Unl*d Slate*
Environmental Pn
Agency
OfTlotof
Gfround-Water Protection
Washington, D.C. 20460
Office of Information
R»»ouroM KhnagwTMnt
WMhlngton, D.C. 20460
May 1087
Water
&EPA
Appendices:
Ground - Water Data
Requirements Analysis
-------
GROUND-WATER DATA REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
APPENDICES
FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
This document was prepared as the result of a joint
effort between the Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Ground-Water Protection, Marian Ml ay,
Director, and the Office of Information Resources
Management, Edward J. Hanley, Director. Key
contributors to this effort include:
Office of Ground-Water Protection
Norbert Dee
Caryle Miller
Office of Information Resources Management
Thomas E. Kern
Gordon Schisler
Constance Tasker
Contract support was provided under GSA contract
GS-OOK-85AFD-2777, T^sk W6800-035.
May 1987
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
The appendices of the Ground-Water Data Requirements Analysis provide the
basis of the analysis and foundation for the findings, recommendations, and
conclusions of this study. The detail background and source material provided
is the result of a thorough document review and the conduct of over 300
structured interviews with EPA Headquarters, Regions, state governments, local
governments and other federal organizations. The appendices for the study are
listed and described below.
A. INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS ... presents a list
of study interviewees.
B. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS ... provides a
bibilography of the documents reviewed for the study.
C. LIST OF KEY GROUND-WATER DATA ELEMENTS ... displays the list of key
ground-water data elements and includes those elements most frequently
mentioned by program managers and field personnel as useful in supporting
program decisions.
D. USE OF GROUND-WATER DATA ELEMENTS BY PROGRAM ... provides a chart for
each major EPA program which details the type of data required and its
specific application.
E. KEY DECISIONS THAT REQUIRE GROUND-WATER DATA ... identifys the key
decisions EPA and states make that require ground-water data. For each
program this appendix provides a brief description of the program
decision(s), a data flow chart and the associated information management
requirements needed in support of the decision.
F. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT GROUND-WATER DATA MANAGEMENT ISSUES BY
PROGRAM ... describes, in a convenient question and answer format, the
need for ground-water data for each major EPA program.
G. DATA REQUIREMENTS CASE STUDIES ... provides two detailed case studies
which document the use of ground-water data required to make a major
program decision.
-------
Appendix A -
Interviewees For Ground-Water Requirements Analysis
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Francoise Brasier
Mike Callahan
Stuart Cohen
Sam Conger
Tom Dixon
Brendan Doyle
Catherine Eiden
James Falco
Dave Fege
Mike Flynn
Duane Geuder
Loren Hall
Penny Hansen
Bill Hanson
Ron Hoffer
Russ Kinnerson
Arnold Kuzmack
Fred Lindsey
A.W. Marks
Vernon Myers
Annette Nold
Robert Raucher
Peter Truitt
Burnell Vincent
EPA Headquarters
Office of Drinking Water
Office of Toxic Substances
Office of Pesticide Programs
Office of Information Resources Management
Office of Pesticide Programs
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Office of Pesticide Programs
Office of Environmental Processes and Effects
Research
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Toxic Substances
Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Ground-water Protection
Office of Toxic Substances
Office of Drinking Water
Office of Environmental Engineering and
Technology
Office of Drinking Water
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Toxic Substances
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Office of Management Systems and Evaluation
Office of Solid waste and Emergency Response
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Donn Viviani Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Karen Wardzinski Office of General Counsel
Cheryl Wasserman Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
Louise Wise Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Robert Wolcott Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Region I (Boston)
Ken Blumberg
Joel Blumstein
Greg Charest
David Chin
Steve Harrington
Doug Heath
Peter Karalekas
Harold Kazmaier
Maggie Leshen
Gerry Levy
Mike MacDougal
Ethan Mascoop
Joe DeCola
Mike Richardi
Bruce Rosinoff
Michael Thomas
Region III (Philadelphia)
Peter Schual
Region IV (Atlanta)
Jim Bloom
Craig Campbell
George Collins
Daylor Connor
EPA Regions and Labs
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Office of Regional Counsel
Water Management Division
Water Management Division
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Water Management Division
Water Management Division
Air Management Division
Waste Management Division
Air Management Division
Management and Planning Division
Management and Planning Division
Water Management Division
Management and Planning Division
Water Management Division
Office of Regional Counsel
Hazardous Waste Management Division
Water Management Division
Office of General Counsel
Environmental Services Division
Office of Policy and Management
A-3
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Randall Davis
Jesse Dooley
Dave Engle
Curt Fehn
Rita Ford
Debbie Godfrey
George Harlow
Will Holsomback
Bob Howard
John Mann
Ron McCullick
Jim Patrick
Gil Wallace
Kent Williams
Region V (Chicago)
Dorothy Ademier
Gilbert Alvarez
Ihsan Eler
Roger Field
Bill Franz
Steven Goranson
Kathy Guerra
Bill Melville
John Peterson
Pranas Pranckevicius
Phyllis Reed
Office of Policy and Management
Office of Policy and Management
Office of General Counsel
NPDES Program
RCRA Program
Drinking Water Program
RCRA Program
Environmental Services Division
Environmental Assessment Branch
Superfund Program
Ground-water Section
NPDES Program
NPDES Program
Air, Pesticides and Toxic Management Division
Office of Regional Counsel
Water Division
Environmental Services Division
Office of Regional Counsel
Environmental Assessment Group
Environmental Services Division
Environmental Assessment Group
Environmental Services Division
Underground Injection Control Program
Great Lakes National Program Office
Environmental Services Division
A-4
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Stuart Ross
Robert Schaeffer
Dave Segal
J.P. Singh
Katherine Stone
Hung Iran
Dave Yeskis
Region VII (Kansas City)
Diana Bailey
Norm Crisp
Robert Dona
Bob Fenemore
Gerald Force
Kerry Herndon
Paul Hirth
Tom Holloway
Angela Ludwig
Jacquelyn Schlachter
Bob Steiert
Dan Vallero
Jane Werholtz
Steve Wilhelm
Glenn Yeager
STORET Regional Representitive
Office of Regional Counsel
RCRA and Superfund Programs Office
Environmental Services Division
Environmental Services Division
RCRA and Superfund Programs Office
RCRA and Superfund Programs Office
Waste Management Division
Environmental Services Division
Environmental Services Division
Air and Toxics Division
Water Management Division
Waste Management Division
Administrative and Information
Branch
Environmental Services Division
Water Management Division
Water Management Division
Water Management Division
Program Integration Branch
Office of Regional Counsel
Waste Management Division
Environmental Review Branch
Management
A-5
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Region IX (San Francisco)
Paul Blais
John Cooper
Kent Kitchlngman
Nate Lau
Kathleen Shimmin
Terry Stumph
Bill Thurston
Barbara Walsh
Bill Wilson
Eric Wilson
Laura Yoshii
Region X (Seattle)
David Dabroski
Anita Frankel
Dave Heineck
Barbara Littler
Jerry Opatz
Jim Peterson
Leslie Sacha
Harold Scott
Chuck Shenk
Clark Smith
Randy Smith
Dan Steinborn
Fred Wolf
Toxics and Waste Management Division
Office of Regional Counsel
Office of Program Management
Waste Management Division
Toxics and Waste Management Division
Office of Program Management
Waste Management Division
Toxics and Waste Management Division
Toxics and Waste Management Division
Water Management Division
Toxics and Waste Management Division
Regional Counsel
Toxics and Pesticides
Regional Counsel
Regional Counsel
Drinking Water and UIC Programs
Data Systems
Toxics and Pesticides
Drinking Water and UIC Programs
Toxics and Pesticides
EIS and Federal Facilities
RCRA and Superfund
EIS and Federal Facilities
Environmental Services Division
A-6
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Larry Worley
Drinking Water and UIC Programs
Las Vegas Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory
Thomas Mace
Gene Meier
J. Gareth Pearson
Ann Pitchford
Ross Plumb
Lockheed Engineering and Management Services
Company
Office of Research and Development
Office of Research and Development
Office of Research and Development
Lockheed Engineering and Management Services
Company
A-7
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Arizona
Charles Graf
Rob Genualdi
Arthur Hellerud
Edwin Swanson
California
Jeffrey Barnickol
Kit Custis
Marilu Habel
Dawn Lieginger
Susan Nicasia
Bob Reid
Edwin Ritchie
David Storm
John Youngerman
Connecticut
Ray Jarema
Jim Murphy
Ed Parker
Elsie Patton
Bob Smith
Hugo Thomas
States
Arizona Department of Health Services
Arizona Department of Water Resources
Arizona Department of Health Services
Arizona Department of Health Services
California State Water Resources Control Board
California State Water Resources Control Board
California Department of Conservation
California Department of Health Services
California Department of Food and Agriculture
California Department of Conservation
California Department of Water Resources
California Department of Health Services
California State Water Resources Control Board
Connecticut Department of Health services
Department of Environment
Connecticut
Protection
Connecticut
Protection
Connecticut
Protection
Connecticut
Protection
Connecticut
Protection
Department of Environment
Department of Environment
Department of Environment
Department of Environment
A-8
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Ronald Waghorn
Georgia
Ken Davis
Ted Jackson
Bill Mason
Jim Setser
Florida
Julie Baker
Bill Brandt
Ed Gancher
Jim Labowski
Carl Pfaffenberger
Joe Stillwell
Doug Yoder
Illinois
Ross Brower
Mary Burns
Louallyn Byus
Robert Clarke
Rick Cobb
Rob Crumb
Wendy Garrision
Connecticut
Protection
Department of Environment
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Dade County Division of
Management
Dade County Division of
Management
Dade County Division of
Management
Dade County Division of
Management
Dade County Division of
Management
Dade County Division of
Management
Dade County Division of
Management
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Resources
Resources
Resources
Resources
Resources
Resources
Resources
Illinois State Geologic Survey
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois State Geologic Survey
Illinois State Public Water Survey
A-9
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Mark Haney
Anita Johnson
Jim Kirk
Christina Komadina
Monte Nienkerk
John Schmidt
Susan Schock
J. Stephen Van Hook
Massachusetts
Boyd Allen
Dodi Brownlee
Lynn Chappel
Jeff Charmann
Roy Crystal
Yvette DePeiza
James Doucette
Ken Hague
Steve Johnson
Jim O'Brien
Steve Roy
Rose Stanley
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois State Public Water Survey
Illinois State Public Water Survey
Illinois State Public Water Survey
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Illinois State Public Water Survey
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Massachusetts Department of
Quality Engineering
Massachusetts Department of
Quality Engineering
Massachusetts Department of
Quality Engineering
Massachusetts Department of
Quality Engineering
Massachusetts Department of
Quality Engineering
Massachusetts Department of
Quality Engineering
Massachusetts Department of
Quality Engineering
Massachusetts Department of
Quality Engineering
Massachusetts Department of
Quality Engineering
Massachusetts Department of
Quality Engineering
Massachusetts Department of
Quality Engineering
Massachusetts Department of
Quality Engineering
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
Environmental
A-10
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Minnesota
Calvin Alexander
Patricia Bloomgren
Bruce Blanon
Paul Book
Linda Bruemmer
Greg Buzicky
Dick Clark
Tom Clark
Gary Englund
Nile Fellows
Joe Gibson
Paul Gondreault
Roman Kanivetsky
Tom Klasius
Patrick Mader
Susanne Maeder
Jim Nye
Gary Oberts
Frank Patco
Dave Patterson
Steven Ring
Gretchen Sabel
Susan Schreifels
Ron Thompson
Tim Wahl
University of Minnesota
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Geologic Survey
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Geologic Survey
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota State Planning Agency
Minnesota Department of Health
Metro Council
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Geologic Survey
A-ll
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Orbbie Webber
Mike Wiltfang
Missouri
Gregory Easson
John Howl and
Stan Jorgenson
Cathy Primm
Nebraska
Don Hood
New Jersey
Bob Berg
Terry Beym
Gail Carter
Lisa Diaz
Paul Galek
Carol Graff
Andrew Hildick-Smith
Dirk Hoffman
Vincent Manaco
Georgia Moreno
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Nemaha Natural Resources District
New Jersey
Protection
New Jersey
Protection
New Jersey
Protection
New Jersey
Protection
New Jersey
Protection
New Jersey
Protection
New Jersey
Protection
New Jersey
Protection
New Jersey
Protection
New Jersey
Protection
Department of Environmental
Department of Environmental
Department of Environmental
Department of Environmental
Department of Environmental
Department of Environmental
Department of Environmental
Department of Environmental
Department of Environmental
Department of Environmental
A-12
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
New York
Ron Green
John (Dave) Wirenius
South Carolina
Jim Ferguson
Barry Langley
Texas
Richard Anderson
Bernard Baker
Ron Berry
Tom Berkhower
Clyde Bohmfalk
Bruce Fink
Thomas Fox
Russ Kimble
Van Kozak
Charles Maddox
Sam McCulloch
Leonard Mohrmann
Tom Roth
Greg Tripple
Jim Walker
John Wilson
Suffolk County Department of Health
Suffolk County Department of Health
South Carolina Department
Environmental Control
South Carolina Department
Environmental Control
of Health and
of Health and
Texas Water Commission
Texas Water Development Board
Texas Water Commission
Texas Water Commission
Texas Water Commission
Texas Water Commission
Edwards Underground Water District
Texas Water Commission
Texas Department of Agriculture
Texas Department of Public Health
Texas Natural Resources Information Staff
Systems Central
Texas Department of Health
Texas Water Commission
Texas Water Commission
Texas Railroad Commission
Texas Water Commission
A-13
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Utah
Robert Barnes
Mack Croft
Loren Morton
Virginia
Elizabeth Campbell
Thomas Gray
Evans Massie
Jerry Samford
P.J. Smith
Jan Zentmeyer
Washington
John Aden
Barbara Carey
Pam Covey
Mike Gallagher
Jim Griffith
Bob James
Peggy Johnson
Jim Knudson
Department of Health
Department of Health
Department of Health
Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and
Energy
Virginia Department of Health
Virginia Department of Health
Virginia Department of Health
Virginia Water Control Board
Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and
Energy
Washington Department of Social and Health
Services, Public Water Supply Program
Washington Department of Ecology, Water Quality
Investigation
Washington State Department of Ecology,
Manchester Laboratory
Washington Department of Ecology, Superfund
Program
Washington Department of Ecology, UIC Program
Washington Department of Ecology, Water Quality
Investigation
Washington Department of Social and Health
Services, Public Water Supply Program
Washington Department of Ecology, Solid Waste
Section
A-14
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Dave Peeler
Beth Rowan
Derek Sandison
Melanie Saunders
Linton Wildrick
Washington Department of Ecology, Water
Resources/Ground-Water Management Areas
Washington Department of Ecology, Water Quality
Management and Evaluation
Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, Water
Resources and Chemical/Physical Hazards
Washington Department of Ecology, Superfund
Program
Washington Department of Ecology, Water
Resources/Ground-Water Management Areas
A-15
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Other
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Ed Kaplan
Ann Meinhold
NASA
Tom Cheng
Billie Edwards
Gary Irish
Ronnie Pearson
Bruce Spriering
Dr. Charles Whitehurst
National Aeronautics Space Technological
Laboratories
National Aeronautics Space Technological
Laboratories
Lockheed Engineering and Management Services
Company
National Aeronautics Space Technological
Laboratories
National Aeronautics Space Technological
Laboratories
National Aeronautics Space Technological
Laboratories
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Tom Nicholson
Mike "' ier
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and
Safeguards
Suffolk County (New York State) Water Authority
Bob Dassler
Pat Dugan
Ronald Green
Bill Schickler
John Stonebanks
David Wirenius
Suffolk County Water Authority
Suffolk County Water Authority
Department of Health Services
Suffolk County Water Authority
Suffolk County Water Authority
Suffolk County Department of Health
Services
A-16
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
U.S. Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
Richard Anderson
Dr. John Yu
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
John Bauer Ground-water and Solid Waste Branch
Beth Martin Ground-water Monitoring Program
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency
Andrew Anderson
Wayne Bushel!
Lloyd Holly
Robert Metzger
Gregory Parker
Ron Roberts
Allen W. Shatto
Warren Wortman
U.S. Geologic Survey
Headquarters (Reston, VA)
Bob Laney
Don Leifeste
Art Putnam
Steve Ragone
Jim Schornich
Owen Williams
Illinois
Cathy Fitzgerald
Barbara Ryan
A-17
-------
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEWEES FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
Marvin Cheryl
Dave Voelker
Minnesota
Don Albin
Lee Trotta
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Dennis Erinakes
Jim Hyland
A-18
-------
Appendix B -
Documents Reviewed For Ground-Water Requirements Analysis
-------
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED FOR GROUND-WATER REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS
1) William F. McTernan, Draft Users Manual Data Sources and Select
Applications for Ground-Water Quality Management, AAAS/EPA
Environmental Sciences and Engineering Fellow, Summer 1985
2) OGWP, A Ground-Water Monitoring Strategy for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. (Draft) November 1985
3) Region 5, Water Division, A Manual for Evaluating Predicted and Actual
Impacts of Construction Grants Projects,(AppendixA important),
January 1985
4) OGWP, Resource Document for the Ground-Water Strategy Workshop
5) NASA Earth Resources Laboratory, Agricultural Land Cover Mapping in
the Context of a Geographically Referenced Digital Information System,
March 1982
6) Battelle, Application of Ground-Water Modeling Technology for
Evaluation of Remedial Action Altenatives Western Processing Site,
Kent, Washington, (Draft) Prepared for ORD, September 1984
7) Memo Ground-Water Data Management, April 1, 1985
8) Brookhaven National Laboratory, Guidebook for the Assembly and Use of
Diverse Ground-Water Data, (Draft) Prepared for ORD, April 1985
9) RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document,
(Draft)
10) DiNivo and Jaffe, Local Ground-Water Protection
11) Joe Franzmathes, Memo: Summary of January 8 and 9 Data Meeting,
January 15, 1986
12) STORET Manual. (Draft)
13) ODW, Analysis of Ground-Water Monitoring Strategies and Programs,
December 1984
14) Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, Design of a
Statewide Ground-Water Monitoring Network for Illinois, December 1984
15) Proceedings of Data Management Workshop Region V, October 29-30, 1985
16) Lee Braem, Region 5, Memo; Ground Water Data Management; Summary of
State Activities, May 10, 1984
B-l
-------
17) Bob Hilton, Region 5, Minutes for the Data Base Management Work Group
Region 5, Region 5 Ground Water Data Management Survey: General and
Program Specific Findings, December 1984
Recommendations for a Region 5 Ground Water Data Management System
18) William Melville, Region 5, Memo: Data Management Activities, May 1,
1985
19) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Requirements Analysis and
Conceptual Design for the Intergrated Ground Water Information System
of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, August 30, 1985
20) Brookhaven National Laboratory, Assessing Aquifer Impacts from Diverse
Surveillance Data. (GIS Demonstration), December 10, 1984
21) EPA, Ground-Water Data Management, (Flyer on STORE!), August 1985
22) Wyoming Water Research Center, WRDS: A User's Guide to the Water
Resources Data System. September 1984
?3) OPTS, Graphical Exposure and Modelling System (GEMS) User's Guide.
June 25, 1984
24) USGS, GIRAS: A Geographic Info Retrieval and Analysis System for
Handling Land Use and Land Cover Data, 1977
25) USGS, A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with
Remote Sensor Data, 1976
26) ESRI Geographic Information Software Descriptions
27) US Army Corps of Engineers & Soil Conservation Service, An Interactive
Soils Information System Users Manual, September 1983
28) New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, The Integrated
Ground-Water Monitoring Strategy Evaluation Document; Existing Ground
Water Data Base Systems. January 1983 (2 parts)
29) HWGWTF, Ground-Water Data Management, (2 parts) December 1985
30) STORET On-Line Documentation System PGM=LOC
31) STORET On-Line Documentation System PGM=INDEX
32) STORET, Announcing STORET to SAS
33) STORET On-Line Documentation System FILE FORMATS
34) STORET On-Line Documentation System PGM=INDEX
35) STORET; EPA's Computerized Water Quality Data Base (Flyer)
36) STORET User Handbook; Part 0V Overview
B-2
-------
37) STORE! User Handbook; Part WQ Water Quality File
38) Manager's Guide to STORET
39) HWDMS: Operations Manual for the December PDP 11/70, November 1985
40) HWDMS, Data Base Specification (Draft)
41) Hazardous Waste Data Management System Functional Requirements Manual
Vol 1
42) HWDMS, System Subsystem Manual (Draft)
43) HWDMS, Data Dictionary (Computer Printout)
44) STORET; Water Quality Control Information System
45) STORET On-Line Documentation System REACH RETRIEVAL
46) OGWP, Ground-Water Protection Strategy, August 1984
47) EPA Journal Reprint, Protecting Ground Water; The Hidden Resource,
August 1984
48) OGWP, Selected State and Territory Ground-Water Classification
Systems. May 1985
49) OPA, Protecting Our Ground Water, (Flyer) September 1985
50) OGWP, A Ground Water Monitoring Strategy for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, (draft) September 1985
51) The Conservation Foundation, America's Water: Current Trends and
Emerging Issues, 1984
52) HWDMS User's Manual, Version 6.5
53) HWDMS Screen Entry Manual. Version 6.5
54) Environment Reporter, EPA Proposed Standards Under RCRA to Control
Tanks for Storage, Treatment of Hazardous Waste. 7/12/85
55) Notheast-Midwest Senate Coalition, Gasoline and Ground-Water
Contamination, July 1985
56) Groundwater Technology, Hydrocarbon Contamination of Ground Water;
Assessment and Abatement. (Senate Hearings) March 1984
57) Ground-Water Contamination Hearings, (Senate) November 1983
58) HWDMS Training Manual. Version 6.5
59) TSCA Ground-Water Protection Strategy. October 25, 1985
B-3
-------
60) RCRA Groundwater Enforcement Strategy. July 22, 1985
61) Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1985 and Other Pending
Ground-Water Legislation, (Folder of materials)
62) Pierce County, Washington, Data Management System
63) Region V, Ground-Water Data Management Questionnaire
64) Region III, Criteria Used for Developing a State Ground Water
Management System as Developed at the Groung Water Data Management
Workshop, February 27-28, 1986
65) 06WP, Guidance for FY 1986 State Ground-Water Grant Work Programs, May
1985
66) OGWP, Guidance for FY 1987 State Ground-Water Grant Work Programs,
March 1986
67) NATICH Data Base Users Guide for Data Viewing, September 1985
68) Dames & Moore, WATDAT; Groundwater Data Management System, Version 2.0
69) OGWP, Proceedings of a National Symposium on Institutional
Coordination for Ground Water Pollution Control, October 21-22, 1985
70) Richard Johnson, Notes on Conference: Local Goverment Options for
Ground Water Pollution Control, January 16-17, 1986
71) Miscellaneous Background Readings on Ground Water, (Folder of Papers
from Tom Kern)
72) USGS, Basic Ground-Water Hydrology, 1983
73) USGS, A Primer on Ground Water. 1963
74) USGS, Application of Surface Geophysics to Ground-Water
Investigations, 1984
75) USGS, Ground-Water Regions of the United States, 1984
76) USGS, A Data-Magement System for Use in Ground-Water Modeling and
Resource Evaluation, March 1984
77) USGS, An Assessment of the Collection and Analysis of Hydologic Data
by Private Contractors for the USGS
78) USGS, Operation of Hydrologic Data Collection Stations by the U.S.
Geologic Survey in 1983. 1983
79) USGS, Highlights of the 1983 Federal-State Cooperative Water Resources
Program. 1983
B-4
-------
80) USGS, A Statistical Summary of Data from the U.S. Geologic Survey's
National Water Quality Networks, June 1983
81) USGS, U.S. Geologic Survey Toxic Waste -- Ground-Water Contamination
Program -- Fiscal Year 1983, 1984
82) WWJ, Well Logs, May 1986
83) Steven Wassersug, Region 3, Memo: OSWER Information Management
Steering Committee Concerns Regarding STORE! Water Quality Data
System, (Series of Memos) May 1986
84) "State Regulations and Monitoring Activities"
85) Marian Ml ay, Memo, Implementation of the Ground-Water Provisions of
the SDWA. June 24, 1986 (Includes Fact Sheet and Program Development
Plan for the SDWA Admendments of 1986)
86) Office of the Comptroller, SDWA: Program Offices' Requests and PC
Recommendations (briefing)
87) Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986
B-5
-------
DOCUMENTS FROM FIELD INTERVIEWS
Arizona
• Ground-Water Forms
• Groundwater STORET Parameters and their Usage
• Status of Arizona's Water Quality: Surface Water and Groundwater,
March 26, 1986
• Using the Ground Water Site Inventory File On-Line System, January 23,
1984
• Water Quality Standards for Waters of the State
• Iterim Water Quality Criteria: Carcinogenic Volatile Organic Chemicals
and Pesticides
• Pesticides with Groundwater Pollution Potential in Arizona, May 31,
1982
• State of Arizona Five-Year Water Quality Monitoring Stategy Water Year
1984-88
• Oak Creek Water Quality Data Summary and Intensive Survey Design
• State of Arizona Groundwater Quality Protection Permit Program
U.S. Army
• USAEHA System Outputs
• USAEHA Groundwater monitoring program sample chain of custody form
• USAEHA groundwater sampling field data logsheet form
• USAEHA Mission Description
• USAEHA Comments on the Draft Ground-Water Technical Enfocement
Guidance Document
• USATHAMA Briefing Installation Restoration Program
• USATHAMA Installation Restoration Data Management User's Guide --
Version 85.6; Section 3, Alphabetical Definition by Field
B-6
-------
Brooks AFB
• GAO, Hazardous Waste; Status of Air Force's Installation Restoration
Program, December 1985
• Data Fields (Computer Printout)
• Information Management System (IRPIMS), Volume 1. Presurvey Report,
March 1985
0 Information Management System (IRPIMS), Volume 2. Appendices, March
1985
• Information Management System (IRPIMS), Volume 1. System Requirements,
Description, and Specifications, February 27, 1986
• Information Management System (IRPIMS), Volume 4. Standard Operating
Procedures, Guidelines, and Data Collection and Reporting
Methodologies, February 24, 1986
California
• Department of Water Resources, Water Well Drillers Report (Form)
• Some Specific Potential Uses of the Proposed CALIFORNIA GROUND WATER
PROGRAM INFORMATION DIRECTORY as Suggested by Potential Users
• California Underground Storage Tank Regulations, August 1985
• Agriculture Pesticide Residues in California Well Water: Development
and Summary of a Well Inventory Data Base for Non-Point Sources, July
1985
• Outputs form the Water Data Information System, Department of Water
Resources
Connecticut
• Connecticut Solid and Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Siting Policy
October 1981
• Protecting Connecticut's Groundwater; A Guide to Groundwater
Protection for Local Officials
• Connecticut Water Quality Monitoring Requirements (Parameters,
Sampling Location and Frequency for Drinking Water Contaminants)
• List of Laboratories in Connecticut Certified for Drinking Water
Analysis on a Fee for Service Basis (Certification for Pesticides
VOC's, EDB and Radiation Included)
f Pamphlet: Protection Our Groundwater,, What Every Community can Do
B-7
-------
o Proposed Use of ARC/INFO in Pilot Areas of Connecticut
Florida
• Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program Dade Co. Florida
• Dade County DERM Lab Water Projects List
• Ground and Surface Water Monitoring Programs 1981, Dade County Dept.
of Environmental Resources Management
• Water Monitoring Program for the Northwest Wellfield (Wellfield
Protection Program)
• Ojective of Dade County Groundwater Monitoring Network Including
Parameters Sampled, Well Inventory Data Elements and Sample Protocol
Data Elements
« Computer Code Values and Descriptions for Groundwater Monitoring
Network
U.S. Geological Survey
Illinois Field Office
• Fact Sheets
NAWDEX: Key to Finding Water Data
USGS Groundwater Data Collection Form: Site Schedule
National Water-Use Information Program
Toxic Waste Ground-water Contamination
Regional Aquifer Systems of the United States
Water-Data Program
Georgia
• A Ground Water Management Plan for Georgia
• Laboratory Analysis Sheet
• Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Rules and Regulations for
Groundwater Use
Illinois
• Underground Water in Illinois
0 Water Resource Activities in Illinois, 1985
• Fields in Illinois Geologic Survey Basic Well Data File
• Illinois Water Inventory Program File Format B-8
-------
• Overview of the Illinois State Water Survey and Computer Systems
• Description of Aquifer Coding
• Well Location Template
• Well Location Sample Computer Printout
• Overview of Illinois SAFE Computer System
• 111 Division of Public Water Supplies, Facility Inventory and
Compliance System Data Collection Form
• IEPA Organization Chart
• IEPA, Div of Land Pollution Control (RCRA): Instructions for
Completing Chemical Analysis Forms
• Illinois Water Inventory Program 1985 Questionnaire
Las Vegas Lab
• Data Entry Sheets
• Stanley P. Kovell, The Role of the Environmental Protection Agency's
Contract Laboratory Program in Analytical Methods Evaluation and
Validation
• Moore & Pearson, Quality Assurance Support for the Superfund Contract
Laboratory Program
0 Data Fields for the Ground-Water Data Base
Massachusetts
• Cape Cod Groundwater Management Pilot Study: Initial Inventory of
Existing State Groundwater-Related Automated Data Bases and
Unautomated Files - "Thumbnail Sketches"
• Organization Chart of the Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs
Minnesota
• Preliminary Design of the Integrated Ground Water Information System
(IGWIS) State of MN Pollution Control Agency
• Minn/St. Paul Metropolitan Council Protection of the Ground water
Resource Feb. '85: Problem Statement
B-9
-------
• Metropolitan Development Guide: Water Resources Management, Part 3,
Water Availability and Use, Feb 27, 1986
• Minn Dept. of Health Ground-Water Monitoring-General Inventory Form
• MN/DOH Ground-Water Monitoring VOC Sample/Analysis Report Form
• MN/DOT Peizo Field Sheet (Data Collection Form)
• MN/DOT Water Quality Unit Lab Analysis Data Collection Form
• Ground Water in Minnesota. A User's Guide to Understanding
Minnesota's Ground Water Resource
• Minnesota Ground Water Resources: National Water Summary
• Public Water Resources: Compilation of State Laws
• Observation Well Data Summary: Water Year '83, Region 4
• File Structure for Well Construction, Location and Hydrogeologic
Information
• Groundwater — Wisconsin's Buried Treasure
Missouri
• An Act Relating to the Regulation of Water Wells
• Groundwater Protection Strategy Conceptual Data Base Design
• Groundwater Protection Stategy: Geographic Information System for
Missouri
Nebraska
• New Legislation
• Local Finance and Policy for Ground Water Protection
• Water Management Plan: Groundwater...Surface Water
New Jersey
• Organization Chart
NASA
Development of Geographic Information Data Base for Pitkin County,
Colorado -- GIS Applications
B-10
-------
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
t Organization Chart
• Briefing Package Prepared for the Interview
Office of Drinking Water
0 Sample Outputs from FERDS
• UIC Reporting Form
Office of Pesticide Programs
• Monitoring Ground Water for Pesticides in the USA, 1986
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
• Ground Water and Drinking Water Indicators
Office of Toxic Substances
• AT123D: Analytical Transient One-, Two-, and Three-Dimensional
Simulation of Waste Transport in the Aquifer System, March 1981
• Summary of GEMS New Capabilities, January 8, 1986
• SESOIL: A Seasonal Soil Compartment Model, May 1984
Region 1
• Certification of State Laboratories in Region 1
Region 5
• Underground Injection Control Permit for Class I Injection Wells
• Region 5 UIC Inventory: Sample PC Application Program Output
• Drinking Water Program Data Collection Form for Region 5 VOC Data Base
Region 4
• Reorganization Proposal for Region 4's Water Management Division
B-ll
-------
Region 7
• Regionwide Issues
• Ground Water Management Coordination System
RCRA/HHGWTF
• Guidance for Issuing Permits to Facilities required to Analyze Ground
Water for Appendix VIII Constituents
• Evaluation of the RCRA Subpart F Ground-Water Monitoring Program,
January 1986
• Workstatement, Hazardous Waste Groundwater Task Force Project, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, December 23, 1985
• Summary Report on RCRA Activities -- September 1985
Soil Conservation Service
• Geologic Investigation Process, May 30, 1984
• Engineering Geology
South Carolina
• Organization Chart
• Water Classification and Standards; Classified Waters
Suffolk County
• Data Bases and Fields (Computer Printout)
• Suffolk County Water Authority 1985 Annual Report
Superfund
• Excerpts from an RI/FS
Texas
t Texan Water Development Baord, Groundwater Monitoring System Files
(File Descriptions and Key Fields Provided)
B-12
-------
• Underground Injection Control Technical Assistance Manual
t Underground Injection Operations in Texas
• UIC Data Types: Example Computer Output from TX UIC System
• Water Well Driller Log Report Data Collection Form
• Overview of TX Ground Water Protection and Data Management
• Groundwater Data Interface File Analysis (Summary of Groundwater Data
Files)
• TNRIS Ground-water Data Committee Recommendations for an Automated
Ground-Water Data Interface System
• State Agency Responsibilities for Groundwater Protection
Virginia
• Water Well Completion Report (Form)
• Ground-Water Related Programs in Virginia
• Field and Laboratory Data (Form)
B-13
-------
• Underground Injection Control Technical Assistance Manual
• Underground Injection Operations in Texas
t UIC Data Types: Example Computer Output from TX UIC System
• Water Well Driller Log Report Data Collection Form
• Overview of TX Ground Water Protection and Data Management
• Groundwater Data Interface File Analysis (Summary of Groundwater Data
Files)
• TNRIS Ground-water Data Committee Recommendations for an Automated
Ground-Water Data Interface System
• State Agency Responsibilities for Groundwater Protection
Virginia
• Water Well Completion Report (Form)
• Ground-Water Related Programs in Virginia
t Field and Laboratory Data (Form)
B-13
-------
Appendix C -
List of Key Ground-Water Data Elements
-------
LIST OF KEY GROUND-WATER DATA ELEMENTS
WELL DESCRIPTORS
• Well location
lat./long
FIPS County code
UTM coordinates
legal description
town, range, section, quarter
state grid system
site specific numbering system
• Water level data
depth to water as referenced from a standard well fixture (e.g.,
top of casing)
Date of water level sample
0 Depth to ground-water
0 Aquifer code
0 Water quantity
pump rates
aquifer yield
pumping schedule
0 Availability of geophysical log
0 Availability/content of well drillers log (to collaborate existance
of wells in area of review)
0 Well characteristics
date of construction
name of driller
well type (e.g., irrigation, drainage, industrial supply,
domestic, public production, recharge, monitoring or other)
well elevation from top of casing or other standard fixture
(to aid in determination of gradient)
well purpose (e.g., RCRA, SF, DW, Injection)
construction method (e.g., air rotary, bored, augered, cable
tool, hydrologic rotary, jetted, air percussion, reversed
piston, rotary, submersible, turbine, unknown or other)
casing material (e.g., PVC, teflon, ABS, brick, concrete,
copper, steel, rock or stone, other)
screen characteristics
number of screens
depth to screen
materials (e.g., ABS, brass, galvanized iron, wrought
iron, black iron, TBC, stainless steel, teflon, tile, other)
screen size (e.g., width(s), slot size)
C-l
-------
• Well status
abandoned
flowing (active, inactive)
non-flowing
plugged (depth of plug, type of plug)
HYDROGEOLOGIC DESCRIPTORS
• Geologic structure (e.g. Karst region)
• Aquifer characterization
location
aquifer description (e.g., confined, unconfined; thickness,
depth to water table, stratigraphy, lithology, net recharge,
hydraulic parameters of aquifers: transmissivity, permeability
porosity, conductivity)
• Topography
location of discharge and recharge areas
surface water flow pattern(s)
• Soils
horizon
depth
group/type
physical/chemical attributes (e.g., permeability, transmissivity
porosity, other)
WATER QUALITY/SAMPLE DESCRIPTORS
• Sample identifiers
name of collecting agency
name of analyzing agency
name of laboratory
date sample taken
submitting agency code
• Sample protocol
number of well volumes removed prior to sampling
method of retrieving sample (e.g., air lift pump, submersible
pump, bailer)
Sample procedure (e.g., USGS sample procedure, state sample
protocol)
• Sampling type
grab
split sample
24, 12, 8, or 6 hour composite
reason for sample
C-2
-------
• Analytic method
USGS standards
EPA standards (DW, RCRA, SF)
local agency standards
instrument calibration
detection limit (zero not sufficient)
standard method code
QA/QC code
• Water quality (e.g., parametric data)
standard chemical parameter codes for hazardous constituents
unit of measurement (e.g., parts per million, billion)
RELATED DATA
• Location of other regulated facilities (e.g., RCRA, SF, Small
quantity generators, ground water discharge permit holders)
• Other point/non-point sources contamination
agriculture
septic tanks
land applications of waste
highway network
oil/gas pipelines
urban runoff
• Site descriptors
site location (e.g., address, lat/long)
wastes found on site
wastes injected
name of site owner
agency responsible for oversight/cleanup
number of wells on site
sources of onsite contamination (e.g., surface impoundments,
storage tanks)
• Location of other wells
• Land use/land cover classification (e.g. ground cover)
• Demographic information
• Meteorological data
precipitation
evapotranspiration
site temperature
• Health effects
toxicology
exposure and risk assessment (e.g., exposure profiles, dietary
risk assessment, bioaccumulation)
• Environmental fate
chemical fate and transport
chemical persistence
C-3
-------
Appendix D -
Use of Ground-Water Data Elements By Program
-------
RCRA Program Actions Which Require Ground-water Data
DATATYPES *, «"*
*
• -Well Descriptors
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors
• Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
Well Descriptors
Well location, e.g.,
- latitude/longitude
- FIPS county code
Depth to ground water
Availability/content of well log
Well characteristics, e.g.,
-well type
- well purpose
- construction
- elevation
-screen size
- screen depth
Well status, e.g.,
-abandoned
-flowing
Quantity pumped
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Hydrogeologic descriptors, e.g.,
- geologic structure
- aquifer characterization
- stratigraphy
- topography
' - SOU
PROGRAM ACTIONS* AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
g
•5,
If
003
•a ^
cu -9
=1*1.
U. K
£
O
O
•
o
•
«3
p
is
•5 ">
$1 &
t*3
& Sfi
OS
£
O
O
o
g
1
"I
M ***
t'
««
'O y
i &
CJ K
£
0
O
•
•
g
§?Ji
Iff
§"
^ M>
§|
V §.
Il
0
O
O
o
COMMENTS
Legend:
0 Primary Data
O Nice to Have
Needed to geographically/legally identify
the source of the sample. Necessary when
modelling contaminant plume direction
and dispersion.
Needed to determine from which aquifer
the sample was taken.
Can be important in corrective action
where as much hydrogeologic data as
possible is sought (e.g., subsurface
stratigraphy).
Provides enhanced detection/analysis
capabilities; well characteristics
can influence sample analysis results.
Denotes possible source of background
water quality data for use in permit
process.
Needed to evaluate suitability of proposed
ground-water monitoring plans and other
permit considerations; also used
extensively to select appropriate clean-up
response and then to evaluate effectiveness
of corrective actions.
D-l
-------
RCRA Program Actions Which Require Ground-water Data
- ' - ' „- J ' DATA TYPES '^ '" ';, '•;< ; '
• Well Descriptors
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors
• Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
Water Quality/Sample Descriptors :
Ground-water quality
Sampling type, e.g.,
-»__U
- grab
- duplicate
-split
-treated?
Sample identifiers, e.g.,
- name collecting agency
- date and time sample taken
Analytic method, e.g.,
- EPA standards
- USGS standards
Related Data
Location of revelant facilities and
wells
Demographic data
Other sources of contamination, e.g.,
- agricultural
-septic tanks
- highway networks
Site descriptors, e.g..
- wastes found on site
- wastes injected
- site responsibility
Health Effects data
Environmental fate
* ' PROGRAM ACTIONS AND;
"'* RESPONSroUJTlES
g
(2
rf
opl
• a t/i
1 b
5 jg
& i
'•3 §,
'Is
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
«.i
'= J?
•a 4i
M«
•68
§ §.
O 06
0
0
0
*
O
.1
If
flf
co eQ
y >•
gl
^ TM
B g^
Is
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
g
g£
'G .j
'§3
§ is
^ i
"v g.
IS
m
0
^
•
o
COMMENTS
-
Legend:
0 Primary Data
O Nice to Have
Needed for all activities.
Needed to correctly interpret ground-
water samples taken at a well; helpful in
assessing data QA/QC.
Needed to relate a specific sample with
prior/future samples; also serves as one
indicator for data QA/QC.
Needed to evaluate a specific sample's
effectiveness in identifying contamination;
one indicator for data QA/QC.
Important for permitting to know if
drinking water wells are near facility;
in corrective action, needed to identify
potential risks to public.
Used to identify population at risk from
spread of contamination.
Used in permitting to evaluate suitability
of location of facility; also, used in
permitting to determine impact of facility
operation on adjacent population/wells/
etc.; used in corrective action to identify
risks to the public and environment.
Important in permitting a TSD facility,
reviewing ground-water monitoring
plan, and in identifying/implementing
corrective actions.
Used in permitting and corrective action
to determine risk of facility or contamina-
tion plume to public and environment.
Used in corrective actions to predict
extent, flow and behavior of the
contaminant plume; also used to evaluate
risk to public and environment
D-2
-------
Superfund Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data
DATATYPES ^
• Well Descriptors
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors
• Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
Well Descriptors
Well location, e.g.,
- latitude/longitude
- FIPS county code
Depth to ground water
Availability/content of well log
Well characteristics, e.g.,
-well type
- well purpose
- construction
- elevation
-screen size
- screen depth
Well status, e.g.,
- abandoned
- flowing
Quantity pumped
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Hydrogeologic descriptors, e.g.,
- geologic structure
- aquifer characterization
- stratigraphy
- topography
-soil
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
is
•a oo
o.^
?!
e
1 8
W I"*!
0
0
o
-5
C 00
•g£
g V)
If
M £
<* vt
Ǥ,
ll
t
•
o
0
s
1
g*
•a a
1 a
•«a<*>
•a •"§
i 1.
ll
0
•
o
o
0
i
00
irf
y a
< oo
oo ..
§>,
s
ll
t/5 Qi
0
•
o
0
COMMENTS
Legend:
0 Primary Data
O Nice to Have
Information used in modelling plume
direction and dispersion.
Needed to determine from which aquifer
the sample was taken.
Used to verify existence of wells in site
review area and help characterize
subsurface stratigraphy.
Descriptors that provide estimates of
direction of ground-water flow; location
of contaminants; and can influence water
quality sample results.
Data required to conduct site specific
hydrogeologic investigations providing
information on the rate and direction of
ground-water contaminant flow.
Identifies recharge and discharge areas.
D-3
-------
Superfund Program Actions Which Require Ground-water Data
/ *- f '.DATATYPES <-''££';,
• Well Descriptors
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors
• Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
| Water Quality/Sample Descriptors
Ground-water quality
Sampling type, e.g.,
- grab
- duplicate
-split
-treated?
Sample identifiers, e.g.,
- name collecting agency
- date and time sample taken
Analytic method, e.g.,
- EPA standards
- USGS standards
Related Data
Location of relevant facilities
and wells
Demographic Data
Other sources of contamination,
e.g.,
- agricultural
-septic tanks
- highway networks
Site descriptors, e.g.,
- wastes found on site
- wastes injected
- site responsibility
Health Effects data
Environmental fate
; , , PROGRAM ACTIONS AND - -
/ , RESPONSIBILITIES
li
31
8 af
|_3
1*
5*2
5 ^
S*§i
1 %.
w c2
O
o
o
o
^^
o
o
o
\^
-.8
f M
<2
f\
3 g
a a
5 co
C VL
tn &
co .t*
0} t3
i £
-------
Underground Storage Tank Program Actions Which Require Ground-water Data*
DATA TYPES
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
I COMMENTS
• Well Descriptors
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors
• Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
Legend*
0 Primary Data
O Nice to Have
Well Descriptors
Well location, e.g.,
- latitude/longitude
- FIPS county code
Depth to ground water
Availability/content of well log
Well characteristics, e.g.,
-well type
-well purpose
- construction
- elevation
-screen size
- screen depth
Well status, e.g.,
-abandoned
-flowing
Quantity pumped
. ...
% Hydrogeologic Descriptor
* ^
Hydrogeologic descriptors, e.g,
- geologic structure
- aquifer characterization
- stratigraphy
-topography
-soil
O
O
O
O
O
O
Information used in modelling plume direction and
dispersion from tank leak.
Needed to determine from which aquifer the
sample was taken.
Used to verify existence of wells in site review
area and help characterize subsurface stratigraphy.
Descriptors that provide estimates of direction
of ground-water flow; location of contaminants;
and can influence water quality sample results.
Data required to conduct site specific hydrogeologic
investigations to support corrective action
providing information on the rate, direction and
quantity of ground-water contaminant flow.
Regulations for this program are currently in development Need for ground-water data not clearly defined at this time.
D-5
-------
Underground Storage Tank Program Actions Which Require Ground-water Data*
DATA TYPES
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
CONENTS
Well Descriptors
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
Related Data
Legend:
0 Primary Data
O N«ce to Have
Water Quality/Sample Descriptors
Ground-water quality
Sampling type, e.g.,
-grab
- duplicate
-split
-treated?
Sample identifiers, e.gn
• name collecting agency
. date and time sample taken
Analytic method, e.g.,
- EPA standards
- USGS standards
Related Data
Location of revelant facilities and
wells
Demographic data
Other sources of contamination, e.
- agricultural
-septic tanks
- highway networks
Site descriptors, e.g.,
- wastes found on site
- wastes injected
- site responsibility
Health Effects data
Environmental fate
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
There are no ground-water monitoring requirements
at Federal level. Should a tank leak, this data used
to determine ground-water quality, identify
presence and extent of contamination.
Information used to identify sampling procedures,
responsible sampling authority and analytic methods
that meet quality assurance concerns.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Location of PWS and other drinking water wells
needed for threat assessment
Determines potential population at risk.
Provides useful site contextual information to help
identify possible sources of site contamination.
Useful in linking ground-water contaminants with
substances stored in specific tanks.
* Regulations for this program are currently in development Need for ground-water data not clearly defined at this time.
D-6
-------
UIC Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data*
DATA TYPES
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
ICOMMENTS
Well Descriptors
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
Related Data
•a
5 $
cu at
§
ob
Legend:
II
<<-.
-------
UIC Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data*
IDATA TYPES
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
COMMENTS
Well Descriptors
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
Related Data
00
1
V)
II
i tf
.§ 3
« b
gs
£
Legend:
Primary Data
Nice to Have
Water Quality/Sample Descriptors
Ground-water quality
Sampling type, e.g.,
- grab
- duplicate
-split
- treated?
Sample identifiers, e.g.,
- name collecting agency
- date and time sample taken
Analytic method, e.g.,
- EPA standards
- USGS standards
O
O
Related Data
Location of revelant facilities and
wells
Demographic data
Other sources of contamination, e.g.,
- agricultural
- septic tanks
- highway networks
Site descriptors, e.g.,
- wastes found on site
- wastes injected
- site responsibility
Health Effects data
Environmental fate
O
O
O
Ground-water quality data not routinely collected
by UIC program. However, a change in back-
ground water quality of near-by wells could
indicate a leak in an injection well or zone.
Used to assess possible impact of potential USDW
contamination.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Injected wastes are regulated by permit/rule.
Recordkeeping of injected wastes is required.
Helps link injected wastes with potential contami-
nation incidents.
* There are 5 different classes of UIC wells. Data requirements vary by well class.
D-f
-------
Drinking Water Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data
DATATYPES
« Well Descriptors
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors
• Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
Well Descriptors
Well location, e.g.,
- latitude/longitude
- FIPS county code
Depth to ground water
Availability/content of well log
Well characteristics, e.g.,
- well type
- well purpose
- construction
- elevation
- screen size
- screen depth
Well status, e.g.,
- abandoned
- flowing
Quantity pumped
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Hydrogeologic descriptors, e.g..
- geologic structure
- aquifer characterization
- stratigraphy
- topography
-soil
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
-------
Drinking Water Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data
IDATA TYPES
« Well Descriptors
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors
• Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
Water Quality/Sample Descriptors
Ground-water quality
Sampling type, e.g.,
-grab
- duplicate
-split
-treated?
Sample identifiers, e.g.,
- name collecting agency
- date and time sample taken
Analytic method, e.g.,
- EPA standards
- USGS standards
Related Data
Location of revelant facilities and
wells
Demographic data
Other sources of contamination, e.g.,
- agricultural
- septic tanks
- highway networks
Site descriptors, e.g.,
- wastes found on site
- wastes injected
- site responsibility
Health Effects data
Environmental fate
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
|a
;::;. '
•-• • • • • ' •
Legend:
Q Primary Data
O Nice to Have
SDWA requires water quality monitoring "at the
tap" for MCLs. Some state programs monitor at
the source and analyze the sample for a broader
range of contaminants.
Information used to identify sampling procedures,
responsible sampling authority and analytic
methods useful to assess data quality.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Location of PWS and other drinking water wells
useful in detection of contaminant sources.
Provides useful site contextual information to help
identify possible sources of site contamination.
Needed to assess health risk to population.
Determine chemical degradation, mobility and
accumulation.
D-10
-------
Pesticide Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data
DATATYPES
« Well Descriptors
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors
• Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
Well Descriptors
Well location, e.g.,
- latitude/longitude
- FEPS county code
Depth to ground water
Availability/content of well log
Well characteristics, e.g.,
- well type
- well purpose
- construction
- elevation
- screen size
- screen depth
- abandoned
- flowing
Quantity pumped
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Hydrogeologic descriptors, e.g.,
- geologic structure
- aquifer characterization
- stratigraphy
- topography
-soil
PRO61UM ACtlONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
o
•a
•B<
2 S3
.S3 :j
M^t
*rf
•*!
•a 8.
II
E
<
>• 53
4> . .
«21
ill
1!
•
o
o
o
g
<
3
E 2?
H
K "5
it
•
0
O
0
COMMENTS
Legend:
^ Primary Data
O Nice to Have
Used to establish proximity of contaminant
area.
Needed to determine from which aquifer the
sample was taken.
Used to verify existence of wells of interest
to pesticide program.
Descriptors which provide estimates of
direction of ground-water flow; location of
contaminants and can influence water
quality sample results.
Data used in model applications to determine
pesticide ground-water contamination and
vulnerability.
D-ll
-------
Pesticide Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data
DATATYPES'
« Well Descriptors
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors
• Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
Water Quality/Sample Descriptors \
Ground-water quality
Sampling type, e.g.,
- grab
- duplicate
-split
-treated?
Sample identifiers, e.g.,
- name collecting agency
- date and time sample taken
Analytic method, e.g.,
- EPA standards
- USGS standards
Related Data
Location of revelant facilities and
wells
Demographic data
Other sources of contamination, e.g.,
- agricultural
- septic tanks
- highway networks
Site descriptors, e.g.,
- wastes found on site
- wastes injected
- site responsibility
Health Effects data
Environmental fate
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
g
j!
Pesticide Registr
Responsibility: E
•
O
o
0
•
•
•
1
11
•
o
o
o
•
o
•
•
1
Special Review
Responsibility: E
•
*
•
•
o
•
•
COMMENTS
Legend:
0 Primary Data
O Nice to Have
Used to determine ground-water quality,
identify presence and extent of contamination.
Provides data for trend analysis. Assist in
setting priorities for pesticides that are
candidates for review.
Information used to identify sampling
procedures, responsible sampling authority
and analytic methods are useful indicators
of data quality. Absent these indicators, data
still of value.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Determines potential population at risk.
Provides useful site contextual information
to help identify possible sources of site
contamination.
Needed to assess health risk to population.
Determine fate of pesticide and pesticide
by-products in the contaminant.
• Data for Special Review* u applicable to sute agencies conducting special pesticide surveys on studies (e.g, MM. IL, UT).
D-12
-------
Office of Toxic Substances Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data
iiDATA TYPES
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
COMMENTS
Well Descriptors
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
Related Data
II
O <3
Legend:
l«ggi
sit
"
--2
3
S
Primary Data
Nice to Have
W
Well Descriptors
Well location, e.g.,
- latitude/longitude
- FIPS county code
Depth to ground water
Availability/content of well log
Well characteristics, e.g.,
- well type
- well purpose
- construction
- elevation
- screen size
- screen depth
Well status, e.g.,
- abandoned
- flowing
Quantity pumped
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Hydrogeologic descriptors, e.g.,
- geologic structure
- aquifer characterization
- stratigraphy
- topography
- soil
O
o
o
O
o
Used to identify problem areas or "hot
spots."
Needed to determine from which aquifer
the sample was taken and to identify
vulnerable ground-water.
Descriptors that influence water quality
sample results, possibly needed for future
field studies.
Data to characterize problem areas, assess
aquifer vulnerability and for use with
GEMS model runs.
D-13
-------
Office of Toxic Substances Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data
1 DATA TYPES
• Well Descriptors
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors
• Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
IjWater Quality/Sample Descriptors
Ground-water quality
Sampling types, e.g.,
- grab
- duplicate
-split
- treated?
Sample identifiers, e.g.,
- name collecting agency
- date and time sample taken
Analytic method, e.g.,
- EPA standards
- USGS standards
Related Data
Location of revelant facilities and
wells
Demographic data
Other sources of contamination, e.g.,
- agricultural
- septic tanks
- highway networks
Site descriptors, e.g.,
- wastes found on site
- wastes injected
- site responsibility
Health effects data (e.g., risk
assessment or exposure data)
Environmental fate
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
c/a
O
Control New/Existing Tox
Responsibility: EPAHQ
O
0
O
O
O
0
O
•
•
1
Assess Health & Environme
Effects of Toxics
Responsibility: EPAHQ
•
O
•
•
•COMMENTS
Legend:
£ Primary Data
O Nice to Have
Used to determine ground-water quality,
identify presence and extent of toxic
contamination. Often result of special
studies (e.g., VOCs, TCE). Assist in
setting priorities for toxics that are
candidates for review.
v Information used to identify sampling
procedures, responsible sampling authority
and analytic methods that effect quality
assurance.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Location of PWS and other di inking water
wells needed for exposure assessment.
Determines potential population at risk.
Provides useful information to help identify
possible sources of contamination, such as
hazardous waste sites and practices
resulting in contamination (e.g., animal
feed lots and irrigation).
Needed to assess health risk to population.
Determine fate, mobility and accumula-
tion of toxic.
D-14
-------
Appendix E -
*
Key Decisions That Require Ground-Water Data
-------
Summary Decision Charts
E-l
-------
DECISION
l.RCRA
• Should a permit be issued to a RCRA facility based upon the
submitted ground-water monitoring plan?
- Has the site been characterized properly?
- Is a facility's proposed/actual ground-water monitoring strategy
adequate to detect migration of-the hazardous constituents from
the facility to the uppermost aquifer?
- Should a facility be granted an Alternate Concentration Limit
(ACL) for a specific contaminant? Does that contaminant pose a
substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the
environment?
• Should an enforcement action be taken against a RCRA facility?
- Are background levels or MCLs being exceeded?
- What is the nature and extent of the contamination?
-- Is a facility following the monitoring plan which will adequately
detect contamination?
• What remedial steps should be taken when discharge is detected at a
RCRA facility?
-- Should the facility be modified or is removal of the contaminants
from the groundwater sufficient?
- Is the corrective action program for a facility effective? If not,
should the program be modified with more extensive requirements?
• Should a RCRA Interim Status facility implement an Assessment
Program?
DECISION-MAKER
EPA
HQ
EPA
Region
y
^r
y
y
y
State
y
^r
y
y
y
Locality
Other
ro
-------
DECISION
1. RCRA (Continued)
• What actions should be taken as a result of an Assessment Monitoring
Program at an Interim Status Facility?
- Should the facility be closed?
- Should the facility have its permit application expedited?
- Should the facility be returned to Normal Monitoring Status?
• What actions should be initiated against a Subtitle E» Solid Waste
facility identified as causing ground-water contamination?
DECISION-MAKER
EPA
HQ
EPA
Region
y
y
State
y
y
Locality
Other
I
OJ
-------
DECISION
2. Superfund
• Is an emergency response necessary to protect ground water at the site
of a spill?
• Is the threat to ground water or existing ground-water contamination
sufficient to place a site on the Superfund National Priority List?
- What existing or potential ground-water contamination must be
considered in assigning a Hazard Ranking Score for the site?
• What removal or remedial action alternatives are likely to be most
effective in controlling ground-water contamination?
• Have the selected remedial actions taken to rectify ground-water
contamination been effective in attaining or exceeding applicable
requirements?
3. Underground Storage Tanks
• Should an enforcement action be taken against a tank owner?
• What corrective action should be taken to clean up a spill from an
underground storage tank?
DECISION-MAKER
EPA
HQ
y
EPA
Region
y
y
y
y
y
y
State
y
y
y
y
y
Locality
y
(e.g.
Fl.)
y
(e.g.
Fl.)
Other
y
(e.g.
DOD)
y
(e.g.
DOD)
i
I
•
-------
DECISION
4. Underground Injection Control
• Should an EPA Region or delegated state issue a permit or rule for an
underground injection well?
• Should an enforcement action be taken because an underground
injection well has violated program requirements, exceeded permit
limits or contaminated an USDW?
- Where are the USDWs? Is the underground injection well
affecting them?
- Should a permit be revoked from an underground injection well
owner/operator?
- What remedial actions should be taken?
5. Drinking Water
• Should a purveyor receive approval for the operation of a public water
supply system?
-- What are the sources of water?
- Will the supply satisfy existing MCL standards?
• Should enforcement action be taken against a public water system?
- Has the Public Water System exceeded an MCL?
- What is the contaminant? What is the extent of the contamination?
• Should an MCL be designated for a contaminant fouiad in drinking
water?
-- What is the health effect of the contaminant?
-- What is the efficacy of treatment?
-- What is the economic impact of the standard?
EPA
HQ
y
y
DECISION-MAKER
EPA
Region
y
y
y
State
y
y
y
y
Locality
Other
-------
DECISION
6. Pesticides
• Should a pesticide be approved/renewed for general or restricted use,
or be banned?
- Does a pesticide cause an unreasonable adverse effect on the
environment (including ground water)?
- What are the characteristics of the pesticide (e.g., teachability,
absorption/desorption, resistance to degradation, solubility and
volatility)?
-- How should the pesticide be used?
• Should the registration for an approved pesticide be suspended or
cancelled because of contamination of the ground water?
~ What is the extent of the actual/projected contamination problem
caused by a pesticide?
- What would be the economic impact of the restriction?
7. Toxic Substances
• Should the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, or disposal of
a toxic substance be regulated; shoould testing (Sec. 4) or additional
existing information be requested of the manufacturer (Sec. 8)?
DECISION-MAKER
EPA
HQ
y
y
y
EPA
Region
State
y
y
Locality
Other
en
-------
DECISION
8. State/Local Programs
• Water Allocation (AZ, GA, MA, MN, NJ, SC, UT, VA, WA)
- How much water should a facility be allowed lio withdraw? From
which aquifers?
- What are the future ground-water needs in the area?
• Landfill Permitting (CA, IL, SC, TX, VA, MA)
~ Should a solid-waste landfill receive a permit?
- What is the ground-water monitoring plan?
• Zoning and Planning (MN, CT, UT, MA, AZ)
-- Should land use restrictions be developed and implemented to
protect the ground water in selected areas?
- What should be the land use policy developed for either the
protection or industrial use of ground water resources?
- Should population density be limited by land use zoning?
- Should a septic system be authorized or permitted?
DECISION-MAKER
EPA
HQ
EPA
Region
State
/
"
y
y
y
y
y
if
Locality
y
.
v
y
Other
y
-------
1
DECISION
8. State/Local Programs (Continued)
• Chemigation Permitting (NE)
~ Does the chemigation system provide an actual or imminent
threat to ground-water supplies?
• Highway Construction (MN, AZ)
- How and where should a highway be constructed so that it will
not affect the ground water?
-- Where should rest areas be located to ensure access to drinking
water quality ground water?
- Should the transportation authority purchase land for highway
construction? Is the ground water beneath the parcel under
construction already contaminated?
• Ground- Water Discharge Permitting (AZ, CT, NJ, TX, WY, MT, VA)
-- Should a facility or activity receive a discharge permit?
-- What measures is the facility taking to protect the ground water?
DECISION-MAKER
EPA
HQ
Region
State
y
y
y
y
y
y
Locality
y
\
Other
y
I
CO
-------
DECISION
8. State/Local Programs (Continued)
• Mine Permitting (V A)
- Should a mining activity receive a permit? How will the ground
water be affected?
~ Where should the ground-water monitoring wells be located?
What will the reporting requirements be? What is the back-
ground water quality?
• Well-Field Protection (Dade Co., FL, AZ, VT, MA)
— Should protection measures be implemented to protect a
drinking water well production field from migrating sources
of ground-water contaminants and surface discharges?
- Should off-site recharge areas be protected?
• Ground- Water Protection Areas (NE, NJ, WA, UT, CT, NY, IL, FL)
— Should discharges be limited in an area because of aquifer
contamination problems? Should an aquifer be given a
special protection status?
~ Should recharge areas be protected?
• Ground-Water Use Classification (CT, NT, SC, MT, WY)
~ What should be the designated uses of aquifers throughout
the state?
— What is the current or potential use of the ground water based
upon its quality?
DECISION-MAKER
EPA
HQ
EPA
Region
State
y
y
y
y
y
Locality
y
Other
-------
DECISION
8. State/Local Programs (Continued)
• Well Permit Program (AZ)
— Should a permit be issued to an applicant for the drilling and
construction of a well?
• Land Transfer Program (MA, MO)
— Should the state approve the sale or transfer of
corporate and commercial land in Massachusetts
or hazardous waste disposal sites in Missouri between
an authorized seller and buyer?
DECISION-MAKER
EPA
HQ
EPA
Region
State
y
y
Locality
Other
I
t—'
o
-------
RCRA
E-ll
-------
PROGRAM:
DECISION:
RCRA
Should a permit be issued to a RCRA facility based upon the
submitted ground-water monitoring plan?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 1976, Subtitle- C,
Section 3005(a)
Hazardous Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
40 CFR 264 (Standards for Permitted TSD Facilities) and 270
(Permit Program)
RESPONSIBILITIES:
EPA and delegated states are charged with the regulation of
hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal (TSD)
facilities. This includes the prevention of contamination
to ground-water surrounding such a facility. In order to
begin or continue operations, a TSD facility must be
permitted by EPA or the state. (One exception to this is
the "interim status" facilities which may continue
operations while their permit is pending).
There are two parts to the permit application, A and B.
Part A contains general information on the facility and its
operator. Part B contains extremely detailed and technical
information on the facility. There is no standard format
for this part of the application. It is up to the facility
operator to determine, based upon the regulations, which
data to include in Part B. Generally, Part B includes an
analysis of the wastes to be treated, the hydrogeologic
structure of the area surrounding and beneath the facility
and specific information related to the type of proposed
facility (e.g., landfills, incinerators).
In addition, Part B also contains the proposed ground-water
sampling program for the facility. The minimum number of
wells required by the regulations is four (one up-gradient
and three down-gradient). Also, the operator may submit
with the application sampling results from test wells
drilled in the area surrounding the facility.
There are five broad phases in the permitting process.
The operator of a facility first submits a permit
application. Next, an internal agency (EPA or state)
review of the permit is conducted. As part of this phase,
the ground-water monitoring plan is analyzed and evaluated.
If the plan is deemed insufficient, a notice of deficiency
is issued. Third, a draft permit is developed. In
fourth step, EPA or the delegated
is developed.
state issue the
the
permit
for comment and may hold public hearings. Finally, based
upon the internal review and public comment, the permit is
E-12
-------
either issued as is, modified and
denial procedures are instituted.
then issued, or permit
It is not unusual for circumstances at a permitted facility
to change over time. Some examples include the facility
wishing to alter its treatment processes, treat new wastes,
or change its ground-water monitoring plan. In these
cases, the facility must petition to have its permit
modified. This process is similar to the public hearings
and internal agency review of the original permit. EPA or
the delegated states also has the authority to
revoke/reissue a permit or terminate outright the permit.
These two actions also entail public hearings and an
internal agency review.
CURRENT AND
WORKLOAD:
FUTURE
The majority of the current workload associated with
permitting is related to the review of the Part B portion
of the permit submitted by the facilities in interim
status. While there are permit requests for new TSD
facilities, this number is small when compared to the
number of interim status facilities. Over time, however,
the number of interim status facilities will decline as
they are either permitted or closed. In general, the
workload associated with the permit process will also
decline rather than increase.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
The permit process normally averages from one to three
years. As a result of the Admendments, facilities which
have submitted complete permit applications by November 8,
1984, must receive a decision (approval or rejection) from
FPA between November 1988 and November 1992, depending upon
the type of facility. For permit applications submitted
after November 1984, the Amendments do not establish a time
limit for the review of the permit application by EPA or a
delegated state.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
This decision is made by the EPA Regional RCRA program
Office or by a delegated state's environmental protection
agency.
E-13
-------
PROGRAM: RCRA
DECISION: Should a permit be issued to a RCRA facility based upon the submitted ground-water
monitoring plan?
USER/DECISION-MAKER:
EPA
Region
Delegated
State
USES OF DATA:
INFORMATION SYSTEM:
TYPES OF
DATA:
Parametric
IX
SOURCES OF
DATA:
STORET
Exposure/
Risk
Assessment
Manual
Files
Well
Descriptors
Hydrogeologic
Descriptors
Site
Modelling
Automated
Systems
Land
Use
Facility
Descriptors
Regulated
Community
Permit
Application
Other Federal
&
State Agencies
Ground-Water
Use
Inspections
-------
PROGRAM: RCRA
DECISION: Should a permit be issued to a RCRA facility based upon the submitted ground-water
monitoring plan?
Current Decision-Making Process
• EPA Region or delegated state
receives a RCRA facility permit
application which includes a
ground-water monitoring plan.
• The facility may have already
been monitoring the ground water
as required by the interim status
regulations. The monitoring data
collected during the interim
status is integrated into the
application.
• The facility submits any other
data to support its monitoring
plan. Such information includes:
well descriptors, hydrogeologic
data, land use information,
facility description and area
ground-water use.
• The permit approval decision is
based primarily on whether the
the ground-water monitoring plan
will adequately detect
contamination which poses a risk
to human health and the
environment.
Information Management Requirements
• Hydrogeologic data (e.g. location
of aquifers and confining units,
we'll elevation).
• Adjacent ground-water quality
data (2-3 mile area around each
site).
• Aquifer classification and the
state designation for the
aquifer.
• Land use and potential uses of
land in the area.
• Soil characteristics, especially
attenuation and soil profiles.
• Mapping capabilities so as to
provide detailed hydrogeologic,
land use or contaminant plume
maps for each site on demand.
• Stitistical analysis and
modelling capabilities for each
facility.
Comments
• EPA HQs provides
assistance to Regions and
delegated states when
requested in assessing
submitted site monitoring
plans.
• Some states (e.g., South
Carolina) keep RCRA
facility parametric data
on STORET.
0 The permitting process can
be slowed by the need to
contact a number of
different EPA, Federal or
state program offices to
obtain data used to review
and evaluate applications.
• The information required
for permitting a TSD
facility can be very site
and facility-type (e.g.,
landfill) specific.
I
I—'
en
-------
PROGRAM:
RCRA
DECISION:
Should an enforcement action be taken against a RCRA
facility?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 1976, Subtitle C,
Section 3008
Hazardous Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
RESPONSIBILITIES:
There are two main components to enforcement activities
under the RCRA legislation, compliance monitoring and
enforcement actions. Compliance monitoring primarily
consists of scheduled and unscheduled inspections of a TSD
facility. Enforcement actions include administrative orders,
civil and criminal penalties, and injunctive relief. The
EPA Region or delegated state is responsible for bringing an
enforcement action against a facility which does not comply
with Subtitle C of RCRA. The decision to initiate an
enforcement action is based upon an evaluation of the
quarterly ground-water sampling required for each RCRA
facility, the failure of the facility to submit results of
ground-water analysis or a deficient ground-water monitoring
program. Enforcement actions may also be brought for the
failure of the facility to obtain the necessary insurance,
implement other provisions of the Act or respond to EPA or
delegated state directives.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD:
A sizeable portion of the workload associated with
enforcement actions is in the review and analysis of the
data submitted by the operator as part of the facility's
ground-water monitoring program. This data is provided at
least quarterly. Some delegated states, on a site by site
basis, require more frequent reporting. The reporting
requirements (e.g., number of contaminants sampled for;
number of wells) for permitted facilities normally exceed
those for facilities in interim status. As the number of
interim status facilities declines through permitting or
closure, the workload associated with the review of the
operator supplied data may increase.
Also, under the 1984 Amendments, all federal and state
operated TSD facilities must be inspected annually. The
Amendments also direct the Administrator to initiate a
program to inspect all other TSD facilities at least once
every two years. Before passage of the Amendments, the
regular inspection of TSD facilities was not required. The
new inspection requirements may add significantly to future
E-16
-------
workload.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS: Enforcement actions generally require assistance from
offices other than the RCRA program office at the EPA Region
or delegated state level. Usually, the other offices which
are involved are the EPA Regional Counsel or the state
Attorney General. These other offices take the lead in
executing civil and criminal actions. The EPA Region and
the delegated state have the authority to issue
administrative orders and fine facilities for non-compliance
with the regulations.
In the future, the resources necessary to support and
Initiate enforcement actions will most likely increase to
reflect the now mandatory RCRA facility inspections and the
growth 1n the number of permitted facilities.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE: This decision 1s made by the EPA Regional Waste Management
Division or by a delegated state's environmental protection
agency.
E-17
-------
PROGRAM: RCRA
DECISION: Should an enforcement action be taken against a RCRA facility?
USER/DECISION-MAKER:
USES OF DATA:
INFORMATION SYSTEM:
TYPES OF
DATA:
SOURCES OF
DATA:
Parametric
EPA
Region
Delegated
State
Data
Analysis
Manual
Files
Well
Descriptors
Site
Descriptors
Regulated
Community
Permit
Hydrogeologic
Descriptors
Inspections
00
-------
PROGRAM: RCRA
DECISION: Should an enforcement action be taken against a RCRA facility?
Current Decision-Making Process
Information Management Requirements
Comments
The EPA Region or state RCRA
program office decides whether an
enforcement action is required
and the nature of the enforcement
action.
A comparison of current
ground-water sampling data with
the background levels for a
facility is used to identify
contamination spreading from a
facility into the environment.
The detection of such
contamination can trigger
enforcement actions by an EPA
Region or state against a
facility.
The Office of the EPA Regional
Counsel or the state's Attorney
General uses data and analysis
provided by the RCRA program
office to initiate enforcement
actions.
The EPA Region or the state
monitors the performance of the
facility in response to the
enforcement action.
The EPA region or state
determines that the facility has
returned to compliance with the
permit requirements.
• Hydrogeologic data for each
facility.
• Facility background and operating
ground-water quality data.
• Facility ground-water monitoring
plan data.
• Facility inspection and analysis
data.
• Mapping capabilities so as to
provide detailed hydrogeologic,
land use or contaminant plume
maps for each site on demand.
• Statistical analysis and
modelling capabilities for each
facility.
t Enforcement actions can be
triggered by inspection of
the facility, failure of
the facility to submit
required ground-water
data, refusal of the
facility to implement
corrective actions as well
as by many other events.
• EPA can bring enforcement
actions against a facility
1f a delegated state
declines to pursue
actions.
-------
PROGRAM:
DECISION:
RCRA
What remedial steps should
detected at a RCRA facility?
be taken when discharge is
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 1976, Subtitle C,
Section 3008
Hazardous Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
RESPONSIBILITIES:
The responsibility for initially detecting and evaluating
the concentration of contamination spreading from a facility
into the ground-water lies with the facility operator. This
is true for both permitted and interim status facilities.
However, for permitted facilities, the ground-water
monitoring requirements are far more specific. In addition,
permitted facilities are also required to clean-up any
ground-water contamination above acceptable limits resulting
from their operations.
Once permitted, a facility must routinely perform detection
monitoring to identify any leaks from the facility into the
ground-water. If leakage is detected, then the facility
must implement a compliance monitoring program. The
objective of compliance monitoring is to determine the
concentration of the contamination in the ground-water. The
permit details the specific constituents and their
concentration levels which must be monitored. If the results
from the compliance monitoring program confirm that
ground-water contamination is exceeding the allowable
limits, as specified in the permit, the facility must then
initiate corrective actions.
The intent of a corrective program is to control the
contamination and return, over time, the groundwater to its
condition prior to the operation of the facility. The
corrective action procedures are specified in the permit.
Some examples of corrective action procedures include the
physical removal of the contaminated earth or treating the
groundwater in place. If the corrective actions specified
in the permit are not appropriate for the contamination, the
facility may institute other actions to address the clean-up
of the ground-water.
The role of the EPA Region or delegated state is to review
and evaluate the detection and compliance monitoring
programs and to ensure that contamination is detected and
reported. The Region and state also have responsibility for
ensuring that the facility promptly implements a corrective
action program when contamination is detected. If the
E-20
-------
facility fails in its duty, the Region and state have the
authority, and responsibility, to initiate enforcement
activities to force the facility to comply with the terms of
the permit and the Subtitle C regulations.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: Several states have reported one to four new facilities per
year which have required the implementation of corrective
actions. As the number of permitted facilities increase
(primarily from the permitting of interim status
facilities), the workload for corrective action monitoring
and enforcement activities by the Regions and states will
most likely increase.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS: The resource requirements vary by site depending upon the
level and extent of the ground-water contamination. Again,
most resources involved in a corrective action program are
those of the facility operator, or a contractor hired by the
facility. However, as the number of permitted facilities
increase, it can be expected that Region and state resource
requirements will also increase.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE: This decision is made by the EPA Regional RCRA Program
Office or by a delegated state's environmental protection
agency.
E-21
-------
PROGRAM: RCRA
DECISION: What remedial steps should be taken when discharge is detected at a RCRA facility?
USER/DECISION-MAKER:
EPA
Region
Delegated
State
USES OF DATA:
INFORMATION SYSTEM:
TYPES OF
DATA:
Parametric
SOURCES OF
DATA:
Cost/Benefit
Analysis
Well
Descriptors
Data
Analysis
Site
Modelling
Automated
Systems
Hydrogeologic
Descriptors
Land
Use
Facility
Descriptors
Regulated
Community
Permit
Inspections
Ground-Water
Use
ro
ro
-------
PROGRAM: RCRA
DECISION: What remedial steps should be taken when discharge is detected at a RCRA facility?
Current Decision-Making Process
Information Management Requirements
Comments
e When detection monitoring
Identifies, and compliance
monitoring confirms, ground-water
contamination above the allowable
limits, the EPA Region or state
must determine 1f the facility Is
promptly Implementing an
effective corrective action
program.
• If the contingency plan 1s not
adequate, EPA Region or state may
require the development and
Implementation of additional
procedures.
• EPA Region or state determines 1f
modifications to the facility
permit are required.
• EPA Region or state monitors
facility compliance with
corrective actions procedures.
• The facility determines, and EPA
Region or state verifies, that
contamination has been corrected
and the facility may return to
comp11ance monitoring.
t Hydrogeologic data for each
facility.
• Facility background and operating
ground-water quality data.
• Facility ground-water monitoring
pi an data.
• Facility contingency action plan
data.
• Technical and scientific
decontamination procedures and
methodologies data.
• Mapping capabilities so as to
provide detailed hydrogeologic
data, land use or contaminant
plume maps for each site on
demand.
• Statistical analysis and
modelling capabilities for each
facility.
• Corrective action may
include the pumping out of
the plume, repairing
facility liners, removal
of contaminated earth and
other actions.
• EPA or state has a variety
of powers to compel a
facility to institute
corrective actions.
ro
OJ
-------
PROGRAM:
RCRA Interim Status Facilities
DECISIONS:
Should a RCRA Interim Status facility Implement an
assessment program?
What actions should be taken as a result of an assessment
monitoring program at an interim status facility?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 1976, Subtitle C,
Section 3005(e)
40 CFR 265 (Standards for Interim Status TSD Facilities)
RESPONSIBILITIES: All RCRA TSD facilities in operation as of November 19, 1980
were allowed to continue operations as "Interim status"
facilities until Issued a permit or ordered closed. There
were also several requirements that facilities desiring
Interim status had to meet. First, the facility must submit
the Part A portion of the RCRA permit application. In
addition, depending upon the nature of the facility (e.g.,
land fill, Incinerator), the facility must complete and
submit the Part B portion of the permit in the time period
November 1985 to November 1988. Those facilities which fail
to complete the Part B portion will lose their interim
status and must close between November 1985 and November
1992.
An EPA Region or delegated state is responsible for
monitoring TSD facilities while they are 1n interim status.
Only certain types of Interim status facilities are required
to perform ground-water monitoring. This Includes surface
Impoundments, landfills, land treatment facilities and
certain waste piles. Aside from the in-process permitting
activities (which has already been discussed in a prior
section), the key decisions for interim status facilities
revolve around the results of the facility's ground-water
monitoring program.
The operator of an interim status facility must initially
sample for one year to establish background levels for
ground-water. In the following, and all subsequent, years
the facility must, until it is permitted or closed, perform
routine monitoring of the ground-water. The results of the
routine monitoring are then compared to the background
levels. If there is a difference, the EPA Region or
delegated state must be notified. An assessment program is
then instituted by the facility operator to determine if
contamination is in fact entering the ground-water. If
there is no contamination, the facility resumes normal
routine monitoring. If contamination is found, however,
E-24
-------
then the operator must continue the assessment program and
continue to sample quarterly until the facility is
permitted, ordered to expand the sampling program as part of
the permitting process or closed.
The responsibility for identifying that ground-water
contamination is occurring belongs to the facility operator.
The EPA Region or a delegated state normally conducts a
review of the operator's findings and conclusions and may
overrule the operator. However, the Region or the delegated
state are primarily responsible only for determining the
appropriate action(s) after an assessment program has
confirmed the existence of ground-water contamination.
It is important to note that as time passes, the number of
interim status facilities will decline to zero, as
facilities are either permitted or closed.
CURRENT AND
WORKLOAD:
FUTURE
The majority of the workload associated with interim status
facilities is associated with the parallel permitting
decisions for the facilities. Resources are required to
review the quarterly submission of ground-water monitoring
data from a facility and to determine the appropriate
response to the detection of ground-water contamination.
However, as the number of RCRA interim status facilities
declines, the workload associated with these functions will
gradually cease.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
ihe resource requirements for these decisions are similar to
the RCRA detection monitoring activities associated with
permitted facilities. In general, however, the ground-water
sampling review and analysis requirements are less for
interim status facilities than for permitted facilities.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
These decisions are made by the EPA Region RCRA Program
Office or by a delegated state's environmental protection
agency.
E-25
-------
PROGRAM: RCRA
DECISION: What actions should be taken as a result of an Assessment Monitoring Program at an Interim Status
Facility?
USER/DECISION-MAKER:
EPA
Region
Delegated
State
USES OF DATA:
1 1 1
Exposure/
Risk
Assessment
Data
Analysis
Site
Modelling
INFORMATION SYSTEM:
STORET
Manual
Files
Automated
Systems
TYPES OF
DATA:
Parametric
Well
Descriptors
Facility
Descriptors
Land
Use
Hydrogeologic
SOURCES OF
DATA:
Regulated
Community
Inspections
Other Federal
&
State Agencies
ro
cr>
-------
PROGRAM: RCRA
DECISION: What actions should be taken as a result of an Assessment Monitoring Program at an Interim Status
Facility?
Current Decision-Making Process
Information Management Requirements
Comments
• The Interim status facility 1s
primarily responsible for
monitoring ground-water quality
surrounding the facility and
comparing current samples with
background levels to identify
contamination problems.
• EPA Region or delegated state
receives notice from a facility
when the background levels have
been exceeded.
• The facility then institutes an
assessment monitoring program and
informs EPA Region or state of
the results and its conclusions.
t EPA Region or state reviews the
conclusions and accepts or
rejects them.
• If contamination is not
confirmed, the facility resumes
normal operation.
0 Otherwise, the facility continues
assessment monitoring. EPA Region
or state can order additional
ground-water monitoring and
protection activities or close
the facility.
(i Facility background and
operations ground-water quality
data.
ii Facility descriptors data.
ii Well location and descriptors
data.
n Hydrogeologlc data (e.g.,
location of aquifers and
confining units, well elevation).
ii Land use in the area.
ii Mapping capabilities so as to
provide detailed hydrogeologlc,
land use or contaminant plume
maps for each site on demand.
i Statistical analysis and
modelling capabilities for each
facility.
• In general, the regulations for
Interim facilities are less
specific and extensive than those
for permitted facilities.
• The number of Interim status
facilities will decline over time
as they are either permitted or
closed.
• There are statutory requirements
mandating specific dates by which
an Interim status facility must
submit the Part B portion of the
permit application. If a
facility does not meet this
deadline, it must begin closure
procedures.
ro
-------
PROGRAM:
RCRA Subtitle D — Non-Hazardous Solid Waste
DECISIONS:
What actions should be initiated against a Subtitle D solid
waste facility identified as causing ground-water
contamination?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 1976, Subtitle D,
Sections 1008(a) and 4004(a)
40 CFR 257 (Ground Water)
RESPONSIBILITIES
The primary goals of the RCRA Subtitle D program is to
protect the environment from pollution caused by the
disposal of solid waste. As with hazardous waste, Subtitle
D facilities are prohibited from contaminating the ground
water (as well as other aspects of the environment) around
their location.
EPA has promulgated technical standards (Subtitle D
criteria) and provided funding for states to develop their
own solid waste management program. All solid waste
disposal facilities must meet the Subtitle D criteria (or
more restrictive local state standards/regulations) or
close. States, however, are not required to develop a solid
waste plan. Participation is voluntary.
EPA has few responsibilities under Subtitle D. Most
management and enforcement actions are at the state level
and executed by the states. EPA, however, does develop, and
update as necessary, the regulations and criteria for the
Subtitle D program. In addition, EPA administers the state
plan funding program and must approve the content of the
state plans. At present, EPA 1s engaged in drafting new
Subtitle D regulations. It 1s possible that these new
regulations may expand EPA's responsibilities and role in
this program.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD:
The number of Subtitle D facilities is many times the number
of hazardous waste (Subtitle C) facilities. The workload
associated with the program 1s primarily at the state level
and varies from state to state depending upon the provisions
of the state program and the number of facilities within a
state. The workload associated with the state program may
Increase after the issuance of the new regulations. The
workload at the EPA Region and Headquarters levels may also
Increase as a result of the new regulations.
E-28
-------
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS: Resource requirements vary from state to state. Also, since
the new regulations have not yet been announced, it is not
possible to accurately forecast the additional resources
that may be needed to meet the'new requirements for Subtitle
D facilities.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE: It is expected that the setting of the technical criteria
and the approval of state plans will continue to be an EPA
Region and Headquarters function. The actual monitoring and
enforcement of the technical criteria and other aspects of
the state solid waste management plans will most likely be
the responsibility of the individual states.
Since the role of EPA is limited in Subtitle D activities,
no data flow chart nor requirements matrix has been included
for this decision.
E-29
-------
Superfund
E-30
-------
PROGRAM:
Superfund
DECISION:
Is an emergency response necessary to protect ground water
at the site of the spill?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980
40 CFR 300.65, Subpart F
RESPONSIBILITIES:
A removal action is appropriate when the lead agency
determines that the initiation of such action is necessary
to prevent or mitigate immediate and significant risk of
harm to human life, health or the environment. In the
context of ground water protection, removal actions are an
appropriate response to contamination of a drinking water
supply (40 CFR 300.65(b)(2)(ii).
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: Emergency response activities, by their nature, occur on a
case by case basis, however EPA estimates that there are
approximately 170 emergency response actions each year.
From December 1980 - May 1986 there were about 726
emergency responses.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
A removal action must be terminated after obligation of $1
million, or after 6 months has elapsed from the date of the
initial response, unless it is found that circumstances
warrant continued action. Pending legislation would
increase the time and dollars available for emergency
response actions to one year and $2 million dollars.
Waivers beyond these conditions may be granted if the
removal is consistent with the remedial action taken at the
site.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
The Department of Defense is responsible for releases from
its vessels and defense facilities. Evacuation and
relocation is handled by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. All other response action is vested in EPA.
Within EPA emergency response decisions are the
responsibility of the appropriate regional office.
E-31
-------
PROGRAM: Superfund
DECISION: Is an emergency response necessary to protect ground water at the site of a spill?
USER/DECISION-MAKER:
USES OF DATA:
INFORMATION SYSTEM:
TYPES OF
DATA:
SOURCES OF
DATA:
EPA HQ/Regfon
Exposure/Risk
Assessment
Parametric
EPA/State
Contamination
Identification
& Monitoring
Manual
Files
_L
Hydrogeologic
Descriptors
Land
Use
Special Studies
USGS
FEMA
DOD
Public
Information
Site Descriptors
State & Local
Government
00
ro
-------
PROGRAM: Superfund
DECISION: Is an emergency response necessary to protect ground water at the site of a spill?
Current Decision-Making Process
Information Management Requirements
Comments
• The lead agency performs the
spill site evaluation and
determines extent of the threat
to ground water.
• The lead agency undergoes three
phases in an emergency response:
-- Phase I: discovery and
notification
-- Phase It: preliminary
assessment of the hazard
(including identification of
the source and the nature of
the release)
-- Phase III: immediate removal
action when such action is
necessary to mitigate
significant risk of harm to
human life, health or the
environment.
• Actions may include:
-- removal of the substance
-- providing alternate water
supplies
-- sampling and analysis
— containment actions.
• To determine the extent of ground
water contamination requires the
following basic supporting
information:
— Nearby sources of public/
private drinking water wells
— Nearby sources of underground
supply of drinking water
(USDW)
— Toxicity/mobility of contam-
inants
— Geologic sensitivity*
— Soil permeability*
— Soil chemical analyses*.
* Used less frequently
• Information
specific.
needs are very site
• This decision, or threat
determination, is made by
a EPA Regional Office, or
other responsible federal
organization (e.g. Dept.
of Defense).
• Emergency responses for
large spills are, in
practice, the
responsibility of EPA
Regions/On Scene
Coordinator.
t Since emergency response
decisions must be made
quickly, data must current
and very easily
accessible.
co
GO
-------
PROGRAM:
Superfund
DECISION:
Is the threat to ground water or existing ground-water
contamination sufficient to place a site on the Superfund
National Priority List?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980, Section 105(8)
40 CFR 300, Appendix A
40 CFR 300.66(b)(2)
RESPONSIBILITIES:
Superfund legislation required EPA to establish a National
Priorities List (NPL) consisting of at least 400 sites to
be given top priority consideration for possible removal
and remedial action. To implement this requirement EPA
developed the Hazard Ranking System to score potential
sites. Principal parameters which are considered are an
observed release or a threatened release to ground water,
an observed o a threatened release to surface water, and an
observed or threatened release to air.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD:
There are now approximately 800 sites on the National
Priority List. In addition many states have developed
state-level Superfund programs and have identified many
sites that, with some additional analysis to more fully
develop the HRS score, will be candidates for the federal
Superfund program. EPA Headquarters estimates that with
new legislation the NPL list will expand to between 1400
and 1500 sites.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
Current resource requirements for the EPA Headquarter and
Regional Response programs are 170 and 605 Full-time
Employees (FTEs) respectively.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
States evaluate sites and submit lists of candidate sites
which are then reviewed by the EPA regional office. EPA
Headquarters, Hazardous Response Support Division, provides
a QA/QC function, reviewing the HRS for each site.
E-34
-------
PROGRAM: Superfund
DECISION: Is the threat to ground water or existing ground-water contamination
sufficient to place a site on thei Superfund National Priority List?
USER/DECISION-MAKER:
USES OF DATA:
INFORMATION SYSTEM:
TYPES OF
DATA:
SOURCES OF
DATA:
EPA Region
State
Exposure/Risk
Assessment
Site
Modelling
Contamination
Identification
& Monitoring
Contractor
Reports
State and Local
Government
USGS
Manual
Files
Formal Report
Automated
Systems
/\
Land
Use
Site
Descriptors
K
Hydrogeologic
Descriptors
XK
Parametric
CO
en
-------
PROGRAM: Superfund
DECISION: Is the threat to ground water or existing ground-water contamination
sufficient to place a site on the Superfund National Priority List?
Current Decision-Making Process
Information Management Requirements
Comments
• Perform a Preliminary Site Inves-
tigation:
-- Assess contamination of
nearby drinking water wells
to provide preliminary
assessment of ground-water
contamination
— Action requires analyses of
ground-water samples for
organic and inorganic
contaminants.
•» Perform Site Investigation:
— EPA/contractor takes ground
water samples to determine
nature and extent of contami-
nation
— EPA/contractor determines the
use of ground water (e.g,
irrigation, drinking water,
etc.) within a three mile
radius of the site
— CLP analyzes the ground water
samples
-- If contamination is present,
ground-water threat is
included in calculation of
hazardous ranking score
— A score of 28.5 is needed
before a site is placed on
the NPL list.
• Action requires the following
supporting data:
— Water quality analysis from
nearby public/private
drinking water wells
— Water level Information
— Well descriptors (e.g.,
construction, depth to
ground-water)
— Location of nearby public/
private drinking water wells
— Soil samples
— Land use Information, (e.g.,
immediate threat to nearby
schools, businesses and the
community; wastes on site)
— Aquifer hydraulic parameters.
• Other information requirements
and capabilities include
information on local geology/
hydrology and use of contaminant
fate and transport models.
Note that ground-water
contamination alone is not
sufficient to place a site
on the NPL 11st, however,
ground-water contamination
is a critical element of
the hazardous ranking
score (MRS). All current
NPL sites have a
ground-water component to
the HRS.
OJ
CTi
-------
PROGRAM:
Superfund
DECISION:
What removal or remedial
be most effective
contamination?
action alternatives are likely to
in controlling ground-water
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980
40 CFR 300.68(g)
RESPONSIBILITIES: The determination of an effective removal or remedial
action is Phase VI of a Superfund response action. The
purpose of this phase is to determine the appropriate
action when the preliminary assessment (Phase II) and the
site's NPL ranking indicate that further response is
necessary. If the MRS places the site on the NPL a Remedial
Investigation and a Feasibility Study (RI/FS) are
performed. The RI/FS process starts with a thorough site
investigation and sets forth a number of feasible clean-up
alternatives based upon cost, the effectiveness of the
alternative and acceptable engineering practices.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: There are currently about 135 RI/FSs performed each year.
The number of RI/FSs may increase slightly as a result of
Superfund re-authorization.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
Contractors are generally employed to develop the RI/FS for
a Superfund site, whether it is funded by EPA or the
potentially responsible parties. However, resource
requirements to manage these contractors (fund-lead) and
provide oversight of their activities (enforcement-lead)
are considerable.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
This decision is based upon a review of the RI/FS and made
by the EPA Region or state.
E-37
-------
PROGRAM: Superfund
DECISION: What removal or remedial action alternatives are likely to be most effective
in controlling ground-water contamination?
USER/DECISION-MAKER:
USES OF DATA:
EPA
HQ
1
EPA
Region
i
I
1
Public
Information
I
Data
Analysis
INFORMATION SYSTEM:
TYPES OF
DATA:
Parametric
SOURCES OF
DATA:
Formal Report
Site
Descriptors
Hydrogeologic
Descriptors
1
Contractor
Reports
^^
USGS
\
State and Local
Government
Agencies
I
Co
oo
-------
PROGRAM: Superfund
DECISION: What removal or remedial action alternatives are likely to be most effective
in controlling ground-water contamination?
Current Decision-Making Process
Information Management Requirements
Comments
• RI/FS: Remedial Response Plan
— Once a site 1s actually on
the NPL, the Initial site
Investigation is followed by
a more formal and rigorous
Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS).
— A Remedial Investigation is
conducted to collect the
Information required to
develop remedial action
alternatives.
— A feasibility study is
performed to evaluate the
clean-up alternatives. It
must consider cost, the
effectiveness of the proposed
alternative and the use of
acceptable engineering
practices.
— Selection of the remedial
response is based upon a
review of alternatives
developed in the RI/FS and
made by the lead responsible
agency.
• Information needs which address
ground-water contamination
include:
-- Soil permeability
— Depth to saturated zone
-- Hydrologic gradients
— Proximity to drinking water
aquifers
— Hydrogeological data (e.g.,
general aquifer boundaries
and possible
interconnections)
— Chemical fate, transport and
health effects information.
• RI/FS investigations often use
ground-water models to estimate
direction and magnitude of the
contaminant plume.
• RI/FS's are performed by
contractors and not EPA
personnel.
oo
ID
-------
PROGRAM:
Superfund
DECISION:
Have the selected remedial actions taken to rectify
ground-water contamination been effective in attaining or
exceeding applicable requirements?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980
40 CFR 300.68(j)
RESPONSIBILITIES: The appropriate extent of the remedy is determined by the
responsible authority's selection of the cost-effective
remedial alternative (i.e., the alternative that is
technologically feasible, reliable, cost-effective and
which effectively mitigates and minimizes damage to and
provides adequate protection of public health, welfare or
theenvironment).Responsibleauthorities (e.g.,
responsible parties, state or EPA region) must monitor the
ground-water quality after remedial action is complete to
ensure the remedial alternative selected was appropriate.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: There are not many sites where remedial action is complete
with post-remedial action ground-water monitoring in effect
at this time. Such ground-water monitoring will increase
as additional site clean-ups are complete.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
Resource requirements are site specific, dependent upon the
remedial action taken.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
The responsible EPA Region or state
remedial action taken is effective.
determines if the
E-40
-------
PROGRAM: Super-fund
DECISION: Have the selected remedial actions taken to rectify ground-water contamination been effective in
attaining or exceeding applicable requirements?
USER/DECISION-MAKER:
USES OF DATA:
INFORMATION SYSTEM:
TYPES OF
DATA:
SOURCES OF
DATA:
EPA
Region
Data Analysis
Manual Files
Parametric
Site
Monitoring
State
-------
PROGRAM: Superfund
DECISION: Have the selected remedial actions taken to rectify ground-water contamination been effective in
attaining or exceeding applicable requirements?
Current Decision-Making Process
Information Management Requirements
Comments
• Ground-water quality data are
collected and analyzed to
determine if:
-- Ground-water contamination
from the site has increased
(i.e., remedy ineffective)
— Ground-water contamination is
stable or decreasing (i.e.,
remedy effective).
• Information required includes:
— Ground-water quality samples
analyzed for key organics/
inorganics
— Comparison of new samples
with baseline samples.
• Responsible parties and
states are most likely to
be responsible for
long-term site monitoring.
-------
Underground Storage Tanks
E-43
-------
PROGRAM:
Underground Storage Tanks
DECISIONS: To be decided. May include the following:
• Should an enforcement action be taken against a tank
owner?
• What corrective action should be taken to clean up a
spill from an underground storage tank?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY: The Hazardous and Solid Waste Admendments of 1984,Subtitle I
RESPONSIBILITIES:
EPA is currently developing the regulations for the UST
program. The statuatory deadline for the regulations
regarding corrective action for tanks containing hazardous
substances is November 1987.
The UST program will be largely delegated to the states.
For the states which do not receive authorization, the EPA
region will implement the program. Many states have already
implemented their own UST program. The Federal regulations
will attempt not to interfere with established state
programs. They will focus on leak prevention measures
(e.g., tank construction), corrective action, and financial
responsibility.
The need for ground-water data will depended on each
individual state program. Some states will take a very
active role in detecting tank leaks and may require
ground-water monitoring for each tanks. Other states may
take a more passive role, deal with contamination problems
only as they become a contamination problem, and require
simple leak detection methods (e.g., inventory monitoring).
The states are now processing the notification forms which
were required from all underground tank owners. Some states
are using computer systems to store the information.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD:
There are over 1 million underground storage tanks which
contain petroleum and hazardous substances. The workload
will be a factor of Federal and state regulations. Some
states require all tank owners to obtain a permit for each
tank (in addition to notifying the state for Federal
Notification program). Aboveground tanks are also regulated
in many states.
E-44
-------
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS: Resource requirements cannot be estimated until the Federal
regulations are promulgated and the program is implemented
at the state level. Most states are just beginning to
develop their own programs.
(A flow chart is not included for this program because, except for the
Notification program, the Federal program has not been implemented.)
E-45
-------
Underground Injection Control
E-46
-------
PROGRAM:
Underground Injection Control
DECISION:
Should an EPA Region or delegated state issue a permit or
rule for an underground injection well?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Safe Drinking Water Act, Part C
40 CFR Part 144, Subpart D
40 CFR Part 144, Subpart C
and E. (Authorization by Permit)
(Authorization by Rule)
RESPONSIBILITIES: The delegated state can only authorize — by permit or rule
— underground injection if 1t will not endanger an
underground source of drinking water. The permitting
authority is responsible for five different classes of
underground injection wells; only Classes I-III are
permitted.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: Workload varies by state but the total number of Class II
wells requiring permit application reviews and permit
compliance reviews in the program far exceed the number of
all other well classes combined. Region V reviews 220
II permits each year".
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
Vary by. state and EPA region and are dependent upon the
scope of the UIC program in the area.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
The UIC program is, for the most part, a delegated program.
Therefore program administrative activities rest with the
delegated state or territory. Often different classes of
wells can be regulated by different agencies in the state.
EPA regional offices assume responsibilities for states
that have not accepted delegation.
E-47
-------
PROGRAM: Underground Injection Control
DECISION: Should an EPA Region or delegated state issue a permit or rule for an underground injection well?
Current Decision-Making Process
Information Management Requirements
Comments
i An EPA region or delegated state
receives a UIC well permit
application. Typically UIC wells
are oil or gas wells that the
applicant wishes to convert to a
new use.
> The application contains:
administrative Information,
drilling logs, well descriptor
data, a listing of other nearby
wells (usually within a three
mile radius).
Remit authorities must review
permits and determine:
— Is the Integrity of the
Injection well sound?
— Is the Injection formation
appropriate?
— Is the Injection pressure
appropriate for the
formation?
— What are the characteristics
of the Injection zone?
— Is the post-closure plug and
abandonment plan (Class I
wells) adequate (I.e., ground
water monitoring for 30
years)?
The permit approval decision Is
based on the risk that Injected
wastes could contaminate an USOW.
Two primary calculations are made
to assess risk:
— Endangerment area
calculations
— Injection formation pressure
calculations.
• Ground-water parametric data 1s
not a primary data requirement
for this program. However, the
background quality of water In
UDSM's 1n the area of review
would be useful Information.
• List of wells 1n area of review,
location and depth of nearby
USOUs. together with data on well
construction, age, depth, casing,
packing, elevation, bottom
pressure and administrative data
(e.g. owner/operator, facility
name, SIC code, permit type, well
type) are required.
• Comprehensive data on local
geology and hydrology to support
the use of more sophisticated
ground-water transport models 1s
used. Other data Includes
suitability of the Injection
zone, reservoir porosity and
permeability, proposed Injection
pressure. Injection volume,
electric well log, and amount,
composition and timing of waste
Injections.
• Data on general regional land
uses (e.g., nearby sources of
drinking water, RCRA/CERCLA
sites, population, etc.) 1s
needed.
• Mapping capabilities to display
well, land use data, geology and
aquifer data on an Integrated
basis 1s desired.
t Sophisticated ground-water
transport models for UIC
application evaluation
require significantly more
detailed hydrologic and
geologic data than 1s
commonly available.
Sophisticated models are
worthwhile only under
special circumstances.
• There 1s a large amount of
administrative Information
associated with permitted
UIC wells. Several states
currently use
micro-computers to store
and retrieve Information
such as well owner, permit
limits, and facility
operator waste stream
Injection reports.
• It Is uncommon to require
ground-water monitoring 1n
an Injection well.
However. Region 5 now
requires RCRA-Uke
post-closure ground-water
monitoring requirements
for Its Class I wells.
Over the long tem this
requirement could generate
a large amount of data.
-
00
-------
PROGRAM: Underground Injection Control
DECISION: Should an EPA Region or delegated state issue a permit or rule for an underground injection well?
USER/DECISION-MAKER:
USES OF DATA:
INFORMATION SYSTEM:
TYPES OF
DATA:
SOURCE
OF DATA:
UIC Well
Application
EPA Region
I
Manual
Files
L
Delegated
State
J
1
Injection
Formation Press.
Calculations
1
Endangerment Area
Calculations
1
Automated
Systems
J
State/Local
Government
Agencies
Other
EPA Programs
Petroleum
Information,
Inc.
USGS
-------
PROGRAM:
Underground Injection Control
DECISION:
Should an enforcement action be taken because an
underground injection well has violated program
requirements, exceeded permit limits or contaminated an
underground source of drinking water?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Safe Drinking Water Act, Part C
40 CFR Part 144, Subparts B-E.
RESPONSIBILITIES: The permit authority must review injection permits (usually
on a three year schedule) and may terminate, permit or deny
a permit renewal application for noncompliance.
Permit authorities must review permit compliance data
submitted by facility operators to determine compliance
with permit injection limits and pressure.
Permit authorities must review monitoring data and records
from surrounding wells, monitor well pressure, and evaluate
the mechanical integrity of the well to identify facilities
as candidates for inspection.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: Few permit termination actions have been made to date.
While permits are reviewed periodically, all UIC wells
require inspection. Class I wells are inspected at least
once per year while Class II wells are inspected at five
year intervals.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
Vary by state and are dependent upon the scope of the UIC
program in the state.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
The UIC program is, for the most part, a delegated program.
Therefore, program administrative activities rest with the
delegated state or territory. Often different classes of
wells can be regulated by different agencies in the state.
EPA regional offices assume responsibilities for states
that have not accepted delegation.
E-50
-------
PROGRAM: Underground Injection Control
DECISION: Should an enforcement action be taken because an underground injection well has violated program
requirements, exceeded permit limts or contaminated an underground source of drinking water?
Current Decision-Making Process
Information Management Requirements
Comments
• Permits may be terminated when:
— The permit authority makes a
determination that the
permitted activity endangers
human health or the
environment (e.g.
contaminates an USDW).
-- The permittee misrepresents
any relevant facts at any
time or fails to disclose
pertinent information (e.g.,
willfully fails to disclose
all wells in area of review).
— Permittee is in
non-compliance with a permit
condition.
• Data required to terminate permit
may include but is not limited to
information from the mechanical
integrity test (e.g., does the
well leak?) and injection
pressure data (e.g., condition of
injection formation).
• A review of administrative
records is necessary to determine
if permittee exceeded injection
volumes and timing.
• Post-closure requirements for
Class I wells Include a 30 year
period of ground-water quality
monitoring.
• Many UIC programs do not
require that monitoring
wells be placed near UIC
wells. EPA HQ believe
over use of monitoring
wells might be harmful to
the ground water Injection
zone.
• Ground-water quality data,
except IDS, are not
routinely collected by the
UIC program. It does
require the collection of
a considerable amount of
geologic Information not
traditionally associated
with a ground-water
monitoring samples (e.g.,
location of USDW.
Identification of
confining geology zones,
Interconnect1v1ty).
• Post-closure requirements
for Class I wells could
generate a significant
amount of ground-
water quality data.
en
-------
PROGRAM:
Underground Injection Control
DECISION:
Should an enforcement action be taken because an underground injection well has
exceeded permit limits or contaminated an underground source of drinking water?
USER/DECISION-MAKER:
USES OF THE DATA:
INFORMATION SYSTEM:
TYPES OF
DATA:
SOURCES
OF DATA:
EPA Region
L
1
Contamination
Identification
|
1
Delegated
State
1
Risk
Assessment
Manual
Files
|
1
Injection
Information
1
r
Permit
Review
1
Permit
Enforcement
1
i
Automated
Systems
1
1
Well
Descriptors
1
i
Regulated
Community
I
en
INi
-------
Drinking Water
E-53
-------
PROGRAM:
Drinking Water
DECISION:
Should a purveyor receive approval for the operation of a
public water system?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Safe Drinking Water Act 1974, Part B
40 CFR 141-142
RESPONSIBILITIES:
EPA may delegate the program to the states which in turn can
implement the program at the local or district level.
Delegated states must have drinking water standards and
enforcement, variance and exemption procedures "no less
stringent" than Federal standards. Delegated programs may
approve a public water system purveyor if the water meets
maximum contaminant level (MCL) standards or has an
effective water treatment program. A public water system is
one which regularly supplies water to 15 or more service
connectors or to 25 or more individuals at least 60 days a
year.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: Dependent upon the maintenance and development of drinking
water supplies necessary to meet demand for public water
supplies.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
The technical review of a permit application can take from 8
to 36 person hours.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
ATI states except Indiana, Wyoming and water supplies on
Indian lands have assumed primacy. Many states and
localities regulate public water systems from their Health
departments.
E-54
-------
PROGRAM: Drinking Water
DECISION: Should a purveyor receive approval for the operation of a public water supply system?
USER/DECISION-MAKER:
USES OF DATA:
INFORMATION SYSTEM:
TYPES OF
DATA:
SOURCES OF
DATA:
r~
Delegated
State/
Locality
|
Technical
Review
STORE!
(In someStates)
/
IT
Parametric
\
I
\
Data Analysis
i
i
Manual
Rles
State
Systems
i
I l
Well
Descriptor
Faciity Hydrologic/
Descriptor Geologic
1 ^K
^ \
Facility Review/
Approval Process
Other
USGS State
Programs
in
in
-------
PROGRAM: Drinking Water
DECISION: Should a purveyor receive approval for the operation of a public water supply system?
Current Decision-Making Process
Information Management Requirements
Comments
Under SDWA, EPA can delegate the
public water system (PWS) program
to the states. As part of their
regulatory program, some states
and localities permit PWS
facilities. Most states perform
a plan and specification review
of new public water supply
facilities. New facilities are
often required to submit raw
ground-water samples taken from
the well heads as well as other
information on the supplying
aquifer and wells. The states
and localities use this data to
assess the suitability of the PWS
as a safe source of drinking
water. States and localities
also require a plan and
specification review and approval
if there are any changes to a PWS
facility (e.g., a new well is
added to the system).
States receive most of their
information through the PWS
approval process. Other
information requirements
include:
— Background quality data on
the supplying aquifer(s)
— Geologic and hydrologic
data for the supplying
aquifer(s)
~ Land use in the area to
identify potential sources
of contamination.
• State programs often
regulate the quantity as
well as the quality of the
ground water extracted.
• The ground-water samples
taken at the well head
often are not represen-
tative of the general
water quality found in the
supplying aquifer. Larger
systems have wells with
multiple screens which
draw water from several
aquifers A well head
sample, then, many not
represent a single aquifer
but a blend of several.
• STORET is sometimes used
by the delegated programs
to store ground-water
quality (parametric) data.
tn
en
-------
PROGRAM:
Drinking Water
DECISION:
Should enforcement action be taken against a public water
system?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Safe Drinking Water Act 1974, Part B
40 CFR 141-142
RESPONSIBILITIES:
Delegated states are responsible for adopting, monitoring,
reporting, public notification and implementing procedures
for the enforcement of MCL's. State regulatory
requirements can be "no less stringent" than the Federal
requirements in 40 CFR 141.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD:
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
All states except Indiana, Wyoming and water supplies on
Indian lands have assumed primacy. Many states regulate
Public Water Systems from their Health department.
E-57
-------
PROGRAM: Drinking Water
DECISION: Should enforcement action be taken against a public water system?
USER/DECISION-MAKER:
USES OF DATA:
INFORMATION SYSTEM:
TYPES OF
DATA:
SOURCES OF
DATA:
ER:
M:
Land
Use
Other
Programs
Delegated
State/
Locality
Contamination
Identification &
Monitoring
Manual
Rles
1
Geologic/
Hydrologic
1
State
System
^^"^7 \
\^^ \l
Parametric Well
(finished water) Descriptors
1 1
Regulated
Community
\ 1
Facility
Descriptors
I
I
in
oo
-------
PROGRAM: Drinking Water
DECISION: Should an enforcement action be taken against a PWS?
Current Decision-Making Process
Information Management Requirements
Comments
• Public water system (PWS)
purveyors submit monitoring
reports on finished water to the
state on a regular basis. When
MCL's are exceeded, additional
monitoring is performed. This can
include monitoring at the well
head to detect the source of
contamination. Samples may also
be taken from wells in the area
surrounding the PWS facility.
• Sanitary surveys are also
performed by the state to help
identify contamination problems.
• At the state level enforcement
actions can result in closure of
the PWS unless the facility can
correct the problem.
• Federal enforcement actions
include notification of non-
compliance, an order to the state
requiring compliance, an EPA
issued Administrative Order, or a
civil action against the PWS.
• Most of the data required is
supplied by the regulated
PWS's (this data includes
parametric data on finished
water, well descriptors,
facility descriptors, and
geologic/hydrologic data).
• Some states find it useful to
detect the source of
ground-water contamination.
The following information is
needed in this effort:
— Land use
— Geologic/hydrologic data
for an extended area.
• Some states indicated that
mapping and modelling
capabilities would be useful.
These tools would assist in
the identification of
contaminant sources and help
predict if a spill or leak
would affect a PWS.
• Some states have not used
STORET to store parametric
data because the data is
often for "finished"
water. Data on "raw"
water is usually available
only when the PWS
constructs a new well,
from special studies, or
if the PWS does not treat
its water.
• The Federal government
(EPA) must enforce the PWS
program on Indian Lands.
-------
PROGRAM:
Drinking Water
DECISION:
Should an MCL
drinking water?
be designated for a contaminant found in
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Safe Drinking Water Act 1974, Section 1401(1), 1412(b)
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, Section 101
RESPONSIBILITIES:
The Office of Drinking Water at EPA Headquarters is
responsible for establishing maximum contaminant levels for
each contaminant which, in its judgement, may have adverse
human health effects.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: According to the SDWA Amendments of 1986, EPA must
promulgate national primary drinking water regulations for
83 contaminants by June 1989.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
The resources required to develop
depending on the type of contaminant.
an MCL vary widely
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
The Office of Drinking Water at EPA Headquarters establishes
primary drinking water standards in conjunction with the
National Academy of Sciences. Interim standards are
promulgated by EPA.
E-60
-------
PROGRAM: Drinking Water
DECISION: Should an MCL be designated for a contaminant found in drinking water?
USER/DECISION-MAKER:
USES OF DATA:
INFORMATION SYSTEM:
TYPES OF
DATA:
SOURCES OF
DATA:
EPAHQ
Contamination
Identification
& Monitoring
Exposure & Risk
Assessment
Manual
Files
Parametric
Special Studies
& Surveys
Health
Effects
Published
Sources
m
i
-------
PROGRAM: Drinking Water
DECISION: Should an MCL be designated for a contaminant found in the drinking water?
Current Decision-Making Process
Information Management Requirements
Comments
• The Office of Drinking Water
assesses the magnitude of the
problem from data provided by the
EPA Regions, states and special
studies and surveys. It analyzes
the health effects associated
with the contaminant and
determines the necessity of a new
maximum contaminant level (MCL).
In the interim, ODW may issue a
health advisory regarding the
contaminant.
• Information requirements include:
— Incidents of contamination or
new health effects data on
known contaminants
~ Health effects information
— ODW may commission a special
study to collect surface
and/or ground-water quality
data.
• Note that the Office of
Drinking Water, unlike the
pesticides program, is not
required to perform a
cost/benefit analysis
except as required under
Executive Order 12291.
-------
Pesticides
E-63
-------
PROGRAM:
Pesticide Program
DECISION:
Should a pesticide reg1strat1on/rereg1strati on be approved?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentldde Act (FIFRA)
Section 3
40 CFR 162
RESPONSIBILITIES: The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) at EPA Headquarters
reviews pesticide data submitted by the manufacturer to
ensure that the pesticide does not pose an unreasonable
adverse effect on the environment (defined as "any
unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking Into
account the economic, social and environmental costs and
benefits of any use of the pesticide") and so meets the
statuatory standard for registration or rereglstratlon. A
state may provide registration for additional uses of
Federally registered pesticides to meet special local needs
(1f such use has not previously been prohibited by EPA).
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: There are 40,000 pesticides containing some 1,400 active
Ingredients 1n 600 generic categories now registered by
EPA. All these existing pesticides are being reregistered
through OPP's development of Registration Standards. All
Registration Standard reviews Involve a consideration of
ground-water protection. As part of the rereglstratlon
process, a special Ground Water Data Call-In was conducted
for about 90 potential Teachers 1n 1984, and has elicited
250-270 data submissions so far.
In addition, all requests for new and amended pesticide
product registration Involving outdoor uses are evaluated
from the standpoint of ground-water protection. Most of the
900-1000 scientific environmental fate data reviews
completed by OPP during each of the last two years have
Involved ground-water.
Pesticides raising human health or environmental concerns
during registration or rereglstratlon are subjected to more
Intensive risk/benefit review through the Special Review
process. About 6 Special Reviews Involving ground-water
concerns are ongoing or have been completed by OPP 1n
recent years.
E-64
-------
OPP staff anticipate that the number of registration and
rereglstratlon review actions Involving ground-water
concerns will Increase during the next several years.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
OPP's Hazard Evaluation Division Includes a Ground-Water
Team of three scientists and four part time writer/editor
and hydrogeologlst consusultants working primarily on
ground-water related registration, rereglstratlon and other
technical reviews, collaborative projects with the States
and USGS, and numerous requests for environmental fate data
and technical assistance. Staff of OPP's Registration
Division and Benefits and Use Division also play a role 1n
handling registration and rereglstratlon decisions, so that
a total of 7 person-years per year are dedicated to
ground-water related reviews 1n OPP.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
The Office of Pesticide Programs makes the registration or
rereglstratlon decision. At the state level, pesticide
regulatory and enforcement programs are often Implemented
by state agencies such as the Department of Agriculture.
E-65
-------
PROGRAM: Pesticides
DECISION: Should a pesticide registration/reregistration be approved?
Current Decision-Making Process
Information Management Requirements
Comments
• Data requirements to support
decision include:
— Tests for acute toxicity in
humans, test animals or
endangered species, or
population reductions in non-
target organisms
-- Tests for chronic toxicity in
humans, test animals, etc.
-- Reviews of emergency treat-
ment procedures for ameliora-
ting the toxic effects of a
pesticide in people
-- Cost/benefit analysis of
pesticide use e.g., economic
modelling
— Effect of pesticide use on
ground water (e.g. model
chemical, fate and transport
in all soils of unstaturated
zone. Examine Teachability,
adsorption/desorption charac-
teristics, resistance to
degradation, solubility and
volatility.)
t Information requirements Include:
— Ground water quality
— Site descriptors
— Geologlc/hydrologlc data
— Soil data
— Weather data.
• QA/QC Indicators (e.g.,
analytical technique used, who
performed the study, sampling and
analysis) are very Important.
• Happing capabilities are needed
1n the analysis of pesticide
contamination.
• Security measures are required
for any data submitted by an
applicant.
• Mobility and persistence data of
the pesticide.
• OPP Is now conducting the
National Pesticides
Survey. Data will be
stored on an IBM AT.
• OPP would like better
access to the Ground Water
Site Inventory Data (GWSI)
• The Soil Conservation
Service 1s a source of
soil data.
• Registrant-submitted data
are used for most
pesticide actions.
m
i
cr
01
-------
PROGRAM: Pesticides
DECISION: Should a pesticide registration/roregistration be approved?
USER/DECISION-MAKER:
USES OF DATA:
EPAHQ
1
1 1
Exposure/ Risk
Assessment
Public
Information
1
Data
Analysis
State
Cost/Benefit
Analysis
1 1 1
Modelling
^^
INFORMATIC
TYPES OF
DATA:
SOURCES O
PVATA .
>N SYSTEM:
L-~-
Ground-water
Quality
I
F
-4
Manual
Files
I -
-^
-^\^^\/
Well
Descriptors
1
Other
Federal
Agencies
Soil
Hydrogeotogic Dato
\ \
\ f
State
Agencies
Special
Studies &
Surveys
Automated
Systems
^
1
Weather
Data
1
Site
Descriptors
Registrant
Application
I
Pesticide
Mobility
& Persistence
Data
I
I
CTi
-------
PROGRAM:
Pesticide Program
DECISION:
Should the registration for an approved pesticide be
suspended, cancelled, or restricted because of ground-water
contamination ?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentldde Act (FIFRA)
Section 6 and Section 3.
RESPONSIBILITIES: Sections 6 and 3 authorize EPA to suspend, cancel or
restrict pesticides that pose varying degrees of risk to
humans or the environment. Under Section 6, EPA may cancel
the registration of a pesticide that causes'unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment. A suspension order may
be Issued by EPA 1f 1t is determined necessary for
preventing an imminent hazard. A finding of unreasonable
risk under FIFRA Involves a process that weighs health
risks Including applicator, dietary and ground-water
contamination, against the benefits of continued use of the
pesticide. EPA may also restrict hazardous pesticide uses
to certified applicators under Section 3. A ground-water
restricted use rule 1s also being developed by EPA.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD:
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
FIFRA Section 6(c) suspensions occur Infrequently, at a
rate of only one every several years. However, ground-water
related restrictions are likely to occur much more often 1n
the near future.
These types of suspensions are usually very resource
Intensive because they require numerous offices to provide
thorough legal, economic, and scientific evaluations.
The Office of Pesticide Programs at EPA Headquarters
suspends or cancels a pesticide registration and acts in
cooperation with the Office of General Council, the
Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, and the Administrator.
E-68
-------
PROGRAM: Pesticides
DECISION: Should the registration for an approved pesticide be suspended, cancelled, or restricted
because of ground-water contamination?
Current Decision-Making Process
Information Management Requirements
Comments
0 EPA collaborates with the USGS
and state and county governments
on the design and execution of
field studies which often
generate data necessary to make
these types of decisions.
• State and EPA Regional Offices
identify and report to EPA HQ
incidents of pesticide contamina-
tion of ground water.
• EPA HQ evaluates the ground water
contamination incidents and
determines the potential for any
adverse health effects. It is
important to underscore the fact
that a finding of unreasonable
risk under FIFRA involves a
process that weighs health risks
against the benefits of continued
use67pesticide. Information
regarding the potential of a
pesticide to leach through the
soil into ground water is
factored into EPA's assessment of
exposure to pesticides.
Ground water quality samples
taken to provide evidence of
ground water contamination.
Information needs Include:
— Common pesticides of use In
the area
— Location of area drinking
water wells
— Analysis of ground-water
samples for pesticides.
to support a
cancellation
e Data requirements
suspension or
Include:
— Economic benefit (e.g.. value
to crops)
— Health effects of exposure to
pesticide compounds
— Potential of pesticide to
leach under varying soil and
climatic conditions.
• At present there is no
mechanism that automates
transfer of the pesticide
ground-water data from the
states to EPA headquarters.
• USGS (GUSI) and the Soil
Conservation Service are
sources of water level and
soil data, respectively.
• Historic ground-water data Is
used 1f available.
• Several types of special
studies are used when
available or conducted to
enhance the final determina-
tion
pesticide monitoring In
groundwater
— soil-core studies
-------
PROGRAM: Pesticides
DECISION: Should the registration for an approved pesticide be suspended, cancelled, or restricted because of
ground-water contamination?
USER/DECISION-MAKER:
EPA HO
State
USES OF DATA:
INFORMATION SYSTEM:
TYPES OF
DATA:
1 1 1 1
Exposure /Risk
Assessment
Public
Information
Data
Analysis
Cost/Benefit
Analysis
Modelling
Ground-water
Quality
Well
Descriptors
Hydrogeotogic
Soil
Data
Weather
Data
Site
Descriptors
Health
Effects
SOURCES OF
DATA:
Other
Federal
Agencies
State
Agencies
Special
Surveys &
Studies
Registrant
Application
-------
Toxics
E-71
-------
PROGRAM:
DECISION:
Toxic Substances
Should the manufacture, processing, distribution, use or
disposal of a toxic substance be regulated; should testing
(Section 4) or additional existing information be requested
of the manufacturer (Section 8)?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Toxics Substances Control Act ~ Section 4, 5, 6 and 8
RESPONSIBILITIES:
The objective of toxic regulation is to ensure against an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment
(including ground water) from the manufacture, processing
distribution, use or disposal of a chemical substance or
mixture. Because it encompasses all aspects of a chemical
pathway through society, including use and disposal, TSCA
has the potential for directly addressing ground water
contamination.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD:
OTS reviewed over 1,700 new chemicals in FY86 and processed
as many existing chemicals in the program as resources
permit.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
The Office of Toxic Substances program is supported at the
level of approximately 500 Full-time Employees (FTE's) per
year.
The Office of
the decision.
Toxic Substances at EPA Headquarters makes
E-72
-------
PROGRAM:
DECISION:
Toxic Substances
Should the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, or disposal of a toxic
substance be regulated; should testing (Section 4) or additional existing information
be requested of the manufacturer (Section 8)?
USER/DECISION-MAKER
USES OF DATA:
INFORMATION SYSTEM:
TYPES OF
DATA:
SOURCES OF
DATA:
Exposure/Risk
Assessment
Manual
Files
Automated
Systems
Health &
Environmental
ffects
Parametric (e.g.,
water quality)
Soil
Characteristics
Geologic/
Hydrologic
Other
Federal Agencies
Section 5 PMN
and
Sec. 4 & 8 Rules
Special
Studies
m
i
—j
oo
-------
PROGRAM: Toxic Substances
DECISION- Should the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, or disposal of a toxic
substance be regulated; should testing (Section 4) or additional existing information
be requested of the manufacturer (Section 8)?
Current Decision-Making Process
Information Management Requirements
Comments
• TSCA Is an Integratlve tool which
can be used to collect and assess
data on health and environmental
effects of toxic substances 1n
ground water (Sec. 4, 5. & 8) and
control the production, trans-
port, storage, disposal and use
of toxic substances (Sec. 5 & 6)
for those problems Involving
ground water contamination from
toxic substances. To this end OTS
can:
— Review the health effects of
the toxic substance and the
magnitude of exposure to
human beings
— Review the magnitude of
exposure and effects on the
environment
— Assess the benefits of
product use and consider the
availability of alternative
substances
-- Determine the economic conse-
quences of a ruling to regu-
late the toxic
— Choose a regulatory action or
rule (e.g. test, ban,
restricted use, disposal
requirements).
• OTS uses ground-water models.
field studies and exposure
assessments to assess the threat
a toxic presents to the ground
water.
• OTS uses the following data:
— Ground-water quality data
(e.g., monitoring data, con-
centration values, MCL
violations)
~ Hydrogeologlc data (e.g.,
soil characteristics, aquifer
classification and vulner-
ability, depth to ground
water)
— Ground-water use data (e.g.,
as drinking water,
Irrigation, salt aquifer)
— Site/facility background data
(e.g., population at risk,
location of drinking water
wells, private wells, and
hazardous facilities.
— Weather Information
— Health effects
— Human monitoring data
• Additional data Is required to
perform the cost/benefit
analysis.
t The Geographic Exposure Modelling
System (GEMS) 1s a model
management system which has
access to several databases.
• TSCA requires a cost/
benefit assessment. Ground
water contamination 1s
considered as part of that
determination.
• OTS needs to access
on-line geographic ground-
water Information and
other geologic data (e.g.,
saturated and unsaturated
zones) on a national
basis. It currently has
access to several
databases (e.g..
Geoecology Data Base,
National Soils Data,
Cities Environments Data,
Groundwater Management
File).
-------
State and Local Programs
E-75
-------
STATE/LOCAL PROGRAM DECISIONS
1. Water Allocation (AZ,GA,MA,MN,NJ,SC,UT,VA,WA)
• How much water should a facility be allowed to withdraw? From which
aquifers?
• What are the future ground-water needs in the area?
2. Landfill Permitting (CA,IL,SC,TX,VA,AZ,MA)
• Should a solid-waste landfill receive a permit?
• What is the ground-water monitoring plan?
3. Zoning and Planning (MN,CT,UT,MA,AZ)
• Should land use restrictions be developed and implemented to protect
the ground water in selected areas?
• What should be the land use policy developed for either the protection
or industrial use of ground water resources?
4. Chemigation Permitting (NE)
• Does the Chemigation system provide an actual or imminent threat to
ground-water supplies?
5. Highway Construction (MN.AZ)
• How and where should a highway be constructed so that it will not
affect the ground water?
t Where should rest areas be located to ensure access to drinking water
quality ground water?
t Should the transportation authority purchase land for highway
construction? Is the ground water for the parcel under consideration
already contaminated?
E-76
-------
6. Ground-Hater Discharge Permitting (AZ,CT,NJ,TX,VA,WY,MT,MO,CA,MA)
i
• Should a facility or activity receive a discharge permit?
• What measures is the facility taking to protect the ground water?
7. Mine Permitting (VA)
• Should a mining activity receive a permit? How will the ground water
be affected?
• Where should the ground-water monitoring wells be located? What will
the reporting requirements be? What is the background water quality?
8. Hell-head Protection (Dade Co. FL,AZ,VT,MA,NY,CT)
• Should protection measures be implemented to protect a drinking water
well production field from migrating sources of ground-water
contaminants and surface discharges?
• Should off-site recharge areas be protected?
9. Ground-Hater Protection Areas (NE,NJ,WA,UT,CT,NY,IL,Dade, Co.FL)
• Should discharges be limited in an area because of aquifer
contamination problems? Should the aquifer or area be given a special
protection?
• Should re-charge areas be protected?
10. Ground-Hater Use Classification (CT,NJ,SC,MT,WY,AZ)
• What should be the designated uses of aquifers throughout the state?
t What is the current or potential use of the ground water based upon
its quality?
E-77
-------
11. Well Permit Program (AZ)
• Should a permit be Issued to an applicant for the drilling and
construction of a well?
12. Land Tranfer Program (MA,MO)
• Should the state approve the sale or transfer of corporate and
commercial land in Massachusetts or hazardous waste disposal sites in
Missouri between an authorized seller and buyer?
E-78
-------
PROGRAM:
Water Allocation
DECISION:
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
How much water should a facility be allowed to withdraw?
From which aquifers?
What are the future ground-water needs in the area?
A state program
RESPONSIBILITIES:
Many states, especially states which have had water quantity
problems in the past, regulate the withdrawal of
ground-water. The regulations usually apply only to
facilities which withdraw large quantities of water (e.g.,
more than 1,000 gallons per day). The facility is required
to submit a permit detailing the aquifers which are to be
tapped, the amount of ground-water to be withdrawn, well
logs, water levels, other wells in the vicinity, and,
sometimes, water quality data. The state, or delegated
district/locality, will assess the effect of the withdrawal
on the aquifer, future water supplies, and on other water
users in the area.
The state water allocation program is tied with other state
programs and regulations. The well permitting program is
often part of the water allocation program. The public
water system (PWS) program, which focuses on the quality of
the water supply, often coordinates its efforts with the
water allocation program.
USGS has traditionally been more involved with water supply
issues than EPA. Many states store their data on SWUDS.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD:
As ground-water supplies become more scarce due to depletion
of aquifers and contamination problems, state water
allocation programs will receive more attention nationwide.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
The water allocation program is administered from the state
department of environmental protection or from the state
water resource commission or board.
E-79
-------
PROGRAM:
DECISION:
Landfill Permitting
Should a solid-waste landfill receive a permit?
What is the ground-water monitoring plan?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Currently a state program. Federal regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Subtitle D, are
being developed.
RESPONSIBILITIES:
Although EPA is presently developing regulations for
solid-waste landfills, many states have already developed
their own programs. States which issue permits to
solid-waste landfills have implemented their programs
similarly to the RCRA Subtitle C program, however, the
requirements are much less stringent. Landfill owners or
operators are required to submit a permit application
detailing how the facility is constructed and proposing a
ground-water monitoring plan. The monitoring plan (i.e.,
the placement of the wells and the parameters to be
monitored) will depend on the hydrogeology and the solid
wastes contained in the landfill. Reporting requirements
will also vary by state and by facility type.
Ground-water data is used to detect leaks from a landfill.
States will identify when MCLs are violated. Ground-water
data is also used for trend analyses on the type of
substances most likely to leak from the facility.
Most states regulate
are regulated through
program.
landfills. In some states landfills
the ground-water discharge permit
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD:
There are approximately 10,000 to 50,000 solid-waste
disposal facilities which receive small quantity generator
hazardous waste and household waste. While many of these
facilities are permitted through state programs, the permits
will have to be renewed on a regular basis.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
Permitting solid-waste landfill facilities is much less
resource intensive than permitting hazardous waste
facilities.
E-80
-------
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE: The landfill permit program is implemented by the state
department of environmental protection in the solid waste
division.
E-81
-------
PROGRAM:
Zoning and Planning
DECISION:
Should land use restrictions be developed and implemented to
protect the ground water in selected areas?
What should be the land use policy developed for either the
protection or industrial use of ground water resources?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Primarily a local program with technical assistance provided
by the state or region.
RESPONSIBILITIES: Local communities and Regional planning boards develop land
use planning and zoning policies to protect sensitive
ground-water areas. They require ground-water areas to meet
a designated use (e.g. drinking water source or industrial
use area).
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: As
ground water as a source of drinking water becomes
increasingly scarce and the demand for water increases,
communities will seek cost effective methods of providing
necessary water supplies. The protection and preservation
of existing sources of supply is a concern for many
communities across the county.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
State planning agencies (e.g., MN, CT, MA) play an active
role in protecting ground water resources by promoting local
communities to adopt zoning restrictions, growth policies,
and land use plans to protect the resource.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
Local communities or regional governing bodies are
responsible for zoning and planning decisions. The state
planning agency provides guidance and technical assistance.
E-82
-------
PROGRAM:
Chemigation Permitting
DECISION:
Does the Chemigation system provide an actual or imminent
threat to ground-water supplies?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
In Nebraska, legislative authority is given by the Nebraska
Chemigation Act.
RESPONSIBILITIES: The Nemaha Natural Resource District (NRD) Chemigation
program requires that after January 1, 1987, all Chemigation
activities must be permitted. In order to receive a permit,
the applicant must meet certain technical requirements and
the NRD must inspect the irrigation distribution system.
The NRD needs ground-water data in order to assess if there
is an actual or imminent threat of danger to people or the
environment due to the operation of a Chemigation system.
The NRD can suspend operation of the system if a threat is
found. Ground-water data will have to be received and
analyzed on a regular basis in order to make such a
determination.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: The Chemigation Act will go into effect on January 1, 1987.
It is not clear yet what contamination problems will be
found-
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
Resource requirements will be determined when the program is
implemented.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
The Natural Resource Districts will be responsible for
implementing the program in Nebraska. If a NRD does not
fulfill its responsibility, the state will implement the
program.
E-83
-------
PROGRAM:
Highway Construction
DECISION:
How and where should a highway be constructed so that it
will not adversely affect ground-water quality?
Where should rest areas be located
drinking water quality ground water?
to ensure access to
Should the transportation authority purchase land for
highway construction? Is the ground water for the parcel
under consideration already contaminated?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Highway construction is a state program.
RESPONSIBILITIES: The transportation authority or highway department must:
• Ensure adequate supplies of potable water are available
for rest areas
• Ensure that highway drain fields and seepage ponds will
not contaminate ground water
• Protect ground water from highway de-icing agents
(e.g., urea)
• Ensure the authority does not purchase, and
subsequently become responsible for the clean-up of, a
site with contaminated ground water.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: The workload is determined by the extent of highway
construction activities in a state.
RESOURCE
REQUIREMENTS:
Not extensive. State rely heavily upon the records of their
state geologic survey and USGS atlases. Occasional field
work is required but performed on a case-by-case basis.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
This program is usually implemented by the state department
of transportation.
E-84
-------
PROGRAM:
Ground-Water Discharge Permitting
DECISION: Should a facility or activity (e.g., industrial discharger)
receive a discharge permit?
What measures are the facility taking to protect the ground
water?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY: Ground-Water discharge permitting is a state program.
RESPONSIBILITIES: Program officials are required to issue permits and enforce
compliance with permit limits established for regulated
facilities and activities.
Typically, ground-water discharge permits are issued to any
facility or operation capable of causing ground-water
degradation (e.g., solid waste landfills, salt storage
facilities, office buildings (i.e., heat pumps), industrial
dischargers, and to municipalities for the land application
of waste water).
Permittees often must submit a discharge permit application
containing such information as well head elevation, estimate
of ground-water flow direction, calculation of the zone of
cent-ami nation.
influence
p
ar
of
characterization of the receiving waters and an estimate of
the quality of the discharge.
As a permit condition, permittees submit routine monitoring
reports providing chemical analyses of the ground water
samples taken from the facility's monitoring well(s). This
ground-water parametric data is used for program enforcement
actions.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: Of
the states visited in this study Arizona, New Jersey,
Connecticut, Massachusetts and Texas had ground-water
discharge permit programs. In some cases the program was
relatively new (not more than 3-4 years old) and was
expected to grow.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
The program is usually implemented
environmental protection agency.
by the state
E-85
-------
PROGRAM:
Mine Permitting
DECISION:
Should a mining activity receive a permit? How will the
ground-water be affected?
Where should the ground-water monitoring wells be located?
What will the reporting requirements be? What is the
background water quality?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
A state program
RESPONSIBILITIES:
While there is considerable variance in the regulation of
state mining activities, increasingly states are regulating
from the perspective of ground water pollution control. To
this end many states have adopted mine permit programs with
ground water quality monitoring requirements. A complete
discussion of state mining activities is beyono! the scope of
this study, however, the State of Virginia mine permit
program has been outlined here to illustrate fundamental
program characteristics.
In Virginia, mining facilities are required to monitor both
surface water and ground water. In the permit application,
the applicant provides information such as the hydrogeology
and background water quality and quantity. The applicant
must also indicate other users in the area so that the state
can evaluate the impact of the mining operation on other
ground-water users.
Mining facilities report regularly to the state Division of
Mined Land Reclamation (DMLR). DMLR identifies any potential
ground water degradation or diminution from the facility.
The state also uses the data from the operation to evaluate
the possible role of the mining facility when a complaint is
made regarding the ground water quantity and quality in the
area.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: Virginia has approximately 700 active mines. These sites
have 700 to 800 ground-water monitoring wells and an
additional 700 to 800 ground water source monitoring points
including springs, seeps, and shallow wells in regraded
material. In the near future, the number of ground water
monitoring points is expected to significantly increase when
Virginia's new mining regulations go into effect. The
regulations require that, in addition to monitoring surface
E-86
-------
disturbances and deep mines facilities must also monitor
ground water quality and quantity associated with their
underground activity.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE: The program in Virginia is implemented by the Department of
Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Division of Mined Land
Reclamation.
E-87
-------
PROGRAM:
Well-Field Protection
DECISION:
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Should protection measures be implemented to protect a
drinking water well production field from migrating sources
of ground-water contaminants and surface discharges?
Should off-site recharge areas be protected?
Currently a program in Dade County, Florida but soon to be a
national program pursuant to the implementation of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986.
RESPONSIBILITIES:
County officials are responsible for the protection of the
drinking water well production field in the county. This
field is the water supply for Miami, Florida.
Program activities include:
• Development and implementation of land use restrictions
in field recharge area
• Analysis of water quality from ground water monitoring
wells surrounding the field
• Modelling the approach of any contaminant plume
• Instituting remedial action necessary to protect the
field (e.g., construction of a deep interceptor
drainage ditch).
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: Dependent upon state interest in participating in the
voluntary state program.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
Currently a program this study found in Dade County, Florida
but soon to be a national program pursuant to the
implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of
1986. This is a voluntary state program. The EPA Regions
will review state applications and provide grants.
E-i
-------
PROGRAM:
Ground-water Protection Areas
DECISION:
Should discharges be limited in an area because of aquifer
contamination problems? Should the aquifer or area be given
a special protection?
Should recharge areas be protected?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
A state program
RESPONSIBILITIES:
In some states, an aquifer or area can be given a special
designation due to the critical nature of the area or its
ground water contamination problems.
The State of Washington has developed its Ground-water
Management Areas Program and has designated eight protection
areas as of June 1986. These areas are developed through
the cooperative efforts of local and state agencies. The
program is intended to protect ground-water quality and
assure ground-water quantity for current and future uses.
After designation a hydrogeologic profile or characteriztion
is developed for the area. Based upon this characterization
a protection area use plan is developed. The plan includes a
detailed workplan, model ordinances, and a monitoring plan
to ensure that specified goals and objectives are meet.
In the State of Nebraska a Ground-water Protection Area can
be designated should ground-water contamination occur or be
likely to occur in that area. After designation the
appropriate Natural Resource District (NRD) is responsible
for developing an action plan to describe how the
contamination will be mitigated. Possible contamination
sources are identified. Methods to control contamination
may include educational programs for water users or
requirements that best management practices be adopted by
the agricultural community. NRD requires information on the
background ground-water quality, hydrogeology, and potential
sources of contamination of the designated area.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: Varies by state
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
In Nebraska, the Natural Resource Districts (NRD's) are
responsibel for implementing the program. In Washington the
program is administered by the Department of Ecology.
E-89
-------
PROGRAM:
Ground-water Use Classification
DECISION:
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
What should be the designated use of aquifers throughout the
state?
What is the current or potential use of the ground-water
based on quality?
This program established in the State of Connecticut. New
Jersey, Wyoming, Montana and South Carolina are also
initiating this program.
RESPONSIBILITIES:
Responsibilities can include the identification and mapping
of state geological and hydrologic characteristics and the
assignment of a designated use classifications for each
aquifer based upon current use and future need for ground
water in an area.
Ground-water use classification is also implemented in
response to land use or ground-water discharge program. The
current or potential use classificatioon is used as a tool
to establish ground-water discharge permit conditions.
In this program the local community is often responsible for
the implementation of the land use and zoning controls. The
state provides planning consultation and the technical
assistance necessary to assist the communities with their
land use determinations.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: The geologic and hydrologic characterization of Connecticut
is complete and designated uses must be developed. New
Jersey is still developing their classification criteria and
South Carolina is beginning to classify its aquifers.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
Upon the request of the local community or as seen to be
needed by the state, the state provides the planning and
technical assistance to protect the community's ground-water
resource.
E-90
-------
PROGRAM:
Well Permit Program
DECISION:
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
Should a permit be issued to an applicant for the drilling
and construction of a well?
This program is established in the State of Arizona.
RESPONSIBILITIES:
Many states now require that an applicant receive a permit
prior to well drilling and construction. The permitting
agency may be the State Geological Survey, Bureau of Mines
and Minerals or other responsible authority. Permit
requirements vary by state. The State of Arizona has a
permit program for all new wells drilled in the state since
1980. Other states limit permits to specific types or
classes of wells (e.g. drinking water, UIC, oil and gas
wells). Permit conditions usually require submission of the
well driller's log to the permit authority.
CURRENT AND FUTURE
WORKLOAD: Workload will increase as well permit programs mature.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
This is a state program. The permit authority resides with
the permitting agency.
E-91
-------
PROGRAM:
DECISION:
Land Transfer Program
Should the state approve the sale or transfer of corporate
and commercial land in Massachusetts or land containing
hazardous waste disposal sites in Missouri between an
authorized seller and buyer?
LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY
AUTHORITY:
This program
and Missouri.
is established in the states of Massachusetts
RESPONSIBILITIES
The Land Transfer Act in the State of Massachusetts is
becoming an increasingly important source of ground-water
information for the state. Prior to the sale of corporate
or commercial properties (e.g., office buildings,
manufacturing facilities, lots, land) the seller must
certify to the buyer that the land has no ground-water
contamination problems. In an effort to comply the sellers
usually commission a consultant to sample the ground-water
quality associated with the sale property. Sample results
are submitted to the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering.
In the State of Missouri the Land Transfer Program is
applicable to land on which the presence of abandoned or
uncontrolled disposal of hazardous waste either prior to
regulations or illegal disposal, has been confirmed. These
sites are identified and placed on a state register. Site
owners have the right to appeal such a designation. Once
placed on the state register, the designation becomes a
permanent part of the land title and the property cannot be
sold without state approval.
CURRENT A
WORKLOAD:
FUTURE
Increasing awareness of ground-water contamination problems
will expand the scope of this program. New buyers wish to
ensure that the property under consideration has no
ground-water contamination. Buyers do not wish to "inherit"
the ground-water problems of the previous owner. In the
State of Missouri 51 sites are currently on the state
register and 38 are proposed.
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE:
This is a state operated program.
E-92
-------
Appendix F -
Questions and Answers About Ground-Water Data Management
Issues By Program
-------
RCRA
1. What RCRA program functions give rise to the need for ground-water data?
The RCRA program regulates proposed, existing, and closed industrial and
commercial facilities which store, treat, and dispose of hazardous wastes (TSD
facilities). Ground-water data are used primarily to review permit
applications and issue permits, determine if contaminants are leaching into
the ground water, define the extent and flow of contaminant plumes, and
identify and evaluate corrective action alternatives. Ground-water monitoring
is the principal method used by states and EPA to determine if a RCRA facility
is leaching into the ground water.
There are a number of specific RCRA program activities which rely upon
ground-water data to make decisions. These activities include:
• facility permitting
0 ground-water monitoring of operating land disposal facilities
• evaluation of corrective action alternatives
• post-closure monitoring.
For example, in facility permitting, state or EPA decision makers must
evaluate the suitability of a location for a proposed or existing RCRA
facility. This evaluation includes determining the impact the construction
and operation of such a facility will have on the environment, the nature of
activities to be undertaken at the facility, and the potential for
ground-water contamination resulting from the operation of the facility.
Accordingly, ground-water data influences facility operating conditions,
ground-water monitoring plans, and construction activities (e.g., design
criteria at land disposal units) as well as other facility-related items.
F-l
-------
2. What ground-water and related data does the RCRA program need, and why?
The RCRA program requires a number of different types of ground-water data
to support its decision making. In particular, RCRA program personnel
utilize:
• Well descriptors ... including well location, depth of well, well
construction, well log, and well casing materials ... to provide a
context for interpreting ground-water quality information.
• Hydrogeologic descriptors ... including depth to ground water,
aquifer designation and boundaries, and stratigraphy ... to determine
the potential or actual speed and direction of contaminant transport.
• Water quality/sample descriptors — including the contaminants
sampled for and the resulting concentration values, sampling
procedures, and laboratory analysis procedures ... to establish
background levels for a facility's ground-water and to compare the
current quality of the ground-water to background (up-gradient)
levels and previous sample results.
• Related data ... including site/facility background information such
as particular disposal activities undertaken at the facility, waste
stream, as well as land use and population density ... to assess the
impact and risk of ground-water contamination.
In some instances, RCRA ground-water information is directly collected and
analyzed in direct response to RCRA program requirements. For example, each
facility's Part B permit defines specific ground-water monitoring
requirements. To operate in accordance with its permit, the facility
owner/operator must sample the ground-water regularly from specified wells,
analyze the results using specified techniques, and report the resulting data
to the appropriate regulatory authority. In enforcement actions, EPA or state
personnel may sample and analyze ground-water to confirm results submitted by
a regulated facility or contractor. Similarly, a facility's Part B permit
application typically contains extensive ground-water quality and
hydrogeologic data generated by the facility owner (who often relies on a
contractor) explicitly for inclusion in the application.
In many cases, however, the ground-water data used by RCRA program
authorities may be initially collected by other organizations for other
purposes. These data primarily include spatial information (e.g., land-use,
F-2
-------
population, topography) and health effects data (e.g., toxicity, environmental
fate).
For example, RCRA permit writers often compare information on site
hydrogeology provided in the permit application with data already available
through USGS, research laboratories and universities, state government
agencies (such as state geological surveys, oil and gas commissions, and water
resources boards), and local government bodies. Decision makers would use
this data to identify and investigate any important inconsistencies between
the permit application and other, more general data on stratigraphy and other
key site features. Similarly, information on land use and population in the
area of a land disposal might be collected from USGS, the Bureau of the
Census, and/or state and local government agencies.
3. Who uses this data?
The RCRA program is designed to be fully delegated to the states. At
present, approximately half of the states have primacy in the RCRA program.
For the remainder of the states, the RCRA program is the responsibility of the
appropriate EPA Region, although states still play important roles in many
situations. The key decision makers for the RCRA program are therefore the
states and EPA Regions.
During the operating life of RCRA facility and for post-closure
monitoring, the states and EPA Regions use ground-water related data. In the
early phases of the program, EPA Regions and delegated states are responsible
for permitting all active hazardous waste land disposal facilities. Only
those facilities with a permit or which are in "interim status" may be
operated. The facility performs ground-water monitoring on a regular (at
least quarterly) basis. Thus, although the states or Regions receive and
interpret the results of regular ground-water quality sampling to establish
background water quality or determine permit compliance, the samples
themselves are taken and analyzed by the regulated community and their
contractors.
F-3
-------
If contamination is detected, these data are used to determine the extent
and direction of flow of the contamination. EPA and state personnel collect
ground-water data only on a sampling basis during periodic inspections or
special investigations.
If corrective actions are required at a RCRA facility, ground-water data
are used to assist in characterizing the problem and approving/disapproving
possible corrective action alternatives. Ground-water sampling is used during
the corrective action process to evaluate the effectiveness of the clean-up
efforts. Again, most of the ground-water data is collected by the facility
owner/operators and their contractors — not the regulatory authorities, which
receive the resulting data for review and decision making.
Finally, RCRA facilities must be monitored for a number of years (thirty
years is the suggested length) after their closing. Ground-water sampling and
analysis are performed during this period to insure that facility contaminants
do not leach into the ground water.
4. What are some examples of how improved ground-water information management
could benefit the RCRA program?
• Collection and Use of Data During Facility Permitting
Opportunity for improved efficiency and effectiveness. In support of
the RCRA facility Part B permit process, permit writers at the
responsible state and EPA Region are interested in obtaining as much
information as possible regarding the proposed facility and the
surrounding environment. Facility-specific information includes
background ground-water quality, the configuration of the facility,
the exact wastes to be disposed, and the processes and methods by
which such disposal will be accomplished. Site/facility background
information includes the hydrogeologic conditions in the immediate
vicinity of the facility (as perscribed in applicable regulations),
adjacent land use or the location of drinking water wells, and health
effects data for the contaminants present at the proposed facility.
The facility owner or operator provides extensive information in the
permit application. However, to obtain all of the data required to
make proper decisions, RCRA program personnel may also contact a
number of other state and federal agencies. For example, additional
information about background (up-gradient) ground-water quality near
F-A
-------
the facility may help ensure that the samples taken from up-gradient
wells at the site are truly representative of background water
quality.
Relevant information management actions. Facility permitting would
be performed more efficiently if state or EPA Region personnel had
access to either a paper or automated index to sources of available
ground-water and related data (e.g., background water quality,
hydrogeologic and land use data). For example, an index to land uses
(e.g., RCRA facilities, Superfund sites, drinking water wells) in a
state or Region could be established. This would enable permit
personnel to identify quickly land use close to the proposed facility
and to include this in their evaluation of the facility's permit
application. Alternately, training or publicity programs focusing on
inter-agency sharing of ground-water data might achieve similar
results.
Long Term Ground-Water Monitoring
Opportunity for improved efficiency and effectiveness. RCRA program
activities may include detection, assessment, and post-closure
ground-water monitoring. Such monitoring is performed by the
facility and its contractors, with the results forwarded on paper
forms to the RCRA program office at the state or EPA Region. Using
appropriate statistical analysis techniques (e.g., Student's T test)
RCRA program authorities determine facility compliance and may
analyze for trends in ground-water quality. At present, this
analysis is performed mostly by hand. In some cases, the data are
first entered into a computer and then automated analysis is
performed.
A major data management problem is the large amount of sample results
received by the state or Region as result of program monitoring
requirements. Each well at a RCRA facility is required to be sampled
at least four times a year. There is also a minimum of four wells
per RCRA facility. Monitoring must also be continued after the
facility ceases operation. This ground-water quality information is
currently provided on paper. This vast amount of data (some
facilities have hundreds of wells) is difficult at best to store,
manage, and retrieve and will become unmanageable with time.
Relevant information management actions. In order to manage the
ground-water sampling results, even if only at the facility level, an
automated system would prove to be useful. Such a system would
improve the storage, management, and retrieval of the sampling data.
In addition, the electronic storage of such data would increase the
use of modeling, statistical, and trend analysis, as the data would
already exist within a computer.
To facilitate the collection of this information, facility operators
or the analytical laboratories could be encouraged or required to
submit their water quality results both in paper and in machine
readable formats. This would reduce the data entry and data
cataloging burden and result in more sampling data available for
F-5
-------
analysis sooner than in the past.
Selection and Evaluation of Corrective Action Alternatives
Opportunity for improved efficiency and effectiveness. Should
contamination be detected at a facility, the RCRA program authorities
must determine if corrective action is required and approve the
appropriate actions. To support this determination, several types of
ground-water data are required. Data include ground-water sampling
data (the exact contaminants detected and their concentration
values), hydrogeologic data, health effects information for the
contaminant, and adjacent land use and population data. All of this
information is reviewed to determine the threat posed to the
environment by the contaminant.
Some analysis is performed manually, while other portions are
automated. The physical relation of the RCRA facility to other
adjacent land use areas is usually accomplished through a manual
review of available information. This can be a difficult task since
within a state or Region there is generally no one central storage
point for the location of drinking water wells, other RCRA
facilities, Superfund sites, and so forth. The RCRA program office
often must contact other program offices or agencies to obtain this
locational information. Program authorities, in some instances, need
water quality data for use with computer models to predict the
movement and dispersion of the contaminant plume.
After the corrective action alternative is selected and initiated,
the RCRA program office must monitor and evaluate the effectiveness
of the action. This activity relies heavily upon analysis of
ground-water quality data. The analysis results are forwarded to the
RCRA office by the facility owner/operator. In some instances, the
lab may furnish the results directly to the RCRA program office. At
the program office, the results are compared with the background
levels for the facility as well as the ground-water sampling data
collected during the operation of the facility. Most of this
analysis is performed by hand. Some data is entered into statistical
analysis or ground-water flow models to estimate the spread or
contraction of the contaminant plume.
Relevant information management actions. An important component of
the RCRA corrective action activity is an assessment of the risk
posed to the public and the environment by the contaminant. A manual
or automated index of land uses within a state or Region would
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of risk assessment. For
example, drinking water wells adjacent to the facility would be
quickly identified and protective measures for these types of land
use could be immediately intitiated.
A second index, one cataloging types of contamination with
treatment/corrective action alternatives, would also improve program
effectiveness. A RCRA program office faced with a first-time
decision regarding approval or disapproval of an owner/operator's
proposed corrective actions could reference this index and contact
F-6
-------
other states/Regions with experience in handling similar leakages.
An automated system to store, manage and retrieve ground-water
quality and other data would increase and improve the use of
ground-water and statistical models. The models could be used in a
variety of "What If" scenarios to assist in the evaluation of
corrective action alternatives.
F-7
-------
RCRA Program Actions Which Require Ground-water Data
' , "' " , ^DATATYPES -/ /•'- „' -
• Well Descriptors
» Hydrogeologic Descriptors
• Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
: Well Descriptors
Well location, e.g.,
- latitude/longitude
- FTPS county code
Depth to ground water
Availability/content of well log
Well characteristics, e.g.,
-well type
- well purpose
- construction
- elevation
- screen size
- screen depth
Well status, e.g.,
- abandoned
- flowing
Quantity pumped
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Hydrogeologic descriptors, e.g.,
- geologic structure
- aquifer characterization
- stratigraphy
- topography
PROGRAM ACi IONS AND :
RESPONSIBILITIES
g
s
a
003
•§"
1*
ll
it
!3 O.
UH Cd
0
0
O
•
o
•
§
c ®b
*s _,
•srf
•§5
S5"
a £»
£l
•o i
n S
3 fi.
2 S
Ooi
0
O
o
o
g
I
if
S £.
«1
•a 'g
o S
u«
0
0
o
0
•
g
ob
||
S v;
11
,0 g
ts S~
(2(2
^
O
0
O
' , COMMENTS
Legend:
0 Primary Data
O Nice to Have
Needed to geographically/legally identify
the source of the sample. Necessary when
modelling contaminant plume direction
and dispersion.
Needed to determine from which aquifer
the sample was taken.
Can be important in corrective action
where as much hydrogeologic data as
possible is sought (e.g., subsurface
stratigraphy).
Provides enhanced detection/analysis
capabilities; well characteristics
can influence sample analysis results.
Denotes possible source of background
water quality data for use in permit
process.
Needed to evaluate suitability of proposed
ground-water monitoring plans and other
permit considerations; also used
extensively to select appropriate clean-up
response and then to evaluate effectiveness
of corrective actions.
-------
RCRA Program Actions Which Require Ground-water Data
DATATYPES
• Well Descriptors
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors
• Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
Water Quality/Sample Descriptors
Ground-water quality
Sampling type, e.g.,
_t_
- grab
- duplicate
-split
- treated?
Sample identifiers, e.g.,
- name collecting agency
- date and time sample taken
Analytic method, e.g.,
- EPA standards
- USGS standards
Related Data
Location of revelam facilities and
wells
Demographic data
Other sources of contamination, e.g.,
- agricultural
- septic tanks
- highway networks
Site descriptors, e.g.,
- wastes found on site
- wastes injected
- site responsibility
Health Effects data
Environmental fate
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
§
a
a~
'2^
5 jg
'3
*l
iH I
0
•
O
O
0
o
0
•
•
•
g
eP a
°C (VJ
3 .
§3
IS
a \S
>2
J^
8 <8
Co!
*
£
0
*
0
1
a
OH
a
« 3
5 w
If
•a "S
II
Uf*
t
0
0
o
0
•
0
0
0
0
§
•a
•c .£•
"5 ^
Ig,
3 2
S^2
£3
o 8
0,0!
0
0
0
*
O
COMMENTS
Legend:
0 Primary Data
O Nice to Have
Needed for all activities.
Needed to correctly interpret ground-
water samples taken at a well; helpful in
assessing data QA/QC.
Needed to relate a specific sample with
prior/future samples; also serves as one
indicator for data QA/QC.
Needed to evaluate a specific sample's
effectiveness in identifying contamination;
one indicator for data QA/QC.
Important for permitting to know if
drinking water wells are near facility;
in r.nirpr'.rivp. ar.tinn nppHpH tn iHpntifv
potential risks to public.
Used to identify population at risk from
spread of contamination.
Used in permitting to evaluate suitability
of location of facility; also, used in
permitting to determine impact of facility
operation on adjacent population/wells/
etc.; used in corrective action to identify
risks to the public and environment.
Important in permitting a TSD facility,
reviewing ground-water monitoring
plan, and in identifying/implementing
corrective actions.
Used in permitting and corrective action
to determine risk of facility or contamina-
tion plume to public and environment.
Used in corrective actions to predict
extent, flow and behavior of the
contaminant plume; also used to evaluate
risk to public and environment
F-9
-------
SUPERFUND
1. What Superfund program functions give rise to the need for ground-water
data?
Under the Federal Superfund program, federal and state government
organizations, often with contract support, conduct site-specific
hydrogeologic investigations. As part of such investigations, decision makers
determine the rate and direction of ground-water flow, evaluate the type,
extent, and risk posed by ground-water contamination at a site, select/approve
remedial action options, and monitor the effectiveness of ground-water
contamination control and clean-up efforts. Ground-water contamination is a
key concern in a large proportion of Superfund sites.
Ground-water data is used to support decision making in a number of
different Superfund program activities, including:
• emergency response
t threat assessment
• evaluation of remedial action alternatives
• site monitoring.
For example, in selecting the remedial action alternative to be implemented at
a site, decision makers may wish to evaluate the effectiveness of each option
in preventing the spread of ground-water contamination to near-by streams and
rivers, public and private drinking water wells, and sensitive ecological
areas (such as wetlands).
F-10
-------
2 What ground-water and related data does the Superfund program need, and
why?
Superfund program personnel require several types of ground-water data and
related information to make sound decisions. In particular, Superfund program
personnel use:
• Well Descriptors ... such as well location, depth to ground water,
well construction, well log, and well casing material ... to provide
a context for interpreting ground-water quality information
• Hydrogeologlc Descriptors ... such as subsurface stratigraphy,
geoglogic structure, aquifer designation and boundaries, ... to
determine the speed and direction of contaminant transport.
• Water Quality/Sample Descriptors ... such as contaminants sampled
(qualifying and quantifying contamination), sampling procedures, and
laboratory analysis procedures ... to identify the types and extent
of ground-water contamination at a site
• Related Data ... such as exposure/concentration and health risk
relationships ... to evaluate the health impacts of various levels of
ground-water contamination. Site descriptor data such as the type of
business and waste stream that was/is operating on site to help
assess the impact risk posed by ground-water contamination.
In many cases, this data will be collected specifically for use by a
Superfund program decision maker. For example, an EPA Region or a state may
direct a contractor to drill ground-water monitoring wells and collect and
analyze samples in order to map a plume of ground-water contamination
originating at a Superfund site.
In other instances, however, Superfund program decision makers may rely on
information originally collected for other purposes. For example, some
categories of spatial data (e.g., land use, population density, topography)
are commonly gathered from existing sources, such as local governments and
other federal agencies.. Similarly, existing water quality data from near-by
drinking water wells may be used in the early phases of site assessment and
investigation to help gauge the extent of ground-water contamination in the
area.
F-ll
-------
3. Who uses this data?
The key decision makers using ground-water data in the Superfund program
are EPA Regions and state governments. For each site, investigation and
remedial action activities are commonly performed by contractors hired by EPA,
the state, or a group of responsible parties. Accordingly, the greatest
amount of detailed ground-water data is collected and analyzed by contractors
rather than by EPA or state employees. It is still EPA or the appropriate
state agency, however, that remains primarily responsible for Superfund
program decisions made with ground-water data.
EPA and state environmental decision makers use ground-water data to
review the recommendations of their own contractors and to evaluate the
clean-up strategies proposed by responsible parties. In addition,
ground-water data helps EPA and state personnel assess the risks associated
with each site, thereby influencing program priorities and the allocation of
contractor and in-house resources among sites. As clean-up actions are
completed at an increasing number of Superfund sites, EPA and state decision
makers will also use ground-water data to monitor the long-term effectiveness
of remedial activities and to identify the need for additional actions at
sites where ground-water contamination continues to be a problem.
In addition to the Federal Superfund program mandated by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensatation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), many
states have passed their own legislation authorizing the clean-up of abandoned
hazardous waste sites. These state-specific programs typically focus on sites
that are not addressed by the Federal program. In general, however, states'
program activities and ground-water data needs in these programs are similar
to those of Superfund.
What are some examples of how improved ground-water information management
could benefit the Superfund program?
F-12
-------
Collection and Use of Data During Site Investigation and Assessment
Opportunity for improved efficiency and effectiveness. In the early
phases of investigating a Superfund site, EPA and state decision
makers are interested in all available ground-water quality data for
the near vicinity of the site. This information is sometimes
difficult to access, since it may be stored in a variety of
locations, including local government files, academic libraries,
other EPA program offices, different field offices of various state
departments and other Federal agencies, including the Corps of
Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Bureau of Reclamation.
Furthermore, the data at each of these sources may be stored in
inconsistent manual formats, using different codes for elements such
as hazardous contaminants, well casing, data quality, and sampling
procedures. In many cases, key descriptive information (e.g., the
depth from which the sample was taken) may not be available at all.
Relevant information management actions. Site investigation and
assessment could be performed more efficiently if EPA and state
personnel had access to a manual or automated index of available
ground-water data. An index of available ground-water information
would also help ensure that all relevant data was obtained, possibly
leading to different decisions on the risks associated with a site.
Data from these diverse sources would be more useful if it were
stored in a standard format and contained key descriptive
information; such consistency could be encouraged by the development
and promulgation of ground-water data collection and storage
guidelines.
Contractor Oversight
Opportunity for improved efficiency and effectiveness. In most
cases, Superfund site clean-up is performed by contractors hired by
EPA, states, or responsible parties. For some sites, EPA Regions may
wish to audit the work performed by others by performing statistical
analysis and modelling using existing ground-water data. To perform
this activity, Superfund personnel must either perform all
computations by hand or identify and become familiar with an
automated system that can be used to support their review.
Ground-water data must be obtained from the contractor. If an
automated system is to be used to support EPA's analysis, the
paper-based ground-water data received from the contractor must be
entered into the system by hand before being analyzed; if data is
available from the contractor in automated form, EPA must write
computer programs to convert that data into a format that can be used
by the Agency's system.
Relevant information management actions. EPA personnel could review,
verify, and audit contractors' technical analyses more efficiently if
they had ready access to an existing, well-documented automated
system on which they could store and manipulate ground-water data.
Data collection, storage, and exchange standards would allow the data
submitted by contractors to be loaded into this system more quickly
F-13
-------
and easily, reducing data handling costs. In some cases, Superfund
personnel might also benefit from technical support in the selection
and application of appropriate ground-water models.
Long Term Monitoring and Institutional Memory
Opportunity for improved efficiency and effectiveness. Over the next
several years, remedial actions will be completed at a growing number
of Superfund sites. Some sites, dependent on the type of remedial
action, may require long term ground-water monitoring. Such
responsibilities raise several questions with respect to ground-water
data:
To what extent will future contractors need access to detailed
ground-water data in automated form? How can EPA effectively
transfer critical information from one contractor to another?
As EPA personnel change over the next several years, what steps
should EPA itself take with respect to ground-water data in
order to preserve an "institutional memory" of important data
and avoid over-dependence on manual files and the knowledge of a
few key individuals?
Is there any way to automate the computations associated with
long-term ground-water monitoring to order to improve accuracy,
consistency, and efficiency?
Relevant information management actions. The availability of an
automated file that could be used to store generated Superfund
ground-water data could help ensure that EPA and the states have
access to vital site information. Depending on priorities and
resources, Superfund managers could determine which sites' data
should be entered and, for each site, how much information should be
automated. Personnel might also benefit from the capability to
perform any statistical tests associated with long-term ground-water
monitoring. An automated system for ground-water data collection,
storage, with appropriate data exchange standards could help ensure
that data can be effectively transferred from one user to another
over time.
F-14
-------
Superfund Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data
DATA TYPES
• Well Descriptors
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors
• Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
Well Descriptors
Well location, e.g.,
- latitude/longitude
- FTPS county code
Depth to ground water
Availability/content of well log
Well characteristics, e.g.,
-well type
- well purpose
- construction
- elevation
- screen size
- screen depth
Weil status, e.g.,
- abandoned
- flowing
Quantity pumped
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Hydrogeologic descriptors, e.g.,
- geologic structure
- aquifer characterization
- stratigraphy
- topography
- soil
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
c/a -.
G 0
•3 'ob
^ OS
*U fli*
|l
1-1
00 |
|
-------
Superfund Program Actions Which Require Ground-water Data
- DATA TYPES t
• Well Descriptors
. Hydrogeologic Descriptors
. Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
iWater Quality/Sample Descriptors
Ground-water quality
Sampling type, e.g.,
- grab
- duplicate
-split
- treated?
Sample identifiers, e.g.,
- name collecting agency
- date and time sample taken
Analytic method, e.g.,
- EPA standards
- USGS standards
Related Data
Location of relevant facilities
and wells
Demographic Data
Other sources of contamination,
e.g.,
- agricultural
- septic tanks
- highway networks
Site descriptors, e.g.,
- wastes found on site
- wastes injected
- site responsibility
Health Effects data
Environmental fate
; PROGRAM ACl'lO'NS AND
' RESPONSIBILITIES
CM f*
§.!
•3 00
<0 u"
to S»
§2
Emergency Resj
Responsibility:
O
o
0
o
o
0
0
sib
•§£
o «.
Threat Assessmi
Responsibility:
•
0
•
•
O
o
*
o
•
•
J
1 a
Alternatives Ev
Responsibility:
0
*
*
•
^
•
•
*
•
•
§
ob
Site Monitoring
Responsibility:
.
*
•
•
COMMENTS
Legend:
0 Primary Data
O Nice to Have
Used to determine ground-water quality,
identify presence and extent of
contamination.
Information used to identify sampling
procedures, responsible sampling
authority and analytic methods that meet
quality assurance and "chain of custody"
requirements.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Location of PWS and other drinking
water wells needed for site evaluation.
Determines potential population at risk.
Provides useful site contextual
information to help identify possible
sources of site contamination.
Knowledge of wastes on-site necessary
for sample planning, contaminant identifi-
cation, and suitability of remedial actions.
Needed to assess health risk to population.
Determine chemical degradation,
mobility and accumulation.
F-ll
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
1. What Underground Storage Tank program functions give rise to the need for
ground-water data?
EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks is currently developing the
Federal regulations for the UST program. Over the next several years, EPA
will promulgate regulations covering areas such as corrective action,
inspection and enforcement, technical standards, and financial responsibility.
A key component of OUST's program strategy is to implement the program at the
state level; the role of EPA Headquarters and Regions in day-to-day program
operations is likely to be fairly limited.
Since the regulated community is very large (approximately 1 million
tanks) and unsophisticated (e.g., local gasoline stations), the goal of the
UST program is to keep the regulations simple and straightforward. Instead of
extensive ground-water monitoring requirements such as those that exist in
RCRA, the UST program will probably focus on tank leak prevention (e.g.,
double-walled tanks, cathodic protection to prevent corrosion) and leak
detection measures which will locate the leak quickly (e.g., tightness
testing, inventory monitoring). EPA has suggested that there will be no
Federally-imposed ground-water monitoring requirements for this program and
the corrective action requirements will be broadly stated (e.g., limit
endangerment to human health and environment).
Some states — such as California, Florida, Kansas, and Rhode Island —
have existing UST programs based on state legislation. These state programs
typically differ in some respects from Federal standards. For example,
Florida regulates above-ground tanks as well as underground tanks, and Rhode
Island's program covers many petroleum products but not hazardous substances.
Other states are moving ahead with the implementation of their own UST
programs.
F-17
-------
Based upon discussions with EPA, state, and local program officials,
ground-water data could be used to support two significant UST program
functions:
• enforcement actions
e corrective actions.
Because of the diversity of program characteristics, however, the exact uses
of ground-water data will vary from state to state. In general, ground-water
data will probably be used most often in enforcement and corrective action
activities; comprehensive monitoring of ground-water quality on a
tank-by-tank basis is likely to be relatively rare and will probably not be
required by Federal regulations.
2. What ground-water and related data does the UST program need, and why?
UST program at the Federal level does not require ground-water data. At
the state and local levels, the need for ground-water data is dependent upon
the unique characteristics of that program. For example, Dade County
(Florida) requires ground-water monitoring wells for all gasoline stations in
the county and collects the supporting ground-water quality monitoring data;
Dade County's monitoring requirements are motivated by the hydrogeology of
southern Florida — highly permeable soils and very high water table levels —
and by the fact that practically all drinking water in the area is drawn from
ground water.
While comprehensive ground-water monitoring is not likely to be
specifically required by Federal LIST regulations, several types of
ground-water data may be used to support enforcement and corrective action.
Such data include:
• Well Descriptors ... such as well location, depth to ground water,
well construction, well log and well casing materials ... to provide
a context for interpreting ground-water quality information
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors ... such as geologic structure and soils
... to provide data needed for hydrogeologic investigation in support
of a corrective action
F-18
-------
Water Quality/Sample Descriptors ... such as contaminants sampled and
the concentration values ... to detect leaking tanks (in selected
situations and where required by state or local programs) and
identify the rate and direction of contaminant flow once a leak has
occurred
Related Data ... such as location of drinking water wells, other
sources of contamination in the area (e.g., industry or agricultural
use) ... to provide data needed for hydrogeologic investigation in
support of a corrective action.
Although comprehensive monitoring of ground-water quality for every tank or
facility will not be performed except under special circumstances, the
ground-water data needed to characterize and clean up a tank leak may in some
cases be extensive.
Should a leak or contamination be detected, corrective action may be
required. In the context of the LIST program, corrective action will be
broadly defined and may not require an on-site hydrogeologic investigation.
However, should the extent of contamination or local regulations mandate such
an investigation, related data such as contaminant sources or location of
other relevant facilities provided from some outside source, would be most
useful.
3. Who uses this data?
The key decision makers using ground-water data in the LIST program are
delegated states and, in some cases, localities. It is most probable that
tank site investigations will be more commonly performed by contractors hired
by the tank owner or the responsible state or local government agency.
Accordingly, should a problem arise, ground-water data will be most often
collected and analyzed by contractors. Responsibility for reviewing
ground-water monitoring data (if applicable) and approving the selection of a
corrective action will still rest with the responsible state or local program
authority.
EPA Regions will be users of ground-water data only in a very limited
number of cases. For example, a state might request technical assistance from
F-19
-------
EPA in evaluating alternative corrective action strategies for ground water
clean-up. Similarly, EPA might be responsible for certain program operations
responsibilities in states that do not have UST program delegation. Finally,
EPA may have additional oversight and audit responsibilities for corrective
actions financed through the Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund authorized by
the recent Superfund amendments.
4. What are some examples of how improved ground-water information management
could benefit the UST program?
• Enforcement Actions
Opportunity for improved efficiency and effectiveness. To some
limited extent, ground-water quality data can be used to support
enforcement actions and to detect any migration of contaminants from
leaking tanks. Detection of contamination in near-by wells can
indicate a condition (e.g., tank leak) which would require an
enforcement action.
Relevant information management actions. The availability of an
automated file or a manual index to existing ground-water quality
data could provide an indication of a problem with an underground
tank. UST program participants would not collect this data for their
sites but responsible authorities could review this information using
it as a supplement to other detection techniques. Data collection,
storage, and exchange standards would ensure common format for this
water quality information.
• Corrective Actions
Opportunity for improved efficiency and effectiveness. While current
Federal regulations regarding corrective action have not been
developed, ground-water data may in many situations be useful to
support corrective actions. Upon detection of a leak, the
responsible party or UST program authorities may be interested in
available ground-water data (e.g., water quality, well descriptor,
hydrogeologic information) for the near vicinity of the site. This
information is sometimes difficult to access, since it may be stored
in a variety of locations, including local government files, academic
libraries, other EPA program offices, different field offices of
various state departments, and other Federal Agencies, including the
Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Bureau of
Reclamation. Furthermore, the data at each of these sources may be
store in inconsistent manual formats, using different codes for
elements such as hazardous contaminants, well casing materials, data
quality, and sampling procedures.
F-20
-------
Relevant information management actions. A site investigation and
corrective action could be performed more efficiently if EPA and
state/local personnel had access to a manual or automated index of
available ground-water data. An index of available ground-water data
would also help ensure that all relevant data was obtained, possibly,
leading to different decisions on the risks associated with a tank
leak. Data from these diverse sources would be more useful if it
were stored in a standard format and contained key descriptive
information; such consistency could be encouraged by the development
and promulgation of ground-water data collection and storage
guidelines.
F-21
-------
Underground Storage Tank Program Actions Which Require Ground-water Data'
f fffff ^^^ ^^ ^ s _, fft f f _,
DATA TYPES
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
I COMMENTS
Well Descriptors
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
Related Data
a ir\
it
sis
!£
3,
Legend-
0 Primary Data
O Nice to Have
WeU Descriptors
Well location, e.g.,
- latitude/longitude
- FTPS county code
Depth to ground water
Availability/content of well log
Well characteristics, e.g.,
-well type
-well purpose
- construction
- elevation
-screen size
- screen depth
Well status, e.g.,
-abandoned
- flowing
Quantity pumped
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Hydrogeologic descriptors, e.g.,
- geologic structure
- aquifer characterization
- stratigraphy
- topography
-soil
O
O
O
O
O
O
Information used in modelling plume direction and
dispersion from tank leak.
Needed to determine from which aquifer the
sample was taken.
Used to verify existence of wells in site review
area and help characterize subsurface stratigraphy.
Descriptors that provide estimates of direction
of ground-water flow; location of contaminants;
and can influence water quality sample results.
Data required to conduct site specific hydrogeologic
investigations to support corrective action
providing information on the rate, direction and
quantity of ground-water contaminant flow.
' Regulations for this program are currently in development Need for ground-water data not clearly defined at this time.
F-22
-------
Underground Storage Tank Program Actions Which Require Ground-water Data*
iiDATA TYPES
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
;;COVIMENTS
Well Descriptors
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
Related Data
Legend:
0 Primary Data
O Nice to Have
Water Quality/Sample Descriptors
Ground-water quality
Sampling type, e.g.,
- grab
- duplicate
-split
-treated?
Sample identifiers, e.g.,
- name collecting agency
- date and time sample taken
Analytic method, e.g.,
- EPA standards
- USGS standards
s -NS v. •* •=:
Related Data
Location of revelant facilities and
wells
Demographic data
Other sources of contamination, e.g.,
- agricultural
-septic tanks
- highway networks
Site descriptors, e.g,
- wastes found on site
- wastes injected
- site responsibility
Health Effects data
Environmental fate
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
There are no ground-water monitoring requirements
at Federal level. Should a tank leak, this data used
to determine ground-water quality, identify
presence and extent of contamination.
Information used to identify sampling procedures,
responsible sampling authority and analytic methods
that meet quality assurance concerns.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Location of PWS and other drinking water wells
needed for threat assessment
Determines potential population at risk.
Provides useful site contextual information to help
identify possible sources of site contamination.
Useful in linking ground-water contaminants with
substances stored in specific tanks.
Regulations for this program are currently in development Need for ground-water data not clearly defined at this time.
F-23
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL
1. What Underground Injection Control program functions give rise to the need
for ground-water data?
The UIC program authorizes -- either by permit or by rule -- the
underground injection of wastes. Typically, injection wells include those for
the disposal of hazardous waste, the reinjection of brine from oil and gas
exploration and production, and wells from certain mining processes (e.g.,
solution mining). The UIC injection well classification system is detailed
below.
• Class I Wells: Hazardous Wastes
Class I wells may not be located where another known well
penetrates the injection zone within the area of the zone
expected to be influenced by the Class I well, if the other
well could act as a conduit for wastes to escape from the
injection zone. Class I wells must inject below the lowest
underground source of drinking water, must be cased and
cemented, and must have a packer of approved fluid seal set
between the injection tubing and the casing, immediately
above the injection zone.
t Class II and III Wells
EPA regulations establish similar requirements for the
injection of fluids associated with oil and gas production or
oil and gas storage (Class II wells) and for Frasch method of
mining of sulfur, in situ production of uranium and other
metals or solution mining of salts or potash (Class III
wells). Specific regulations for Class II and III wells are
tailored to the industries to which they apply. [See 40 CFR
Sections 146.21-146.25 and 146.31-146.35.]
• Class IV and V Wells
Class IV wells are those which inject radioactive wastes or
wastes classified as hazardous under RCRA into or above
underground sources of drinking water. All such welIs must
be plugged and abandoned within six months after a UIC
program is in effect in a state.
Class V wells are miscellaneous injection wells that are not
Class I, II, III or IV or single family residential cesspools
F--24
-------
or septic systems disposal wells. Class V wells include:
Recharge wells used to replenish the water in a aquifer
Subsidence control wells
Air conditioning return flow wells
Salt water intrusion barrier wells
Cooling water return flow wells
The UIC well is authorized only where the applicant demonstrates that the
injection will not endanger underground sources of drinking water (USDWs).
Where injection existed prior to the EPA UIC program, EPA has authorized
existing injections by rule to provide well owners and operators a sufficient
period of time to obtain a permit. The duration of injection by rule varies
by well class.
The UIC program functions which are supported by various types of
ground-water data are:
• injection authorization (by permit or rule)
• program enforcement.
For example, in reviewing a UIC permit application, decision makers need data
concerning the proposed location of the injection well relative to near-by
aquifers and information to allow for an evaluation of the likelihood that
wastes injected into the UIC well could contaminate USDWs. Similarly, a
review of ground-water quality data from wells, other than wells for
injection, near a UIC site might identify situations in which injection wastes
are contaminating a USDW.
2. What ground-water and related data does the UIC program need, and why?
UIC program personnel need several types of ground-water data and related
data to support authorization and enforcement actions. Specifically,
delegated states and EPA Region personnel in charge of undelegated programs
use:
• Well Descriptors ... such as well casing, surface casing, setting
depth, length, packer setting depth, elevation, bottom pressure, age,
and location of both the injection well and wells in the area of
review ... to evaluate well construction integrity and identify
potential pathways for the migration of injected wastes
F-25
-------
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors ... such as site hydrogeologic features,
location of USDWs ... to determine the suitability of the injection
formation, calculate area of endangerment, injection formation
pressure, permeability, transmissivity, and the storage coefficient.
• Water Quality/Sample Data ... such as contaminants sampled and the
concentration values ... to ensure that near-by USDWs are not being
contaminated by injected wastes
• Related Data such as site characterization of waste stream (e.g.,
waste type, injection volume, pressure, timing) ... to determine the
suitability of the injection formation and calculate the area of
endangerment, and injection formation pressure.
Sources for these data are many and varied. Ground-water quality data are
not routinely collected by permittees for an injection well but may be made
available for review by program authorities through the State Public Health
Department (public and residential drinking water wells). In addition,
permittees submit a water quality analysis of the injection zone and some
permit conditions for Class I wells do require ground-water quality
monitoring. Well descriptor and site/facility background data about the
injection well and wells in the area of review are provided by the permit
applicant. Program authorities then review the application and check the
information provided from a number of sources including the U.S. Geological
Survey, state geological surveys, state oil and gas commission, public health
department, water commission and even field inspections.
Overall, the UIC program has a relatively limited need for ground-water
quality data. Ground-water monitoring is seldom performed for UIC wells, with
the exception of post-closure monitoring requirements for Class I wells; in a
small number of instances, ground-water monitoring is also required as a
condition of injection authorization. However, a review of ground-water
quality data from wells in near-by USDWs can help determine if injection
wastes have migrated from the injection formation.
3. Who uses this data?
The key decision makers using ground-water data in the UIC program are EPA
Regions and delegated states. Patterns of delegation are fairly complex,
F-26
-------
since EPA can delegate the UIC program to a state for some classes of wells,
tfhile retaining responsibility for other well types. In addition, not all
classes of wells are found in all states.
For each proposed injection well, the actual or prospective well owner
must submit information about the injection formation and wells in the area of
review -- usually an area within a 2 1/2 - 3 mile radius of the proposed well.
Typically, the owner will hire a consultant to develop the information
required. It is still the EPA Region or delegated state, however, that
retains the responsibility to review the data submitted and determine that the
injection well will not endanger a USDW. Hydrogeologic and well descriptor
information are extremely important in assisting program authorities in
evaluating the likelihood that injected wastes could contaminate a USDW,
either through waste migration via an existing well or waste movement through
the subsurface rock strata.
4. What are some examples of how improved ground-water information management
could benefit the UIC program?
• Review of UIC permit applications
Opportunity for improved efficiency and effectiveness. Information
on the geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the subsurface
strata at the regional and local levels is fundamental to the
evaluation of the suitability of a site for injection. While
consultants hired by the well owner usually develop the information
required, the EPA Region or delegated state must review all
information submitted by the permittee and make the appropriate
determination. For example, decision makers need data concerning the
location and construction characteristics of wells in the area of
review; in many instances, this information is difficult to access.
In some cases, EPA Regions perform extensive field inspections or
conduct record reviews to ensure that all wells in the area of review
have been properly identified and characterized. Permit authorities
also need hydrogeologic data to determine the suitability of the
injection formation; this determination is often made with the
assistance of simple computer models and mathematical equations
computed manually.
Relevant information management actions. Permit reviews could be
performed more efficiently if permit authorities had access to a
manual or automated index of available ground-water data (e.g., well
location, characteristics, hydrogeologic data, location of USDWs).
F-27
-------
An index of available ground-water data would also help ensure that
all relevant data were obtained to support a permit action,
increasing the quality of decision making. For example, the ability
to identify the existence of several unplugged oil wells near a
proposed DIG well might significantly increase the reliability of
detecting possible contamination sources. In addition, the
availability of a series of applicable automated models — ranging
from simple to complex — could reduce the amount of time spent in
mathematical computations to determine the suitability of the
injection formation.
Enforcement Actions
Opportunity for Improved efficiency and effectiveness. Ground-water
quality data can be used to support enforcement actions and to detect
any migration of injected wastes from the injection formation into
USDWs. Detection of contamination of wells in near-by USDWs can
indicate conditions (e.g., fractured injection formation, leaking
injection well, excessive injection pressure or volume) which would
require an enforcement action.
Relevant information management actions. The availability of an
automated file or a manual index to existing ground-water quality
data could provide an indication of a problem with an injection well.
Data collection, storage, and exchange standards would ensure common
format for this water quality information. Such data would be
especially useful if it were indexed by ground-water quality
contaminant, allowing EPA and state personnel to identify quickly the
presence in USDWs of any wastes being injected near-by.
F-28
-------
UIC Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data*
DATATYPES
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
COMMENTS
Well Descriptors
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
Related Data
&
3
GO
C/3 . .
c >.
o ti
'
•3 S
§
•a
af
11
W OS
Legend:
Primary Data
Nice to Have
iiWell Descriptors
Well location, e.g.,
- latitude/longitude
- FIPS county code
Depth to ground water
Availability/content of well log
Well characteristics, e.g.,
- well type
- well purpose
- construction
- elevation
- screen size
- screen depth
Well status, e.g..
- abandoned
- flowing
Quantity pumped
O
o
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Hydrogeologic descriptors, e.g.,
- geologic structure
- aquifer characterization
- stratigraphy
- topography
- soil
O
UIC permittees must submit location of all wells in
area of review. Ready access to this data would
speed review of permit application by the regula-
tory authorities.
Injection zone must be below lower most USDW,
except for class IV wells must be flagged 6 months
after program in effect.
Confirms existence of wells in the area of review.
Poor construction of well in area of review could
provide pathway for migration of injection wastes.
Used to determine suitability of injection formation
including size, porosity and permeability of
disposal reservoir. Also required to calculate area
of endangerment and injection formation pressure.
1 There are 5 different classes of UIC wells. Data requirements vary by well class.
F-29
-------
UIC Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data*
DATATYPES
RESPONSIBILITIES
f COMMENTS
Well Descriptors
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
Related Data
a
s
in
ta ..
C >-.
00
.2 3
11
§§,
"S 8
w &
Legend:
Primary Data
Nice to Have
| Water Quality/Sample Descriptors
Ground-water quality
Samph'ng type, e.g.,
-grab
- duplicate
- split
- treated?
Sample identifiers, e.g.,
- name collecting agency
- date and time sample taken
Analytic method, e.g.,
- EPA standards
- USGS standards
o
o
Related Data
Location of revelant facilities and
wells
Demographic data
Other sources of contamination, e.g.,
- agricultural
- septic tanks
- highway netv rks
Site descriptors, e.g.,
- wastes found on site
- wastes injected
- site responsibility
Health Effects data
Environmental fate
O
o
o
Ground-water quality data not routinely collected
by UIC program. However, a change in back-
ground water quality of near-by wells could
indicate a leak in an injection well or zone.
Used to assess possible impact of potential USDW
contamination.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Injected wastes are regulated by permit/rule.
Recordkeeping of injected wastes is required.
Helps link injected wastes with potential contami-
nation incidents.
* There are 5 different classes of UIC wells. Data requirements vary by well class.
F-30
-------
DRINKING WATER
1. What Drinking Water program functions give rise to the need for ground-
water data?
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (as amended), the Drinking Water program
does not specifically require ground-water data. The Safe Drinking Water Act
requires only that "finished or treated" water not exceed maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) for specified substances. Neither Federal statute nor EPA
regulation mandates the collection, storage, or analysis of raw ground-water
quality data.
The absence of a Federal legislative or regulatory requirement, has not
prevented some states from using ground-water quality data in the operation of
their delegated drinking water programs. Although the SDWA is concerned only
with water quality at the tap, some states (for example, the states of
Washington and Illinois) routinely collect ground-water quality data from
Public Water Supplies in instances where ground water is a source of drinking
water. Other states (such as California) are engaged in special programs to
investigate the quality of ground water used as a source of drinking water by
PWSs.
Such states use ground-water data to support:
• public water supply approvals (i.e., approval of new PWSs or changes
to existing supplies)
• compliance and enforcement activities.
In these cases, states use ground-water data to evaluate the suitability of
ground water as a source of water supply, to help investigate compliance with
applicable state water quality standards and MCLs (e.g., to determine the
reason for a violation of MCL standards at the tap), to identify water quality
trends, and to help correct ground-water contamination problems. Ground-water
data are used only in a small fraction of all drinking water compliance and
enforcement cases, however.
F-31
-------
At the Federal level, ground-water data may be used to develop MCLs, in
special studies, and in program oversight and audit activities.
2. What ground-water and related data does the Drinking Water program need,
and why?
The Safe Drinking Water Act (as amended) does not require the collection
of ground-water quality data. The Act focuses on the quality of finished or
treated water at the tap. Some state drinking water programs, however,
require that PWSs collect and report on the ground-water quality where
ground-water wells are the source for drinking water.
In addition to support for state drinking water programs, water quality
data from PWSs are used in many other activities. Some states are engaged in
special programs which use information from drinking water wells. For
example, Florida uses water quality data from selected drinking water wells in
Dade County as part of that state's ambient ground-water monitoring network.
Similarly, Illinois collects data from 300 PWS drinking water wells to develop
a picture of ambient ground water quality, to analyze public water supply
water quality over time, and for use in a special pesticide/herbicide
detection program. Much of this water quality information would be of value
to other EPA program offices (e.g., OPTS, OSWER).
To monitor the quality of ground water used by Public Water Supplies, to
help ensure that PWSs meet MCL and other applicable standards, to identify
ground-water contamination problems and sources, state drinking water programs
need:
Well Descriptors ... such as well location, well depth, quantity
pumped, pump rates, well construction, well log, and well casing
materials ... to provide a context for interpreting ground-water
quality information and calculate aquifer yield and cone of
influence.
Hydrogeologic Descriptors ... such as depth to ground water and
geologic structure ... to perform, when necessary, hydrogeologic
investigations.
F-32
-------
• Water Quality/Sample Data ... such as the contaminants sampled and
the concentration values, sampling procedures, and laboratory
analysis procedures ... to ensure that new or existing ground-water
supplies are suitable sources of drinking water and to help
investigate existing facilities' compliance with applicable state
standards and MCLs.
• Related Data ... such as the type of business operating near a PUS
well, expected contaminants, land use, and health effects information
... to evaluate the potential threats to underground sources of
drinking water, (where clean-up actions are appropriate) determine
the speed and direction of contaminant transport, evaluate
alternative corrective actions and evaluate the health impacts of
various levels of ground-water contamination.
In most instances, the primary sources for ground-water information in the
drinking water program are public water supply owner/operators and the state
public health department. In most state programs, where ground water is a
source of the public water supply, the facility owner submits water quality,
well descriptor, and limited hydrogeologic data (usually restricted to aquifer
yield characteristics) during facility plan and specification reviews.
For operational facilities where well contamination is identified and
alternative sources are not available, state water or public health
authorities may perform a site specific investigation to develop corrective
action alternatives. These activities are not part of the Federal drinking
water program but are state activities. On occasion, additional hydrogeologic
information is obtained from the state geologic survey or as a result of a
contamination investigation.
Many state personnel interviewed for this study also indicated a need for
better health effects information. Where no MCLs are available, other
standards are needed. Existing sources of health effects information include
scientific literature, EPA health advisories, and state public health
authorities.
3. Who uses this data?
The implementation and program management responsibilities for the
Drinking Water program are divided among EPA Headquarters, EPA Regions, and
states and localities.
F-33
-------
The most important users of ground-water data in the Drinking Water
program are state governments. Delegated states are responsible for program
operations. States examine hydrogeologic data to characterize the aquifer
from which drinking water is drawn and the impact of pumpage on the aquifer.
States may use ground-water quality data to approve new PWSs and changes to
existing supplies, as well as for certain compliance and enforcement actions.
EPA Regions are responsible for the oversight of delegated programs.
Regions must ensure that state public water supply facilities are in
compliance with MCLs, but are interested only in the quality of the finished
or treated water. Accordingly, EPA Regions are not major users of
ground-water data in the drinking water program.
EPA Headquarters uses ground-water quality data to help designate MCLs.
These data are not directly supplied by the Drinking Water program. Data to
support the creation of new MCLs are developed from literature searches,
feedback from delegated programs, special studies, and stratified random
surveys.
4. What are some examples of how improved ground-water information management
could benefit the Drinking Water program?
• Ground-water quality trend analysis and collection of incident data
Opportunity for improved efficiency and effectiveness. Delegated
states collect hundreds of thousands of bits of ground-water quality
information each month. In addition to sampling for MCLs, states
periodically test for contaminants such as chemical organics,
pesticides, heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, and other
substances. Some state programs would like the opportunity to look
for trends in water quality (e.g., IL, MA), but cannot simply because
of the volume of information. Further, much of this valuable
"incident of contamination" data are not readily available to other
organizations who would find it of value. For example, EPA
Headquarters might use information on commonly found contaminants to
help guide research into health effects, treatment technologies, and
(potentially) MCLs and health advisories.
Relevant information management actions. Ground-water quality trend
analysis could be performed more efficiently if state personnel could
store and have automated access to ground-water quality data. Ready
F-34
-------
access to incidents of contamination might also be useful to EPA's
Office of Drinking Water and Office of Pesticide Programs.
Collection and Use of Data for Corrective Actions
Opportunity for improved efficiency and effectiveness. Contamination
of a drinking water well may give rise (at the state level) to the
need for some corrective action. In many cases, the preferred remedy
is to eliminate or reduce use of the well or implement effective
treatment processes. In other instances, hydrogeologic investigation
of the well site may be necessary to support corrective action.
Hydrogeologic data is sometimes difficult to access, since it may be
stored in a variety of locations, including local government files,
academic libraries, other EPA program offices, different field
offices of various state departments, and other Federal agencies. In
many cases, key descriptive information (e.g., site aquifer
characteristics) may not be available at all.
Relevant information management actions. Well site investigations
could be performed more efficiently if state personnel had access to
a manual or automated index of available ground-water data (e.g,
hydrogeologic information, land use, water quality data). An index
of available ground-water data would also help ensure that all
relevant data was obtained and possibly reduce the need to collect
duplicative information. Data from these diverse sources would be
more useful if it were stored in a standard format and contained key
descriptive information; such consistency could be encouraged by the
development and promulgation of ground-water data collection and
storage guidelines. Facilities could provide this information for
the state review of the facility plan and specifications now
conducted during the approval process.
F-35
-------
Drinking Water Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data
DATATYPES
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONsmmnES
'COMMEKTS
Well Descriptors
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
Related Data
I
1&
II
*i
CO fi.
£ a
IX 05
1
00
II
,2 <*
e w J
WDi :
Q1
§ UJ
II
II
o 1"
Legend:
9 Primary Data
O Nice to Have
Well Descriptors
Well location, e.g.,
- latitude/longitude
- FTPS county code
Depth to ground water
Availability/content of well log
Well characteristics, e.g.,
- well type
- well purpose
- construction
- elevation
- screen size
- screen depth
Well status, e.g.,
- abandoned
- flowing
Quantity pumped
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Hydrogeologic descriptors, e.g.,
- geologic structure
- aquifer characterization
- stratigraphy
- topography
-soil
O
O
O
o
O
o
Physical location of PWS wells important to other
programs and needed by facility if contamination
discovered.
Needed to determine from which aquifer the
sample was taken.
Used to characterize subsurface stratigraphy.
Useful in correction of contamination problems.
Useful for regulation of water withdrawals; a
related program in many states, (e.g., MN, AZ,
GA, etc.).
Required to conduct hydrogeologic investigation
should corrective action be necessary.
F-36
-------
Drinking Water Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data
i iiDATA TYPES
• Well Descriptors
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors
• Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
Water Quality/Sample Descriptors
Ground-water quality
Sampling type, e.g.,
- grab
- duplicate
-split
- treated?
Sample identifiers, e.g.,
- name collecting agency
- date and time sample taken
Analytic method, e.g.,
- EPA standards
- USGS standards
Related Data
Location of revelant facilities and
wells
Demographic data
Other sources of contamination, e.g.,
- agricultural
- septic tanks
- highway networks
Site descriptors, e.g.,
- wastes found on site
- wastes injected
- site responsibility
Health Effects data
Environmental fate
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
CO
C
||
"If
<"!
in o.
II
0
•
£
f
o
o
•5
0
$
MM
Sfi
.§ 2
if
ll
5 6.
"e SO*
PL] 0£ ffi
0
o
O
O
O
O
0
O
§2
•%3
C^ HM
| UJ
If
s--s
JP Z
, I
u ^
sl
O
O
O
o
•
O
COMMENTS
Legend:
9 Primary Data
O Nice to Have
SDWA requires water quality monitoring "at the
tap" for MCLs. Some state programs monitor at
the source and analyze the sample for a broader
range of contaminants.
Information used to identify sampling procedures,
responsible sampling authority and analytic
methods useful to assess data quality.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Location of PWS and other drinking water wells
useful in detection of contaminant sources.
Provides useful site contextual information to help
identify possible sources of site contamination.
Needed to assess health risk to population.
Determine chemical degradation, mobility and
accumulation.
F-37
-------
PESTICIDES
1. What Pesticide program functions give rise to the need for ground-water
data?
Under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) at EPA Headquarters is
responsible for the registration and review of pesticide products.
Registration and review responsibilities reside in several different branches
in OPP. As part of these registration and review processes, ground-water
monitoring data are used in exposure and risk assessments to help determine if
a pesticide use should be cancelled, denied, brought into compliance, or
reclassified.
Ground-water monitoring data can be used to support decision making in a
number of activities, including:
• Determining the impact of old (existing) pesticides on human
health and the environment
• Evaluating the impact of regulatory decisions to permit new
chemicals and/or new uses
• Measuring user and industry compliance with regulatory decisions
• Determining trends of pesticides in the environment.
The primary goal of monitoring for pesticides is to provide information on
exposure to enhance the accuracy of pesticide risk assessments and, thereby,
improve the soundness of FIFRA risk/benefit regulatory decisions.
In general, monitoring data can contribute in several ways to assessing
the impact of existing pesticides in the environment, including:
F-38
-------
• Preparation of exposure profiles for pesticides undergoing
registration standards
• Development of labeling restrictions for pesticides undergoing
registration standards
• Reassessment of permissible residue levels (tolerances) for
pesticides undergoing registration standards or special reviews
• Definition of priorities for chemicals that are candidates for
special review
• Development of exposure and risk assessment for chemicals
undergoing special review.
In general, human exposure to pesticides through leaching, contamination of
ground-water, and injection is an important concern in most pesticides program
decisions.
2. What ground-water data does the Pesticide program need, and why?
Ground-water data and related information are used by the Pesticide
program in its decision making to determine presence and extent of
ground-water contamination and to evaluate the persistence and transport of
particular pesticides.
In particular, Pesticide program staff use:
• Ground-water sample data ... such as contaminants sampled and
the concentration values, sampling procedures, and laboratory
analysis procedures ... to identify the nature and extent of
pesticide contamination of ground-water
• Well Descriptors ... such as depth, type, casing, screen, seal,
seal method, packing, location, well owner ... to provide a
context for interpreting ground-water quality information and
identifying locations of areas with pesticide contamination
problems
• Site/facility environment ... such as weather data, crops under
cultivation, pesticide usage, soil type, water table level ...
to determine potential problem areas and evaluate pesticide
Teachability
F-39
-------
• Health effects data ... such as toxicity, exposure/concentration
and health risk relationships .. to evaluate the health impacts
of exposure to pesticide contamination.
In some cases data are collected specifically for use by the OPP staff (e.g.,
Hazard Evaluation Division) in a special study contributing to a regulatory
decision. For example, pesticide monitoring was conducted in Georgia
specifically to determine the extent of ethylene dibromide contamination. In
another case, the Office of Drinking Water and OPP are conducing a nationwide
survey of pesticides in drinking water wells to investigate the extent of and
factors contributing to pesticide contamination across the country. In other
instances, Pesticide Program decision makers rely on information collected by
other agencies and organizations. For example, EPA/OPP collaborated with the
State of California's Department of Food and Agriculture conducted extensive
soil profile analyses to determine DBCP, EDB, simazine and carbofuran
ground-water contamination in the San Joaquin valley. Similarly, Vermont,
Minnesota and other states are conducting state pesticides-in-ground-water
surveys and will make the results available to OPP. OPP also obtains data
(e.g., water quality, well descriptors, land use, hydrogeologic data) from
existing sources to aid in problem identification and pesticide registration
and review activities.
3. Who uses this data?
The key decision makers using pesticides in ground-water data are the
Pesticide Program at EPA Headquarters and state agency officials. EPA
headquarters is responsible for the implementation of pesticide registration
and review programs. EPA Regions are not directly responsible for these
activities. Regions provide EPA Headquarters with incident information about
problem pesticides, but are primarily responsible for providing technical
assistance to the states to aid in the training of certified applicators and
in program enforcement to ensure that pesticides are being properly applied.
In several instances (e.g., DBCP, EDB), the Federal EPA and/or particular
State agencies have taken action to restrict or ban pesticide use because of
significant health-risks associated with exposure via ground-water. These
F-40
-------
decisions have been based on acquiring pesticide ground-water contamination
data through monitoring. In some cases, the registrant provides State and/or
EPA OPP staff with ground-water pesticide monitoring data.
4. What are some examples of how improved ground-water information management
could benefit the Pesticides program?
• Collection and Use of Data for Pesticide Reviews
Opportunity for improved efficiency and effectiveness. EPA
Headquarters' access to state pesticide ground-water contamination
monitoring data in conjunction with pesticide use data would improve
trend and risk analysis capabilities. For example, the regulatory
decision making for pesticide review requires an assessment of the
impact of existing pesticides in the environment (e.g. potential to
leach under varying soil and climatic conditions). Several state
programs are conducting ambient ground-water monitoring that may
provide warning signs for potential drinking water problems (e.g. New
Jersey, California) and could assist in the identification of problem
pesticides under many different use scenarios.
Relevant information management actions. Review actions could be
performed more efficiently if EPA and state personnel had access to a
manual or automated index of available ground-water data indexed by
contaminant (e.g., pesticide or active ingredient). These data are
not usually archived in an automated data base and the identification
of these data sources would be extremely useful. An index of
available ground-water data would also help ensure that all relevant
information was obtained. Data from various sources would be more
useful if it were stored in a standard format and contained key
descriptive information; such consistency could be encouraged by the
development and promulgation of ground-water data collection and
storage guidelines.
F-41
-------
Pesticide Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data
^DATATYPES . -
• Well Descriptors
« Hydrogeologic Descriptors
« Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
Well Descriptors
Well location, e.g.,
- latitude/longitude
- FTPS county code
Depth to ground water
Availability/content of well log
Well characteristics, e.g.,
- well type
- well purpose
- construction
- elevation
- screen size
- screen depth
Well status, e.g.,
- abandoned
- flowing
Quantity pumped
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Hydrogeologic descriptors, e.g.,
- geologic structure
- aquifer characterization
- stratigraphy
- topography
- soil
, PROGRAAl ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
VI
C
O
•3
•I "*•
3 u3
.2 -.j
fit\ ^*
V*J *rf
•8 ^
•3 §
•a o-
II
s
<
>• t2
n> • •
"? ?**
*1
•^ ^
:H
ii
•
o
o
o
£
<
w
4) ^*
CM "55
1 §•
ll
•
0
o
0
COMMENTS
Legend:
^ Primary Data
O Nice to Have
Used to establish proximity of contaminant
area.
Needed to determine from which aquifer the
sample was taken.
Used to verify existence of wells of interest
to pesticide program.
Descriptors which provide estimates of
direction of ground-water flow; location of
contaminants and can influence water
quality sample results.
Data used in model applications to determine
pesticide ground-water contamination and
vulnerability.
F-42
-------
Pesticide Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data
IDATA TYPES
• Well Descriptors
t Hydrogeologic Descriptors
« Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
• Related Data
ijWater Quality/Sample Descriptors
Ground-water quality
Sampling type, e.g.,
-grab
- duplicate
-split
- treated?
Sample identifiers, e.g.,
- name collecting agency
- date and time sample taken
Analytic method, e.g.,
- EPA standards
- USGS standards
Related Data
Location of revelant facilities and
wells
Demographic data
Other sources of contamination, e.g.,
- agricultural
- septic tanks
- highway networks
Site descriptors, e.g.,
- wastes found on site
- wastes injected
- site responsibility
Health Effects data
Environmental fate
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
Pesticide Registration Actions
Responsibility: EPAHQ
•
O
0
0
•
•
•
Pesticide Review
Responsibility: EPAHQ
•
o
0
o
•
o
•
•
Special Review
Responsibility: EPAHQ
•
•
•
•
•
O
•
•
COMMENTS
Legend:
Q Primary Data
O Nice to Have
Used to determine ground-water quality,
identify presence and extent of contamination.
Provides data for trend analysis. Assist in
setting priorities for pesticides that are
candidates for review.
Information used to identify sampling
procedures, responsible sampling authority
and analytic methods are useful indicators
of data quality. Absent these indicators, data
still of value.
Same as above.
Same as above.
Determines potential population at risk.
Provides useful site contextual information
to help identify possible sources of site
contamination.
Needed to assess health risk to population.
Determine fate of pesticide and pesticide
by-products in the contaminant.
* Data for Special Reviews a applicable to state agencies conducting special pesticide surveys on studies (e.g.. MN, IL, UT).
F-43
-------
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
1. What Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) program functions give rise to the
need for ground-water data?
The Office of Toxic Substances uses ground-water data in two general
areas:
• to regulate the production and use of new and existing toxic
substances
• to assess the risk to health and environment posed by toxic
substances.
TSCA is the EPA statute that provides the broadest range of authority in
protecting human health and the environment from harmful exposure to toxic
chemicals. As a result, it is an integrative tool which can be used to collect
and assess data on exposure of humans and the environment to toxic substances
[TSCA, Sections 4, 5, and 8] and control the production, transport, storage,
disposal, and use of toxic substances [TSCA, Sections 5 and 6] which pose
risks to human health or the environment as a result of ground-water
contamination.
For example, knowledge of incidents of contamination from either special
studies or outside sources (e.g., drinking water programs, health departments)
can assist in problem identification and could provide EPA with the data
necessary to require a manufacturer to submit additional information about the
toxic substance (TSCA, Section 4 and 8) or make the case for the need for
additional controls (TSCA, Section 6).
2. What ground-water data does the Office of Toxic Substances need, and why?
The Office of Toxic Substances does not routinely collect ground-water
related data (e.g., water quality, hydrogeologic information). With the
exception of special studies and some site specific investigations, OTS does
F-44
-------
not generate ground-water data but rather collects it from other sources
(.e.g., USGS, USDA, Census, NOAA, NIH). However, in some instances,
manufacturers of toxic substances may be required by rule to provide
additional test data (Section 4) or existing data (Section 8) concerning the
environmental and health effects of such substances. While not used
extensively to date, such rules may provide for the collection of ground-water
monitoring parametric data.
In support of program activities and the OTS ground-water data management
proposal, OTS will collect the following types of data from the literature,
unpublished sources/data bases, or (where necessary) by field studies, surveys
of State agencies, public drinking water supplies, and rules under TSCA
sections 4,5, and 8:
• Well Descriptors ... such as well depth, sample depth and location
... for use in future studies to help characterize extent of aquifer
contamination
• Hydrogeologic Descriptors ... such as hydrogeologic features (e.g.,
aquifer classification/vulnerability, soil characteristics
adsorptions/desorption ... to characterize problem areas and assess
aquifer vulnerability.
• Water Quality/Sample Descriptors ... such as contaminants sampled,
the concentration values, detection limit ... to identify type and
extent of toxic contamination of ground water and determine national
"hot spots"
• Related Data ... such as climatic data; ground-water use (e.g., as
drinking water, irrigation, salt aquifer); agricultural use, location
of drinking water wells, landfills, surface impoundments, hazardous
waste sites, and health risk assessement information ... to identify
source of contamination and for use in scenario-based risk assessment
model runs.
OTS can use this information in several ways including:
1. Site-specific assessments of premanufacture notice (PMN) chemicals
and existing chemicals.
2. Development of stochastic method for assessing potential ground-water
exposure to PMN chemicals disposed of in a unspecified landfill or
impoundment.
3. Identification of appropriate areas for field studies of substances
such as VOCs, fertilizers (non-agricultural), and septic tank
chemicals ("hot spot" areas) to learn more about the sources and
mechanisms of ground-water contamination.
F-45
-------
4. Identification of areas with heavy use of chemicals released to
ground-water such as fertilizers and septic tank cleaners.
3. Who uses this data?
The key decision maker using ground-water data in OTS is EPA headquarters.
Control of toxic substances is a headquarter function. There are no major
toxic substances functions in EPA's Regions and relatively little activity at
the state or local levels.
4. What are some examples of how improved ground-water information management
could benefit the Office of Toxic Substances?
• Collection of data in support of toxic control activities (e.g.,
regulation of production, use, distribution and disposal of toxic
substances)
Opportunity for improved efficiency and effectiveness. Information
regarding incidents of ground-water contamination by toxic substances
would assist OTS in its efforts to control these contaminants.
Compilation of such data could be the basis for several actions,
which might include a rule directing the manufacturer to test the
substance (Section 4) or provide existing health and environmental
effects of the substance (Section 8). To supplement incident data,
OTS needs hydrogeologic and land use information to help identify the
source of the contaminant. For example, nitrate contamination could
be the result of contamination from an animal feed lot (not regulated
under TSCA) or result from the use of fertilizer (potentially
regulated under TSCA) containing nitrates.
This supporting data is often difficult to access, since it may be
stored in a variety of locations, including local government files,
academic libraries, other EPA program officies, various state
departments (e.g., Health, Agricuture, Geologic Survey), and the U.S.
Geologic Survey. Furthermore, the data at each of these sources may
be stored in inconsistent manual formats, using different codes for
elements such as hazardous contaminants and aquifer code. In some
cases, key descriptive information, (e.g., the depth from which the
sample was taken or well location) may not be available at all.
Relevant information management actions. Access to incident data or
ground-water quality data would assist OTS in setting priorities for
future field studies and in the development of a system for
identifying sources of ground-water contamination. An index of
available ground-water data would help ensure that all relevant data
were obtained, possibly leading to different research priorities.
Data from these diverse sources would be more useful if it were
F-46
-------
stored in a standard format and contained key descriptive
information; such consistency could be encouraged by the development
and promulgation of ground-water data collection and storage
guidelines.
F-47
-------
Office of Toxic Substances Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data
1DATA TYPES
'PROGRAM ACTIONS AND r
RESPONSIBILITIES
COMMENTS
Well Descriptors
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
Related Data
8
Iv
iw.
11
I
1
S
Legend:
|||
ffi O 'K
wa y^ ^
c/a tr O
o> K CX
Primary Data
Nice to Have
Well Descriptors
Well location, e.g.,
- latitude/longitude
- FIPS county code
Depth to ground water
Availability/content of well log
Well characteristics, e.g.,
- well type
- well purpose
- construction
- elevation
- screen size
- screen depth
Well status, e.g.,
- abandoned
- flowing
Quantity pumped
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Hydrogeologic descriptors, e.g.,
- geologic structure
- aquifer characterization
- stratigraphy
- topography
- soil
O
o
o
0
0
o
Used to identify problem areas or "hot
spots."
Needed to determine from which aquifer
the sample was taken and to identify
vulnerable ground-water.
Descriptors that influence water quality
sample results, possibly needed for future
field studies.
Data to characterize problem areas, assess
aquifer vulnerability and for use with
GEMS model runs.
F-48
-------
Office of Toxic Substances Program Actions Which Require Ground-Water Data
DATA TYPES
PROGRAM ACTIONS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
COMMENTS
Well Descriptors
Hydrogeologic Descriptors
Water Quality/Sample
Descriptors
Related Data
O
'3
E|
_< '^
C» on
O
-------
Appendix G -
Data Requirements Case Studies
-------
A Case Study:
The State of Florida Decision to Suspend EDB Use As a Soil Fumigant
Background: EDB Use in Florida
The nematocide ethylene dibromide (EDB) has been applied as a soil
fumigant to control burrowing nematodes that infest peanuts, soybeans, and
citrus crops in Florida for more than twenty years. In central Florida both
state supported programs and private applicators have used EDB to establish a
chemical fence or "barrier zone" in citrus groves to keep nematodes out. In a
second application program, "push and treat", as many as 4,000 acres have been
treated with EDB after infested citrus trees were pushed down and removed from
the groves. In the Florida Panhandle, peanut and soybean fields were treated
with EDB before planting to minimize nematode damage to the growing crop. EDB
has also been used extensively on golf courses throughout the state to control
nematode damage to the greens.
Ground-Water Contamination Concern
Florida's ground-water is especially susceptible to contamination because
of the state's thin soils, high ground-water table, and porous limestone
formations. Over 90 % of the state's population relies on ground-water as a
source of drinking water. Four major aquifers supply this drinking water
supply to the populace. The Floridian aquifer is highly susceptible to EDB
contamination due to the large concentration of citrus groves in the central
portion of the state.
Initial concern over the potential threat to Florida's ground-water supply
from EDB occurred in July of 1983 when the Commissioner of Agriculture was
convinced by his staff that discovery of EDB contamination to ground-water
supplies in California, Hawaii, and Georgia warranted his attention. It was
well known that EDB had been used for years by Florida in the citrus growing
regions as part of state supported pesticide control programs. Futhermore,
previous discovery of aldicarb ground-water contamination in Florida had
sensitized the Department, legislature, environmental action groups and
citizens to the problem of potential drinking water contamination by
pesticides. Evidence of the health risk of EDB was provided in the mid 1970's
by National Cancer Institute (NCI) studies that found the pesticide highly
toxic and very carcinogenic. These NCI studies prompted EPA to begin its own
review of EDB in the late 1970's and provided the Florida Commissioner of
Agriculture with concrete evidence that EDB was a potential state wide health
problem. Consequently, the Commissioner of Agriculture requested that several
divisions cooperate to collect and analyze drinking water samples from wells
in close proximity to EDB treated citrus groves to determine, if in fact, an
EDB drinking water contamination problem existed.
Role of Ground-Water Data in the Decision-Making Process
Initially, both irrigation and drinking water wells were sampled in the
counties of Highlands, Lake, and Polk in centra. Florida and in Jackson and
G-l
-------
Santa Rosa counties in the Panhandle. Three divisions within the Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) were involved in the sampling stategy
and implementation. The Division of Plant Industry provided detailed maps
detailing the location, dates and amounts of state EDB application in citrus
groves. With this information the Division of Inspection in cooperation with
the Florida Department of Health and Rehabitiative Services (DHRS) collected
water samples from 131 wells. The county health DHRS workers provided the
necessary information so that DACS workers could locate appropriate sampling
wells.
The DACS Division of Chemistry was responsible for conducting laboratory
analysis of the water samples. Using standard water quality analytical
techniques, the Lab found that 30% of the samples tested positive for EDB
contamination at the detectable level of .1 ppb.
State Administrative and Political Response
With confirmation of the presence of EDB in drinking water wells, the
Commissioner of Agriculture called together representatives from the
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) as well as DHRS to express his concern and determine the next course of
action. This group formed an early ad hoc interagency EDB working group. As a
result of these meetings and evidence, the State Health Officer advised
citizens to refrain from using well water with EDB levels of 0.1 ppb. In
addition DHRS established and maintained an EDB hotline and newsletter to
provide health information and allay concern.
Remedial action included providing potable drinking water to the owners of
EDB contaminated wells and expanding an ongoing research contract on aeration
and filtration treatment technologies for volatile organic compounds through
DER. Funds were provided from the DER Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund as
well as each state Department's operating budget to support these activities.
The above information and activities culminated with the temporary
suspension of use of EDB as a soil fumigant through issuance of an emergency
order on September 16th, 1983. This was followed by the permanent ban
prohibiting sale, distribution and use of EDB as a soil fumigant in October.
The types of data used and responsible state organizations involved in
generation and use of the data are detailed in figures 1 and 2. In addition
the relationship between data type, the particular component of the
decision-making process and the accessibility of the data is presented in
table 1. Overall, the various state agencies were able to work together
efficiently and share the critical data needed to support this important
environmental decision.
Continuing EDB Monitoring and Remedial Action Program
Following the late 1983 state suspension of EDB use as a soil fumigant
numerous ground-water monitoring and other corrective action programs were
expanded and initiated. A summary of the major activities is presented below:
• Administrative response. A number of state responses at both the
legislative and executive levels occurred.
G-2
-------
— The Governor formally created the EDB Task Force that included
representatives from DACS, DER, DHRS, and DCA.
— The State Legislature authorized 3.1 million dollars for use in
the well-filtering program.
• Environmental fate research was conducted to determine the transport
and persistance characteristics of EDB.
— EDB was determined to have a chemical half-life of 1.5 to 2 years
in Florida groundwaters at 22 degrees Centigrade.
— Hydrolysis is the major mode of degradation.
— These chemical properties make EDB fairly mobile in the
subsurface environment and degraded products are likely to pose a
long-term threat.
• Creation of a spatial data base containing both well site and EDB
application information was accomplished.
— Initially a computerized data base was created on the Sperry
computer using "Mapper" to retain both well name and address and
EDB sampling results.
— Eventually this data base was transfered to an Intergraph mapping
and data base management system at the Florida State University.
— A dedicated Intergraph workstation and plotter was made available
at DER for the EDB monitoring program within the ambient
ground-water protection program.
• A long-term ground-water monitoring program was established within
DHRS to survey the entire state.
— Wells were sampled within 300 feet of EDB application sites.
— Priority was given to sampling public drinking-water wells
located within 1,000 feet of EDB applications.
— More than 11,000 drinking wells have been sampled.
— Corrective action for positively identified EDB contaminated
wells included use of charcoal filters, drilling of new wells,
and hook ups to city water supplys.
— The corrective action program has resulted in classifying as
uncontaminated 90% of the previously identified EDB contaminated
wells.
The monitoring program conducted over the last four years has provided a
relatively good picture of the extent and severity EDB ground-water
contamination. The three counties with the largest number of contaminated
wells-Polk, Highlands, and Lake- form the heart of the central ridge citrus
area. Analysis of the data from the wells in which EDB was detected statewide
showed that while the average contamination is about 6.5 ppb, higher averages
and extreme values were found in Polk and Highlands counties. This is
attributable to the high application rates in these counties, the large number
of application sites, the lack of organic matter in the soil, and the high
susceptibility of the surface aquifers to contamination.
G-3
-------
In conclusion, the Florida case study and associated activities
demonstrate how ground-water and related data are used to identify a
ground-water problem, assess the extent and severity of the problem and
provide a framework for corrective action and necessary funding.
G-4
-------
Figure 1
Aldicarb
Concern
1982
Test
Irrigation
Wells
Determine EDB
Application Areas
EDB Health
Effects Studies
PESTICIDE
CONTAMINATION
SENSITIVITY
EDB
CONTAMINATION
INFORMATION USED
AND ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED
WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA
EDB EMERGENCY
SUSPENSION OF 1983
Test
Drinking Water
Wells
EDB Ground-Water
Contamination
in CA, HA, GA
FUNDING
MECHANISM
Establish Hotline
and Newsletter
reatment
Technology
Research
DRINKING
WATER SUPPLY
CORRECTIVE
ACTION
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
AND POLITICAL RESPONSE
Transfer of
DER Water
Quality Trust Fund
$
Provide
Potable
Water
Interagency EDB
Working Grou
-------
Figure 2
EDB
APPLICATION
AREAS
RELATED
DATA
HEALTH
EFFECTS
INFORMATION.
X
Division of Plant J
/
INFORMATION USED TO
SUPPORT SEPTEMBER 16
EDB
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION
National
Cancer Institute
Studies
WATER QUALITY/
SAMPLE
DESCRIPTORS
DHRS
DACS
Division of
Chemistry
LAB ANALYSES
30% POSITIVE
-OR EDB
SAMPLING OF
131 DRINKING
WELLS IN
5 COUNTIES.
DACS
Division of Plant Industry
Division of Inspection
£75
I
-------
Characteristics and Functions of the Data Types Used in the
State of Florida Decision to Suspend
EDB Use as a Soil Fumigant
DATATYPES
WELL DESCRIPTORS
Well location
Well type
HYDROGEOLOGIC
DESCRIPTORS
Geologic structure
Aquifer characterization
Soils
WATER QUALITY/
SAMPLE DESCRIPTORS
Date sample
Name of Collecting Agency
Name of Analyzing Agency
Name of lab
Analytical method
Critical
Need
•
*
0
9
•
f
•
DECISION
COMPONENTS
1
.!&
2 >
e'i
o
-------
Characteristics and Functions of the Data Types Used in the
State of Florida Decision to Suspend
EDB Use as a Soil Fumigant
(Continued)
DATATYPES
WATER QUALITY/
SAMPLE DESCRIPTORS (Cbnt)
Water quality
RELATED DATA
EDB Application
Health Effects
EDB Toxicology
Critical
Need
0
£
f
DECISION
COMPONENTS
a
••§
a*
ll
c
o 8
Ot/5
X
8j
g
w
V
tn
3
3
to
X
X
X
|
rt
P
-------
Tenneco Polymers — A Case Study on the Use of
Ground-water and Related Data at a Facility under RCRA Interim Status
Introduction
Tenneco Polymers, Inc., a New Jersey based firm, had been "grandfathered"
into the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations that became
effective in November 1980. This was known as Part A or interim status.
Tenneco has made the decision not to apply for a Part B permit under 40 CFR
264 regulations to operate their lagoons and sludge drying beds. At this date,
Tenneco has ceased operations at the facility and are in the process of
closing down the waste management units. The State of New Jersey now has the
authority to administer this portion of the RCRA program and the
closure/post-closure procedures are being negotiated with the State. This case
history with accompanying graphics (Figure 1 and Table 1) outlines the diverse
information requirements involved at this particular facility.
Background: Tenneco Polymers
Tenneco Polymers Inc., located in Flemington, New Jersey (Hunterdon
County) was a manufacturer of polyvinyl chloride powder resins between 1966
and 1985. The compounds produced during the manufacturing process are
considered hazardous substances under the Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC code 2821) system and are included under RCRA Appendix 8. In the
manufacturing process, raw materials were polymerized and blended to produce a
slurry of resin in water. This slurry was dewatered by centrifuge and the
resin was air dried, screened and then stored in silos. Unpolymerized
materials were vacuum recovered and reused, and vapors generated from the
recovery and stripping process were incinerated. Seven ground-water production
wells existed on the plant property to provide water that was used in the
manufacturing process of polymerization, cooling the reaction vessels, and
steam generation. After use, this wastewater underwent pH adjustment before
entering a concrete lined equalization basin that discharges to the Raritan
Township Municipal Utilities Authority POTW.
Approximately 240,000 gallons per day of industrial chemical wastes were
collected and treated separately from the cooling water. This wastewater was
derived from dewatering centrifuges, cooling water from the incinerator,
wastewater from a stripper device serving the recovery unit, miscellaneous
floor and surface drainage, boiler blowdown, deionizer unit backwash, and
filter backwash. This production wastewater underwent initial pH adjustment
prior to entering three unlined lagoons (3.5 feet deep) in series for
settling. Although the liquids in the three lagoons are presently classified
as non-hazardous waste, corrosive hazarardous wastes were placed in the
lagoons during 1982 and 1983. These lagoons were cleaned periodically, and the
waste materials were placed in two unlined sludge drying basins. The sludge
has been recently classified as non-hazardous waste but the fact that
hazardous chemical waste material was disposed at one time in these surface
impoundments caused concern to the NJDEP.
G-9
-------
The discharge to ground-water is via the three lagoons in addition to the
two unlined sludge drying basins. The affected aquifer is underlain by the
Brunswick Formation of Triassic Age. This formation consists of a red
argillaceous shale with local beds of fine-grained red sandstone. The beds are
highly fractured both horizontally and vertically. The fracturing extends to
300 feet below the surface. The depth to bedrock is one to three feet below
the ground surface. Most of the ground-water storage within the Brunswick
aquifer is in the upper zone (0-300 feet) with little storage below this zone.
The depth to ground-water is approximately 25 to 50 feet below the ground
surface. Futhermore, the Bushkill Creek, a tributary of the South Branch
Raritan River, runs adjacent to the site.
Regulatory Overview
The NJDEP has been delegated RCRA authority since early 1985 and the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) through the Bureau of Groundwater
Discharge Permits within the Division of Water Resources issues discharge
permits to facilities that generate, treat, store or dispose hazardous and
non-hazardous waste. Under RCRA Subtitle C, Tenneco is regulated as a land
treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) waste facility and DEP has the primary
responsibility for developing and enforcing state and federal RCRA regulations
to control the generation, treatment, storage, and disposal of solid and
hazardous wastes. Both interim status and RCRA Part B permit standards are
incorporated into the NJDEP RCRA Subtitle C permits. In 1980, Tenneco filed a
RCRA Part A application to obtain interim status and conducted preliminary
ground-water monitoring in accordance with interim status ground-water
monitoring requirements. In 1984 NJDEP issued a ground-water discharge permit
which was modified in 1986. All NJDEP/RCRA permits contain general standards
covering the three major areas of: ground-water monitoring; closure/post
closure; and financial assurance. All NJDEP discharge to ground-water (RCRA)
permits contain ground-water monitoring requirements that include:
• Determining ground-water elevation at each well prior to pumping and
sampling of the wells;
• Installation of a well by a licensed New Jersey well driller with
certification by a licensed New Jersey Land Surveyor;
t Issuing of a well-drilling permit;
• New wells to be constructed according to DEP specifications and
certified by a New Jersey Professional Engineer;
• All wells to be logged using the USDA Soil Textural Classification
System;
t For sites with inadequate geological information, a DEP geologist
must assist in determining well specifications prior to well
drilling;
All wells to be restricted to public access (i.e., fence, barricade);
Each well to be inspected on a weekly basis for structural integrity;
The permittee to obtain and analyze ground-water samples with chain
of custody record for each sample maintained at the facility;
All samples to be analyzed by a New Jersey Certified Lab;
Samplying results to be reported on DEP forms.
6-10
-------
Goundwater Monitoring
Under RCRA regulations, ground-water monitoring is required of owners or
operators of a surface impoundment, landfill, land treatment facility and some
waste piles used to manage hazardous waste such as the Tenneco facility. The
ground-water monitoring requirements of the initial and subsequently modified
NJDEP Tenneco permit consists of the following components:
• Development and Installation of Monitoring System. The ground-
water monitoring program requires a mimimum monitoring system of four
wells to be installed, one upgradient from the waste management unit and
three downgradient. The downgradient wells must be placed so as to
intercept any waste migrating from the unit, should such a release
occur. The upgradient wells must provide data on ground-water that is
not influenced by waste coming from the waste management unit (called
background data). Tenneco was initially required to install six
monitoring wells during the early 1980's as part of the Interim Status
requirements.
• Background Monitoring. Once the wells were installed, Tenneco began
monitoring them for a 1 year period (1982-1983) to establish background
concentrations for selected parameters. Comparison of data from
upgradient and downgradient wells indicated that the waste management
units might be impacting ground-water quality. This conclusion was based
on the reported parametric values and analyses provided only after two
reporting periods. Consequently, both parties agreed that the background
monitoring program needed to be modified to focus on waste specific
parameters and NJDEP required the facility to include a priority
pollutant volatile organics scan.
• Modified Monitoring and Evaluation. The modified monitoring
program began in 1984. Background levels for waste specific parameters
were established. Four major groups of parameters were monitoried on a
quarterly basis. These include:
—Drinking water parameters - numerous parameters including
conventional, metals, pesticides, and other toxics
--Ground-water indicator parameters - pH, total organic carbon,
total organic halogen, and specific conductance
--Ground-water quality parameters - manganese, chlorine, iron,
phenols, sodium, and sulfate
--Waste specific parameters - volatile organics including vinyl
chloride.
The results of the modified monitoring program were compared to the
background values to determine if any of the waste management units at
the site were impacting ground-water quality. Tenneco was required to
install an additional seven wells (all of which were deep wells because
of the thick rock substrate) in addition to the existing six monitoring
and seven production wells. These ground-water monitoring results showed
that Vinyl Chloride, TCE, Methylene Chloride, and
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene exceeded acceptable levels and were
contaminating the ground-water.
G-ll
-------
• Related activities. Ground-water monitoring conducted as part of the
above RCRA requirements showed significant vinyl chloride and other
organic contamination. As a result, DEP felt it necessary to determine
if there was any threat to the drinking water supply of the adjacent
population. Consequently, DEP, in cooperation with the Hunterdon County
Health Department analyzed residential wells for the presence of vinyl
chloride and other suspected compounds. Testing indicted that there were
no drinking water supplies contaminated. In addition, monthly ambient
water quality measurements in the Bushkill Creek indicated that there
was no contamination to the adjacent surface waters. A possible factor
contributing to the absence of these pollutants in adjacent drinking
water supplies is that Tenneco has been pumping well TP-21 (a production
well) for several years. Scientists hypothesize that the contaminants
may not be migrating off-site in the ground-water because of this
process. Therefore,NJDEP has requested Tenneco to maintain pumping this
well as a precautionary interim corrective action until a final
corrective action is approved for the site.
• Assessment Program. When contamination was confirmed, Tenneco was
required to implement a Ground Water Quality Assessment Program (GWQAP)
in April 1985, to determine the extent and concentrations of the
documented ground-water contaminants. Because early detection showed
hazardous waste contamination, Tenneco is required to complete its
assessment of ground-water contamination and report ground-water
monitoring data on a quarterly basis until the facility submits its
ground-water corrective action plan as part of its post-closure permit
application requirements. The components of this program (which is still
to be submitted and approved by NJDEP) must include the following:
—the number, location, and depth of new wells;
—sampling and analytical methods details;
—a description of evaluation procedures;
—procedures for ground-water decontamination;
—a schedule of implementation;
--information on the rate, direction, and extent of contamination;
—details about the concentrations of hazardous wastes;
—information describing the threat posed by contamination;
—financial assurance.
Closure/Post-closure
Closure of Infiltration-Percolation Lagoons
Within two years (by April 1988), Tenneco Polymers, Inc. is required to
complete final closure procedures of the three unlined lagoons, two sludge
drying basins, and related structures according to an approved closure plan.
This process will result in disposal of standing liquid, sludge removal,
decontamination of facility equipment and appropriate wash water disposal.
The permit also requires collecting and analyzing three undisturbed continuous
soil cores from each lagoon (15 total soil cores) by boring to a depth of five
feet. Chemical analysis for specified parameters is required to be performed
on these soil samples at designated depth intervals. All of these analyses
G-12
-------
must conform to EPA/NJDEP approved testing methods. The analyses will be used
to produce a map showing soil core locations and used to determine the amount
gf underlying contaminated soil to be removed.
Ground-Water Decontamination and Post-Closure Monitoring
Within half a year of the effective date of the permit, Tenneco is
required as mentioned above, to submit to DEP for review and approval, a
comprehensive corrective action plan for ground-water decontamination. This
program is to be based on data collected over a span of several years,
including the Ground-Water Quality Assessment Program (GWQAP) conducted at the
facility since mid-1985, as well as the ground-water data obtained as part of
the Interim Status. The corrective action plan is also required to describe a
post-closure ground-water monitoring program for the facility which will
ensure that the decontamination system is performing adaquately and specify
the financial mechanism that will ensure sufficient funding for ground-water
cleanup and post-closure monitoring.
Ground-Water Data Analysis
NJOEP has several data analysis capabilities to assist in interpreting the
extensive ground-water data accumulated in the NJPDES programs. First, all
data generated by the permitees must be submitted on standard NJDEP data
forms. These data are then key punched and maintained on a NJ Department of
Transportation IBM mainframe using a RAMIS operating system. Access to this
mainframe is via remote terminals in the Bureau of Permits Administration
offices.
In addition, DEP uses COMPAQ PCs to run several software packages to
assist in data interpretation and analysis. Contour maps can be produced using
a Krieging algorithm on the PC where sufficient data is available. NJDEP
geologists may also run the Random-Walk (Prickett,Naymik,Lonnquist) plume
transport model. Data for corrective action pumping and injection programs is
also ffiOuSlleu USlny an In-house iiiOu'ifieu The Is fiiuut:!. NJDEP anticipates heivlny
the capability to download data from the IBM mainframe to the COMPAQ
workstations in the near future. To maintain current ground-water monitoring
results, the quarterly Tenneco reports are reviewed by Bureau staff and
exceedance limits are entered into a Tenneco Wordstar file.
The Tenneco ground-water monitoring data types can be aggregated into four
major categories as presented in Figure 1. The relationship between
ground-water data type, under which permit component data is collected, the
source of data, and relevance of data sharing to other NJDEP program offices
is detailed in Table 1. Overall, there is an extensive amount of ground-water
monitoring data generated and present NJDEP Bureau of Groundwater Quality
Management program operations have adaquate capabilities for retrieving
essential data for various analyses. Modifications to improve data access and
development of new analytical tools are being planned to improve overall
environmental decision making. As shown in Table 1, sharing of Tenneco
ground-water monitoring data is extremely relevant for numerous state programs
and enhancing the capability for data sharing becomes an important issue in
terms of improving data management which contributes directly to more
efficient site management.
G-13
-------
Figure 1
Geophysical
Log
Well
Characteristic
Geologic
Structure
Aquifer
Characterization
Water
Quantity
HYDRO-
GEOLOGIC
WELL
DESCRIPTOR
Depth to
Groundwater
TENNECO
GROUNDWATER
AND OTHER RELATED
DATATYPES
Meteorologic
Data
Sample
Identifiers
WATER QUALITY/
SAMPLE
DESCRIPTORS
Sample
Protocol
RELATED
DATA
Environmental
Fate
Sampling
Type
Site
Descriptors
Analytic
Method
Location of
Other Wells
en
-------
- »»
and Associated Characteristics
i>aia dources,
DATATYPES
Well Location
Water Level Data
Depth to Groundwater
Water Quantity
Availability of Geophysical Log
Well Driller's Log
Well Characteristics
-- Date of Construction
— Name of Driller
-- Well Type
-- Well Elevation
-- Well Purpose
"^>n Method
NEED
•
£
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
NJDEP
GROUND-WATER
MONITORING
COMPONENTS
|1
if
as
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
II
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
if
«s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ll
£1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SOURCES OF DATA
Tenneco
Tenneco
1
Tenneco
1
Tenneco
Tenneco
i
Tenneco
1
Tenneco
RELEVANCE OF DATA SHARING
TO OTHER PROGRAMS*
Agencies: 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10
• Provide details on location of
monitoring well
• Provide QA/QC information about
well
• Indicate what wells exist within a
specified aquifer, facility, land use
type, or other geographic unit
iitractors working for Tenneco that includes in situ data as well as information secured from other sources.
-------
Table 1: Tenneco Ground-Water Monitoring Data Types, Data Sources,
and Associated Characteristics
DATA TYPES
Geologic Structure
Aquifer Characterization
Soil
Topography
^^f^pwAiiKO^ujnr^^^i^^
Sample Identifiers
»
Sample Protocol
Sampling Type
Analytic Method
Water Quality
CRITICAL
NFRn
I'IC'EilS
•
•
*
0
•
•
NJDEP
GROUND-WATER
MONITORING
COMPONENTS
B
$ £
§ OJD
If
II
X
X
X
X
X
If
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
if
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
g
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SOURCES OF DATA
Bureau of Geology
and Topography
Bureau of Groundwatei
Quality Management
Tenneco1
Bureau of Geology
and Topography
Tenneco1
1
Tenneco
Bureau of Permits
Administration
Bureau of Permits
Administration
4
Tenneco1
RELEVANCE OF DATA SHARING
TO OTHER PROGRAMS*
Agencies: 2, 8, 9, 10
• Useful new or supplementary
information on geologic structure
• Details about aquifer at specific
location
• Useful soil profile information
Agencies: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10
• Provide contamination details for
surface water, drinking water and
other pollution impact programs
• Critical data for overall ground-
^7
water quality states at local, county,
or state level
• Useful inputs to ground-water models
-------
labie 1: lenneco Gromna-Water Monitoring Data Types, Data Sources,
and Associated Characteristics
DATATYPES
RELATED DATA
Location of Other Related Facilities
Other Point/Non-Point Sources
Contamination
Site Descriptors:
Ambient Surface Water Quality
Location of Other Wells:
Water Quality of Adjacent Drinking
Water Supply
2
Land Use/Land Cover
2
Demographic Information
CRITICAL
NEED
*
9
•
•
NJDEP
GROUND-WATER
MONITORING
COMPONENTS
,|
w on
11
"1
X
X
X
X
1-rf
II
Jfl
X
X
X
X
s
J J
ll
X
X
X
X
1
i i
11
X
X
X
X
SOURCES OF DATA
Tenneco
1
Tenneco
Elizabethtown Water
Company
Hunterdon Health Dept.
Bur. of GW Discharge
Permits
Raritan Town. En. Com.
1
Tenneco
1
Tenneco
RELEVANCE OF DATA SHARING
TO OTHER PROGRAMS*
Agencies: 1, 2, 5, 7
• Provide insight into pollution sources
in surface waters
• Confirm groundwater contamination
to drinking water supplies not
occurring
Program Offices at NJDEP
1 Office of Science and Research
Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Management
2 Bureau of Groundwater Quality Management
3 Bureau of Permits Administration
Water Supply and Management
4 Bureau of Water Supply
5 Bureau of:Safe Drinking Water
Interim Status
Momtoring and Planning
6 Bureau of Systems Analysis and Wasteload Allocation
7 Bureau of Monitoring and Data Management
Geological Survey
8 Bureau of Groundwater Pollution Analysis
9 Bureau of Groundwater Resource Evaluation
10 Bureau! of Geology and Topography
CD
------- |