EPA-600/4-73 OOla
July 1973
Environmental Monitoring Series
GROUNDWATER POLLUTION
FEATURES OF
FEDERAL AND STATE
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research report's of the Office of Research and Development-, Environmental Protection Agency,
have been grouped into five series. These five broad categories were established to facilitate
further development and application of environmental technology. Elimination of traditional
grouping was consciously planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in re-
lated fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING series. This series
describes research conducted to develop new or improved methods and instrumentation for the
identification and quantification of environmental pollutants at the lowest conceivably signifi-
cant concentrations. It also includes studies to determine the ambient concentrations of pol-
lutants in the environment and/or the variance of pollutants as a function of time or meteo-
rological factors.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and Development, EPA, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commer-
cial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
EPA-600/4-73-001a
July 1973
GROUNDWATER POLLUTION FEATURES
OF FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
by
Frits van der Leeden
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
Port-Washington, New York 11050
for
TEMPO
General Electric Company
Center for Advanced Studies
Santa Barbara, California 93102
Contract No. 68-01-0759
Task 2A
Program Element No. 1H1325
Project Officer
H. Matthew Bills, Director
Data and Information Research Division
Office of Monitoring Systems
Washington, D. C. 20460
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
ABSTRACT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 2
III INTRODUCTION 3
LEGISLATIVE AND CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS 3
APPROACH 4
IV EXISTING STATE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 7
STATE WATER AND WATER POLLUTION STATUTES 7
Definition of Waters of the State 7
Jurisdiction 9
Statutes Concerning Groundwater Pollution 9
Sumps 12
Oil and Gas Wells 12
Waste-disposal Wells 12
Mine Wastes 14
Oil Spills 15
Classification of Groundwaters 16
STATE WATER-WELL REGULATIONS 16
Principal Features 16
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
Section Page
Well Drillers Licensing 17
Well Construction 17
Abandoned Wells 23
Recharge Wells 24
Administrative Complexities 24
Examples of Modern Water-Well Regulations 24
SOLID-WASTE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS 29
Permits 32
Design Criteria 32
Leachate Collection and Treatment 37
Monitor Wells 38
V ORDINANCES AND ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS OF SELECTED
LOCAL AGENCIES 39
SELECTED COUNTIES , 39
In California 39
In Florida 43
In New York 46
SELECTED COMMISSIONS 49
Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi Board of State Engineers 49
Recommended Standards for Sewage Works
(Ten-State Standards - 1971) 49
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
Section Page
Recommended Standards for Water Works
(Ten-State Standards-!972) 51
The Railroad Commission of Texas 52
Susquehanna River Basin Compact (1967) 53
Delaware River Basin Commission 53
VI STATUTES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 54
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS
OF 1972 (Public Law 92-500) 54
GROUNDWATER POLLUTION AT FEDERAL FACILITIES 59
PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION 60
PROTECTION AGAINST PESTICIDES 61
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act-1972 61
EPA Regulations for Enforcement of Pesticide Act of 1972 61
GUIDELINES FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES 62
GUIDELINES FOR SOLID-WASTE DISPOSAL 63
Solid-Waste Disposal Act, 1970 63
Recommended Standards for Sanitary Landfill Design, Con-
struction, and Operation - EPA 1971 63
Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation - EPA 1972 64
Proposed EPA Guidelines for Land Disposal of Solid Wastes 64
VII MISCELLANEOUS CODES AND STANDARDS 66
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
Section Page
NATIONAL STANDARD PLUMBING CODE 66
AMERICAN WATERWORKS ASSOCIATION 67
MODEL WATER CODE 68
VIII NEW DEVELOPMENTS 69
SELECTED STATES 69
Alaska 69
California 69
Delaware 70
Hawaii 70
Indiana 70
Iowa 71
Maryland 71
Type I Aquifers 72
Type II Aquifers 72
Type III Aquifers 73
Massachusetts 75
Minnesota 76
Mississippi 76
Missouri . 76
New Hampshire 76
-------
CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
Section Page
Tennessee 77
Texas. 79
Utah 80
Vermont 80
Virginia 80
Wisconsin 81
REGULATORY COMMISSIONS 81
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) .... 81
Delaware River Basin Commission 82
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 83
Pending Legislation 83
National Water Commission 83
IX REFERENCES 86
FIGURES
1. Map showing the five geologic regulatory areas of Maryland 25
2. Well construction requirements in Illinois, for creviced formations 30
3. Well construction requirements in Illinois, for creviced formations where
overburden is less than 30 feet thick 31
4. Map showing groundwater quality zones in Santa Clara County, California .... 42
-------
CONTENTS (Conl-'d.)
FIGURES (Cont'd.)
Page
5. Typical general sealing features for destroyed wells in Santa Clary County,
California 44
6. Typical sealing features for destroyed gravel-packed wells in Zone 2 in
Santa Clara County, California 45
7. Logarithmic chart showing aquifer types for groundwater quality standards
in Maryland. 74
TABLES
1. Selected Provisions of State Water and Water-Pollution Laws - 1972 10
2. Summary of Selected Provisions of Water-Well Regulations by State, 1972 18
3. Minimum Recommended Distance Between Wells and Source of Contamina-
tion or Pollution 20
4. Minimum Permissible Distances Between Wells and Sources of Contamination
in Arkansas 21
5. Minimum Permissible Distances from Points of Possible Contamination to
Groundwater Supplies in Alaska « 22
6. Minimum Drill Hole Size and Grouting Requirements in Maryland 26
7. Minimum Casing and Well Construction Requirements in Maryland 27
8. Summary of Sanitary Landfill Design Criteria for States Having Solid
Waste Regulation, November 1972 33
9. Summary of Ordinances in California Counties Pertaining to Water
Wells as of 1967 40
10. Maximum Allowable Values for Certain Materials in, or Characteristics
of, Waste Waters Entering Dade County, Florida, Sewerage Systems 47
-------
ABSTRACT
This report summarizes regulations and requirements of major public agencies with respect to
groundwater pollution. A selective review was made of existing and pending legislation and
regulations of Federal, State, and county governments and their agencies. Material was ob-
tained both from central compilations and by direct contact with public agencies. State wa-
ter laws, water-pollution laws, water-well regulations, and solid-waste regulations were ex-
amined; also, Federal laws dealing with pollution at Federal facilities, protection against
radiation and pesticides, and guidelines for waste-water treatment and solid-waste disposal
facilities.
Laws and regulations related to groundwater pollution vary widely as to objectives, scope,
coverage, detail, and effectiveness. State water laws tend to deal primarily with protection
of surface-water resources. Only 13 States were found to have water laws dealing in detail
with measures to protect groundwater against pollution. However, numerous other laws and
regulations affect groundwater pollution.
A more extensive review of policies, rules, regulations, and procedures, with an evaluation
of their effectiveness in controlling groundwater pollution, is recommended.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Task 2A, Contract Number 68-01-0759, by Gen-
eral Electric-TEMPO under the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency. Work
was completed as of July 1973.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The cooperation of many public officials who provided information on existing and pending
legislation is acknowledged with sincere thanks.
Mr. Harvey O. Banks, consulting engineer, of Belmont, California, reviewed the material
and made valuable suggestions.
Mr. Charles F. Meyer of General Electric-TEMPO was the manager of the project under
which this report was prepared. Mr. Donald B. Gilmore of the Office of Research and De-
velopment, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, was the Program Element Director.
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
1. The statutes and regulations of Federal and State agencies vary widely as to objective,
scope, and detail in providing for control of groundwater pollution. State water and water
pollution statutes tend to deal primarily with surface water; only 13 States were found to
have water statutes dealing specifically and extensively with groundwater quality. However,
in a broad sense, all of the States appear to have legislation under which may be undertaken
measures found necessary for the protection of groundwater quality.
2. The results obtained from a review of Federal and State water, water pollution, and
solid waste disposal statutes and regulations, with a sampling of the many other statutes and
regulations that relate to groundwater pollution, provide background and perspective for de-
veloping a concept and methodology for monitoring groundwater quality.
3. Within the limited framework of the survey that was undertaken, it is not possible to
evaluate the effectiveness of a given State's efforts in regulating groundwater pollution, or
to compare in a meaningful way the effectiveness of various State programs. The effective-
ness of a State's program depends upon enforcement of its statutes and regulations. This brings
into question the procedures for enforcing legislative mandates, and the organization, fund-
ing, and personnel of enforcement agencies. Further, the role of local governments cannot
be ignored because they may impose standards more stringent than those required by State
laws, to meet the needs of local conditions. In addition, groundwater pollution can be reme-
died by private parties through injunctive procedures under State statutes, local ordinances,
or the common law.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
An extension of the study reported here is recommended in order to provide the Environmental
Protection Agency with an improved basis for developing cooperative groundwater-protection
programs and for evaluating State implementation plans.
The recommended study would address the question of effectiveness: To what extent do exist-
ing State and Federal laws exercise control over groundwater pollution? To search out all
relevant statutes, examine the policies, regulations, and decisions of all of the agencies in-
volved, and evaluate the effectiveness of the countless implementing organizations and pro-
cedures, would be a very large task. A less extensive but in-depth study could be conducted
in a few States - perhaps five to ten - selected to provide examples of the problems encount-
ered, standards imposed, and organizational structures and enforcement procedures. As a
starting point, the States to be studied might be selected through a review of implementation
plans submitted to the EPA by the States.
-2-
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
LEGISLATIVE AND CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS
In October 1972, Congress enacted Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972. The objective of PL 92-500 is "to restore and maintain the chem-
ical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." The Act recognizes "the
primary responsibilities and rights of the States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution,"
while further stating the policy of the Congress to support and aid research and to provide
Federal technical services and financial aid to State and interstate agencies in connection
with the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution. The Administrator of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency is to cooperate with other Federal agencies, State water pol-
lution control agencies, interstate agencies, and the municipalities and industries involved,
in preparing or developing comprehensive programs for preventing, reducing, or eliminating
the pollution of ground waters and improving their sanitary condition. (Sections 101 and 102)
The contract under which this report was prepared covers the development of a concept and
methodology for monitoring groundwater quality, in support of developing and enforcing
groundwater quality standards. With regard to monitoring, Section 104 of the Act directs the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish national programs for the
prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution, and, as part of such programs, in co-
operation with the States, their political subdivisions, and other Federal agencies, to estab-
-3-
-------
lish, equip, and maintain a water quality surveillance system for the purpose of monitoring
the quality of groundwaters. For this purpose, the Administrator is authorized to make grants
to State water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, and others.
In order to relate the development of a concept and methodology for monitoring groundwater
quality to the actions of Federal and State agencies in establishing and enforcing water qual-
ity standards, the contract between the Environmental Protection Agency and General Elec-
tric-TEMPO includes a task which reads as follows: "Task 2A: Summarize regulations and
requirements of major public agencies with respect to groundwater pollution."
General Electric-TEMPO engaged Geraghty & Miller, Inc. to prepare this report in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of Task 2A.
APPROACH
A survey was made of Federal and State legislation that directly relates to groundwater qual-
ity. A selective review was made of local ordinances and of regulations of administrative
agencies. The legislative material which was the principal focus is that body of law normally
identified as water laws, water pollution laws, water well regulations, and solid waste dis-
posal regulations. Not covered is the law as developed by the courts, or decisions involving
the legislation of interest. Consequently, any reference in this report to a "law" or "laws"
excludes this body of law. Also excluded is the legal action open to private parties who
might remedy groundwater pollution by seeking an injunction against an offender, by means
of a claim under a State statute, local ordinance, or the common law.
-4-
-------
It is to be emphasized that the purpose of Task 2A is limited. This purpose is to provide per-
spective and the proper orientation for the balance of the work to be accomplished under the
contract. Thus, coverage of statutes identified as water laws and water pollution laws is
reasonably complete and up to date, as is the coverage of water-well codes. However, there
are many other statutes and countless administrative regulations that influence groundwater
quality, and only a sampling of these was undertaken. The latter body of law includes, for
example, legislation and regulations covering oil and gas wells, pipelines, sewers, injection
wells, and interstate basins.
The survey was based principally upon materials obtained from central compilations such as
those of the Bureau of National Affairs covering Federal and State water laws* and solid
waste laws, and from the material available in the files of the Water Information Center, Inc.,
a subsidiary of Geraghty & Miller, Inc. Section X lists the source materials and references.
In addition, a number of direct contacts were made with public agencies to review pending
legislation regarding groundwater pollution and to obtain the current thinking and concerns
of water-resources officials regarding the need for additional protective legislation and regu-
lations.
In the references that were examined, many ambiguities were noted in the use of terms such
as law, act, statute, regulation, standard, and code. Phrases such as water-well regulations
and water-well standards are used as found in the references, with no implication that these
terms have different meanings. "Statute" is used to mean a legislative enactment of a Fed-
eral or State legislative body. "Ordinance" refers to county or local governmental enact-
*The Summary-Digests of Federal and State Water Laws by the National Water
Commission became available after completion of this survey.
-5-
-------
merits. "Regulation" ordinarily means an administrative action rather than an enactment of
a legislative body. However, regulations may be adopted by legislative bodies, as may
standards and codes; hence, these terms are to be regarded as being quite ambiguous.
-6-
-------
SECTION IV
EXISTING STATE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
STATE WATER AND WATER POLLUTION STATUTES
Most of these statutes refer only in general terms to water, water pollution, and groundwater.
The emphasis in the statutes is largely organizational; that is, they are designed to set up
departments or agencies that in turn are charged with preparing and enforcing regulations for
management and control.
State water statutes deal primarily with the protection of surface-water resources, and refer-
ences to groundwater or groundwater pollution are sparse. The principal reference to ground-
water is commonly a mention of the term in the definition of the "waters of the State" .
Definition of Waters of the State
The following basic definition of the terms "Waters of the State" or "State Waters", or a sim-
ilar one, is found in most state statutes:
"Waters of the State" - all streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, water courses, waterways,
wells, springs, reservoirs, aquifers, irrigation systems, drainage systems and all other
bodies or accumulations of water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, pub-
lic or private, which are contained within, flow through, or border upon the state
or any portion thereof (Minnesota). ')
An interesting aspect of the definition is the fact that 14 states make certain exceptions to
1) Minnesota Statutes Annotated §115.01 Subd. 9 (1971)
-7-
-------
the all-inclusiveness of this term. In Georgia and Missouri, the definition excludes those
waters "entirely confined and retained completely upon the property of a single individual,
partnership, or corporation". ' Mississippi excludes " lakes, ponds, or other surface waters
that are wholly landlocked and privately owned". ' In Oregon, Ohio, North Dakota,
New York, New Mexico, and Tennessee, the definition excludes "those private waters which
do not combine or effect a junction with natural surface or underground waters". Privately-
owned ponds are excluded from the definition in Indiana, ' and in West Virginia, farm
ponds, industrial settling basins and ponds, and water treatment facilities are excluded. In
Florida, waters owned entirely by one person other than the State are included only with re-
gard to possible discharge on other property or into water bodies. ' In Utah, bodies of wa-
ter confined to and retained within the limits of private property, and which do not develop
into or constitute a nuisance, or a health hazard, or a menace to fish and wildlife, are ex-
cluded. ' In Montana, irrigation waters consumed within the irrigation system and not re-
8)
turned to any other State waters are excluded from the definition.
Similar exceptions not specified in the "Waters of the State" definition but mentioned else-
where in the water statutes are as follows: private waters not discharging into or polluting
any other State waters in Arizona; > gas and oil wells, injection wells, retention ponds,
and irrigation systems in Colorado; ' and copper and iron mining operations in Michigan.
2) Georgia Code Annotated, Ch. 17-5 §3(d)(1972); Missouri State Statutes
§204.010(7) (1967)
3) Mississippi Code of 1942 §7106-112, Subd. l(f)(1966)
4) Indiana Statutes, Chap. 214 §16(1967)
5) West Virginia Code § 20-5A-2(e) (1969)
6) Florida Statutes §403.031 (3) (1972)
7) Utah Code Annotated § 73-14-2(f)
8) Montana Revised Code §69-4802 (9) (1971)
9) Arizona Statutes §36-1857(B) (2) (1967)
10) Colorado Statutes § 66-28-9(2)(b) (1970)
11) Michigan Act 245, §12(1973)
-------
Jurisdiction
Another feature of some State statutes is that jurisdiction over certain operations that might
pollute groundwater lies with agencies other than the principal water-pollution control agen-
cies. In California, for example, geothermal wells come under the jurisdiction of the De-
partment of Conservation, and the disposal of brines from production of oil comes under State
and Regional Water Quality Control Boards. In Texas, drilling and operation of oil and gas
wells come under the authority of the Texas Railroad Commission. The same agency also ad-
ministers oil and gas waste wells according to the Texas Injection Well Act.
Statutes Concerning Groundwater Pollution
Table 1 lists some of the more common provisions relating to groundwater pollution that were
found in State water and water-pollution statutes. Omitting oil-spill provisions which are of
a general nature, it appears that the water statutes of only 13 States have any kind of provi-
sions dealing in some detail with protection of the groundwater. Most of these provisions
deal with prevention of pollution of groundwater by requiring proper well construction, seal-
ing off of polluted zones, or control of mine discharges. In most of these 13 States, ground-
water is extensively used for public supply, industrial operations, or irrigation (for example,
California, Texas, Florida, and New York). References to water wells in the State statutes
mostly apply to requirements for permits, construction details, completion reports, logging,
and sampling. Of interest is the fact that California includes special wells known as cathodic
protection wells, which are installed for the purpose of protecting metallic equipment in con-
tact with the ground.
-9-
-------
Table 1. SELECTED PROVISIONS OF STATE WATER AND WATER-POLLUTION LAWS - 1972
State
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New York
Oklahoma
Water wel s
Sealing
Construe- aban-
Drillers tion doned
licensed standards wells
xb
^\
X C
Oil and gas wells
Sealing
Construe- aban-
tion doned
standards wells
X C
Waste wells
Sealing
Construe- aban-
tion doned
standards wells
Y
x a x
~b
v c
Prohibited
Prohibited
Other activities
Oi 1 -spi 1 1 Groundwater Mi ne
provision classification discharge
applicable issued regulated
x
x
x
v
X
x
V
V
^
-------
Table 1 (continued). SELECTED PROVISIONS OF STATE WATER AND WATER-POLLUTION LAWS - 1972
Si-ate
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Texas
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Water wells
Construc-
Drillers tion
licensed standards
Sealing
aban-
doned
wel Is
xd
,f
Oil and gas wells
Construc-
tion
standards
xd
Sealing
aban-
doned
wells
Waste wells
Sealing
Construe- aban-
tion doned
standards wells
x e
A
^
Oil-spill
provision
applicable
Other activities
Groundwater
classification
issued
Mine
discharge
regulated
a Secondary waste treatment prior to discharge into injection well mandatory; at least 90% (organic removal) treatment to be provided.
Pollution Control Board authorized to promulgate standards for filling or sealing of abandoned water wells and holes for disposal of drainage.
c State Stream Pollution Control Board has power to require sealing of mines,oil &gas wells,brine wells or any other subterranean strata.
" Regulations primarily affect well drilling operations and prevention of pollution from discharge of mud, oil, and salt water on land surface.
e Design report required for earthen lagoons, and storage pits to determine whether ground-water contamination will occur.
Permit required for water wells if rate of withdrawal is in excess of 100,000 gallons per day.
-------
Sumps
Pennsylvania requires a sump or other receptacle to be provided at each water well and oil-
well drilling operation to receive all drill cuttings, sand bailings, water having a turbidity
in excess of 1,000 ppm, or other polluting wastes resulting from the well-drilling operations.
Upon completion of the well, the sump must be covered over or otherwise protected, or the
contents of the receptacle shall be disposed of in such a way that they will not be washed
into the waters of the State.
Oil and Gas Wells
References to construction, drilling, and operation or plugging of oil or gas wells are found
in the water statutes of only three States, Indiana, Kansas, and Pennsylvania. However,
these same activities may be covered by other statutes, for example, the Railroad Commission
Acts in Texas and the California Public Resources Code. Of interest are detailed provisions
of the Kansas statutes regarding the length of casing required to protect fresh water-bearing
strata during seismic and core-hole drilling and in the drilling of oil and gas test wells.
Prior to drilling, approval for the amount of casing necessary to protect all ''usable" water is
required. By "usable" water is meant water containing 5,000 ppm chlorides or less. Prior to
abandoning such wells, every effort must be made to ''protect any usable underground or sur-
face water from infiltration or addition of any detrimental substances".
Waste-dispose I wells
Waste-disposal wells are referred to in the water statutes of 12 States. Three of these, Ari-
-12-
-------
zona, Missouri, and Oklahoma, prohibit construction or use of any waste-disposal well. Ari-
zona prohibits discharge to "any well either abandoned or constructed for that purpose, that
is carried to such a depth as to penetrate water-bearing strata" . No waste may be discharged
into "any crevice, sink-hole, or other opening, either natural or artificial, or in a rock for-
mation which will or may.permit the pollution or contamination of groundwater" . Missouri
allows return of oil-field wastes to "such oil-producing formation as from which they were ob-
tained" . Oklahoma prohibits discharge into wells, pits, or holes, or into water-bearing strata
from which a domestic or public supply is drawn or may be drawn. California prohibits waste
discharge into aquifers suitable for a source of public or domestic water supply but allows
waste wells under certain conditions. California also requires the filing of a technical report
describing methods and controls to be used for closing a waste well prior to abandonment.
Colorado prohibits discharge of waste underground unless the authorities have established "be-
yond a reasonable doubt that there will be no pollution".
In Florida, a permit is required for drilling and use of a waste well or drainage well. Among
the requirements for an application for a waste-disposal well are an inventory of all water-
supply wells, together with construction details, within a one-mile radius of the disposal well.
Bacteriological examinations of groundwater from all water-supply wells within the one-mile
radius that are drilled to the approximate depth of the proposed drainage well may also b
quired except in cases of wells receiving condenser cooling water or where the receiving
aquifer contains 1,500 mg/l or more of chlorides.
Kansas requires approval of plans and specifications prior to installation of a waste-disposal
-13-
e re-
-------
well. The State authorities must determine that the proposed method will not result in loss of
waste of gas or petroleum resources and that the water resources of the State are protected
from "preventable" pollution. Kansas is the only State that specifies injection pressure and
establishes maximum allowable injection pressures for underground disposal of salt water,
mineralized brine, and oil or oil-well waste.
Pennsylvania allows underground waste disposal but only where geologic conditions are such
that it is improbable that the disposal will be prejudicial to the public interest. However,
the approval is conditional and does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for any pollu-
tion of the waters of the Commonwealth which may occur, in which case such disposal shall
be stopped.
The State water statutes of Texas approve of injection of salt water or waste connected with
the production of oil or gas as long as the injection well is properly licensed and administered
by the Texas Railroad Commision. West Virginia has no specific provisions regarding construe'
tion or use of waste wells but requires that all persons engaged in such business file pertinent
information on the injection or waste well with the State Water Resources Division. This re-
quired information may include data on the "kind, characteristics, amount, and rate of flow
of such discharge, deposit, escape, release or disposition".
Mine Wastes
The water statutes of three States contain a reference to operation of mines and disposal of
mine wastes including acid mine drainage. Indiana requires that storage, transportation, and
-14-
-------
mining of coal shall be done so as to create minimal acid mine drainage. No gob (coal waste)
may be used in the construction of public or private roadways in Indiana, which will cause
acid mine drainage to the waters of the State. The Michigan water statutes do not apply to
discharge from underground iron or copper-mining operations, subject to a determination by
the water-resources commission that the pollution is minimal. Pennsylvania prohibits dis-
charge of acid mine drainage. Applications for new mines or re-opening of mines must in-
clude a report on plans for proposed drainage and disposal of industrial wastes and acid mine
drainage. Disposal of acid-forming refuse from strip mines is specifically covered, according
to the type of coal (anthracite or bituminous) and degree of water saturation.
For example, in cases of bituminous strip mines where the affected area will be impregnated
with water above the highest elevation of the refuse disposal area, the acid-forming materials
must be separated from the rest of the spoil and deposited along the bottom of the pit. All
exposed refuse must be covered with clean fill daily if necessary to prevent pollution, but at
least at intervals not to exceed one week. The top surface of this cover must be graded so
that surface water will run off rather than soak into the backfill to reach the acid-forming
refuse.
Oil Spills -
The water statutes of 12 States contain sections pertaining to oil spills. By "oil spills" is
meant the discharge or loss of oil to waters of the State. "Oil" is generally defined as petro-
leum, petroleum products, sludge-oil refuse, and any other oil-like substance of animal,
mineral, or vegetable origin. Other States, for example, Connecticut, include chemical
-15-
-------
liquids or products from vessels in this definition. Although the oil-spill provisions are prim-
arily meant for protection of surface waters in coastal zones, the wording of the statutes and
the all-inclusive definition of "waters of the State" make these statutes applicable in the
case of groundwater pollution stemming from oil spills on the land surface.
Classification of Groundwaters
The water statutes of only one State, New York, contain a system of classification and stand-
ards of groundwaters. The purpose of this system is "to prevent pollution of groundwaters and
to protect the groundwaters for use as a potable water" . Three classes of water are given:
1. Class GA; fresh groundwater best used as sources of potable water supply;
2. Class GSA; saline groundwater of possible use for conversion to fresh potable water;
3. Class SSB; saline water having a chloride content greater than 1,000 mg/l or a
total dissolved-solids content greater than 2,000 mg/l.
Discharge of raw or treated sewage, industrial waste, treated effluents, toxic waste, and
other polluted fluids that might impair the specified use is prohibited. Chemical characteris-
tics to which the water must conform are given and distinctions are made between discharge
of wastes in the unsaturated zone and the saturated zone.
STATE WATER-WELL REGULATIONS
Principal Features
Using data in the files of Geraghty & Miller, Inc. and Water Information Center, Inc., to-
gether with recent information received from several States, a summary of requirements re-
-16-
-------
garding water wells was prepared. State water-well regulations were reviewed to ascertain
mandatory protective measures regarding the construction of public-supply wells, domestic
wells, irrigation wells, industrial wells, licensing of dril lers, plugging and sealing of aban-
doned wells, and sealing off of polluted zones. (Information on regulations of three States
was not available for review.) The principal features of these regulations are summarized in
Table 2.
Well Drillers Licensing
Well drillers are required to be licensed in most of the States covered in the review. Several
States require licensing of well drillers in designated areas only. For example, in New Mex-
ico, only licensed well drillers may operate within the boundaries of declared underground
water basins, which comprised roughly a third of the State's area in June 1972 (30th Biennial
report of the State Engineer of New Mexico, 1970-72, p. 4). In New York, licensing is
required on Long Island but not in the rest of the State.
Well Construction
Regulation of construction of water wells varies from State to State. It appears that public
supply wells are regulated in all States but control of drilling of water wells for domestic,
irrigation and industrial use takes place in only one third of the States. The twelve States
on Table 2 listed as having "No Regulations" do control the installation of public supply wells
by issuing guidelines or following recommended standards prepared by interstate agencies
such as the Ten-States Standards (see Section V). The State of Iowa, for example, has no
-17-
-------
Table 2. SUMMARY OF SELECTED PROVISIONS OF WATER-WELL
REGULATIONS BY STATE, 1972
(X, regulation applies; , information not available)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Drillers
Licensed
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
xa
X a
X
X
_ V
xb
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Well
Public
Water
Supply
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
__
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
_.,-»
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Construction Regulations
Domes- Irri-
tic gation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
____
X
X
X
X
X
X
____
X
X
X
X
X
_- .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
No Regulations
No Regulations
No Regulations
X
No Regulations
X
No Regulations
X
X
X
No Regulations
X
X a
No Regulations
X
X
X
X
No Regulations
No Regulations
X
X
X
No Regulations
No Regulations
No Regulations
X
Indus-
trial
____
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X a
X
X
_
X
X
X
X
X
Plugging and Seal-
ing Regulations
Aban-
doned
Wells
__
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
xa
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Contam-
inated
Zones
_ *.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Recharge
Wells
Regulated
__ «
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X a
X
X
X
X
Applies to designated areas only
As of July 1, 1973
-------
regulations pertaining to the drilling of water wells for domestic or irrigation supplies, other
than a permit system which requires application for any project which intends to withdraw
more than 5,000 gallons per day. This permit system is under the jurisdiction of the Iowa
Natural Resources Council and controls only rates of withdrawal. The Iowa Department of
Environmental Quality, however, is responsible for reviewing plans and specifications for all
new construction for public water supplies. The Ten States Standards and the AWWA Stand-
ards are applied in reviewing and approving these projects.
Provisions relating to public water-supply wells in at least 31 States contain requirements
such as site protection against flooding, minimum distance from source of pollution (sewer,
cesspool), and minimum length of casing and grouting to prevent entrance of surface waters
to the well and aquifer. However, the specifications for minimal distances, lengths of cas-
ings, and grouting vary from State to State. Most States adhere to minimum recommended
distances given by the U. S. Public Health Service Manual of Individual Water Supply Sys-
tems, 1962 (see Table 3). Other States have deviated from these standards and require some-
what different minimal distances (see Table 4, Arkansas and Table 5, Alaska). In addition,
several States, including Arkansas and California, point to the need for evaluation of the
type of geologic formation present, depth to an aquifer, and the effect of pumping on ground-
water movement. Alaskan regulations require increased minimum distances with higher pump-
ing rates. Arkansas requires increased lateral distances where the upper formations are more
pervious. Most of the regulations regarding minimum distances from sources of pollution ap-
pear to be somewhat arbitrary and are generally not based on the theory of groundwater flow.
-19-
-------
Table 3. MINIMUM RECOMMENDED DISTANCE BETWEEN WELLS AND
SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION OR POLLUTION
(Source: U.S. Public Health Service, 1962)
Sources of contamination or pollution
Distance, feet
Septic tank
Sewer lines
With permanent watertight joints
Other
Sewage disposal field
Seepage pit
Dry we 11
Cesspool
50
10
50
100
100
50
150
-20-
-------
Table 4. MINIMUM PERMISSIBLE DISTANCES BETWEEN WELLS AND
SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION IN ARKANSAS
(Source: Arkansas Water Well Construction Code, 1972)
Sources of contamination
Minimum lateral distances
for clay and loam soils, feet
Cesspools
Leaching pit
Pit privy
Subsurface seepage tile
Manure piles
Septic tank
Sewers (non-cast iron)
Sewers (cast iron with watertight leaded or
mechanical joints)
Footing drains (no connection to a sewer or a
sump handling sewage)
Pump-house floor drain (cast iron with watertight
joints and having free fall discharge to ground
surface)
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
50
10
When the upper formations are more pervious, the lateral distances shall be increased
(e.g., double the distance for highly pervious gravel formations).
-21-
-------
Table 5. MINIMUM PERMISSIBLE DISTANCES FROM POINTS OF POSSIBLE
CONTAMINATION TO GROUND-WATER SUPPLIES IN ALASKA
(Source: Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation, 1973)
Class
Private
Semi-public
A
B
C
Public
Pumping
rate
(gpm)
-
-
0-50
50 - 100
Over 100
Any
Any
contamination
10
40
80
100
100
Minimum distances, feet
Sewers,0
septic
tanks
50
80
120
200
200
Seepage pits or beds,
subsurface -disposal
fields
100
120
150
200
200
Cesspools
150
150
200
200
200
All sewers, except cast-iron pipe with leaded and caulked joints.
-22-
-------
Very few States require protective land ownership around a public water-supply facility. In
those States that have regulations for domestic, irrigation, and industrial wells, the construc-
tion provisions are the same as for public-supply wells, but are less detailed, with shorter dis-
tances allowed from sources of pollution, shorter casings and grouting, and other differences.
More often, in the case of domestic wells, the regulations are recommended and not manda-
tory. Some States only regulate wells in designated areas or wells that withdraw more than a
certain quantity of water, for example, New Jersey and New York, and several States, such
as Maryland and Illinois, vary their regulations to fit local geologic and hydrogeologic con-
ditions.
Abandoned Wells
Plugging and sealing of abandoned wells is required by the majority of the States. However,
sealing off of polluted formations or saline aquifers is referred to in the regulations of only 22
States. Again individual regulations among the States regarding filling and sealing of wells
range from general to quite specific. Some States refer to detailed procedures for abandoning
wells contained in the AWWA Standard for Deep Wells, as in North Dakota. Other States,
for example, California and New Jersey, have issued their own explicit requirements. Cali-
fornia requires that wells penetrating several aquifers shall be sealed so as to prevent inter-
change of waters between aquifers that would result in a significant deterioration of the wa-
ter quality in one or more aquifers or would result in a loss of artesian pressure. Variable re-
quirements for sealing of wells penetrating unconsolidated material, fractured rock, and non-
fractured rock are also given.
-23-
-------
Recharge Wells
Recharge wells normally fall under the general classification of water wells, and are there-
fore automatically covered by regulations. However, air conditioning wells that return
heated water or wells that are used for the disposal of runoff from roof tops have been classi-
fied in some States, such as California, as waste-disposal wells subject to water-quality con-
trol statutes.
Administrative Complexities
In some States, responsibilities for regulation of water-well construction are divided among
several agencies. In Vermont, for example, the Department of Health and the Department
of Water Resources control construction and operation of municipal water systems, whereas
the Department of Health and the Public Service Board have jurisdiction over private and co-
operative water systems (Comprehensive Long Range Water-Supply Program for the State of
Vermont 1972, pp. 29-30).
Examples of Modern Water-We 11 Regulations
The Maryland we 11-construction standards are quite explicit. For purposes of regulation,
Maryland is divided into five geologic areas (see Figure 1). The hydrogeologic conditions
of each area are given together with the requirements for minimum depth of oversize drill
holes for grouting, minimum casing diameters, and minimum casing depths (Tables 6 and 7).
The well construction standards vary from area to area.
-24-
-------
N>
Oi
FALL LINE
WICOMlCO
AJtgl
'CwORCISTER
O \
S < J
a > -fi
Figure 1 - Map showing the five geologic regulatory areas of Maryland.
(Source: Maryland Water Resources Adm., 1972)
-------
Table 6. MINIMUM DRILL HOLE SIZE AND GROUTING REQUIREMENTS IN MARYLAND
(Source: Maryland Water Resources Adm., 1972)
ro
CN
i
Ground-
water
Province
or Area
Coastal
Plain Areas
1 & 2
Coastal
Plain
Areas 1 & 2
Piedmont
and Appa-
lachian
Areas 3, 4
& 6
Hydrologic
Conditions
Water-table
Artesian
Water-table
and semi-
water table
Water-Bearing
Material
(1) Sand and/or
gravel
(2) Semi-consolidated
"rock" or shell
beds
(1) Sand and/or
grav'el
(2) Semi-consolidated
"rock" or shell
beds
(3) Creviced granite,
gneiss, schist,
phyllite, quartzite
metagabbro, dior-
ito and similar
rocks
(4) Limestone, dolo-
mite, and shaly
limestone
(5) Creviced sand-
stone, shale and
silstone
Overburden
None; aquifer
material extends
to surface
None; aquifer
material extends
to surface
Confining layers
of clay, sandy
clay, silt or
similar materials
Confining layers
of clay, sandy
clay, silt or
similar materials
Weathered rock,
true soil, and
stream alluvium
Weathered rock,
true soil, and
stream alluvium
Weathered rock,
true soil, and
stream alluvium
Oversize Drill Hole
For Grout
Diameter
Casing size
plus 4"
Casing size
plus 4"
Casing size
plus 4"
Casing size
plus 4^
Casing size
plus S" or as
approved by
the Depart-
ment
Casing size
plus 3" or as
approved by
the Departmei
Casing size
plus 3" or as
approved by
the Departinei
Depth
20' minimum to surface
20' minimum to surface
The minimum depth shall be
to the base of the confining
layer immediately above the
aquifer used but not less
than 20' below land surface.
The minimum depth shall be
to the base of the confining
layer immediately above the
aquifer used but not less
than 20' below land surface.
The minimum depth shall be
to the bottom of the casing.
The minimum depth shall be
to the bottom of the casing.
it
The minimum depth shall be
to the bottom of the casing,
it
-------
Table 7. MINIMUM CASING AND WELL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS IN MARYLAND
(Source: Maryland Water Resources Adm., 1972)
Ground-
water
Province
or Area
Coastal
Plain
Areas 1 & 2
Coastal
Plain
Area 1
Hydrologic
Conditions
Water-table
Artesian
Well Diameter
Casing
2" minimum
3" to 5"
preferred
2" minimum
when static
level less
than
125' below
ground
surface.
4" or more
preferred
Screen
1 % " minimum
1%" minimum
diameter; non-
corrosive ma-
terial recom-
mended
Minimum
Casing
Depth
20' minimum
To extend to top
of water bearing
material. Casing
may be tele-
scoped ; however,
the 2" min. size
casing shall ex-
tend to a mini-
mum depth of
two thirds the
well depth or
15(y whichever is
less.
Construction Conditions and
Miscellaneous Requirements
After casing is in its per-
manent position the annular
space between casing and
sediments shall be filled with
a sodium-base bentonitic clay
slurry or cement grout where
required.
An adequate well screen shall
bo provided where necessary
to permit pumping sand-free
water from the well.
Shallow water-table wells not
recommended in localities
closer than 300 feet from
tidewater (brackish water
bodies) .
The annular space created
by the oversize drill hole
shall be grouted with neat
cement or a sodium-base ben-
tonitic clay slurry.
An adequate well screen shall
be provided where necessary
to permit pumping sand-free
water from the well.
When the static level is
greater than 125' below
ground surface and/or the
pumping level is greater
than 150' below ground sur-
face, a minimum casing di-
ameter of 4" is required.
This 4" casing must extend
at least 20 feet below the
pumping level.
-------
Table 7 (continued). MINIMUM CASING AND WELL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS IN MARYLAND
CO
I
Ground-
water
Province
or Area
Coastal
Plain
Area 2
Piedmont
and Appa-
lachian
Areas 3, 4,
& 5
Hydrologic
Conditions
Artesian
Water-table
and semi-
water table
Well Diameter
Casing
Same as
Area 1
(3) 4" minimum
6" or
larger
recommended
(4) 6" minimum
(5) 4" minimum
0" or
larger
recommended
Screen
Screen not
required where
"rock" has
sufficient
strength to
remain open
Not normally
used
Not normally
used
Not normally
used
Minimum
Casing
Depth
Same as Area 1
10' minimum
20' minimum
10' minimum
Construction Conditions and
Miscellaneous Requirements
Same as Area 1; caution
should be used to avoid clog-
ging1 of "rock" voids by
cement grout.
Casing shall be seated into
rock at base of weathered
zone. Cement grout shall
extend from the bottom of
casing to the surface or base
of the pitless adapter.
Tubular channels and crev-
ices in limestone may not hold
grout; packers must fre-
quently be used to grout
above large water-filled chan-
nels and crevices. Limestone
wells are highly susceptible
to pollution, and grouting
may not be successful in
preventing this condition.
Same as Area 3
-------
The Illinois well-construction standards have separate sections for wells in unconsolidated for-
mations and wells in consolidated formations. Diagrams are provided showing construction
under variable situations of unstable overburden (loose sand and gravel), stable overburden
(clay, glacial till), gravel wall construction (with and without outer casing), creviced for-
mations (earth mantle over 30 feet thick and less than 30 feet thick) and an aquifer occurring
below creviced formations (see Figures 2 and 3).
SOLID-WASTE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
Not all States have specific statutes dealing with disposal of solid wastes, although most
States have some administrative regulations regarding disposal of refuse. In those States with-
out specific solid-waste regulations, some broad regulations regarding waste disposal are com-
monly included in water-pollution or environmental-protection statutes. Practically all com-
prehensive regulations pertaining to solid-waste disposal have been promulgated since 1968.
The possibility of groundwater pollution, and the consequent need for geologic studies, hydro-
logic studies, and proper design of solid-waste disposal sites, is recognized in the regulations
in only 22 States. In the 28 remaining States, 8 make no mention at all of the possibility of
groundwater or surface-water pollution, 18 refer to it only in general terms, and Alaska and
Hawaii have no specific regulations.
Some examples of generalized statements on potential pollution stemming from solid waste dis-
posal are as follows:
Missouri: "Location of the disposal area shall be such as to not endanger potable wa-
ter supplies."
-29-
-------
UNCONSOL1DATED FORMATIONS-STABLE OVER BURDEN
,2" SLURRY (GRAVITY)
STABLE
OVERBURDEN
CLAY, GLACIAL TILL,
SOLID SOIL, ETC.
WHICH WILL NOT
CAVE
SANDS OR GRAVELS
WATER-BEARING
Diameter of upper
drill hoi e must be
4" larger than inner
diameter of upper
casing.
2. Large upper drill
hole must extend
minimum of 20*.
3. Annular space
between hole
and casing
must be filled
with clay slurry,
drill cuttings, or
cement grout.
SCREEN
RULE 6.3
Unconsolidated Formations with Stable Overburden. Wells constructed in
geological formations such as sand and gravel which lie below clay, glacial
till or other relatively stable soil shall have a casing installed governed by
the pumping level. For pumping levels greater than 20 feet the casing shall
extend 5 feet below the pumping level. For pumping levels 20 feet or less
the casing shall extend 10 feet below the pumping level. Under no conditions
shall there be less than 20 feet of permanent casing installed. Since the
stable overburden cannot be expected to form a continuous contact seal with
the casing, sealing of the annular opening between the casing and the drill
hole must be affected. This can be accomplished by constructing an upper
drill hole having a diameter four inches greater than the inner diameter of the
casing to be installed and extending to a depth of at least 20 feet.The upper
drill hole shall be sealed with drill cuttings, clay slurry or cement grout after
the casing is in place.
Figure 2 - Well construction requirements in Illinois, for creviced formations,
(Source: Illinois Dept. of Public Health, 1970)
-30-
-------
CREVICED FORMATIONS
Earth Mantle Less Than 30 Feet Thick
| CE1VE NT
|l" GROUT (PRESSURE)
EARTH
MANTLE
LESS THAN
30' THICK
CREVICED
FORMATIONS,
WAT ER-
BEARING
1. Diameter of drill hole
must be at least 2"
larger than inner
diameter of casing.
2. Casing must extend at
least 40'.
3. Annular opening between
drill hole and inner (or
outer) casing must be
pressure Cement grouted.
4. When outer casing is left
in place opening between
inner and outer casing must
be pressure cement grouted.
Opening between drill hole
and outer casing must be
sealed with clay slurry,
drill cuttings, or cement
grout.
RULE 7,1.2
Where the earth mantle is less than 30 feet in thickness for a radius of one-
quarter mile around the well, the well casing shall extend to a depth of at
least 40 feet below ground level. The diameter of the drill hole shall be a
minimum of two inches greater than the inner diameter of the casing. The
annular space shall be pressure cement grouted as provided for in Section
9.7. When an outer casing is left in place the annular space between the
casings shall be pressure cement grouted and the annular opening around the
outer casing shall be sealed with drill cuttings, clay slurry or cement grout.
Figure 3 - Well construction requirements in Illinois, for creviced formations where
overburden is less than 30 feet thick.
(Source: Illinois Dept. of Public Health, 1971)
-31-
-------
Arizona: "The landfill shall be located so that- seepage will not- create a health haz-
ard, nuisance, or cause pollution of any water course or water-bearing
strata."
Permits
In general, the various State regulations apply to dumping of refuse or waste materials at any
site on public or private property, and call for the issuance of permits in all cases. However,
8 States (California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, North Carolina, Tennessee, and
Washington) allow dumping on private property without a permit, unless a public health haz-
ard is created. A statement to this effect is usually referred to as the "Landowner s rights
preserved" clause. Typical examples of such a clause are as follows:
Montana: "This act shall not be construed to prohibit any person from disposing of
his own garbage, rubbish or refuse upon his own land as long as such
disposal does not create a nuisance."
Washington: "Nothing herein shall prohibit a person from dumping or depositing solid
waste resulting from his own activities onto or under the surface of
ground owned or leased by him when such action does not violate statutes
or ordinances, or create a nuisance."
Design Criteria
A comparison of design requirements for solid waste-dispose I sites by the 22 States that have
such provisions is given in Table 8. As may be seen, all 22 States require a study of soil con-
-32-
-------
Table 8. SUMMARY OF SANITARY LANDFILL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR STATES HAVING SOLID WASTE REGULATION, NOVEMBER 1972
(x, item required)
State
Geologic
study
Soils
study
Test
borings
Water
table
mapping
Water
well
inventory
(radius)
Buffer zone
between
refuse and
water table
(minimum
thickness, ft)
Leachate
to be
contained
and /or
treated
Underlying
rock barrier
to be sealed
or impervious
barrier to be
placed
Monitoring
wells
California a
Colorado a
Connecticut a
Delaware
Georgia a
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
New Jersey
New Mexico
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
fexas
Vermont
/'/isconsin
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x (1,000ft)
x (1 mile)
X
x (500 ft)
X
X C
X
X
X
x (1/4 mile)
X
x (1 mile)
x x x x b
x (4 ft)
x (2 ft)
v v D
/> "
x (4 ft)
x (10 ft) x d
x (5 ft) x b
x b
x (6 ft) x b x e
X X
x x x b
x (10 ft) d
Specific requirements not listed but implied in order to meet engineering report design criteria
May be required
Minimum distance from water well or public-water system, 1 mile
In toxic and hazardous disposal areas
A minimum of one ground-water quality monitoring well to be drilled in each dominant direction of ground-water movement
Minimum distance from water well or public-water system, 500 feet
-------
editions through the use of test borings and mapping of the elevation of the water table. Nine-
teen of these 22 States require specific "geologic" studies in addition to a soil survey. Soil
borings are usually specified as "to be taken to an adequate depth to determine soil conditions
at the site". In some cases, however, specific depths such as 10 feet are stipulated for the
borings. Idaho requires a minimum depth of 10 feet; Minnesota, South Carolina, Wisconsin,
and Indiana require borings to at least 10 feet below the proposed excavation and the lowest
elevation of the site. Pennsylvania requires borings drilled 5 feet into the groundwater or
bedrock or 20 feet below the base of the proposed landfill. Texas requires test borings to a
depth of no less than 20 feet below the lowest proposed excavation.
Practically all States that require submission of an engineering design report call for mapping
of the water table below a proposed site. Commonly, it is stated that the highest water-table
elevation has to be known in connection with a required buffer zone between the landfill and
the water table.
Maps showing the locations of water wells in the vicinity of the proposed landfill site are re-
quired by 14 States. The radial distance to which this survey must be carried out varies from
500 feet in Idaho to 1 mile in Delaware and Tennessee. Pennsylvania requires submission of
maps showing the location of public and private water supplies, wells, and springs within one
quarter of a mile of the proposed site. Connecticut requires such data within a radius of
1,000 feet. Texas and Minnesota prohibit the location of a solid waste-dispose I area within
a distance of 500 feet and one mile, respectively, from a water well or public water system.
-34-
-------
Eleven of the 22 States having specific regulations specify that a "buffer zone" or a "safe,
vertical distance" be maintained between refuse and water table to insure that no contact oc-
curs between refuse deposits and the water table. Seven of these States specify a minimal
thickness of such a buffer zone, which ranges from 2 feet in Delaware to 10 feet in Minnesota
and Wisconsin. California sets no minimum thickness of the buffer zone, but requires "geo-
logical conditions naturally capable of preventing hydraulic continuity between liquids and
gases emanating from the waste in the site and usable surface or groundwaters" . The State
may also require man-made physical barriers to be placed to meet design criteria. Connecti-
cut requires that "at least four feet of clean fill be maintained between refuse and high
groundwater levels at the site and at least four feet between refuse and ledge rock". In the
case of disposal of septic-tank pumpings in a trench, the same State requires a minimum of
two feet of clean fill between the bottom of the trench and high groundwater level, to be
increased to at least four feet of clean fill in areas where ledge rock is predominant. A def-
inition of clean fill is not given.
Massachusetts similarly does not specify the type of buffer material but calls for a minimum
distance of four feet of earth from the lowest point of refuse deposition to the maximum
groundwater elevation during the highest groundwater period of the year. Minnesota speci-
fies that disposal shall take place at least 10 feet above the groundwater level, or at least
10 feet above limestone, quartzite, or granite-type bedrock and sandstone. Also, it stipu-
lates that toxic and hazardous disposal areas shall be "sealed" prior to disposal. The nature
of such a seal is not further identified.
-35-
-------
Mississippi's sanitary landfill regulations are interesting because they are the only ones of all
the State regulations on this subject that explain the reasons for design criteria and that list
environmental considerations. Buffer zones are discussed as follows:
"Although the possible effect on groundwater is not completely understood at the pres-
ent time, interaction between the two is to be avoided. Various organization have
specified different distances to be maintained between the top level of groundwater
and the bottom of the landfill. Generally, a minimum distance of 5 feet will make
the leachate bacterially safe. For chemical safety, distances have yet to be pub-
lished." And in a later paragraph regarding methods of operation: "Water pollution
can be prevented by avoiding the groundwater table and providing proper surface
drainage."
Pennsylvania has included the following regulations relating to low permeability barriers:
a) To assure that there is no risk of free flow to groundwater, sites with less than six
feet of fine soil over limestone or other fissured rocks; or coarse sand and gravel
shall be considered unsuitable.
b) A site with six or more feet of fine soil over limestone or other fissured rocks, or
coarse sand and gravel, is classed in the range of limited suitability.
c) Depth to the seasonal high water table shall be greater than six feet from the bot-
tom of the lowest refuse lift. The depth shall be increased by at least six feet for
each additional lift depending on the character of the earth material.
Low-permeability soil barriers also are required in Texas to minimize the possibility of leach-
-36-
-------
ate percolating into the groundwater. The following procedures are considered acceptable
in the Texas regulations:
1. Placement of three feet of clay.
2. Placement and compaction of one foot of selected clayey material under optimum
moisture conditions.
3. Placement of an impervious membrane of asphaltic, plastic, or other approved
material.
The regulations of 28 States require daily compaction and a minimum thickness of earth cover
over each daily layer of waste. After a dump is filled and prior to closing, a final slope has
to be such that rainfall and runoff are diverted away from the fill area. The daily minimum
earth cover to be applied is at least 6 inches (except for Vermont which requires a minimum
cover of 4 inches), while the final cover seal is to be at least 2 feet.
Leachate Collection and Treatment
Only five of the 22 States specify that leachate originating from the waste material must be
contained or treated. California requires that leachate and subsurface flow into the disposal
area shall be contained within the site. Mississippi mentions possible leachate treatment.
Pennsylvania requires leachate collection and treatment facilities for the prevention of
groundwater pollution at substandard sites that lack a suitable natural soil barrier. Provisions
for collection and treatment of leachate must accompany design reports in Oregon and South
Carolina.
-37-
-------
Monitor Wells
California, Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas mention
the possibility of requiring monitoring facilities, or more specifically, monitoring wells, to
observe changes in the quality of groundwater at or near the site. However, only one state
(Pennsylvania) has a mandatory requirement in this regard. This requirement states that a
minimum of one monitoring well shall be drilled in each dominant direction of groundwater
movement, with locations of wells to be approved in advance of drilling by the groundwater
geologist of the Department of Environmental Resources.
-38-
-------
SECTION V
ORDINANCES AND ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS OF SELECTED LOCAL AGENCIES
SELECTED COUNTIES
In California
Regulation of construction, abandonment, and sealing of water wells in the counties of the
State of California in 1967 was summarized in the California Water-Well Standards issued in
1968. At that time, 12 of California's 58 counties had ordinances regulating well construc-
tion, abandonment, or destruction. They ranged in scope from simple endorsements of the
"Kathy Fiscus Law" (which requires the filling, covering, or fencing of excavations) to re-
quirements covering construction features and materials. The content of these ordinances is
summarized in Table 9. These ordinances are administered by the respective county health
departments. In addition, several county health departments have standards which they ap-
ply to the construction of community water-supply wells in systems under their jurisdiction.
Notable among these are San Bernardino and San Diego Counties.
The Counties of Alameda, Orange, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Kern, and Santa Barbara were
contacted early in 1973 regarding their administrative regulations pertaining to water supply,
well-drilling, and solid waste. Alameda County has no such regulations. Los Angeles
County has adopted the California Water-Well Standards. Santa Clara County is in the pro-
cess of drafting proposed well-construction and well-sealing standards. Kern County adopted
construction and sealing regulations in 1969 (Ordinance G-1225). The information received
from Orange and Santa Barbara Counties was insufficient for comment.
-39-
-------
Table 9. SUMMARY OF ORDINANCES IN CALIFORNIA COUNTIES
PERTAINING TO WATER WELLS AS OF 1967
(Source: California Water-Well Standards, Bull. No. 74, 1968)
County
Contra Costa
Fresno
Los Angeles
Mendocino
Merced
Riverside
Sacramento
San Francisco
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Ordinance
No.
1189
389
524 b
7583°
333
275
340A
508
659
9-905
1100
Permit
or
notice
pa
N
pd
P
-
P
P
P
P
P
Ordinance covers
Construction
Loca-
tion
R
O
O
R
-
-
0
-
R
0
Construc-
tion
features
R
0
O
R
-
-
O
-
R
O,R
| Abandonment
Cover
(tempo-
rary)
-
0
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
-
O
De-
stroy
O
O
O
O
-
O
-
-
R
R
-
Sealing
require-
ment
O
-
O
-
-
-
O
-
R
O
Santa Clara
Tulare
NS
1203.12
385
O
O
O
O
O
a Symbols: P, Permit; N, Notice; R, Governed by regulations; O, Specific provisions in
ordinance.
° Applicable to individual domestic wells only.
c Not all provisions apply to all wells.
Permit for reconstructed or converted wells.
e Applies to individual domestic wells and community water-supply wells.
-40-
-------
The Kern County Ordinance indicates that the well-construction standards are partly based
on the California Water-Well Standards; references to these standards appear in the various
sections of the Ordinance. Well drillers are to be licensed; well permits are required and
standards for construction and sealing of wells are given together with minimum distances from
potential sources of pollution.
A section on disposal wells has the following requirements:
1. The disposal water shall not cause the temperature of the adjacent groundwater to
increase more than 8 degrees F.
2. The discharge shall not contain certain toxic materials or other substances which
will alter the existing groundwater quality in the disposal area.
3. The discharge shall not cause a public nuisance.
4. A sampling tap shall be installed at the disposal-well site in such a manner that
water, representative of the water entering the well may be withdrawn for lab-
oratory analysis.
The Santa Clara County Flood Control Water District is in the process of drafting county-wide
ordinances on we 11-construction and well-sealing standards. The tentative sealing standards
are of interest because they are adjusted to suit local conditions of geology and water quality.
The county has been divided into three groundwater quality zones (see Figure 4). Zone 1,
with generally good quality groundwater, Zone 2 near San Francisco Bay where the shallow
(0 to 150 feet) zone may be polluted or could become polluted by sea water, and Zone 3
(Evergreen area) where poor quality groundwater occurs below 300 feet with good quality wa-
ter overlying this zone. Sealing procedures reflect these variable hydrogeologic conditions.
-41-
-------
San Francisco Bay
Figure 4 - Map showing ground water quality zones in Santa Clara County, California.
(Source: Santa Clara County Flood Control Water District, 1973)
; X Morgan Hill
/ \ V
ZONE 1
\
Sea 1 (^ in Miles
-------
Figure 5 represents the required sealing procedure for a typical abandoned well. Figure 6
portrays recommended sealing procedures in Zone 2 (San Francisco Bay area). These sealing
requirements are more specific than the general sealing requirements given in the State Wa-
ter-Well Regulations.
In Florida
The Dade County Ordinance No. 72-76 of October 31, 1972, is of special interest because
it contains several sections related to sampling and protection of the groundwater. Water-
quality standards for Dade County are given and a prohibition is included against the dis-
charge of sewage, industrial wastes, cooling water, solid wastes, or any other wastes into
the surface water, tidal salt water estuaries, or groundwater in such quantities, and of such
characteristics as may cause the receiving waters, after mixing with the waste streams, to be
of poorer quality than the water-quality standards.
In cases of waste discharge into the ground, the regulations require that samples be taken
from wells nearest to and encircling the point of entry of a waste stream into the groundwater
table. Test wells may be required to be installed and maintained if existing sampling points
are found to be inadequate in the judgment of the Pollution Control Officer.
Deep disposal wells, defined as any conduit designed to, or operated so as to discharge waste
water or sewage of any nature, or any deleterious substances, into the ground at depths great-
er than 2,000 feet, have to meet listed requirements regarding BOD, floatable and suspended
solids, and coliform bacteria. Discharge of wastes pumped from septic tanks into aquifers or
on the ground surface is prohibited.
-43-
-------
Ground Surface,
Native Soil
*..* '. '
'. . ' '
« »
v>
Native Soil
Excavated
" Hole
-Conductor Pipe
Casing
Existing Gravel
Envelope
Existing Grout Seal
Drilled Hole
Grout or Concrete
for Well Destruction
7*
£> . A
'. ' A
' A ' A
A
«.' ' A
( * '
'A ' A .
* ' .A
' A . A
.4 .
Old or New Perforations-
Depth to Which General
Well Sealing Standards
Would Apply - - 50 ft.
Filler
Existing Perforations
*'.;
Well With
Gravel Pack
Well Without
Gravel Pack
Figure 5 - Typical general sealing features for destroyed wells in Santa Clara County,
California.
(Source: Santa Clara County Flood Control Water District, 1973)
-44-
-------
Ground Surface
^^
Depth to which gener-^
al well sealing stan-
dards would apply
50 ft.
Native Soil
£,
4J
O, I
-------
The Dade County Plumbing Code has a few regulations on supply and disposal wells. Para-
graph " P" states "wells shall be so located as to be free of danger of contamination from un-
safe water supply or shall be at least 50 feet from a septic tank, drain field, soakage pit, or
discharge well, and of sufficient depth to provide pure and wholesome water". The minimum
depth of domestic water wells is specified at 20 feet.
The Dade County Sewer Code (1972) states "no unauthorized person shall cause storm water
or groundwater... .to enter the sanitary sewer system" . Included in the code are maximum
allowable values for certain materials in, or characteristics of, waste water entering the
sewage systems (see Table 10).
In New York
Nassau County has no separate standards for water supply or water wells and adheres to the
State Sanitary Code and water-quality regulations. The county Department of Health mon-
itors the quality of water in supply wells. Special attention is given to the nitrate concentra-
tion in drinking water, which locally has risen beyond permissible Federal and State recom-
mended limits.
A "Flammable Liquids Ordinance" was enacted In Nassau County in October 1972. It sets
standards for fuel oil storage tanks and bulk storage plants, dike enclosures, and fire protec-
tion. One section dealing with leak detection of underground tanks requires installation of
monitoring wells. The section reads as follows:
"Leak Detection. On each new underground gasoline tank installation or on the re-
-46-
-------
Table 10. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VALUES FOR CERTAIN MATERIALS IN, OR
CHARACTERISTICS OF, WASTE WATERS ENTERING DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
(Source: Dade County Water and Sewer Authority, 1972)
Material or characteristic
Boron
Chromium, total
Copper
Cyanides
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Iron
Phenols
BOD
Suspended Solids
PH
Temperature
Maximum allowable
value, ppm
1.0
10.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
0.1
2.0
10.0
10.0
25.0
0.5
400
400
5.5-9.5
150°F
-47-
-------
placement of an existing underground tank, galvanized wrought iron pipes of 3/4-
inch inside diameter or larger, with 3/16-inch holes drilled horizontally on six-inch
centers on alternate axis, shall be installed vertically to a depth of not less than six-
inches below the bottom of the deepest tank. The top of this pipe shall be recessed
1/4-inch below the surface of the pavement, provided with a threaded sleeve and fit-
ted with a removal brass plug. The surface surrounding same shall be circled with red
paint. The locations on the station property shall be such that the tank or tanks are
entirely surrounded with the test pipes not over twenty-five (25) feet from the closest
tank, and not over twenty-five (25) feet apart. In the event of evidence of a gaso-
line leak in the vicinity of an existing underground gasoline storage tank, the tank
owner shall install test pipes as described in the preceding paragraph for the purpose
of the conducting of combustible gas indicator readings by the Fire Marshal's staff."
Sewage disposal systems in Nassau County are regulated by the Department of Health, and
the county regulations are commonly more stringent than the State requirements. Permits are
required for all installations except for one or two family houses. An engineering report in-
cluding profiles, maps, soil borings, and percolation tests is required. The elevation of
groundwater and/or perched water tables must be determined. The position of the water table
and the type of soil govern the type of disposal system (septic tank, cesspool) for a particular
site. A requirement for the installation of cesspools is that the bottom of the cesspool be at
least 2 feet above the water table.
Examination of sewer construction regulations in Suffolk County shows no pertinent items ex-
-48-
-------
cept for staled maximum allowable infiltration and exfiltration losses from sewer lines. Max-
imum losses allowed are 0.10 gallons per hour per inch of diameter per 100 linear feet of
sewer. Assuming a 12-inch diameter line, the daily maximum loss allowable would be about
1,500 gallons per day for each mile of line,
SELECTED COMMISSIONS
Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi Board of State Engineers
Recommended Standards for Sewage Works (Ten-State Standards-1971)
These standards prepared by the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Engineers
are intended to serve as a guide in design and preparation of plans and specifications for sew-
age works. They are used by Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Several sections of these standards are summa-
rized below:
1 . Sewer joints and infiltration - Sewer joints shall be designed to minimize infiltra-
tion. Leakage outward or inward shall not exceed 500 gallons per inch of pipe diameter per
mile per day for any section of the system. For a 12-inch diameter line such allowable losses
would amount to 6,000 gallons per day or 2.2 million gallons per year for each mile of line.
2. Horizontal and vertical separation of water and sewer lines - Ten feet minimum
distance horizontally; less than 10 feet is acceptable if lines are in separate trenches; the
sewer line is to be at least 18 inches below water main invert.
3. Sludge lagoons - Use of shallow sludge drying lagoons in lieu of drying beds is
permissible subject to the following conditions:
-49-
-------
a) Soil to be reasonably porous; bottom of lagoon to be at least 18 inches above
maximum groundwater table.
b) Consideration to be given to prevent pollution of ground and shallow water.
Adequate isolation to be provided to avoid nuisance production.
4. Waste stabilization ponds -
a) Engineering report required including location and direction of residences and
water supplies within 0.5 mile; soil borings; percolation tests, maps, etc.
b) Proximity to water supplies and other facilities subject to pollution and loca-
tion in areas of porous soils and fissured rock formations to be critically eval-
uated to avoid creation of health hazards or other undesirable conditions.
Possibility of chemical pollution to be considered.
c) Soil formation or structure of bottom to be relatively tight to avoid excesssive
liquid loss due to percolation and seepage. Soil borings required. Gravel
and limestone areas to be avoided.
d) Percolation not to be excessive. Sealing of bottom with clay blanket, ben-
tonite or other sealing material to be considered.
The above requirements of sludge lagoons and stabilization ponds appear to be directed to-
ward slow percolation and leakage of waste into the ground. Groundwater pollution is to be
minimized by slow dispersion and dilution of pollutants. Addendum No. 2 of April 1971 deals
with ground disposal of waste waters. Protection of groundwater and surface resources is the
major concern of these guidelines. The standards call for engineering data, including geol-
ogy (formations, degree of weathering of bedrock, rock structure, surficial deposits, sink
-50-
-------
holes, etc.). Requirements under hydrology include:
a) Depth to water table, variation, type; static water levels to be determined at
each depth for each aquifer in the depth under concern; critical slope evaluation
to be given to any differences in such levels.
b) Direction of groundwater movement; point of discharge; chemical analyses.
c) Well data, logs, construction details, etc.
d) Minimum of one monitoring well to be drilled in each dominant direction of ground-
water movement and between project site and public wells or high-capacity private
wells with privisions for sampling at the surface of the water table and at five feet
below the water table at each monitoring site. Location and construction of mon-
itoring wells to be approved.
Recommended Standards for Water Works (Ten-State Standards-1972)
These standards are intended to serve as a guide in design and preparation of plans and speci-
fications for public water-supply systems. They contain the following references to ground-
water and protection of groundwater.
As part of the submission of plans for new groundwater supply systems, unusual geologic con-
ditions and possible sources of contamination must be described. All sources of pollution
within 250 feet of the water source and 100 feet of treated water-storage facilities must be
located.
A detailed listing of well-construction requirements is given,including depth of casing, grout-
-51-
-------
ing procedures, disinfection of gravel pack, site protection, water quality, and procedures
for well abandonment.
A recent addendum to the 10-State Standard involves salt storage for highway use. After
noting that improper storage of salt is causing pollution of ground and surface waters, the ad-
dendum calls for review of all salt-storage areas, protective measures to prevent groundwater
pollution, and sheltered and paved storage sites.
The Railroad Commission of Texas
The rules and regulations of the Commission (1972) apply to the conservation of oil and gas
and the prevention of waste thereof within the State of Texas. Eighty rules are given on vari-
ous aspects of well construction, sealing, logging, valving, fire prevention, well densities,
fluid injection, allowable production, refineries, pipeline tariffs, etc.
Of most importance with respect to prevention of pollution are regulations regarding sealing
off of strata and protection of oil zones from infiltrating waters, and rules for general protec-
tion of surface and groundwater during drilling, plugging, producing or disposing of salt wa-
ter (also applicable to exploratory wells and offshore drilling). The Commission is empower-
ed to grant permits for salt-water disposal wells without notice or hearing provided the opera-
tor fulfills the following requirements:
a) Only inject it in non-producing oil or gas zones that contain water mineralized
by processes of nature to such a degree that the water is unfit for domestic, stock,
irrigation, or other general uses.
-52-
-------
b) Prior to disposal, the applicant shall ascertain whether or not the formations are
separated from fresh water formations by impervious beds which will give adequate
protection to such fresh-water formations. A letter from the Texas Water Quality
Board stating that the use of such formations will not endanger the fresh-water
strata in that area and that the formations used for salt water disposal are not fresh
water-bearing sands must be submitted.
One regulation pertains to leakage from pipelines. It states that each break or leak in any
tanks or pipelines from which more than 5 barrels escape must be reported in writing to the
Commission. Leakage ordinarily incident to transportation does not have to be reported.
Susquehanna River Basin Compact (1967)
This interstate Commission created by New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland has as its pur-
pose the planning, conservation, development, management, and control of the basin's sur-
face and groundwater resources. The Commission is empowered to regulate withdrawal of wa-
ter to manage and control groundwater supplies but has not issued any specific regulations
regarding prevention or control of groundwater pollution.
Delaware River Basin Commission
This Commission has issued regulations regarding quality of water and withdrawal of water in-
cluding groundwater within the basin, but there are no specific regulations regarding ground-
water pollution. Recently, however, the Commission has drafted a new policy regarding the
protection of groundwater quality. These pending regulations are reviewed in Section VIII.
-53-
-------
SECTION VI
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972 (Public Law 92-500)
This Act, which has as its objective to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and bio-
logical integrity of the nation's waters, contains several references to groundwater which are
summarized below.
Under Title 1 - Research and related programs, and subtitle "Comprehensive programs for wa-
ter pollution control" (Sec. 102) (a):
"The Administrator shall prepare or develop comprehensive programs for preventing,
reducing or eliminating the pollution of the navigable waters and groundwaters and improv-
ing the sanitary condition of surface and underground waters."
Under subtitle "Research, investigations, training, and information" (Sec. 104) (a) (5):
"The Administrator shall establish national programs... .and equip, and maintain a
water quality surveillance system for the purpose of monitoring the quality of navigable wa-
ters and groundwaters...."
Under subtitle "Grants for pollution control programs" (Sec. 106) (e) (1):
"Beginning in fiscal year 1974 the Administrator shall not make any grant....to any
State which has not provided or is not carrying out as part of its program.... the establish-
ment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to
monitor, and to compile and analyze data on, the quality of navigable waters and to the ex-
-54-
-------
tent- practicable groundwaters including biological monitoring; and provision for annually up-
dating such data...."
Under subtitle "In-place toxic pollutants" (Sec. 115):
"The Administrator is directed to identify the location of in-place pollutants with em-
phasis on toxic pollutants in harbors and navigable waterways and is authorized... .to make
contracts for the removal and appropriate disposal of such materials from critical port and
harbor areas" .
Under Title I! - Grants for construction of treatment works, and subtitle "Area-wide waste
treatment management" (Sec. 208) (b)(2):
Plans for regional waste treatment shal I include....
(G) a process to (1) identify... .mine-related sources of pollution including new, cur-
rent, and abandoned surface and underground mine runoff and (2) set forth procedures and
methods... .to control to the extent feasible such sources.
(I) a process to (1) identify... .salt water intrusion into rivers, lakes, and estuaries
resulting from reduction of fresh water flow from any cause, including irrigation, obstruction,
groundwater extraction, and diversion and (2) set forth procedures and methods to control
such intrusion. ...
(K) a process to control the disposal of pollutants on land or in subsurface excavations
within such area to protect ground and surface water quality.
Under Title III - Standards and enforcement, and subtitle "Information and guidelines" (Sec.
304) (a) (1):
-55-
-------
(A) "The Administrator... .shall develop and publish criteria for wafer quality... .on
the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on health and welfare including, but not limit-
ed to, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life, shorelines, beaches, esthetics, and
recreation, which may be expected from the presence of pollutants in any body of water, in-
cluding groundwater."
(a)(2)(A) "The Administrator... .shall develop and publish... .information on the fac-
tors necessary to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of all
navigable waters, groundwaters, waters of the contiguous zone, and the oceans."
"The Administrator... .shall issue to appropriate Federal agencies, the States, water
pollution control agencies, ... .information including:
(e) (1) guidelines for identifying and evaluating the nature and extent of nonpoint
sources of pollutants and (2) processes, procedures, and methods to control pollution result-
ing from: (A) agricultural and silvicultural activities, including runoff from fields and crop
and forest lands; (B) mining activities including runoff and siltation from new, currently
operating, and abandoned surface and underground mines; (C) all construction activity, in-
cluding runoff from the facilities resulting from such construction; (D) the disposal of pollu-
tants in wells or in subsurface excavations; (E) salt-water intrusion resulting from reduction
of fresh-water flow from any cause, including extraction of groundwater, irrigation, ob-
struction, and diversion; and (F) changes in the movement, flow, or circulation of any navi-
gable waters or groundwaters, including changes caused by the construction of dams, levees,
channels, causeways or flow-diversion facilities".
-56-
-------
Under subtitle MWater Quality inventory" (Sec. 305) (b) (E) and (b) (2):
"Each State is required to annually submit to the Administrator (beginning January 1,
1975) a description of the nature and extent of non-point sources of pollutants, and recom-
mendations as to the programs which should be undertaken to control each category of such
sources, including an estimate of the cost of implementation. These reports, together with
an analysis of them by the Administrator, are to be submitted to Congress."
Under Title IV - Permit and Licenses (Sec. 402) (b) (1) (D):
"National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" (NPDES), The Administrator of
EPA may issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, upon condition that such discharge
will meet all applicable requirements of the FWPCA Amendments. Permit required to "(D)
control the disposal of pollutants into wells."
Under Title V - General Provisions and subtitle "General definitions" ( § 502(b)):
" The term pol lutant does not mean.... (B) water, gas, or other material which is in-
jected into the well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association
with oil or gas production and disposed of in a well, if the well used either to facilitate pro-
duction or for disposal purposes is approved by authority of the State in which the well is lo-
cated and if the State determines that such injection or disposal will not result in the degrad-
ation of ground or surface water resources."
In compliance with the FWPCA Amendments, the EPA has issued regulations to the States for
participation in the NPDES system. These are found in the Code of Federal Regulations under
-57-
-------
Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 124. The regulations establish guidelines and describe among other
things, the State statutes required, forms and data to be submitted, terms and conditions of
NPDES permits, and procedures for monitoring. Subpart I titled "Disposal of Pollutants into
Wells" - Section 124.80 (Control of disposal of pollutants into wells) states that any State or
interstate agency participating in NPDES shall have procedures which control the disposal of
pollutants into wells. Any such disposal shall be sufficiently controlled to protect the public
health and welfare and to prevent pollution of ground and surface water resources.
Specific regulations are as follows:
(a) if an applicant for an NPDES permit proposes to dispose of pollutants into wells as
part of a program to meet the proposed terms and conditions of an NPDES permit, the Director
shall specify additional terms and conditions in the final NPDES permit which shall (1) pro-
hibit the proposed disposal, or (2) control the proposed disposal in order to prevent pollution
of ground and surface water resources and to protect the public health and welfare.
(b) A State agency participating in the NPDES shall have procedures to prohibit or
control through the issuance of permits all other proposed disposals of pollutants into wells.
Following approval of the Administrator of a State program pursuant to Section 402 of the
FWPCA Amendments, the Director shall permit no uncontrolled disposals of pollutants into
wells within the State.
(c) Any permit issued for the disposal of pollutants into wells shall be issued in ac-
cordance with the procedures and requirements specified in these regulations.
-58-
-------
(d) The Regional Administrator shall distribute to the Director and shall utilize in his
review of any permits proposed to be issued by the Director for the disposal of pollutants into
wells, any policies, technical information, or requirements specified by the Administrator in
regulations issued pursuant to the FWPCA Amendments or in directives issued to EPA regional
offices.
The NPDES permit program to be administered by EPA also provides some protection against
pollution of the groundwater. Section 125.26 (1) of Title 40, Chapter I of the Code of Fed-
eral Regulations provides:
"If an applicant for a permit is disposing or proposing to dispose of pollutants into
wells as part of a program to meet the proposed terms and conditions of a permit, the Regional
Administrator shall specify additional terms and conditions in the permit which shall (1) pro-
hibit the disposal, or (2) control the disposal in order to prevent pollution of ground and sur-
face water resources and to protect the public health and welfare."
GROUNDWATER POLLUTION AT FEDERAL FACILITIES
By Executive Order 11507 dated February 4, 1970, air and water pollution at Federal facili-
ties is to be controlled. The specific references are as follows:
§ 4 (4) "The use, storage, and handling of all materials included but not limited to,
solid fuels, ashes, petroleum products, and other chemical and biological agents shall be
carried out so as to avoid or minimize the possibilities for water and air pollution."
§ 4 (5) " No waste shall be disposed of or discharged in such a manner as could result in
the pollution of groundwater which would endanger the health or welfare of the public."
-59-
-------
PROTECTION AGAINST RADIATION
Standards (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Ch. 1, Pt. 20) were established for protec-
tion against radiation arising from activities under licenses by the Atomic Energy Commission
(radioactive material not licensed by the AEC is not subject to these regulations). The regu-
lations establish permissible doses and precautionary procedures such as monitoring, labeling,
and storage. One section (20.304) deals with disposal of radioactive waste by burial in soil
but does not refer to groundwater or possible pollution of groundwater resulting from such
burials.
No licensee shall dispose of licensed material by burial in soil unless:
(a) The total quantity of licensed and other radioactive materials buried any any one
location and time does not exceed, at the time of burial, 1,000 times the amount specified
in Appendix C of this part; and
(b) Burial is at a minimum depth of four feet; and
(c) Successive burials are separated by distances of at least six feet and not more than
12 burials are made in any year.
Appendix C is a list of radioactive elements giving concentrations in air and water above
natural background. Concentrations range from 0.01 microcuries for Plutonium - 239 to
1,000 microcuries for Cesium-131.
-60-
-------
PROTECTION AGAINST PESTICIDES
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act - 1972
This statute is mainly for registration, control, and monitoring of pesticides. It contains no
references to groundwater or to possible pollution of groundwater. The Administrator of the
Act is to establish procedures for safe disposal of pesticides and the selections of sites for safe
disposal (Sec. 19(a). Also, under §20 a national plan to monitor pesticides in air, soil, and
water is to be devised and undertaken.
EPA Regulations for Enforcement of Pesticide Act of 1972
These regulations are mostly directives for labeling, registration, and safe shipment of pesti-
cides. One indirect reference to groundwater pollution under "labeling" (Sec. 162.116)
(c)(2) says: "Products which might be injurious to fish and wildlife after extensive use or in-
discriminate disposal of excess material or spray-tank washings, and which bear directions
such as: To protect fish and wildlife, do not contaminate streams, lakes or ponds with this
material."
Procedures for safe disposal and storage of pesticides have been proposed by the EPA Admin-
istrator as new section 165 of Title 40, Chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations. Sec-
tion 165.8(6) is directed to the feasibility of subsurface disposal of pesticides. It states:
"The effects of subsurface implacement of liquid by well injection and the fate of the
injection materials are uncertain with today's knowledge, and could result in serious environ-
mental damage requiring complex and costly solutions on a long-term basis. Well injection
-61-
-------
should not be considered for pesticide disposal unless all reasonable alternative measures have
been explored and found less satisfactory in terms of environmental protection. The agency
will oppose well injection of pesticides without strict controls. It must be clearly demon-
strated to the appropriate Regional Administrator that adequate preinjection tests have been
made, provisions have been made for monitoring the operation and environmental effects,
contingency plans have been formulated to cope with well failures, and provisions will be
made for plugging injection wells when abandoned."
Section 165.2(c) states that these proposed regulations are not intended to supersede or abro-
gate existing State regulations which are more stringent than the federal regulations, nor are
they meant to prohibit a State from establishing more stringent regulations of its own in the
future.
GUI DELI NES FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT F ACI LI Tl ES
These Federal guidelines, issued by the former Federal Water Quality Administration in Sep-
tember 1970, are intended to supplement existing guidelines such as the "Recommended Stand-
ards for Sewage Works of the Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary En-
gineers", ASCE Manuals 36 and 37, and other applicable State standards and guidelines.
References to groundwater contamination are given under (a) "Ultimate Disposal of Sludge
and Solids" and (b) "Interceptor Sewers". The following quotes are significant:
(a) "The method of final disposal (of sludge and solids) must not result in any signifi-
can degradation of surface or groundwater, air, or land resources. If there is a choice, the
-62-
-------
method chosen must be thai- having the least impact on the environment."
(b) "Particular attention shall be given to ensure that sewers will be as water tight as
possible. Plans and specifications shall include the following: (1) infiltration and exfiIt-ra-
tion requirements with maximum allowable limits, (2) bedding and backfill specifications in-
cluding cross section detail, (3) jointing specifications to provide for minimum infiltration,
and (4) requirement for post-construction testing to determine compliance with specified lim-
itations on infiltration".
GUIDELINES FOR SOLID-WASTE DISPOSAL
Solid-Waste Disposal Act, 1970
This act authorizes a research and development program with respect to solid waste disposal.
It includes promotion of demonstration, construction, and application of solid-waste manage-
ment and resource-recovery systems, technical and financial assistance to State and local
governments and interstate agencies, research and development for better management and
disposal techniques, and preparation of Federal guidelines for solid-waste recovery, collec-
tion, and disposal. A plan for creation of a system of national disposal sites for storage and
disposal of hazardous wastes including radioactive, toxic chemical, biological, and other
wastes is to be prepared. It contains no references to groundwater pollution.
Recommended Standards for Sanitary Landfill Design, Construction, and Operation-EPA 1971
These standards require a project plan, including topographic maps showing location of borings,
cross sections, and a report regarding site geology, hydrology, and soil conditions. Provi-
1) The regulations are no longer codified in the Code of Federal Regulations,
but still remain in force. They can be found in 42 CFR § s 460-464 (1971).
-63-
-------
sions are to be made to insure that no pollution of surface or groundwater is created and sur-
face drainage is to be diverted to control infiltration at site. A daily cover of 6 inches of
soil is the minimum; the final cover is 2 feet of compacted soil with provision for grading to
drain surface water runoff. No requirements are listed for mapping of the water table, in-
ventory of wells, sealing of formations, or installation of monitoring wells.
Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation - EPA 1972
This publication is a state-of-the-art treatise prepared to assist planners, designers, operators,
and government officials with design and maintenance of waste disposal sites. Various hydro-
logic and geologic factors pertinent to landfill operations are fully discussed and illustrated.
Design considerations listed include topographic maps, cross sections, and information on
surface and groundwater drainage.
Proposed EPA Guidelines for Land Disposal of Solid Wastes
Recently promulgated (April 27, 1973) in the Federal Register are proposed EPA guidelines for
the land disposal of solid wastes; they will be found in 40 CFR Part 241. They are mandatory
for federal agencies and are recommended for use by State, interstate, regional and local
government agencies. In section 241,202-2(c), it is recommended that the hydrogeology of
the site be evaluated in order to design site development so as to minimize the impact on
groundwater resources.
In order to more fully protect groundwater quality, section 241.204-1 requires that the loca-
-64-
-------
tion, design, construction, and operation of the land disposal site conform to the most strin-
gent of applicable ground and surface water requirements. (By "applicable" is meant exist-
ing Federal, State or local standards which are legally enforceable.)
The regulations recommend that the design of the site include (§241.204-2):
1) Groundwater elevation and movement and proposed separation between the lowest
point of the lowest cell and the predicted maximum water-table elevation.
2) Potential interrelationship of the land disposal site, local aquifers, and surface
waters.
3) Background and initial quality of water resources in the potential zone of influ-
ence of the land disposal site.
4) Proposed location of observation well, sampling stations and testing program
planned, when appropriate.
5) Description of soil and other geologic material to a depth adequate to allow eval-
uation of the water quality protection provided by the soil and other geologic material.
6) Potential leachate generation and proposed control equipment, where necessary,
for the protection of ground and surface water resources.
In operating the land disposal site, section 241.204-3 emphasizes the importance of:
1) Leachate collection and treatment systems when necessary to protect ground and
surface water resources, and 2) not allowing municipal solid wastes and leachate from them
to contact ground or surface water so as to impair that water's use.
-65-
-------
SECTION VII
MISCELLANEOUS CODES AND STANDARDS
NATIONAL STANDARD PLUMBING CODE
This code published in 1971 by the National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Con-
tractors has been prepared to provide State and local governments, administrative bodies, and
industry with a sample modern plumbing code. It does not have legal standing unless it is
adopted by reference, or inclusion, in the statutes or ordinances of State, county or munici-
pal governments.
The code, founded on basic rules of environmental sanitation, has several listed principles.
Principle No. 22 is as follows: "Protect ground and surface water. Sewage or other waste
shall not be discharged into surface or subsurface water unless it has first been subjected to
some acceptable form of treatment."
The code mentions the following standards: (1) separation of water and sewer lines a minimum
of 10 feet of horizontal distance, (2) in the same trench, the water line should be at least
one foot above the top of the sewer line, (3) sewer and water lines to be of sufficient strength
and durability to prevent leakage, and (4) no potable water lines in, under, or above cess-
pools, septic tanks, septic tank drainage fields, or seepage pits; a separation of 10 feet is to
be maintained.
Minimum lot sizes are given for individual sewage systems together with minimum distances
and data on absorpiton areas in seepage pits and septic tanks. The effluent from all septic
-66-
-------
tanks is to be disposed of underground by subsurface irrigation or seepage pits or both. How-
ever, "deep seepage pits penetrating groundwater" are prohibited.
A general provision of the code states that domestic sewage or sewage effluent shall not be
disposed of in any manner that will cause pollution of the ground surface, groundwater, bath-
ing area, lake, pond, water course, or tidewater, or create a nuisance. It shall not be dis-
charged into any abandoned or unused well, or into any crevice, sink hole, or opening,
either natural or artificial in a rock formation. Plumbing fixtures may not be connected to
any individual sewage disposal system where groundwater may collect above the sewage dis-
posal system causing a flooded condition.
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION
The "standard of minimum requirement for safe practice in the production and delivery of wa-
ter for domestic use" has only a general reference to wells and pollution, namely: "Wells
shall be constructed to prevent, insofar as possible, contamination from any source. If a
well casing, as set, is perforated at such levels that contaminated water may enter, ade-
quate repairs shall be made before water from the well is used. Where impervious formations
or sealing clay strata are not encountered that will prevent contaminated water from entering
the well, provision shall be made for the installation of disinfection equipment." The AWWA
"Standard for Deep Wells" contains no reference to groundwater pollution; however, the well
contractor is required to take measures to prevent pollution of the groundwater during drill-
ing and construction of the well. Construction methods for wells in different geological for-
-67-
-------
motions are given together with instructions for proper cementing and sealing of water wells
and zones of poor water quality.
MODEL WATER CODE
A model water code prepared by Frank E. Maloney at the University of Florida Water Re-
sources Research Center with support from the Office of Water Resources Research (1972) has
only one reference to groundwater pollution, namely the requirement that a discharge permit
must be obtained prior to any discharge of water or waste into the groundwater. The author
notes that no further requirements for protections of groundwater are needed since by defini-
tion "Waters of the State" includes groundwater. The code does require licensing of drillers,
well permits, well-completion reports, and adoption of construction standards.
-68-
-------
SECTION VIII
NEW DEVELOPMENTS
SELECTED STATES
Alaska
According to Mr. Ronald G. Hansen, Chief of the Water Quality Control Section of the De-
partment of Environmental Conservation, groundwater pollution is present in the State prin-
cipally where on-lot water-supply and waste-disposal systems exist in close proximity. Most
cities and villages experience this problem to some extent where community sewerage systems
do not yet exist,because very little land in Alaska is suitable for conventional septic tank-
drain field systems. It is felt that new legislation is not necessary and that the Department of
Environmental Conservation has adequate legal authority to prevent groundwater pollution.
The Department has adopted emergency regulations which restrict on-lot water supply and
waste-disposal systems to lots of 40,000 square feet or larger with adequate soil characteris-
tics. These regulations were undergoing public hearing in March 1973 prior to adoption as
permanent regulations.
California
Mr. L. H. Gulick, Attorney for the State Water Resources Control Board,reports (March 1973)
that various environmental bills are pending but that their relationship to groundwater pollu-
tion is indirect or remote. On March 1, the Board adopted minimum guidelines to protect the
water quality from animal wastes. These guidelines cover animals in confined areas and re-
quire farmers to control drainage from manure storage areas and runoff from the largest rainfall
-69-
-------
probable during 24 hours in a 10-year period. The guidelines require minimization of water
percolation through manure into underlying soils (BNA).
Delaware
New groundwater quality legislation is in preparation (May 1973). Officials of the Water
Resources Division see a need for strengthening enforcement of existing statutes to better con-
trol the groundwater resources.
Hawaii
No significant cases of groundwater pollution have been reported and no new legislation in
this respect is being considered; however, increase in subsurface disposal of wastes is seen as
a potential problem to groundwater quality. There is diversity of opinion regarding the need
for protective legislation. Mr. Sunao Kido, Chairman of the Department of Land and Natu-
ral Resources, feels that the present legislation is adequate to safeguard the groundwater sup-
ply (February 1973). Mr. Ralph K. Yukumoto, Acting Chief of the Sanitary Engineering
Branch of the Department of Health, reports that more legislation aimed at the prevention of
groundwater pollution is needed (February 1973).
[ndiana
Mr. George G. Fassnacht, Chief, Water Supply Section, Division of Sanitary Engineering
of the State Board of Health, sees no need at this time (March 1973) for State legislation re-
garding groundwater pollution. He feels that such pollution is covered by the Indiana Stream
Pollution Control Law.
-70-
-------
Iowa
Mr. Keith Bridson, Acting Director of the Department of Environmental Quality, feels that
there is a need for improved well construction practices throughout the State (March 1973).
The Department is drafting revised rules and regulations regarding the sealing of abandoned
public wells.
On July 11, 1972, the State approved revised rules and regulations regarding animal waste
disposal on confined feed lots. Of interest is a section which prohibits discharge of runoff
water or waste flow directly into a drainage well, pumped well, abandoned well, sink hole
or gravel pit, rock quarry, or lake or pond "when such lake or pond is located on property
not wholly owned by the registrant." Operators of feed lots are required to submit informa-
tion on topography and drainage and ultimate primary receiving streams or other waters of
the State. If the department determines that the feed lot pollutes or may reasonably pollute
the waters of the State, a waste-water disposal permit must be obtained and pollution-control
facilities must be constructed (BNA).
Maryland
A Water Resources Administration spokesman, Mr. Arnold Schiffman, considers the State
statutes complete and adequate from a groundwater protection point of view. He feels, how-
ever, that there is a need for better regulations to implement the statutes.
The State has prepared a unique approach to the classification of groundwater quality accord-
ing to aquifer.
-71-
-------
As required under the new Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the states have to submit re-
vised water-quality standards to EPA. A preliminary draft of the Maryland Standards dated
February 1973 is summarized as follows:
1. Any discharge or disposal of water or waste waters into groundwater requires ap-
proval of the Water Resources Administration. Any approval, if granted, will contain the
necessary limitations and requirements to prevent pollution of ground and surface water.
2. Three aquifer types are recognized and water quality standards are established for
each aquifer: Type I Aquifers (transmissivity 1,000 gpd/ft or greater) with a total dissolved
solids content of less than 500 mg/liter; Type II Aquifers (transmissivity 1,000 gpd/ft or
greater) with a total dissolved solids content ranging between 500 and 600 mg/liter, and;
Type III Aquifers - all other aquifers.
The characteristics of waters or wastes discharged into the aquifers has tentatively been es-
tablished as follows:
Type I Aquifers
Waste discharges into Type I Aquifers shall not exceed or cause the natural groundwater qual-
ity to exceed recommended and/or mandatory standards for drinking water of the U. S. Public
Health Service.
Type II Aquifers
Waste discharges into Type II Aquifers should not exceed, or cause the natural groundwater
quality to exceed, surface-water quality standards for the State of Maryland. Clear and
-72-
-------
convincing proof shall be provided to show that the waste discharged will not contaminate a
Type I Aquifer.
Type III Aquifers
Discharge of any type waste is permitted into Type III Aquifers. Conclusive proof shall be
provided to show that the waste discharged will not pollute a Type I or Type II Aquifer or sur-
face water.
A logarithmic graph has been prepared to show aquifer types for groundwater quality standards
(see Figure 7). Point "A" on the graph is based on the 1962 U. S. Public Health Service
Drinking Water Standards recommended limit of 500 mg/l for total dissolved solids and the ap-
proximate permeability boundary between silt and sand. Transmissivity is used as the measure
of aquifer productivity because it takes aquifer thickness into account and is also a parameter
that can be readily determined.
Point "B" on the graph is based on the concept that brackish groundwaters could be eonomi-
cally desalinized by processes whose costs are a function of feed water salinities. The total
dissolved solids content of 6,000 mg/l is based on approximate upper limits for reverse os-
mosis desalinization and a rough estimate of average dissolved-sol ids content of the Chesa-
r\
peake Bay. A transmissivity value of 10,000 ft /day is considered to be a lower limit for
well yields large enough to warrant desalinization. The dashed line connecting points A
and B is arbitrary.
Regulation 4.07 of the Water Quality Standards covering prevention of oil pollution prohibits
-73-
-------
3 4 567891
10
z
o
u
00
O
co
Q
LU
O
I CO
VI CO
r 5
o
TYPE II AQUIFERSf
TYPE III AQUIFERS
1TYPE I AQUIFERS
102
TO3
PERMEABILITY (ft/day)
104
TRANSMISSIVITY(ft2day)
AQUIFER PRODUCTIVITY
104
105
105
106
Figure 7 - Logarithmic chart showing aquifer types for ground-water quality standards
in Maryland.
(Source: Maryland Water Resources Adm. 1973)
-------
discharge of oil into the waters of the State. There are no specific references to groundwater
pollution, except that in designing new above-ground oil-storage sites and buried tanks, the
nature of the soil and the groundwater conditions must be taken into consideration.
Massachusetts
Actual incidents of groundwater pollution caused by use and storage of road salts have caused
concern for groundwater quality in the State, and legislation regulating storage and use of
such chemicals is pending. Pertinent sections of the proposed legislation are as follows:
"no person shall store rock salt, sodium chloride, or chemically treated abrasives or
other chemicals used for de-icing roads in such a manner or place as to subject a water sup-
ply or groundwater supply to the risk of contamination."
"any person who uses more than one ton of such chemicals in any calendar year shall
report annual ly,"
The commissioner may require impact studies of maintenance of highways and influence on
reservoirs, pond, streams, lakes, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers.
Other pending legislation in the State is:
House Bill 1946 which calls for directing the Water Resources Commission to conduct
an investigation and study of the physical relationship between ground and surface water; and
the inter-related effects of man's activities on ground and surface waters. The report is to
contain conclusions, recommendations, and drafts of legislation as required.
House Bill 5931 calls for the assessment of and the reimbursement for damages due to
contamination of private water supplies caused by storage of highway salt.
-75-
-------
Minnesota
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has recently held hearings on a proposed regulation
to prohibit or control groundwater pollution. In conjunction with the proposed regulation,
the agency has requested additional legislative authority (proposed regulations not available,
April 1973).
Mississippi
Legislation to create groundwater management districts will be introduced in the Mississippi
Legislature in 1973. "Strict statewide regulations are not required at the present time, but a
legal vehicle capable of dealing with emergency groundwater problems is long past due", a
report states. The legislature will also be called upon to consider recommendations which en-
able the State Water Board to increase its data-collection activities relating to groundwater
conditions (The Ground Water Newsletter, December 26, 1972).
Missouri
The Missouri Clean Water Commission has pending regulations to prevent groundwater pollu-
tion from wells. These regulations prohibit release of wastes to groundwater or storage or dis-
posal that might cause wastes to enter the groundwater, directly or indirectly. No waste wa-
ter is to be introduced into sink holes, caves, fissures, or other openings in the ground which
"do or are reasonably certain to drain into aquifers" . Abandoned wells are to be plugged
and sealed.
New Hampshire
According to Mr. William C. Ayer, Assistant Director, Municipal Services of the Water Sup-
-76-
-------
ply and Pollution Control Division, "the existing body of law does not approach the problem"
(of groundwater pollution). There is no legislation proposed in this regard (April 1973).
Tennessee
House Bill 80 is an Act to control drilling and abandoning of waste wells and test wells in-
stalled for exploration of minerals. It is designed to prevent surface and underground waste.
Underground waste means "drainage or injury to potable water, mineralized water, or other
subsurface resources". The Director of the Division of Geology shall administer the Act and
exercise the following powers:
a) To adopt rules and regulations necessary for the implementation of this Act
and the prevention of pollution, underground waste, and surface waste.
b) To adopt, without notice or hearing, rules and regulations relating to procedural
matters, the filing of reports, the filing of permit applications, and other procedural matters.
c) Make inspections and provide for the keeping of records and checking on the ac-
curacy thereof.
d) Require the locating, drilling, deepening, reworking, reopening, casing, sealing,
injecting, mechanical and chemical treating and plugging of wells subject to this Act to be
accomplished in a manner which is designed to prevent surface and underground waste.
e) Require on all wells the keeping and filing of logs containing data which are ap-
propriate to the purposes of this Act. Logs, samples and data for test wells drilled for ex-
ploratory purposes shall be held confidential for two years and upon written request for an
additional two years.
-77-
-------
f) Require on storage and waste disposal wells, when specified by the Director, the
keeping and filing of drillers' logs and sample logs, the running and filing of electrical and
radioactivity logs, the keeping and filing of drill cuttings, cores, water samples, pilot in-
jection test records, operating records and other reports, when requested by the Director.
g) Release to the board for meetings and hearings, only data described in this section
which are necessary to the administration of this Act in the prevention or correction of surface
or underground waste.
h) Order through written notice the immediate suspension or prompt correction of any
operation, condition or practice fround to exist which is causing or resulting, or threatening
to cause or result, in surface or underground waste or pollution.
Permits are required for the drilling of test wells and the installation of storage or disposal
wells. The paragraph pertaining to storage and disposal wells is as follows:
"A person shall not drill, or begin the drilling, of any storage or waste disposal well,
or convert any well for these uses, until the owner, directly or through his authorized repre-
sentative, files a written application for a permit to drill or convert a well, files a survey of
the well site, files an approved surety or security bond, and receives a permit in accordance
with the rules of the Director. A person must have a permit to dispose of waste from the wa-
ter quality control board prior to application for such disposal under the Mineral Well Act.
A fee of $50.00 shall be charged for a storage or waste disposal well permit. Within 10 days
after receiving the prescribed application and fee, and following investigation, inspection
and approval, the Director shall issue the well permit. No permit shall be issued to any
-78-
-------
owner or his authorized representative who does not comply with the rules of the Director or
who is in violation of this Act or any rule of the Director. Upon completion of the drilling
or converting of a well for storage or waste disposal and after necessary testing by the owner
to determine that the well can be used for these purposes and in a manner that will not cause
surface or underground waste, the Director, upon receipt of appropriate evidence, shall ap-
prove and regulate the use of the well for storage or waste disposal. The Director may sched-
ule a public hearing to consider the need or advisability of permitting the drilling or operating
of a storage or waste disposal well, or converting a well for these uses, if the public safety
or other interests are involved."
Texas
The pending Land-Use Management Act, devised to establish a system of land-use regulations
and planning in order to protect environmentally sensitive areas, open spaces, etc., includes
"geologically discernible recharge zones of underground aquifers" as one type of such sensi-
tive areas.
Pending House Bill 935 dealing with the creation, powers, and duties of underground water
conservation districts has among its provisions the conservation, preservation, protection, re-
charging, prevention of waste, and protection of the quality of groundwater, to control sub-
sidence, to buy, sell, and to transport water. The Texas Water Development Board would
create these districts and designate critical areas. The districts could make and enforce rules
providing for conservation, protection, well drilling, well spacing, and production. Permits
for production of over 100,000 gallons per day would be required, except for domestic, live-
stock, and agricultural wells.
-79-
-------
Utah
Mr. S. Bryce Montgomery, geologist with the Division of Water Resources, reports that the
present statutes are considered sufficient to insure protection of groundwater resources. How
ever, he feels there is a need for improved regulation and enforcement to actually implement
"all that could and should be done" (April 1973).
Vermont
Pending Bill S. 123 states: "It is the policy of the State that groundwater resources shall be
protected, regulated, and where necessary, controlled in order to protect and promote the
general welfare of the public".
"The secretary shall control the pollution of the groundwater resources and shall de-
velop a comprehensive long range program to protect these resources - by January 15, 1974"
(April 1973).
Virginia
The pending Groundwater Act of 1973 is a complex document to control and manage the
groundwater resources of the State. It contains provisions or registration, wells, critical
groundwater areas, withdrawal permits, etc. The State Water Control Board will be auth-
orized to prescribe standards for abandonment of water wells, and if the groundwater in an
area has been or reasonably may be expected to become polluted, the Board may declare the
area to be a "critical groundwater area" subject to management and regulations.
-80-
-------
Wisconsin
Monitoring of groundwater sources used as the sole water supply for 446 communities in Wis-
consin is being proposed in bills in the State Legislature. Other proposals call for increased
research on existing and potential hazards to the aquifers.
One bill would appropriate $120,000 in the next two fiscal years to determine the character-
istics of the water and changes in quality due to human activity. The research, which would
be conducted by the University of Wisconsin, would attempt to isolate the types of contam-
inants that pose a threat to the water. Groundwater experts in the State are concerned that
changes in waste disposal and land use procedures may be destructive to water (The Ground
Water Newsletter, March 27, 1973).
REGULATORY COMMISSIONS
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO)
ORSANCO is preparing regulations for underground injection of waste waters. A working
copy of a report prepared by Mr. Don L. Warner, dated June 1972, was reviewed.
The report includes various forms and outlines for regulation of underground waste water in-
jection, such as application for drilling, completion, and operation of a well, and applica-
tion for plugging and abandoning a well.
Geologic and hydrogeologic criteria for deep-well disposal are: (1) the regional geologic
framework, (2) local geology and hydrogeology, (3) groundwater aquifers (depths, thickness,
-81-
-------
general character, use), and (4) mineral resources. The salinity of groundwater as a criterion
is discussed, as are mineral resources (oil, gas, coal, salt), seismicity, hydrodynamics, well
design, operating program, and abandonment of wells.
Mr. Russell A. Brant, geologist with ORSANCO, reports (February 1973) that ORSANCO
recognizes the ever-increasing encroachment of pollution in potable groundwater from point
sources as well as areal sources (recharge from polluted streams), and infiltration from vari-
ous pollutants directly to the shallow aquifers. The very large number of point sources of pol-
lution is of concern; however, ORSANCO is presently occupied with surface-water problems
to such an extent that preparation of appropriate legislation on groundwater is not possible at
the present time.
Delaware River Basin Commission
The Commission has prepared a new policy relating to the protection of groundwater quality
which will be published in Title 18, Chapter IV of the Code of Federal Regulations. The
main points are:
1. The quality of groundwater in the basin must be maintained in a safe and satisfac-
tory condition for use as domestic, agricultural, industrial, and public water supplies.
2. Degradation of groundwater quality is to be prevented.
3. The groundwater shall not contain pollutants in concentrations sufficient to endan-
ger or preclude water uses to be protected. Concentrations shall not exceed U. S. Public
Health Service drinking water standards.
-82-
-------
4. The Commission is authorized to regulate the processing, handling, transporta-
tion, disposal, storage, excavation, or removal of any solid, liquid, or gaseous material on
or beneath the ground surface in order to protect the groundwater.
5. No toxic or color, taste, or odor-producing substances are allowed to enter
groundwater.
6. Heat discharge which may adversely affect groundwater is to be regulated.
7. The Commission may require abatement programs of polluted groundwater.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Pending Legislation
The proposed "Safe Drinking Water Act of 1973" provides for establishment of minimum Fed-
eral drinking water standards, maximum allowable limits for contaminants in water, and
standards for operation and maintenance of drinking water systems. To assure safe drinking
water, surveillance, monitoring, site selection, and construction standards for public-water
supply systems would also be established. It was passed by the Senate on June 22, 1973, and
was sent to the House; it passed a House Commerce Subcommittee on July 18, 1973.
National Water Commission
In a recent draft report prepared for the President and Congress, the chapter on "Improving
Groundwater Management" sets forth specific recommendations developed by the Commission,
which it feels will "effect the desired improvement in management of the Nation s groundwa-
ter resources". The final report was sent to the President and to Congress on June 14, 1973.
-83-
-------
In summary they are:
1. Integrating Use of Surface Wafer and Groundwater
a) Where surface and groundwater are interrelated, uses should be managed conjunc-
tively and State laws should integrate rights in both sources.
b) Laws and regulations should require users to substitute one source of supply for the
other when such substitution will optimize use of the combined resource.
2. The Need for Management
a) Public management agencies should be established to conjunctively manage ground-
water and surface water in States where groundwater is an important source of sup-
ply.
b) State legislation establishing water management agencies should confer upon such
agencies sufficient authority to insure that groundwater and surface water are man-
aged together optimally.
c) State laws and regulations should protect groundwater aquifers from damage.
d) Federal agencies seeking authorization of Federal water projects should report to
Congress on the status of groundwater management programs in the areas where
such projects are proposed.
3. Groundwater Pollution
a) The U. S. Geological Survey should expand its studies of groundwater pollution.
b) States should regulate wells and license drillers to protect groundwater quality.
-84-
-------
c) The same State agency that regulates surface-water quality should regulate ground-
water quality.
d) A State agency should regulate land use to control or eliminate adverse effects on
groundwater quality.
e) Federal agency reports on water-supply projects should describe groundwater qual-
ity and the adequacy of programs to control groundwater pollution where Federal
projects are proposed.
f) Federal water pollution control legislation should be expanded to include ground-
water pollution, and regulatory techniques (although not necessarily standards)
should be the same for both surface and groundwater.
-85-
-------
SECTION IX
REFERENCES
1. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "Petroleum Refinery Piping Code," ASA
B31.3, (1966).
2. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "Liquid Petroleum Transportation Piping
Systems," ANSI B31.4, (1971).
3. American Water Works Association (California Section), "Standards of Minimum Re-
quirements for Safe Practice in the Production and Delivery of Water for Domestic Use,'
(1948).
4. American Water Works Association, "Standard for Deep Wells (A100)," (1966).
5. Association of Oil Pipe Lines, "Reports of the State Affairs and Legal Committee,
Covering the Periods October I/ 1970 Through October 31, 1971 and November 1,
1971 Through October 31, 1972," (1972-73).
6. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D. C., "Environmental Reporter."
7. Dade County Water and Sewer Authority, Florida, "Sewer Service Procedures and
Regulations," (1972).
8. Dade County, Florida, Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Ordinance No. 72-76,
(1972).
9. Dade County, Florida, "Supply and Disposal Wells," Plumbing Code, Section 4616.
10. Delaware River Basin Commission, "Delaware River Basin Compact," (1967).
11. Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers, "Recommended
Standards for Water Works," (1972).
12. Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers, "Recommended
Standards for Sewage Works," (1971).
13. Interstate Advisory Committee on the Susquehanna River Basin, "Susquehanna River
Basin Compact," (1967).
-86-
-------
14. Kern County, California, "Water Wells and Water Supply Systems," Ordinance No.
G-1225, (1969).
15. Kern County, California, "Garbage and Refuse Disposal and Weed Control," Ordi-
nance No. G-1773, (1969).
16. Los Angeles County, California, "Public Health Code," Ordinance No. 7583, (1971).
17. Maloney, F. E., "A Model Water Code with Commentary," University of Florida Wa-
ter Resources Research Center Publication No. 8, (1972).
18. Nassau County, N. Y., "Flammable and Combustible Liquids," Ordinance No. 259,
(1972).
19. Nassau County, N. Y., Department of Health, "Standards for Individual Sewage Dis-
posal Systems," (1973).
20. National Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors, Washington, D. C.,
"National Standard Plumbing Code," (1973).
21. Railroad Commission of Texas, "General Conservation Rules and Regulations of State-
wide Application," (1972).
22. Reynolds, S. E., "30th Biennial Report of the State Engineer of New Mexico, 1970-
1972," Santa Fe, New Mexico, (1972).
23. Santa Barbara County, California, "Garbage and Refuse," Santa Barbara County Code
Ordinance No. 2293.
24. Santa Clara County, California, "Standards for the Sealing of Abandoned Wells,"
(Tentative, 1973).
25. Suffolk County Sewer Agency, New York, "Specifications for Sewer Construction,"
(1970).
26. Suffolk County, New York, "Local Law Governing Operation, Use, Connection and
Construction of Sanitary Sewers," (1971).
27. U. S. Public Health Service, "Manual of Individual Water Supply Systems " Pub No.
24, (1962).
-87-
-------
28. Vermont Agency of Environmental Conservation, "Comprehensive Long-Range Water
Supply Program for the State of Vermont," Department of Water Resources, (1972).
29. Walton, W. C., and Haik, R. A., "Comments on Water Laws in Minnesota," Ground
Water, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp 4-10, (1970).
30. Water Information Center, Inc., Port Washington, New York, Ground Water News-
letter.
31. Water Wei I Journal Publishing Company, Columbus, Ohio, Water Well Journal.
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
1, Report No.
w
12..
GROUNDWATER POLLUTION FEATURES OF FEDERAL
AND STATE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS,
van der Leeden, F,
Geraghfy & Miller, Inc, Port Washington, New York
prepared for GE-TEMPO, Santa Barbara, California
5. Report Date
8. JP, fform:: g Organization
Report No.
EPA 68-01-0759
13 Type / Repot i and
Period Covered
i aiion
Environmental Protection Agency Report No, EPA~600/4-73-001a, July 1973, 88 p,
This report summarizes regulations and requirements of major public agencies with respect to
groundwater pollution*, A selective review was made of existing and pending legislation and
regulations of Federal, State, and county governments and their agencies0 Material was ob-
tained both from central compilations and by direct contact with public agencies. State water
laws, water-pollution laws, water-well regulations, and solid-waste regulations were examinee
also, Federal laws dealing with pollution at Federal facilities, protection against radiation
and pesticides, and guidelines for waste-water treatment and solid-waste disposal facilities.
Laws and regulations related to groundwater pollution vary widely as to objectives, scope,
coverage, detail, and effectiveness. State water laws tend to deal primarily with protection
of surface-water resources,, Only 13 States were found to have water laws dealing in detail
with measures to protect groundwater against pollution However, numerous other laws and
regulations affect groundwater pollution.
A more extensive review of policies, rules, regulations, and procedures, with an evaluation
of their effectiveness in controlling groundwater pollution, is recommended.
Descriptors *Groundwater, * Water pollution control, legislation, *Regulation, State jurisdic-
tion, Federal jurisdiction, Water law, Interstate Commissions, Water needs, Recharge wells,
Underground waste disposal, Water permits, Water quality, Waste water disposal, Waste dis-
posal, Waste dumps, Landfills, Solid wastes, Sanitary engineer! ng^ea I ants, Monitoring,
Aquifer management, Management*
17b. Identifiers
06E, 05G
15. Security Class.
(Repoi')
>0. Sei >rityCl >s.
(Page)
21.
No. of
Pages
Pnce
Send To:
no4E|°U^CES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. D. C. 2O24O
Frits van der Leeden
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
------- |