCAYNE AQUIFER - FLORIDA (11 NOVEMBER 79)
156
-------
STATUS OF DESIGNATION
IN REGION II:
' DESIGNATED AREA:
AQUIFER SYSTEM UNDERLYING NASSAU AND SUFFOLK
COUNTIES
1 COMPLETE PETITIONS UNDER REVIEW:
PETITION RECEIVED FR NOTICE HEARING RECOMMENDATION
N,J, COASTAL 4 DEC 78 21 MAR 79 W-17 MAY 79 21 SEPT 80
PLAIN
BURIED VALLEY 15 DEC 78 29 MAR 79 23 MAY 79 HQ
BROOKLYN/QUEENS 16 JUL 79 29 AUG 79 4 OCT 79
RIDGEWOOD AREA 24 JUL 79 15 JAN 80 28 FEE 80
• DRAFT PETITIONS RECEIVED':"
- UPPER ROCKAWAY VALLEY AREA
- RAMAPO RIVER BASIN AREA
- SOURLAND MOUNTAIN AREA
157
-------
DESIGNATION UNDER
DELINEATES THE SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER AND ITS
RECHARGE ZONES
AUTHORIZES EPA TO REVIEW FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
PROJECTS WITHIN THE DESIGNATED AREA WHICH
MAY CONTAMINATE THE AQUIFER
EMPOWERS EPA TO PREVENT FURTHER FUNDING COM-
MITMENT TO PROJECTS WHICH MAY CONTAMINATE THE
DESIGNATED AQUIFER
-------
BASIC COMPONENTS OF PROJECT REVIEW:
• IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL PROBLEM PROJECTS
1 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
• DECISION TO REVIEW
• NOTICE OF INTENT TO REVIEW
• INFORMATION REQUESTS
' DETERMINATION
159
-------
EPA CAN BECOME AWARE OF POTENTIAL PROBLEM PROJECTS THROUGH:
• LEAD FEDERAL AGENCY NOTIFICATION
• STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY CONTACTS
1 INDIVIDUAL PETITION
' ' REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR'S OWN INITIATIVE
160
-------
IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PROJECT SHOULD UNDERGO J424CE) PROJECT
'REVIEW, EPA WILL EVALUATE:
• THE CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT
•• WHETHER AN E1S HAS 'OR WILL BE PREPARED ON THE PROJECT
161
-------
IF EPA DECIDES TO REVIEW A PROJECT UNDER 1424CE), EPA WILL:
' NOTIFY THE LEAD FEDERAL AGENCY
1 NOTIFY THE APPLICANT
1 NOTIFY THE PUBLIC
• ESTABLISH A COMMENT PERIOD
• CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING (IF APPROPRIATE)
1 REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
162
-------
IN ADDITION, EPA WILL ALSO EVALUATE:
• THE PLANS, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE
AND MONITORING MEASURES INCLUDED TO MITIGATE
POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION
• THE EXTENT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF STATE OR LOCAL
CONTROL
• THE GROUND WATER IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
OR CUMMULATIVE IMPACTS
163
-------
PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS TN RFfilDN H
BASIC COMPONENTS:
' NOTIFICATION OF PROBLEM PROJECT BY -
• PETITION
1 LEAD FEDERAL AGENCY
' LOCAL A-95 AGENCY
• REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
• INFORMAL
1 FORMAL
• PUBLIC INPUT
• GROUND WATER ASSESSMENT
' REVIEW AND DETERMINATION
1 NOTIFICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER
164
-------
LEAD FEDERAL AGENCIES
1, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)
2, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE (HEW)
3, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
^ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION (EDA)
5, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
6, FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION (FnHA)
7, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)
8, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA)
9, HERITAGE, CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE (HCRS)
10, SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA)
11, VETERANS ADMINISTRATION (VA)
12, URBAN MASS TRANSIT AUTHORITY (UMTA)
165
-------
Memorandum of Understanding
Between'
Department or HOU3ins an, Urban Dcvelop,cnt, ^ „_
The Environmental Protection Agency. Kefiion «. ne» York. «.,.
•The goal of this memorandum is that EPA and HUD, together, assure that
each subject prpjept is designed in a raanner that will protect the aouifer
and_not result_in_any_potential^public health hazard.' In order to achip.vfi_
this goal, HUD will notify EPA of all subject projects at the earliest
possible date. If an EIS is prepared for any project in a designated area,
HUD and EPA will coordinate at the earliest possible tiice so that the
draft EIS for the project contains EPA's 1424(e) determination.
I. Community Development Block Grant Applications:
A. HUD will inform all CDBu applicants in a designated area that
a 1424(e) review may be required if the proposed action falls
into one of the categories listed below. The applicant shall
be required to submit a copy of its CDBG application to EPA
prior to or at the szme time it submits copies to the A-S5
clearinghouses. (The applicant shall maintain a log pursuant
to these procedures.) EPA shall notify the applicant co.-tuni-
ties if more information is needed or if there are potential
problems vith respect to the projects involving one or more
of the following:
. landfills
. new sanitary sewers and/or treatment plants
. septic tanks serving more than five households
. proposals affecting waterbodies
. handling or storage of toxic, noxious or hazardous
materials. Attachment $1 lists these materials; EPA
will periodically update this list.
. new storm water drainage facilities, including recharge
basins
^ new or expanded water supply facilities
. new parking facilities larger than an acre
. new roads longer than one-half mile
. underground tanks storing petrol euzi products
*** also see Appendix B
166
-------
A-95 AGENCIES
NEW YORK
1, LONG ISLAND REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD (LIRPB)
NASSAU, SUFFOLK
2. TRI-STATE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION (TSRPC)
ORANGE, DUTCHESS, ROCKLAND, WESTCHESTER, PUTNAM
NASSAU, SUFFOLK, NEW YORK CITY
3, NEW YORK STATE CLEARINGHOUSE - DIVISION OF BUDGET
JERSEY
1, NEW JERSEY STATE CLEARINGHOUSE -DEPT, OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
2, TRI-STATE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION (TSRPC)
BERGEN, ESSEX, HUDSON, MIDDLESEX, MONMOUTH,
MORRIS, PASSAIC, SOMERSET, UNION
3, DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL-PLANNING COMMISSION (DVRPC)
MERCER, BURLINGTON, CAMDEN, GLOUCESTER
4, WILMINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COORDINATION COUNCIL
SALEM
5, ATLANTIC COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
6, CUMBERLAND COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
7, CAPE MAY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
8, OCEAN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
***also see Appendix
167
-------
o>
CO
/ ASSISTANCE
&
I
I
I
t
PHASE I
PROBLEM?
lA-95 AGENCY! - (PRELIMINARY SCREENING £*
i - ' — ' - \-
N0 — >
LEAD FEDERAL AGENCY
1
(PRELIMINARY
POTENTIAL-
POTENTIAL-
REFERRAL
EPAJ—1
NO-
ENN
(NOTIFY)
LEAD FEDERAL
AGENCY
APPLICANT
PROBLEM?
NO
PHASE II
POTENTIAL
PROGRAMS EVALUATE FOR SIGNIFICANT
AQUIFER CONTAMINATION
INFORMAL REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
INFORMATION PROVIDED }
1424CE)
REVIEW
CLEARANCE
A
]•
ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION REQUIRED
DEIS
PROCESS TO DETERMINE IF EPA WILL CONDUCT 1424(E) PROJECT REVIEW
-------
FORMAL
REVIEW
NOTIFY LEAD FEDERAL AGENCY
NOTIFY PUBLIC
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
SROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT REQUESTED
TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND
PUBLIC COMMENT COMPILED
(DETERMINATION)
en
CJ3
(
ADMINISTRATOR
MAKES FINAL DECISION
REGIONAL OFFICE MAKES
RECOMMENDATION
PUBLISH FEDERAL
REGISTER
APPLICANT REDESIGNS
PROJECT
APPLICANT DROPS
PROJECT
I
START!
FORMAL PROJECT REVIEW BY EPA REGION II
-------
APPLICATION OF M24(E) TO BUILDING INDUSTRY:
, ONLY FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
APPLICATIONS
, DOES NO! APPLY TO INDIVIDUAL, SMALL ISOLATED
COMMITMENTS
, BUILDERS CONTINUE TO WORK WITH LEAD FEDERAL
AGENCY
, APPLICANTS KNOW AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION
WHAT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY UNDER
WILL BE
170
-------
APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO ADDRESS:
ft PROJECT AREA AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
- GEOLOGIC
- HYDROLIC
- PHYSIOGRAPHIC
- SOILS
- LAND USE/CULTURAL
P PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
- SCOPE AND LAYOUT
- DESCRIPTION OF ZONING
- PROPOSED WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
- PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY SOURCE
- DESCRIPTION ON ON-SITE STORATE OF HAZARDOUS
CHEMICALS
- PROVISIONS FOR SOLID WASTE HANDLING
- DESCRIPTION OF AREA MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
- PROVISIONS FOR STORM DRAINAGE
***also see Appendix C
171
-------
APPENDIX A
[40CFRPartl43]
IFRL, 773-81
WATER PROGRAMS
Sole Of Principal Source Aquifer A-itas
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: These proposed re?ulations
implement aquifer requirements of the
Safe Drinking Water Act. The re?ula-
tions establish procedures for designating
areas where an aquifer is the sole cr prin-
cipal source of drinking — ater. and tor
reviewing commitments of Federal fi-
nancial assistance to projects in desig-
nated areas. The purpose is to prevent
irrants of Federal financial assistance to
projects -s'hich may contaminate a "sole
source" aquifer so as to create a signifi-
cant hazard to public health,
DATS^: Comment period: November 23.
1977.
ADDRESS: Send comments to: Environ-
mental Protection Agency, OCcs of
Water Supply (WH-530\ 401 M Street
S\V., Washington, D.C. 20460.
FOR i'URTH^'P. EfFOF-MATION CON-;
TACT: ' j
Ms. Zoraida J. Carbaileira, Program.1
Analyst, State Programs Division..
Office of Water Supply (WE-550). En-
vironmental Protection Agency (202-
42S-3934).
SUPFLZMZNTARY EsTORMATTON:
These proposed regulations implement
Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drir.l-cing
Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f. 300h-3i'e);
£8 Stat. 1660 et. sec;.: Pub. L. 93-523).
Section 1424(e) states:
If the Administrator determines, on his
own Initiative or upon petition, that an area
fri>. jji ao.uifer which Is th« sole or prin-
cipal (irlniln? water source for the area and
vhlch. If contaminated. Trould create a sig-
nificant hazard to public health, he shall
publish noUce of that determination In the
FEDERAL RTCTSTEJ. After the publication or
»ny such notice, no corrnitmtnt for Fedenl
financial assistance (through a gr»nt con-
tract, loon pusj-anteo, or others-is*) msy be
entered Into for any project which the Ad-
ministrator determines mav contaminate-
luch ao.ul/er through a rtchar^s rone so sj.
to create a tlpniicant hazard to public
health, but a commJtment for Federal as-
sistance i&ay. If authorized under another
provision of'law, be enured Into to plan or
design the project to assure that It will not
*O contaminate the aquifer.
In summary. Section 1424'e) authori-
zes:
en suorr.itted. Federal
actions such &A dred^mj performed by
the Army Corps of Zr.?ir.e&rs, wnich do
not Involve a grant of financial assist-
ance to a project, are not a^ected by the
project review author.ty jrantecl by Sec-
.JJon_l-124(e). Similarly. Federal actions
HOftAt *rCISTt«. VOl. 47, NO. 1«9—THUKSDAr, J£?TfMB£* ?9, 1977
-------
of programs"performed "5y contractors
for the Federal Government, such as
construction of roads on Federal lands by
a contractor under the supervision of the
Bureau of Land Management are not
subject to project review. Although this
type of Federal action does not fail with-
in the scope of Section 1424(6). an ob-
ligation to evaluate ground water im-
pact may exist based on other authority.
Some actions may be subject to the pro-
visions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). and the preparation
of an environmental impact statement
(EIS) may be required. Furthermore, in
accordance with Sxecutive Order 1752,
all Federal facilities have a responsibility
to take the initiative in the protection
of the environment.
If a commitment of Federal nr.ar.cial
assistance is sought which is within the
meaning of Section 1424(e). the Admin-
-Istrator then has the authority to ravisw
the project for which financial assistance
Is sought, in order to determine whether
the project may contaminate an aquifer
In a designated area so as :o create a
significant hazard to public health. EPA
will not be concerned with reviewing.
on an Individual basis, small, isolated
commitments of Sr-ancial assistance such
as Individual home mortgage leans (e.g..
Farmers Home Administration loans and
Veterans' Administration loans) which
presumptively have an ir-signi-cant im-
pact on aquifer quality. However, EPA.
may conduct review of the cumulative
Impact if a large number of such projects
Is of concern.
Because ground water impact evalua-
tions are not only required under Section
1424 (e), but are also an integral part of
the responsibilities imposed under the
National Environmental Policy Act
(KEPA), the process of project review
pursuant to Section I424(e) will be inte-
grated as fully as possible with the review
of Federal actions subject to NEPA. All
Federal agencies have published guide-
lines for the implementation of NEPA
which provide the basis for determining
whether a project will have a "significant
Impact on the environment." Review un-
der Section 1424(e) requires the closely
'related determination of whether a proj-
ect may contaminate an aquifer through
Its recharge zone so as to pose a "signifi-
cant hazard to public health." Integra-
tion of the two types of review will allow
EPA and other Federal agencies to avoid
needless duplication of efforts under the
two statutes and will prevent ir.eScient
use of resources in carrying out ground
trater impact evaluations. It will also
permit EPA to take advantage of the
Federal agencies' and the public's famil-
iarity with the NEPA process. The heads
Of all Federal agencies have been advised
by the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) in a memorandum dated Novem-
ber. 19, 1976, that NEPA guidehnes_should •
iroon the—
" Se am eh e) at the
time that draft or final EIS's are sub-
mitted to EPA. An EIS prepared for a
project which is subject to Section 1424
(e) as well as NEPA should ccntain all'
the information which is necessary for
EPA to properly evaluate a project's im-
pact on ground water quahty under Sec-
tion 1424(e). EPA will routinely revie'.v
under Section 1424(e) all ZIS's prepared
for projects which are to be Icca-^d in
the recharge zone or streamnow source'
zones of aquifers in designated areas
which may have an impact or. ground
water quality and for which an applica-
tion for Federal financial assistance has
been made.
Although it is anticipated that estab-
lished NEPA procedures will ordinarily
be sufficient to ensure adequate review of
ground water impact pursuant to Section
1424(e), the Regional Administrators
shall also have the authority in irnple-
mentias Section 1424(e) to specifically
request that a ground water impact eval-
uation which will satisfy the require-
. ments of Section 1424(e) be prepared by
.-'n.-^irr—i ' Administrator's
an'.nun i
own motion based on information avail-
able to him. or npon recejp; oi a public
petition, meeting certain specified cri-
teria. A well-research ground water im-
pact chapter extracted from an environ-
mental assessment prepared in accorc-
ance with NEPA may be suScient to sat-
isfy such, a request for a grcur.d water
impact evaluation under Section 1424' e>.
To ensure that EPA and the public
are Informed oi projects which may af-
fect the quatty of the aquifer. EPA will
request from each
Federal
agency that a list of projects for which
EIS's will be prepared and wnich are lo-
xated in the recharge zone or streamiow
source zones of sole source aquifers be
periodically submitted to the appropri-
ate Regional Administrator and made
available to the public upon request.
Once an area is designated the Regional
Administrators shall also have discre-
tionary authority to work out with re-
gional Federal agencies any agreements
or memoranda of understanding which
they feel are necessary to supplement_the
173
KEGISTEt. VOt. 42. NO. 1»«—THURSDAY, SErrtMBI* :9, 1777
-------
"general regulations anoTto keep Ihem In-
formed of projects in the area. The Re-
gional Administrators may assume the
Initiative in ootainmg information on
commitments 01 Federal nriancial as-
sistance which are under consideration
• and in taking other steps to erasure that
they are kept up-to-date on Federal
lundin? of projects in the area. The Re-
gional Administrators nay, for example.
request lists of applications for Federal
financial assistance from the local A-
93 Clearinghouse. EPA will rely as much
- as possible upon existing Stata capabili-
ties in protecting the ground avatar qual-
ity of aquifers. This reliance rrili in no
•way constitute a delegation of project
review authority, since this is clearly an.
EPA responsibility Trhich may not be
delegated. However. State assistance can
be very valuable in providing the agency
with information and comments based
on knowledge of local ground water
problems. The State's role -rill, of course.
depend upon the individual State's ca-
pabilities and interests. Regional Admin-
istrators, upon designation of an area-
may workout memoranda of under-
standing with the States in order to de-
termine their participation in the pro-
tection of ground water quality in the-
area.
The content of these regulations is pri-
marily procedural. EPA plans to initiate
a study to provide technical gui-ance to
EPA regional reviewers for the assess-
ment of ground water impact evalua-
tions prepared by Federal agencies m
three major project categories: (1) •
Multi-unit housing development, -2,1 •
highways, and (3) se^ge collection.
treatment, and disposal facilities, .forth-
coming technical guidance "mil also con-
tain a detailed outline of the informa-
tion which should be-provided by Federal
agencies for those project categories. In
the meantime. Section 1424fe> review-
will be carried out in conjunction with
NEPA review as currently implemented.1
Experience with the interim guidelir.es
Issued for the San Antonio area (40 FR,
5B292. December 16, 1975) has been eval-
uated in fcirculating, these national reg-
ulations.
Public comment on these proposed
regulations shall be submitted on or be-
fore November IS. 197? to the fcEorrizg
address:
EnTlronmental Protection. Agency. OCce of
Witer Supply t7TH-iSO). 401 II Street
SW, Wftshlng'-on, D.C. 2CK60.
Dated: September 22.1977.
DO-COLAS M. CosTLr.
Administrator.
recharge
In consideration of the" foregoing, it is
proposed to add Part 143 as foilo'.vs:
Sobpart A—General Proviiioni
Sec.
148.1 Applicability.
148.2 Definitions.
Subpart!
148JO
148.11
143.12
143,13
148-2Q
14.8.21
148-22
143.23
14-8.24
KS^5
148^5
—Denigration of Sole or Pclncip&J
Source Aquifer Ar«i
Submission o£ petitions.
Decision to initiate designation pro^
ceiures.
Public hearln?.
Detenr.inarlon by the- Administrator.
Subpjrt C—Project Rev
Project rev.eis authcri'.T.
Public Ln;or=i^;;on.
Submiss-.on of peti:;cc.s.
D«rrision 10 rev:»w.
Xoclce of. review.
Eeque^c ror :n-'orma::.--
P-Jblic as arm?.
- .
14B.:& Resubcu:tal of red;;. rro'ects.
148J^ PuncUng to receSLjr.c ^ ..)^cc-j.
.'CTHOETTTT Sec. llCi(e). -"-:? rn-'-irj-g
Water Acre -42 U.3.C. 3COr, 30Cr--0.*>: 33 5ta;.
1660 et. seq.; Pub. L. 93-523) .
• Subpart A — General Provisions
§ 1-JS.l AppUcoiUity.
This part sets forth, pursuant to Sec-
tion 1424(e; and 1450 of the Public
Health Service Act. as amended by the
Safe- Drinking- Water Ace. PUD. L. 53-
523, regulations relating- to aqtrifers-
which are the sole or prmcipal cnnxir.3
-water source for an area ?.nd which, if
contaminated, would create a si^r.incant
hazard to public health.
§ 143.2 DefinULons.
As used in these re^ulanons ^r* ex-
cept as otherwise specifically prcn-.dec.
the terrm's) :
(a) "Act" means the Public Health
Service Act, as amended by the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Pub. L. 93-523.
fb) "Contaminant" means any phys-
ical. chemical, biological, or radiological
__ substance- or matter tn water.
icJ~".5»->tTt>i'tifi zone" means any area
through which water enters the aquifer.
(d) "Adminisrrator" (He^ional Ad-
ministrator) means the Administrator
(Regional Administrator; of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency..
(e) "Person" means an individual, cor-
poration. company, association, partner-
ship, state, or tnur.icipaiity.
(f) "Project" means a program or ac-
tfon for which an application for Federal
financial assistance has been made.
(g) -"Federal financial assistance'"
means any financial benefits provided di-
"rartly as aid to a project by a depart-;
ment, agency, or instrumentality of the-1
Federal jroverror.erit IT. any form includ-
ing" contracts, erar.to. and loan truaran-
tees. Actions or prorrrams carried out bv
tjie Federal government itself such as.
174
*". VOL. 42, NO. 119—THURSDAY, 5irT£M8tt 59, 1977
-------
dredging performed by trie Arm- Corps
of Engineers do noc involve "Federal fi-
nancial assistance." Actions performed
for the Federal government by contrac-
tors, such as construction of roads on
Federal lands by a contractor under the
supervision of the Bureau oi Land Man-
agement, should be distinguished from
contracts entered into specifically for the*
purpose of providing financial assistance,
ppH -will rot be considered programs or,
actions receiving "Federal financial as-
sistance." ''Federal financial assistance'"
Is- limited to ber.efrto earmarked- for a
specific program or action and directly
awarded to the program or action. In-
' direct assistance, e.g.. in the form of ai
loan to a developer by a lending institu-
tion which in turn, receives Federal as-
sistance not specifically related to the
project in question, is not. -'Federal finan-
cial assistance" under Section 1424(e>.
assistance" means a written agreement
entered into by a department, agency, or
instrumentality ai :he Federal Govern-
ment to provide financial assistance as
defined in paragraph >'g.' of this secr.cn.
Renewal of a commitment which the is-
suing agency determines has lapsed shall
not constitute a new commitment unless
the Regional Administrator determines
thai the project's impact upon z desig-
nated aquifer has noc been previously
reviewed under Section 1424. The de-
termination of a Federal agency that 3
certain written agreement constitutes as
commitment shall be conclusive with re-
spect to the ecstence of such, a commit-.
dent. '
(i> "Streamftow source zone" means
the upstream headwaters area which!
drains into the recharge zone. !
(j) "Significant hazard to public
health" means any level of contaminant;
which causes or ma- cause the aquifer to
exceed any maximum contaminant level
set forth in any promulgated National
• Primary Drinking ^"ater Standard at
any point where the water may be used
_for drinking- purposes or which may
otherwise adversely arTecs the health of
persons, or which may require a public
water system to install additional treat-
ment to prevent such adverse effect-^
^Aqtnfer" means a geological for-
mation, group of formations, or part of
a formation that contains suCcient
saturated permeable material to yield
significant quantities of water to wells-
or springs.
fl> "Public water system" means s
system for the provision to the public of
piped water for human consumption, if
snch system has at least fifteen service
connections or regularly serves an aver-
age of at least twenty-five individuals
daily at least sixty (60) days out of the
year Such term Includes (1) any collec-
tion, treatment, storage, and distribution
facilities under control of the operator
of such system and used primarily in:
connection with such system, and <2)
any collection or pretreatment storage-
facilities not under such control which
are used primarily in connection with:
such system. - I
(m) "Sole or principal source aquifer"'
means an aquifer which supplies 50 per-
cent or more of the drinking water for
an area.
(n) "Area" means a large territory,
usually encompassing more than one
county.
Subpart B—Designation of Sole or
Principal Source Aquifer Areas
§ 148.10 Submission of petitions. I
Any person may submit a petition re-
questing the Administrator to deter--
mine that an area has a sole or principal;
source aquifer. Petitions no: meeting the
requirements set forth below may be
returned to the petitioner wi:h a request
that available information be submitted.
Any petition shall be submitted in du-
plicate and shall include:
(a) The name, address, and telephone-
number of the individual, organization,
or other entity submitting the petition:
(b) A brief statement of the requesting
person's interest in the Administrator's
determination;
(c) A statement of why, in the peti-
tioner's view, contamination of the aqui-
fer would result in a significant hazard
to public health; :
(d) All pertinent information known'
to the petitioner regarding:
(1) The aquifer and its location:
(2) The location of the area for which
the petitioner alleges the aquifer is the
sole or principal source of drinking
water;
(3) The population in the area de-
scribed under subparagraph (2) of this
paragraph:
(4) Alternative sources of drinking-
water for the area described under sub-
paragraph (2) of this paragraph;
(5) The recharge and streamSow
source zone (or zones) for the aquifer
and its location; . ;
(6) The sources of recharge to-the*
aquifer and their location; i
(7) Projects which might contaminate-,
the aquifer through the recharge zone;;
and '
(8) The public water systems utilizing
water from the aquifer, the number of
people served by each system and the
water treatment provided by each sys-
tem.
(e) Maps showing, to the best of the
petitioner's knowledge and belief: i
(1) The location and boundaries of the!
aquifer; j
(2) The location and boundaries of the;
recharge zone or zones for the aquifer;:
and I
(3) The location of the source or
^sources of recharge to the aquifer.
175
UGISTEI. VOL 42, NO. J19—THURSDAY, SEPTtMRER 29, 1977
-------
§ 148.11 Decision to initiate designation
procedures.
(a) The Administrator may consider
designation of an area on his own tnitia-
, tlve, on the.initiative of a Regional Ad-_
' ininistrator, or as a" response to a public
petition.
(b) Upon receipt of a petition meeting
the requirements of § 143.10, or upon his
own Initiative, the Regional Administra-
tor shall review all the information
readily available to him which is. rele-
vant to the existence of a sole or princi-
pal source aquifer. All such information
shall be forwarded by the Regional Ad-
ministrator to the Administrator along
with this recommendation.
(c) The Administrator will review all
Information available to him. determine
whether the region should initiate for-
mal designation procedures, and notify
the Regional Administrator. If the noti-
-fication is afSrmauve, and where appro-
priate and in the public interest, the
Regional Administrator will publish in
the FEDERAL RicisrrH notice of any
petition submitted in accordance with
§ 148.10 hereof, and shall indicate in the
FEDERAL REGISTER the availability for
public review of data and information
available to the Regional Administrator
which are relevant to a determination
•regarding the existence of a sole or-prin-
cipal source aquifer in the area.
§,143.12 Public Learin?.
„ Where there is a significant public
Interest the Regional Administrator may
hold a public hearing en whether an
area should be designated under this
subpart. Any such hearing shall be con-
ducted by the Regional Administrator or
•his designee in an informal, orderly, and
expeditious manner. YThere appropriate,
limits may be placed upon the time
allowed for oral statements, and state-
ments may be required to be submitted
In writing. The Regional Administrator
will give notice of such a public hearing
by any reasonable means he deems
appropriate.
§ 148.13 Determination by the Admin-
istrator.
The Regional Administrator will make
his recommendation on designation to
'the Administrator no later than six 16)
months after the "date of publication of
the FEDERAL REGISTER notice under
f 148.11.
(b) Upon the recommendation of the
Regional Administrator, the Administra-
tor shall either make the designation or
determine that the area should not be
designated. In deciding whether to desig-
nate an area under Section 1424(e), the
Administrator shall consider:
(1) The availability of alternative
sources of drinking water;
(2) The size of the area and pop-
ujation served by, the aquifer; :
(3) The susceptibility of the aquifer
to contamination through the recharge
zone:
(4) The location of the aquifer:
(5) The number of public water sys-
tems utilizing water from the aquifer.
the number of people served by such sys-
tems, and the treatment provided by
such systems; and
(6) Such other factors as he deems
relevant. _ _
CO" IT~tne Administrator determines'
that an area will be designated, he shall
Identify the boundaries of the recharge
zone, the streamrlow .source zone, or por-
tions thersof, through which contami-
nation- could a5ect the area for which
the aquifer is the sole or principal source
. of drinking water, and, to the extent
known, the water body or bodies which
contact such recharge zone.
(d) The Administrator shall publish
his determination in the FEZERAL REGIS-
TER, including the basis for his decision.
Subpart C—Project Review
§ 148.-0 Project review authority,
(a) Once an area is designated pursu-
ant to Subpart B of this part, no sucse-
quent commitments of Federal finar--
cial assistance may be made to projects
which the Administrator decenriir.es may
contaminate the aquifer so as to create
a significant hazard to public health.
(b) The Regional Administrator is
hereby delegated the authority and as-
signed responsibility for carrying out
the project review process assigned to
the Administrator under Secticn 1424i'e)
of the Act, except the final determina-
tion that a project may contaminate a
sole or principal source aquifer in a des-
ignated area through its recharge ror.e
so as to create a significant hazard to
public health.
(c) The Regional Administrator may
review any project which he considers
may potentially contaminate a sole or
principal source aquifer in a designated
area through its recharge zone so as to
create a significant hazard to public
health.
§ 148.21 Public information.
After an area is designated under Sec-
tion 1424(e), Federal agencies, for proj-
ects located in the recharge zone and
streamflow source zones, are required to:
(a) Maintain a list of projects for
which environmental ircpact statements
will be prepared in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) ;
(b) Revise the list at regular inter-
vals and submit to EPA; and
(c) Make the list available to the pub-
lic upon request.
§ 148.22 Submission of petitions.
Any person may submit a petition re-
questing the Regional Administrator to
176
t'f.lSTU, VOl. 47, NO. 1«»—THURSDAY, SEPTEMJfl 19. 1977
-------
review a project" to determine If such
project may cor.tammata an aquifer in
an area designated under Subpart B of
this part through its recharge rone so
as to create a significant hazard to pub-
lic health. Any such petition shall
identify: |
fa) The name, address, and telephone:
number of the individual, organisation
or other entity submitting the petition:
(b) A brief statement of the requesting
person's interest in the Regional Admin-
istrator's determination;
(c) The name of the project ar.d Fed-
eral agency involved: __ __
" In"adnition,"£he petitioner'Is requested
to submit to ZPA available information
on:
(d) Applicable action, already taken
by State and local agencies including
establishment of regulations to prevent
contamination of the aquifer and why,
in the petitioner's judgment, that action.
was inadequate; i
(e) Any actions taken under the Na-
tional Environmental Poucy Act and:
why, in the petitioner's judgment, the'
action was inadequate in regard to eval-
nation of potential eilect on the aquifer;
(f) The potential contaminants in-
volved;
: (g) The means by which the cor.tarni-
: jaant misht enter the aquifer; and
' (h) The potential impact of the pro-
posed project.
§ 148.23 ' Decision to review.
(a) The Regional Administrator shall
review under Section 142i(e) all projects
located In the recharge or streamzpw
source zone of sole source aquifers for
which a draft or final EIS is submitted
which may have an impact on ground-
water quality and —hich involve Federal
financial assistance as denned in these
regulations.
(b) Upon receipt of a public petition,
the Regional Administrator shall decide
whether the project which is the subject
Of the petition should be reviewed under
Section 1424(e).
(c) The Regional Administrator may
decide to review a project upon his own.
motion.
(d) In determining whether to review
a project upon receipt of a public peti-
tion or upon his own motion, the Re-
gional Administrator shall consider
whether the project is likely to directly
or indirectly cause contamination of the
aquifer through its recharge zone, tailing
Into account any factors he deems rele-
vant, including:
(1) The location of the project, ana
(2) The nature of the project.
; (e) In determining whether to review
; a project upon receipt of a public peti-
tion or upon his own motion, the Re-
rlonal Administrator may consult with.
or request Information f_rom, the Federal
agency to wtiTch~th~. he shall gyre written
notification 01" the decision to tie Federal
agency from which financial assistance
is sought. The notification shall include
a description and identification of the
_project. _ _
"Os) "Notice to PublfcT When" the ?.s^
gional Administrator undertakes to re-
view a project pursuant to 5 143J2 above.
he shall provide public notice of project
review by such means as he deems ap-
propriate. The notice shall =et forth the
availability for pubi.c review of ail data
and information available, and shall so-
licit comments, dati and information
with respect to the determination of im-
pact under Section llC4(e;. The per.od
for public comment shall be 30 days alter
public notice unless the Regional Admin-
istrator extends the period at his discre-
tion or a public hearing is held under
i 148.25.-. ;
§ 140.25 Re~?A pro-
cedures, the Regional Administrator may
sptcificaily request that the FederaJ
agency submit a rroundwater impact
evaluation of whether the prcpojed proj-
ect may contaminate the aquifer through
Its recharge zone ro as to create a sig-
nificant hazard to public health.
§143.26 TuLLic beaj-Ln?l
If there is significant public interest.
the Regional Administrator may hoid a
public hearing with respect to any proj-
ect or projects to be reviewed if he nnds
that such a hearing is necessary and
•would be helpful in clani'T_r-g the issues.
Public hearings held uncer this section
should bo coordinated. 'J possible, with
other Federal public hearmgs held pur-
suant to applicable laws and regulations.
Any such hearing shall be conducted'by
the Regional Administrator or des;?::ee
in an informal, orderly ar.d ei-pecu'.ic'-is
_.manner. 'Where appropriate, limits m.•».>•_
177
iFgi$Tt», VOL
-------
be placed upon the tune allowed for oral
statements, and statements may be re-
Quired to be submitted in writing. The
record will be held open for further pub-
lic comment for seven *7) days following
the close of the public hearing.
§ 14S.27 Decision under Section
1424(0.
(a) As soon as practicable after the
submission of public comments under
•Section H24(e) and information re-
quested by the Environmental Protection
Agency from the originating Federal
agency, on the basis of such information
as is available to him, the Regional Ad-
ministrator shall review the project tak-
ing all relevant factors into account, in-
cluding:
(1) The extent of possible public
health hazard presented by the project:
(2) Planning, design, construction, cp-
eration, maintenance and monitoring
measures included in the project -which
would prevent or mitigate the possible
health hazard:
(3) The extent and effectiveness of
State or local control over possible con-
_taminant releases to_the aquifer;
(4) The cumulative and secondary im-
pacts of the proposed project: and
(5) The expected environmental bene-
fits of the proposed project.
(b) A-fter reviewing the available In-
formation, the Regional Administrator
shall:
(1) Determine that the risk of con-
tamination of the aquifer through the
recharge zone so as to create a signifi-
cant hazard to public health is no: suffi-
ciently great so as to prevent commit-
ment of Federal funding to the project;
or
(2) Forward the information to the
Administrator with his recommendation
that the Administrator determine that
the project may contaminate the aquifer
through the recharge zone so as to create
a significant hazard to public health.
(c) Alter receiving the available in-
formation forwarded by the Regional
Administrator, the Administrator shall:
(1) Determine that the USE of con-
tamination of the aquifer through the
recharge zone so as to -create a signifi-
cant hazard to public health is not suffi-
ciently great so as to prevent commit-
ment of Federal funding to the project;
or
(2) Determine that the project may-
contaminate the aquifer through the re-
charge zone so as to create a significant
hazard to public health.
(d) Notice of any decisions by the
Regional Administrator under para-
graph (b)(l) of this section or by the
Administrator under paragraph to prevent a commitment of
Federal funding shall be published IT. the
PTBURAL Rrcisrrs. Such notices shall in-
clude a de^cr.prion of the proposed proj-
ect and a statement of the decision
with an accompanying statement of facto
and reasons.
§ 140.23 Resubniittal of
projects. " ,
If_a project is redesigned :n response
to iPA's objections, the applicant for
Federal financial assistance or tha
grantor agency may file a petition with
the Regional Administrator for with-
drawal of the determination that the
project may contaminate the aquifer
through the recharge zone so as to cre-
.ate a significant hazard :o puohc health.
Any such pennon shall demonstrate how
the project r.as been redesigned so is :o
Justify the withdrawal of ZPA's cojec-
tions. If appropriate, the Regional Ad-
ministrator may request punlic ccm-
ments or hold an informal puoiic hear-
ing to consider the petition. Alter re-
view of pertinent inforrr.aticr.. tr.e Re-
gional Administrator shall either ceny
the petition or recommend :o the Ad-
ministrator that the initial determina-
tion that a project may ccT.:r_rr.ir.a:e the
aquifer be vacated. Upon rscei::t of a
recommendation from the Regional Ad-
ministartor that a dete:-mina::cn be va-
cated, the Administrator shall eiiher
deny the petition or oraer that -he initial
de-temiir.ation be vacated. The final
decision regarding a petition shall be
published in the F-DERAI. RZGISTE?. with
Bn_accomp_a.ny:ng statement of reascr.s.
§ 148-29 Funding to reuoii;jneJ proj-
ect*.
After publication of a decision that a
proposed project may conrArrr.ate a
sole or principal source aquifer in a des-
ignated area through its recnarge zcr.e
so- as to create a significant hazard to
public health, a commitment for Federal
financial assistance may te entered into,
If authorized under another provision cf
law, to plan or redesign such project to
Assure that it will not so
the aquifer.
i_ JFR Doc.77-28395 Tiled ?-28-
178
ftDElAL KtOISTER, VOL. 42, HO. 189—THU8S04.r, SFfTEMEER 39, 1977
-------
AFTENDIO
' Memorandum of Understanding
Between
The Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region II, New York, N.Y.
and
The Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, New York, N.Y.
The purpose of this memorandum is to reach an agreement between the Region
II offices of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department
Of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) concerning review of projects that
involve federal financial assistance, and that may affect sole source
aquifers designated pursuant to section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (PL 93-523). This memorandum outlines the steps to be followed by
HUD in determining which projects should be subject to a review and
the procedures to be followed by both agencies in meeting the requirements
of section 1424(e).
Pursuant to section 1424(e), EPA has determined that the aquifer system
underlying Nassau and Suffolk Counties is the principal source of drinking
water for these counties (FR. Vol. 43, No. 120, June 21, 1978). Mo
commitment for federal financial assistance may be entered into for any
project that EPA determines may contaminate a sole source aquifer through
its recharge zone so as to create a significant hazard to public health.
When other aquifers in this region are designated as sole sources, HUD
will be notified by the Region II office of EPA. This memorandum will
apply to the review of projects in all sole source'aquifers in this region.
itegulations. relating to section 1424(e) can be found in the Federal Register
(Vol. 42, No. 189) on Thursday, September 29, 1977.
The goal of this memorandum is that EPA and HUD, together, assure that
each subject project is designed in a manner that will protect the aauifer
and not result in any_potential^public health hazard. In order to achieve-..
this goal, HUD \ciil notify EPA of all subject projects at the earliest
possible date. If an EIS is prepared for any project in a designated area,
HUD and EPA will coordinate at the earliest possible time so that the
draft EIS for the project contains EPA's 1424(e) determination.
I. Community Development Block Grant Applications:
A. HUD will inform all CDBG applicants in a designated area that
a 1424(e) review may be required if the proposed action falls
into one of the categories listed below. The applicant shall
be required to submit a copy of its CDBG application to EPA
prior to or at the sanie time it submits copies to the A-95
clearinghouses. (The applicant shall maintain a log pursuant
to these procedures.) EPA shall notify the applicant con-uni-
ties if more information is needed or if there -are potential
problems vith respect to the projects involving one or more
of the following:
. landfills
. new sanitary sewers and/or treatment plants
179
-------
. septic tanks serving more than five households
. proposals affecting water-bodies
. handling or storage of toxic, noxious or hazardous
materials. Attachment #1 lists these materials; EPA
will periodically update this list.
. new storm water drainage facilities, including recharge
basins
.. 'new or expanded water supply facilities
. new parking facilities larger than an acre
. new roads longer than one-half mile
. underground tanks storing petroleum products
B. EPA shall have 30 days from the date of receipt of the application
to comment on a proposed project or activity pursuant to 1424(e)
or to request additional information to determine groundwater impacts.
1. EPA shall notify the applicant if projects, involving one
or more of the above categories, are acceptable.
2. EPA shall notify the applicant and the appropriate HUD Area
Office if a project is unacceptable or acceptable with modi-
fications.
C. A'copy of EPA's "acceptable finding(s)" shall be_included by the
"applicant'as part of its formal CDBG application submission to KUD.
D. No specific project or activity that EPA has found unacceptable
pursuant to 1424(e) shall be funded by HUD. If at the time of
application approval, EPA has not completed its negotiations for
project modifications or has not completed its review of ground-
water impacts, the specific projects and/or activities subject to
EPA review shall be conditioned. Authorization for the release of
funds shall not be granted until EPA has notified HUD that all out-
standing issues with regard to the subject projects and/or activi-
ties have been resolved. The EPA will work closely with the applicant
and HUD to minimize any delays in project review.
E. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying EPA of any new
or revised project and/or activity, involving one or mere of the
categories identified under paragraph A above, that was not part
of the original CDBG application submission to HUD. EPA shall
notify the applicant and HUD if there are any problems or additional
issues to be addressed. KUD shall not authorize the release of
funds for the subject project until EPA has indicated that all
outstanding issues have been resolved.
180
-------
Urban Development Action Grant Applications
Upon receipt of the application, the HUD Area Office will send
all UDAG proposals within the designated aquifer area to EPA for
its review. EPA shall notify the KUD Area Office within 10
calendar days if it will conduct a 1424(e) review. EPA shall have
an additional 10 calendar days to review and submit comments to
the HUD Area Office. The HUD Area Office shall transmit EPA's
review comments to the Central Office.
ill. Housing Program Applications
A. HUD shall inform all applicants for new construction in a
designated area that a 1424(e) review may be required.
B. HUD shall include the Questionnaire - see Attachment #2 - as
part of a developer's housing application package for proposed
projects in the designated area.
C. HUD shall require the submission of the completed questionnaire
from all applicants for subdivision or multifamily projects in
the designated area prior to any further funding consideration.
All completed questionnaires will become part of KUD's perma-
nent record 'for each project.
D. If one or more of the questions in the questionnaire are an-
swered affirmatively, HUD will forward the application to EPA
for its assessment.
1. EPA, upon receipt of a housing application, will have 20
days to review and comment. A non-response by EPA at the
end of 20 days shall be considered as a positive review
indicating an acceptable project. KUD processing of the
project can then proceed toward HUD approval.
2. EPA review comments shall be sent directly to the developer
with a copy to the appropriate HUD Area Office.
E. Local Area Certification - If a designated sole source aquifer
is located adjacent to or within the geographical boundaries _
of a certifiable area, the HUD Area Office shall consult with
EPA as part of the certification review process. (The con-
sultation with EPA shall, in all instances, be made prior
to officially certifyin the local area.)
Note: Individual projects shall still be subject to 1424(e)
review independent of a local area certification.
181
-------
F. If EPA finds a project unacceptable -as a result-of its
review, that project shall be rejected by HUD. To mininize
delay, EPA shall wor.: closely with the developer and HUD to
resolve outstanding .ssues as quickly as possible.
IV. General Procedural Matters
A. Materials furnished EPA by HUD under this I-Jen-.orandu.-n of Under-
standing shall be addressed to the attention of the Director,
Office of Federal Activities, in EPA's Regional Office in New
Xork, New York.
B. The HUD and EPA will each assign a representative to serve as
a liaison. The liaison officers are:
HUD: Regional Office Environmental Officer*
EPA: E.I.S. Review Coordinator
* (Note: The HUD Area Offices' Environmental Clearance
Officer shall be the liaison on project specific
matters.)
The representatives will meet as needed to update this memorandum.
This memorandum is subject to revision upon agreement of both parties.
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Richard TT-zrcnTiing, Ph.D
Acting Regional Admini^irfator
Dated
^
182
-------
Attachment
TOXIC, NOXIOUS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS LIST
NAME
•benzene
•t.ed e;hers)
bis(cMoromclhyL) eiher
bis!2-n7o(j.N)on!hr^ccne
inrli-no fl j?.3olitt»
"ildrin
"dieldrin
*chlordon» (technical minure
metabolite-!)
*DDT jnd mfl»bolitei
4.4'. DDT
4.4--DDE fpp'-DOXJ
•cndoiulfin inj melabolitrf
»^ndo5ulf^n-Alphj
. b-endosuKan Be-.a
I
«nd
95.
96.
97.
93. trodnn
99. endrin aldehyde
'heptathlor and meubolit«»
100. heptflchlor
101. hepiachlcr eporidc
•hexiclilorocyclohe*irie (ill ivomer
102. a BHC-Alphi
103. bDHC-Beta
104. r-BHC (Imdarel-Gammo
105. B'BHC-Dilta
'polychlon'niicd biphtr.ylj (PCB'i)
1O5. PCB-12-32 (Arochlor 1242)
107. PCB-12b^ (Atochl.-r 125^t
1C3. PCB-1221 (Arochlc.r 1221)
109. PCB-1 232 (Arcch.'cr 1232)
110. PCO-12<2 (Afochlcr 12-S)
111. PCB-1260 (Arochlo' 1260;
112. PCO-1016 (Arochlor 1016)
1 13. *toxapheo»
114. "antimony (total)
1 15. 'iiienic (total)
116. *«st-?nos (librous)
117. 'ty?ry!!iu.-n (total)
118. "cadmium (total)
119. 'cdrcmium (total)
120. 'copper (total)
121. 'cyanide (total)
122. "Icjd dotnl)
123. 'mercury (total)
124. 'nlcKel (totdl)
125. 'selenium (total)
126. •iilvt-r (io:al)
127. 'ihallfum (total)
128. '.line (tola!)
129. "2^.7^) IctracMoroJ.txn/o D-
dioxin (TCCD)
'Specific corr.founds jnd chrmic;! c'au—j
as liitrd in jhi- cun'^ni Cr- JUT.
* "Tli'j comrxrj.'id wji s>-rilicj:iy- I n.-d m
ihc c o'ii
-------
Attachment $2
HOUSING APPLICATION QUESTIONNAIRE
YES MC
Hill the project dispose of sewage through an on-site
facility (e.g. septic tanks)?
Will petroleum products be stored underground?
Is the total area of impervious surfaces (e.g. paved
areas, buildings, etc.) greater than 30% of the
project area?
Hill the run-off from the impervious surfaces (#3)
be drained into onsite recharge basins?
Will the project require more than 100,000 gallons
per day of groundwater?
How.much groundwater supply will be required for the
project? (in gallons/day)
If a new well is to be drilled, what is the
expected depth?
If an existing well is to be used, what is its depth?
(Source: well owner or water purveyor)
184
-------
APPENDIX B2
soi.n r.our.cL AQinniK M:OCJ;AM
^iLl.'lLl 1 ons _f 'UL-TbjUiV 1_ I'1 c-1 ji-jir.nry _Assr:.i.7rc-nt
1. J'rojtct Location
1. Uuat is fccoyr.iiil.Jc ] cent Icri nnd extent of project? (hectares}
2. In vhich hydrologJc zone is the project located?
3. IJhat lc the est ii-a ed depth to the groundwater at the project site?
A. V-liat groundwater fcrnntion or surface venter body is lihely to be affected
by recharge at i).£ project site?
5. l.liat is the probable effect of surficial geology on Lhe amount and late
of infiltration?
6. V.'hnt is Lhe slope of the site?
7. Uhot is the present land use of the project site and vicinity?
II. Kature of Project
'A. Construction.
1. How tv'ill the site be altered during construction?
2. Hou ir.uch vater i:ill be used and how vill it be altered during con-
struction?
3- How v?ill water be-disposed of'during construction?
B. Maintenance
1. Vill there be any loss of recharge attributable to increased run-off
due to removal of vegetation, changes in grading, creation of paved
or other irr.pei ir.cable areas?
2.. Will there be any loss of recharge due to sewering vith marine dis-
charge of treated effluent?
3. Will project operation result in significant consumptive use of
groundwater? How r.uch?
4. What techniques will be ecploycd result ing "from consumptive use?
5. Will there be Increases in pollutant loadings to the groundwalcr of
nutrients, .org.inics, chemicals, heavy i::etals, hydrocarbons ^nd tl.f
Ul:e? Which cont.'ui.i nants uilght be expected as the ic'^ult of pioduct
Mor;jge and 11 aur.port a L Ion , the on-;.lte clls|idr.al and/or pre-t i f-i t r n i
of v-'.ir.rc strcni.i-j, uc'c of parking lots and oilier aspects of gor. _• r;il
ope i~.it i on?
185
-------
6. V'oulJ tlu ic 'l>c ii.cn-ases In nutrients, or panics, chemicals, heavy
f-c%lals, hydi oc :. ilonr,, etc. to tlic croundu-.it cr as a result of rcccnJ-
iiry ii.-.pncts (Induced industrial, co.-i-icrci al or residential activities}?
7. What techniques CJH be c-cploycd to inprovp the quality of tlie crou.-.d-
vatcr?
C. Ilclat lonsliips to tl.c Cci::.-junl ty
1. l.'i.ll the project Lc served by existing public water supply, sanitary
tcwcrs, storru rci.-c.-rs? Will tlic c>J sting .sources meet future needs?
2. Can existing dt-velopncnt in tlie vicinity of the project riccor.-.iodate,
ED. as to cliuil r.atc, any cozr.poncnt of the project?
Dots t,hc proiect pose a potential threat to groundv;ater quality!
186
-------
APPENDIX C
Outline of Information to be contained in Ground-water Impact Evaluations
for Federally Assisted Projects
I. Project Description and Environmental Setting
Project Area and Site Characteristics
Geologic
- Location and extent of aquifer recharge and streamflow source
zones in relation to project site (maps and description)
- Dimensions of aquifer (area, thickness, and variations)
- Hydraulic boundaries, including discontinuities, location,
and extent of horizontal and vertical confining materials, and
perched water tables
- Description of water-bearing formations (consolidated or un-
consolidated, general proportions of clay, silt, sand, and
gravel)
- Permeability of aquifer materials in project area
Hydrologic
- Average annual precipitation and average annual recharge estimates
- Depth to water table in project area (especially where excava-
tions will be required), including seasonal variations, if
significant
- >5agnitude and direction of hydraulic gradient in sufficient
detail to estimate general direction of ground-water movement
at project site and adjacent areas
Phys iocra ph i_c
- Topography of project area
- Drainage patterns, including location of perennial and/or
ephejieral streams relative to project site
1 87
-------
Soa., _„.--- ,« .„„„*. .„ -^published data) in project areas
- Soil classifications (textural characteristics, particularly
silt, and clay content)
- Infiltration and transmission capacity of soils irv the project
area (e.g., SCS .hydrologic soil groups)
L'and Use/Cultural
- Location of major producing and known abandoned wells in the
project area, and effects on .hydraulic gradient
- Land uses, including type, development densities, and vege-
tative cover at project site and in project area
- Local and regional land use olans and regulations affecting
development in project area or entire aquifer recharge zone
Projecr Characteristics
Multi-unit Housing Developments
- Scope and layout of project (number and type of units, total
and per unit area, access locations, etc.)
- Description of zoning, land availability, and growth potential
of general project area
• Proposed wastewater management facilities (location and descrip-
tion, as applicable, of sewers, sewage treatment plants, and
receiving water bodies, or on-lot septic systems and leaching
areas); see also Sewage Facilities below.
• Description of proposed water supply source(s) for development,
including treatment provided, if any, and raw water quality
• Description of provisions for transportation and on-site stor-
age of fuel oil, natural gas, or other hazardous chemicals,
particularly underground pipelines and tanks
Description of provisions for solid waste collection and
disposal
Descriotion of probable fertilizer and pesticide use and area
maintenance practices, including lot sizes and lawn area
Description of provisions for storm drainage, including size
and location of any retention ponds, etc.
188
-------
189
-------
Chapter 5 Region II Resource Commitment to 1424 (e)
Chapter 5 contains the following subchapters:
A- FY79 Estimated Timelines For Activities Associated with the
Aquifer Designation Process and Project Review
B-l FY80 Work and Resource Planning Form
B-2 Summary of Project Reviewed in FY80
C- Projected Work and Resource Planning Form
Subchapters 5A presents 3 timelines which were developed in 1978 to anticipate time
commitments for the coming year's activities.
Subchapter 5B1 compares projected to actual resource commitments in FY80.
Subchapter 5B2 describes, in detail, project specific review experience which
occurred during the course of implementing the sole source program in Region II
since January 1979.
Subchapters 5C is a projection of Region n resource need for operating the Sole
Source program in FY81.
1 90
-------
1 91
-------
5A-FY79 Estimated Timelines for
Aquifer Designation & Project Review
TIMELINES WERE A PRELIMINARY MEASURE OF
POTENTIAL RESOURCE COMMITMENT TO
1 92
-------
'•/%&«*
7
183
-------
to
-------
195
-------
5B-1 FY80 Work and Resource
Planning Form
HOW DID THE ESTIMATES FOR RESOURCE COMMITMENTS IN FY80
COMPARE TO ACTUAL INVOLVEMENT WITH 1424(E)?
1 91
-------
FY 80 WORK AND RESOURCE PLANNING FORM
SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER PROGRAM
PLANNED
DGRAM ACTIVITY
(PPA)
- —
OF SOLE SOURCE
gUIFERS EVALUA-
ED*
* TUm + nvm H-W /->\l^
FULL
TIME EQUIV.
(FTE)
WORK-YEAR
PROJECTED
IN ZBB- (.6)
ACTUAL- (.87
START
LEVEL
9-30-79
2
I 2
MILESTONES
12-31-79
5
10
3-31-80
9
18
6-30-80
14
28
END
9-30-80
20
31
program.
The numbers under milestones relate specifically to the number of MOU's
developed/refined, projects reviewed, background documents and briefings
prepared, public meetings held, etc.
197
-------
5B-2 Summary of Projects under
Review in FY80
SiSLr^aSr" ~ • ":3.51'.'", •waLtt^ i: ctt -—^
WHAT ARE THE TYPE OF PROJECTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY
COME UNDER 1424(E) REVIEW?
1 98
-------
EXPERIENCE TO DATE
As of the end of September 1980:
o Long Island Assessments by EPA
(1) Nassau Expressway - The project was received by Region II from
Federal Highway Administration. Although information submitted prior to
the draft EIS issuance indicated no potential for adverse ground water
impact, the draft EIS detail of the highway alignment shows that one highway
section could require dewatering in an area that may represent the front
of saltwater intrusion into the aquifer's freshwater zone. Accordingly, EPA's
letter of comment on the draft EIS requests detailed delineation of the
alignment with respect to the freshwater/saltwater interface and, if
adverse ground water effects are predicted, recommends implementation of an
alternate design, which completely avoids aquifer effects and is much less
expensive. It is our intention to require more detailed information at
the pre-draft EIS stage for all future project reviews. As of this date,
no Final EIS has been released.
(2) North Hempstead, Water District Interconnection (HUD) - This
project was referred by HUD to EPA for an informal review (this referral
was prior to the effective date of the Memorandum of Understanding between
HUD and EPA.) The project was part of the Nassau County Community Develop-
ment program. It proposed to install pipes, within existing street right-
of-ways to complete interconnections between 12 water districts. EPA
developed a list of concerns for HUD that had to be addressed before the
project would be acceptable under the SSAP. To date, EPA has had no
contact with HUD the Town of North Hempstead nor Nassau County on this
project. WSB will do a following-up on this project.
(3) Greenport-Immiment Threat Grant (HUD) - The Village of Greenport
notified EPA of this project. Greenports' major well field was contaminated
with pesticides. A new well was needed outside the contamination zone to
meet the additional needs of the village. The HUD Grant was needed to:
extend the Village's water main to a well field in a neighboring Village;
purchase higher capacity pumps; and build a pump station structure. EPA
approved the project under the condition that Greenport investigate long
range water supply alternatives, (i.e. treatment of contaminated water)
in light of the possibility that well field would become contaminated.
(4) Plainview Low Rent Housing Project (HUD) - The A-95 Agency
referred the project to EPA. The developer wanted to build 127 housing
units on 5.1 acres in the town of Oyster Bay. The project planned to
eventually hook up to sewers. Preliminary review of the project applica-
tion indicated that interim on-site treatment may not be adequate. EPA
required the (Feb 1980) HUD/Developer to provide additional information
on the proposed septic tanks and the area's ground water conditions. HUD
responded (May 1980) that the project description was to be changed and
EPA should terminate its preliminary review of the project. A-95 has
indicated (Sept 1980) that it received a new application for Plainview and
will be forwarding it to EPA.
199
-------
-2-
(5) Riverhead Scavenger Waste Facility (EPA),Riverhead This was a
referral from the A-95 agency. L.I. - The propose, project was for the
design and construction of a treatment facility for scavenger wastes
(septage pump outs) utilizing the Purifax Treatment Process. Status -
As a result of an "in house" meeting held among the Environmental Impacts
Branch, New York Water Programs Branch and Water Supply Branch, the project
will be modified so as to protect the aquifer. The preliminary review
was suspended pending receipt of an addendum to the facility plan.
(6) Norwich-Gate Housing Project, East Norwich, LI (HUD) - This
project was referred to EPA by the A-95 Agency. The developer wants
to build 348 housing units (70 will be low income units) on 28-76 acres.
The project planned to tie into the Oyster Bay Sewer District. Discus-
sions between the EPA-Water Supply Branch and NY Water Programs Branch
broughtout the fact that the Oyster Bay Sewage Treatment Plant is operating
at 33% above design capacity. This excess capacity has not caused any
problems, however, the additional flow from the proposed housing project
might cause the Oyster Bay Facility to exceed its permit limitations. WSB
approved the proposed project under the SSAP but referred it to the Water
Permits Branch because of the potential over-loading of the Oyster Bay
Facility. WPB subsequently approved the Housing Project tie into the
Sewage District.
(7) Thorn Wood Estates Housing Project Babylon, LI (HUD) - This
project was referred to EPA by the A-95 Agency. The developer wants to
build 125 housing units on 5 acres. The project will use septic tanks
to treat its waste. The preliminary application did not have any environ-
mental data, therefore, EPA has requested the developer to provide EPA
with the pertiment information.
o Buried Valley Assessments by EPA
(1) Access Taxiway and Maintenance Area, Morrestown Municipal Airport
(FFA) - Project was referred to EPA by FAA. The project consisted of
building an access taxiway to an existing runway and extending a main-
tenance area. The project will not have any impact on the ground water
in the area because its size will not be of any great significance. EPA
has cleared this project.
(2) Upper Passaic Facility Plan (EPA)- Project was referred, internally
to WSB. The project consists of building sewer lines and up-grading an
existing facility. The draft - EIS has been issued but it is being revised.
It will address all the ground water related issues. WSB does not envision
any problem with this project and it should be cleared when the revised
draft - EIS is issued.
2 00
-------
-3-
(3) Rockaway Valley Facility Plan (EPA) - Project was internally
referred to WSB. The project consists of extending sewer lines and up-
grading an existing facility. The draft - EIS has not been issued yet
but WSB has been working closely with NJ Water Programs Branch on the
project. WSB does not envision any problem with this project and it
should be cleared when the draft - EIS is issued.
(4) Interstate Route 78 (FHWA) - This project was referred to EPA
by the Federal Highway Administration. This project is located near the
southwestern boundary of the Buried Valley Aquifer. Preliminary review
of the preliminary final - EIS indicated that there wouldn't be a problem
with the sole source area. However, the proposed alignment of 1-78 would
take the roadway near an existing well field. This close proximity could
contaminate the ground water. WSB commented on this fact and asked FHWA
to do a detail assessment on potential contamination threat to the well
field.
(5) Triborough Road/Eisenhower Parkway Project (FHWA). The project's
geology report was referred to EPA by the FHWA's consulting firm for the
project. Prior to beginning work on a draft EIS for this project and a
second roadway in the area, the consulting firm requested the information
that would be necessary to develop a ground water assessment for the two
projects. EPA supplied the consulting firm with this information. EPA
expects to review the draft - EIS report later this year.
801
-------
SC-Projected Work and Resource
Planning Form for FY81
~~~~ m~-. •*•r - • a, i ' ")i; ur j" .'
i- —vj.'j-jr^,,'n'-'.x.'.llhii litotl
WHAT is THE PROJECTED RESOURCE COMMITMENT FOR
SOLE SOURCE IN REGION II (FY8D?
802
-------
FY 81 WORK AND RESOURCE PLANNING FORM
SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER PROGRAM
OCT
1980
ANNED
AM ACTIVITY
fPPA)
IF ACTIONS
N WITH RELA-
ITO PETITION:
DESIGNATIONS
see defini-
tions on
next page)
f PROGRAM
JTED
1VITIES
!see defin.
next page)
IF PROJECT
HEWS
(see defin.
next page)
FULL
IME EQUIV.
(FTE)
WORK-YEAR
.5/ design-
ation
1.0 *
.05/design
ation
0.2
.I/design-
ation
0.25
1.45
START
LEVEL
9-30-80
1
1
0
1
i 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
4
7
MILESTONES
12-31-80
1
2
1
_
4
6
1
1
-
-
-
-
8
4
3
_
-
7
19
3-31-81
2
-
-
2
j
1
-
6
-
-
7
4
4
-
_
-
8
17
6-30-81
-
1
1
2
1
-
-
-
—
1
4
3
1
—
-
-
8
11
END
9-30-81
1
1
1
3
-
—
1
~
"
1
5
4
1
~
"
—
10
IA
\
B
C
C
L
E
F
f
AQUIFER
SUBTOTAL
GENERAL
LI
BV
B/Q
C
R
UR
SUBTOTAL
LI
BV
B/Q
C
R
UR
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
AQUIFERS -
LI - Long Island
BV - Buried Valley
B/Q - Brooklyn/Queens
C - Coastal Plain
R _ Ridgewood
UR - Upper Rockaway
S03
* -significant resource (0.5 FTE) has
already been committed to two of
three petitioned areas; therefore,
we only anticipate a remaining 1.0
FTE commitment for FY 81
-------
FY 81 WORK AND RESOURCE PLANNING FORM (continue)
Definitions:
Action
Includes the review of petitions, preparation
of background document, preparation of designation
package, briefing of Division Director and RA, etc,
Program related
activities
Includes Public Meetings on program operation
package (includes all preparation and materials for
distribution), develop new or revise existing
Memoranda of Understanding, criteria refinement
for project review, etc.
Project reviews
- Project review and comment preparation
Aquifers designated in Region II (9-30-80)
Aquifer designations expected Quarter - 1
Quarter - 3
Total aquifers expected to be designated
Total in Region II by (9-30-81)
1
1
2
4
Resource Needs were projected on the basis of the following estimators:
(support data for FY81 Work and Planning Form)
LI -
o housing referrals
o sewers
o UDAG/CDBG
o highways
BV -
o housing
o sewers
o UDAG/CDBG
o highways
B/Q -
o UDAG/CDBG
1 project/quarter
1 project/quarter
12/year
I/year
I/quarter
2/year
4/year
4/year
204
I/quarter
-------
------- |