Office of
Ground-Water Protection
Washington, D.C. 20460
June 1987
Water
Guidance For Applicants
For State Wellhead
Protection Program
Assistance Funds Under
The Safe Drinking Water Act
-------
-------
NOTE TO APPLICANTS FOR ASSISTANCE FUNDS
This document, Guidance for Applicants for State Wellhead Protection Program Assistance
Funds Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, provides the basic instructions for applicants to apply
for Federal funds. Three appendices are cited. Appendix A is the Glossary of Terms, which is
part of this document. Appendix B, the Guidelines for Delineation of Wellhead Protection
Areas, is a separate document and is being made available with this Guidance. Appendix C is a
set of Applicable Regulations which contains copies of documents cited on page 40 of this
Guidance and which is available, upon your request, from the EPA Regional Ground-Water
Representative for your Region.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following Office of Ground-Water Protection staff members had lead roles in
preparing this document: Saul Rosoff, Senior Advisor for Policy and Management; Norbert
Dee, Director of the Research and Data Management staff; and Ron Hoffer, Director of the
Guidelines Implementation staff. Each convened and chaired a Task Force which was
instrumental in providing assistance and advice. These Task Forces consisted of representatives
from EPA offices and State and local governments.
OGWP also acknowledges the support and assistance of its technical consultants in this
effort, the firm of Booz* Allen & Hamilton, with Laurie M. Ziegenfus serving as Project
Manager.
Marian Mlay
Director
Office of Ground-Water Protection
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPIC PAGE
FOREWORD i
LIST OF ACRONYMS ii
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Statutory Authority 1
B. Program Description 2
1. Federal Financial Assistance 2
2. Wellhead Protection Program Phases 2
II. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS 5
III. ANNUAL ALLOTMENTS AND FEDERAL SHARE 6
A. Annual Allotments 6
B. Federal Share 8
IV. STATE WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM 9
A. State Wellhead Protection Program Submittal 9
1. Program Summary and Purpose 9
2. Duties of State Agencies, Local Governments 10
and Public Water Supply Systems
3. Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas 11
4. Source Identification 21
5. Management Approaches 26
6. Contingency Plan 29
7. New Wells 30
8. Public Participation 30
B. EPA Review Process 31
1. Review of the Draft Program 31
2. EPA Review of the State Program 31
3. Notification of Approval/Disapproval 31
V. ASSISTANCE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 32
A. Development Grant Years 32
1. Narrative Statement 32
2. Work Plan for Development Years 33
B. Implementation Grant Years 35
-------
1. Narrative Statement 35
2. Work Plan for Implementation Years 35
C. Annular Injection Wells 37
D. Administrative Requirements 37
1. Procurement System Certification 38
2. Intergovernmental Review Comments 38
VI. ALLOWABLE COSTS 38
VH. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PROGRAM 40
. GUIDANCE
VEI. GRANT APPLICATION PREPARATION 40
A. Preapplication Assistance 41
B. Application Submittal 41
IX. WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM GRANT 41
APPLICATION REVIEW AND AWARD
A. Grant Application Review 41
B. Administrative Review Criteria 44
C. Technical Review Criteria 44
D. Award 44
X. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AND OVERSIGHT 45
A. Reports 45
1. Interim and End-of-Year Progress Reports 45
2. Biennial Status Report 47
3. Financial Status Report 48
B. Recordkeeping 48
C. Program Changes 48
D. Performance Evaluation 49
E. Disputes 50
APPENDIX A-GLOSSARY OF TERMS A-l
-------
The following documents are available upon request from the Office of Ground-Water
Protection or the Regional Offices:
APPENDIX B - GUIDELINES FOR THE DELINEATION OF WELLHEAD
PROTECTION AREAS
APPENDIX C - WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM APPLICABLE
REGULATIONS
EPA FORM 5700-33 - Application for Federal Assistance - State and Local
Nonconstruction Programs
40 CFR PART 7 - Nondiscrimination in Programs Receiving Federal Assistance
From the Environmental Protection Agency
40 CFR PART 25 - Public Participation in Programs Under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean
Water Act
40 CFR PART 29 - Intergovernmental Review of Environmental Protection
Agency Programs and Activities
40 CFR PART 30 - General Regulation for Assistance Programs
40 CFR PART 32 - Debarment and Suspension Under EPA Assistance Programs
40 CFR PART 33 - Procurement Under Assistance Agreements
40 CFR PART 35 - Financial Assistance for Continuing Environmental Programs
-------
FOREWORD
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted in 1974 to ensure safe public drinking
water supplies and to protect underground sources of drinking water from contamination by well
injection of fluids. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for administering
the SDWA and for implementing its various provisions, including the promulgation of a series of
drinking water standards.
The 1986 Amendments to the SDWA strengthen the Act's provisions for protecting ground
water. The Amendments establish State Wellhead Protection (WHP) Programs to protect the
wellhead areas around public water wells and provide Federal financial assistance to support
State efforts to protect the ground water in these areas. Specifically, section 1428 of the
Amendments requires each State to develop and submit to EPA a Program designed to protect
wellhead areas supplying public water supply systems within a State from contaminants that may
have any adverse effect on the health of persons.
This Guidance explains EPA's policies and procedures for implementing the WHP
assistance program. It provides instructions to potential applicants on developing State WHP
Programs and funding applications, submitting their State WHP Programs to EPA for approval,
obtaining Federal financial assistance in the form of grants and reporting to EPA on their
progress and accomplishments.
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and ReauthorizatiOn Act)
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CWA Clean Water Act
E.O. Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FSR Financial Status Report
FY Federal Fiscal Year
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
OGWP EPA Office of Ground-Water Protection
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OTA Office of Technology Assessment
RA EPA Regional Administrator
RCRA Resource Conservation arid Recovery Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SF Standard Form
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SPOC Single Point of Contact
TOT Time-of-Travel
TSCA 'Toxic Substances Control'Act
UIC Underground Injection Control
WHP Wellhead Protection
WHPA Wellhead Protection Area
n
-------
OUTDANCE FOR APPLICANTS FOR
STATE WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM ASSISTANCE FUNDS
UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
I. INTRODUCTION
The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) establish a new Wellhead
Protection (WHP) Program to protect ground waters that supply wells and wellfields
contributing drinking water to public water supply systems. This Guidance outlines procedural
and technical information that eligible applicants need to apply for Federal grant funds to develop
and implement these WHP Programs. The Program offers an innovative approach to ground-
water protection. Unlike most other environmental programs, the WHP Program focuses on the
entire resource requiring protection, rather than on a limited set of sources or contaminants. The
WHP Program, furthermore, focuses on a very important subset of ground-water resources; that
is, specific areas that supply wells or wellfields withdrawing drinking water for public systems.
This focus on public water systems will protect approximately 90 percent of the total amount of
ground water used for drinking in the United States. The management of contamination risks to
these wells through the WHP Program, therefore, provides the basis for significant gains in
human health protection in a focused, effective manner.
A. Statutory Authority
Section 1428 of the SDWA contains requirements for the development and implementation
of State WHP Programs and authority for Federal grants. Specifically, subsections 1428(a) and
(b) provides that each State, including the District of Columbia and the eligible territories, shall
adopt and submit to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a WHP Program that, at a
minimum:
(1) Specifies the duties of State agencies, local governmental entities and public water
supply systems with respect to the development and implementation of Programs;
(2) For each wellhead, determines the wellhead protection area (WHPA) as defined in
subsection 1428(e) based on all reasonably available hydrogeologic information on
ground-water flow, recharge and discharge and other information the State deems
necessary to adequately determine the WHPA;
(3) Identifies within each WHPA all potential anthropogenic sources of contaminants
which may have any adverse effect on the health of persons;
(4) Describes a Program that contains, as appropriate, technical assistance, financial
assistance, implementation of control measures, education, training and
demonstration projects to protect the water supply within WHPAs from such
contaminants;
(5) Includes contingency plans for the location and provision of alternate drinking
water supplies for each public water system in the event of well or wellfield
contamination by such contaminants;
(6) Includes a requirement that consideration be given to all potential sources of such
contaminants within the expected wellhead area of a new water well which serves a
public water supply system; and
(7) Includes a requirement for public participation.
-1-
-------
Subsection 1428(k) authorizes EPA to make grants to the States for at least 50 percent but
not more than 90 percent of the costs a State incurs in developing and implementing its WHP
Program. This subsection also authorizes the Congress to appropriate grant funds for Federal
fiscal years (FYs) 1987-1991.
This Program is governed by the EPA regulations and Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) circulars cited in Section Vn of this document.
B. Program Description
EPA's main objectives in implementing the WHP Program are to:
• Meet the goals of the Statute
• Recognize the diversity of hydrogeologic settings and sources of contamination
Maximize State creativity and flexibility in Program design and implementation
• Be sensitive to concerns regarding Federal involvement in the related areas of land
use and water allocation
• Assist States to achieve comprehensive ground-water protection through
coordination with State ground-water protection plans and strategies and thus
protect ground water for a safe public water supply.
The following sections provide a brief discussion of the Federal funding assistance for State
WHP Programs and the phases of the Program.
1. Federal Financial Assistance
Although the SDWA authorizes a five-year grant program, EPA award of grants is
contingent upon annual Congressional appropriation. Assuming that Congress appropriates the
funds, EPA intends to award development and implementation grants for one-year budget
periods. States must apply for assistance funds annually during the application period that EPA
designates.
EPA encourages maximum State participation in the WHP Program. States will have
flexibility in developing and implementing their Programs within the framework of this
assistance Guidance and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. If a State does not
develop a WHP Program, EPA does not have the authority to put a State Program in place. The
effect of a State's failure to participate is the loss of the opportunity to obtain Federal financial
assistance for its WHP Program.
2. Wellhead Protection Program Phases
The WHP Program has three separate and distinct phases: development (authorized for FYs
1988 and 1989), submittal of the State's Program (by June 19,1989) and EPA
approval/disapproval (within nine months), and implementation of accepted State Programs
(authorized through FY 1991). These phases are described below and are shown graphically in
Exhibit 1, on the following page. In addition, there are numerous key dates associated with each
of these phases, for example, submission of assistance applications, reports, and public
participation. Some of these are outlined below and discussed in detail in later sections of this
document (see Exhibit 2).
-2-
-------
EXHIBIT 1
WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM PHASES
JUNE 19,1989*
(OR EARLIER)
MARCH 9,1990
(OR EARLIER)
FY1988
FY 1989 I
MAY TAKE UP
TO 9 MONTHS
TO COMPLETE
r
FY1990
FY1991
State
WHP Program
Development
State
WHP Program
Implementation
Development Phase
Approval I
1 Phase i
Implementation Phase
States are encouraged to submit their Programs at the earliest possible date so that they can obtain approval
as soon as possible. It is anticipated that the majority of State WHP Programs will be acted upon without
disapproval well before the end of the nine-month review period provided by the law.
-------
EXHIBIT 2
KEY EVENTS AND MILESTONES FOR THE WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
GRANT
APPLICATIONS
STATE WHP
PPORPAM
rrfl-AariMivi
REPORTS
t T !
? 4 4
X \ \
4, 4 . A EPA Review 4.
' '• ~m- • '
\ $ f f 't
x J- 4; 4 4,
t ? V *t 1
\ M
4 I I i
I \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ i i \
MINI Mill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ll 1 1 1 I f I I I
FMAMJJASOND FMAMJJASOND FMAMJJASOI
f f
1 1
^ x"
EPA J? ^
Approval State Implements Program f-
1
Revision EPA Review State Implements Program
EPA X ^ ? 9
^ . i
4 ^ ^4 • ^
^ '4 fy 44 % %
\ Mil 1 I
? 44^4 ? '/
\\ \ \\\\\\\\\ \\.\\\\\\\\
>J D FMAMJJASOND FMAMJ JASON
J 1987 J 1988
Footnotes: A - Recommended date for public hearing
B - End-of-year report will not be required for 1991 because the
biennial report is required during that time period
1989
1990 J 1991
Legend: ^ State submits grant application
•^ State holds public hearing
• State submits or resubmits WHP Program
A State submits End-of-year report
• State submits Biennial status report
-------
a. Development Phase
States may apply for development grants in FY 1988 and/or FY 1989; thereafter, EPA
cannot award development assistance funds. During the development phase, each State will
produce a State WHP Program that specifically describes how the State has addressed each of the
required elements of a WHP Program cited in subsections 1428(a) and (b) (see page 1, above),
and how it will implement its WHP Program after obtaining EPA approval. Section IV of this
document explains the requirements for a State Program.
b. State Program Submission and EPA Review
All States must submit their WHP Programs to the appropriate EPA Region in sufficient
time for EPA to conduct its review, but no. later than June 19,1989. In order to ensure timely
funding, States are encouraged to submit their completed WHP Programs earlier.
Upon receiving a State's WHP Program, EPA has up to nine months to conduct an indepth
review to determine whether the Program meets the requirements mandated by Statute and
delineated in EPA guidance. The Governor will be notified in writing of the Program's approval
or disapproval, with a copy sent to the appropriate State agency. If disapproval is given, either
to all or part of the State's Program, EPA will provide written notification of the reasons for the
disapproval. Any State whose Program has been disapproved may revise the Program arid
resubmit it to EPA within six months of the disapproval notification for reconsideration.
States may submit both their WHP Programs and grant applications for implementation
funds concurrently; however, EPA's review of a State's WHP Program is separate from the
assistance application process. FY 1989 funds received by a State before June 19,1989, can be
used between June 19,1989, and the close of the fiscal year, September 30,1989. Where States
have submitted their WHP Program by June 19,1989, and upon EPA's initial review it appears
very likely that the State WHP Program will not be disapproved, then conditional transitional
funds could be made available.
c. Implementation Phase
A State with an approved WHP Program is eligible to apply for Federal funding assistance
for implementation. Subsection 1428(d) of the SDWA provides that "[a]fter the date 3 years
after the enactment of [the Amendments, i.e., June 19,1989], no State shall receive
funds...except for the purpose of implementing the program and requirements of paragraphs (4)
and (6)..." cited above in Section LA. Implementation assistance funds have been authorized
through FY 1991. States must make every reasonable effort to implement their WHP Programs
within two years after submittal to EPA.
II. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
All States, as defined in subsection 1401(13) of the SDWA, including the District of
Columbia and specified territories, are eligible to receive Federal assistance to support their WHP
Programs. Specified territories are Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands. As required by subsection 1451(b)(l) of the SDWA, EPA will promulgate a rule by
December 1987 enabling the Agency to consider American Indian tribes as eligible applicants.
After the regulation is final, the EPA Administrator will determine which American Indian tribes
qualify for treatment as States for the purpose of the WHP Program and, therefore, are eligible
grant applicants.
-5-
-------
HI. ANNUAL ALLOTMENTS AND FEDERAL SHARE
The President's proposed budget for FY 1988 contains $8 million for the WHP Program,
subject to Congressional appropriation. Authorized funding in the SDWA is a maximum of $35
million for each of FYs 1989-1991. The SDWA mandates that the Federal share of each State
WHP Program shall be between 50 and 90 percent of the allowable costs. States must pay the
remaining percentage as their cost shares.
EPA is responsible for establishing criteria to allocate these funds to eligible applicants and
for developing a distribution method. This section describes EPA's mechanism for determining
States' annual WHP Program allotments, how EPA will inform States of their allotments, the
Federal share and State matching requirements.
A. Annual Allotments
EPA will allot funds on a State-by-State basis before States submit their grant applications.
This pre-allocation of funds allows EPA to expedite the application process and to factor in the
needs of each State. It also provides a fiscal framework within which the States can plan their
WHP Programs.
EPA's allocation formula takes into account factors reflecting relative risk related to ground
water (e.g., population dependence on ground water for drinking water and numbers of
potentially contaminating sources), as well as workload-based factors (e.g., number of
wellheads to be protected and size of the State). Factors comprising the formula include
individual State ground-water dependence, the number of people within the State who could be
affected by wellhead contamination, and the number of potentially contaminating sources. This
targets more resources to those States with the highest communal risk. It also takes into account
the anticipated workload of a State WHP Program and the difficulty of implementing and
overseeing a State's Program, as reflected by geographic size and the number of community
water systems using ground water.
To enable each participant to establish at least a minimum WHP Program, EPA will set a
base allocation level of $100,000 per State and $50,000 for each territory and the District of
Columbia. In addition, the Agency is considering an allocation of up to three percent of the
national appropriation as a set-aside for Indian tribes.
EPA will establish allotments for each Federal fiscal year using the most recent data
available. A State's annual allotment is not an entitlement. The amount of funding finally
offered to each State will depend on the technical content and scope of both its approved WHP
Program and its assistance application and whether cost estimates are appropriate. The annual
allotment will be used as a basis for negotiation between EPA and each State.
The WHP Program allocation formula consists of seven weighted variables, presented in
Exhibit 3. An explanation of the variables and their assigned weights is provided below.
The first variable, the number of community water systems using ground water, is used
because the Statute authorizes the development of protection areas around public water supply
system wells and wellfields. This variable is a measure of the direct workload of the Program,
since a State WHP Program must address all wellheads within the State. Note that the number of
non-community water systems is not included in this computation because of the variability of
the existing data. A weight of 0.45 was selected because this is the single most important
element in WHP Program funds allocation.
-6-
-------
EXHIBIT 3
FORMULA USED TO SET STATE WHP
PROGRAM ANNUAL ALLOTMENTS
7
ALLOCATION. ('45)
#CWS (G.W.) National
2 a (.15) State (a) Pop. Served G.W.
National Pop. Served G.W.
+
(.10) G.W. Withdrawals State (a) Less Irrigation/Cooling Water
G.W. Withdrawals National Less Irrigation/Cooling Water
b (.15) State (a) G.W. Withdrawals for Public Supply
4 Total State (a) Withdrawals (G.W. + S.W.) for Public Supply"
y State G.W. Withdrawals for Public Supply
^ (3'"n) Total State Withdrawals (G.W. + S.W.) for Public Supply
(.10)
o
5
c Area state
(a...n) y Lancl Area State
,t (n«v Selected SIC Total State (a)
Q U VUO/
Selected SIC Total State (a...n)
/ Q2\ Septic Tanks State (a)
V Septic Tanks State (a...n)
Sources of Data for FY 1988 allocation": KEY
a - The Office of Drinking Water Federal CWS Community Water Supply
Reporting Data System, 1986 GW Ground Water
b - The National Water Summary, 1985 SW Surface Water
c- The 1982/83 Statistical Abstract SIC Standard Industrial
d - The Bureau of Labor Statistics Classification
e- The 1980 Census of Housing POP Population
* - Most recent data will be used each year. £ Sum of All Numbers
-7-
-------
The second variable is the State population served by ground water. This compares each
State's current use of ground water as a source of drinking water to the nationwide use of ground
water. It is assigned a weight of 0.15.
The third variable, the volume of ground-water withdrawals minus irrigation and cooling
water, is another measure of the importance of ground water to each State. As with the second
variable, this variable identifies each State's percentage of the national total. This variable is
assigned a weight of 0.10.
The fourth variable indicates a State's dependence on ground water as a function of the
amount of its ground-water withdrawals for public supply against total State water withdrawals
for public supply (ground water plus surface water) against the summation of these measures for
the nation. This factor has an assigned weight of 0.15.
The fifth variable indicates the burden of administering a State WHP Program and the
relative degree of difficulty of doing so over a State's geographic area (i.e., land size). The
square root of this value is used to modulate the extreme ranges in State land size and the impact
of these ranges on the allocation results. The factor is assigned a weight of 0.10.
The sixth and seventh variables, selected Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes and
the number of housing units with septic tanks, indicate the relative "case load" of potential
contamination problems that a State may need to address in its WHP Program and to reduce
potential risk to human health posed by these facilities. In variable 6, SIC data were incorporated
by selecting codes for industries whose activities may present a threat to ground water. The
number of establishments (by code) in each State for the industries chosen are summed and the
result is compared to the national total. In variable 7, the number of housing units with septic
tanks in a State is compared to the national total of septic tanks. Variables 6 and 7 receive
weights of 0.03 and 0.02, respectively.
The Region will notify each State of its approximate annual allotment by February 15 of the
previous fiscal year. This will allow the State sufficient time to plan its WHP Program for the
upcoming fiscal year and to submit an appropriate work plan during the application period.
Funds not awarded to a State will be reallocated to those States and territories participating in the
Program.
B. Federal Share
The Amendments stipulate that EPA may provide States with not less than 50 nor more
than 90 percent of the allowable costs of an approved State WHP Program. The remainder
constitutes the State's matching share. In FY 1988, EPA will provide funding at 90 percent.
The Federal share will decrease by 10 percent during each of the subsequent authorized Program
funding years. Thus, the Federal share for each year of the Program will be as follows:
FY 1988 - Federal share is 90 percent
FY 1989 - Federal share is 80 percent
FY 1990 - Federal share is 70 percent
• FY 1991 Federal share is 60 percent.
EPA's gradual reduction in the Federal share will provide States with higher levels of support
during the development phase of the WHP Program. It also will give States several years during
-------
which to develop internal funding sources for their WHP Programs, as the States assume
increased financial responsibility.
IV. STATE WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM
This section describes the contents of a State WHP Program. It does not specifically define
a State Program, because EPA's intent is to provide the States maximum flexibility in Program
development. This section does not define a State Program except as may be necessary to reflect
statutory requirements.
A. State Wellhead Protection Program Submittal
Each State WHP Program should contain at least eight elements:
• Program summary and purpose
• Duties of State agencies, local governments and public water supply systems
Delineation of WHPAs
• Source identification
• Management approaches
• Contingency plan
• New wells
• Public participation.
Each element is discussed here. The sections describing the WHP Program submittal are
organized to provide the State with the following information:
• A reference to the Statute, in Part (a)
• A brief statement of the item(s) that must be included in the Program submittal for
that element, in Part (b)
• The interpretation of the item(s) that describe an adequate WHP Program, in Part (c).
The following sections provide guidance on the specific contents for each item.
1. Program Summary and Purpose
a. Statute
Subsection 1428(a) of the SDWA establishes the fundamental goal for WHP:
"The Governor or Governor's designee of each State shall, within 3 years of the date of
enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 [i.e., by June 19,1989],
adopt and submit to the Administrator a State program to protect wellhead areas within their
jurisdiction from contaminants which may have any adverse effects on the health of
persons." (emphasis added)
- 9 -
-------
b. State Submittals
Each State WHP Program submittal should include a discussion of how the WHP goal in
the Statute will be achieved through the Program elements in subsections 1428(a) and (b).
c. Discussion
The SDWA requires that EPA review and approve State WHP Programs that are adequate
to protect WHPAs supplying a public water system from contaminants that may have any
adverse effects on the health of persons. Each State's WHP Program submittal should describe
its overall approach to achieving this goal during the development and implementation phases.
This discussion should seek to integrate the separate elements required by the Statute in
subsections 1428(a) and (b), and should include the State's approach to evaluating and
measuring progress toward reaching the goal (see Section X.A and X.D of this Guidance).
2. Duties of State Agencies, Local Governments and Public Water Supply
Systems
a. Statute
Subsection 1428(a)(l) of the SDWA states that for each State WHP Program, the State
"shall, at a minimum...specify the duties of State agencies, local governmental entities, and
public water supply systems with respect to the development and implementation of programs
required by this section..." The term "duties" in this context refers to the roles, responsibilities,
authorities and functions of each State, local agency, other governmental entity or public water
supplier, which are delegated to or designated for it under the State WHP Program.
b. State Submittals
The State's WHP Program submittal must include the following information:
1) Identification of all State or local entities or public water suppliers that have a
delegated or designated role in carrying out the State WHP Program, and
designation of the lead management agency.
2) The duties of each participating agency, including those of the lead agency
responsible for overall development and implementation of the Program.
3) The mechanisms that have been and will be used to coordinate and integrate
participating State agencies, other State and local entities and appropriate Federal
agencies.
c. Discussion
(1) Identification of Agencies
The State WHP Program must identify the State agencies, counties, municipalities, special
districts, public water suppliers and other entities to which the State has delegated or designated
the responsibility for carrying out the statutorily required elements of the WHP Program listed in
subsections 1428(a) and (b).
10-
-------
EPA recognizes that in many States, the authority and program structure necessary for
implementing these various WHP Program elements may already exist in various State and local
agencies. States are encouraged to use these existing authorities and programs to carry out the
WHP Program, to minimize overlap between the WHP Program and ongoing State efforts, and
to incorporate the WHP Program as an integral part of the State's overall ground-water protection
strategy. In addition, States are encouraged to incorporate the WHP Program into other State
functions not directly ground-water related but that may have ground-water implications, such as
State planning.
(2) Duties of Participants
The State WHP Program description must specify the lead governmental entity that is
responsible for managing the State WHP Program and the duties of the entities that are
responsible for implementing the appropriate parts of subsections 1428(a) and (b).
The State WHP Program should clearly define the responsibilities of the lead management
agency and other participating agencies. This information must include the lead management
agency's authorities to assure the cooperation and functioning of participating agencies, and the
technical, administrative and financial capacity of these other agencies. It should describe each
agency's current role, responsibility and authority in the State, and specify any new authorities
that must be sought. When existing agencies or entities may need additional authorities or when
projected needs for new organizations are identified, the description should discuss the
organizational structure that will include these activities.
(3) Interrelationships and Coordination Mechanisms
The smooth implementation of the WHP Program requires adequate coordination among all
participants: State agencies, local governments and operators of public water systems, many of
which are privately owned. It also is necessary for the State to work with Federal agencies that
manage public water supplies or land in a WHPA or are responsible for regulating, managing or
providing advice on potential sources of contamination and, therefore, may be subject to State
WHP Program requirements.
The State WHP Program submission must discuss the mechanisms the lead management
agency has used or will use to communicate and coordinate with the various entities responsible
for some requirement under the State WHP Program. This discussion should also address the
multijurisdictional nature of implementing the Program, both within the State and, where
appropriate, between States.
Institutional mechanisms can be used to close gaps and avoid duplication among agencies
in the implementation of the WHP Program. They range from formal documents such as
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and administrative orders to specific enabling legislation.
3. Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas
a. Statute
Subsection 1428(a)(2) establishes the requirement for WHPA determinations:
"for each wellhead, determine the wellhead protection area as defined in subsection
(e) based on all reasonably available hydrogeologic information on ground water
flow, recharge and discharge and other information the State deems necessary to
adequately determine the wellhead protection area..."
-11-
-------
Subsection 1428(e), furthermore, incorporates the fundamental definition of a WHPA:
"...the surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well or wellfield, supplying
a public water system, through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move
toward and reach such water well or wellfield. The extent of a wellhead protection
area, within a State, necessary to provide protection from contaminants which may
have any adverse effect on the health of persons is to be determined by the State in
the programs submitted under subsection (a). Not later than one year after the
enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, the Administrator
shall issue technical guidance which States may use in making such determinations.
Such guidance may reflect such factors as the radius of influence around a well or
wellfield, the depth of drawdown of the water table by such well or wellfield at any
given point, the time or rate of travel of various contaminants in various hydrologic
conditions, distance from the well or wellfield, or other factors affecting the
likelihood of contaminants reaching the well or wellfield, taking into account
available engineering pump tests or comparable data, field reconnaissance,
topographic information, and the geology of the formation in which the well or
wellfield is located."
The technical guidance cited in the Statute is an appendix to this Guidance. These Guidelines for
Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas (hereafter referred to as the Delineation Guidelines)
summarize the current knowledge of approaches for conducting such technical evaluations, and
provide information on the procedures, advantages, limitations and usefulness of each approach.
Before discussing requirements, several technical terms used in this discussion need to be
defined. WHPA criteria and criteria thresholds associated with WHPA delineation provide the
basis for each WHPA. Criteria include distance, time-of-travel, drawdown, flow boundaries and
assimilative capacity. These criteria are directly related to the language in the last sentence of
subsection 1428(e) shown above. Criteria thresholds typically refer to the numerical or
descriptive criteria values that States will choose to define WHPAs (e.g., x years time-of-travel).
The methods are technical procedures that allow the criteria to be exhibited on maps. A criteria
threshold such as a 1-mile limit (distance) is directly implemented by drawing the appropriate
distance on a map using a ruler or mapscale, whereas a criteria threshold of 25 years time-of-
travel is typically implemented by first using a flow equation or analytical or numerical model.
The WHPAs are said to be delineated after the methods are applied. States may conduct
additional studies leading to a refinement of the delineation in specific regions or around
particular wells or wellfields. States will likely choose criteria and methods based, in large part,
on their perceptions of risk to ground-water quality.
A well, as expressed in a State Program, should incorporate springs which are used for
public drinking water supplies. "Well" does not, however, include ground-water-fed streams,
lakes or other navigable waters which are tapped for water supply, either directly or from
reservoirs.
b. State Submittal
The State's WHP Program must address the following four major points:
1) The institutional processes used to (a) develop the technical aspects of WHPA
delineation, and (b) implement, monitor and refine such elements.
2) The choices and rationale for WHPA delineation criteria and criteria thresholds.
including the overall goals that drive the State's selection.
-12-
-------
3) The choices and rationale for WHPA delineation methods.
4) The phasing of delineation by major well types, hydrogeologic settings or other
factors, along with the rationale for such phasing.
Information on each of these major topics is provided below. A discussion of two key
background concepts — the categories of threats requiring delineation, and variabilities in the
Program due to confined aquifer conditions - precedes discussion of the four key elements. The
Delineation Guidelines contain an extensive treatment of many of these subjects.
c. Discussion
(1) Background
(a) Categories of Threats Requiring WHPA Delineation
EPA expects that the delineation of WHPAs will be designed to protect wells from three
general categories of threats:
• Direct introduction of contaminants in the immediate well area
• Microbial contaminants
• Chemical contaminants.
These are discussed below.
Direct Introduction of Contaminants
A basic aspect of the WHP Program is protection of the area immediately contiguous to the
well (e.g., pumps, pipes, casing) from the direct introduction of contaminants near the land
surface. These contaminants may originate from accidental spills, road runoff, leakage of
chemicals or other incidents and are carried across the land surface to the well. Proper casing,
cement, well abandonment procedures, well houses, grading around the well house, buffer
zones from roads, fences and other measures are the likely management approaches. These
threats are avoided by "delineating" or maintaining some immediate zone around the well where
access and surface runoff is controlled. Many State and local governments have ordinances
controlling well casing and installation requirements to assist in protecting water quality from
these immediate threats.
Microbial Contaminants
A second basic aspect of WHP is protection from microbial contamination, especially
bacteria and viruses that may remain in water delivered to consumers even after treatment. Most
States have responded or will respond to these threats by maintaining a buffer zone typically
several hundred feet from the well bore, the adequacy of which is discussed later.
Chemical Contaminants
A third basic aspect is of particular importance: the broader range of threats posed by
various chemical contaminants. Many of these chemicals are very persistent in the subsurface,
and can theoretically travel long distances before being adsorbed by subsurface media,
transformed to less harmful chemicals, diluted to non-harmful concentrations or otherwise
rendered less threatening. Most State WHP Programs, therefore, will delineate all or part of the
-13-
-------
zone of contribution for specific wells or wellfields placed in unconfined or semi-confined
aquifers, so as to protect them from these more persistent threats.
WHPAs associated with small aquifers may encompass the entire recharge area
contributing or potentially contributing ground water to specific wells. WHPAs in moderate to
larger aquifers may focus on a portion of the aquifer or recharge area. The latter approach may
be chosen due to practical concerns for managing a large geographical area, or as a result of an
assessment of relatively lower risk of contamination in the area. In some cases, each WHPA
may be a very small portion of the aquifer or recharge area. As discussed later, WHPAs for
aquifers with an extensive degree of natural confinement may require a somewhat different
approach than those in water table or less confined settings. As a general rule, WHPAs protect
ground water supplying specific wells, rather than large aquifer segments.
Some State WHP Programs may also include protection of wells from radiological
contaminants. If the contamination threat is from mine waste piles, low-level radioactive waste
disposal sites or other similar sources, delineation considerations may be similar to those for
chemical threats. Protection from such naturally occurring radiological contaminants as radon,
however, will not typically be considered in WHPA delineation and protection, since such threats
may not be considered "anthropogenic sources" under the SDWA.
(b) Confined Aquifers
A second concern in delineation is an understanding of the degree of confinement of
aquifers being tapped by public supply wells. Confinement is a "sliding scale" between totally
unconfined (water-table) settings where aquifers are in direct hydrologic connection with
activities on the land surface, and well-confined settings where there is little or no hydrologic
interconnection (under current climatic and hydrogeologic conditions) between deeper aquifers
tapped by public supply wells and surficial aquifers or surface sources of pollution. Many semi-
confined aquifers will require the same approach as that used for water-table aquifers. Wells in
the more extensively confined settings need to be protected from somewhat different threats than
those in water-table settings, including improperly designed injection wells, improperly cased or
abandoned wells and localized breaks in confinement. The Delineation Guidelines discuss the
range of semi-confined settings that exhibit varying degrees of either or both end points. It is
also noted in the Delineation Guidelines that aquifers shallower than 100 feet from the land
surface which are supposedly confined, generally act similar to water-table aquifers. These
aquifers may, therefore, be exposed to similar contamination threats. Confined aquifers deeper
than 300 feet from the land surface generally exhibit truer isolation from the surface. It should be
remembered, however, that the Statute requires the delineation and management of WHPAs for
all wells regardless of hydrogeologic settings.
States with a large number of public supply wells in more extensively confined aquifers
should devote a portion of their WHP Programs to ascertaining the actual degree of confinement.
This assessment should first address the issue on a regional or subregional basis, and then
follow up as needed, on a well- or wellfield-specific basis. WHPAs should be delineated for
confined aquifers so as to focus the management aspects and/or the search for breaks in
hydrogeologic confinement and areas of possible pollutant encroachment (e.g., poorly cased
wells, extensive fault zones or major stratigraphic "pinch-outs"). Part of the assessment may
include reviews of the geologic and hydrologic relationships among aquifers, and whether or
how much of the water supplied by confined wells in the State is from recent surface recharge in
the immediate vicinity of the well, how much from changes in aquifer storage, how much from
distant areas (representing water that recharged the aquifer hundreds to thousands of years in the
past), etc. The use of various techniques to assist in this effort is presented in the Delineation
Guidelines.
-14-
-------
(2) Contents of Submittal
(a) Institutional Process
Each State's WHP Program submittal must include a description of the process used to
develop the delineation, as well as the process that will be used to implement, monitor and refine
the delineation. There may be several stages in a State WHP Program for WHPA delineation, as
shown generically in Exhibit 4. EPA expects that technical committees or work groups will be
established to review relevant resource materials (including the Delineation Guidelines) and
conditions within the State. After analysis, often including test case applications, the State will
adopt methods and criteria to be followed by actual delineation and mapping of the areas.
EPA considers the institutional process that the State uses to develop and implement its
WHP Program essential to achieving an adequate State WHP Program. The approach the State
uses to review, select and implement appropriate hydrogeologic methods and criteria may be the
primary determinant for fostering delineation in a scientifically sound and administratively
pragmatic manner. Some of the specific conditions EPA will use in assessing the State's
institutional process for delineation include:
The participation of operational and research-oriented elements of State government
in the development and refinement of wellhead delineation methods and criteria, as
well as the experience and "track record" of such organizations and groups in
providing comparable technical input.
• The State's approach to legally incorporate criteria, methods and delineation
boundaries in WHP rules and guidance documents.
• Coordination of WHPA delineation with other State hydrogeologic components in
ground-water protection; in particular, with ground-water classification, regional
contamination assessments and ground-water basin studies.
(b) Criteria and Criteria Thresholds for Delineation
The State's WHP Program must include a description of the delineation criteria and criteria
thresholds for all categories of threats. Regarding microbial threats, many State and local
ordinances incorporate the concept of a "sanitary protection zone" ranging to several hundred feet
to guard against such threats. Although such ordinances are usually based on rudimentary
scientific or administrative factors, the actual extent of such zones required to retain or kill
microorganisms is the subject of continuing research. Many Western European countries, for
example, favor a 50 to 60-day time-of-travel (TOT) zone, with a minimum of about 325 feet in
distance (due to so-called "scale dependent" factors). Others use a more conservative 1-year
TOT zone to ensure die-off of microbes. States are strongly encouraged to reassess existing
State criteria for protecting against microbial threats and to establish requirements based on the
most current knowledge.
EPA recognizes that protection of WHP As from chemical contaminants first requires that
the State adopt some overall delineation goal to be used in conjunction with its management
protection plan. There are at least three such goals:
• To provide a wellfield management area in all or a major portion of the current or
future recharge/contributing area for the well.
• To provide a contaminant attenuation zone targeted to meeting particular ground-
water standards.
-15-
-------
EXHIBIT 4
GENERIC APPROACH TO STATE
WHPA DELINEATION
Working Groups
or Committees
Established
Technical Studies
and Institutional
Analyses
Determine State
WHPA Criteria
and Thresholds
I
Determine Appropriate
WHPA Methods
Delineate Boundaries
of Protection Areas for
Specific Wells/Wellfields
1
Conduct
Additional Studies
I
Refine
Delineation of
Boundaries as
Appropriate
16-
-------
• To provide a remedial action zone to protect the well from unexpected contaminant
releases, and to minimize the likelihood of such occurrences.
All have advantages and disadvantages, as described below.
Adequacy of Delineation Goals for Establishing WHPA Criteria
EPA believes that, under the appropriate circumstances, all such goals could be protective.
An adequate State Program must establish particular criteria and criteria thresholds to translate the
State's selected goal into actual delineation boundaries. A variety of approaches are presented in
the Delineation Guidelines. Because of the range of hydrqgeologic settings, no one criterion or
threshold is necessarily appropriate nationwide.
The strictest interpretation of the first goal cited above (wellfield management) could lead to
the delineation of the largest area since it implies that all hydrogeologically related aquifers tapped
by specific wells would be included together as one WHPA. Except for small aquifers in the
hundreds-of-acres to several-square-mile range, however, this could lead to implementation
problems if the resultant WHPA extends beyond jurisdictional boundaries or leads to other
implementation constraints. Some Western European programs do include this extensive
"outermost zone" in their WHPAs, but apply less stringent management than in the more
controllable innermost zones. The use of multiple zones to vary management controls by risk to
well-water quality is an acceptable management approach.
The second goal (attenuation zone) could also be considered protective when combined
with State ground-water standards. It is, however, technically complex and may be beyond the
state-of-the-art for all but the simplest of contamination threats. Given the possible
protectiveness of such an approach, however, State WHP Programs focused on this goal will be
considered "adequate", given the appropriate rationale and means to resolve the technical issues
involved.
Some State WHP Programs will probably select the third goal (remedial action). This goal
implies that high-risk activities are excluded from the WHPA, yet are still allowed in the
recharge/contributing area of the well, and that monitoring and control programs are in place. To
implement this goal, most States will probably adopt criteria such as distance (from the well),
TOT (within the aquifer) or flow boundaries, for protection from chemical contaminants around
their larger/more important/more vulnerable systems. Major wells, especially in water-table or
semi-confined settings in moderate to larger aquifers, may be adequately protected by the first
two, more easily quantified criteria.
Criteria Thresholds for Unconfined Aquifers
States that choose either the management area or remedial action zone goals will most often
select quantifiable criteria thresholds. TOT criteria offer certain advantages, the protectiveness of
which depend on the threshold chosen. EPA believes that TOT thresholds (within-the-aquifer)
shorter than 5 to 10 years may not be adequate in most settings. This stems from the Agency's
concern over whether corrective action can be accomplished in such short periods, and the fact
that errors surrounding technical estimates of TOT become more crucial with shorter timeframes
(i.e., little safety factor).
These TOT values, furthermore, are usually based on ambient ground-water flow. Due to
"facilitated transport," certain contaminants may move at a faster rate than ambient ground water
further reducing the likelihood that short TOT thresholds will adequately meet the remediation
goal. Exceptions in high-flow aquifer settings, where the resulting distances pose
-17-
-------
implementation problems, however, will be considered provided that there is an appropriate
supporting rationale and data. There is further concern that brief thresholds will only be
protective when combined with effective source control and monitoring programs. Where
feasible, States should seriously consider much more protective thresholds, such as those in the
15 to 25-year or greater TOT range.
States that choose to use distance-based thresholds are encouraged to adopt criteria
thresholds in the several-thousand-foot range, with the shorter distances of some concern.
Where feasible and implementable, the State should seriously consider distance criteria up to and
beyond two miles. Given the varying precision of distance-based criteria, States that use
particular thresholds should provide TOT estimates that generally correspond to these distances,
relating them to the various hydrogeologic settings in their States.
Drawdown must be approached on a State-specific basis. States and local governments
that use this criterion generally choose a threshold in the 0.1 to 1.0 foot (from static water level)
range. The protectiveness of such thresholds varies, since the cone-of-depression created by
pumping (the condition that is described by the drawdown criterion) varies enormously. As
noted in the Delineation Guidelines, portions of the "cone of depression" or "area of influence"
described by the drawdown criterion will not contribute ground water to the well. Areas outside
the cone will, in most settings, still recharge the well.
The remaining criterion, flow boundaries, is especially appropriate for small aquifer
systems (in glacial or alluvial terrain, for example), and those dominated by major fracture
systems or conduit flow (such as channelized karst).
Finally, a more case-specific, tailored approach will be required if the State includes a
component for protecting certain WHP As from the intrusion of saline or poor-quality water
zones along coastlines, upwelling from deeper formations or leakage from flanking fades and
confining units, due to overpumping.
Criteria Thresholds for Confined Aquifers
The Delineation Guidelines note that extensively confined aquifers are threatened by
somewhat different pollution sources and represent a different concept of aquifer vulnerability.
The within-aquifer distance and TOT criteria thresholds just presented, however, will prove
useful in identifying the protection areas needed to verify such confinement and to assess such
threats. Again, problems of salt water intrusion due to overpumping will need to be handled on a
case-specific basis, as appropriate to the State's WHP goals.
Other Considerations
Other categories of wells exposed to fewer risks, or supplying smaller quantities and/or
more transitory populations may be adequately protected in the State's WHP Program by
different criteria thresholds. It is expected, however, that all wells will need to be protected from
threats in the immediately contiguous well area, especially from microbial contaminants.
(c) Delineation Methods
States must provide the rationale for the WHPA delineation methods they have chosen to
use in their WHP Programs. The Delineation Guidelines contain an extensive discussion of
methods for translating particular WHPA delineation criteria to on-the-ground/map delineation
boundaries. The advantages of more sophisticated methodologies are addressed, as are the
corresponding increases in cost and complexity. EPA believes that each of the methods is
relevant in one or more particular hydrogeologic setting.
18
-------
States are encouraged to move beyond the very simplest (arbitrary, fixed-radius techniques)
to more hydrogeologicaUy based methods as early as possible, for protection from chemical
threats to "major wells" or wellfields. In most settings, calculated fixed-radius, simplified
variable-shape, or simple analytical modeling procedures will significantly increase accuracy with
only modest cost increases. Hydrogeologic mapping methods, even if based on reconnaissance-
level investigations (including surface geophysical and/or tracer techniques) will similarly be a
vast improvement in small water-table aquifers, conduit-karstic aquifers or other settings. As the
WHP Program progresses, the State may use refined analytical, numerical or mapping methods
to improve delineation, particularly for highly valued wells/wellhead areas. The State may also
monitor flow or ground-water quality, in conjunction with improved methods, to verify resultant
WHPA boundaries.
EPA will examine each State's rationale for selecting wellhead methods in judging program
adequacy. States' approaches to selecting WHPA methods will vary, but States should seriously
consider incorporating the comparative methodology approach outlined in the appendix to the
Delineation Guidelines. A carefully selected series of such comparative studies will provide an
early view of the actual extent (e.g., "average" areas or distances) of the eventual WHPAs in the
State, a key input to initiating assessments of contamination sources. Some form of case study
analysis must, however, be incorporated into the State WHP Program.
(d) Phasing of Delineation Effort
The SDWA requires that an adequate State Program will have determined all their WHPAs
based on "all reasonably available hydrogeologic information." Such information may be
derived from the regional characterization of aquifer settings; information on pumping rates; data
gathered during the planning, installation and development of the wells themselves; and other
sources.
States may phase in their delineation efforts to use their technical and financial resources
efficiently. Phasing is defined as the sequential application of criteria, methods and delineation
boundary determinations over some scheduled period. Consistent with Congress1 intent to
expedite the establishment of State WHP Programs, however, EPA expects those States that
have the capability to delineate some or all WHPAs by the end of the development phase to do
so. This reflects EPA's judgment that States which are relatively far along in criteria and method
selection should delineate, as part of an adequate Program, as many WHPAs as possible during
the development phase.
EPA recognizes that given the short time remaining in the development period, it will be
impossible for many States to delineate any WHPAs within their jurisdictions by the June 19,
1989, statutory deadline. For those States, EPA will consider an adequate Program to be one
that genetically determines WHPAs by the end of the development phase. Under such an
approach, a State may formally establish criteria, criteria thresholds and methods and
demonstrate test case applications for major subsets of community wells (see Exhibit 4). Test
cases will assist EPA in judging the workability of the State's approach and will be useful in
identifying technical problems before they become serious impediments to formal delineation.
After generic identification of WHPAs, a State may phase in the actual delineation of individual
WHPAs early in the implementation phase.
An adequate State Program must include a schedule for phased delineation, if such an
approach is selected (i.e., if the State is not capable of delineating all WHPAs within its
jurisdiction by the end of the development phase). The State may choose to phase delineation
based on such factors as:
-19-
-------
• The population served by the wells or the pumping rate as one measure of
"communal risk." States should consider their cutoffs for well registration in their
breakdown of "major" versus "minor" wells.
• "Replaceability" or importance of particular wells, considered either in conjunction
with, or separate from, the numbers of consumers served by each well.
• Extent of contamination of ground water within the WHPA. Some States may
choose to apply more protective criteria thresholds for more recently developed,
higher quality and/or future wells, if they expect that existing/older wells (despite
the WHP Program) need to be phased out as contamination increases. Conversely,
States without such higher quality alternatives may choose to delineate larger
WHPAs to extend the life of marginal/threatened wells.
• Presence and extent of contamination threats within the WHPAs and perhaps in
surrounding areas.
• Degree of aquifer confinement and assurance of confinement.
• Stringency of State or local management and control programs.
Since management approaches for specific sources in wellhead areas are likely to vary by State
and within States, the' impact of this effort will probably also vary depending on the restrictions
placed on potential polluting activities. States may choose the higher "impact" areas to apply
more protective criteria (e.g., higher thresholds), more sophisticated methods, or to assure
greater accuracy of input hydrogeologic parameters.
The State WHP Program must also explain methods that the State intends to use to translate
WHPA criteria to on-the-map delineation boundaries. Multiple criteria may also be used
depending on various risk-related factors. Again, limited case-study analysis with resulting
delineations of wellhead areas must be included in the State WHP Program submittal.
States with major wellfields in more extensively confined aquifers should, by the end of the
development years, adopt a process to assess the degree of confinement and to review threats to
confinement (if the State is not capable of delineating WHPAs for all confined wells within its
jurisdiction by the end of the development phase). This plan would be implemented, and
WHPAs delineated and managed during the implementation years.
As the State effort progresses, many States will choose to refine the boundaries of specific
WHPAs by applying more sophisticated methods to existing data, reinterpreting existing data
and/or collecting new data. States may reappraise or improve the delineation as needed.
EPA is concerned, however, that implementation problems may surface if such
reappraisals are done too frequently. In general, initial approaches should delineate somewhat
larger WHPAs, with further refinements reducing this area and expressing it more accurately.
This could be accomplished through the initial application of higher thresholds for delineation
criteria, the use of more conservative data or other method-related approaches to over-protect the
actual areas. "Conservative" data may be hydrogeologic (e.g., the lower hydraulic conductivity
values relevant to a particular aquifer) or hydraulic (e.g., using the "rated" or "planned" capacity
of a well site instead of actual or average pumping rates). This reflects the general consensus that
it is more pragmatic to reduce such areas than to expand them, and the fact that more
sophisticated delineation methods allow more accurate appraisals, providing (when combined
with effective management plans) greater justification for a more restricted area of concern. EPA
20-
-------
supports the overall concept of initial simplified delineation followed by more precise delineation,
a process that will move the State rapidly toward source identification and management phases.
Some States may also suggest slight changes in hydrogeologically determined boundaries
to match them with features such as municipal boundaries, roads and zoning unit boundaries.
States are asked to approach this with requisite caution.
4. Source Identification
a. Statute
Subsection 1428(a)(3) of the SDWA states that State WHP Programs "shall, at a
minimum...identify within each wellhead protection area all potential anthropogenic sources of
contaminants which may have any adverse effect on the health of persons."
An anthropogenic source is any activity, performed by or caused by human actions, that is
or can potentially be a source of contamination to ground water including human actions affecting
natural contaminants. The releases can be either from point sources, such as landfills or
impoundments, or from nonpoint sources, such as the widespread application of agricultural
chemicals or releases from areas containing septic tanks. In addition, the releases can be directly
from the anthropogenic source activity, such as a leaking underground storage tank or surface
impoundment, or indirectly from an activity that causes contamination such as ground-water
pumping that accelerates salt water intrusion. Finally, a contaminant is interpreted in the WHP
Program as an organic, inorganic, radiological or microbiological substance that is regulated
under Federal, State or local environmental programs, and any other substance that the State
determines appropriate.
b. State Submittals
Each State's WHP Program submittal must include the following information:
1) A list of categories of sources potentially contaminating WHPAs.
2) The procedure for inventorying sources in each WHPA, and a schedule for
completion of the inventory.
3) The procedure for refining, expanding, updating and verifying specific sources of
contamination in each WHPA.
c. Discussion
(1) List of Categories of Sources
The State WHP Program submittal must describe the systematic process that the State used
to identify categories of potential anthropogenic sources of contamination. This process will
furnish States with a means of screening the universe of all categories and identifying those
sources that potentially pose a threat to WHPAs. Examples of source categories include
landfills, septic tanks, industrial facilities and other generic aggregations of individual activities.
A source category does not include the actual location of an individual source, such as street
address or latitude/longitude.
EPA encourages the States to include the following elements in the preparation of their list
of categories:
21-
-------
• Defining categories of sources
• Assessing categories of sources
• Preparing a listing of categories of sources likely to contaminate ground water.
These are explained below.
Defining Categories of Sources of Contamination
There are several approaches to defining what are anthropogenic sources of ground-water
contamination. One approach is to start with an accepted list of categories and modify the list
based on those categories present within the State which are likely to be threats to public drinking
water supplies. Another approach is to derive a list of categories from information on
contaminants. The State also may choose to use a combination of these or other approaches to
define its categories.
An example of a list of categories, developed by the Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA), is shown in Exhibit 5, on the following page. It consists of 33 categories and is provided
to illustrate those sources that a State needs to consider in preparing its own list. Another, more
specific list of categories, prepared by the State of Maine, is included as Exhibit 6.
The OTA list is not all-inclusive and does not represent the only manner in which to
categorize sources. States may expand or modify this list as appropriate or create their own
lists. There are other categories that are not included in the OTA list but that may occur in
WHPAs (e.g., coal gasification plants and grain elevators). Another approach for defining
the categories of sources is to link available contaminant information to specific categories.
The contaminants could be obtained from data collected from the following:
• Existing Federal programs (e.g., Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs),
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs), Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Appendix VIII, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Priority Pollutants under
the Clean Water Act (CWA))
• Existing State programs
• General studies of the State's ground-water quality.
Monitoring information can also be useful. Monitoring can take many forms: monitoring
at the source, ambient monitoring of ground water within the WHPA and monitoring of raw
water at the wellhead. The information obtained from these monitoring activities could be used
to expand the categories of sources.
Assessing Categories of Sources
The purpose of this assessment is to eliminate from the list those categories that have no
potential for causing an adverse effect to human health and, therefore, do not represent a risk to
the users of the public water supply. If the State does not conduct an assessment, it is assumed
that all categories need control.
Assessment methodologies range from complex ground-water models and risk assessments
to screening methodologies. The assessment could take into account the type of contaminant,
hydrogeologic setting and the risk to human health from contaminants.
-22-
-------
EXHIBIT 5
SOURCES OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION
CATEGORY I - Sources designed to discharge substances
Subsurface percolation (e.g., septic tanks and cesspools)
Injection wells
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste (e.g., brine disposal and drainage)
Non-waste (e.g., enhanced recovery, artificial recharge
solution mining, and in-srtu mining)
Land application
Waste water (e.g., spray irrigation)
Wastewater byproducts (e.g., sludge)
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
CATEGORY II - Sources designed to store, treat, and/or
dispose of substances; discharge through unplanned
release
Landfills
Industrial hazardous waste
Industrial non-hazardous waste
Municipal sanitary
Open dumps, including illegal dumping (waste)
Residential (or local) disposal (waste)
Surface impoundments
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Waste tailings
Waste piles
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Materials stockpiles (non-waste)
Graveyards
Animal burial
Aboveground storage tanks
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Underground storage tanks
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Containers
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Open burning and detonation sites
Radioactive disposal sites
CATEGORY Ill-Sources designed to retain
substances during transport or transmission
Pipelines
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Materials transport and transfer operations
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
CATEGORY IV - Sources discharging substances as
a consequence of other planned activities
Irrigation practices (e.g., return flow)
Pesticide applications
Fertilizer applications
Animal feeding operations
De-icing salts applications
Urban runoff
Percolation of atmospheric pollutants
Mining and mine drainage
Surface mine-related
Underground mine-related
CATEGORY V - Sources providing conduit or Inducing
discharge through altered flow patterns
Production wells
Oil (and gas) wells
Geothermal and heat recovery wells
Water supply wells
Other wells (non-waste)
Monitoring wells
Exploration wells
Construction excavation
CATEGORY VI - Naturally occurring sources whose
discharge is created and/or exacerbated by
human activity
Groundwater - surface water interactions
Natural leaching
Salt-water intrusion/brackish water upconing (or
intrusion of other poor-quality natural water)
Source: Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting The Nation's Groundwater From Contamination
October 1984.
-23-
-------
EXHIBIT 6
OPERATIONS WITH POTENTIAL THREAT TO GROUND WATER
to
1. Gas stations/service
stations, truck terminals
2. Fuel/oil distributors/
store rs
3. Oil pipelines
4. Auto repair/body shops/
rust proofers
5. Auto chemical supplies
storers/retailers, pesticide/
herbicide storers/retailers
6. Small engine repair shops
7. Dry cleaners, furniture
strippers/painters/finishers,
photo processors, appliance
repairers, printers
8. Auto washes
9. Laundromats, beauty
salons, medical/dental/
vet offices
10. Research laboratories
11. Food processors, meat
packers, slaughter houses
12. Concrete/asphalt/tar/
coal companies
13. Salt piles/sand-salt
piles
14. Snow dumps, railroad
yards, stormwater im-
poundment sites, grave-
yards
15. Airport maintenance/
fueling operations areas
16. Industrial manufacturers:
chemicals, pesticides/herbi-
cides, paper, leather products,
textiles, rubber, plastic/fiber-
glass, silicone/glass, Pharma-
ceuticals, electrical equipment
17. Machine shops, metal platers/
heattreaters/smelters/annealers/
descalers
18. Wood preservers
19. Chemical reclamation
facilities
20. Boat builders/refinishers
21. Industrial waste disposal/
impoundment areas, municipal
wastewater treatment plants,
landfills/dumps/transfer stations
22. Junk and salvage yards
23. Subdivisions using private
wastewater disposal
(individual or cluster)
24. Single-family septic systems
25. Heating oil storage
(consumptive use)
26. Golf courses/parks/nurseries
27. Sand & gravel mining
operations
28. Other mining operations,
injection wells
29. Manure piles
30. Feed lots
31. Agricultural pesticide/
herbicide storage
32. Agricultural pesticide/
herbicide/fertilizer use
Source: State of Maine, The Planning Process for Local Ground-Water Protection. Table 2, Draft.
-------
An assessment may show that a category would not represent a risk to users of public
water supplies for reasons such as: the category does not exist in the State (for example, road
salting operations may not occur in Florida, nor phosphate mining in Nebraska), the category is
not located in a WHPA defined by the delineation criteria (see Section IV.A.3), or the category
has been shown not to have a potential for contamination in a particular hydrogeologic setting.
The category would be included on a list only where appropriate, such as in specific areas of the
State.
If an assessment is used in preparing the list, the submittal must contain a description of the
assessment. This description must discuss the criteria used to review the categories and provide
a rationale for those categories not requiring further attention.
Preparing a Listing of Categories of Sources
The WHP Program submittal must include the list of categories of sources and the process
used to develop that list. The list should contain categories of sources grouped by similar
characteristics such as land use, hydrogeology or size of well. These groupings would provide
the State with information for inventorying and managing WHPAs, such as the spatial
distribution of categories in the State, the location and frequency distribution of categories
relative to ground-water vulnerability, the frequency of distribution of categories in
socioeconomic or hydrogeologic settings, and the number of categories in the State.
Some States may have already completed their delineations of WHPAs and identification of
sources of contamination for each wellhead. In these cases, in its Program submittal, a State
must include a list of sources for each WHPA, rather than a list of categories of sources.
The identification of potential sources of contaminants is interrelated to the delineation of
WHPAs. Since EPA expects those States capable of delineating some or all WHPAs within the
development phase to do so, EPA believes it also is appropriate that such States identify all
potential sources of contaminants within each delineated WHPA by the end of the development
phase. For States that are not capable of delineating some or all WHPAs by the end of the
development phase, EPA will consider an adequate Program to be one that phases in the
identification of all potential sources with the delineation of WHPAs early in the implementation
phase.
(2) Procedures for Inventorying Sources Potentially Contaminating Each
WHPA
Once the State has listed the categories of potential sources of contamination, it needs to
establish procedures to inventory each WHPA to identify potential sources of contamination and
to establish a schedule to complete the inventory. For purposes of this Guidance, an inventory is
the identification of the potential source by name, if appropriate, and its location by address or
latitude/longitude.
This inventory can be conducted concurrently with the delineation of WHPAs as defined in
Section IV.A.3 or as an independent activity. As an independent activity the State would use the
actual WHPA or a preliminary estimate of the actual WHPA criteria (see Section IV.A.3) as the
boundary for inventorying sources.
There are several approaches that a State could use to conduct an inventory for each
WHPA. These include, but are not limited to:
• Requesting the operators of the public water supplies to perform the inventory
-25-
-------
• Mailing a survey form to all establishments that are sources within the WHPA
• Using existing inventories (permits, registrations, notifications) developed under
RCRA, the CWA, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and other laws, as
well as State and local licensing/permit programs
• Door-to-door or "windshield" surveys conducted by State or local personnel or
volunteers
• Using land use data, assessors' maps/records, master plans, zoning maps, aerial
photographs or other sources.
In conducting the inventory of sources, EPA encourages the State to consider obtaining
additional data that would be useful in the management of the source of contamination. These
data could include the type of source and/or contaminant, location of the source, distance to
public water supply well(s), latitude/longitude of the water supply well(s), existing management
and other types.
The Program submittal must describe the approach that the State will use to perform its
inventory, how it relates to the timing of the WHPA delineation, and how it relates to the
management approaches (Section IV.A.5). The inventory approach should specifically identify
each source of contamination currently requiring a Federal or State permit and should generally
identify any diffuse sources of contamination (e.g., septic tanks, sewer lines or pesticide use).
The Program submittal must also include a schedule for completing the inventory of
sources. All inventories, even if preliminary in nature, are expected to be completed by the end
of the implementation phase.
(3) Procedure for Refining, Expanding, Updating or Verifying the Sources
By its very nature, source identification in a WHPA is a continuing effort. The list of
sources in each WHPA needs to be periodically adjusted to represent the actual boundary of each
WHPA, the improvement of available data, deletions or additions of sources and other
refinements. The Program submittal must include a description of the process that the State will
use to refine, expand, update or verify sources within each WHPA.
5. Management Approaches
a. Statute
Subsection 1428(a)(4) of the SDWA requires each State to "describe a program that
contains, as appropriate, technical assistance, financial assistance, implementation of control
measures, education, training and demonstration projects to protect the water supply within
wellhead protection areas from such contaminants..." (i.e., contaminants from anthropogenic
sources).
For purposes of this guidance, the following definitions are used:
• Technical assistance - could include providing trained personnel, the use of
laboratory facilities and personnel, access to computerized environmental data bases
or sharing ground-water monitoring field equipment and personnel.
-26-
-------
• Financial assistance - could include grants and matching funds, access to special
accounts established by gifts and contributions or reimbursement for Program
development and operation.
• Control measures - could include permit requirements for siting and operation of
facilities posing potential risks, spill prevention control and countermeasure plans,
testing/monitoring and inspection requirements, performance standards and
specifications, best management practices, discharge or ambient quality standards,
conservation easements or zoning and land use controls.
• Education - could include public hearings or information meetings; publication of
agency bulletins, pamphlets and reports; speeches and press interviews by agency
staff; or public information "hot lines".
• Training - could include seminars and workshops, lectures by agency staff,
conferences or special training courses.
• Demonstration projects - could include the implementation of management plans in
specific sites, procedures for public participation and hydrogeologic assessment at
selected locations to pilot the Program.
b. State Submittals
Each State's WHP Program submittal must include a description of the approaches that the
State will use to manage its sources of contamination. This State WHP Program description
should include:
1) An identification and evaluation of all existing Federal, State or local source
management programs.
2) An identification of uncontrolled sources and the rationale for selecting management
strategies for these sources.
3) A discussion of the criteria used by the State if it decides to phase management
controls within WHPAs.
c. Discussion
In developing its approach to source management, the State should recognize that it is
probably necessary to use a mix of the methods identified in the Statute. Different management
methods may require more emphasis depending on the particular source, location and
institutional setting. For example, if industrial facilities are the major source of concern, design
and operating standards may be the most effective; by contrast, if nonpoint sources (e.g., septic
tanks, fertilizer application) are the principal concerns, best management practices along with
education and technical assistance may be more effective. The approach that will be used to
manage sources should also explain the linkage between the sources inventoried (see Section
IV. A.4) and the method of management.
State submittals should, therefore, include a discussion of creating new or enhancing
existing controls and other protection measures for all sources of contamination identified by the
inventory in the WHPA. The discussion in the State's submittal should explain the criteria used
to determine the appropriate management method. It should also identify sources covered by
State and Federal statutes that will be addressed directly by the State's WHP Program.
-27-
-------
In its management approach, a State should discuss the rationale or criteria it will use to
select the management methods most appropriate for implementing the State WHP Program.
EPA views this as a two-tiered process. First is an assessment of existing management
programs for currently regulated sources. As discussed in Section IV.A.2 of this guidance, EPA
encourages States to incorporate and build upon these existing management methods in
developing the specific mechanisms and strategies for wellhead protection. As part of this effort,
States should indicate whether additional management efforts will be necessary for currently
regulated sources within WHPAs. In addition, EPA encourages States to select the managment
options that provide high levels of protection to the WHPA.
Enhancement of Existing Programs
Enhancement of existing programs might include, but need not be limited to, the additional
use of the six methods outlined in subsection 1428(a)(4) of the Statute, depending on the types
of programs currently in existence. For example, most States have programs regulating
municipal landfills. A State might decide to give high priority to inspection and enforcement
activities at landfills in WHPAs to minimize the likelihood of contamination. Another example
may be a public education campaign to discourage citizens from over-fertilizing lawns in
WHPAs.
Sources Not Currently Regulated
States should address those sources not currently controlled under Federal, State or local
statutes. These are additional activities the State intends to undertake to ensure that uncontrolled
sources do not pose health risks within WHPAs. In selecting the methods to be followed, the
State should consider using, but not limiting itself to, the six methods outlined in subsection
1428(a)(4) of the Statute.
In some cases a State will introduce new legislation to regulate a particular source. In other
cases, such as spill control, it may be more time and resource efficient to train industry personnel
in "housekeeping" activities to minimize the likelihood of accidental contamination. Another
method might include technical and financial assistance to municipalities to develop ordinances or
demonstration projects.
Phasing Management Controls
Since the risks differ depending upon the sources of contamination, the degree of aquifer
confinement, or existing WHPA contamination, the State may choose to initiate management of
some sources before others. Phasing in the implementation of controls and other methods could
vary by hydrogeology, source, type of wellhead or other relevant basis such as well size or
population.
For example, a State could select underground storage tanks and RCRA sites as top priority
sources to manage in all WHPAs. Alternatively, it could start with all sources in WHPAs with
the largest public water supplies, most vulnerability, and the most development from industrial,
commercial or residential land uses. In individual WHPAs the State could vary the stringency of
management controls by distance or zones from the well, or by the results from ground-water
monitoring programs.
If a State chooses to provide phased-in controls and other management methods, its
Program submittal should include a discussion of the assessment and rationale to be used in
developing this phasing. This assessment and rationale should be consistent with the assessment
approach and results discussed in Section IV.A.4 of this Guidance.
-28-
-------
6. Contingency Plan
a. Statute
Subsection 1428(a)(5) of the SDWA requires that State WHP Programs include
contingency plans "for the location and provision of alternate drinking water supplies for each
public water system in the event of well or wellfield contamination..."
b. State Submittal
Each State WHP Program submittal must include a description of the contingency plan that
has been completed for each public water system in the State.
c. Discussion
Since 1974, the SDWA subsection 1413(b)(5) has required States to be able to adopt and
implement an adequate plan for the provision of safe drinking water under emergency
circumstances. Thus, EPA expects that public drinking water supplies are already covered, to
some degree, by an existing plan. Contingency plans required by the WHP Program should
build upon and enhance these existing plans, as necessary. In some instances, however, it may
be appropriate to develop a completely new contingency plan.
EPA encourages States to consider the following elements in the development of
contingency plans:
Temporary, alternate water supplies: where will they come from and what form
will they take?
• Long-term water supplies: what are the alternatives for permanent water supplies?
• Coordination mechanisms: who is responsible for putting the plan into action, and
who are the contacts?
• Financial considerations: who will pay for purchase and delivery of short- and
long-term water supplies?
The State can take several approaches in enhancing existing contingency plans or
developing new plans. One approach could be to have the State develop a generic plan and
request each public water supply to insert appropriate local information. Another approach could
be to obtain from each public water supply its own contingency plan.
An adequate WHP Program submittal must describe the elements that are included in a
contingency plan for each public water system. A completed plan based upon these elements
should be in place for all major public water supplies at the time of the State WHP Program
submittal. For all others, the plan should discuss at least the emergency response that will be
taken against immediate threats to wells or wellfields and the roles of individual agencies or
public water suppliers in that response.
The WHP Program submittal should define the State's use of "major." For example, the
definition of "major" could be based on well registration, population, staffing of the public water
supply and other factors. The Program submittal must also provide the procedure and schedule
that the State will use to complete the remaining contingency plans.
-29-
-------
7. New Wells
a. Statute
Subsection 1428(a)(6) of the SDWA states that a State WHP Program shall require that
"consideration be given to all potential [anthropogenic] sources of such contaminants within the
expected wellhead area of a new water well which serves as a public water supply system..." A
new well is defined as either an additional well in an existing wellfield, a modification of an
existing well that requires the extension of a WHPA or a well that is placed in an undeveloped
water supply aquifer.
b. State Submittal
Each State WHP Program submittal must include a description of the process for managing
sources of contamination in WHPAs of new public water supply wells.
c. Discussion
The proper siting of new wells is important in protecting new public water supplies from
some of the ground-water contamination problems that are facing many of the existing public
water supplies. It is a means of not only taking into account the potential yield of the new water
supply, but also the potential threats to the supply.
EPA encourages the States to delineate, as part of their water supply planning, possible
wellhead areas for proposed wells, and to manage sources within those areas. This source
identification process should be consistent with Sections IV. A.4 and IV.A.5 of this Guidance.
An adequate WHP Program submittal must include a description of the process that the
State will use in managing sources of contamination within the expected WHPA of a well. This
description should include the criteria that the State will use to determine whether the proposed
wellhead area is protected from potential threats to the drinking water supply. It should also
discuss progression from a proposed WHPA to formal WHPA designation and management.
8. Public Participation
a. Statute
The SDWA requires that:
"[t]o the maximum extent possible, each State shall establish procedures, including but not
limited to the establishment of technical and citizens' advisory committees, to encourage the
public to participate in developing the protection program for wellhead areas. Such
procedures shall include notice and opportunity for public hearing on the State program
before it is submitted to the Administrator."
b. State Submittal
Each State WHP Program must include a description of the process for obtaining public
participation and a responsiveness summary.
30-
-------
c. Discussion
The State, to the maximum extent possible, must encourage the public to participate in
Program development, including but not limited to establishing citizens' and technical advisory
committees. Public participation procedures must also include notice of and opportunity for public
hearing on the State's WHP Program before it is submitted to EPA. Public hearings should take
place well before the statutory June 19,1989, submittal date; EPA suggests at least a two-month
lead time. The State's WHP Program should include a description of the public review procedures
that it used to solicit public comments and should provide a responsiveness summary to show the
disposition of public comments.
B. EPA Review Process
Once the State has completed development of its WHP Program, EPA will conduct its
review, which must be completed within nine months of receipt of the State's WHP Program.
The discussion below describes the process that EPA will use to conduct its review and to inform
the State Governor if the Program is approved or disapproved. It also describes the process for
State revision of a disapproved Program.
1. Review of the Draft Program
The State is encouraged to coordinate closely with the EPA Regional Ground-Water
Program Office during development of its WHP Program, and to submit drafts to the Regional
Office at one or more points during development. At the outset of the drafting process, the State
should contact the Ground-Water Program Office in its Region to inform staff of the projected
draft submittal date(s) and to obtain further instructions. This will help to expedite the approval
process, possibly reducing EPA review time for the State's final Program. The Regional Office
will use die guidance provided above to review the draft State WHP Program and recommend
modifications, if appropriate. The State then can incorporate EPA comments at the same time
that it addresses any comments received during public review.
2. EPA Review of the State Program
When the State has completed development of its Program, it must submit a description of
its final WHP Program to the EPA Regional Office to initiate the formal review process.
The exact review procedure may vary from Region to Region, but will include participation
by Ground-Water Program staff members, legal staff from the Office of Regional Counsel and
other professionals in relevant disciplines. In the course of the review, some questions may arise
that require answers by State staff. In these cases, Regional staff will contact State personnel to
resolve issues.
3. Notification of Approval/Disapproval
Upon the completion of EPA's review, the Regional Administrator will provide the State
Governor with written notification of approval or disapproval. At the same time, EPA will send
a copy of this notification to the State agency responsible for the WHP Program. If the WHP
Program is approved, the State is eligible to receive Federal assistance for the implementation
phase of its WHP Program.
If the WHP Program is disapproved, the written notification to the Governor and the
responsible State agency will explain the reasons for the disapproval. The State then has six
months from the date it receives this notice to revise and resubmit its Program to EPA for
reconsideration. Regional Ground-Water Program staff will be available to provide assistance to
-31-
AWBERC LIBRARY U.S.
-------
the State in revising its WHP Program. EPA reconsideration of revised WHP Programs will
receive a high priority and review will be expedited.
V. ASSISTANCE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
Applicants for assistance under the WHP Program must use EPA Form 5700-33,
"Application for Federal Assistance - State and Local Nonconstruction Programs." Each
application should address the technical and administrative requirements for WHP Programs in
Section IV of the application form, the Program Narrative Statement.
The discussion below distinguishes the requirements for development grant applications
from those for implementation grant applications. In addition, it provides guidance on public
participation, requirements for States with annular injection wells and administrative information.
A. Development Grant Years
This discussion provides program guidance to States in the preparation of grant
applications for the WHP Program development years (FYs 1988 and 1989). It describes the
contents of an application necessary for EPA to ascertain that the State is making progress toward
the adoption of an adequate WHP Program, addressing each of the elements of a WHP Program
required by Statute (subsections 1428(a) and (b) of the SDWA). Technical guidance on WHP
Program adequacy is provided in Section IV of this document.
In general, each application for development funding should include the following
elements:
• A Program narrative statement describing, in general terms, the Program that the
State is developing and eventually will implement.
• A work plan that specifies the steps that a State will take to accomplish each
Program element during the upcoming funding period and that identifies major
milestones along with a schedule for their accomplishment.
The State's initial application also must contain a letter certifying that the agency submitting the
grant application has been officially designated by the State Governor, if the applicant is not the
Governor.
The remainder of this section provides guidance on how the State should complete these
portions of its development grant application.
1. Narrative Statement
The narrative statement in a development assistance application should provide EPA with
an overview of the WHP Program the State intends to develop and implement during the years
for which Federal funding is authorized and beyond. This statement will assist EPA in
determining the appropriateness of the direction and approach the State is pursuing in its
development of an approvable State WHP Program.
EPA intends for each State to have great flexibility in determining the content and format of
the narrative statement. The types of information a State must include are the designation of a
lead management agency, an overview of how the State will develop each of the six elements of
its WHP Program, as well as public participation, and a description of how the State will link
and coordinate these elements to achieve the objective of the SDWA.
-32-
-------
Each year in which the State applies for development funds, it must prepare a new narrative
statement. EPA recognizes that the State's initial development assistance application may contain
a narrative statement that is not very detailed, because the State may not have sufficient
information to foresee all aspects of the direction of its WHP Program. In the second
development year, EPA will ask the State to submit a revised, more detailed narrative statement
that reflects the work accomplished and information gathered during the previous year.
2. Work Plan for Development Years
This section explains the contents of State work plans to be included in WHP Program
grant applications for development years. Each of the following subsections considers one of the
six required elements of State WHP Programs and public participation and is keyed to a main
heading in Section IV.A of this document. States must refer to Section IV. A in completing their
development work plans.
The discussion below does not specifically distinguish between the needs of the work plan
for the first-year development grant application and that included in the application covering the
second development year. In general, EPA will accept less detail in initial development work
plans, because EPA recognizes that States will probably select their final WHP Program
approaches during the first development year. When applying for funds in the second
development year, States should identify more specific and detailed actions in their work plans so
that EPA can be assured that the State will submit an acceptable program by June 19,1989.
a. Duties of State Agencies, Local Governments and Public Water Supply
Systems
The guidance for this element is found in Section IV.A.2 of this document.
Each State's work plan for a development grant application must include the following
items, along with major milestones and a schedule for their completion:
• The actions that the lead management agency will take during the upcoming year to
identify all participant State agencies, their current duties and their responsibilities
under the WHP Program.
• The actions that the lead management agency will take during the upcoming year to
develop a mechanism to coordinate and consult with concerned State/local entities
and other affected parties.
b. Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas
The guidance for this element is found in Section IV.A.3 of this document.
Each State's work plan for a development grant application must include the following
items, along with major milestones and a relevant schedule:
• The actions that the State will take during the upcoming year to put in place an
institutional process to develop technical aspects of WHP A delineation.
• The actions that the State will take during the upcoming year to evaluate, select and
test the criteria, criteria thresholds and methods for WHPA delineation; for example:
Establishment/meetings of work groups or committees
-33-
-------
Studies and analyses, including review of available hydrogeological data
Consideration/selection and legal incorporation of State WHPA criteria,
criteria thresholds and methods
Comparative analyses or other forms of case applications
Actions to phase delineation of WHPAs by categories of wells, wellfields or
other parameters.
c. Source Identification
The guidance for this element is found in Section IV.A.4 of this document.
Each State's work plan for a development grant application must include the following
items, along with major milestones and a schedule for their accomplishment:
• The actions that the State will take during the upcoming year to define categories of
sources of contamination, assess the categories and prepare the list of the
categories.
• The actions that the State will take during the upcoming year to determine the
method(s) that will be used to inventory the sources in each WHPA.
d. Management Approaches
The guidance for this element is found in Section IV. A.5 of this document
Each State's work plan for a development grant application must include the following
items, along with major milestones and a schedule for their accomplishment:
• The actions that the State will take during the upcoming year to determine the
approach it will use to evaluate existing source management programs and evaluate
sources not currently controlled by Federal, State or local statutes.
• The actions the State will take to establish and enhance management approaches to
protect WHPAs from sources of contamination in the State.
• The actions that the State will take to determine the procedure, if appropriate, it will
use to phase implementation of its management controls and other methods.
e. Contingency Plan
The guidance for this element is found in Section IV.A.6 of this document.
Each State's work plan for a development grant application must include the following
items, along with major milestones and a schedule for their accomplishment:
The actions that the State will take during the upcoming year to develop and
complete a contingency plan for major water supplies.
• The actions that the State will take during the upcoming year to develop a procedure
for completing the contingency plans at all other public water supplies.
34-
-------
f. New Wells
The guidance for this element is found in Section IV.A.7 of this document
Each State's work plan for a development grant application must include the specific
actions that the State will undertake during the upcoming year to develop a process for managing
potential sources of contamination in the potential WHPAs of new public water supply wells,
along with major milestones and a schedule for their accomplishment.
B. Implementation Grant Years
This discussion provides program guidance to States in the preparation of grant
applications for the WHP Program implementation years (through FY 1991). It describes the
contents of an application necessary for EPA to ascertain that the State is making progress toward
implementing all elements of a WHP Program required by subsections 1428(a) and (b) of the
SDWA. Technical guidance on Program adequacy is provided in Section IV.A of this document.
In general, each application for implementation funding must refer to the final State WHP
Program. Each application should include the following elements:
• A Program narrative statement, covering all implementation years, which
summarizes the State's final WHP Program, the manner in which the State will
approach implementing the Program and work accompli shed during any previous
implementation year(s), if applicable.
• A work plan that specifies the steps that the State will take during the upcoming
funding period, including major milestones and a schedule for their
accomplishment.
The remainder of this section provides guidance on how a State should complete these portions
of its implementation grant application.
1. Narrative Statement
Each year in which the State applies for implementation funds, it must include in its grant
application a narrative statement that provides EPA with an overview of the State's process for
implementing its approved WHP Program. The narrative statement should clearly summarize
progress the State has made and the anticipated status of the State's WHP Program at the time the
new grant project period begins. While EPA intends for each State to have great flexibility in
determining the content and format of this narrative statement, the types of information the State
must include are any changes in the designation of the lead management agency; changes in
duties, roles and responsibilities of that agency and other participating agencies; and any other
modifications to the State's WHP Program. The State's narrative statement should provide a
logical basis for its annual implementation work plan (described below). Thus, the State will
need to revise the narrative statement each year to reflect the activities and milestones in that
year's work plan.
2. Work Plan for Implementation Years
This section explains the contents of the work plans States must include in their WHP
Program grant applications for implementation years. Each of the following subsections
considers one of the six required elements of State WHP Programs and is keyed to a main
heading in Section IV.A of this document. States must refer to Section IV.A in completing their
implementation work plans.
-35-
-------
The discussion below does not specifically distinguish among the needs of work plans for
any of the implementation years. States may scope their approaches and work plans to best fit
their own needs. In general, all State implementation work plans must provide EPA with enough
detail on specific State actions during the upcoming funding period, major milestones and a
project schedule so that EPA can ensure that the State is making every reasonable effort to
implement the State WBDP Program.
a. Duties of State Agencies, Local Governments, and Public Water Supply
Systems
The guidance for this element is found in Section IV.A.2 of this document.
Each State's work plan for an implementation grant application must include the following
items, along with major milestones and a schedule for their accomplishment:
• Any actions that the lead management agency will take during the upcoming year to
modify its designation of participating agencies and their responsibilities under the
WHP Program.
• The actions that the lead management agency will take during the upcoming year to
coordinate and consult with participating agencies and other affected parties
concerning the implementation of the State WHP Program.
b. Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas
The guidance for this element is found in Section IV.A.3 of this document.
Each State's work plan for an implementation grant application must include the following
items, along with major milestones and a schedule for their accomplishment:
• Actions that the State will take during the upcoming year to reassess and possibly
modify its selected delineation approaches on a Statewide or WHP A-specific basis.
• The actions that the State will take in the upcoming year to complete WHPA
delineation.
c. Source Identification
The guidance for this element is found in Section IV.A.4 of this guidance document.
Each State's work plan for an implementation grant application must include the actions that
the State will take during the upcoming year to complete or modify the inventory of sources,
along with major milestones and a schedule for their accomplishment.
d. Management Approaches
The guidance for this element is found in Section IV.A.5 of this document.
Each State's work plan for an implementation grant application must include the following
items, along with major milestones and a schedule for their accomplishment:
• Actions that the State will take during the upcoming year to implement enhanced
source management programs.
36-
-------
Actions that the State will take during the upcoming year to implement controls and
other management approaches for all other sources of contamination in WHPAs.
e. Contingency Plan
The guidance for this element is found in Section IV. A.6 of this document.
Each State's work plan for an implementation grant application must specify the actions that
the State will take during the upcoming year to ensure that a completed contingency plan is
implemented for all public water supplies. The work plan must also show major milestones for
these actions and a schedule.
f. New Wells
The guidance for this element is found in Section IV.A.7 of this document.
Each State's work plan for an implementation grant application must specify the actions that
the State will undertake during the upcoming year to manage sources of contamination in new
public water supplies, along with major milestones and a schedule for their accomplishment.
g. Public Participation
The guidance for this element is found in Section IV.A.8 of this document.
During the development years of this Program, EPA will require the States to structure and
carry out a public participation program, although the Agency will not develop guidelines beyond
those in the Statute and in 40 CFR Part 25, EPA's regulation governing public participation in
water programs. During the implementation years, the State should continue its public
participation process to involve the public fully in all aspects of implementing the State WHP
Program.
C. Annular Injection Wells
Subsection 1428(i) requires that:
"...States in which there are more than 2,500 active wells at which annular injection is used
as of January 1,1986, shall include in their State program a certification that a State
program exists and is being adequately enforced that provides protection from contaminants
which may have any adverse effects on the health of persons and which are associated with
the annular injection or surface disposal of brines associated with oil and gas production."
Guidance on the certification process will be issued in a joint memorandum from OGWP and
ODW to the appropriate Region(s). These Region(s) will develop State-specific certification
guidance.
D. Administrative Requirements
Finally, the State's application must also address the administrative requirements outlined
in the EPA regulations, OMB circulars and guidance cited in Section VII of this document. Two
of these requirements are discussed below because they require specific insertions in the State's
grant application.
-37-
-------
1. Procurement System Certification
Applicants who plan to procure supplies, services or construction using Federal WHP
Program funds must evaluate their procurement practices and policies in relation to the
requirements in 40 CFR Part 33, Procurement Under Assistance Agreements. Based on this
assessment, the State must include in its grant application a signed (original) EPA Form 5700-
48, "Procurement System Certification Form for Applicants for Federal Assistance" to certify
that its procurement does or does not meet EPA's requirements.
2. Intergovernmental Review Comments
All applications for Federal assistance under the WHP Program are eligible for
intergovernmental review under Executive Order (E.G.) 12372. If the State's review process
developed under that E.O. includes the State WHP Program, the applicant must contact the
Single Point of Contact (SPOC) to find out procedures/requirements with which the applicant
must comply. (Instructions are included in the grant application kit.)
VI. ALLOWABLE COSTS
Each applicant for Federal assistance under the WHP Program must comply with the
requirements of OMB Circular A-87, "Cost Principles for State and Local Governments." States
must ensure that all costs and cost elements they include in their applications meet these
requirements, and must comply with the allowable cost policies outlined below.
There are no specific administrative, allowable cost guidelines for the WHP Program.
Applicants must follow the requirements outlined in OMB Circular A-87. In addition, some
examples of allowable and unallowable administrative costs as stated in Circular A-87 have been
listed in Exhibit 7, on the following page. States should note that those costs listed as
"allowable" in the exhibit are allowable only after EPA has approved them in the assistance
application.
Unallowable technical costs cited in subsection 1428(f) are activities authorized by the
CWA, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, CERCLA or other sections of the SDWA, and costs
associated with bringing individual sources of contamination into compliance.
In addition, EPA has determined that costs associated with the following activities will be
unallowable for payment under WHP Program grants:
• Purchase of land
Transfer of development rights
• Land banking
• Capital improvements
• Direct costs for the installation and operation of water supply systems.
EPA believes that costs associated with these activities could quickly deplete any foreseeable
level of funding for WHP Program grants. This would eliminate the opportunity to use those
Federal funds for more cost-effective purposes, such as protective planning and the development
and implementation of innovative protective techniques.
38-
-------
EXHIBIT 7
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS *
ALLOWABLE
with EPA Approval
UNALLOWABLE
Accounting
Advertising
Audits
Bonding
Budgeting
Building lease management
Communications
Compensation for personal
services
Data processing
Depreciation and use allowance
Fringe benefits
Maintenance and repair
Payroll
Personnel administration
Printing / reproduction
Professional services
Procurement services
Training and education
Travel
• Bad debts
• Contingencies
• Contributions and donations
• Entertainment
• Fines and penalties
• Governor's expenses
• Interest and other financial
costs
• Legislative expenses
• Underrecovery of costs under
grant agreements
* Information taken from OMB Circular A-87, "Cost Principles for State and
Local Governments," January 28,1981.
39-
-------
State representatives should contact Regional Ground-Water Program Office staff for
assistance in resolving questions on allowable costs.
VII. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND PROGRAM GUIDANCE
Several EPA regulations, OMB circulars, and EPA guidance documents are applicable to
the WHP Program. Applicable regulations are the following Parts of 40 CFR:
• Part 4 - Implementation of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1980
Part 7 - Nondiscrimination in Programs Receiving Federal Assistance from the
Environmental Protection Agency
• Part 25 - Public Participation in Programs Under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act
• Part 29 - Intergovernmental Review of Environmental Protection Agency Programs
and Activities
• Part 30 - General Regulation for Assistance Programs
• Part 32 - Debarment and Suspension Under EPA Assistance Programs
• Part 33 - Procurement under Assistance Agreements
• Part 35, Subpart A Financial Assistance for Continuing Environmental Programs.
Copies of these documents are in Appendix C, Wellhead Protection Program - Applicable
Regulations. Appendix C is available from the Regional offices upon request.
Applicable OMB Circulars include the previously mentioned Circular A-87, "Cost Principles
for State and Local Governments," as well as Circular A-102, "Uniform Requirements for
Assistance to State and Local Governments." The document Guidelines for the Delineation of
Wellhead Protection Areas (OGWP), is also applicable to the WHP Program (see Appendix B).
The Policy on Performance-Based Assistance, issued by the EPA Administrator on
May 31, 1985, applies to the WHP Program. This policy provides a framework within which
EPA and an individual State can clarify expectations and solve problems through a system of
negotiations according to a predictable yet flexible set of national guidelines.
VIII. GRANT APPLICATION PREPARATION
All Federal assistance for State WHP Programs will be awarded for one-year budget
periods. States are required to apply for Federal assistance annually.
WHP Program assistance review, approval and award authority are being delegated to each
individual Regional Administrator. In general, the Regional Office will work directly with each
State during its preparation of a grant application. Regional program staff will establish a State's
WHP Program planning target and may help the State develop a Program within that funding
level or beyond, should the State wish to undertake a more extensive Program. During the first
year of the Program, OGWP will review the technical content of several applications from each
Region to help resolve national policy issues and to ensure that Program requirements are applied
consistently.
-40-
-------
A. Preapplication Assistance
Before the State submits a formal application to the Region, both the Regional Ground-
Water Program Office and assistance administration unit will be available to provide
preapplication assistance. Applicants are encouraged to seek preapplication assistance to expedite
the application process.
To obtain preapplication assistance, the State may submit either a written, informal inquiry
to EPA or may make a formal inquiry using the form "Preapplication for Federal Assistance,"
EPA Form 5700-30. A State also may arrange a site visit or an informal conference with EPA
personnel. Exhibit 8, on the following page, provides a list of Regional Ground-Water Program
contacts.
B. Application Submittal
EPA will establish a period in each Federal fiscal year during which States may submit then-
funding applications to EPA. States are encouraged to submit their grant applications by
October 1 of the fiscal year, except for FY 1988.
States seeking funding for FY 1988 should submit their applications by January 31, 1988.
EPA recognizes that this submittal date may be impossible for some applicants to meet. The
Agency, therefore, will consider applications for FY 1988 assistance received after the
application period closing date on a case-by-case basis. Any State that is unable to submit its
application by January 31 should send EPA a letter of intent to participate in the WHP Program,
along with a schedule for submitting its grant application. The appropriate Regional Ground-
Water Program Office, shown in Exhibit 8, can provide further instructions.
Special requirements may apply to Indian tribes applying for WHP Program funds for
FY 1988. The rule addressing their eligibility should be promulgated on or about December 19,
1987, as required by Statute. Thus, Indian tribes may arrange with Regional Offices for later
submission.
States that apply for funding should submit three copies of their completed applications,
using EPA Form 5700-33, to the assistance administration units in their Regions. These units
will distribute copies to the Regional Ground-Water Program Offices to begin the application
review and evaluation process.
IX. WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION REVIEW
AND AWARD
The following section explains EPA's process for reviewing each WHP Program
assistance application as well as the administrative and technical criteria for evaluating this
application. Review of the grant application is separate from EPA's review and approval of State
WHP Programs previously described in Section IV of this document.
A. Grant Application Review
EPA personnel will conduct both a technical and an administrative review of each application
for WHP Program assistance. This review process is depicted graphically in Exhibit 9. Responsi-
bilities of various organizational units involved in this process may vary from Region to Region.
-41-
-------
EXHIBIT 8
REGIONAL GROUND-WATER REPRESENTATIVES
Robert Mendoza
Ground-Water Management and Water
Supply Branch
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region I Room 2113
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
FTS: 8-835-3600
ODD: (617)565-3600
Don Draper
Office of Ground Water (6W-A)
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region VI (60 CL)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
FTS: 8-225-6446
DDD: (214) 655-6446
John Malleck
Office of Ground Water Management (3WM42)
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region H Room 805
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
FTS: 8-264-5635
DDD: (212)264-5635
Timothy Amsden
Office of Ground-Water Protection
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
FTS: 8-757-2815
DDD: (913)236-2815
Stuart Kerzner
Ground-Water Protection Section
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region HI
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
FTS: 8-597-2786
DDD: (215)597-2786
Richard Long
Ground-Water Branch
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region VIE
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
FTS: 8-564-1543
DDD: (303)293-1543
James S. Kutzman
Ground-Water Protection Branch
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
FTS: 8-257-3866
DDD: (404)347-3866
Patricia Eklund
Office of Ground Water (W-l-G)
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
FTS: 8-454-0831
DDD: (415)947-0831
Jerri-Anne Garl
Office of Ground Water (5WG-TUB9)
Water Division
U.S. EPA Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
FTS: 8-886-1490
DDD: (312)886-1490
Bill Mullen
Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA Region X, WD-139
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
FTS: 8-399-1086
DDD: (206)442-1086
-42-
-------
EXHIBIT 9
REVIEW AND AWARD PROCESS FOR WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATIONS *
OFFICE/
INDIVIDUAL
ACTIVITY
EPA HEADQUARTERS
OmCEOF
GROUND-WATER
PROTECTION
EPA REGIONAL
OFFICE
APPROVING
OFFICIAL
AWARD
OFFICIAL
(REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR)
ASSISTANCE
ADMINISTRATION
UNIT
GROUND-WATER
PROGRAM OFFICE
STATE
APPLICANT
SUBMITS GRANT
APPLICATION
PACKAGE TO
EPA
After FY 1989, the State must have EPA approval of its WHP Program to obtain EPA financial assistance.
-------
B. Administrative Review Criteria
The initial administrative review of each WHP Program assistance application will focus on
the following factors:
• The applicant's eligibility to participate in the Program, as specified in subsection
1401(13) of the SDWA.
• Completeness of the application package.
• Compliance with the applicable regulations and program guidance described in
Section VII of this document.
C. Technical Review Criteria
Concurrent with the administrative review, the Regional Ground-Water Program Office
will conduct a technical and programmatic review of the application package. Factors to be
considered will include:
• Comprehensiveness of the information provided. A complete application package
will include appropriately detailed descriptions of how the proposed WHP Program
grant application work plan satisfies the programmatic requirements discussed in
Section V of this guidance, proposed staffing for the Program and a schedule for
completing project milestones.
• The technical adequacy and content of the work plan in the assistance application.
The Program Office staff will be particularly concerned with the extent to which
activities included in the work plan address the required Program elements (sub-
sections 1428(a) and (b)) and whether the work proposed can lead to an acceptable
Program (for development phase applications) or successful implementation of an
approved Program (for implementation phase applications).
• The applicant's administrative capabilities and access to or ownership of critical
resources (e.g., qualified personnel, laboratory facilities, etc.).
• The extent to which the State can feasibly accomplish the proposed work within the
one-year budget period and within the proposed budget.
• Past performance by the applicant on similar environmental assistance programs.
• In-place arrangements for coordination and oversight of Program participants, and
to ensure accountability.
Other criteria may also be developed, as appropriate.
D. Award
Based upon the administrative and technical reviews, EPA may approve or disapprove the
State's application for funding. If EPA approves the application, it will send the original and one
copy of the award agreement to the State. The State must return the executed (signed) or
unexecuted (unsigned) agreement to the Regional assistance administration unit within three
weeks. If the State does not return the document within that time, the agreement is considered
void.
-44-
-------
Upon receiving the State's signed offer of award, the assistance administration unit reviews
the document to determine whether the State made any changes. If changes were made, the
assistance administration unit will take appropriate steps. The agreement is considered final only
upon EPA review and acceptance of the signed and executed award document. The State then is
notified of how the funds will be transferred to it and when it can begin charging costs under its
WHP Program grant.
X. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AND OVERSIGHT
Project administration and oversight requirements include the submission of progress
reports, the biennial status report and financial status reports to EPA; recordkeeping; and
amending the assistance agreement. The Agency will also periodically review technical reports
and may conduct site visits to WHPAs. These requirements are discussed in detail below.
A. Reports
Due to the flexibility granted to States in developing and implementing their WHP
Programs, it is vital that they prepare and submit to EPA regular, timely and comprehensive
reports on their progress. EPA requires States participating in the Program to submit various
kinds of information that will be used to manage the Program, including Program-specific project
management and status reports and financial reports. The dates for submittal of these reports are
specified in the individual assistance agreements. Each State will be expected to adhere to its
agreed-upon schedule.
These reports will give EPA the information necessary to ensure that each State is meeting
the schedule and commitments in its assistance agreement. More importantly, they will provide
EPA with a mechanism for overall Program evaluation that can measure the actual environmental
progress brought about by the WHP Program and to report to Congress on this progress.
Recipients will be required to submit three types of reports:
• Interim and end-of-year progress reports
• A biennial status report
• A financial status report (FSR) to EPA.
Each of these is described below. The types of information required in each is summarized in
Exhibit 10, on the following page.
1. Interim and End-of-Year Progress Reports
States will be required to submit interim and end-of-year progress reports to inform EPA of
the status of their Programs and to act as a tool to detect and resolve potential problems. Each
progress report should be brief and may consist of either charts, a narrative, or both. The reports
should focus on the progress of each task and project milestones described in the approved work
plan for that reporting period. The reports should also address:
• Problems, delays or adverse conditions affecting the ability of the State to attain
Program objectives or to adhere to the approved Program schedule
Favorable developments or events that enable the State to meet time schedules or
milestones sooner than anticipated
-45-
-------
EXHIBIT 10
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS OF WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAMMATIC REPORTS
^""^-v^ REPORT
^^^^ INFORMATION
REPORT ^^^"^^^
TYPE ^\^^
Interim and End-of-Year (EOY)
Progress Reports
(Submittal negotiated
between Region and State)
Biennial Status Report
(Submitted every
two years after the start
of implementation)
Rnancial Status Report
(Submitted every year,
within 90 days of the end
of the budget period)
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
Schedule/
Milestones
\
\
Financial
Information
\
•^
•\l
GRANT
MANAGE-
MENT
\
-y
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRESS
Anecdotal
Evidence
^
Qualitative
Indicators
^
(EOY
Only)
<
Quantitative
Measures
(if any)
^
New
Wells
(EOY
Only)
V
-------
• Major changes in the overall project, its objectives, time schedule, organization or
staffing
• Major changes in the overall budget for the Program, including a presentation of
current and projected project expenditures
• Other pertinent information including, where appropriate, analysis and explanation
of cost overruns or high unit costs.
The State's end-of-year progress report should summarize the actions the State has taken during
the past year to develop and/or implement its Program. In addition, it should provide qualitative
measures of environmental progress, if possible, and discuss the siting of any new wells during
the past year.
Interim progress reports may be required from recipients no more frequently than quarterly;
end-of-year reports will be required within 90 days of the end of the budget period. The State
and Region should negotiate the timing (or specific submittal dates) of interim progress reports
and document their agreement in the assistance application and award. Each State then will be
required to submit its reports according to this schedule.
2. Biennial Status Report
Subsection 1428(g) of the SDWA requires that each State submit a biennial status report
describing the State's progress in implementing its WHP Program, within two years of
submitting its Program to EPA. Thus, in most cases, the State will not be required to submit a
biennial status report until June 19,1991. The biennial status report seeks to capture both the
Program management information and the environmental results data provided in a State's
interim and end-of-year progress reports, including the accomplishment of milestones. To this
end, the biennial status report should summarize the highlights of the interim and end-of-year
progress reports submitted to EPA and must, by Statute, include amendments to the State
Program for water wells sited during the biennial period.
One major section of the biennial report should discuss the State's environmental progress
as a result of the WHP Program. The State should assess the difference that its WHP Program
has made in the State's ground-water quality. This information can be provided in a narrative
form, with supporting data that can include:
• Anecdotal information that the State has gathered in the course of developing and/or
implementing its Program. Such information may include, for example, the
discovery, during inventory of sources of contaminants, of a significant problem in
one or more WHPAs.
• Progress in establishing environmental measurement procedures that can be used in
the long term to determine the actual environmental benefits as a result of the State
WHP Program. For example, during development, the State could report on the
methods that it is designing as part of its Program to measure environmental results;
during implementation, the State could summarize its progress in actually putting
these measures in place.
• Quantitative environmental data, such as State efforts to develop baseline ground-
water data during implementation.
• Standard, institutional practices that the State will use in siting new wells.
-47-
-------
In addition, it is important that the report present the specific work that the State has done
during the past two-year period to accomplish each of the WHP Program elements. The report
must address, in turn, each of the required Program elements, as well as public participation,
since these Program elements represent the basic framework for the WHP Program.
Specifically, the report must contain, for each WHP Program element and public participation:
• A brief, narrative description of the State's progress in developing and/or
implementing activities under the Program element during the reporting period.
(For example, activities described under source identification may include, as
appropriate, identification of potential categories of sources of contaminants,
inventorying, assessment and source monitoring.)
A summary of the amount of assistance funds spent on specific activities conducted
under the program element.
• Identification of activities planned for, and milestones to be achieved during, the
next biennial period.
EPA, in conjunction with the States, will develop additional guidance on the preparation of the
report prior to the required report submittal date.
3. Financial Status Report
The State must submit a Financial Status Report (SF-269, FSR) to EPA within 90 days
after each budget period. EPA then will review the FSR to ensure that the State has used Federal
funds appropriately. General instructions for use and submittal of the FSR are printed on the
back of the SF-269.
B. Recordkeeping
Recipients of WHP Program funds are subject to the basic recordkeeping and financial
management requirements of 40 CFR Part 30, EPA's General Regulation for Assistance
Programs. This regulation includes requirements for establishing an official file for the Program.
Each State must retain its records for at least three years after the end of the project unless
audit, litigation, cost recovery and/or any appeals are initiated before the end of this three-year
retention period, in which case the State must keep all records until these are resolved oj until the
end of the three-year retention period, whichever is longer. All records are subject to
audit/inspection and transfer or disclosure of information. EPA and any authorized
representatives must be allowed access to all State records.
C. Program Changes
Regulations and procedures governing proposed modifications to approved WHP
Programs are contained in 40 CFR Part 30, Subpart G. Minor changes to a State's WHP
Program that are consistent with the objective of the Program and within the scope of the
assistance agreement may be approved without a formal amendment to the assistance agreement.
Such changes, however, do not obligate EPA to provide Federal funds for any costs incurred by
a State in excess of the assistance amount unless approved in advance under 40 CFR 30.700.
Major modifications, on the other hand, must first be approved and recommended by the
EPA Project Officer within the Region. The Project Officer will notify the assistance
administration unit of any approved changes. A formal amendment to the assistance agreement
-48-
-------
must be executed and signed by both the EPA Award Official and the recipient before any major
modifications to the WHP Program can be implemented. Major modifications include:
• Transfer of assistance funds to another recipient or procurement in excess of a
specific amount
• Changes in the objectives of the Program
• Changes in the assistance amount
Substantial changes within the scope of the Program
• Rebudgeting of Program funds with respect to construction vs. non-construction
activities, direct vs. indirect costs or funds allotted for training.
The EPA Project Officer will also evaluate and recommend approval or disapproval of any
requests for a deviation from EPA regulations governing the assistance agreement. As explained
in 40 CFR Part 30, Subpart I, EPA will consider, on a case-by-case basis, requests for
exceptions to any of its assistance-related regulations except for those that implement statutory
and E.O. requirements. Such requests must be appropriately justified upon submittal and must
be approved by the Director of the Grants Administration Division, in EPA Headquarters.
D. Performance Evaluation
During the performance of the assistance agreement, the EPA Project Officer assigned to
monitor a recipient's WHP Program will be the recipient's primary point of contact with EPA.
The Project Officer will be responsible for overseeing the State's progress and performance.
States will be expected to provide, upon request, evidence or information verifying that their
Programs are on schedule and that planned milestones have been achieved.
The EPA Project Officer and other personnel also may conduct periodic site visits to States
to inspect Program activities first-hand. (Regions are currently required to conduct on-site mid-
year reviews.) Recipients will be notified well in advance of such visits concerning probable
discussion topics and materials they may be requested to prepare. Potential items of concern to
EPA personnel during site visits include, but are not limited to:
• Environmental indicators of the Program's success (or failure)
• Actual versus scheduled performance/accomplishments
• Condition of equipment/property used within, or purchased for, the Program
• Whether resources (personnel, equipment, facilities, etc.) charged to the Program
budget are actually employed under the Program
• Conditions that might adversely affect EPA's interest (e.g., a change in the
recipient's financial status, personnel problems, non-compliance with labor/civil
rights laws or over-extension of facilities).
In the course of their responsibilities, Project Officers may recommend changes or may
require the State to take corrective actions to resolve problems or issues of contention. Project
Officers also rely upon and maintain close contact with Regional assistance administration units,
EPA legal counsel, financial management offices and other support units within the Agency.
-49-
-------
Recipients should refer to the Project Officer for assistance with matters related to any aspect of
performance under the assistance agreement.
E. Disputes
Disagreements between EPA and a State concerning an assistance agreement requirement
should be resolved at the lowest level possible. If agreement cannot be reached, the dispute will
be resolved in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 30, Subpart J.
50-
-------
APPPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Adverse Health Effects: Death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutation,
physical malfunctions (including malfunctions in reproduction) or physical deformities resulting
from the ingestion of contaminated drinking water supplies.
Allowable Costs: Those project costs that are eligible, reasonable, necessary and allocable to a
project; permitted by the appropriate Federal cost principles; and approved by EPA in an
assistance agreement.
Alternate Drinking Water Supplies: Drinking water supplies that are able to supply public water
systems in cases where the aquifers usually supplying such systems become contaminated.
Anthropogenic Sources: Any activity, performed by or caused by human actions, that is or can
potentially be a source of contamination to ground water including human actions affecting
natural contaminants.
Application: A formal, written request for EPA financial assistance that is submitted on a
prescribed form and is sufficiently complete to permit evaluation. For the WHP Program, it
must include a narrative statement and work plan outlining the State's process for Program
development and/or implementation.
Assistance Agreement: The legal instrument that EPA uses to transfer money, property, services
or anything of value to a recipient to accomplish a public purpose. It is either a grant, a loan, a
grant/loan combination or a cooperative agreement and will specify: budget and other project
periods; the Federal share of eligible project costs; a description of the work to be accomplished;
and any special conditions.
Budget: The financial plan for expenditure of all Federal and non-Federal funds for a project as
proposed by the applicant and negotiated and approved by the Award Official.
Budget Period: The length of time EPA specifies in an assistance agreement during which the
recipient may expend or obligate Federal funds.
Capacity: The ability of a State to be responsible, maintain adequate administrative and financial
mechanisms, demonstrate sufficient technical and legal expertise in all areas necessary, and carry
out enforcement activities under a State WHP Program.
Community Water System: A public water system that serves at least 15 service connections
used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents.
Contaminant: An organic, inorganic, radiological or microbial substance that is regulated under
Federal, State or local environmental programs, and any other substance that the State determines
appropriate.
Contingency Plan: A design for the location and provision of alternate drinking water supplies
for each public water system in the event of well or wellfield contamination which, to be
effective, should consider short- and long-term alternate water supplies, coordination
mechanisms, and financial considerations such as the purchase and delivery of alternate water
supplies.
A-l
-------
Control Measure: As part of the Program required under subsection 1428(a)(4) of the SDWA,
control measures could include permit requirements for siting and operation of facilities posing
potential risk, spill prevention and countermeasure plans, testing/monitoring and inspection
requirements, performance standards and specifications, discharge or ambient quality standards,
or zoning and land use controls.
Cost Share: The portion of allowable project costs that a recipient contributes toward completing
its project using non-Federal funds. The cost share may include in-kind as well as cash
contributions. (Sometimes referred to as "non-Federal share" or "matching share.")
Direct Costs: Those costs that can be identified specifically with a particular cost objective and
are so charged.
Financial Assistance: As part of the Program required under subsection 1428(a)(4) of the
SDWA, could include grants and matching funds, access to special accounts established by gifts
and contributions or reimbursement for program development and operation.
Indian Tribe: Any Indian Tribe having a Federally recognized governing body carrying out
substantial governmental duties and powers over any area.
Indirect Costs: Any costs that are incurred for common objectives and that cannot be directly
charged to any single cost objectives benefited based on a fair method of approximation.
Jurisdiction: A State or local entity having substantial powers over or pertaining to the
management and control of a wellhead protection area.
Local Governmental Entities: Counties, municipalities, special districts, public water suppliers,
and other recognized units of local government.
Municipality: A city, town or other public entity created by or pursuant to State law.
Non-Community Water System: A public water system that is not a community water system
(40 CFR Part 141.2).
Person: Individual, corporation, company, association, partnership, State, municipality or
Federal agency (and includes officers, employees and agents of any corporation, company,
association, State, municipality or Federal agency).
Program Development: The phase of the WHP Program during which a State participant
addresses the elements specified in subsection 1428(a) of the SDWA, and, in doing so, describes
the steps that it will undertake to put its Program into place after obtaining EPA approval. During
this time, the State will conduct the public participation activities required by subsection 1428(b).
Program Implementation: The phase of the WHP Program during which a State participant puts
into effect its approved State Program.
Project Period: The length of time EPA specifies in the assistance agreement for completion of
all project work. It may be composed of more than one budget period.
Public Water Supply System: A system for the provision to the public of piped water for human
consumption, if such system has at least 15 service connections or regularly serves at least 25
individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year; such term includes any collection, treatment,
storage and distribution facilities under control of the operator of such system and used primarily
A-2
-------
in connection with such system, and any collection or pretreatment storage facilities not under
such control which are used primarily in connection with such system.
State: Includes, in addition to the several States, only the District of Columbia, Guam, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, American
Samoa and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
State Wellhead Protection Program: A Program to protect wellhead protection areas within a
State's jurisdiction from contaminants that may have any adverse effect on the health of persons
(SDWA, subsection 1428(a)).
Subagreement: A written agreement between an EPA recipient and another party (other than
another public agency) and any lower tier agreement for services, supplies or construction
necessary to complete the project. Subagreements include contracts and subcontracts for
personal and professional services, agreements with consultants and purchase orders.
Supplies: All property, including equipment, materials, printing, insurances and leases of real
property, but excluding land or a permanent interest in land.
Technical Assistance: As part of the Program required under subsection 1428(a)(4) of the
SDWA, could include accessing trained personnel, the use of laboratory facilities and personnel,
access to computerized environmental data bases or sharing ground-water monitoring field
equipment and personnel.
Training: As part of the Program required under subsection 1428(a)(4) of the SDWA, could
include seminars and workshops, lectures by agency staff, conferences or special instructional
courses.
Wellfield: An area containing two or more wells supplying a public water supply system.
Wellhead: The physical structure, facility or device at the land surface from or through which
ground water flows or is pumped from subsurface, water-bearing formations.
Wellhead Protection Area: The surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well or
wellfield, supplying a public water system, through which contaminants are reasonably likely to
move toward and reach such water well or wellfield.
A-3
------- |