United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Ground-Water Protection (WH-550G)
Washington DC 20460
March 1985
SEPA
Resource Document
for the Ground-Water
Monitoring Strategy
Workshop
-------
This document was compiled by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Ground-Water Protection
Marian Mlay, Director
Dr. Norbert Dee, Senior Scientist
with assistance from:
Office of Ground-Water Protection
Ground-Water Monitoring Work Group
and
Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc.
under contract no. 68-01-7002
-------
CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. EPA Guidance on Monitoring
Environmental Monitoring Policy Statement
Guidance for Preparing Environmental Monitoring Strategies
Ground-Water Protection Strategy: Executive Summary
III. Federal Ground-Water Monitoring Activities
Summary of Federal Ground-Water Monitoring Provisions and Objectives
Summary of EPA Ground-Water Monitoring Programs
Description of EPA Ground-Water Monitoring Task Force
Report on U.SG.S. Federal-State Cooperative Water Resources Program
IV. State Ground-Water Monitoring Activities
Summary of Illinois Ground-Water Programs and Comparison with Other
State Monitoring Programs
Summary of Wisconsin Ground-Water Monitoring Activities
Summary of Arizona Ground-Water Monitoring Activities
Summary of New Jersey Ground-Water Monitoring Strategy and Activities
V. Case Study: Ground-Water Monitoring in Florida
VI. Case Study: EPA Office of Drinking Water Survey
VII. Ground-Water Resources in the United States
Summary of Ground-Water Resources in Geologic Regions
Summary of Ground-Water Production
Summary of Ground-Water Use
Report on Estimated Use of Water in the United States
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
VIII. Costs of Ground-Water Monitoring
IX. Technical Ground-Water Monitoring Issues
EPA Office of Research and Development Report on Monitoring
Research
Report on Storage and Retrieval of Ground-Water Data at the U.S.
Geological Survey
Report on Storage and Retrieval of Water-Resources Data at the U.S.
Geological Survey
Survey of the Water Well Industry
X. Office of Technology Assessment: Findings on Ground-Water
Contamination
Xl. Selected Bibliography
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
This document has been prepared as background material in support of a
workshop sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a
ground-water monitoring strategy. It should serve as a useful reference on current
activities in ground-water monitoring and as a guide to selected state and federal
ground-water monitoring programs. The document has been organized to provide
information on:
• The background of ground-water monitoring initiatives at EPA
• Existing ground-water monitoring activities at the federal and
state level
• Case studies of notable monitoring programs and surveys
• Ground-water resources in the U.S.
• The cost of ground-water monitoring
• Technical monitoring issues likely to arise during this workshop
The reports contained in this document are by no means exhaustive. Rather, they
are summaries of key ground-water monitoring activities and issues that have
been selected to illustrate the development of a national ground-water monitoring
strategy. As such, they should serve as useful background information on the
subject. This document is current as of February 1985, and may contain infor-
mation no longer applicable to particular ground-water monitoring initiatives and
programs.
-------
II. EPA GUIDANCE ON MONITORING
• Environmental Monitoring Policy Statement
• Guidance for Preparing Environmental
Monitoring Strategies
• Ground-Water Protection Strategy: Executive
Summary
-------
tO S - 4
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON. DC. 20460
\ 0J
o c 231983
T’-IE A 1 NISr A OR
MEMORANDUM FOR: Assistant Administrators
General Counsel
Inspector General
Associate Administrators
Regional Administrators
staff Office Directors
‘- /9
FROM: Alvin L.
Deputy Administrator
SUBJECT: Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Monitoring Policy
Statement
This memorandum transmits the Environmental Protection
Agency’s first environmental monitoring policy statement.
Environmental monitoring, which we have defined as the broad
set of activities providing chemical, physical, geological,
biological, and other environmental data required by e nviron—
mental managers, is an essential part of all our activities,
including planning and research, rulemaking, compliance assessment,
and program evaluation. A system of credible, accurate and
correctly applied monitoring information is essential to our
overall credibility as an Agency. While a number of activities
we undertake compete for scarce resources, we must be sure to
require an appropriate balance between those activities and
adequate environmental monitoring.
The monitoring policy was prepared by the Agency’s Task
Force on Monitoring, which I convened, and which was comprised
of EPA and State experts on all aspects of environmental moni-
toring. This policy crystallizes the considerable experience
and expertise on environmental monitoring that has been gained
over the past several years and organizes it into a set of
coherent goals for our program offices to build on in constructing
individual monitoring strategies.
I expect each of you to take an active role in your programs’
planning for and management of monitoring activities. I also
expect you to coordinate monitoring efforts in your program
with those of other offices in the Agency and to make maximum
use of environmental information in planning and managing your
programs. The Task Force developed this monitoring policy so
such consultations and cooperation could take place with r ’ ference
to a shared set of Agency goals and objectives for environmental
monitoring.
-------
11—2
This policy is only the first step in our efforts to improve
the status of environmental monitoring in the Agency. Subsequent
efforts include the production of monitoring strategies by each
EPA line program office in May, and a series of recommendations
from the Task Force relative to sorting out roles, responsibilities
and relationships among the various offices with responsibilities
for monitoring activities at EPA. I know I can count on you to
support these efforts, and particularly to involve yourselves
personally in developing the monitoring strategies called for in
this policy statement.
Attachment
-------
12/14/8 3
11—3
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING POLICY STATEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PURPOSE
Environmental monitoring is an essential part of all Agency
activities from planning and research, to rule—making, compliance
and pollution control, and evaluating programs’ effectiveness.
Monitoring, while not an end in itself, is an integral part of a
sound environmental program. In order to acquire and successfully
use information on the broad range of public health and environ-
mental problems, their causes, and potential for control, EPA,
State, and local officials must systematically identify environ-
mental data needs and collect and evaluate extensive chemical,
physical, geological, biological, and other data related to
pollution effects, sources, transport, and control. This task
increasingly has become as complex as it is costly. Despite
substantial progress by EPA and States, persistent problems of
the past, if left uncorrected, will hinder our ability to meet
the new challenges of the future, particularly those involving
toxic chemical pollutants. Periodic criticism has focused on:
limited coordination, control, or planning of Agency monitoring
activities; uncertain quality of the data collected; the design
of networks and studies that result in data of limited use; lack
of data suitable for trend analyses; difficulty of accessing
information; incompatibility of data bases; and the limited
analysis and use of environmental data for EPA decision making.
While these problems have not been universal, the critical nature
of the Agency’s monitoring efforts requires that EPA address
even isolated incidents of these problems.
The purpose of this policy statement is to establish overall
goals and objectives for Agency monitoring programs, which specif i—
cally are to:
1. Meet the full range of current and future Agency needs
for environmental data.
2. Ensure monitoring is technically and scientifically
sound.
3. Ensure environmental monitoring data are managed to
facilitate both access and appropriate use in Agency
decision making.
4. Ensure effective and coordinated Agency—wide processes
for planning and execution of monitoring activities.
5. Ensure that roles and responsibilities are clear in
regard to monitoring management and implementation by
EPA and State officials.
-------
11—4
SCOPE
For the purpose of this policy “environmental monitoring”
is broadly_defined as the set of activities which provides
chemical, physical, geological, biological, and other environmental
data required by environmental managers. Under this broad definition,
“monitoring” includes: planning the collection of environmental
data to meet specific program objectives and environmental infor-
mation needs; designing monitoring systems and studies; selecting
sampling sites; collecting and handling samples; lab analysis;
reporting and storing the data; assuring the quality of the data;
and analyzing, interpreting, and making the data available for use
in decision making and reporting to the public. Thus, “monitoring”
would include the data generated to support rule making, to develop
control strategies, to determine compliance, to enforce regulations
and standards, to assess exposure, to anticipate emerging problems,
to plan and evaluate the effectiveness of national and State
environmental strategies and program activities, and to establish
national, Regional, and State baselines and trends, and to track
environmental progress.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following sections describe in greater detail the specific
objectives under each of the goals of the Agency’s monitoring policy.
1. MEETING THE FULL RANGE OF NEEDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING DATA
• EPA national program managers should plan and develop
their national environmental monitoring programs to meet
the full range of present and projected future uses for
which the data are needed. These should generally include
uses to:
— Identify present and future environmental and health
problems through national, Regional, State, and local
baseline and trend measurement. Such information is
necessary to
—— establish program priorities;
—— provide regular reports to the public on the state
of the environment, important trends over time,
and Agency progress; and
—— evaluate the progress and effectiveness of environ-
mental programs, including delegated programs.
Wherever appropriate, in addition to changes in environ-
mental quality, these measurements should provide a
basis for assessing or estimating exposure of and/or
direct effects of pollutants on humans, animals, fish,
-------
11—5
and plants, and the risk of environmental damage.
Impacts on both health and NwelfareN —— that is,
effects such as corrosion and changes in aesthetic
quality, should be considered.
— Provide the underlying technical basis for environ-
mental management activities in order to:
—— set sound national, State, and site specific
standards and rules;
—— define effective control strategies and programs;
—— establish site—specific controls and/or abatement
programs;
—— determine compliance with ambient and source
standards;
—— develop effective enforcement cases; and
— support research monitoring to develop environmental
models.
— Develop, through research, new and improved monitoring
techniques and methods, systems design, sample analysis,
and collection methods to better address existing
problems and to meet emerging problems.
• EPA managers should plan and design individual monitoring
studies or networks to achieve a clearly defined objective
and, wherever it is cost—effective to do so, design them
to achieve multiple objectives.
• Monitoring networks and sampling surveys should be designed
to anticipate future needs and uses of the data. For example,
— Specimen banking should be considered to allow for
retrospective analyses, long—term trend monitoring,
and verifying the effectiveness of environmental
controls.
— Gas chromatograms, mass spectrograms, and sample
extracts should be preserved in appropriate situations
for retrospective analyses of chemicals that subse-
quently are suspected of having adverse effects.
• Agency managers should make optimum use of environmental
monitoring data already collected by States and other
Federal agencies.
2. ENSURING AGENCY MONITORING IS TECHNICALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY SOtJNC
• Prior to monitoring, environmental managers should clearly
identify the use for which the data will be collected.
Provisions should exist for network or sampling design,
sample handling, sample analysis, quality assurance,
data handling, and data interpretation commensurate with
the uses to which the data will be put.
-------
11—6
• Networks and sampling studies should be designed so the
resulting data are complete and valid relative to the
objectives.
— Prior to data collection the completeness of data
(i.e., the amount of data needed to satisfy the
objective) should be documented.
— Sampling sites, sampling procedures, and sampling
frequencies and parameter coverage should be selected
to ensure that the resulting data accurately represent
the medium sampled to meet the objectives.
— EPA should assist States in design of systems and
studies by providing guidance, technical assistance,
and peer review.
• Monitoring required of States or the regulated community
should meet all applicable Office of Management and
Budget clearances.
• Environmental monitoring data should be quality assured
at all phases of monitoring so that the data are of
known quality and the quality is thoroughly documented.
Historical data should be used with appropriate care
and validation, recognizing the possible limitations of
some data due to the lack of quality assurance or other
information on potential sources of error.
— All samples should be collected, handled, and analyzed
in adherence with the Agency’s mandatory quality
assurance program.
— The quality assurance/quality control program for
each monitoring study or network should control
and quantify, to the extent possible, the total
method error. Potential sources of error include
sampling, sample handling, laboratory measurements,
calculations, and data processing.
• Monitoring networks and sampling surveys should be based
to the extent possible and where appropriate on prototype
or pilot studies to determine how monitoring would
actually function in practice, to demonstrate by example
the analyses. to be made of the data, and to allow assess-
ment of alternative monitoring approaches prior to large
fixed commitments.
3. MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING DATA TO FACILITATE ACCESS AND
APPROPRIATE USE IN DECISION MAKING AND AVAILABILITY TO THE PUBLIC
• Environmental data should be stored in automated data
systems or filing systems for hard copy with the location,
time of sample collection, relevant quality control
-------
11—7
data, and other required information so that other
potential beneficiaries can easily obtain and use the
data. Consultant contracts should provide for timely
access to data.
• Data should be accompanied by documentation of quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures, including
quantitative statements of precision and accuracy, where
appropriate. The statements should pertain to the
entire measurement system and at a minimum include sample
collection, sample handling, and lab analysis.
— The statements should be reported in hard copy reports;
the long—term goal is to include statements in ADP
systems.
• Data bases which include confidential data should be
managed in a way that will permit use of and access to
key non—confidential environmental data.
• Program offices, Regional offices, and the Office of
Research and Development (ORD) should keep EPA’s
Information Clearinghouse updated.
— Offices should submit information to the Clearinghouse
at the start of each new monitoring initiative and at
the completion of each monitoring initiative.
— Offices should review and update their Clearinghouse
information at regular intervals.
• Agency managers should use pertinent environmental data
wherever possible in Agency decision processes, including
setting EPA policies and priorities.
• Agency managers should report regularly to the Administrator
environmental information and policy implications for
their programs.
• Agency managers should routinely develop reports which
interpret and make available to the public significant
data and findings of monitoring programs, including those
describing important national trends or emerging problems
and the strategies in place or planned for addressing
those problems.
• Agency managers should provide the Regions and States
guidelines for interpreting and using environmental
data. Section 1 of this policy has generally ider ified
the uses of data and areas for which guidelines may
be appropriate.
-------
h—S
4. ENSURING EFFECTIVE AND COORDINATED AGENCY-WIDE PLANNING AND
EXECUTION OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES
The basic planning, management, and implementation of moni-
toring programs resides with EPA’s program offices, in some
situations with the Office of Research and Development and with
State and local governments. EPA’s program offices attempt to
ensure that EPA’s and States’ and local governments’ monitoring
is both effective, and where appropriate, coordinated with other
programs, States and other Federal activities. Program offices
and ORD establish, requirements and provide guidance to State and
local governments on monitoring, including network design, sampling
and analysis, quality assurance, and reporting. They also have
sponsored efforts to define more clearly monitoring needs and to
integrate activities. Examples of some program office efforts to
strengthen Agency monitoring are standing work groups on moni-
toring, priority workplans arranged around specific topic areas
and coordinated through ad hoc committees, participation in the
Clearinghouse, and regular meetings of quality assurance
officers and of Regional coordinators.
To ensure maximum coordination and integration,of efforts
across the Agency as well as within programs, EPA also has in
place several mechanisms to provide Agencywide management and
coordination of monitoring efforts. The Office of Research and
Development is responsible for coordinating and managing the
Agency’s quality assurance program, as well as developing new
monitoring methods and operating research monitoring programs;
the Office of Administration and Resources Management (OARM) is
responsible for the management of Agency automated data systems,
examining issues concerning laboratory facilities, and through
the Office of the Comptroller, conducting budget analyses; the
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE) is responsible
for promoting the development of baselines and trends, evaluating
existing monitoring systems (OPPE will develop criteria for how
they will evaluate such systems), and coordinating Agency review
of monitoring strategies and proposals. Also, OPPE is responsible
for coordinating development of the Administrator’s Guidance and
is responsible for the Management Accountability System, both of
which provide mechanisms for ensuring that priorities and tasks
established and approved by the Administrator are accomplished.
To enhance these current efforts, the following changes are
being introduced to strengthen coordination of monitoring activities
across the Agency and to permit most effective use of our limited
monitoring resources.
• Monitoring Strategies : Monitoring strategies will be prepared
by each Headquarters Program Office, including the Office
of Research and Development, and subsequently evaluated
annually and updated as needed so that program offices and
the Administrator and Deputy Administrator may use them in
planning and managing environmental monitoring activities
throughout the Agency. Every program’s original monitoring
-------
11—9
strategy or significantly altered update will be reviewed by
OPPE, by other programs and Regional reviewers, and by the
States where appropriate. The States should be involved in
the initial stages of the development of monitoring strategies
for programs in which States will play a major role. An
outline of the content of the strategies is given in the
attachment and will be described more fully in separate
guidance.
• Monitoring Budgets : Both to ensure that adequate resources
are devoted to the collection, analysis and management of
environmental data, and that Agency resources are used
effectively and efficiently, OPPE will work with the Office
of Administration and Resources Management to conduct an
overall budget analysis of monitoring. Budget reviews will
make use of the monitoring strategies.
• Laboratory Capability and Professional Training : To carry
out Agency programs, Regional laboratories should maintain
or have access to appropriate state—of—the—art field and
analytical equipment and personnel with needed skills.
Regional laboratories and other EPA laboratories, in con-
junction with appropriate program offices, will prepare
and update annually a three or more year plan for equipment
purchases.
Regional laboratories and other EPA laboratories should
maintain accurate inventories of their scientific equipment
in the Personal Property System managed by the Office of
Administration and Resources Management.
Program offices should, at the time of proposing regulations
or environmental standards which require monitoring by EPA
in the Federal Register, carefully consider the adequacy of
monitoring capability, including laboratory equipment, needed
to carry out the monitoring. Programs should also consider
State and local needs.
• Technical Guidance : To enable the technical guidance the
Agency produces to be coordinated, sampling and analytical
methods should include a clear description of their official
status and relationship to other Agency sampling and analytical
methods.
The Office of Research and Development is directed to develop
an Agency—wide standard protocol for validating analytical
methods. This protocol should be used by all programs whenever
they validate methods.
Performance data on lab analytical methods should be reported
to ORD in the required format to keep current the document
titled Compilation of Data Quality Information . This document
provides environmental measurement method performance data
for establishing achievable data quality goals.
-------
11—10
5. ENSURING CLEAR ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
As this document states, many offices and organizations in
EPA as well as State and local government agencies are involved
in the Agei tcy’s different monitoring efforts. Some have line
responsibility for design and implementation of monitoring systems
and for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data. Others are
responsible for setting and overseeing policy and cross—program
coordination. Because of the variety of monitoring that the
Agency carries out or requires, environmental managers at all
levels need to clearly understand these various roles and
responsibilities. To ensure this, the Deputy Administrator
will clearly delineate the roles and responsibilities of the
various offices and agencies involved in monitoring activities.
-------
11—11
ATTAC HMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING STRATEGIES
To implement monitoring programs that achieve the goals
established in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Monitoring
Policy, each line program (Office of Air and Radiation, Office
of Water, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office
of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, and Office of Research and
Development) will develop program monitoring strategies. These
strategies will be key documents for Agency—wide and program
management of the Agency’s monitoring activities.
Monitoring strategies will be prepared and subsequently
updated as needed. The strategies, including existing strategies,
should be evaluated annually by the program offices and updated
as needed so that the program offices may use them in preparing
their budgets. Drafts of new strategies or copies of existing
strategies should be submitted to the Deputy Administrator (DA) by
April 4. Following the submissions, the Assistant Administrators
shall brief the DA on their monitoring strategies, including the
use of the data, benefits of the data, and coordination with
other programs and States and local agencies and other Federal
agencies. The goal is to have complete and up—to—date strategies
submitted by the Assistant Administrators by May 25 of each
year.
Completing a new strategy or substantially revising an
existing strategy may not be achievable by April and May of 1984.
Most strategies will generally require considerable intra—EPA
coordination among program offices and enforcement, research,
and Regional Offices. Also coordination with the States, local
agencies, and other Federal agencies will usually be necessary.
Therefore, for the April and May 1984 dates, a program office
should at least complete an interim document that provides the
Administrator and Deputy Administrator with a description of the
approach the program is taking to monitoring. The description
should include the program’s data needs, how the program will
use the data in programmatic decisions, the approach to collecting
the data, and the resource implications. Because not all aspects
of the monitoring strategy may be completed, milestones for
completing the full strategy, including adequate coordination,
should be included. The milestones for completing a strategy
should not extend beyond May 1985.
The final strategies, and interim documents to the extent
possible, as a minimum should contain the elements listed below.
Because every program’s monitoring strategy will be reviewed by
other programs, each program should try to adhere to the outline
as closely as possible.
-------
11—12
Outline for Monitoring Strategies
• Describe the goals and objectives of the monitoring program
and identify the program’s data needs (specify priorities).
• Describe the extent to which these needs are now being met.
• Outline the plan for program’s monitoring to meet these needs.
• Describe how design, sample handling, chemical analysis, data
analysis and data processing will be carried out to assure
(1) representativeness and (2) quantification of overall
error bounds.
• Describe linkages with other programs, including monitoring
programs, criteria and standards and risk assessment; describe
linkages with other Federal agencies.
• Identify technical barriers, issues, and opportunities.
• Clarify the respective responsibilities of various Headquarters
offices, the Regions, and State and local programs.
• Identify data processing and data analysis tasks.
• Provide a schedule for implementation.
• In an appendix, describe costs and other relevant resource
issues.
— Evaluate alternative strategies under varying levels of
resources.
-------
11—13
.V ,SH NGTC J D C 2 -6Z
* I •)
jfd .i.b
U TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL ROTECT ON AE C’
Assistant Administrators
General Counsel
Inspector General
Associate Administrators
Regional Administrators
Staff Office Directors
Al vi n L. Al m
Deputy Administrator
SUBJECT: Guidance for Preparing Environmental Monitoring
Strategies
This memorandum provides guidance for preparing the
monitoring strategies called for in the Environmental Monitoring
Policy which I recently issued. The Office bf Air and Radiation,
Office of Water, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, and Office of Research
and Development each will develop monitoring strategies. Draft
strategies are due April 4, 1984; final strategies are due
May 25, 1984.
The development of these strategies is an important step
in ensuring that the Agency moves closer to the goals of the
Policy —— conducting and managing monitoring activities so
that programs:
1. Meet the full range of current and future Agency needs
for en 7ironluental data.
2. Ensure monitoring is tec ica11y and scientifically
sound.
3. Ensure environmental monitoring data are managed to
facilitate both access and appropriate use in Agency
decision making.
4. Ensure effective and coordinated Agency—wide processes
for planning and execution of monitoring activities.
5 . Ensure that roles and responsibilities are clear in
regard to monitoring management and implementation by
EPA and State officials.
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
-------
11—14
The strategies will give us, for the first time, a comprehensive
understanding of our needs for environmental information, the
activities now under way and planned to meet those needs, and
the interrelationships between programs’ monitoring efforts.
They will also give us the capability to more effectively
plan for and manage monitoring activities across the Agency
and to shift resources where necessary.
I recognize that, where programs are developing new moni-
toring strategies or substantially revising an existing strategy,
it may not be possible to prepare the complete strategy by May
of 1984, especially where strategies will require considerable
coordination within EPA and with the States, local agencies,
and other Federal agencies. Therefore, for the May 1984 dead-
line, a program office does not need to have final strategies
for those new and substantially revised monitoring activities.
Each program, though, should at least complete an interim
document for those areas which provides a description of the
approach the program is taking to monitoring. The description
should include the program’s data needs, how the program will
use the data in programmatic decisions, the approach to collecting
the data, current gaps that exist , and the resource implications
of implementing the strategy. For those aspects of the monitoring
strategy that are not completed, milestones for completing the
strategy, including adequate coordination, must be included.
No milestones for completing a strategy should extend beyond
May 1985.
I have been pleased with the progress made by the Monitor-
ing Task Force to date and look forward to the individual
program monitoring strategies.
Attachment
-------
GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING ENVIRONMENTAL
MONITORING STRATEGIES
INTRODUCTION
This document is the companion piece to the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Monitoring Policy Statement and provides
guidance to the program offices for preparing environmental
monitoring strategies. Programs’ draft strategies are due
April 4, 1984; final strategies are due May 25, 1984.
PURPOSE OF STRATEGIES
Systematic and well thought out environmental monitoring that
meets the Environmental Protection Agency’s needs for a wide range
of information is essential for the overall credibility of the
Agency l s programs.
The Monitoring Policy specifies that each line program
(Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Water, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, and Office of Research and Development) will develop
program monitoring strategies. Having written monitoring
strategies for each program that address similar aspects of
monitoring should give managers and staff throughout the Agency
a better understanding of the many environmental monitoring
efforts under way. It should also improve coordination of moni-
toring activities between programs, between Headquarters and the
Regions, and between EPA and State and local agencies conducting
environmental monitoring. Finally, preparing monitoring strategies
will also be a way to identify where monitoring that is needed
is not under way, problems with monitoring that need improvement,
and activities that are duplicative of other programs’ efforts
or that are not effective and need to be corrected.
APOACH
This guidance follows the outline for monitoring strategies
included as an attachment to the Monitoring Policy. Each program’s
monitoring strategy should:
• define the full range of its environmental data needs,
• outline how those needs are being and will be met,
• identify problem areas and present specific actions
that will be taken to address them, and
• provide schedules for achieving key interim and final
monitoring milestones.
In preparing its strategy, each program office should consider
each point of the Policy Statement to ensure that the strategy
is consistent with the Policy. Specifically the goals and objec-
tives for Agency monitoring activities stated in the Policy are
to:
1. Meet the full range of current and future Agency needs
for environmental data.
-------
11—16
2. Ensure monitoring is technically and scientifically
sound.
3. Ensure environmental monitoring data are managed to
facilitate both access and appropriate use in Agency
decision making.
4. Ensure effective and coordinated Agency—wide processes
for planning and execution of monitoring activities.
5. Ensure that roles and responsibilities are clear in
regard to monitoring management and implementation by
EPA and State officials.
More than one strategy may be necessary for some offices.
For example, a program might choose to develop one strategy to
deal with compliance monitoring and data reported by sources and
another strategy to deal with ambient and other types of moni-
toring. Also, some programs may already have existing strategies
that fulfill most or all of the elements of a strategy as specified
by the Policy. If so, programs may use existing strategies and
supplement them as needed. Because many offices will be reviewing
the strategies to ensure coordination, the strategies or supple-
mental material should adhere to the outline as closely as possible.
The strategies should be succinct, with the length of each
strategy not expected to exceed 50 pages.
This guidance is not intended to be comprehensive for every
aspect of a strategy, nor is it intended to inhibit a program
office’s creativity in preparing its strategy. Furthermore, not
all elements of a strategy outlined in the guidance will be
equally applicable to all monitoring activities. For example,
some programs require much more coordination with States than
other programs. Therefore, programs should try to cover the
items in the guidance but should not be constrained to those
items.
CONTENT OF STRATEGIES
SECTION 1: PROGRAM’S MONITORING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION NEEDS
A clear statement of the program’s monitoring goals, objec-
tives and environmental information needs, including both narrow
operational and broader long—term needs, is perhaps the most
important section of the strategy. This section should answer
why such information is needed, what questions are to be answered,
what decisions will be based on the monitoring information, and
what the relative priorities of these needs are.
Some statutes mandate certain monitoring, or specify
activities that require monitoring, in order to carry out the
activities. These legislated activities and related monitoring
requirements should be identified in this section of the strategy.
-------
11—17
In preparing this section of their strategies, programs
should refer to the information needs that are listed in the
Monitoring Policy. Examples of questions that a program should
consider when developing its strategy are:
A. What Data Will the Program Collect to Make Assessments
of Status, Trends, and Emerging Problems ?
• For which chemicals, class of chemicals, or other
parameters will national, Regional, State and local
environmental baselines and measurement of trends
be established? Some baselines and trends may have
already been established by existing monitoring
networks or programs, and these should be identified
in the monitoring strategy.
• For which populations or species will monitoring data
be collected to allow exposure and risks to be assessed?
What environmental damage, such as corrosion and/or
impairment of aesthetics, will be assessed?
• For what types of problems and for which chemicals or
class of chemicals will monitoring be done to detect
emerging problems?
B. What Monitoring Will the Program Do to Support Operational
Needs ?
• What rulemaking, including the chemicals, class of
chemicals or industrial processes, will be supported
by monitoring?
• For which sources or classes of sources is compliance
to be determined? What are the relative priorities
of these sources for compliance monitoring?
• For which ambient standards will compliance be
determi ned?
• What is the anticipated level of enforcement monitoring
that will be required?
• What specific control activities will be monitored to
evaluate program effectiveness? In what terms will
effectiveness be measured (e.g., environmental quality,
exposure, and/or risk)?
C. What Research is Planned for Developing New or Improving
Existing Monitoring Methods Such as Instrumentation,
Network Design, Sample Collection and/or Analysis ?
This list of questions is not intended to be an exhaustive
list or apply equally to all programs. However, programs should
define their monitoring data needs as precisely as possible.
-------
11—18
Also, because some data often can be used for more than one
purpose, programs may want to display their needs in a table or
ma trix.
SECTION 2: DESCRIBE THE EXTENT TO WHICH NEEDS ARE NOW BEING MET
This section of the strategy should describe the existing
networks and/or other monitoring efforts. In addition, the strategy
should describe which environmental information needs identified
in Section 1 are being fulfilled by the current monitoring efforts
and how they are being met.
This section should identify each monitoring program or
individual project and describe for each:
1. the goals and objectives
2. the data needs that are being satisfied or will be
sa t isf ied.
This section also should identify the additional monitoring
needed, beyond that which currently is conducted, to fulfill the
environmental information needs identified in Section 1 of the
strategy. This additional monitoring should be described in
terms of the type and extent of the networks and/or other projects
or special studies, or the source oriented monitoring efforts
that are needed.
Limitations exist with any monitoring system; not all
environmental information needs can be met by any one given
monitoring effort. These limitations should be discussed. For
example, if the network or monitoring system design is stratified
to develop a national baseline but not to target on potential
hot spots or localized concentrations, or if monitoring is for
hot spots or priority areas and not for an overall baseline,
this should be made clear. If exposure to pesticides is being
monitored by an adipose network, it should be made clear what
pesticides can be detected using that network and how or whether
the program plans to track pesticides that would not show up
using that method (e.g., plans to analyze for metabolites in
body fluids).
SECTION 3: OUTLINE THE PROGRAM’S PLAN FOR MONITORING TO MEET
THESE NEEDS
This section should clearly identify the program’s priorities
for the current and proposed monitoring activities described
above. (Provide the relative priority and approximate costs of
each program in terms of personnel and contract dollars.)
Programs should indicate priorities in two ways: (1) assuming
existing approved levels of program resources, including transfers
of resources into or out of monitoring activities; and (2) assuming
some additional resources. The strategies should clearly indicate
alternatives regarding allocation of resources to monitoring.
-------
11—19
The quality assurance project plans that are required and
their status should be referenced. For each monitoring effort,
the title and date of issuance of completed quality assurance
project plans should be included. If quality assurance plans
have not been prepared, the schedule for completion of the project
plans should be included.
SECTION 4: DESCRIBE HOW DESIGN, SAMPLING HANDLING, CHEMICAL
ANALYSIS, DATA ANALYSIS AND DATA PROCESSING WILL BE CARRIED
OUT TO ASSURE (1) REPRESENTATIVENESS AND (2) QUANTIFICATION
OF OVERALL ERROR BOUNDS
The strategy should include sufficient detail about how
the monitoring will be conducted to give the reader a clear
understanding of the data that will be produced by the effort.
It is important that the representativeness and the confidence
one can expect in the data be as clear as possible.
SFCTION 5: DESCRIBE LINKAGES WITH OTHER PROGRAMS, INCLUDING
MONITOPING PROGRAMS, CRITERIA AND STANDARDS, RISK ASSESSMENT
AND ENFORCEMENT; DESCRIBE LINKAGES WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
There are several areas where improved coordination would
be very beneficial. Some linkages may have already been established
between or among monitoring programs and need only be described
in the strategy. Other coordination efforts need to be developed
and clarified. The strategies should address the areas that
generally need better coordination and provide specific plans
for improving coordination. The areas to be covered are:
• Intra—Prograrn Coordination . Monitoring activities within
programs that potentially should be better coordinated
include a program’s monitoring to support criteria and
standards, risk assessment and enforcement activities
within a program or across programs.
• Inter—Program Coordination . Perhaps the greatest short—
term opportunities for improved coordination are inter—program
monitoring of ground water contaminants by the Drinking
Water, RCRA, and Superfund programs, and coordination of
toxic air pollutant monitoring and data reporting among
the Air, RCRA, and Superfund programs.
• Coordination amor g Federal agencies . Some legislation is
very specific about establishing coordination among different
Federal agencies. The Clean Water Act and Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act state this clearly.
Other legislation, while not as specific, also requires
coordination, such as between Superfund and the Centers
for Disease Control. In general, Federal monitoring is
not well coordinated despite significant potential benefits.
-------
11—20
o Research and Development Support . Each program office will
need to identify the research support it will need from
ORD. ORD should address analytical methods development,
development and distribution of quality control samples,
development of standard reference materials through the
National Bureau of Standards, development of anticipatory
monitoring networks, and monitoring for developing models
as well as other areas.
o Technical assistance to the States . What technical assis—
tance is needed by the States in order to help ensure that
programs can be carried out?
— Lab support for the more difficult samples
— Training
— Quality control assistance
o EPA Regional labs and field support . What lab and field
support do the Regions need to provide to carry out the
monitoring objectives? This support should be stated
specifically enough to be used in planning equipment
purchases and staffing.
o Contract support . The contract support that is planned
to support monitoring should be described, including the
provisions for ensuring the quality control of the data.
SECTION 6: IDENTIFY TECHNICAL BARRIERS, ISSUES, AND OPPORTUNITIES
Many monitoring efforts can be envisioned that can not be
readily implemented due to lack of appropriate analytical pro-
cedures or other technical limitations. Also, opportunities may
exist for collecting data more directly related to a program’s
needs by developing or incorporating new techniques.
This section should clearly identify any barriers, issues,
and opportunities so that they can be dealt with as systematically
as possible.
SECTION 7: CLARIFY THE RESPECTIVE RESPONSIBILITIES OF VARIOUS
HEADQUARTERS OFFICES, THE REGIONS, AND STATE AND INCLUDING
LOCAL PROGRAMS
It will become increasingly important to clarify the respective
roles and responsibilities of EPA Headquarters, Regional Offices,
and State and local agencies. This will be particularly important
for State and local agencies, since many States and communities
have multiple agencies responsible for EPA monitoring, which can
further complicate coordination.
-------
11—21
SECTION 8: IDENTIFY DATA PROCESSING AND DATA ANALYSIS TASKS
In order to ensure that the monitoring data collected are
used most effectively, programs should develop a strategy for
using environmental data and explain how data will be stored
and made accessible to users, and how such data will ultimately
irifluenceprogram management.
• Programs should describe existing and planned storage
systems for environmental data, including current
problems.
— What system will be used to store data from each
monitoring activity or network?
— Who will input the data and how often will this be
done?
— What problems have there been?
• Programs should describe current and needed data processing
and data analysis capability.
— What types of analyses are and will be conducted with
the data? Who will carry out the analyses and how often?
— How will data be made accessible and to whom?
— How compatible are systems within a program? With the
systems of other programs?
• Programs should explain how the data supports program
management.
— How will the results of analyses be used?
— What types of reports will result from the analyses?
For whom are they prepared?
• Where programs have identified potential and existing
multiprogram use of monitoring data, the strategy
should describe how data storage, retrieval, and analysis
will be coordinated to support multiprogram application.
SECTION 9: PROVIDE A SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The strategy should be written specifically enough so that
once Sections 1 through 4 have been completed, milestones can be
identified and included in the Strategy. Some of the milestones
may relate to developing networks, some to completing final products,
and some to assessing compliance of a certain class of sources.
Some of the final products may be more than a year in the future;
interim milestones should be included.
-------
11—22
APPENDIX: COST AND OTHER RELEVANT RESOURCE ISSUES
In order for infonitation to be available in development of
the FY 1986 Agency budget, programs should include in a separate
section (not for Agency—wide distribution) a more detailed presen-
tation of their resource needs. This section should elaborate
on the costs described in Section 2, and discuss costs of moni-
toring act ivities and relative priorities. Ideally, costs should
be described in terms of funding, positions, extramural funding,
and State grant funding. The costs should be iden.tified in terms
of planning, field efforts and sampling, laboratory support, data
handling, quality assurance, data analysis, and data interpretation.
(Guidance for this appendix needs to be developed with the
Ccxnptroller’s Office.)
-------
A GROUND—WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY
FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUGUST 1984
-------
11—24
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the last decade the public has grown increasingly aware
of the potential problem of ground—water contamination. Reports
of chemicals threatening drinking water supplies have mobilized
State, local and Federal governments to respond. But these
responses suffer from a lack of coordination among responsible
agencies, limited information about the health effects of exposure
to some contaminants, and a limited scientific foundation on which
to base policy decisions.
Officials at all levels of government have begun to look
for a definable strategy to protect ground water. The strategy
presented here will provide a common reference for responsible
institutions as they work toward the shared goal of preserving,
for current and future generations, clean ground water for drinking
and other uses, while protecting the public health of citizens
who may be exposed to the effects of past contamination.
EPA Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus recognized the
need to protect ground—water quality as a national concern.
In response, Deputy Administrator Alvin L. Alm formed a Ground-
Water Task Force to: (1) identify areas of serious inconsistencies
among programs and institutions at the State, local and Federal
levels; (2) assess the need for greater program coordination
within EPA; and (3) help strengthen States’ capabilities to
protect ground—water resources as they themselves define the
need. In line with EPA’s mission to preserve and enhance
environmental quality, this strategy document focuses on issues
of ground-water quality.
(Issues of water quantity and allocation are also important,
but they are outside the province of EPA. Many ground—water
quality •issues (for example, salt—water intrusion) are closely
related to issues of ground—water quantity and allocation.
States will have to approach such issues through integrated
policies; topics relating primarily to quantity and allocation
are not addressed in this document. With respect to EPA
activities the scope and intent of this document includes only
EPA’s statutory and regulatory authority.)
-------
11—25
The Task Force was composed of staff from each affected EPA
program Office and two EPA regions. The Office of Water chaired
the group. Beginning work in June 1983, the Task Force delivered
a draft report to the Deputy Administrator on September 1, 1983.
He sought the views of senior Agency policy—makers by meeting
with the involved Assistant Administrators and their key
staff on many occasions to discuss the report and its implications.
As options began to narrow, this senior policy group requested
additional analyses from the Task Force, consulting with Regional
Administrators as it proceeded. At length, after concerted debate
and broad—scale Agency involvement, the main policy elements for
an EPA Ground—Water Protection Strategy emerged. Draft conclusions
were discussed with Congressional staff, State organizations,
and environmental and industry organizations.
A draft strategy resulting from that decision process
was then distributed to State officials and to select State,
business and industry, and environmental organizations for
comment. Approximately 150 organizations submitted comments.
After receiving comments trom these interested parties, EPA
revised the draft strategy for final consideration by the
Deputy Administrator and Assistant Administrators. This
final Ground—Water Protection Strategy is the product of that
deliberation process.
A Perspective on Ground Water
In the 1970’s, national environmental concern focused mainly on
natural resources and pollutants we could see or smell. Surface
water and air quality, specific types of contaminants such as
pesticides, or obvious sources of contamination such as uncon-
trolled hazardous waste sites, were of primary concern. People
concerned themselves only rarely with ground water since, hidden
from view as it is, few knew or really understood how seriously
the resource was being compromised.
Today, ground—water contamination looms as a major environ-
mental issue of the 1980’s. The attention of agencies at all
levels of government, as well as that of industry and environmenta-
lists, is now focused on this vital resource. As contamination
has appeared in well water and wells have been closed, the public
has expressed growing concern about the health implications of
inappropriate use and disposal of chemicals. As concern has
increased, so have demands for expanded protection of the resource.
Our understanding of the sources and dimension of the threat
is limited, but increasing. Scientists can now measure specific
-------
11—26
organic chemicals at the parts—per-billion or -trillion levels.
As new health studies are completed and as we learn more about
various sources of ground—water contamination, our capacity to
deal with this problem increases. Scientists and engineers have
also learned more about how contaminants move in the subsurface
—— which ones bind to soils and which ones pass through to the
water table beneath. They are now identifying technologies to
prevent, control, and clean up ground—water contamination.
Major Authorities and Responsibilities
The Task Force reviewed EPA’S statutory authority as it
relates to ground water and examined the current scope and extent
of State programs as well. While the nature and variability of
ground water makes its management the primary responsibility of
States, the Task Force found that a number of Federal authorities
exist to support States in the effort.
Since these Federal statutes were enacted at various times for
separate purposes, inconsistency developed in EPA’S regulations
and in the decisions made under them. While these differences
are often necessary and reasonable, there are a number that appear
to hinder a cohesive approach to ground—water protection. Improving
harmony among EPA’S program rules affecting ground—water protection
is an important need, since inconsistency in such matters leads
to confusion and less effective protection than if roles, require-
ments, and responsibilities are clear and consistent.
In addition to its own authorities, EPA found a variety of
powerful State and local statutes available for use. A number
of States have begun their own programs for ground—water protec-
tion, some built on permits supported by a system of aquifer
classification. Continuing the development of State programs in
this area is vital, as they have the basic responsibility for the
protection of the ground—water resource.
Strategic Concerns
Given public concerns, EPA, as well as State and local govern-
mental agencies, must decide how best to protect public health
and critical environmental systems. It seems clear to many that
we must direct our energies to minimize future contamination,
even as we detect and manage contamination associated with past
activities.
Protecting ground water will be difficult. Starting with
limited knowledge of the resource and limited means to address
existing or potential problems, we must expend our efforts where
-------
11—27
groundwater contamination would cause the greatest harm.
Consequently, we assign highest priority to those ground waters
that are currently used as sources of drinking water or that
feed and replenish unique ecosystems.
Ground—water protection is a very complex and difficult issue.
It will require sustained effort at all levels of government over
a long period of time before this resource will be adequately
protected. Within this context, EPA developed its Ground—Water
Protection Strategy.
EPA ’s Ground—Water Protection Strategy
The EPA Strategy includes four major components that address
critical needs. They are:
— Short—term build—up of institutions at the State level;
— Assessing the problems that may exist from unaddressed
sources of Contamination——in particular, leaking
storage tanks, surface impoundments, and landfills;
— Issuing guidelines for EPA decisions attecting ground-
water protection and cleanup; and
— Strengthening EPA’s organization for ground—water manage-
ment at the Headquarters and Regional levels, and
strengthening EPA’S cooperation with Federal and State
agencies.
These components, described in detail in Chapter IV, are
summarized below.
EPA will provide support to States for program development
and institution building . EPA will encourage States to make use
of certain existing grant programs to develop ground—water
protection programs and strategies. These funds will support
necessary program development and planning, the creation of needed
data systems, assessment of legal and institutional impediments to
comprehensive State management, and the development of State
regulatory programs such as permitting and classification. Regional
Administrators will work with Governors so that funds are directed
to the State agency or programs with the most complete authority and
capability to undertake or continue statewide program or strategy
development. EPA will also provide State agencies with technical
assistance in solving ground—water problems and will continue to
support a strong research program in ground water.
-------
11—28
EPA will address contamination from underground storage
tanks . Because the evidence suggests that leaking storage tanks——
particulary from gasoline——may represent a major, unaddressed
source of ground—water contamination, the Deputy Administrator
has directed the Office of Toxic Substances to design a study to
identify the nature, extent, and severity of the problem. EPA is
investigating the application of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA), as well as other authorities, as a potential legal
basis for applying appropriate requirements on design and operation
of these tanks. In the meantime, the Agency will issue chemical
advisories to alert owners and operators about the problem and
work with States and industry to develop voluntary steps to reduce
Contamination. EPA is also planning direct regulation of underground
storage of hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)S
EPA will study the need for further regulation of land
disposal facilities, including surface impoundments and landfills.
EPA, in cooperation with the States, will conduct studies of
impoundments and landfills as to the degree of danger they present,
set priorities for control, review the regulatory options avail-
able, and determine if additional Federal controls are needed.
EPA will adopt guidelines for consistency in its ground—water
protection programs . The guidelines will be based on the policy
that ground—water protection should consider the highest beneficial
use to which ground water having significant water resources value
can presently or potentially be put. Under this policy, the
guidelines define protection policies for three classes of ground
water, based on their respective value and their vulnerability to
Contamination. These guidelines are intended to provide a frame-
work for the decisions that EPA and States will have to make in
implementing EPA programs. The guidelines will be used by EPA
and the States to make decisions on levels of protection and
cleanup under existing regulations, to guide future regulations,
and to establish enforcement priorities for the future. (These
regulations will then provide the legal basis for the implementa-
tion of the guidelines. It is not intended that any substantive
or procedural rights are provided by this Strategy.)
The classes of ground water are as follows:
Class I: Special Ground Waters are those that are highly
vulnerable to contamination because of the hydrological
characteristics of the areas under which they occur and
that are also characterized by either of the following
two factors:
a) Irreplaceable, in that no reasonable alternative
source of drinking water is available to substantial
populations; or
-------
11—29
b) Ecologically vital, in that the aquifer provides the
base flow for a particularly sensitive ecological
system that, if polluted, would destroy a unique
habitat.
Class II: Current and Potential Sources of Drinking Water
and Waters Having Other Beneficial Uses are all other
ground waters that are currently used or are potentially
available for drinking water or other beneficial use.
Class III: Ground Waters Not Considered Potential Sources
of Drinking Water and of Limited Beneficial Use are
ground waters that are heavily saline, with Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS) levels over 10,000 mg/L), or are otherwise
contaminated beyond levels that allow cleanup using
methods reasonably employed in public water system treat-
ment. These ground waters also must not migrate to
Class I or II ground waters or have a discharge to surface
water that could cause degradation.
EPA will accord different levels of protection to each class
as described in the examples below. Chapter IV describes in
more detail the regulatory approaches EPA will take to protect
these ground—water classes under each statute.
To prevent contamination of Class I ground waters EPA
will initially discourage by guidance, and eventually ban by
regulation, the siting of new hazardous waste land disposal
facilities over Special Ground Waters. Some restrictions may
also be applied to existing land disposal facilities. Further,
Agency policy will be directed toward restricting or banning
the use in these areas of those pesticides which are known to
leach through soils and are a particular problem in ground water.
EPA ’s general policy for cleanup of contamination will be the
most stringent in these areas, involving cleanup to background
or drinking water levels.
Ground waters that are current and potential sources of
drinking water (Class II) will receive levels of protection
consistent with those now provided for ground water under
EPA’s existing regulations. In addition, where ground waters
are vulnerable to contamination and used as a current source of
drinking water, EPA may ban the siting of new hazardous waste
land disposal facilities, initially through guidance, and later
through regulation. While EPA’s cleanup policy will assure
drinking water quality or levels that protect human health,
exemptions will be available to allow a less stringent level
under certain circumstances when protection of human health and
the environment can be demonstrated. EPA may establish some
-------
11—30
differehces in cleanup depending on whether the ground water is
used as a current or potential source of drinking water or for
other beneficial purposes.
Ground waters that are not considered potential sources
of drinking water and have limited beneficial use (Class III)
will receive less protection than Class I or II. Technology
standards for hazardous waste facilities generally would be
the same as for Class I and Class II. With respect to cleanup,
should the hazardous waste facility leak, waivers establishing
less stringent concentration limits would be considered on a
case—by—case basis. Waivers would not be available, however,
when a facility caused the contamination that precluded future
use. EPA’S Superfund program will not focus its activities
on protecting or improving ground water that has no potential
impact on human health and the environment.
To improve the consistency and effectiveness of EPA ’s
current ground—water programs, the guidelines will be incorporated
into each of the Agency’s relevant program areas. Many of these
programs are delegated to the States, and for most programs,
States must demonstrate that their programs are “no less stringent”
than the Federal program in order to qualify for authorization to
implement the programs. However, in implementing these guidelines
EPA will provide as much flexibility to the States as is possible
under state delegation agreements.
Consequently, EPA will to the extent possible keep regulatory
requirements based on EPA’S ground—water protection guidelines
general and performance—oriented. EPA will, in addition, develop
guidance to accompany such regulations for use by EPA when EPA
directly administers a program in a State (e.g., implementation
in a non—delegated State or implementation of a program which
cannot be delegated). Such accompanying guidance would not be
binding on the States, but it could also be used by the States
to assist them in developing their own regulatory requirements
or guidelines. This guidance will, for example, define more
precisely the meaning of the terms used in the Strategy, such
as “vulnerable and unique habitat”.
The task of actually determining whether the ground water in
a particular location fits the criteria for Class I, II, or III
will be a site—specific determination. In programs involving
permits, such as RCRA and Underground Injection Control (UIC),
for example, this determination will be made during the permitting
process based on data supplied by the permit applicant. In
cleanup actions under Comprehensive Environmental Response Com-
pensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the ground—water class will
-------
11—31
be determined in conjunction with the assessment of the extent
of contamination. Where States have already mapped or designated
ground water for that location, the State classification of the
ground water will provide useful guidance.
EPA will improve its own institutional capability to pro-
tect ground water . EPA has assigned ground—water coordination
and development responsibilities to the Assistant Administrator
for Water and he has established an office of Ground—Water
protection to oversee the implementation of this Strategy. The
Director of that Office has already started to work with other
EPA offices and Regions to institutionalize EPA and State ground-
water roles, plan for correction of uncontrolled sources of
contamination, identity and resolve inconsistencies among EPA
programs, and learn more about the nature and extent of ground-
water contamination.
EPA Regional offices are also in the process of establishing
Regional ground—water units. They will coordinate Regional
ground—water policy and program development and assist the
States through grants and technical assistance designed to increase
their institutional capabilities to manage ground water.
EPA will carry out this Strategy in partnership with other
Federal agencies, especially the Department of Interior (DOl),
to insure that the Strategy is implemented as effectively as
possible.
The body of this report contains three chapters and an
Appendix. Chapter II describes the nature and extent of ground-
water contamination. Chapter III describes State and Federal
programs for ground—water protection. Chapter IV describes EPA’s
strategy to protect ground water. The appendices include a
matrix describing State, local, and Federal roles and a summary
of the options considered by EPA in developing this Strategy.
* * * * * * *
-------
III. FEDERAL GROUND-WATER MONITORING ACTIVITIES
• Summary of Federal Ground-Water Monitoring
Provisions and Objectives
• Summary of EPA Ground-Water Monitoring
Programs
• Description of EPA Ground-Water Monitoring
Task Force
• Report on U.S.G.S. Federal-State Cooperative
Water Resources Program
-------
Of fice of Technology Assessment Summary of Federal Groundwater Monitoring Provisions and Objectives
Statutory authority
Atomic Energy Act
Clean Waler Act
—Sections 201 and 405
—Section 208
Coastal Zone Management Act
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act—
Section 3
Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (and
Associated Mining Laws)
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline
Safety Act
Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act
National Environmental
Policy Act
Reclamation Act
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
Monitoring provisionsa
Groundwater monitoring is specified in Federal regulations for low-level radioactive
waste disposal sites. The facility license must specify the monitoring requirements
for the source. The monitoring program must include:
—Pre.operationat monitoring program conducted over a 12-month period. Param-
eters not specified.
—Monitoring during construction and operation to provide early warning of releases
ot radionucludes from the site. Parameters and sampling frequencies not
specified.
—Post-operational monitoring program to provide early warning of releases of radio-
nuclides from the site. Parameters and sampling trequencies not specified.
System design is based on operating history, closure, and stabilization of the site.
Groundwater monitoring related to the development of geologic repositories wilt be
conducted. Measurements will inctude the rate and location of water inflow into
subsurface areas and changes in groundwater conditions.
Groundwater monitoring may be conducted by DOE, as necessary, part of remedial
action programs at storage and disposal facilities for radioactive substances.
Groundwater monitoring requirements are established on a case-by-case basis for the
land application of wastewater and sludge from sewage treatment plants.
No explicit requirements are established; however, groundwater monitoring studies
are being conducted by SCS under the Rural Clean Water Program to evaluate the
impacts 01 agricultural practices and to design and determine the effectiveness
of Best Management Practices.
The statute does not authorize development of regulations for sources. Thus, any
groundwater monitoring conducted would be the result of requirements established
by a Stale plan (e.g., monitoring With respect to salt-water intrusion) authorized and
funded by CZMA.
Groundwater monitoring may be conducted by EPA (or a State) as necessary to
respond to releases of any hazardous substance, contaminant, or pollutant (as
defined by CERCLA).
No monitoring requirements established for pesticide users. However, monitorin9 may
be conducted by EPA in instances where certain pesticides are contaminating
groundwater.b
Groundwater monitoring is specified in Federal regulations for geothermal recovery
operations on Federal lands for a period of at least one year prior to production.
Parameters and monitoring frequency are not specified.
Explicit groundwater monitoring requirements for mineral operations on Federal lands
are not established in Federal regulations. Monitoring may be required (as a permit
condition) by BLM.
Although the Statute authorizes development of regulations for certain pipelines for
public safety purposes, the regulatory requirements focus on design and operation
and do not provide for groundwater monitoring.
Although the statute authorizes development of regulations for transportation for
public safety purposes, the regulatory requirements focus on design and operation
and do not provide br groundwater monitoring.
The statute does not authorize development of regulations for sources.
No explicit requirements established; however, monitoring may be conducted, as
necessary, as part of waler supply development projects.
Groundwater monitoring is specified in Federal regulations for all hazardous waste
land disposal facilities (e.g., landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, and
land treatment units).
Monitoring objectives
To obtain background water quality data and to evaluate
whether groundwater is being contaminated.
To confirm geotechnical and design parameters and to
ensure that the design of the geologic repository
accommodates actual field conditions.
To characterize a contamination problem and to select and
evaluate the effectiveness of corrective measures.
To evaluate whether groundwater is being contaminated.
To characterize a contamination problem and to select and
evaluate the effectiveness of corrective measures.
To characterize a contamination problem (e.g., to assess
the Impacts of the situation, to identify or verify the
source(s), and to select and evaluate the effectiveness of
corrective measures).
To characterize a contamination problem.
To obtain background water quality data.
-------
Office of Technology Assessment Summary of Federal Groundwater Monitoring Provisions and Objectiv
Statutory authority — — Monitoring provisionsa _____ ______ ______________
Resource Conservation and Interim Status monitoring requirements must be met until a final permit is issued.
Recovery Act (cont’d) These requirements specify the installation of at least one upgradienf well and
—Subtitle C three downgradienf wells. Samples must be taken quarterly during the first year and
analyzed for the National Interim Drinking Wafer Regulations, wafer quality indicator
parameters (chloride, iron, manganese, phenols, sodium, and sulfate), and indicator
parameters (pt-f, specific conductance, TOt and TOX). In subsequent years,
each well is sampled and analyzed quarterly for the six background water quality
indicator parameters and semiannually for the tour indicator parameters.
Groundwater monitoring requirements can be waived by an owner/operator if a
written determination indicating that there is low potential for waste migration via
the uppermost aquifer to water supply wells or surface water is made and certified
by a qualified geologist or engineer. The determination is not submitted to EPA
for verification or approval.
The monitoring requirements for a fully permitted facility are comprised of a three-part
program:
—Detection Monitoring — Implemented when a permif is issued and there is no
indication of leakage from a facility. Parameters are specified in the permit.
Samples must be taken and analyzed at least semiannually. Exemptions from
detection monitoring program may be granted by the regulatory authority
for landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles with double liners and
leak detection systems.
—Compliance Monitoring — Implemented when groundwater contamination is
detected. Monitoring is conducted to determine whether specified concentration
levels for certain parameters are being exceeded (levels are based on background
concentrations, maximum contaminant levels specified by the National Drinking
Water Regulations (if higher than background), or an alternative concentration
limit (established on a site-specific basis)). Samples must be taken and analyzed
at least quarterly for parameters specified in the permit. Samples must also
be analyzed for a specific list of 375 hazardous constituents (Appendix VIII,
40 CFR 261) at least annually.
—Corrective Action Monitoring — Implemented If compliance monitoring indicates
that specitied concentration levels for specitied parameters are being exceeded
(and corrective measures are required). Monitoring must continue until specitied
concentration levels are met. Parameters and monitoring frequency not specified.
—Exemption Irom groundwater monitoring requirements may be granted by the
regulatory authority if there is no potential for migrafion of liquid to the
uppermost aquifer during the active life and closure and poslclosure periods.
Groundwater monitoring may be required by State Solid waste programs. Federal
requirments for Stale programs recommend the establishment of monitoring
requirements.
Groundwater monitoring requirements may be specified in a facility permit for
inleclion wells used for insitu or solufion mining of minerals (Class Ill wells) where
inleclion is into a formation containing less than 10,000 mg/I TDS. Parameters and
monitoring frequency not specified except in areas sublect to subsidence or
collapse where monitoring is required on a quarterly basis.
Groundwater monitoring may also be specified in a permit for wells which inlect
beneath the deepest underground source of drinking water (Class I wells).
Parameters and moniloring frequency not specified in Federal regulations
Monitoring objectives _________
To obtain background water quality data and evaluate
whether groundwater is being contaminated.
To obtain background water quatity data or evaluate
whether groundwater is being contaminated (detection
monitoring), to determine whether groundwater quality
standards are beIng met (compliance monitoring), and to
evaluate Ihe effectiveness of corrective action measures.
To evaluate whether groundwater is being contaminated.
f —i
H
H
—Subtitle D
Sate Drinking Water Act
—Part C— Underground
Injection Control Program
-------
Office of Technology Assessment Summary of Federal Groundwater Monitoring Provisions and Objectives
Statutory authority
Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act
Toxic Substance Control Act
—Section 6
Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act
Water Research and
Development Act
___________________ Monitoring provisions ______
Groundwater monitoring is specified in Federal regulations for surface and under
ground coal mining operations to determine the impacts on the hydrologic balance
of the mining and adjacent areas. A groundwater monitoring plan must be
developed for each mining operation (including reclamation). At a minimum,
parameters must include total dissolved solids or specific conductance, pH, total
iron, and total manganese. Samples must be taken and analyzed on a quarterly
basis.
Monitoring of a particular water-bearing stratum may be waived by the regulatory
authority if it can be demonstrated that it is not a stratum which serves as an
aquifer that significantly ensures the hydrologic balance of the cumulative
impact area.
Groundwater monitoring specified in Federal regulations requires monitoring prior to
commencement of disposal operations for PCBs. Only three wells are required if
underlying earth materials are homogenous, impermeable and uniformly sloping in
one direction. Parameters include (at a minimum) PCHs, pt-f, specitic conductance,
and chlorinated organics. Monitoring frequency not specified.
No requirements are established for active life or after closure.
Federal regulatory requirements for active mill tailings sites are, tor the most part, the
same as those established under Subtitle C of RCRA.C
Groundwater monitoring for inactive sites may be conducted it necessary to deter-
mine the nature of the problem and for the selection of an appropriate remedial
action,
The statute does not authorize the development of regulations for sources,
Groundwater monitoring may be conducted as part of projecfs funded by the act.
Monitoring_objectives ________
To obtain background water quality data and evaluate
whether groundwater is being contaminated.
To obtain background wafer quality data.
To obtain background water quality data, evaluate whether
groundwater is being contaminated, determine whether
groundwater quality standards are being rriet, and
evaluate the effectiveness of corrective action measures.
To obtain background water quality data and to characterize
a contamination problem.
I- f
H
H
aThe monitoring provisions presented in this table are either those specified by regulations or exlsbng and new sources. or tot groundwater mon toriri(j that may be conducted as part ot an investigatory study or remedial
action program
bpestici e rrranutacturers may be required by EPA to submit groundwater monitoring data as pad ot the registration requirements lot a pesircide product to evaluate tire potential br a pesticide to contaminate groundwater.
CSe 0 app E.2 tot a summary of the ditterences between UMTACA and ACRA monitoring requirements.
SOUFICE’ Office ot Technology Assessment
-------
SUMMARY OF EPA GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAMS
SUBMITTED TO:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Drinking Water
Washington, D.C.
SUBMITTED BY:
Policy Planning and Evaluation, Inc.
McLean, VA
Contract Number 68-01—6827
-------
111—7
Four EPA offices, the Office of Drinking Water, the Office of
Pesticides, the Office of Emergency Response (Superfund), and the Office
of Solid Waste have significant direct or indirect involvement in
monitoring ground—water quality. The involvement of the Office of
Drinking Water results primarily from its mandate to protect drinking
water supplies, to establish drinking water standards, and to evaluate
system compliance. Recently reported contamination of ground—water by
pesticides in several areas has led to a change In its exposure
assessment program. The participation of the Offices of Solid Waste arid
Emergency Response results from the need to monitor Superfund sites and
hazardous waste and Subtitle D facilities. The prime Interest of the
Office of Toxic Subatances is in assessing exposure of people and the
environment to toxic chemicals. To date, ground—water monitoring by
this office is not of high priority. This chapter discusses the ground-
water monitoring programs of these EPA offices. The programs are also
summarized in Figure 1.
A. OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER (ODW )
1. Introduction
The Safe Drinking Water Act provides fort the safety of drinking
water supplies by the establishment of national drinking water quality
standards. Under the Act, EPA is responsible for establishing the
national standards and the states are responsible for enforcing them.
Major provisions of the Act include: the establishment of enforceable
primary regulations for the protection of health; non—enforceable
secondary regulations relating to taste, odor, and appearance of’
drinking water; and measures to protect underground drinking water
sources and variances and exemptions.
-------
FIGURE 1
SIJIf4ARy OF EPA’S GROUND-WATER M0NITo xNo PROGRAP
Monitoring QA/QC
Purpose of Point of Frequency of Contaminant.a Reaponsl Guid- Data Storag.
Progia. Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitored bility Coverage ance and Aooeas Remarks
1. DRIN INa WATER
S. Regulated Contaminants
• Microbiological 1 to 500 samples Micro- Quarterly samples
per month depend— biological for systems of lea.
ing on the system than 3,000 people.
size and source.
• Turbidity None Turbidity
H
H
H
• Inorganlos Analysis and saapl— Arsenic, Sampling and analysi
ing to be done barium, to be repeated every
every three years. cadmium, Original data three years.
Compliance Represen— Last done in 1983. chromium, reported to
with tative of lead, etc. States. Data
maximum the dia— Public for syate.s not
• Organic Chemicals contamin— tribution Analysis to be Certain water National Yes meeting an MCL Organoohiorine
Other than ?HMs ant levels system, done at the pesticides syste. reported to EPA pesticides and
(NCL.). discretion of and and stored in ohlorophenoxy acid
the State. herbicides FRDS. herbicides covered b
the regulation.
• Radioactivity Compliance based Gross Alpha Sampling and analysi
on quarterly and Beta; to be repeated every
samples. Analysis total radium; four years.
to be done every radium 226;
four years. strontium
89.90, etc.
e Trihalo,aethanes One to tour Trihalo— Regulations applioa-
samples per year. mathan.. ble to systems
serving more than
10,000 people.
(Continued)
-------
SUMMARY OF EPA’S GROUND—WATER MONITORING PROGRAMS (Continued)
Monitoring QA/QC
Purpose of Point of Frequency of Contaminants Responsi— Guid— Data Storage
Program Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitored bility Coverage ance and Access Remarks
1. DRINKING WATER
(Continued)
• National Inorganics
and Radionuclides
Survey
Monitoring
of ambient
quality of
underground
sources of
water. In
general,
monitoring
is required
only if
ground —
water is
or will be
used for
drinking
water
purposes.
Class I: deter-
mined by
the
Class II: state/
regional
di rec —
C a s V: tors.
Class III: semi-
monthly.
I t
Specified
One—time surveys. in the
surveys.
I
Operators
of Class
I, II, III,
and V
wells.
Sampled
water
systems.
Represen-
tative of
all water
systems
and
problems.
Regulations became
effective in May
198 1. Data to be
reported to States.
Class V monitoring
at the discretion of
the directors.
Survey completed
recently.
Survey in planning
stages (see Pesti-
cides Program).
b. Underground Injection
Control Program
c. Sole—Source Aquifer
Injection
fluids.
Depends on
the water
quality
problem
faced.
In accord-
ance with
spec if ic
sampling
plan for a
site or an
area.
Depends on
the water
quality
pies
faced.
Rep resenta—
tive of the
distribu—
t ion
system.
Depends on the
water quality
problem faced.
Program
d. Support for Standard
Setting
• Previous Surveysa
-- Yes Data submitted at
time of approval.
Primacy States may
have their own
requirements.
Federally —— Reported in EIS,
financ— or project
ially— application.
assisted
projects
that might
impact
recharge
area of
designated
aquifers.
To assess
danger to
public
health as
part of
ElS, or
md ividual
project
review.
Determine
whether a
standard
should be
set.
Jr
H
H
EPA assesses the
impact of a Federal
project on a sole—
source aquifer
through the NEPA
project, or
individual project
review.
Federal
agency
whose pro-
jects may
affect the
aquifer,
or project
applicant.
I
EPA/States
I
• Pesticides Survey
it
Data available
from the Office
of Drinking Water.
I
Yes
I
(Continued)
-------
SUPI4ARY OF EPA’S GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAMS (Continued)
Monitoring QA/QC
Purpose of Point of Frequency of Contaminants Responsi- Guid— Data Storage
Program Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitored bility Coverage ance and Access Remarks
1. DRINKING WATER
(Continued)
e. Contamination Incidents 1) Define -— Depends on the Those State 1 Specific Tea None Regional drinking
the scope site requirements. affecting generally mci— water offices help
and magni— public dents, hazardous waste and
tude of health. superfund programa
contami- when public water
nation. systems have been
2) Assess contaminated.
future
expansion.
2. PESTICIDES PROGRAM
a. Nationwide Pesticide Detect ______ Study in the planning stages _____ EPA. State 1,500 — Tee Will be stored in Primary office
Groundwater Contamina— problems (10—50 pesticides). and county 3,000 EPA computers. responsible: ODW.
tion Study of direct governments ground—
exposure. will proba— water
bly partic- samples
ipate. expected.
b. USGS Regional Determine ______ Study in the _____ Pesticides USGS Florida, Yes — - Will take tour
Assessment Progra. the nature planning stages, and organics. kansas, years to complet..
and extent Nebraska, Program supposed to
of contam— Califor— cover organios and
ination in nia, and other pollutants.
agricultur— Louiaiana/
al areas. Mississippi
(tens to
thousands
of square
miles for
each as-
sessment).
(Continued)
-------
SUMMARY OF EPA’S GROUND—WATER MONITORING PROGRAMS (Continued)
Monitoring QA/QC
Purposo of Point of Frequency of Contaminants Responsi— Guid— Data Storage
Program Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitored bility Coverage ance and Access Remarks
2. PESTICIDES PROGRAM
(Continued)
c. Single Chemical Registra- . Laboratory studies. , Registrant Local Need — — ——
Leaching Studies tion of for a
pesti— moni—
aides. toring
guid-
ance
docu-
ment.
d. Collaboration with Assessment Depends on local conditions. States and - - —— —— ——
States and/or of ground- USGS H
Pesticide Hazard water con— I—I
A e sment Projects tamiriation.
H
e. Dougherty Plains Field Predict pesticide movement and fate. Project involves controlled application of two pesticides, ____________
Validation Study aldicarb and metolachior. Project initiated by OFiD to validate a model.
3. SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
a. Superf’und Sites Clean—up —— Depends on Those State, —— Yes — — ——
with specific site affecting generally
superfund . requirements, public
health!
environment.
Enforce- —— Depends on Those Owner/ —— Yes —— Monitoring require-
ment, specific site affecting Operator ments specified in
requirements. public the consent decree.
heal th/
environment.
(Continued)
-------
SUMJ 1A}FY OF EPA’S GROUND—WATER MONITORING PROGRAMS (Continued)
Monitoring QA/QC
Purpose of Point of Frequency of Contaminants Responsi- Guid- Data Storage
Program Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitored bility Coverage ance and Access Remarks
3. SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
(Continued)
b. Active Hazardous Detect con- Uppermost Quarterly to Specified
Waste Facilities tamination. aquifer establish back— indicator
immediate- ground; semiannual parameters
ly beneath for detection. (see reg.).
edge of
waste.
Assess Uppermost Specified in plan All Appendix
extent of aquifer (minimum VIII of
contamina— immediate- quarterly). 140 CFR 261.
tion ly beneath
I -I
(assess— edge of Owner! F — I
mont mon- waste. Operator
itoring).
F — ’
Monitor Uppermost Specified in plan Specified
compliance aquifer (minimum Appendix VIII
with immediate— quarterly). const tuents
ground— ly beneath quarterly,
water edge of all
protection waste. constituents
standard or annually.
corrective
action
plan.
c. Non—Hazardous Waste Ensure Specified Specified by the In general, Owner or Facili— No None at the
Facilities guidelines by the State. contaminants operator ties Federal level.
(Subtitle D Is a for Sub- State. regulated
atate program) title D under the
facilities Safe Drinking
are not Water Act.
exceeded.
(Continued)
-------
SL**IART OF EPA’S GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAMS (Continued)
Monitoring QA/QC
Purpose of Point of Frequency of Contaminants Responsi— Guid— Data Storage
Program Monitoring Monitoring Monitoring Monitored bility Coverage ance and Access Remarks
Il. TOXI S PROGRAM No specific ground—water monitoring program mandate. Toxics program supposed to assess exposure to toxic aubstanoei
exposure through ground—water is not a major concern of the program.
‘Six surveys have been conducted in the past:
(1) National Organic Reconnaissance Survey (1975);
(2) National Organic Monitoring Survey (1976—1977);
(3) National Screening Program for Organics in Drinking Water (done by SRI International between 1976 and 1981);
(Je) Co aunity Water Supply Survey (1978, . .
(5) The Rural Water Survey (1978); and
(6) The Ground—water Supply Survey (1980—1981).
-------
111—14
Section 114245 of the Act explicitly authorizes the Administrator
to require monitoring for a wide variety of purposes, namely: to
establish and determine compliance with regulations; to administer
financial assistance; to evaluate health risks of unregulated
contaminants; and to advise the public of such risks. Monitoring
authorization is also implied in Section 1 1 450(a)(1), which grants to the
Administrator broad authority to prescribe such regulations as are
necessary or appropriate to carry out his functions. In general,
monitoring is designed to collect data that is representative of the
quality of water in the distribution system. Monitoring activities
pursuant to these authorities may be grouped into five broad categories:
• support for standard setting;
• evaluation of system compliance with drinking water standards;
• monitoring associated with contamination incidents;
• underground injection control program monitoring; and
• other monitoring activities.
The categories are discussed below.
2. Support for Standard Setting —— Public Water Supply Systems
The goal of this activity is to provide occurrence data on
contaminants under consideration for standard—setting for the Public
Water Supply Program. The data are used to help determine whether the
contaminant occurs sufficiently frequently and at high enough levels
that setting a standard is warranted; to estimate national economic
impact of prospective regulations; and to estimate the reduction in
exposure that would result from regulation. In the case of carcinogens,
the data enable EPA to project the reduction in excess cancer deaths.
-------
11 1—15
The Phase I revision to the National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations addresses the volatile synthetic organic chemicals
most coonly found in drinking water. The Phase II and III revisions
and future changes will be supported by the National Inorganics and
Radionuclides Survey (NIRS) and by the National Pesticides Survey.
Several surveys, of differing scope and with a wide range of
goals, have been supported by ODW over recent years . Other surveys,
now in the planning stage, will support EPA’s regulatory activities in
the future. In addition to these efforts, the National Inorganics
Survey, started in the summer of 19814, will cover a wide range of
unregulated inorganic contaminants, in addition to a number of
inorganics and radionuclides. The National Pesticides Survey will come
too late for Phase II, but It will provide a systematic database on
drinking water contamination with pesticides for use in future standard—
setting activities.
3. Evaluation of System Compliance with Drinking Water Standards
The goal of this program is to provide data and information on
the extent to which systems are meeting the requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. As part of the Public Water System Program, EPA
develops standards, called Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), for
contaminants which may have an adverse effect on health. Should a state
show that it has standards and enforcement authorities that are at least
as stringent as those promulgated by EPA, primary enforcement
responsibility (“primacy”) may be delegated to the state. The state
then accepts day—to—day responsibility for assuring that monitoring Is
conducted and that standards are met.
National Organles Reconnaissance Survey; National Organias Monitoring
Survey; SRI—Pesticides Survey; Rural Water Survey; Community Water
Supply Surveys (2); and National Screening Program for Organics in
Drinking Water; Groundwater Supplies.
-------
111—16
The monitoring data are of limited usefulness to the Ground-
water Office for the following reasons:
• The data collected by public water systems must be “represen-
tative of the distribution system;” hence, if water obtained
from ground—water sources is treated, the monitoring data will
not be representative of the quality of ground—water. In
addition, if taken from multiple wells at multiple depths, the
data wlU not be exactly representative of ground—water.
• Only when water systems violate the drinking water standards are
they required to report to EPA. (These data are stored in the
FRDS database.) The “raw” data are kept by owners and operators
of the water systems; states get only the suz ary data.
• Only for trihalomethanes and microbiological contaminants, the
data are collected on a continuous basis. The data measuring
inorganics and radioactivity levels are collected, in general,
every three and tour years, respectively.
4. Contamination Incidents
Ordinarily, state and local governments (frequently supported by
EPA grant funds) are the primary agencies to deal with Incidents of
contamination. The Regional Offices are involved directly in non—
primacy states and in a technical assistance mode in primacy states. A
number of problems exist In this approach to contamination incidents:
(1) levels of concern vary between states, resulting in non—uniform and
often inconsistent monitoring approaches; (2) due to the short time
required to respond to an emergency, inadequate attention is often paid
to quality assurance (QA); (3) inadequate analytical methodology often
exists; and ( ) monitoring data which are generated are stored at the
state and local level, and cannot be easily accessed.
5. Underground Injection Control Program
The Underground Injection Control program Is a Federal/state
program designed to control the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well
injection in a way which will prevent the endangerment of underground
sources of drinking water. The program was established by the Safe
-------
111—17
Drinking Water Act of 197 4 and provides for authorization of well
injection by either permit or rule. Persons operating injection wells
under either scheme are required by regulation to conduct certain
monitoring and report the results to either the state or EPA.
Injection wells have been segregated in the regulations into
five classes, as follows:
Class I: hazardous waste and other industrial or municipal
wells injecting below the deepest underground source
of drinking water (USDW);
Class II: injection wells associated with oil and gas
production or storage;
Class III: mineral extraction wells;
Class IV: hazardous waste or radioactive waste disposal wells
injecting into or above a USDW; and
Class V: injection wells not included in Classes I-IV.
The UIC regulations became effective in May 19814. Because of a
lack of experience with the program, the quality and quantity of ground-
water data that can be collected cannot be predicted accurately.
However, the following problems will limit the data available:
• most operators will submit monitoring data only when they obtain
their permits;
• only Class III well operators are required to monitor ground-
water quality on a continuous basis; monitoring by other
operators is generally at the discretion of’ state authorities;
and
• primacy states are not required to submit even summary ground-
water quality data to EPA.
6. Monitoring in Support of the Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) Program
The SSA program applies to areas where one aquifer is the
principal source of drinking water which, if contaminated, would create
-------
111—18
a significant hazard to public health. Once designated a sole source
aquifer, no commitment of Federal financial assistance may be made for a
project which may contaminate the aquifer through the recharge zone. In
order to effectively manage the program, monitoring of ground—water
quality is conducted, the nature of which depends on the ground—water
quality problems faced. The monitoring Is generally conducted by other
Federal agencies as part of the NEPA process, with limited direct
participation by EPA.
7. Special Surveys
a. The Surface Impoundment Assessment (SIA )
The original SIA was intended to provide a preliminary
approximation of the contamination potential of surface impoundments —-
pits, ponds, and lagoons used for waste treatment, storage or disposal
by industry and municipalities. This study revealed that there are more
than 180,000 impoundments, almost half of which are located over thin or
permeable unsaturated zones which are vulnerable to contamination. Most
of these impoundments are unlined, and about one—third of the industrial
sites contain wastes which may be hazardous. At the direction of the
Administrator, EPA Is now designing a follow—on SIA which will include
ground—water monitoring, which the original survey was not designed to
do. It will include impoundments not covered by the Hazardous Waste
program. (Those that do contain hazardous wastes are required to
monitor under the hazardous waste regulations.) In view of the expense
of drilling ground-water monitoring wells, it Is likely that monitoring
will be conducted at selected sites where monitoring or drinking water
wells already exist.
b. The Rural Water Survey
The Rural Water Survey, mandated by Congress, focused on
individual and small cluster system., serving rural areas. It was
intended to shed light on matters such as the number of rural residents
-------
111—19
inadequately served by a public or private water system; the number
exposed to health risks due to inadequate supplies; and the number which
actually contracted illnesses which could be attributed to such
supplies. The survey, which provides the first comprehensive,
statistically valid picture of rural water systems, showed, among other
things, that approximately 25% of the surveyed households exhibited some
evidence of bacterial contamination. It also confirmed the widely held
view that contamination rates were lowest in public water supplies and
highest in individual systems not meeting current construction
standards, e.g., cisterns and dug wells. Properly constructed wells had
lower rates of contamination in their water supplies than improperly
constructed ones, but higher rates than public water systems.
B. OFFICE OF PESTICIDES
1. EPA’s Mandate In Registering Pesticides
Under the amended Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA may register and continue in effect the
registrations of pesticide products that do not pose the risk of
unreasonable adverse effects to man, other non—target species, or the
environment. In making this statutory finding, EPA is to consider both
the potential risks and benefits of each pesticide use. In those
Instances where risks resulting from use exceed the benefits obtained,
EPA may restrict or cancel the registered uses.
Exposure Information is needed by EPA:
• to predict resulting risks from use when granting a registration
for a pesticide product containing new active ingredients;
• to predict the resulting Incremental risk expected from a new
use of an existing pesticide product;
-------
111—20
• after registration, to ensure that unreasonable adverse effects
from the product’s use do not occur from unexpected
accumulations of pesticides in humans or the environment or by
unexpected or unanticipated routes of exposure. Exposure
information is critical to decisions to remove pesticides from
the market or otherwise restrict their use; and
• to determine baseline concentrations and trends over time to
support the Agency’s overall mission to protect public health
and the environment, to detect emerging pesticide problems, and
to assist in determining the impact of program policy decisions.
2. FIFRA Monitoring Mandate
Sections 20(b) and Cc) of the amended FIFRA require the EPA
Administrator to formulate a national plan for monitoring pesticides and
to conduct any pesticide monitoring activities necessary to complement
the FIFRA and the national monitoring plan. Specifically, the FIFRA
states:
“20(b) NATIONAL W)NITORING PLAN. — The Administrator shall
formulate and periodically revise, in cooperation with other
Federal, State, or local agencies, a national plan for
monitoring pesticides.
“20(c) !4)NITORING. The Administrator shall undertake such
monitoring activities, including, but not limited to,
monitoring in air, soil, water, man, plants, and animals, as
may be necessary for the implementation of this Act and of
the national pesticide monitoring plan. The Administrator
shall establish procedures for the monitoring of man and
animals and their environment for incidental pesticide
exposure, including, but not limited to, the quantification
of incidental human arid environmental pesticide pollution
and the secular trends thereof, and identification of the
sources of contamination and their relationship to human and
environmental effects. Such activities shall be carried out
in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local
agencies.”
In addition to the above guidance, Congress has more recently
expressed interest in pesticide monitoring and completion of a
monitoring plan, as reflected in the House Coemittee on Agriculture
-------
111—21
Report No. 98_lOLL 2 Ao part of that committee report, the committee
urged “EPA to develop a meaningful national monitoring plan, which shall
include provisions for the collection, storage, interpretation, and
dissemination of data on the quantities of pesticides used, by active
ingredient, by crop, and by geographical area. In addition, the plan
should address measures to collect data on human exposure to
pesticides. Likewise, the plan should include provisions to monitor
indirect exposure to pesticide residues in the environment. This data
should be collected and stored in a fashion which maximizes the ability
of the agency to appraise trends in relevant indicators of pesticides
use and the levels of pesticides in man, on food, or in the
environment.”
3. Ground—water Monitoring Activities
The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) has been involved in a
number of studies to monitor pesticide contamination of ground—water.
These studies can be categorized by the number of pesticides monitored
and the geographical extent of the study. The first category involves
studies which were conducted by OP? because of findings of specific
pesticide contamination in a single area, such as aldicarb on Long
Island; ethylene dibromide (EDB) in Seminole County, Georgia; and EDB
and dibromochioropropane (DBCP) in a well at Kunia, Hawaii. Also
included in this type of study are several projects being conducted by
the Office of Research and Development (ORD) to gather field data for
model validation and risk assessment, such as the Dougherty Plains Field
Validation Study and the Congressionally—mandated study of Temik
(aldicarb) in Florida.
In a second category of study, state agencies have conducted
monitoring surveys to assess water quality for a number of’ pesticides in
Congress. 1983. House of Representatives Committee on
Agriculture Consideration of H.R. 2785, 98th Cong., 1st Seas., 11 May,
1983, P. 6—7.
-------
111—22
a limited geographical area and have contacted OPP for technical
guidance or analytical support. Examples of this type are the Central
Sands survey in Wisconsin for multiple chemicals; the California study
for DBCP, carbofuran, EDB, and simazine in four aquifers; and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) study in southwestern Georgia for a number of
pesticides.
A third category of study has involved the assessment of a
single chemical in ground—water in multiple locations, such as the DBCP
survey in the southeastern United States and the survey for aldicarb in
drinking water in selected areas of the United States.
A fourth category of study involves evaluating the extent of
ground—water contamination by multiple chemicals in multiple locations,
such as the nationwide drinking water survey, being developed jointly by
the Office of Drinking Water and OPP, and the USGS Regional Water
Quality Assessments currently in progress.
a. OPP/ODW Nationwide Pesticide Ground—water Contamination
Study
This study is in its earliest planning stages. The two
goals of the survey are: (1) to identify pesticide contaminants and
determine their approximate concentrations and frequencies in water
supplies, and (2) to relate findings of pesticide contaminants in
underground water supplies to agricultural use patterns for these
chemicals. We estimate that 1,500—3,000 ground—water samples will be
collected. Approximately one year will be required to design this
statistical survey. Analyses for 10—50 pesticides will be undertaken.
b. USGS Regional Assessment Program
The regional assessments will determine the nature and
extent of the ground-water contamination problem in agricultural areas
(in part) in Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, California, and Louisiana!
Mississippi. The study areas in the regional assessments may vary in
-------
111—23
size from a few tens to a few thousand square miles, and will be chosen
for their representative climatic and geohydrologic environments.
c. Single Chemical Ground—water/Leaching Studies
These are required in two types of situations —— during the
routine registration review process and for potential high hazard,
special review situations.
d. Collaborative Projects and Technical Assistance
Much of what OPP has done in the last few years falls under
this heading. This area can run the gamut from basic processes research
to emergency response situations.
e. Dougherty Plains Field Validation Study
One of OPP’s highest priorities for pesticide research is
the field validation of mathematical models used to predict pesticide
movement and late. The Dougherty Plains study involves the controlled
application of two pesticides — aldlcarb, a mobile pesticide, and
metolachior, a relatively non—mobile pesticide —— and the subsequent
monitoring for residues in the soil column and ground-water. The field
data of this five—year project (1983—1987) will be used to validate the
leaching predictions of the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM).
I. Data Processing and Data Analysis Tasks
Ground—water monitoring generates quantitative measurement data
through studies conducted by the registrants, OF!’, states, and other
organizations.
Field monitoring data generally are not input to an automated
system for storage arid retrieval, but are retained in paper form as
reports of studies • All registrant—submitted studies are stored as part
-------
111—24
of the total database in support of each registration. A single study
may support more than one registration. A complete, automated inventory
of all submitted studies, which includes ground—water monitoring
studies, is maintained for all registration data. A cross referencing
system by chemical, registration number, registrant, pesticide use,
etc., is maintained in automated and microfiche form. The automated
system allows access both to hard copy sunmiaries in the form of reviewer
reports and to the locations within OPP files where the actual studies
may be found. Studies submitted by registrants are generally protected
as confidential business information and may not be released. The
existing system does not maintain any inventory of studies which were
not submitted by registrants, even if such tud1es are used in
evaluating ground-water contamination potential.
Several systems of numeric identification for pesticides are
used within OPP. The primary chemical numbering systems in OPP predate
the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) system which is used practically
universally elsewhere. CAS numbers have been assigned to a majority of
the registered pesticides but the task has not been completed. Once all
pesticides have been assigned numbers, interaction between OPP data
systems and outside data systems will be possible.
The data from the ODW, USGS, and state compliance monitoring
activities will be managed using the existing capabilities of the EPA
STORET system operated by the Office of Water. STORET is an automated
database which provides the technolo r to store, retrieve, and sort
large bodies of data and perform complex analyses using mapping
capabilities and a number of ancillary databases.
The uses of ground—water monitoring data in evaluating
pesticides have been discussed before. Once program improvements have
been completed, information from ground—water studies will be used (1)
to develop information on regional and nationwide trends, (2) to
identify needs for more intensive enforcement, (3) to support regulatory
actions, and (Li) to measure program performance.
-------
111—25
C. OFFICE OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE (SUPERFUND )
1. Introduction
The Superfund program’ a primary responsibility is to protect
public health and welfare and the environment by responding to actual or
threatened releases of hazardous substances or contaminants. Although
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCL.A) does not mandate environmental monitoring, the program
requires extensive environmental data in order to fulfill its response
mission.
The magnitude of the resultant need for monitoring over the next
several years is driven by the size of the universe of uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites and other releases. At the present time, EPA’s
Emergency and Remedial Response Information System has an inventory of
about 16,500 sites which ! need Superfund action. Each site may
undergo a preliminary assessment and site inspection to determine the
extent of endangerment to the public health and the environment and
appropriate response actions.
By February 198k, 7,300 of approximately 15,000 preliminary
assessments had been completed, with the remainder scheduled for
completion by FY 1986. Work had been completed on 2,200 site
inspections, with another 6,000—8,300 scheduled for completion by FY
1987. The results of these site inspections will determine the number
of remedial investigations and feasibility studies to be undertaken.
The Superfund monitoring efforts not only are extensive in scope
but also complex because of the numerous governmental entities involved
under CEECLA and the National 01]. and Hazardous Substances Contingency
Plan (NCP, 110 CFR 300). For example, EPA Headquarters, as the national
Superfund manager, works with all 10 regions and the states to establish
program policies and priorities and to ensure coordination with other
-------
111—26
EPA programs such as ECRA and the development of a ground-water
protection strategy.
Regional offices always have played a major role in Superfund’ s
environmental monitoring. For instance, in many regions, the
Environmental Services Division is heavily involved in both Superfund
field and laboratory activities. This effort involves site screening!
inspection efforts, enforcement sampling, and quick turnaround
laboratory analyses. With expanded delegations, regions n will have
the primary responsibility for making response decisions.
States have been key participants in the program since its
inception. This state participation may occur on an individual basis or
through the Regional Response Team (RRT). At the present time, states
may conduct the preliminary assessments and site inspections using RCRA
3012 funds transferred to the Superfund program. States additionally
may lead all other phases of response, from remedial investigation to
implementation of the remedial action. Moreover, states must assume
responsibility for post-response monitoring, where required, within one
year of the completion of the remedial response. Some regional offices
currently are providing the states with training on QA/QC procedures.
In addition, EPA ’s goal is to have in place, by FY 1986, a system for
ensuring emergency response preparedness at both the state and local
level.
2. Description of Data Needs
Regional and Headquarters Superfund personnel need sufficient,
reliable data on which to base the following types of site—specific
response decisions:
• determination of whether an endangerment to public health or the
environment exists from a hazardous substance release or threat
of release and determination of the appropriate type of response
(I.e., removal or remedial action);
• selection of appropriate cleanup methods;
-------
111—27
• establishment of post-response monitoring requirements;
• determination that the response has been appropriate, the
endangerment mitigated; and
• determination that the response is effective in the long term.
Data collection in the Superfund program, therefore, is
primarily site—specific, covering both sampling of media and sources of
contamination (e.g., drums, storage tanks) as well as measurement of the
physical, biological, geological, hydrological, and chemical
characteristics of the site and its environs.
a. Monitoring During Removal Response, Remedial Design, and
Remedial Action
Environmental sampling and testing is an important part of
the actual removal or remedial action because conditions at the site may
change. For example, contaminants have the potential to migrate within
the site and off—site because of’ weather conditions or even the cleanup
activities themselves. Thus, for both types of responses, monitoring of
the environmental conditions throughout the cleanup may be necessary to
confirm or change the scope of the activities depending on site
conditions. For removals, monitoring data may be especially helpful to
the OSC in determining whether the endangerment has been mitigated and
termination of the response is appropriate.
Under the direction of the lead Federal or state agency,
monitoring during response may be conducted either by the government or
its contractors. For example, the ERT, a component of the Superfund
program office, can activate the Environmental Emergency Response Unit
(EERU) —- a cooperative effort between ERT and the Oil and Hazardous
Materials Spills Branch of the Office of Research and Development — to
deploy a mobile analytical laboratory to ensure that any discharge of
treated effluent frocn a hazardous waste lagoon meets state water quality
standards.
-------
111—28
b. Establishment of Post—Response Monitoring Requirements
Both removal and remedial responses may require post-cleanup
operation and maintenance (O&M) that may include long-term monitoring of
site conditions to determine the effectiveness of the cleanup. The OSC
or RSPO 1 in consultation with Rfl members, set. the requirements on the
basis of the conditions specific to each site.
All O&M requirements for fund—financed responses should be
identified in the respective removal (action memorandum) and remedial
(record of decision) approval documents. For removals, the state must
assume responsibility for O&M no later than six months after the removal
begins. For remedial responses, EPA will share the costs of O&11 with
the state for one year following completion of response, after which the
state assumes full responsibility. O&M requirements for a private party
cleanup taken under enforcement procedures are incorporated into a
consent order or decree.
c. Monitoring for Enforcement Actions
In addition to providing for direct Federal or state fund—
financed responses, RCLA authorizes EPA to take enforcement actions to
obtain private responses and/or to recover the costs of fund—financed
responses. Both types of enforcement activities either require new
environmental monitoring or utilize the data from the monitoring efforts
already described.
For example, EPA may either issue a unilateral admini-
strative order or enter into a court—approved consent decree f or a
private party to conduct a preliminary assessment, site inspection,
remedial investigation, or post—response monitoring. The private party
must prepare and submit to EPA for approval a sampling plan that is
consistent with EPA ’s QA/QC guidelines. If EPA or the state conducts a
fund—financed response and then seeks cost recovery, all of the data
collected during the response phases may be used in the case.
-------
111—29
3. Design of Data Collection Effort
As noted previously, the Superfund program collects arid uses
site—specific environmental data to support response decisions and
activities. A well—designed plan for conducting sampling and
environmental measurement is the first step in promoting reliable site-
specific data; hence many sampling plans are site—specific.
While neither ERCLA nor the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Contingency Plan prescribe specific requirements for sampling
or other environmental testing and measurement, section 300.66(c) of the
NCP establishes some general guidelines. Under these guidelines, the
collection of samples should be minimized during inspection activities
to evaluate the site and determine appropriate response.
1 . Data Storage and Handling
The Superfund program compiles and generates a vast array of
site—specific data, which is collected and stored In a variety of paper
files and automated systems in both regional and Headquarters offices.
a. Paper Files
All of Superfund’ a environmental monitoring data are located
in hard copy reports which are stored in files in the ten regions and
EPA Headquarters. Each region has complete files (administrative and
environmental data) for each response activity undertaken in the
region. Key administrative documents such as action memoranda,
cooperative agreements, or pollution reports (POLREPS) are also stored
in site files at EPA Headquarters.
-------
111—30
b • Automated and Manual Systems/Databases
Two automated databases are the Emergency and Remedial
Response Information System (ERRIS) and the National Priority List
Technical Database.
ERRIS is a computerized inventory of all sites which have
come to Superfund’s attention and may require remedial response. It
contains descriptive and location information about the site, informa-
tion on administrative incidents, and Hazard Ranking Scores (HRS).
Responsibility for data entry rests with the regional offices. An
improved ERRIS (ERRIS II) will update the current inventory when it
becomes available.
The National Priority List Database currently contains HRS
data for 691 sites and resides and is maintained on Mitre Corporation’s
IBM k31 1. Access currently is limited to Mitre staff under contract to
OERR, but OERR will have direct access once it completes copying of the
data onto EPA ’s IBM computer.
Additional systems are the automated Project Tracking System
(PTS) for remedial response, and the manual Removal Tracking System
(RTS) for removal actions. PTS contains program management data, such
as obligations, estimated costs, and actual/planned start and completion
dates. RTS has similar program management data as well as descriptive
data about the site and its environs, the release, the threats, and
response progress.
c. Future Needs
At the present time, OSWER/OERR is undertaking a needs
survey to assess the future configuration and contents of Superfund
databases and systems. This survey will identify both regional and EPA
Headquarters needs for data and the status of current methods f or
managing that data. Based on the recommendations in the needs survey,
OSWER/OERR will identify acme additional projects.
-------
111—31
D. OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE (RCRA )
1. Regulation of Hazardous Waste Facilities
a. Background
Environmental monitoring activities in support of EPA’s
program for the management and control of hazardous waste are twofold in
purpose. Environmental monitoring data are required to establish and
refine the national hazardous waste regulatory program. Such data are
also required to measure compliance with the regulatory program, and
thereby measure the effectiveness of the program in achieving protection
of human health and the environment.
Performance monitoring activities help to verify whether or
not a waste management facility or technology operates as it should.
These activities include:
• characterizing the amounts, types, and hazards of residuals
left after waste treatment/destruction (e.g., incinerator
trial burns);
• detecting facility/technology failures and the nature/hazard
of contaminants released (e.g., soil pore and ground—water
monitoring at land treatment and land disposal facilities);
and
• monitoring the effectiveness of corrective measures
instituted in response to facility/technology failures
(e.g., ground—water monitoring).
b. Status of Monitoring
While activities related to the assessment of the RCR.A
regulatory program’s effectiveness are limited, in comparison to OSWER’s
“identification/characterizatlOn ” activities, they are extremely
important in fulfilling EPA’s responsibIlities under RCRA.
-------
111—32
This enforcement responsibility is accomplished, to a large
extent, through the gathering and analysis of environmental monitoring
data. Scxne of these data are collected directly by the Agency, while
other data are provided to the Agency and authorized states by the
regulated community (which includes approximately 50,000 generators,
12,000 transporters, and 7,500 management facilities), in accordance
with promulgated regulations and facility permit conditions.
To date, OSWER has directed little of its limited resources
(and those of authorized state hazardous waste management agencies) to
assessments of the RCRA program’s effectiveness in terms of trend
analyses of ambient environmental quality.
For landfills, surface impoundments, and land treatment
facilities, the major performance monitoring activity is ground—water
monitoring. There are two distinct sets of ground—water monitoring
requirements. The first are those requirements set out under the
interim status facility standards (‘$0 CFR Part 265, Subpart F). These
regulations establish minimum requirements on the number of wells
required, their positioning relative to the waste disposal area, the
frequency of sampling required, and test procedures to be followed. The
regulations also specify the constituents for which analysis must be
performed. Ground—water monitoring is required to establish background
and subsequent levels of specified parameters, and downgradient water
quality. The monitoring must continue for the operating life of the
facility and, for disposal facilities, the 30—year post—closure
period. Additional monitoring is required if downgradient contamination
is detected. No corrective action is required under interim status.
Data reporting requirements are also established.
The second set of requirements pertain to fully permitted
facilities. ‘$0 CFR Part 26’$, Subpart F specifies ground—water
monitoring requirements for permitted facilities analogous to interim
status monitoring. Specific parameters subject to data reporting
requirements can be found in these regulations. Permitted facilities
-------
111—33
are required, however, to implement corrective actions if monitoring
detects contamination in excess of the facility’s ground—water
protection standard.
a. Extent Monitoring Strategy Needs Are Being Met
How well and to what extent OSW’s RCRA monitoring program is
proceeding is a mixed picture. For example, ground-water monitoring
requirements have been developed, but some data, yet unconfirmed,
suggest that full compliance with these requirements has not occurred at
all facilities. In addition, some data submitted have been found to be
incomplete or are of insufficient quality and accuracy. Other problems
include a continuing need to ascertain appropriate testing methods, the
lack of methods for some parameters, and the need to ensure the proper
analysis and use of these data.
Problems with sampling and testing methods limit the
analysis. While many methods exist, missing methods, non—standardized
methods, and methods that are too costly to run are sometimes
encountered in both waste characterization and technology performance
monitoring. Addressing as many of these Issues as possible needs to be
and is an important future monitoring strategy activity. Most of the
EPA’s QA/QC activities are, in fact, directed to this end.
d. Responsibility f or Monitoring
Technology performance monitoring Is principally the
facility owners/operators’ responsibility. Largest of these are the
ground—water monitoring requirements. These requirements specify the
minimum number of wells required, their location relative to the
facility, the frequency of sampling needed, and what constituents must
be sampled. Ground—water monitoring records must be kept at the
facility for a period of six years. Under the Interim status standards,
selected data must also !e reported to the EPA or authorized state.
Permitted facilities need not routinely report their data to the EPA or
-------
111—34
the state (unless the permit so requires), but the data may be requested
and must be provided.
e. RCRA Monitoring Data Storage Needs
For ground—water monitoring data, the Agency, as yet, has no
centralized storage system for these data. This information is usually
kept by the permittee and only sent to the EPA or the state when
requested, or when required in the facility’s permit. 03W is currently
examining its needs (and states’ needs) and options for automated
storage and manipulation of these parametric data. No decision has been
made to date.
f. Enforcement
There has been some evidence to suggest that facility
owner/operator noncompliance with ground—water monitoring requirements
may be quite significant. This problem is compounded by the fact that
Agency—approved methods are not required to be used, resulting in
inconsistent application of standards and action limits. Also, action
thresholds have not been established for all parameters. These
enforcement—related issues are important priorities within the RCRA
monitoring strategy.
2. Regulation of Subtitle D Facilities
In general, Subtitle D establishes provisions for state
regulation of all types of non—hazardous solid wastes, including
municipal and industrial landfills, municipal and industrial surface
impoundments, sewage sludge landspreading facilities, industrial land
treatment facilities, and others. Other facilities, including ocean
dumping sites and facilities for disposal of oil and gas brines and
dredging fill material, are not covered by Subtitle I), but may be
related to state solid waste regulatory programs.
-------
111—35
The criteria developed by EPA under Subtitle D allow facilities
to be classified as acceptable or unacceptable. The classification is
based on the extent to which the facilities have characteristics that
abate health and environmental effects relating to the following
criteria:
• floodplains;
• endangered species;
• surface water;
• ground—water;
• food—chain cropland;
• disease;
• air; and
• safety (including gases, fire, bird hazard to aircraft, and
public access).
According to the available data, the following conclusions can
be drawn about state regulation of these facilities:
• State agencies have evaluated facilities using the Subtitle D
ground—water criterion to varying degrees. According to the
available data, evaluation of surface impoundments and
landspreading facilities using the ground—water criterion may be
generally poor; and
• State agencies appear to be aware of the presence of ground-
water protection factors (monitoring and leachate control) at
solid waste landfills, but the percentage of such facilities is
very low for some states. State agencies appear to have less
knowledge on the presence of monitoring and leachate control at
surface impoundments and sludge facilities. Where state
agencies have information, they have reported a very low use of
monitoring and leachate control at these facilities.
In general, states do not have ground-water monitoring data for
most Subtitle D facilities. Indeed, very few states have evaluated
these data.
-------
111—36
E. OFFICE CF TOXIC SUBSTANCES (OTS )
1. Current Status
Monitoring is one of the tour major elements in the OTS approach
to integrated, multimedia exposure assessments. Exposure assessments
can be conducted during early problem definition for potential problems
or during intensive investigations for’ regulatory action. The other
three elements are identification of sources or release, identification
of populations at risk, and characterization of the properties and fate
of a chemical. A variety of literature resources, databases, and models
on release and transport are used to examine systematically the
likelihood of exposure through any of seven routes (occupational,
consumer, transportation, disposal, food, drinking water, and ambient
media).
During the OTS exposure/risk assessment process, a chemical is
examined to determine whether it poses a risk to the public health or
the environment and should be regulated. Even if the chemical in
question meets or exceeds some criteria for unreasonable risk, informa-
tion on the marrner and extent of use, and the cumulative exposure likely
to occur, is also needed. These two separate pieces of information are
then pulled together into one package called a risk assessment. If a
chemical is determined to be a risk, regulatory or non-regulatory
actions are selected and implemented to limit exposure to the public arid
the environment. Such action by the EPA is called a control action.
The Agency then tries to measure compliance with the resulting control
action by means of compliance monitoring.
In practice, the process has a severe limitation. The available
data for assessment of the risk posed by a chemical often consist
exclusively of toxicological data. Reliable exposure data are often not
available and surrogate information such as production data are
inadequate or misleading. Very little, it any, ground—water data are
collected by OTS.
-------
111—37
2. Statutory Basis
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) holds chemical producers
responsible for generating adequate data to assess the risk potential of
their own chemicals (SectIon 2). Congress acknowledged that Industrial
chemicals are made for an enormous and ever-changing variety of uses.
For this reason there is no straightforward process of registration and
no concomitant requirement for risk assessment information. Congress
also assumed that only a few of the thousands of general Industrial
chemicals might possibly present an unreasonable risk and that the risk
should be defined by responsible producers and the EPA acting in concert
through public sharing of risk information.
All of the sections requirIng submission to EPA/OTS of hazard
and exposure Information (Section 5 for new chemicals, Section 8
reporting on existing chemicals, and Section 1 testing by Industry)
provide that a public record be maintained and available. Section 1
specifically mandates that health and safety data be disclosed.
TSCA requires that submitted data te demonstrably “reliable and
adequate” for the purpose of risk assessment (Section 3(12)). To ensure
reliable and adequate data, the Act requires OTS to specify or develop
the methods and techniques for data generation under Section l test
rules. Under Section (b), a process of generic standard—setting for
test methods to be used by industry has been established, which now can
be applied to exposure studies. Under Section 10, the EPA is enjoined
to develop monitoring data, techniques, and instruments which may be
used In the detection of toxic chemical substances (Sections 10(a) and
(d)). It was assumed that EPA, under TSCA, would have to deal with a
wide variety of chemicals, conditions of usage or exposure, and receptor
media, human and environmental. For this reason, dissemination of’
methods and techniques of testing, analysis and quality assurance are as
Important to prevention of risk as are the data results themselves.
-------
January 9, 1985
Ground Water Monitoring Task Force
Mission Statement
Although the basic ground water monitoring requirements
have been in place since 1980, EPA has experienced significant
difficulty in gaining compliance with these rules by the regu—
lated community. Compliance is important because without
adequate monitoring, it is not possible to determine whether
facilities are leaking sufficiently to pose a threat to human
health and the environment. Secondly, wastes from CERCLA clean-
up activities are going to these facilities. Unless the Agency
knows through ground water monitoring whether these facilities
are adequately protective, it may he necessary at a later time
to move these wastes yet again at significant added cost.
As a result, the Administrator has established a Task Force
to evaluate the level of compliance and deal with the causes
of poor compliance. There are two parts to this effort.
I. Evaluate the status of ground—water monitoring at existing
commercial hazardous waste land disposal facilities to
determine the following:
a. compliance with the regulations,
b. level of contamination in the ground water, if any,
and
c. compliance with the ground water aspects of the
Superfund off—site policy.
-------
111—40
The effort will include review of existing documents and
field inspections and sampling. Decisions will be reached by
consensus between teams of experts from the State and region
involved and a core team that will be involved in all evalua-
tions. The core team will include members from States and
regions as well as from Headquarters. This work is expected to
take about one year.
II. Produce strategies covering the following:
a. Evaluate existing and planned guidance documents
around EPA, determine consistency with the regu-
lations and with each other, evaluate strengths
and weaknesses, determine gaps, propose programs
to optimize and provide expanded guidance where
called for.
b. Determine audiences in EPA and States that require
training and the content of the training needed,
evaluate existing and planned training programs,
determine shortcomings and gaps, and propose programs
to optimize training.
c. Identify knowledge gaps that inhibit adequate implemen-
tation of the rules, and working with the Hazardous
Waste Research Committee develop a program to address
these needs.
-------
111—41
d. Identify problems with the regulations that
inhibit implementation or do not adequately
protect human health or the environment,
estimate relative importance of these problems
vis a vis other activities on the regulatory
development agenda so that decisions can be
made on the level of resources to apply to
fixing them.
This work will he conducted at Headquarters by a dedicated team
with input from the facility assessment core team, regional
and State officials, and other PA oftices. It is expected to
take four to six rtonths to conclude this work
The Chairman of the Task Force is Fred Lindsey, telephone
202—382—4756, who reports directly to the Assistant -Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Questions and comments
are welcome.
-------
THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
FEDERAL - STATE COOPERATIVE
WATER RESOURCES PROGRAM
IN FISCAL YEAR 1984
by Bruce K. Gilbert
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Open-File Report 84—857
1984
-------
111—45
The U.S. Geological Survey Federal—State Cooperative Water
Resources Program in Fiscal Year (FY) 1984
By Bruce K. Gilbert
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Geological Survey’s Federal—State Cooperative Program for water—
resources data collection, investigations, and research was carried out with
some 800 State, regional, and local agencies in fiscal year (FY) 1984. Total
funding in this 50—50 matching program amounted to about $100 million and
included work underway in every State, Guam, Puerto Rico, and several U.S.
territori es.
The Geological Survey and its cooperating agencies mutually identify key
issues and problems to determine which activities will be included. For
1984, the principal concerns included ground-water contamination, water supply
and demand, stream quality, hydrologic hazards, and acid precipitation.
This report provides some perspective on program development and describes
a f ’i of the year’s highlights.
INTRODUCTION
The Federal-State Cooperative Water Resources Program continues to be
the largest component of the U.S. Geological Survey’s water resources activity.
This program was carried out in working partnership with more than 800 State,
regional, and local agencies during FY 1984. Joint funding in the 50—50 matching
Cooperative Program totaled about $100 million, and comprised almost half
the total program of the Water Resources Division (WRD). The Cooperative
Program began in Kansas in 1895, and has gr n and changed with time (Gilbert
and Buchanan, 1981). Hydrologic data collection and interpretive investigations
were underway in every State, Puerto Rico, and several United States territories
in 1984.
Perhaps the most important characteristic of the program throughout is
that it has been and is “policy relevant.” That is, most investigations are
responding to a recognized or potential problem and provide hydrologic information
and analyses needed for making decisions or for formulating plans. The program
also contributes to the advancement of hydrologic science and provides a major
part of the Geological Survey’s water information base. Table 1 shc s selected
national water issues and examples of where and when they were first identified
as part of Cooperative Program activities.
-------
Acid Precipitation
Oil Shale Development
Coal Hydrology
(Acid Mine Drainage)
Solid Waste Disposal
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Radioactive Waste Disposal
Indian Water Rights
Urban Hydrologic Planning
Ground—Water Mining
Streamfi ow Depletion
by Wells
Design of Interstate
Highway System Bridges
New York 1965
North Carolina 1962
Colorado 1962
Kentucky 1955
Pennsylvania 1964
Florida 1970
Georgia 1963
New York 1961
North Dakota 1949
Arizona 1962
Ca1ifornia 1961
New Mexico 1926
Utah 1950
Colorado 1960
New Mexico 1941
Colorado 1963
New York 1963
Wisconsin 1971
Reservoir Planning and
Design
Saltwater Encroachment
Land Subsidence
Flood Plain Management
Deep Well Injection
Lake Eutrophication
Streamfiow Quality
Water Use
Water Rights
Ground—Water Quality
Surface—Water Quality
Quality of Public Water
Supplies
Connecticut 1925
New Jersey 1923
California 1940
Florida 1945
California 1940
Pennsylvania 1961
North Carolina 1968
Florida 1966
Florida 1971
Pennsylvania 1912
Minnesota 1907
Illinois 1907
Wyoming 1923
Wyoming 1899
New Jersey 1923
South Carolina 1956
North Carolina 1961
Table 1.——National water issues identified as part of water-resource investigations
supported by the Cooperative Program
Issue Identified
Issue Identified
in
the Federal—State
the Federal-State
National Water Issues Cooperative Program
National
Water Issues Cooperative Program
H
H
H
-------
111—47
HYDROLOGIC DATA COLLECTION
Practically all of the Geological Survey’s data collection stations, funded
in large part by this Cooperative Program, serve several purposes. In addition
to providing information responsive to State or local needs, the Federal—State
Cooperative Program stations (see table 2) provide information that satisfies
the needs of many Federal agencies—-for example: flood prediction, land use
planning, streamflc regulation, hydroelectric p er production, waste disposal
standards, pollution regulation, mined—land reclamation, and energy development.
Table 2 sh s that in FY 1984 the Federal—State Cooperative Program provided
sole support for nearly half the continuous streamflow discharge stations in
the total Geological Survey network; and, in combination with other funding
sources, provided partial support for another 18 percent of the total network
of these stations.
The operation of data—collection network stations is a continuing activity.
Although many data—collection stations are operated on a long—term basis as
components of national networks, some are discontinued each year when their
purpose has been served; n stations are installed as demanded by changing
needs and priorities. The Geological Surveyss entire stream gaging program,
which includes gaging stations funded by the Federal Program, the Federal—State
Cooperative Program, and the other Federal agency reimbursable program, is
being systemically analyzed to improve its effectiveness. This nationwide
analysis includes the identification of alternate methods, such as fl i routing
and statistical regression models, of providing streamfl data and information.
HYDROLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS AND RESEARCH
In addition to the data-collection activities, approximately 550 hydrologic
investigations and water—resources research projects funded by the Federal—
State Cooperative Program were underway in FY 1984. These included areal
appraisals and special studies conducted throughout the Nation. Area] water-
resources appraisals (which range from small basin or county to stat iide
or regional in size) define, characterize, and evaluate the extent, quality,
and availability of the water resource. During the past decade or so, increasing
emphasis has been given to water—quality issues, including aquifer contamination,
acid precipitation, river quality assessments, and storm runoff.
Special analytical and interpretive studies address existing and foreseeable
hydrologic conditions and problems, are some ihat more specific in nature and
smaller in size than area] appraisals, and sometimes involve applied research.
They may require from a few months to 2 to 3 years to complete, and result in
analytical, interpretive, and predictive reports, data, and information leading
to the solution of problems or more complete utilization and protection of the
Nation’s water resources.
-------
111—48
Table 2.—-Water data collection activities of the U.S. Geological Survey, FY 1984.
Types of Stations Number of Stations
A. B. C. D.
Federal —State Other
Federal Cooperative Federal Combined
Program Program Agencies Support Total
SURFACE WATER
Discharge
Continuous Record 567 3567 1629 1389 7152
Partial Record 79 2860 394 591 3924
Stage only——Streams
Continuous Record 4 122 193 100 419
Partial Record 9 374 50 38 471
Stage only—-lakes and Reservoirs
Continuous Record 10 467 258 111 846
Partial Record 11 283 57 49 400
Qua ii ty
Continuous Record 157 294 211 122 784
Scheduled, long—term 540 129 470 267 2906
Short-term or project 122 382 294 122 920
GROUND WATER
Water Levels
Continuous Record 101 1313 117 451 1982
Scheduled, long—term 830 17297 950 4970 24047
Short-term or project 1719 6183 607 1083 9592
Qua] ity
Scheduled, long—term 15 2251 219 586 3071
Short-term or project 547 2182 288 1560 4577
Explanation
Types of Stations
Continuous record: The station is instrumented to continuously monitor hydrologic
conditions and, in some instances, transmit data in real time.
Partial record: Hydrologic information is collected only during selected periods,
for example, during floods or droughts, or annual low flow.
Scheduled, long—term operation: Hydrologic information is collected on a fixed
schedule for a long period to detect trends.
Short term or project stations: Hydrologic information is collected to meet the
needs of a specific study. Data supplement those available from scheduled long—
term continuous record, and partial—record stations.
Number of Stations
Column A: Those stations totally supported by funds appropriated to the Geological
Survey Federal Program subactivity.
Column B: Those stations supported by funds appropriated to the Geological Survey
Federal—State Cooperative Program subactivity.
Column C: Those stations totally supported by reimbursement from other Federal agencies.
Column D: Those stations supported by a combination of two or more of the above.
-------
111—49
The Nation’s rivers have historically been used for water supplies, dilution
of waste, recreation, commerce, and for production of fish and other aquatic
crops. These uses are not all compatible, and over time many problems have
surfaced, which managers are attempting to solve. Deterioration in the quality
of water supplies for domestic, municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses
is a grc ’iing problem, which can affect human health as well as the economy.
In spite of considerable progress in solving complex water problems, stresses
impacting the quality of the surface and ground waters are multiplying. Ground
water supplies drinking water for at least half of the Nation’s population.
In some places, especially in densely populated and industrialized areas,
disposal of toxic wastes has made ground water unsafe for use. For an isolated
point source of contamination, such as an industrial disposal pond, the
consequences may be severe in magnitude but only local in extent. In some
places, hcMever, many separate industries located over a large area and some
agricultural practices are contributing to widespread contamination.
PROGRAM PRIORITIES
Each year, cooperator proposals typically exceed Federal funds available
for matching by several million dollars. Priorities for data collection and
hydrologic investigations and research are based on a continuing, detailed
analysis of water problems and issues. The Geological Survey and its cooperating
agencies work together in a continuing process that leads to adjustments in
each year’s program. The process is guided by a determination of the key hydrologic
problems and issues requiring priority consideration in the selection of new,
or the retention of ongoing projects in the overall program. This is carried
out through discussions with State and local cooperators, Federal agency officials,
and through awareness of concerns of the general public. For 1984, most new
cooperative investigations addressed the principal concerns derived from this
national perspective——ground-water contamination, water supply and demand,
stream quality, hydrologic hazards, and acid precipitation. These and other
studies respond to the increasing need for information at local, State, regional,
and national levels. The final selection of new projects is timed to coincide
with critical points in the budgetary cycles of the Federal Government and
the numerous State and local cooperating governments. With respect to the
Federal government’s budgeting cycle, specific negotiations for the upcoming
fiscal year regarding individual projects are initiated with cooperators in
January through March, are based on the provisions of the President’s Budget
submission to Congress, and may be subsequently modified based on appropriations
actions taken by Congress.
-------
111—50
MERIT PROPOSAL PROCESS
Most of the Federal matching funds are allocated to highest priority
activities by the Division’s four Regional offices after ranking the work
proposed in their respective geographical areas of responsibility. However,
the Geological Survey has instituted a new process for evaluating and funding
selected proposals for water—resources investigations as part of the Federal—
State Cooperative Program. The Federal matching fund support for merit
proposals was $1 million in FY 1983 and about $1 million in FY 1984. Thus,
with the cooperators providing an equal amount of funds, a total of about
$2 million was allocated each year. In 1983, 16 investigations were selected
of the 33 proposed, and in 1984, 15 of 44 proposals were selected. Plans are
to identify $1 million of U.S. Geological Survey matching funds for
investigations to be chosen through this process in FY 1985.
The new system formalizes existing procedures that have been used for the
past 10—15 years to rank candidate proposals for allocation of funds. Each
merit proposal is reviewed and evaluated separately by five members of the
Geological Survey’s senior staff. The group then meets as a panel to consolidate
rankings and arbitrate differences, and funds are allocated to the investigations
in priority order. Additional effort is applied, however, to ensure that
the highest priority work is undertaken with the merit funds and that the
anticipated technical contributions to the science of hydrology will be of
top quality. Figure 1 shows how merit proposal funds were allocated to selected
topical areas in FY 1984.
Although it is highly probable that all the merit investigations would
have been funded under traditional procedures, the system has produced
worthwhile results. The program development process has been strengthened
because of the increased deliberation within WRD during the merit ranking.
Incentive has been added for the planning and development of high quality
proposals, and technology transfer has been enhanced through closer interaction
of operational and research programs.
WATER—QUALITY ACTIVITIES
Ground-water contamination headed the 1984 list of priority issues for the
Cooperative Program. This continued the trend from 1982 and 1983, and is expected
to be repeated in 1985. The National Water Sumary-—1983 (U.S. Geological Survey,
1984) reports that contamination from hazardous wastes, point and nonpoint
sources of pollution, saline water intrusion, eutrophication, acid precipitation,
and other water-quality issues are of concern throughout the Nation (table 3).
-------
111—51
Figure 1.-The merit prop al proc in fiscal year 1984 focused $1 million
of Federal matching funds, as part of the Cooperative Program,
on high priority water-resources issues.
-------
Table 3. -. Index to State water issues as compiled from The National Water Summary - 1983.
STATE
WATER ISSUE
SiuNcs wit.
Giound wit.
3w sc• witw
G.n.nd qualIty
P Itit Icurcil
Nonpolni aiiN $
Hsza us wonton
S W. saw
Ground wit.
GiMial quality
Pant iowcu
—
Hizadous waitis
IIidloactlvs wades
Saitni watw
Eutru pfl lcWn
aottonl ,sdlinint comanlnWn
vscIp i t* lon
.
S
.
.
.
.
S
.
.
.
.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
• S • •
• S S •
S
• .
• S
• S. • • •
• S S • •
• .
S SI S
i SSi S
•
• I S
.
.
.
.
•
I
•
S
S
S
S
.
S
.
S
.
S
5
S
S
.
.
S
S
.
I
• 5
• .
.
S
P
S
.
.
.
•
S
S
.
S
S
5
I
S
.
S
.
.
S
S
.
S
S
.
S
I
S
.
S
.
.
.
S
.
.
.
S
S
S
S
.
S
I
.
S
.
.
S
.
S
.
.
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
.
.
• .
• S
•
.
.
I
S
.
S
.
S
• .
• .
S
.
.
S
.
5
S
S
S
.
S
S
S
.
5
S
S
.
.
.
.
.
H
• 5
:
S
• •
.
S
.
S
.
S
•I.
S
S
S
.
I
•
.
.
.
.
5
S
• S
S.
.
• .
•.
.
S •
I
S
S
S
I
5
5
SI
•
I
.
.
5
•
S
.
.
S
.
I • •
S
S
.
S
S
5
S •
•I I I•I I’I•I• I•I•I I I !‘I I’I•I•I’I I•
HYDROLOGIC HAZARDS AND LAND ISSUES
Floodlig 5515151 S • 55 55•s S • S S •• S I Sill S • •ISISSSS •5.5
Sub a ldsrc . . .
Sln ld to lss . •. S S . S S
E ro.dmsn l i IIon . . , • • • • • • 55 • • • •
Wst Iwd s.wstaiuIs, a iddli ln s S S 5 • . S S S • I I •
I II • S 5 • S S S • • • 5 • • S I SI SI • S S 5,5 • • S S S
INSTITUTIONAL AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES
Waw Wcatlon
w(tiI liwl
mmal waiw rl iti
h twtasm trails.
Truths aid coiiip ts
Anaicing thi Infrultucturs
Wit. rssoiacis mai wnwW
5
S
.
S
I
.
.
.
S
S
S
5
S
S
.
.
.iSI ISIS
51•1S
.
‘I
.
S
5
I
•I
.
.
S I
5
S
S
.
S
S
5 5
S
S
S
.
• .
S
.
.
5
S
• S
S
• S
I
S
S
L
S
II
S
S
5
.
• .
S
.
S
• .
I
S
S
.
..
S
S
S S
• S
H
H
U,
WATER AVAILASII.ITY ISSUES
S • 55 5 5155.5 I S • 55. S S • •• • • • • •• 55•SS • • •555 SI • I • •
5 5•• 55 • S •I 5S•• • IS •IISI 5 •,• S. 5555s Sill 515 55 S • • 55
WATER QUALITY ISSUER
-------
III—53
About 800 Cooperative Program investigations were active in 1984. Of these,
some 200 were operated for collection of hydrologic data--surface water, ground
water, water quality, sediment, and precipitation——and 48 were identified as part
of the water—use activity. The balance of approximately 50 were hydrologic
investigations, research, and special studies of which a minimum of 400 included
some water—quality aspects. About 100 of these were principally concerned with
investigations of contamination of surface or ground water. Table 4 shows the
distribution of funding, by discipline, for hydrologic investigations and research
from 1979 to 1984. The numbers were derived from estimates of the effort,
in percent, that would be expended by the various disciplines in each project.
For investigative and research activities, the amount of effort in water-quality
work has increased from 20.1 percent in 1979, to 22.4 percent in 1984.
EXAJ’VLES OF CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS
In FY 1984, the Federal—State Cooperative Program continued to focus on
water—resources investigations of highest priority to the Nation. Examples
of these activities are furnished below.
WASHINGTON STATE: Hazardous Waste Investigations
In the State of Washington more than 200 hazardous-waste sites are located
where there is a high probability of leachate impacting the surface and ground
water. The State is developing a major program to deal with this problem and has
asked the Geological Survey for technical assistance. The resulting investigation
consists of four phases: (1) hydrogeologic characterization of existing hazardous—
waste sites, (2) research on how the poflutants are moving through the water
system and on the reaction processes that are involved, (3) broad characterization
of the most and least suitable areas for land disposal of hazardous waste
within the State, and (4) technical assistance in the evaluation of the hydro—
geological aspects of proposals and reports being considered by the State.
SOUTHWEST LOUISIANA: Organic Waste Containment in
the Mississippi Embayment
An investigation is underway to document current and past hydrodynamic and
geoch iical characteristics at a waste site located in Calcasieu Parish of
southwestern Louisiana. Contaminant migration and the transport rates of
various pollutants will be analyzed by use of a ground-water flow model. The
objective is to define the clay mineralogy and the hydraulic processes related
to the presence and movement of organic solutes in geologic materials having
low hydraulic conductivities.
-------
111—54
Table 4.—-Distribution of funding (Federal side), by discipline, for hydrologic
investigations and research, from FY 1979—1984, Federal—State
Cooperative Program. (Does not include data—collection activities.)
Dollars, in
thousands, and
(percent)
Fiscal
Year
General
-lydrology
Ground
Water
Quality
of Water
Surface
Water
Total
1979
$4,146
(21.6)
$7,081
(36.9)
$3,861
(20.1)
$4,108
(21.4)
$19,196
(100)
1980
$4,744
(23.5)
$7,100
(35.1)
$4,157
(20.6)
$4,200
(20.8)
$20,201
(100)
1981
$4,758
(23.3)
$7,492
(36.7)
$4,183
(20.5)
$3,972
(19.5)
$20,405
(100)
1982
,050
(23.6)
$7,226
(33.8)
$4,593
(21.5)
$4,500
(21.1)
$21,369
(100)
1983
$4,924
(23.0)
$7,051
(33.0)
$4,723
(22.1)
$4,683
(21.9)
$21,381
(100)
1984
$3,860
(17.3)
$8,179
(36.6)
$5,007
(22.4)
$5,297
L23.7)
$22,343
(100)
-------
111—55
REFERENCES CITED
Gilbert, B. K. and Buchanan, 1. J.,, 1981, The U.S. Geological Survey Federal—
State Cooperative Water Resources Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 81—691, 27 p.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1984, National Water Summary 1983——Hydrologic Events
and Issues, Water—Supply Paper 2250, 24 3 p.
-------
IV. STATE GROUND-WATER MONITORING ACTIVITIES
• Summary of Illinois Ground-Water Programs and
Comparison with Other State Monitoring Programs
• Summary of Wisconsin Ground-Water Monitoring
Activities
• Summary of Arizona Ground-Water Monitoring
Activities
• Report on New Jersey Ground-Water Monitoring
Strategy and Activities
-------
Design of a Statewide Ground-Water Monitoring Network
for
Illinois
Michael O’Hearn
Susan Schock
Illinois State Water
Survey Division
Illinois Department of Energy
and Natural Resources
December 1984
-------
IV—3
GROUND WATER MONITORING PROGRAM REVIEW
OF SELECTED STATES
A preliminary review of ground—water monitoring programs and plans In
selected states was undertaken to determine where the State of Illinois
stands with respect to their programs and to benefit from their experiences
In designing and operating statewide monitoring programs. Letters were sent
to water—resource management agencies in twenty—six states known to have
programs or plans for programs, in all areas of the country, asking the
recipients to briefly describe their existing or proposed statewide ground-
water monitoring programs. All but four states responded to this Initial
Inquiry. Four states were selected for further discussion, because at the
time of the Inquiry their respective programs or plans appeared to be more
advanced than Illinois’. Although this evaluation was necessarily subjec-
tive, it helped put the problem in perspective and suggested some possible
solutions which were extremely useful in the design of the monitoring network
described in this report.
Table 1 is a brief comparison of some of the features of the
ground water monitoring programs of the states visited during the review
process. All entries have been listed in rought order of Importance to the
specific program.
The program in Georgia is the best example of a cooperative effort with
the USGS, and one agency organization reviewed. The Mlghlcan program is In
its early stages and striving to be an organized effort beneficial to all
Involved. The Texas program is probably the most sophisticated and best
developed in terms of data reporting and management. The New Jersey program
Is unique in that It is being created from its inception and Is emphatically
interested in contamination problems. In general, the efforts of the State
-------
Table 1. Comparison of Monitoring Program from Selected States**$
ILLINOIS**
GEORGIA
MICHIGAN
NEW JERSEY
TEXAS
56,1400
11,1418,1461
102
58,216
9,258,3 440
68
267,338
114,228,383
2544
Monitoring
Program
Elements:
ground water
quality, water
levels (water
use-—separate
program)
water use,
water levels,
water quality
water levels,
water quality
water quality,
water level,
water use
water levels,
water quality
(water use——
separate program
Cooperating
Agencies:
ISWS, LEPA,
USGS, ISGS,
I DP H
MDNR, USGS,
MDH, MDPH
NJSGS, USGS,
USEPA-REGI I
TWRB, USGS,
T OP H
Well Types
Monitored:
overview
conditions,
document sig-
nificant changes
PWS wells
(future install-
ations for
monitoring?)
overview con-
ditions, aquifer
mapping, detect
changes in
quantity and
quality
P WS — f’ i n I shed
water samples,
dedicated
monitoring
installations
establish base
line quality
“semi—pubi ic’
wells (I.e.
parks, restaur-
ants, etc.)
ambient quality
and quantity,
detect contami-
nation
special install—
attons for
monitoring
overview levels,
quantities, and
qualities, detect
changes in above
private, public,
industrial, and
agricultural
Number of’
Wells
Monitored:
1306 potential:
962 primary,
31414 alternates
(potential?)
125 at present,
several under-
way (1000 poten-
tial) PWS wells
for regulated
analyses
117 levels
100-150 quality,
100 for quality
600-700 levels,
600 —700/yr
quality and
and level
(6000 potential)
Square miles
Populat lon*
No. of’ counties
58,876
5,14614,265
1 59
7,836
7,3614,158
21
Objectives:
GDNR, USGS
H
-------
Table 1. Concluded
Sampling
Frequency:
ILLINOIS**
level 1, 3.5 yr
cycle; level 2,
5 yr cycle;
level 3 as
needed
GEORGIA
water levels-—
semi-annual,
some continuous
recorders,
qualities 3—5
yr cycle
MICHIGAN
levels done
daily to monthly
NEW JERSEY
1—LI times
anually (based
on ground water
flow velocity)
intensive
studies 2—3
times per month
TEXAS
water levels
semi—annually,
quality 5-6 yr
cycle
Number of
Parameters:
levels 1 , SDWA
and organic
scan; level 2,
SDWA and prior-
ity pollutants;
level 3 as
needed
$700,000/yr
for complete
program
cooperative,
compreheris I ye
monitoring,
analysis, and
reporting; trip—
wire for special
studies
1st yr SDWA
and organic
scan, subsequent
as indicated by
water quality
$100,000/yr
operation only,
system in place
(water use
mainly) sophi-
sticated program
with graphics;
all water divi—
slons housed in
one agency
83—814 in—
organ i cs
$36,000/yr
for sampling
and analysis
program
storage system
being developed
on cooperative
basis
1st yr wide
spectrum, in—
organics and
organic scan,
2nd yr “indi-
cators”
$165,000/yr
operation only
with system in
place
data entry from
paper underway
16-18 inorganics
and physical
$800,000—$1 M/
annually for
sampling and
analysis program,
complete highly
sophisiticated
program
sophisticated,
highly developed
geographic infor-
mation system and
reporting system;
trlpwlre for
special studies
information from interview and overviews
** proposed program
* 1980 census
Cost:
Features:
H
u- i
-------
IV-6
of Illinois appear to be about average compared with the progress toward
statewide monitoring programs in other states. Further discussions took
place during on—site visits with representatives of water—resource agencies
in the states of Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, and Texas.
As a result, the following general observations are offered:
1) Statewide ground-water monitoring programs are often developed In
response to a legislative mandate.
2) Programs are often developed as only one component of an overall
ground—water management plan (for example, to provide information in
support of the well drilling permitting process).
3) Programs are often operated by the “information” arm of the state
with the resulting information most often used by the “regulatory”
arm.
14) Most state programs are operated in cooperation with the USGS on a
cost—sharing basis.
5) Most programs share the same basic objectives; characterizing
ground—water conditions in time and space and detecting significant
changes In these conditions in support of resource—management
activities.
6) Statistical concepts are not usually a major factor In the design of
the monitoring network. Instead, a balance Is struck between what
is ideal and what is practically attainable given each state’s
resources and individual situation.
7) Priority areas are usually determined on the basis of existing or
potential use for water supply and general aquifer susceptibility.
8) An assessment of existing data is often performed to identity infor-
mation gaps and to help set priorities for monitoring.
-------
IV — 7
9) Identification of historical data which are most reliable and useful
for monitoring purposes is seen as an important component of moni-
toring network design.
10) The available historical data (especially older data and data from
private wells) are usually Incomplete and of questionable relia-
bility which greatly reduces Its value f or statewide monitoring
purposes.
11) Many existing programs are limited to the occasional sampling of
public water wells under the SDWA or to site—specific monitoring of
potential point sources under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).
12) Some programs emphasize the collection of baseline data In un-
affected areas (as a standard against wNich to measure future
changes), while others target areas at high risk because of the
presence of known potential contamination sources.
13) The storage of potentially valuable data in paper files limits the
states’ ability to apply these data to large—scale monitoring objec-
tives. Carefully planned data entry programs are a necessary first
step.
11) The size of the area requiring monitoring determines, to a large
extent, the degree of detail to which the area can be monitored.
Given the same level of funding, smaller states (e.g., New Jersey)
are able to obtain more detailed information than larger states
(e.g., Texas). This requires larger states to place greater
emphasis on the setting of priorities for data collection.
-------
IV-8
15) Program evaluation is usually Incorporated in the network design so
the program is responsive to changing needs or monitoring objec-
tives.
16) The skill and dedication of the personnel responsible for the moni-
toring program are critical factors in the successful operation of a
high quality monitoring program.
-------
Description of Wisconsin’s
Ground—Water Monitoring Program
Kevin Kessler
Bureau of Water
Resource Management
Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources
-------
iv — ii
DESCRIPTION OF WISCONSIN’S
GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM
Wisconsin’s groundwater monitoring effort includes two distinct approaches. Most
of the monitoring done in the state can be characterized as monitoring done to
determine impacts of contamination on the groundwater resources. This monitoring
is carried out at the state level primarily by the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources and consists of four separate functions which are named in Wisconsin’s
groundwater legislation. These functions are problem assessment monitoring,
regulatory monitoring, at risk well monitoring and management practice monitoring.
The other area of monitoring, to which far fewer resources are devoted, is called
resource definition monitoring. Activities conducted in this area are aimed at
determining the native or natural characteristics of groundwater without any human
induced changes.
Below is listed the type of monitoring done and the principal state and federal
agencies active in conducting that type of monitoring in Wisconsin.
I. Contamination Monitoring
A. Problem Assessment Monitoring
Problem assessment monitoring is done to determine and to assess the
extent to which substances are in the groundwater. Included in this
category are Wisconsin’s monitoring programs for pesticide sampliny of
private wells and volatile organic chemical monitoring of public and
private wells. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is the
agency with responsibility for conducting this monitoring. The monitoring
is not ambient monitoring in that it is directed toward areas that are
identified as being susceptible to contamination and particular chemicals
that are identified as being of concern. The areas and wells selected for
sampling are selected for the particular contaminant being monitored for.
B. Regulatory Monitoring
Regulatory monitoring is to determine the extent to which groundwater is
contaminated and meets or exceeds state groundwater standards. Regulatory
monitoring is that monitoring which is required as part of a regulation
around a regulated facility. Examples of regulatory monitoring in
Wisconsin are monitoring systems around landfills and monitoring systems
around wastewater disposal facilities such as seepage lagoons or ridge and
furrow systems. The monitoring is conducted by the owner or operator of
the facility and the reports are submitted to the Wisconsin’s Department
of Natural Resources usually on a monthly or quarterly basis. The
contaminants which must be monitored for are specified in an
administrative rule or in the individual approval or permit for that
facility. The Department of Natural Resources staff reviews the
monitoring results which are submitted. State personnel may also visit
the facility and collect their own samples to cross-check the data which
is being submitted. Groundwater monitoring systems always consist of a
well or wells upgradient from the facility and a series of wells
downgradient from the facility. Only about 1/5 of the landfills in
-------
IV— 12
Wisconsin presently have groundwater monitoring systems. All landfills
approved in recent years, however, do have groundwater monitoring systems
associated with them. In addition Wisconsin recently passed legislation
authorizing the Wisconsin DNR to require monitoring where necessary upon
the relicensing of existing landfills where no monitoring was previously
required. Wisconsin’s wastewater program regulates municipal wastewater
seepage lagoons as well as a variety of industrial wastewater disposal
facilities. All municipal wastewater seepage lagoons have groundwater
monitoring systems and routinely report their data. Only a fraction of
industrial wastewater facilities have groundwater monitoring systems
because most of those facilities are very small. Ridge and furrow systems
for diary plant wastes are a primary example.
C. At Risk Well Monitoring
At risk well monitoring is done where substances have been identified in
groundwater and where groundwater standards have been exceeded. This
monitoring consists largely of follow-up or investigatory monitoring in
areas of known problems to better identify the nature and extent of the
contamination. At risk well monitoring is monitoring of existing drinking
water wells in an area where groundwater is known to be contaminated.
This type of monitoring was included in Wisconsin’s groundwater
legislation in response to demands by citizens and environmental roups
that the State has an obligation for providing analysis of people s wells
known to be at risk.
D. Management Practice Monitoring
Management practice monitoring could be called applied research. It is
done to determine the practices necessary to meet state groundwater
standards. It is also done to judge the adequacy of existing designs or
existing regulations covering various sources of contamination. For
example, groundwater monitoring cannot be required in every farmer’s field
where pesticides are being applied. However, Wisconsin has a number of
projects underway judging the potential for leaching of pesticides to
groundwater under various conditions. There are many small wastewater
disposal systems where regulatory monitoring of every facility would not
be feasible. Wisconsin is studying, however, a number of small seepage
cell systems and ridge and furrow systems to judge the adequacy of their
performance and apply those determinations to judging the performance of
many similar systems. Another example of management practice monitoring
is the study of the performance of various septic system designs.
Management practice monitoring can be used for either judging performance
or for developing new best management practices.
The following is an estimate for the biennial totals for contracts for
contamination monitoring in Wisconsin. These totals include the costs for
laboratory analysis and the cost for studies which are contracted for. They do not
include the cost for WDWR staff.
Problem Assessment Monitoring $568,000
Regulatory Monitoring 720,000
At Risk Well Monitoring 452,000
Management Practice Monitoring 100,000
-------
IV— 13
II. Resource Definition Monitoring
Resource definition monitoring is done to determine background or natural
groundwater quality in the state. This monitoring is done by the United
Geologic Survey, The Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey and the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. This data is entered on the
U.S.G.S. WATSTORE System. These analysis are primarily for inorganic
chemicals. These include dissolved solids, hardness, alkalinity, calcium,
magnesium, sodium, iron magnesium sulfate, chloride, fluoride, and nitrate.
There is presently data from approximately 2,500 wells on the WATSTORE
System. No estimate for the annual cost for this type of monitoring is
available. WDtIR collects a one-time sample for inorganic chemical analysis
from every new municipal well upon its completion as part of this effort.
-------
Summary of Ground—Water Monitoring
in
Arizona
Susan Keith
Arizona Department of
Environmental Services
-------
1/2 3/8 5
SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING CONDUCTED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
CONSTITUENT(S)
1. LOB, DBCP
2. Aldicarb
3. Major ions and
trace metals
4. Nitrates
5. Volatile organic
chemicals (VOC)
and DBCP
6. Radiochemicals
7. Microorganisms
1 . Irrigated agriculture in Maricopa
County and Yunia area.
2. Pecan-growing area, Green Valley
3a. Mining areas south of Tucson and
in Globe-Miami
b. Cortaro area--NW of Tucson
c. Green Valley
4. St. David
5. Mesa Tn-cities area; Yuma area
TYPE
Regional (ambient)
monitoring
PURPOSE
To assess regional water
quality and/or impact of
large-scale land use on
groundwater quality
AREA(S )
H
6. Rio Puerco
7. Pinetop-Lakeside
COMMENTS: Most monitoring uses existing production wells. Items 3-5 undertaken by Councils of
Governments with Federal 205(j) or 208 funding.
-------
1/23/85
TYPE
PURPOSE
C ONS T IT Uf N Tfl
fl)
Site-specific contamination
investigations
A. 3012 program
B. State-funded targeted
studies
C. Emergency/complaint
response
A, Federal program to assess
uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites
8. To assess public health hazard
and extent of contamination at
known or suspected contaminated
sites through sampling of nearby
production wells
C. Same as B
A. Priority pollutants
B. Primarily TCE and
other VOCs
C. Constituents are
specific to the
emergency event or
complaint
B. Most sites have been in the
Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan
areas
C. Wherever emergency/complaint
occurs
H
0. Superfund Remedial
activities
0. To provide data necessary to
undertake Superfund activities
P. Primarily VOCs
0. Tucson Superfund site
E. Non-superfund
Remedial activities
F. To assess nature and extent of
contamination and public health
hazard at known spill—leak sites;
facility assumes responsibility
for installation and sampling of
monitoring wells. ADHS collects
split samples.
F. Constituents are
specific to problem.
Currently most remedial
activities involve TCE
and other volatiles and,
in the case of gasoline
storage tank leaks,
benzene, toluene and the
zylenes.
E. Most sites are in Phoenix and
Yuma areas.
A, Ten sites
-------
1/23/85
TYPE
Regulatory Compi lance
Monitoring
PURPOSE
CONSTITUENT(S )
AREA(S )
A. Safe Drinking Water
Act
A. To insure that people serviced
by water systems receive water
that meets certain standards
A. Constituents specified
in primary drinking
water standards plus
the unregulated organic
chemicals of concern to
ADHS (such as ICE, EDB,
DBCP)
A. All over the State
6. Groundwater Permits
Program
B. To Insure that discharges do
not cause a violation of
groundwater quality standards.
B. Constituents are specific B.
to the waste discharged.
Where necessary
H
I — .
C. Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
(RCRA)/Arizona State
Hazardous Waste
Management Act
C. To provide early warning of
migration of hazardous wastes
to groundwater; to develop
proper remedial action
response to protect groundwater.
C. Primary Drinking Water
Standards; indicator
parameters pH, EC, lox,
TOC; major ions; specific
hazardous waste constituents
as needed.
C. post hazardous waste sites
are in Phoenix-Tucson corridor.
COMMENT: Responsibility for this type of monitoring is borne by the Facility being regulated. Role of ADHS is to insure
that monitoring programs are sufficient to meet ADH5 expectations; and to collect split samples to document
the quality of data.
-------
IV— 20
GROUNDWATER SAMPIJNG AREAS SINCE
I.IL
;‘, S/
(I”
- -
(
1
11 2
2 w.
2
3
4
S
$
7
$
- - * - ‘ \ ,&rf (V
\4
( 7\ S
J f(’
C’
I . :
(_
!
5 5 7 4
3237 _
—i 4 4
LEGEND
TRACE METALS
PESTICIDES
VOCS
COMMON IONS £ TRACE METALS
BACTE R IA
CYANIDE
GASOLINE CONTAMINATION
RADIOC HEN ICAL. S
1979
\
$
S
‘V 0
4,
J 3
2
4 3
2
(
4
46
1—24-IS
-------
DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED FEDERAL, STATE AND COUNTY
GROUND WATER MONITORING STRATEGY
Gail P. Carter*
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protect ion
Division of Water Resources
1474 Prospect Street
Trenton, New Jersey
September 1982
-------
IV— 22
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the time and efforts of Raig Kasabach,
Wayne Hutchinson and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Water Resources Division
staff in Trenton. Without their experience and cooperation the Integrated
Ground Water Monitoring Strategy would not be as comprehensive or as valuable.
-------
IV—23
Introduction
A dramatic increase in the value of ground water resources and concern
for its protection has occurred in the past decade. The first section
of this paper presents a brief. suary of the conditions which caused
New Jersey to develop an integrated ground water monitoring program.
The second section describes in detail the cooperative strategy de-
veloped to utilize all resources, at the federal, state and county level,
to achieve a technically adequate system for the protection of our ground
waters.
History of Conditions
In the early seventies it was a coon misconception, among health of-
ficials as well as the general public, that ground water supplies were
inherently ‘protected’ by their subsurface nature. Aside from the two
obvious problems of salt water intrusion and supply depletion, the subtle
long term contamination problems went unrecognized for years.
At the federal level, the United States
Resources Division (WRD) in cooperation
Environxi ntal Protection was conducting
the Water Level Monitoring Network and
addressed long recognized ground water
term basic data gathering programs did
from man—made sources.
Geological Survey’s (USGS) Water
with the New Jersey Department of
two excellent monitoring networks —
the Salinity Network. Both networks
problems. However, these two long
not address ground water contamination
-------
IV— 24
At the state level, when the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP), Division of Water Resources, was created in 1971 most
of the technical and budgetary resources were devoted to surface water.
But in a state where sixty percent of the potable water supply comes from
ground water and public supply wells exist in almost every area of the state,
new ground water problems were being identified almost daily. 3y 1975,
the ever increasing number of ground water problem areas prompted NJDEP to
create a ‘special services’ unit and to increase the staff of full, time ground
water geologists from one to five.
However, the extent of New Jersey’s ground water problems demanded that the
special services unit act almost exclusively as an emergency response group.
Most of their efforts were spent on major existing pollution problems.
As the major causes of ground water pollution were identified, isolated
attempts were made to monitor for potential ground water contamination. At
the state level, registered landfills were required to install monitoring wells
and to submit quarterly compliance water analyses. However, ground water
quality standards did not exist and the sampling and analytical methodolo-
gies required to obtain representative aquifer analyses were just being
developed. This was especially true for low level organic contamination.
At the county level, local health departments were instituting inspection
and testing of domestic well supplies. But tests for bacteria, hardness,
pH, nitrogen and chlorides were insufficient in a state as densely popu-
lated and as heavily industrialized as New Jersey. There was clearly no con-
certed or technically adequate program to monitor the state’s ground water
resources.
-------
IV— 25
By 1979 the magnitude of the ground water contamination problem necessitated
the creation of the NJDEP, Bureau of Ground Water Management and to more than
double existing geological staff. Still, Bureau geologists were hard—pressed
to locate the reliable, up—to—date ground water information needed to
evaluate the existing problems. Only the USGS data on coastal plain salinity
and water levels were both reliable and available. Six areas were isolated
as the major impediments to the preservation and protection of existing ground
water supplies:
1. Lack of ground water quality standards;
2. Lack of monitoring requirements for all dischargers to
ground water;
3. Lack of adequate sampling and analytical quality controls;
4. Unavailability of ground water data for the northern
New Jersey highlands and lowlands regions;
5. linaccessibility of exisiting data, and;
6. A total lack of monitoring program coordination.
Therefore, in 1979 a strategy was designed, which resulted in two 208
Ground Water Grants and a set of Laboratory Certification Regulations
which in combination allowed New Jersey to address the preceeding six
issues. The first grant provided the funds necessary to allow New Jersey
to assume primacy of the federal pollution discharge permit program,
(NPDES). The New Jersey program (NJPDES) includes regulations governing
dischargers to ground water as well as the federally regulated dischargers
to surface water. In addition, ground water quality standards were pro—
-------
IV—26
inulgated and the laboratory certification program, necessary to insure that
compliance monitoring submitted by dischargers is technically adequate, was
established. Until that time, only potable water supply analyses required
certifiable sampling and analytical quality control. Finally, the Integrated
Ground Water Monitoring Strategy (IGWMS) was designed to coordinate the n—
itoring program being developed with the various existing programs. The
focus of this paper is the framework established, under the IGWMS, to provide
comprehensive ground water monitoring program coordination.
The Integrated Ground Water Monitoring Strategy
Originally, the two main objectives of the Integrated Ground Water
Monitoring Strategy were:
1. To identify all existing ground water monitoring programs, at
all levels of government, and;
2. To identify any monitoring information gaas.
However, the policy and budget changes which developed in the 1980’s re-
sulted in an increased scope for this grant. Three additional project
goals were stressed;
1. To eliminate program duplication by coordinating the various
monitoring programs;
2. To enhance the accessibility of information between programs
by developing a centralized data pool, and;
-------
IV—27
3. To bring all monitoring programs up to a minimum, standard level
of quality control.
To identify and characterize existing ground water monitoring programs a
detailed survey questionnaire was sent to 90 agencies. The 90 agencies
were selected on the basis of their likelihood to collect or have interest
in ground water monitoring information. Also each agency conducting a
ground water monitoring program was interviewed. Evaluation of the infor-
mation collected showed that 85 percent of the ground water monitoring con-
ducted in New Jersey was performed by the United States Geological Survey,
the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Delaware River Basin
Cornxnission and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Additional analysis of existing federal, interstate and state programs
showed that the vast majority of the resources devoted to ground water
monitoring focused on pollution or quantity analysis. The critical monitor-
ing gap identified was the lack of ambient ground water quality data.
Data Base Coordination
Having identified both existing programs and the major monitoring gap,
efforts were initiated to establish links between the existing federal,
interstate and state programs. A Water Monitoring Work Group was created
in 1981. This group met bi—monthly and included 17 federal, interstate
and state agencies conducting water monitoring programs, as well as agencies
interested in using water monitoring data. These meetings provided a forum
to discuss monitoring problems and to coordinate program planning among all
of the agencies involved.
-------
1V-28
Two maJOr issues were clarified during the Water Monitoring Work Group
t et ings:
i. A very wide range of quality assurance techniques were employed
by the various programs. This made individual agencies reluctant
to exchange or rely upon much of the existing data, and;
2. The inaccessibility of the monitoring information, especially at
the state level, made such exchanges impossible.
All of the state’s ground water data was stored in paper files at that time.
To eliminate program duplication agencies must be able to rely on the in-
formation collected by other sources and to gain access to the needed data.
Thus, the computerization of the state’s historical and incoming ground
water data, in a manner compatible with the existing federal and interstate
data bases, was initiated. This task was closely coordinated with the state’s
laboratory quality assurance unit.
The overall data storage strategy was considered a crucial Step in the crea-
tion of a centralized data pool. Three separate data bases were being used
for ground water data storage. The USGS ground water data resides in the
federal WATSTORE data base in the Ground Water Site Inventory (GWSI) file.
This file is specifically designed to store and manipulate water data para-
meters of a physical nature. Unfortunately, WATSTORE does not accomodate
chemical water quality data, which is vital to the state’s monitoring pro—
grams. The Delaware River Basin Commission’s (DRBC) data resides in the
-------
IV— 29
System 2000, a privately developed data base. This data base is also designed
specifically for water quantity data and is unsuitable for New Jersey’s more
demanding needs. The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA)
data resides in STORET, the federal water quality data base. STORET was
chosen to be the repository for NJDEP’s ground wat er monitoring, data for five
reasons:
1. STORET is designed to store and manipulate water quality data;
2. Some NJDEP surface water data is already stored in STORET and
ground water data management personnel could work in—house with
surface water personnel to develop computer usage capabilities;
3. STORET is a ‘user friendly’ system and can be efficiently used
by scientists without an extreme amount of progran irig experience;
4. A wide variety of accessory packages, including analytical,
statistical and graphical programs, are compatible with STORET,
and;
5. The WATSTORE federal data base periodically updates its files
into STORET.
Three long term state level monitoring programs exist which collect ground
water quality information which required computerization:
1. The landfill compliance monitoring files, which contain ten years
of historical water data;
2. The Bureau of Ground Water Management’s case files, which also
contain ten years of historical water data, and;
-------
IV—30
3. The recently promulgated New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System program (NJPDES), which is now beginning to collect tremen-
dous amounts of ground water data.
Once data encoding had begun it was realized that a state level data storage
strategy was necessary in order to separate each file from the other two.
This was necessary for reasons of scientific reliability of the data. The
historical water quality data in the landfill and pollution case files was
collected in the period prior to the passage of the laboratory quality
assurance regulations which govern non—potable supply water analyses and
certify water quality laboratories. Indiscriminate combination of the his-
torical data with the NJPDES file information, which would be collected after
the laboratory regulations would become effective, would result in a
‘contaminated’ data base. Such a move would effectively nullify the quality
assurance controls recently instituted. To avoid this problem and to lessen
future user costs a separate agency code was established for the landfill
file, for each individual pollution case and for the NJPDES computer files
being designed.
By specifying agency codes in programs, data may be retrieved by its source
file. Conversely, by specifying a New Jersey code or a geographic code the
data from all files will be grouped before being printed out. Individual
pollution cases were given separate agency codes in order to reduce the cost
of retrieving frequently analyzed and graphed data sets.
-------
IV — 31
The next task, after computerization of the state’s files, was to establish
linkages between the USGS Ground Water Site Inventory files on WATSTORE,
the DRBC System 2000 files and STORET. Direct linkage was attempted; however,
hardware incompatabilities prevented direct access from one system into
another. The only alternative, at that point, was to achieve computer system
coordination by developing a retrieval linkage. This concept calls for an
identification system to be developed which would provide each individual
well in the state with a unique i.d. number. These unique i.d. numbers
would then be input into all New Jersey ground water files, in WATSTORE,
System 2000 and STORET, as a sorting key word. Once this has been completed,
information cross referencing will be established.
To increase the usefulness of the well identifier, instead of developing an
arbitrary numbering system, the agencies agreed on using the identification
system employed by the NJDEP Well Permits Section. The Well Permits Section
of NJDEP maintains the well permit, well record and geologic log on many of
the wells drilled in the state since 1947. The numbering system is based
upon the New Jersey Atlas Sheet Series and incorporates a general location
of each well in the i.d. number. Once all wells in each- computer base
receive their i.d. number, agencies can easily provide one another with needed,
specific well information. In addition, the general location of any well is
iediately recognizable and the drilling or geologic information , which is
maintained on microfiche, can be quickly accessed. At this time, the USGS
and NJDEP are entering the well i.d. numbers and the DRBC is preparing to do
the same.
-------
IV— 32
County Level Ground Water Monitoring
After developing the mechanisms to coordinate federal, interstate and state
level ground water monitoring programs, the Bureau of Ground Water Manage-
ment staff approached the 21 county governments in New Jersey. It was hoped
to coordinate IGWMS efforts with the recently passed County Environmental
Health Act. This act requires all New Jersey counties to monitor and enforce
environmental health standards for water, air, solid waste and noise pollu-
tion in a manner consistent with the performance standards promulgated by the
NJDEP.
Ocean County, in the eastern coastal plain of New Jersey, expressed a serious
con itment of county staff and resources, partially utilizing funding from
a federal 208 grant, to this project and proposed that the county level
ground water monitoring pilot program begin there. A cooperative sampling
program was designed based on the major concern of Ocean County, the protec-
tion of its vulnerable water table aquifers, and the need for ambient ground
water quality information. After examination of land use patterns and field
location of accessible wells, 270 wells were selected for the first sampling
year. Sampling began in October of 1981.
-------
IV— 33
Eighty percent of the selected wells were water table wells. These 216
wells were distributed in areas of county concern which fell outside of the
areas covered by the state regulatory programs, or in pristine areas suit-
able for the acquisition of ambient background quality data. The remaining
twenty percent of the wells were screened in the deeper artesian aquifers
important to the current and future potable supply of the county. Each well
was sampled once and analyzed for seven common dissolved ions, fourteen trace
metals, six nutrients and four selected volatile organic compounds.
To develop county level abilities, USGS personnel trained Ocean County staff
in standardized sampling protocol; including well evacuation, sampling, sam-
ple preservation and storage techniques. Ocean County health laboratory
personnel and equipment were also tested for quality control. The county
laboratory received blind samples, split samples, instructions in instrument
control methodologies and suggestions on record keeping throughout the project.
The monitoring results were stored in WATSTORE and will be updated into
STORET by 1983. Currently, the monitoring results are being evaluated to
determine which well stations and chemical parameters should be included in
next years monitoring program. Also, several shallow wells will be drilled
by the Bureau of Ground Water Management in areas where wells are unavailable.
This project is geared to developing county level ground water monitoring
and laboratory capabilities. Once the basic monitoring framework has been
established and the county has demonstrated sufficient quality controls,
USGS and NJDEP will drop out of the project. It has not been determined where
the next county level monitoring project will be located.
-------
IV—34
Ambient Ground Water Quality Network
The final step in developing the Integrated Ground Water Monitoring Strategy
was to include ambient ground water quality monitoring in the USGS/NJDEP
Water Quality Surveillance Network. Until FY 82 this network only monitored
surface water quality on a regular basis. However, the inability to muse—
diately develop county level monitoring capabilities and the real need for
reliable ambient ground water quality data resulted in a shift of program
priorities and resources. Many surface water stations have been dropped
from the network and about 100 wells will be added in FY’83. These wells
have been selected and will be sampled yearly to collect long term ambient
ground water quality data. Well stations were selected by their accessibil-
ity, distance from point sources of contamination, by land use patterns,
their relation to base flow and the minimum number of wells needed to statis-
tically define regional aquifer quality. One hundred surface water stations
will continue to be sampled six times each year.
The minimum chemical parameter list for ground water data consists of 31
indicator substances from 8 chemical groups. The chemical groups include
base neutrals, acid extractables, nutrients, major ions, trace metals and
other organic compounds. Seventy—three additional chemical parameters will
be examined in certain wells. The Information collected in this program
will be stored in WATSTORE and updated into STORET.
-------
IV—35
Conclusion
Although the goal of the Integrated Ground Water Monitoring Strategy is to
coordinate existing ground water monitoring programs and to develop a cen-
tralized data pool, these steps are only one facet of a much larger effort.
To develop a truly integrated ground water monitoring strategy all levels
of government must combine resources and share areas of expertise. Legis—
lation must be passed where necessary, and a real commitment to protect
and preserve ground water resources must be made. The following six steps
summarize New Jersey’s activities in developing an effective ground water
monitoring strategy:
I. Existing programs were identified and characterized;
2. Monitoring gaps were identified;
3. Legislation to protect our ground water resources was
passed and programs funded;
4. Quality control standards were instituted;
5. Monitoring information was made accessible and coordinated
with the existing programs, and;
6. Programs to fill existing monitoring gaps were developed.
-------
Overview of Ground—Water Monitoring Activities
in
New Jersey
Arnold Schiffman
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
Division of Water Resources
February, 1985
-------
IV—39
Overview of Ground—Water Monitoring
Activities in New Jersey
In 1982, a survey was made of all ground—water monitoring
programs conducted in New Jersey. Seventeen groups were involved
in collecting and analyzing, to one degree or another,
ground—water quality and water use data. Six data base
management systems were in use by various state, interstate and
federal agencies. Since that time, there has been a substantial
expansion of ground—water monitoring activities fueled by
implementation of new laws and public awareness of ground water
pollution -
At present, most ground—water monitoring activities in New
Jersey are managed directly or indirectly by the Division of
Water Resources (DWR), an agency of the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP). DWR has lead responsibility for:
1) the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2) permits for ground—water
allocation and well construction; 3) permits for pollutant
discharges to ground water (including the UIC program), 4)
ground—water pollution and ground—water monitoring aspects of
RCRA; 5) evaluation and investigation of cases of ground—water
pollution discovered by agency enforcement activities or
Superfund studies; and 6) cooperative programs with the USGS for
base—line monitoring.
In 1983, 2,052 wells were drilled solely for the purpose of
monitoring ground—water quality (data from well construction
permits issued). The vast majority of these wells were
constructed to evaluate cases of ground—water pollution reported
to the DEP or discovered by this agency. In addition, large
numbers of existing wells are tested by state and local agencies.
Little documentation is available as to the exact number of wells
sampled; however, the order of magnitude is believed to be a few
thousand per year.
The following New Jersey legislation is having a major
impact on ground water monitoring:
1) New Jersey Water pollution Control Act of 1976 which is
commonly referred to as NJPDES or the New Jersey
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System .
First implemented in 1982, this law requires
permits for all pollutant discharges to ground and
surface water in the state. The definition of
-------
IV — 40
discharge specifically includes all activities which
may cause pollutants to seep or drain to the land or
ground waters. Thus, landfills, surface impoundments,
spray irrigation of wastewater, land application of
municipal and industrial sludges, waste piles,
injection wells, and multi-unit septic systems require
state discharge permits. It is estimated that over
2,000 facilities will require ground—water discharge
permits in New Jersey. To date, about 15 percent of
these have been permitted. All permits issued require
substantial ground—water monitoring and installation of
monitoring wells.
2) Environmental Cleanup and Responsibility Act of 1983 or
“ ECRA .
This act requires approval by the state
environmental agency (DEP) before most industrial
establishments can sell or transfer property. A state
certification that the soil, ground water and surface
water are not contaminated with hazardous substances is
required. About 1,000 facilities per year are expected
to be evaluated under this law. It is anticipated that
20 to 30 percent of these will require substantial
ground—water monitoring.
3) 1984 Amendments to the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water
Act .
This law requires that the state establish
contaminant levels (MCL) for twenty—two organic
chemicals (mostly volatile organics) within 18 months
of the effective date of the act and, within two years,
establish MCLs for other chemicals which pose a cancer
risk of one in one million. All public water supplies
are then to be tested for these substances. In New
Jersey, ground water provides about one half of the
total water supply (excluding power—plant cooling
water).
Because of this rapidly growing ground—water monitoring
activity, basic regulatory requirements have been established as
follows:
1) All monitoring wells require a well construction permit
(application and well completion report) and must be
drilled by a licensed well driller.
-------
IV—41
2) Water samples (both surface water and ground water)
must be collected in accordance with a “Field
Procedures Manual”.
3) Laboratories analyzing water samples collected for all
programs (i.e. safe drinking water, discharge permit
monitoring) must be certified by the state for
proficiency in each parameter analyzed.
4) Specific requirements in regulations and permits for
accurate monitoring——well locations, type of well
construction, “as—built” certification of construction,
and submitting monitoring data on standardized
reporting forms-—have also been written.
Obviously, the large amount of ground water data being
collected presents a data management problem. Currently, only
data from the base—line monitoring programs managed by the USGS
and state regulatory programs (monitoring required by state
discharge permits and the state/federal Safe Drinking Water Act)
are routinely entered into computer data bases.
-------
V. CASE STUDY: GROUND-WATER MONITORING IN FLORIDA
-------
INTRODUCTION
The following pages describe the Ground-Water Monitoring Program in
Florida. This information was obtained from Dr. Rodney DeHan of the Ground-
Water Section of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for use in
this document. The section on monitoring strategies is taken from a questionnaire
prepared by EPA Region IV.
The material is organized as follows:
• Florida’s Ground-Water Monitoring Plan
• Status Report, February 1984, on Implementation of Water
Quality Assurance Act
• Monitoring Strategies:
1) Ambient
2) Compliance
3) Pesticides
4) Emergency Responses
5) Special Studies
6) Unaddressed Federal Sources
• Ground-Water Monitoring Costs
-------
CLOUND
WATEL
MONITOQING
PLAN
Florida
FLORIDA DEPARTMEF T OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
-------
V-5
Introduction
Historically, ground water has been a high quality, inexpensive and
readily available source of potable water in Florida. This state is one of
few in the nation that depends almost totalty on ground water for drink-
ing, and ground water supplies half the water used for agriculture, in-
dustry and electric power generation. Florida’s dependence on ground
water will increase along with increases in population and industrial de-
ye op men t.
The expected increase in the demand for ground water will aggra-
vate the susceptibility of the resource to pollution unless measures are
taken to better manage and protect the aquifers.
Because of Florida’s hyarogeology, ground water aquifers are highly
susceptible to pollution by man’s activities on the land surface. Detec-
tion of ground water pollution and subsequent clean up (if possible at
all) is very difficult — and extremely costly.
The discovery of large-scale pollution of Florida ground water by
the pesticide Ethylene Dibromide, and threats from hazardous and
non-hazardous waste sites, are samples of the seriousness of the prob-
I em -
The Florida Legislature recognized these issues and began major
steps to address them when it passed the Water Quality Assurance Act
of 1983.
-------
V-6
Ground Water Quality
to be Monitored
Among many other things, the Act requires the Department of
Environmental Regulation (DER) to cooperate with other state and
federal agencies, water management districts, and local governments to
establish a “a ground water quality monitoring network designed to de-
tect or predict contamination of the state’s ground water resources.”
The Act instructs the DER to make information generated by the
network available to state and federal agencies and local governments to
help with their regulatory and land use planning decisions. This publi-
cation is to inform state legislators, local governments and the general
public of the DER’s plans and actions to establish the ground water
quality monitoring network.
The DER expects the network to provide information in three
major areas:
• Determination of the quality of water provioed to the public by
major well fields in the state.
• Determination of the ambient or unaffected ground water
quality.
• Determination of the quality of ground water affected by sources
of pollution.
Results from the network will help state, local and federal agencies
make regulatory, water and land use decisions that are founded on
technical and scientific bases. The ultimate benefit of this approach will
be improved management and protection of ground water.
-------
V-7
The Ground Water Quality
Monitoring Program
Following is a brief description of the status of the program ue-
veloped by the DER to evaluate ground water quality and assure that
drinking water is free of contamination.
GOAL I
To Ensure that the Majority of Floridians
are Consuming Uncontaminated Drinkiny Water
The federal and the state Safe Drinking Water Acts require public
water suppliers to analyze their treated water for certain chemical,
physical and bacteriological parameters known as “primary” and
“secondary” drinking water criteria. While these criteria are useful in
detecting pollution from domestic sources and some industrial and
agricultural sources, they are inadequate to detect toxic and carcino-
genic organic chemicals, including many pesticides.
To fill this gap, the DER contracted with the U.S. Geological Sur-
vey (USGS) to collect and analyze samples from 96 major Florida pub-
tic water supply well fields for additional parameters. The parameters
were selected as indicators of the presence of toxic and carcinogenic
organics and pesticides.
The 96 well fields serve some three million Floridians. In all, there
are some 7,000 public water supply wells in the state. The department
has asked community public water supply systems which were not
sampled by USGS to conduct similar analyses on a voluntary basis.
Because of the importance of these tests, the department plans to
require the analyses by administrative rule in the future.
GOAL H
To Determine the Quality of Ground Vvater
Affected by Sources of Pollution
This goal, and to some extent the first goal, are being accomplished
in three phases. The DER has developed agreements with each of the
five water management districts to carry out the program tasks.
-------
V-B
Phase I
Compilatton of Existing Data and
Generation of New Data
A large volume of data must be collected before actual ground
water monitoring can begin, either through existing or new wells. The
necessary data includes:
• Location of point and nonpoint source pollution.
Rint sources include landfills (active or abandoned), percolation
ponds, industrial septic tanks, land application sites, buried tanks, drum
recycling operations, mining waste discharge (and gypsum stacks) and
drainage wells.
• Delineation of the depth, areal extent and continuity of imper-
meable zones.
This information is essential to determine aquifer zones to be moni-
tored and the depth and location of monitoring wells.
• Location and delineation of cones of depression around well
fields.
Withdrawal of water from wells creates a situation (around the
wells) of increased percolation rates from the surface and thus a higher
potential for pollution of the aquifer and subsequent withdrawal of
pollutants through the supply well. It is essential that cones of depres-
Sian be delineated, and proper monitoring wells drilled to predict or
detect contamination before any contaminated water is withdrawn
through the supply wells.
• Location and delineation of the outcrop areas for the Floridan
Aquifer.
The Floridan aquifer is the major drinking water aquifer in the
state. In general, it is protected from surface pollution by confining
beds of tow permeability clay, by overlaying surficial aquifers, and
by its location at great depths underground. In a number of areas of
the state, however, the Floridan comes close to the surface (outcrops)
and becomes the surficial aquifer. In these cases, the aquifer is highly
susceptible to pollution. Development and location of waste disposal
facilities in these areas must be viewed with great caution and closely
monitored.
-------
V—9
• Location and delineation of wetlands, sprinys, sinkholes and
other direct or indirect recharge areas.
Surface water in wetlands is interconnected with ground water. The
quality of water in a wetland is a critical factor which affects the quality
of ground water. Other recharge areas are of similar significance to the
Floridari outcrop areas. Protection is necessary through prudent man-
agement and monitoring of these areas.
• Location of agricultural and other areas where pesticides, herbi-
cides and fertilizers are heavily used.
The highly publicized Alciicarb (Temik) and Ethylene Dibromide
(EDE) issues are two painful examples of the significance of the pesti-
cide problem. The application of toxic chemicals in agriculture and
other activities has traditionally been accompanied by limited under-
standing of the effect of these chemicals on ground and surface water
quality.
Widespread contamination of ground water by EDB has focused
attention on the need for close monitoring of ground water in areas
where pesticides and other chemicals are applied. This problem is ex-
tremely difficult to address because the areas affected are extremely
large, the pollution is dispersed, and few accurate records of application
areas and rates are available. Cooperation between the DER, the De—
partment of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Department of Community
Affairs is essential in locating pesticide application areas and designing
monitoring wells to predict and detect ground water contamination
before it happens.
• Identification of saltwater intrusion boundaries.
The problem is limited primarily to coastal areas where extreme
withdrawal of fresh water has caused the seawater to move into coastal
aquifers. This is being adequately addressed by the water management
districts. Continued attention to saltwater intrusion is essential in de-
signing a statewide monitoring network to ensure that the saltwater
boundaries are stabilized and — when possible pushed back.
• Location and plugging of free-flowing artesian wells.
Oil and gas exploration activities have resulted in the existence of a
large number of free-flowing wells. The wells have great potential for
-------
v— b
wasting precious fresh water and they can become contaminated with
salt or lower quality water from deeper aquifers.
Thousands of these wells have oeen located and plugged by the
water management districts. However, thousands of others remain
unplugged and thousands more remain unidentified.
Although the Act identifies this proolem as a separate issue, it is
part of the monitoring network effort since free-flowing wells are
possible sources of pollution. The Act also identifies data collation as
a separate function, but data collection also is an integral part of the
establishment of a ground water monitoring network. Both data col-
lection and the free-flowing well problem are being coordinated by the
Groundwater Program in DER.
Phase II
Determination of the t umber and Location
of iVionitoriny vells
Federal, regional, state and local agencies have, f or various reasons,
drilled and used monitoring wells in the state, and records with varying
degrees of completeness and accuracy from these wells are already in
existence. Many of these wells may be used as part of the monitoring
network. The DER has conducted a search for such wells (in coopera-
tion with the USGS and the University of Florida) and has located
1,800 wells which may be suitable. Additional research must be con-
ducted to locate more wells for ground water monitoring. The loca-
tion of existing wells will save a great deal of money that would other-
wise be spent on drilling new wells.
Some new wells will be drilled in areas where no existing wells can
be found, or where the existing wells are not suitably located to serve as
monitoring points. The location of the monitoring wells (both new and
existing) will be in relation to sources of pollution, and to evaluate am-
oient ground water quality.
-------
v-li
Phase UI
Collection and Analysis of Water Samples
and Establishment of Water Quality Trends.
Specific monitoring parameters have been established to allow the
DER to determine the effect of sources of pollution. The number and
type of parameters vary according to the type of waste discharged. The
sampling project is designed to provide baseline water quality data for
subsequent monitoring of water quality trends. For evaluation of
ambient water quality, only indicator parameters will be sampled for
and analyzed less frequently than for aquifers affected by pollutants.
Data will be entered into DER computer systems. Computerized
graphic systems will express data in a clear, easily understandable
format suitable for decision making. Data analysis will be closely
coordinated with the data collection effort and the information will be
included in an annual bibliography, Reports and bibliographies will oe
made availanle to the Legislature and local, state and regional agencies
to help them in their decision making.
Phase Ill will continue for the foreseeable future with necessary
modifications for development, growth, economics and water quality
changes.
-------
V-12
Summary
and
Recommendations
In planning the network tasks, many factors were taken into con-
sideration. Protection of the state’s environment and the public health
were the two main goals. However, economic factors and the avail-
ability of funds and manpower are important factors which signifi.
cantly shape the level of effort possible in the time allotted.
It is evident that all three phases cannot be completed under the
available time and funding level. Accordingly, the plan is designed to
complete Phase I and a significant part of Phase II in fiscal year 1983-84.
During this fiscal year, each water management district is to select a
pilot area where all three phases will be carried Out. Such areas will be
selected on the basis of environmental sensitivity and high potential
impact on public health. This approach will enable the DER and the
water management districts to establish methods to carry out alt three
phases statewide when funds become available.
White exact levels of needed funding are not available, at least the
current $2 million appropriation should be continued for the next three
fiscal years for the network to be fully operative.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
FEBRUARY 1984
STATUS
REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE
WATER QUALITY ASSURANCE ACT
-------
V-15
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
TWIN TOWERS OFFICE IJUILOING BOB GRAHAM
2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD GOVERNOR
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301-8241
VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL
SECRETARY
February 29, 1984
Honorable N. Curtis Peterson, Jr.
Florida Senate President
Suite 409
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Honorable H. Lee Moffitt
Speaker
Florida House of Representatives
Suite 420
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Dear President Peterson and Speaker Moffitt:
I am very pleased to enclose a report on our implementation
of the Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983.
While much remains to be done, I believe you will be as
satisfied as I am over the progress we have made in the
implementation of this complex and most important legislation.
Several key areas are worth noting:
*Sewage Treatment Grant rules for the state priority systems
are adopted. We are working actively with communities throughout
the state —- particularly the small communities -- to make sure
that those who most need help are ready when funds are available
in November.
*We and the water management districts are well along in the
groundwater monitoring program so desperately needed to produce
the information we need to fully protect our underground drinking
water supplies.
*The Pesticide Review Council is fully operational, has met
several times and is providing valuable assistance to the
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in its pesticides
program.
Protecting Florida and Your Quality of Life
-------
V-16
President Peterson,
Speaker Moffitt
February 29, 1984
Page two
*The Local Government Hazardous Waste Assessments are well
underway in the most populated areas of the state —— working under
guidelines prepared by the department. The next group of counties
are preparing to begin their work.
*A ij esty Days -— which will allow homeowners and small
businesses to dispose of small amounts of hazardous waste at no
charge —— is about to begin on schedule.
*Nearly $1 million were spent from the Water Quality
Assurance Trust Fund for state clean up activities at the City
Chemical site in Orlando.
*The department and other agencies have sampled 3,345 private
and public potable water wells for possible contamination by the
pesticide EDB and have found the pesticide in some 541 wells.
Some $1.2 million have been spent or obligated from the Water
Quality Assurance Trust Fund for the sampling and anaysis of well
water, for providing alternate supplies of drinking water, and for
research into filters which can remove the contamination.
More detailed summaries of each of these programs, and of the
others required under the Water Quality Assurance Act, are in the
report. Each summary report describes the requirements to be met
and our progress, and outlines the schedule for the months ahead.
It is not unusual for legislation which is as wide ranging
and complex as the Water Quality Assurance Act to contain
oversights and omissions. While the Water Quality Assurance Act
is no exception, we are amazed at how few there are; another
example of a tremendous amount of painstaking work by the Senate,
the House of Representatives, and their respective staffs. We
have submitted corrective legislation to the appropriate
committees in both Houses of the Legislature. It will receive its
first subcommittee hearings in both Houses in early March, and
department staff will work closely with your committees as this
legislation progresses.
While we are pleased with our progress so far, we realize
there is much much more to do; in fact, most of the work lies
ahead. Preventing further contamination of grour’dwater; cleaning
up hazardous waste sites, and ensuring that the mistakes of the
past do not become the habits of the future are not short—term
tasks. Your successors as President of the Senate and Speaker of
the House of Representatives, and my successors as Secretary of
the Department of Environmental Regulation, all will find
themselves fully occupied in the years ahead.
-------
V—17
PART I — SECTION 2
DATA COLLECTION
Task Description :
Establish central repository for all scientific and
factual information relating to water resources generated by
local governments, water management districts and state
agencies. Collect, maintain and make available such information
to public and private users within the state.
Status :
Most sources of water quality data have been identified.
State agencies, water management districts, local programs
and several private agencies have been contacted through a
questionaire or phone survey. Meetings have also been held
with several agencies including most DER district offices.
ops personnel have copied data at agencies which have non—
automated water quality information. Copies are being
systematically transferred to Tallahassee. Agencies with
automated data files will have their tapes transferred by the
Data Management Staff. Draft computer formats for monitoring
well inventory information and test results have been sent
out for comments. Agencies have also been asked to comment
on their potential use and needs of the DER data base system.
Schedule :
OPS will complete the bulk of data aquisition from
agencies with non—automated files by the end of February.
They will transcribe data to format sheets in March. Tapes
will be required from agencies with automated files in
February, March and April. A method of continually updating
the data base will be developed in February.
-------
V-18
PART I - SECTIOr 2
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Task Description :
Computerized Bibliography of Existing Water Resources
Information: The Bureau of Water Analysis and the Groundwater
Section are to prepare and distribute a bibliography of all
documents related to state water resources. The bibliography
will be updated and reissued on an annual basis to make new
sources of information available to interested persons.
Status :
A project plan defining all tasks necessary to develop
the bibliography has been prepared. The bibliography is
being built upon an existing 6,000—reference computerized
information file related to the Florida Gulf Coast developed
by the FDER under a grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The file is maintained on the Northeast Regional
Data Center (NERDC) IBM Computer at the University of Florida.
A substantial amount of data from computer science, assembled
bibliographies, and current library holdings has been entered
onto the Larder word processor to be merged into the biblio-
graphic file at NERDC. All reference entries have been
assigned key words to allow retrieval of specific information.
In addition, a letter has been prepared for distribution to
local agencies requesting any bibliographic items that they
feel should be included on our master file.
Schedule :
First Draft — April 1, 1984
Final Draft — July 1, 1984
-------
V—19
PART II — SECTION 3
GROUND JATER QUALITY MONITORING
Task Description :
Establish a ground water monitoring network designed to
detect or predict contamination of the state’s ground—water
resources.
Status :
With the exception of Southwest Florida Water Management
District (SWFWMD), contracts with the other four districts
have been finalized and their work is progressing satisfac-
torily. Although SWFWMD has not signed a contract yet, it
has been working on compiling data that will satisfy some of
the requirements of phase I. The other districts have
followed the plan of study as outlined by the Department of
Environmental Regulation. Briefly, they are finishing phase
I (data compilation) and working on phase II (location of
existing wells) . In certain selected pilot areas within
each district, they are trying to implement all three phases
(phase III is sampling existing wells and drilling new wells).
Northwest Florida Water Management District NWFWMD) is the
most advanced in the pilot study. It has drilled over 20
wells so far and is preparing a sample them.
The USGS monitoring of 96 welifields for drinking water
and organic parameters is nearing completion. All wells have
been sampled, positive detections are being repeated for
confirmation.
Schedule :
USGS study should be completed by late March. Contract
with SWFWMD will be signed in March. The bulk of phase I
tasks will be finished by March for the four districts.
Pilot area studies for the districts (other than NWFWMD) will
be initiated by late February.
-------
V—20
PART III — SECTION 5
WELL FIELD CONTAMINATION
Task Description :
Establish a program to prevent or minimize the danger of
contamination to potable water supplies; Contract for clinical
testing.
Status :
There are four items associated with the task:
a) Inventory or private and public wells — Wells fields
for major cities are presently being sampled under a contract
agreement with the Department. We also asked that community
systems serving 1,000 or more persons submit analyses of their
water, including the priority pollutants as well as analysis
for EDB, Temik and certain other pesticides. This analysis
is due by June, 1984. Bill in the House and Senate would
require this analysis. However, the Drinking Water Section
is developing rules to require this monitoring. The section
is also proceeding with setting maximum contaminant levels
for certain volatile organic compound and is cooperating
with EPA in an analysis of South Florida Wells contaminated
with vinyl chloride. The Superfund staff has asked that we
assist in inventorying wells in the danger zone of the
Biscayne Aquifer sites. This would be carried out jointly
with DHRS. Further statewide inventories of private wells
must await legislative funding. Staff is also involved in
the EDB contamination inventory and in developing carbon
filter specifications for private and public wells.
b) Contract for Clinical Testing — A generalized MOD
has been signed with DHRS to utilize WOAA Trust Fund monies
for investigations or testing in areas where drinking water
has become contaminated. DHRS did propose an effort in Polk
County to try to relate EDB contamination to cancer occur-
rences. The proposal was not acceptable to DER and is being
re—drafted to meet agency suggestions. A funding ceiling
has been identified to carry out this effort. A second
draft of the proposal is now due.
c) Review of Drinking Water Interagency Agreement —
The agreement was reviewed during December and January. No
significant comments were offered on proposed changes. We
are now preparing clarifying language changes. General
coordination with DHRS is continuing, with monthly meetings
at the Tallahassee level. DER District Offices also regularly
coordinate with County health units. We are reviewing a
proposal to designate Martin County as an Approval County
health unit.
d) Well Field Siting — We are continuing the evaluation
of Chaper 17—22 and reviewing other local agency rules
regarding cone of influence models, etc. for possible
incorporation in DER’s rules.
-------
V-21
Schedule :
a) The rules requiring water system testing for the
priority pollutants is scheduled for the April ERC as are the
MCL’S for the volatile organics. The results of th USGS
sampling programs are due in late March. The inventory effort
for the Biscayne Aquifer Superfund Site will be discussed at
the February meeting with DHRS and further schedules developed
following that. The specifications for home carbon filter
units are developed and available.
b) A review of current rules on well field siting is on-
going, and changes of 17—22 should be ready for initiating
the rule making process in June 1984.
c) The generalized MOU with DHRS is complete and signed.
draft proposal for specific studies/testing in Polk County
is due from DHRS.
d) The review of the drinking water interagency agreement
is complete. Clarifying language changes are being made and
should be completed in February. Another review is scheduled
for June, 1984.
-------
V -22
PART V - SECTIONS 9 and 10
PESTICIDES
Task Description :
Develop a pesticide review program.
Status :
The following elements of the department’s pesticide review
program have been completed:
A DER scientist, Mr. Gregory Parker, Chief, Bureau of
Groundwater Protection and Waste Management, has been appointed as
the department’s representative on the Pesticide Review Council.
Recommendations were made for the Governor’s appointees to
the Pesticide Review Council and all members have been appointed.
Dr. Aloysius Wood has served as Chairman since January, Dr.
Stephen King is Vice—Chairman, and Gregory Parker is Secretary.
There have been two significant meetings of the Council. At the
December 2, 1983 meeting, a subcommittee was appointed to review
restricted—use pesticides to recommend study priorities. Also,
Commissioner Doyle Conner asked the Council to review Telone II as
a replacement for EDB in the DACS buffer zone and push—andtreat
nematode control programs.
At the January 20, 1984 meeting, the Council deferred action
on Telone II and passed several resolutions; one in support of
Commissioner Conner’s Stop Sale of EDB—contaminated food products,
and the second to request that the Bureau of Product and Data
Evaluation (DACS) report on the feasibility of developing a
comprehensive pesticide—use reporting system. A third resolution
supported development of a list of pesticides that should be
monitored in groundwater.
Recruitment is complete for the five positions in the
Pesticide Review Section. Current work elements of the depart-
ment’s pesticide program include:
— Developing test criteria for the impact of pestides on water
resources.
- Evaluation of DACS/EPA pesticide registration programs under
F l FRA.
- Interagency EDB Task Free support.
— Evaluation of other state pesticide programs.
-------
V-23
- Development of a pesticide use data base.
- Integrated Pest Management and alternatives to chemical control.
Schedule :
The administrative framework for the department’s pesticide
review program is complete.
-------
V- 24
PART X SECTION 77
ENVIRONMENTAL REORGANIZATION
Task Description :
Delegation of Water Well Contractor Licensing to the Water
Management Districts.
Status :
The Department of Environmental Regulation, and the Water
Well Contractor Association have met and discussed proposed
changes to Chapter 17—20, FAC. A draft of these proposed changes
and a draft delegation order is expected by March 1, 1984. We do
not anticipate any legislative changes will be required.
Schedule :
Delegation of Chapter 17—20, FAC to the WMDs and the
accompanying changes to Chapter 17-1, FAC are on schedule for
adoption by October 1984.
-------
V-25
PART XI - SECTION 84
POLLUTANT SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL
Task Description :
Develop a program for the cleanup and restoration of sites
contaminated with hazardous substances and other contaminants
using state funds and matching federal Superfund dollars.
Status :
Federal Sites — EPA funding for Superfund activities contin-
ued to be slow during the quarter. Three new applications were
submitted to EPA for funding for four Superfund sites during the
quarter; but it appears that money will not be approved until next
quarter. The resulting Cooperative Agreements will allow studies
to begin for the first phase of Superfund program activities.
Actual clean—up will begin, at best, 12 to 15 months after first
phase funding is received.
Responsible parties are progressing with preliminary studies,
clean—up, or contamination control measures on six Superfund
sites. These actions will eliminate the need for state or federal
dollars to be spent for these activities.
Negotiations are underway for responsible party actions on
three additional Superfund sites.
Feasibility studies have been started during the quarter; two
under state leads with federal funding, and one large study under
EPA lead covering three sites in Dade County. EPA has plans to
begin EPA lead studies for three additional sites in the next
quarter. These studies are aimed at supporting enforcement ac-
tions or Superfund financed clean—ups.
State sites — Contractor selection for necessary study phases
of projects dominated activity during the quarter. Site screening
and selection was also a major task accomplished during the peri-
od. Studies will begin on nine state sites during the next quar-
ter. Two state funded immediate removals are planned for next
quarter. We are presently seeking legal access to these sites to
allow the clean—up contractor to do the work.
Negotiations or legal actions have resulted in responsible
party actions on six sites originally planned for state funded
activities.
Schedule :
Ongoing activity.
-------
V-26
PART XI - SECTION 84
POLLUTANT SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL
Task Description :
Undertake the removal of prohibited pollutant discharges
(spills) if the responsible party fails to act immediately.
Prepare a statewide list of leaking pollutant storage tanks.
Status :
$300,000 out of the WQATF has been earmarked for pollutant
spills and the removal of abandoned drums containing unknown
hazardous waste. The list of leaking tanks has been completed.
Field response procedures for gasoline/petroleum contamination
incidents have been developed. Contamination log sheets have been
drafted for district use.
Schedule :
Ongoing activity.
-------
V—27
PART XI — SECTION 84
POLLUTANT SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL
Task Description :
The department is to establish regulations governing
standards for construction, installation, maintenance, permitting,
removal, and disposal of storage tanks. Facilities to be regu-
lated contain tanks with greater than 550 gallons of pollutants
and are located in nonresidential areas. Pollutants were defined
as oil, petroleum products, pesticides, ammonia, chlorine and
derivatives thereof, excluding liquefied petroleum gases.
Status :
Two public workshops and several presentations have been held
and a third is scheduled on the proposed rule. The rule will be
phased with first priority being given to above— and belowground
storage tanks storing gasoline and other petroleum products used
for transportation fuels. Tallahassee and district staff have
been hired to implement the program.
Schedule :
The first phase of the rule will be presented for adoption to
the ERC at its April 11 meeting.
-------
V-29
“Environmental Monitoring Strategy for Groundwater”
Am b i en t
I. Goals and Objectives
The goals of the ambient ground water monitoring network are
essentially threefold. First, establishing the background water
quality for ground water found within the three aquifer systems in
the state is necessary before it is possible to accomplish the second
major goal of the network, to detect and predict changes in ground
water quality resulting from point and nonpoint sources of pollution
and other human activities. The third objective is to monitor the
quality of public drinking water that is supplied by major
weilfields.
11. Extent Data Needs are Being Met
To accomplish these goals it is necessary to establish a network
that adequately monitors all three aquifer systems (the surficial
aquifer, intermediate Aquifer System, Floridan Aquifer) in three
dimensions. The following types of data have been (and are being)
generated or compiled prior to drilling new wells for use in the
Network.
— Locations of point sources of pollution
— Land use patterns indicative of areas where nonpoint
pollution may pose a threat.
— Hydrogeological information such as:
1) Thickness and extent of surficial aquifers and areas of
significant use.
2) Thickness and extent of the Intermediate Aquifer System.
3) Thickness and extent of the Floridan aquifer.
4) Areas where the Floridan Aquifer hydraulically exists as
seperate water bearing zones.
5) Areas where the Floridan is at or near land surface.
6) Areas where the Floridan is under water table condition.
7) Locations of major well fields.
8) Flow directions within the three aquifer systems.
9) Areas of saltwater intrusion.
10) Areas of karst development (fractures, sinkholes, etc.).
III. Programs Plan to Meet Needs
The abcve mentidned data is being compiled by the five Water
Management districts under the supervision of DER ambient staff at
the present time and this phase is nearing completion. With this
information available it will be possible to choose wells in the
proper location and of the correct depth. For instance, landuse
patterns and density of point sources of pollution will be used i n
conjunction with hydrogeologic data to determine the density and
location of monitor wells needed in a particular area.
-------
V-30
After this initial compilation of hydrogeologic data, another
major data collection effort will occur. A comprehensive set of
chemical analyses will be performed on the first set of samples
collected from all wells in the network. The results of these
analyses will be used to classify wells in the network as to quality
of water being monitored at each site:
I. Pollution Source Monitonig Well
A. Point Source Monitoring Well
B. Nonpoint Source Monitoring Well
II. Background Monitoring Well
A. Nonpristine Background Monitoring Well
B. Pristine Background Monitoring Well
By classifying the wells it will be possible to establish a
sampling frequency and scheme compatible with the site. For instance
a well in proximity to a point source of pollution would need to be
monitored more frequently and for more specific chemical parameters
than a pristine background well, which may be monitored only for
indicator parameters on infrequent basis.
Once the network is operating, data needs will include chemical
data tailored to fit the nature of the site, locations of additional
areas or sites that are found to require monitoring, more site
specific geological information for areas discovered to have
problems, information pertaining to the materials used and activities
at point and nonpoint sites.
IV. Data Verification
A. Point of Sample Requirements
1. Premonitoring Activities
a. Safety considerations will vary depending on the type
of well being sampled. The vast majority of wells
will be monitoring ground water of background
quality.
b. Extensive data compilation outlined in I (above) will
provide general information. At specific sites where
problems are detected, a more detailed study will be
necessary.
c. See I above
d. See I above
e. Modeling is not required by law. However, presently
plans exist that have the ambient staff modeling
major pollution sites. Data needed for modeling will
be site specific. A more intensive monitoring
frequency (than required for the general Network)
will be required for those sites designated for
modeling.
-------
V-31
f. Each well in the Ambient Network will initially be
tested for a series of parameters listed on the
included list (attachment “A”) . If there is
significant indications of organic or organohalide
contamination through TOC or TOX, then further
specific organic parameters will be tested.
After the first testing, each well will subsequently
be tested for parameters chosen on a case by case
basis dependent on what contamination is considered
likely. Surrogates parameters such as TOC or TOX or
Specific conductance will be used to indicate the
presence of organic and inorganics respectively.
g. All ambient monitoring is intended to be in the
saturated zone at this time. Also, at this time the
number, density and depths of wells in the network
has not been established.
h. See I and IV A.l.b. above
i. See IV A.l.g. above
j. Laboratories to be used will be either the DER
laboratory or a DER approved commercial lab.
2. a. — c. See attachment “B”
3. a. See IV A.l.a above
b. See attached general sampling recommendations
c. See I
d. See IV A.3.b. above
e. Follow EPA and DER SOP
B. 1.—4. Laboratories must be listed in “FDER Statewide
Environmental Chemistry Laboratory Quality Assurance
Program” report. FDER’s Q!A bureau monitors these
labs. A program for environmental laboratory
certification is currently being considered by the
Department.
C. Much of the data analysis will be done using standard
commercial software packages (SPSS, BMDP, SYSTAT, Minitab,
etc.). Any in—house produced programs will be thoroughly
tested before use. Quality assurance on all data generated
or accepted by the Department is performed by the newly
formed Quality Assurance Section located in the Bureau of
Water Analysis.
V. Linkage With Other Programs
It is anticipated that the five Water Management Districts, the
DER Division of Permitting, counties, cities, other state agencies,
the federal government and -the private sector will use data collected
-------
V-32
by the ambient program. The data should be ideal for determining (1)
background and (2) nonpoint ground water quality data. Most data
transfer (80%) via computer linkage should be sent from “ambient” to
the other agencies; not vice versa, unless more than one agency
happen to collect data from the same well. In such cases data
sharing and exchange would be desirable provided proper quality
assurance is implemented.
The applicable MCL’s are used as standards when available. When
MCL’s are not available the 1:1000,000.0 risk assessment or the
nondetection limits are used for man—made contaminants judged to be
toxic or carcinogenic.
VI. Technical Barriers
The following are technical barriers encountered in all ground
water monitoring activities.
a. The availability of indicator parameters that can be used in
Lieu of analysis of full suite of chemical parameters.
b. The availability of good relatively simple mathematical
models that can be used in predicting contaminant movement
and fate of toxic chemicals in the ground water.
c. Basic data on movement of organics through confining beds
and the potential for chemical or microbiological
degradation in the ground water.
d. The lack of scientifically based numerical values for what
i.e. a safe level of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals in the
ground water i.e. the issue of “how clean is clean”.
e. Lack of technical data on the reaction of chemicals with
various types of monitor well casings.
f. Shortage of technically qualified professionals, affordable
by the State, in the fields of hydrology, toxicology, soil
science, chemistry and mathematical modelling.
g. Better (more precise) geophysical instrumentation that can
determine the existance and dimensions of leachate plumes
from the land surface.
h. Less cumbersome field safety equi txent that can be utilized
in hazardous sites investigations.
VII. Percived Roles of EPA Headquarters
The state is in full agreement with the EPA’s Ground Water
Strategy which states that the management and protection of ground
water is primarily a state responsibility. EPA’s role is perceived
as involving the following:
-------
V-33
a. Financial assistance. A dependable and independent source
of funding 2pproved by Congress should be established to
help the states develop (or implement) ground water
programc.
b. Research and Development. The EPA is the logical agency
wh re research needs in the following areas should be
sat is Lied:
— Toxicological studies on chemicals of the priority
pollutants list and other chemicals judged to be toxic or
carc inogenics.
— Based on toxicology, behavior and fate of contaminants in
the ground water, geochemical and geophysical properties
of contaminants, the EPA should endeavor to develop
criteria for how clean is clean and Maximum Contaminant
Levels for various types of aquifer and for drinking
water supplies.
— Develo: ment of methods for waste volume reduction for the
industries involved in discharge to ground water.
— Development of better technology for recycling of waste.
- Development of better technology for disposal and/or
storage of hazardous waste.
c. Assist the states in areas involving interstate aquifers
contamination.
d. Assist in controversial enforcement cases where local
political or other constraints may hamper the states
effort.
e. Develop programs in cooperation with the universities to
train professionals to be ground water specialists.
VIII. Data Processing and Analytical Tasks
A. 1—4. Data Bas?s
Data will be stored in a central repository that is
accessible through a telecommunications link. These data will be in
a form compatible with graphical display using an Intergraph graphics
system. Data will be coming directly from a DER approved lab, SO
there should he no problem with data quality assurance.
B. Uses
I. Administraiv
Data generated will be forwarded to icoal programs, water
management districts and counties to help in their
decision making process involving land use or water
allocation.
-------
V-34
2. Trend analyses
Statistical analyses will be conducted on the acquired
data. The results will be supplied to all interested
parties or will be published. The primary user, in
addition to 1. above, is the DER. Data establishing
trends will be used in rule development, permitting of
waste disposal and management facilities and in
consumptive use permits by the Water Management
Districts.
3. Rulemaking legislation
Background data will be ideal for legislation that
declares aquifer segments Itsole source”, exempted
aquifers or single source aquifers. Certain aquifers
may, on the basis of trends be condemned as sources of
drinking water supplies.
4. Modeling
Data collected by the Network may be used for modelling
of aquifers or aquifer segments on regional basis. Data
collecte ’ for the compliance program are better suited
for site specific modelling of plume behavior.
5. Measuring effectiveness.
The data maybe used to measure the effectiveness of the
Various states’ program in a general long term fashion.
The Network data is not expected to be used for measuring
the effectiveness of specific programs.
6. Health and Environmental impact
Data will be shared with the State’s Department of Health
or the Federal CDC for use as the basis for potential
epidemiological or health survey studies.
7. Fate and Movements of pollutants See IV i.e.
C. Problems
The major problem is developing a statewide network that is
uniform. Since each of the five water management districts is
developing a network for its area, there is a tendency toward the
development of five seperate networks. The FDER ambient staff is
working hard to avert this problem and provide a verifying role.
D. Analytical Software
See IV C.
-------
V-35
E. Roles of EPA
See it n VII.
IX. Training and Technical Assistance
See VIII. E.; Drillers are licenced (state law) but they are not
certified. They should be certified.
X. Implementation Schedule
Monitoring should begin in late 1985.
-------
V-36
Environmental Monitoring Strategy for Ground Water
Compliance
1. Goals and Objectives:
Compliance with the ground water criteria is assured through the
point source facilities permitting mechanism. This mechanism
requires that any direct or indirect discharge to ground water must
be monitored for compliance with specific ground water standards and
criteria. These criteria are detailed in Chapters 17—3 and 17—4,
FAC. The general goal of this effort is to insure that the state’s
ground water quality is protected for the most beneficial uses.
A. Drinking Water
The State of Florida has assumed Primary Enforcement
Responsibility (Primacy) for the Safe Drinking Water Act. The
Acts requirements for compliance with the Primary and Secondary
Drinking Water Standards are enforced through monitoring of the
finished water for these standards. These standards are
enforced for the cotTinunity and noncoumrnnity public water
supplies by both the DER and the Florida Department of Health
and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). The Florida Administrative
Code Chapter 17—22 is used for this purpose.
B. Underground Injection Control (Uic)
The State of Florida has also assumed Primacy for the UIC
Program from EPA. Th Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17—28
was developed and adopted for the purpose of enforcing the UIC
criteria to projects discharging into the underground environ-
ment. This chapter is more stringent, in several aspects, than
the EPA guidelines. The DER is responsible for Classes I, III,
IV and V while The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is
responsible for Class II oil and gas wells. Injection of
hazardous waste through Class IV is prohibited in Florida.
Florida also just recently prohibited injection of hazardous
waste through Class I. Injection of effluents or stormwater
runoff into Class V wells is allowed provided such effluents
meet the ground water criteria which are identical to the
drinking water standards.
C. CERCLA
The DER is deeply involved in investigation of and cleanup
of Superfund sites. The state has also established its own
“mini superfund” for cleanup of sites that do not qualify for
CERCLA funding. Monitoring criteria for cleanup are developed
on a case—by—case basis following both Chapter 17—3 and Chapter
17—3/17—4, FAC, criteria.
-------
V-37
E. Pesticides
The primary responsibility for regulation of pesticides use
is with the State Department of Agriculture. The DER, however,
has in the last two years begun an active program designed to
guard against environmental damage due to pesticide use. A
detailed discussion of this effort will be forwarded to EPA
under a separate cover.
F. Sole Source Aquifer
The Biscayne Aquifer has been designated as a Sole Source
Aquifer. This designation has not yet been put to the test very
effectively in Florida. Certain segments of the Floridan
aquifer in Volusia County is also being considered by EPA for
designation as a Sole Source Aquifer.
II. Extent Data Needs Are Being Met:
The compliance program and monitoring (if properly enforced)
should meet the data needs for evaluating point source impact on the
ground water. Current level of enforcement staff, however, falls
drastically short of adequate. The result is that monitoring data
are generated by permittes and accepted by the department with little
attention paid to quality assurance and even less to data analysis.
III. Program’s Plan to Meet the Data Needs:
A. Development of the Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Network
(see Ambient).
B. The Department has submitted a request to the Florida
Legislature for an increase in enforcement personnel.
C. The Water Quality Assurance A t of 1983 established a Data
Collection Program for both surface and ground water data.
The Groundwater Section is responsible for implementing the
gathering, quality assurance and dissimination of available
data in the state, regional and local agencies. This
computerized data repository along with the data generated
by the network is expected to fulfill many of the states
ground water data needs.
IV. Data Verification:
A. Point of Sample Requirements.
I. Premonitoring Activities.
As discussed above, monitoring for the purpose of
compliance is generally conducted by the permittee. The
department has the authority to exercise “spot checking” and
“sample splitting” if deemed necesary. In such cases the
following general criteria are adhered to:
-------
V-38
a. Safety Considerations
The DER has a “safety officer who supervises the
personnel medical check up program to insure that field
personnel are not exposed to hazardous substances. The
officer is also responsible for insuring the use and
maintenance of field safety equipment. Sites to be
visited for field investigation are evaluated and ranked
as (A), level (B), (C) or (D) level and special
precautions are prescribed for each according to the
enclosed plan.
b. Initial Site Survey
This would vary with each site but generally
involves obtaining legal site access (if site is an
unpermitted facility), obtaining topographical and
geohydrological data from the USGS or the Bureau of
Geology files, and ranking of site for level protection
as described under (a) above. In case of the existence
of volatile substances on site a portable gas chroma—
tograph is used for a preliminary evaluation of the
gases existence and concentration.
c. Monitoring Needed
This too is site specific. The state has the
capability of conducting the needed monitoring (by three
Operation Response Teams in the Groundwater Section,
each of which is capable of full site investigation,
coring, well drilling, sample collection and analysis).
The state also has retained three private consulting
firms to asist in site investigation when the operation
response teams are too occupied.
d. Monitoring Objectives
To insure that the ground water is not contaminated
beyond the established standards (if any) or beyond the
ambient natural background.
e. Models
Models are not required legally, but the Groundwater
Section is planning to develop and use such models (see
ambient).
f. Contaminants to be Monitored
Chapter 17—3 and 17—4, FAC, require that the ground
water receiving direct or indirect discharge be
monitored for three groups of parameters:
-------
V-39
I. The Primary Drinking Water Standards
2. The Secondary Drinking Water STandards
3. The Minimum Criteria (Those are the chemical or
microbiological and physical agents that are considered
toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic and for
which no MCL’s are in existence. For practical purposes
the EPA Priority Pollutants List is used to represent
this category of criteria. Surrogate parameters such as
coliform bacteria, specific conductance and Total
Organic Carbon (TOC) are used whenever feasible to
detect the existence of pathogens, inorganics and
organics respectively).
g. Vadose zone monitoring is not required unless the
soil is contaminated with hazardous materials.
The number of samples required for compliance
purposes and frequency of reporting, etc., are
detailed in Chapters 17—3/17—4 (enclosed).
h. Requirements are detailed in Chapters 17—3/17—4.
i. Requirements are detailed in Chapters 17—3/17—4.
j. Requirements are detailed in Chapters 17—3/17—4.
2. Well Design, Construction and Development
This information is detailed in Chapter 17—21 and
Chapter 17—22, FAC (enclosed).
3. Site Sampling Requirements
B. Laboratory Requirements
C. Data A’alysis and Processing
See discussion under Ambient.
V. Linkage, etc...
See discussion under Ambient.
VI. Technical Barriers
See discussion under Ambient.
-------
V-40
VII. A Role
See discussion under Ambient.
VIII. Data Processing and Analytical Tasks
A. See discussion under Ambient.
8. Uses.
1. Administrative
Data collected are used to bring permittees found in
violation of the rules to compliance. If negotiations fail,
notices of violations are issued and may be followed by
enforcement through administrative hearings or litigation
through the courts.
2. Trend Analysis
See discussion under Ambient.
3. Rulemaking
See discussion under Ambient.
4. Modeling
See discussion under Ambient.
5. Program Effectiveness
See discussion under Ambient.
6. Health Effects
See discussion under Ambient.
C. Problems
Mainly the lack of quality assurance and enforcement
personnel shortage.
D. Analytical Software
See discussion under Ambient.
E. EPA Headquarters, etc.
See discussion under Ambient.
-------
V-41
XI. Training and Technical Assistance
See discussion under Ambient.
X. Implementation Schedule
This program has been in effect since the late seventies and
is ongoing for the foreseeable future.
-------
V-42
INTRODUcTION
The Special Studies Category was selected for documenting the
pesticide qrroundwater monitoring efforts of the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (DER). Since the department has programs
which can be documented by other categories, it was felt that this was
a best fit.
Special Stud es
Pesticide Review Section
I. Goals, Objectives and Environmental Data Needs
The goal of the Pesticide Review Section (PRS) is the
development of a departmental pesticide review program that will
ensure state actions relative to pesticides are only taken
following a thorough review of all environmental impacts. This
includes the development of a groundwater monitoring program
capable of determining the level of safety necessary for
applications of pesticides used under Florida’s unique
environmental conditions.
An environmental fate data base is available; however, many
pesticides have little, if any, information. Therefore, Florida’s
data needs are enormous. These needs include, but are not limited
to:
A. Physical and chemical nature of pesticides;
B. Determination and environmental nature of metabolites and
deqradates;
C. Saturated and unsaturated media mass transport factors;
D. Analytical methods;
B. Complete use information; and
F. Appropriate computer models.
II. Extent Data Needs are Being Met
Presently, the Florida regulatory framework for pesticides is
permissive, and consequently, environmental data on most
pesticides is lackinq. The Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983
created the PRS within DER. This Section works closely with the
Bureau of Product Data Evaluation (BPDE) organized within the
auspices of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(DACS) and other agencies to close these gaps.
Both the PRS and BPDE feel the most appropriate way to meet
data needs is through the manufacturer. Although these units of
government offer technical assistance to producers for product
groundwater research in Florida—specific hydrogeoloqy, moøt
manufacturers are reluctant to carry out pesticide fate studies.
Since the largest user of pesticides, the citrus industry, is
-------
V-43
located on the state’s most permeable soils and over the most
transmissive surficial aquifers, manufacturers of water soluble
products may view Florida—specific studies as a liability.
Therefore, the most cost—effective manner to acquire
necessary data on the environmental fate of pesticides is throuqh
the registration process. For this reason the PRS and BPDE are
working to develop the regulatory framework of that process in
order to meet data needs.
III. Describe Program Plan to Meet These Needs
The Pesticide Review Section work plan is based upon the
following three major work elements:
A. Prereqistration Review . Since pesticides cannot be used in
Florida unless they are registered by DACS for specific
applications, the registration process is a critical
environmental review point. DER is currently formally
involved in Section 24(c) Special Local Needs Section 18,
Emergency Exemption, and Experimental Use reviews. Additional
rules for pesticide registration procedures have been
developed by DACS, and are now being implemented.
B. Pesticide ContamInation Response . The history of pesticide
regulation and use in the state indicates that situations
linked to previous practices will continue to surface. As is
currently the case with EDB and Tenik, the PRS is projectinq
that, for the forseeable future, a large portion of the
resources of the section will be devoted to responding to
pesticide contamination problems. This will occur through
support for the Florida Groundwater Task Force.
C. Field Studies and Monitoring . Studies surveying levels of
pesticides in defined areas, or monitoring at specific
applications sites are important to environmental review of
pesticide use and regulatory decisions. The PRS has developed
a field capability to support these activities. Examples of
this type of work are pesticide sampling criteria lists;
studies of pesticide contamination in Highlands and Palm Beach
Counties; and site specific monitorinq for Temik, Lorsban,
Nemacur, and Diquat.
The following support work elements are associated, to
varying degrees, with each of the major elements above.
1. Evaluation of other state pesticide programs.
2. Development of pesticide transport and fate modelling
capability.
-------
V- 44
3. Review Existing Pesticide Data. Data exists, primarily from
the EPA and other states, linking certain pesticides to
groundwater contamination. This data is being correlated with
Florida pesticide use patterns to develop region-specific test
criteria for water resources. This information will be used
in field study applications and, ultimately, in regulatory
decisions.
4. Development of stronq liaison with EPA on pesticide issues.
EPA regional pesticide programs are primarily aimed at
enforcement. Learning the operation of the EPA pesticide
program at the Washington level is an ongoing process. The
state goal, shared with DACS, is to develop a program so that
EPA will consider Florida—specific data early in the federal
registration process. We intend to participate, to the
fullest extent possible, in the proposed national EPA study of
pesticides and groundwater.
5. Development of a pesticide use data base. A critical need for
the state is the development of a pesticide application and
tracking system. Ongoing work with industry, DACS, and the
Pesticide Reveiw Council to implement these procedures will
continue. The Pesticide Contamination Monitoring data base,
designed for use in the EDE program, Will be expanded to
include sampling for other pesticides. Discussions have been
held with DACS, with the objective of eventually computer
linking directly the pesticide files and data bases of both
agencies.
6. Development of a strong program for alternatives to the use of
chemicals. Alternatives to chemicals, particularly in the
area of biological controls, are more cost—effective than
chemicals and are under—utilized in Florida. Our program will
work with DACS, IFAS, the Pesticide Review Council, and within
the department to develop awareness of these needs, and to
identify research priorities and funding sources. Department
support for such programs should be a high priority.
7. Developinq programs with other state agencies involved in
pesticide issues.
8. Soil Fumiqant Sampling. Prior to use of ED8, the state
conducted similar programs using other soil fumigants. The
applications ended several years ago as the popularity of FDS
increased. We are proposing a limited survey effort for
other fumigants of about 200 samples, with the level of future
effort to be determined based upon initial survey results.
IV. Data Verification
Since pesticides are registered for use under specific label
requirements and permits are not generally required for agricultural
-------
V-45
fields, the regulatory framework for pesticide data verification
essentially does not exist. Therefore, answering the seqments that
follow is an attempt to illustrate the type of technical assistance
offered to Florida pesticide fate researchers.
A. Point of Sample Requirements
1. Premonitorinq Activities
a. Safety Considerations
Each site is evaluated for safety. If safe site entry is
an issue the appropriate safety level (A,B,C, or D) will
be implemented. Safety with regards to physical barriers,
such a terrain, is also considered. However, most sites
which require evaluation would at most require Level D,
because only trace amounts of chemicals are in question.
b. Initial Site Survey
The initial site survey generally consists of a literature
review, site visit and gathering of site information.
Other tasks may also be required if groundwater rules
(described under separate category) are violated. The
PRS, BPDE and manufacturer will generally determine what
initial site information is necessary.
c. Monitoring Needed? Contractor or state?
If groundwater contamination seems to be an issue, then
monitoring could be required. This monitoring may be
carried out by the state, manufacturer, or agent of
either. The determination of monitoring requirements is
usually made based upon water solubility, partition
coefficients, quantities used and susceptability of
groundwater and porous media to contamination.
d. Define Monitorinq Objectives
Monitoring objectives are to determine if pesticides or
pesticide degradates are contaminating groundwater. These
objectives are defined by the specific nature of the
pesticide and hydroqeology of the application area.
e. Models, If Required, and Data Needs.
Models are predictive tools and are used only in concert
with hard data. Of the current models used to identify
mass transport issues, PRZM (Pesticide Root Zone Model)
has been the accepted too]. in well drained soils. Neither
modelling nor verification of model parameters with
-------
V—46
actual field data are regulatory requirements; however,
for a model to be acceptable it must have verifiable
parameters. PESTAN and SUMATRA I offer alternatives to
PRZM.
f. Contaminants to be Monitored and Analyzed.
i. Parameter Selection
Parameter selection is almost always determined from
literature reviews or manufacturer disclosure. The
parameters considered are the pesticides, metabolites,
deqradates and/or reaction products. Additionally,
pH, conductance, temperature, oxidation—reduction
potential and dissolved oxygen are usually always
selected parameters.
ii. Use of Surroqates
Research using surrogates and/or tracers instead of
the Pesticide is usually not performed. Sometimes
nitrogen fertilizers are used in a manner similar to a
surrogate, but it could not take the place of the
chemicals of interest. Surrogates for pesticides, et.
al., with low solubilities, high partition coeffic-
ients or untraceable in porous media would also be
inappropriate.
q. Vadose and/or Saturated Zone Monitoring
i. Initial Number of Samples Areally
The area]. distribution of sampling points is directly
related to site—specific and suspected mass transport
factors. Each sampling scenario is selected using
“worst case” conditions.
ii. Initial Number of Samples over Thickness
The number and depths of lysimeters, cluster wells and
cores (or sediments) is site and chemical—specific.
Again, “worst case” conditions will be selected.
h. Geohydrological/Geophysical Studies
Generally, each study undertaken examines literature and
field hydraulics for data to determine the nature of the
porous media. Sometimes single well and multiple well
tests may be required. Down hole and surface geophysical
surveys are employed for sites that may require this
technology.
-------
V- 47
j. Well Location and Depths
In unconfined aquifers permanent monitor wells have open
hole or screened intervals which are placed below the
lowest recorded water level. Temporary monitor wells may
only penetrate the top of the water table. Screened
intervals are generally 5 to 10 feet, but may range from
one foot to the entire thickness of the permeable strata.
In confined carbonate aquifers wells are usually completed
just below the bottom of the confining bed and to an open
hole depth which approximates the potentiometric surface
for water levels in the vicinity.
j. Laboratory Selection
Selection criteria include:
— lab capabilities,
- methods developed, and
— costs.
In many cases a manufacturer will do their own analyses.
these manufacturers may also split samples with
responsible state agencies for quality assurance irposes.
Contract labs performinq specialized analytical services
are used. State labs generally perform analysis for state
data collection efforts.
2. Well Design, Construction and Development
a. Type of drilling equipment.
The type drilling equipment depends on the nature of the
investiqation. Hand augers are used in many cases for
shallow wells tapping the top of the surficial aquifers.
For permanent monitor wells, the most popular drilling
technique is a rotary method using water circulation
instead of drillers mud.
b. Materials Used in Borehole
i. Drillers mud: In most cases drillers mud will consist
of a clay material used only to keep the hole open or
prevent loss of circulation. Where possible the use of
water as the sole drillinq fluid is desirable.
Degradable drilling fluids are usually avoided. Holes
should be conditioned after drilling to remove mud cake
and debris.
ii. Casinc and screen materials: Materials used for casing
and screen should be inert to sample parameters.
-------
V-48
Usually PVC, FRP or stainless steel are acceptable.
Threaded, instead of qlued couplings, are preferable.
iii. Cements and cement additives: Groutinq materials
should also be non—reactive to sample parameters. ASTM
Type II moderate sulfate resistance (Florida Class H or
API Class B) with varying amounts of bentonite is
useful for most applications.
c. Well Development
The method used for well development should assure
production without cross contamination. Pumping and
compressed air are the cleanest. Surge block methods
provide better production.
3. Site Sampling Requirements
a. Safety Considerations
See A.1.a.
b. Protocol
The prescribed method of sampling depends on the chemical
to be monitored and the hydraulics of the porous media.
c. Frequency
Each chemical has to be evaluated for its persistence and
mass transport in each environment so that the appropriate
sample frequency can be established.
d. Borehole Samplers
Several factors determine the type and nature of sampling
devices used in a well. In every case, the sampler should
not be a source of contamination.
e. Handling, Preservation, Transportation
The proper way to handle, preserve and transport samples
depends upon the fraction collected. Samples are
delivered to the lab in a manner which satisfies
laboratory QA/QC.
B. Laboratory Requirements
1. QA/QC
Each lab must use methods which assure reproducahility and a
contaminant—free environment. Therefore, a strong quality
-------
V-49
assurance/control program is a requirement. QA/QC using
manufacturers’ labs is qenerally accomplished by split or
duplicate samples collected for random analysis by a state or
contract lab.
2. Protocol
Since only a few pesticides and degradates have EPA approved
analytical techniques, some analyses require that the best
technique available be used.
3. Certification
All labs providinq analyses are certified to be capable of the
service.
4. Turnaround Time/Backloq
This is a major problem. Since the analysis of many
pesticides in water borders on research, the development of a
technique usually increases turnaround time. State labs are
more willing to provide analyses, but they are slower than
contract labs.
C. Data Analysis and Data Processinq
1. Quality Assurance
QA on all data from analysis of samples is performed by the
lab performing analytical services. In many cases the QA is
approved by DER’s Bureau of Water Quality Management prior to
analysis occurrinq. Agency labs follow QA procedures
determined by the agency.
2. Software Packages
In—house data can be managed on several data processing
packages. Data for DER use is usually stored in STORET if
STORET numbers exist. Statistical packages amenable to
personal computers are available.
V. Linkages with Other Programs
Almost all pesticide work done by this agency, with the
exception of verifiable groundwater contamination issues, is done
in close cooperation with other agencies. The Department of
Health and Rehabilitative Services and DACS assist with both
analytical and administrative services. MRS laboratory facilities
provide analysis for pesticides and other chemicals of interest if
techniques can be found in literature or appropriately modified.
-------
V-50
If EPA approved methods exist, then HRS, DER, and DACS labs can,
and do, provide analytical services.
DACS is the lead agency for pesticide registration functions.
DER has provided assistance in the registration process by
reviewing available data and commenting to DACS. Additionally,
for reregistration and special review process, DER has assisted
agencies and manufacturers with plans of study, data collection,
quality control and recommendations.
DACS, DER and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
cooperate to provide a data base and mitigating measures for the
state EDB program. The university system has analytical functions
in this and the Temik Studies.
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR), DACS, DER, as well
as the university system cooperate to discover management
techniques for aquatic weed control, biocontrol and other research
programs.
VI. Technical Barriers, Issues and Opportunities
EPA approved analytical techniques for pesticidal contaminants
provides a formidable barrier to mass transport studies. The lack
of information on analytical techniques makes fate research
projects nearly impossible. Without an EPA-approved technique for
the analysis of a compound, few labs desire the analytical work.
Commercial laboratories are generally eliminated from bidding on
projects because technique development costs outweigh reasonable
per sample service costs. Many state labs are currently
overwhelmed with analytical tasks for other proejcts which do not
alow them the convenience of taking time to develop techniques.
Universities require funding which is only limited and usually
very specific to certain compounds. Sometimes institutional labs
have available resources to provide services from techniques which
do appear from time to time in literature.
The lack of data on the physical characteristics of pesticide
and pesticide degradates complicates mass transport predictions.
Without such information (vapor pressure, solubility,
partitioning, half-lives and others), computer modelling, sampling
protocols for site investigations and numerous management
processes are speculative.
VII. Perceived Roles of EPA Headquarters, EPA Regions, State and Local
Agencies
EPA should establish a funding mechanism to- carry out
pesticide research on the state level. Research would include
biocontro]. as well as environmental fate projects. EPA should
also require use studies on highly transmissive sediments as part
-------
V- 51
of the registration process. Included in these use studies should
be the complete chemistry through the degradation map of each
pesticide. There should also be a reduction in the type of
information which may be considered “confidential corporate
secrets,” especially when this information is useful in
registration reviews.
Research on pesticides should be carried out on a state level.
Site investigations for groundwater contamination issues should
also be state and local program responsibilities.
VIII. Data Processing and Analytical Tasks
A. Data Bases
Data bases are in the developmental stages. The expansion of
the EDB program to incorporate other pesticides and the
linkage of DACS and DER computers are planned (see II).
B. Administrative Uses
1. DACS, HRS, DCA, DER, Water Management Districts, and local
programs will have access to data generated. It is
anticipated that data will be used as a management and
predictive tool.
2. Trend Analysis
See II.
3. Rule Making
Data which formalizes fate and mass transport
characteristics is currently being requested from the
manufacturers. Soon it may be come a regulatory
requirement for state registration of any pesticide.
4. Modelling
If model assumptions do not limit environmental data
inputs and if physical traits of compounds of interest are
amenable to the model, modelling can be useful. However,
few decisions can be based on models developed under lab
conditions or used without verified field data.
5. Measuring Effectiveness
Program effectiveness could be measured by numbers of
Florida—specific studies being undertaken, number of
reregistration reviews, and reduction of groundwater
contamination complaints.
-------
V-52
6. Health and Environmental Impact
HRS, DCA, DACS, and other agencies participate in programs
which have health and environmental impacts. The state
EDB program is one example. Although little human health
information exists, this information should be generated
for pesticide use in Florida.
7. Fate and Movement of Pollutants
There are numerous uses for this information, see VIII.B.3.
C. Problems
Problems with findinq good, reliable information on pesticides
are enormous. Manufacturers, wanting to put their best foot
forward, will usually provide favorable research data, but they
are reluctant to carry out Florida Studies (see II). Universities
do not have the funds to do independent research.
D. Analytical Software
Analytical software varies from lab to lab (see Section IV.C.2).
E. EPA Headquarters, EPA Region, State, Local Agency Roles
See VII.
XI. Trainirtq and Technical Assistance
A. Training Existing, Needed
1. State Personnel
Existing training includes several site safety and samplinq
short courses offered by EPA, NWWA, and others. Scholarships
for research work should be offered as should pesticide
sampling protocol, mass transport, and modelling training.
2. Certification
Lab certification is required but drillers are registered.
The registration process for drillers is minimal and does not
adquately determine a driller’s qualification. Training for
drillers on monitor wells would be desirable.
-------
V-53
B. Technical Assistance
1. State Provided
The state should provide technical assistance to federal and
local programs. The special review process on the federal
level is an ideal tarqet. Local program could be assisted by
state research.
2. Needed by State
See VII.
C. EPA Headquarters, EPA Region, State and Local Roles
Section VII and Section IX.A.1.
X. Implementation Schedule
Programs within the state agency are currently being
implemented. Registration requirements are under adminstrative
review and should be cleared this year. A Special Review report
on environmental levels of DDT resulting from the use of Dicofol
was sent to EPA last year. Temik and EDB programs are continually
generating data on those pesticides. Reports on EDB levels in
diquat dibromide and the fate of methyl bromide and chloropicrin
are completed. Studies of pesticide mass transport in porous
media are currently 0 in the works TM and will be completed. Many of
the pesticides under special review are to be included in the
latter studies (see Section III).
-------
V-54
Environmental Monitoring Strategy for Ground Water
Emergency Response
In 1983 the Florida Legislature enacted and funded the “Water
Quality Assurance Act of 1983”. This Act established many programs
designed to deal with the problems of grrund water pollution (see Act
copy and associated task delineation document).
The programs most closely associated with monitoring are briefly
described below:
The Department used its existing files, local program files,
citizen notification and normal field investigation to compile a list
of sites that are deemed potentially contaminating the ground water
with potentially hazardous pollutants. This list forms the backbone
of the monitoring effort being done in addition to the monitoring
done under ambient and compliance.
The list is prioritized by ranking according.to the procedure
explained in the attached document.
A lead unit is assigned the responsibility of investigating each
of these sites and generating the needed data for eventual cleanup by
the responsible party, the local government, the state government or
through the CERCCA program.
Investigation maybe conducted in—house by the OR teams
(discussed under compliance) or by contracting it out. Cleanup on
the other hand is always contracted out. Currently there are over
400 sites on this list. Addition of sites to the list or deletion
from it is done on routine basis through a committee established for
this purpose.
A second list for leaky gasoline tank, with potential for
contaminating the ground water has also been established and is being
used in the same fashion as the first list.
Emergency Response in the strict sense of dealing with spills,
accidents, derailings or covert dumping is dealt with through an
Emergency Response group located in the Bureau of Operation. This
group involve representation of the DER, the Sheriff Department, the
fire marshal and other concerned agencies who collectively take the
necessary measures to deal with such emergencies. These measures
vary with each case and can not be discussed in a meaningful way in
this paper.
Any ground water monitoring data generated through the Emergency
Response Program is handled in the same fashion and has the same user
discussed under ambient or compliance. The obvious differences is
that monitoring is of a short term duration if the source is
immediately removed.
This now is a continuous program provided the funding is
c on t i n ued.
-------
V-55
Environmental Monitoring Strategy for Ground Water
Special Studies
A large number of studies, research projects and surveys have
been conducted or are planned on being conducted by the Groundwater
Section. The purpose of all them studies is essentially the same;
i.e.; to provide the necessary tools, data, and procedures to help
the state in establishing a program for managing and protecting the
quality of the ground water.
Below is a list of current studies and surveys being conducted
and a budget estimate and source of funding.
Contracts update
-------
V—56
Previous studies included the following:
— Impact of phosphate industries activities on the ground
water.
— Impact of industrial impoundments on the Biscayne, sand and
gravel and the Floridan aquifers.
— The Florida Surface Impoundment Assessment
— Degradation of trichioroethylene in the ground water
— The Florida Open Dump Inventory
— Inventory of Class V UIC Wells in Florida
— Develo xnent of a mechanism for grouping organic chemicals to
reduce the cost of analysis of full suites of chemicals.
— Toxicological evaluation of chemicals on the priority
pollutants list for the purpose of developing ranges of
“safe” numerical values, and for how clean is clean.
— Delineation of near surface low permeability beds in
Florida.
— Delineation of areas suitable for deep well injection in
Florida.
— Delineation of the principal potable water aquifers in
Florida.
— Survey of Public Water Supply Wells and Systems serving over
10,000 people for toxic chemicals not on the primary
drinking water standards list.
— Organics in domestic sewage effluents used itt spray
irrigation and their impact on ground water quality.
Data collected through the above studies are handled in the same
fashion planned for the ambient network data.
-------
V-57
Environmental Monitoring Strategy for Ground Water
Unaddressed Federal Sources
With the exception of the Superfund sites (over 30 in Florida)
all other sites, sources activities are unaddressed by the Federal
government. The discussion under Emergency Response and to certain
extenct Ambient and C pliance should provide a good idea of the
State’s activities in this regard.
Response to the questionaire items would therefore be identical.
Once again this is a continuous program for the foreseeable future;
until all sources of containation have been dealt with.
-------
GROUND-WATER MONITORING COSTS
-------
V-60
OPERATIONS RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
I Driller Supervisor I 2 Drillers I 2 Driller Helpers / 10 Operations
Response Positions
Salaries/Benefits/etc. 15 x 30,000 $450,000.00
Travel
In—State 55,000.00
Out—of—State (Training) 15,000.00
Equipment (includes cost of two drill rigs*)
FY’84 Field Equipment 478,225.00k
Office Furniture 15,200.00
FY’85 Field Equipment 94,000.00
Office Furniture 23,000.00
Maintenance & Repairs 2,600.00
Rental of Special Equipment 1,250.00
Books 1,000.00
Supplies
Field 45,000.00
Lab 5,000.00
Office 1,000.00
Printing Costs 1,000.00
Vehicles: 2 Drill Rigs, 2 Water Trucks,
3 Field’Trucks, I Mobile Lab
Vehic les
Operation Costs 18,000.00
Maintenance & Repairs 6,000.00
-------
V-61
OTHER GROUND WATER ACTIVITIES
District Personnel 6 x 30,000 180,000.00
**Tallahasee Personnel 19 x 30,000 570,000.00
State Cleanup Fund 10,000,000.00
Hazaradous 4 laste Program 1,051.236.00
State Share (40.39%) 424,594
Federal Share (59.61%) 626,642
205(j)
FY’85 Monies 135,000.00
FY’84 Monies (studies in progress) 71,294.00
FY’83 Monies (studies in progress) 174,638.00
Ambient Ground Water Program 1,790,000.00
Support Services Contracts 550,000.00
**Excludes drilling and field operations
-------
VI. CASE STUDY: EPA OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER SURVEY
(Reprinted with permission from American Water
Well Association Journal, May 1984.)
-------
The Groundwater Supply Survey
James J. Westrick, J. Wayne Mello, and Robert F. Thomas
contamination.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
areageneral category of synthetic organ-
icchemicals that include low-molecular-
weight, volatile aliphatic and aromatic
hydrocarbons, many of which are halo-
genated. Their presence in groundwater
supplies has been reported with increas-
ing frequency. To supplement existing
data on the occurrence of VOCs in drink-
ing water for purposes of developing
regulatory alternatives,’ the US Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (U5EPA’ ,
Office of Drinking Water ODW), Tech-
nical Support Division (TSD), Cincin-
nati. Ohio, conducted a sampling and
analysis program in 1981 and 1982. The
objectives were: (1) to provide additional
data for estimating the nationwide
occurrence of VOCs in drinking water
supplied from underground sources, and
(2) to collect information about the
physical characteristics of the well fields
and the surrounding areas to develop a
predictive capability for locating con-
taminated groundwater. Only the oc-
currence data are discussed here.
The survey consisted of two parts.
Half of the sampling and analytical
program developed data from a random
sample of groundwater supplies obtained
from the inventory of public water sys-
tems maintained in the Federal Report-
ing Data System (FRDS), from which
500 supplies were selected. Two subsets
were developed: 300 of the systems serve
fewer than 10 000 persons and 200 of the
systems serve more than 10 000 persons.
A second randomly selected two-part list
provided replacement sampling sites for
cases in which the supplies on the pri-
mary list of 500 were inappropriate or
nonexistent. This occurred if, for exam-
ple, a utility had recently begun to pur-
chase its water from another utility that
uses a surface water source.
Prior data on the occurrence of VOCs
were gathered from samples collected
from groundwater systems during the
Community Water Supply Survey
(CWSS) of 1978.2 These data were used
to estimate the necessary sizes of the
samples. During the 1978 survey, the
frequency of occurrence of the 10 VOCs
for which analyses were conducted
among the 300 groundwater systems
serving fewer than 10000 persons was
12 percent of the systems. Of the 29
groundwater systems that serve more
than 10000 persons, 45 percent con-
tained at least one VOC. Using these
occurrence frequencies as estimates of
what might be found in the new survey,
it was determined that sampling 300
small systems and 200 large systems
would provide 95 percent confidence
limits of ±30 percent and ±15 percent
for the estimates of frequencies of
occurrence for the small systems and
large systems, respectively
The second part of the survey was
used to encourage state agencies to try
to identify problem supplies. The purpose
of this portion of the survey was not only
to expand state involvement but also to
provide ODW with some information on
the frequency and extent of serious
problems, based on the state agency’s
knowledge of local conditions. Each state
was assigned a number of sampling
sites roughly proportional to its fraction
of the total number of groundwater
systems nationwide; this was designated
the nonrandom sample. The target
number of nonrandom sites was also
500. The state agencies were encouraged
to select supplies that might be contam-
inated by VOCs because of the proximity
of the well field to industries, landfills,
or other potential sources of contamina-
tion. The state agencies were also
encouraged to choose water supplies for
which no VOC data were available in an
effort to discover previously unknown
instances of contamination.
General procedures
To obtain information from a maxi-
mum number of systems that use ground-
water sources, one sample of finished
water from each utility was collected at
a point near the entrance to the distribu-
tion system. The VOC concentrations in
water supplied from a single well that is
not pumped continuously can vary
depending on the pumping rate, the
schedule, and the hydrodynamics of the
plume of contamination. If multiple wells
supply a system at a single entry point
and some wells are contaminated where-
as others are not, the VOC concentra-
tions in the sample at the entry point
could vary greatly, depending on which
wells were in operation at the time of
sampling. In systems with more than
one entry point, a single sample would
obviously represent only those wells
contributing to that entry point. With
these limitations in mind, the sample of
finished water taken at or near a point of
entry would provide a reasonable com-
promise between information obtained
from a sample taken from a single well
and that from multiple samples taken
throughout the system.
State drinking water agencies played
a major role in the planning and execu-
tion of this survey. Each state with
primary public water system enforce-
ment responsibility (primacy) was con-
tacted through the regional USEPA
drinking water offices. Most of the states
indicated a willingness to assist in the
project. State involvement consisted of
reviewing the primary random list for
errors or for inappropriate or nonexistent
systems, filling in missing information
on the randomly selected systems, select-
ing systems for inclusion in the non-
random portion of the survey, and pro-
viding scheduling information to the
TSD project engineer. In most cases,
state personnel traveled to the sampling
sites, collected the samples and site
information, and shipped the samples in
ice to the TSD laboratory in Cincinnati.
Ohio, using sampling supplies provided
by TSD. In nonprimacy states and states
that were unable to assist in the planning
or the sampling because of budgetary or
The results of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Drinking Water, sampling
and analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in finished water supplies that use
groundwater sources are discussed. Concentrations of 29 VOCs in addition to five tn-
halomethanes and total organic carbon from 945 water supplies were measured. The five most
frequently found compounds other than trihalomethanes were tnchloroethylene, 1,1,1.
trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, cis- and/or trans- 1,2-dichioroethylene, and 1, 1-dichlo-
methane. Approximately half of the samples were taken from a random list of water systems,
which were subdivided into two sets of systems—those serving fewer than 10000 persons and
those serving more than 10 000 persons. The nonrandom samples were taken from systems
selected by the states, using groundwater sources that were likely to show VOCs in drinking
water. Large systems in the random sample had a significantly higher frequency of occurrence
of VOC contamination than small systems and were also more likely to have higher levels of
52 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
JOURNAL AWWA
-------
other constraints, regional USEPA per-
sonnel provided the necessary assistance.
Personnel from the TSD collected some
samples that were obtainable within
reasonable driving distance from Cin-
cinnati or if it was not possible for either
state or regional USEPA personnel to
travel to the sampling locations.
Logistics
A sampling kit was prepared at TSD
for each sampling location. Amber bottles
of 60-mL and 250-mL capacity were
dosed with a preservative (10 mg mer-
curic chloride/L), capped with PTFE
fluorocarbon-faced septa and screw caps,
affixed with preprinted labels that had
been stamped with the sample iden-
tification numbers, and secured in ex-
panded polystyrene boxes. A shipping
blank (a 250-mL bottle containing or-
ganic-free water and preservative) was
also included with the sampling kit. The
shippir g blanks were to remain with the
sampling kit through all stages of trans-
portation and storage so that the possi-
bilitv of contamination from the sur-
rrun(nng could be investigated by
analyzing the shipping blank.
Samples were received at TSI) the
day after they were collected. They were
unpacked and logged in, and any unusual
circumstances were noted. The sample
ttles were then placed in storage in a
cold r .m, free of rganic vapor contam-
ination, until they were repacked for
shipment to the chemical analysis con-
tract laboratory. Since replicate sam-
ple were collected at each site, half the
bottles were shipped to the contract
laboratory and half were held in cold
storage at TSD. This was necessary for
quality assurance analysis of duplicates
by TSD chemists or for quick-response,
in-house verification of the contract
laboratory results.
When the samples were shipped to the
contract laboratory . the information was
entered into he TSD data vstem for
tracking purposes. Primary analysis of
the samples was completed by the con-
tractor within 30davs of collection. The
contract ar ratorv had access to the
T SD data system, so upon completion of
the analyces for a sample, the data were
entered at the contractor’s terminal and
retrieved by theTSD project engineer in
Cincinnati. The results for each sample
were examined by the TSL) project officer
and erified by agreement between the
project officer and the contract labora-
tory project leader after review of quality
assurance information. The verified data
were then entered into a confirmed data
file. Reports of verified data for each
I’SEPA region were periodically distri-
butedto the appropriate USEPA regional
office. The regional office then distri-
buted two copies of the data to each
state, one of which was forwarded by
the state to the utility.
VI-2
I
“¼
Figvi’s 2. Nonrandorn sampling sites
A total of 34 parameters were selected
for analysis by purge-and-trap gas
chromatographic methods Table U.
However, the emphasis in this article is
on the 29 VOCs other than the five
trihalomethanes (THMs 0 —chloroform,
bromodichioromethane, dibromochlo-
romethane, dichloroiodomethane, and
bromoform. The samples were not dosed
with a reducing agent, so the THM
formation reaction continued until the
time of analysis or until the depletion of
either residual chlorine or precursor
material.
The two isomers of 1 .2-dichloroethyl-
ene could not be separately determined
by the analysis and thus are considered
one parameter. The same is true for
ortho- and paraxylenes. Met hylene chlo-
rideoriginally was to be determined, but
this compound is a widely used labora-
tory solvent and appears frequently as a
laboratory contaminant. Because it was
found in all the analyzed shipping blanks,
it was impossible to ascertain whether
the methylene chloride was originally
present in a sample or had come from
the surrounding atmosphere. Therefore,
results for methylene chloride could not
be validated.
The purge-and-trap gas chromatog-
raphy (GC) analyses were conducted
according to USEPA methods 502. P and
SO3.1 with a significant modification.
The nondestructive photoionization de-
tector for analysis of aromatics and the
SR! intetn t lanai, Inc.. Menlo Park, Calif.
Rgure 1. Random sampling sites
• S.tnO* ,nQ St. w,th no VOCS aba., qu*nt,tat,on Iun,t
• Swnpt.ng .4, w.t ” at t.w ans VOC abOve Quanttat,oq, Im•
5’
/ :
•0 • -
( 5;
• Sait .p tg se ‘ .tt no VOCa above Quant,tat,or, t.n.t
• Samøkng i.e a 4 1 st on. VOC aba ,. quant ’tat,on uYt,t
MAY i9 .4
JJ. WESTRICK ET AL 53
-------
electrolytic conductivity detector for the
analysis of halocarbons were coupled in
series, allowing analysis for the complete
list of 34 compounds with one sample
purge. A comparability study conducted
prior to the survey showed that serial
analysis gave results equivalent to
separate analyses for the two types of
compounds. This technique proved bene-
ficial in terms of the time and cost
required for analysis. An additional
benefit resulted from the acquisition of
further information by using the two
detectors in series. The photoionization
detector can assist in identifying and
quantifying compounds that coelute from
the primary GC column or that have
poor responses with the detector.
Quality assurance
When the contract for analytical ser-
vices was written, a detailed quality
assurance protocol was included for
monitoring and maintaining the quality
of data. This protocol was followed
throughout the survey, and the validat-
ing data were continually scrutinized by
the TSD project officer. Table 2 lists the
quality assurances used.
USEPA reference samples. The precision
and accuracy of analyses of the halocar-
ben and aromatic reference samples,
which were analyzed weekly, met the
quality assurance specifications. This
was true for both the primary and
confirmatory analytical schemes. The
USEPA reference samples contained
known concentrations of compounds.
including the four common trihalometh-
anes and nine frequently found VOCs.
The precision measure used was the
coefficient of variation, the standard
deviation of approximately 50 analyses
divided by the mean of those values. The
precision of the primary analysis of
reference samples at levels below 5 g/L
averagedTl3 percent with a range of ±8
percent for tetrachloroethvlene to ±22
percent for 1.1. l.trichloroethane. For
reference samples containing levels of
more than 5 L, the precision ranged
from ±6 percent for trichloroethvlene to
±20 percent for 1.1,1 -trichloroethane.
There was an average precision of ± 11
percent. Accuracy is indicated by the
percent error, that is, the difference
between the mean of the measured values
and the expected (true) value divided by
the expected value. This parameter
ranged from 0 percent for tetrachioro-
ethylene at 5.9 g/L to —19 percent for
dibromochloromethane at 2.1 Mg/L. with
averages of —9 percent below 5 g/L and
—4 percent above 5 g/L. Negative error
indicates that the mean of the measured
values was less than the expected value.
Deplicate analyses. As another gauge of
precision, the contract called for dupli-
cate analyses to be performed on a
minimum of 10 percent of the samples.
The duplicates were to agree within 40
percent for compounds present at con-
centrations of less than 5 g/L and
within 20 percent at concentrations in
excess of 5 g/L. The precision measure
used is the percent difference, i.e., 100
times the absolute difference in the
duplicate values divided by the mean of
the two values. Data were gathered on
16 individual compounds that were
present collectively in the duplicate
analyses. A total of 84 quantifiable re-
suits in concentrations of less than 5
,.hg/L were duplicated. All but five met
the precision criterion, The average per-
cent difference for the quantifiable low-
level duplicate results was 17 percent.
Eighteen quantifiable pairs of duplicate
results in concentrations in excess of 5
were reported, with four of the 18
falling outside the precision limits. The
average precision of the 18 pairs of
samples with higher concentrations was
13 percent.
Confirmatory analyses. All samples
found or suspected to contain VOCs
other than THMs were reanalyzed by
using different chromatographic col-
umns that elute the compounds in
different orders. In addition, samples
containing chloroform at concentrations
in excess of 40 g/L were reanalyzed by
using the confirmatory column since
chloroform at this level of concentration
could mask small quantities of 1,2-di-
chloroethane. Approximately 33 percent
of all samples were reanalyzed by second
column chromatography for halocarbons
and 6 percent for aromatics. Precision
and accuracy of the analyses of the 19
USEPA reference samples for halocar-
bons and 11 USEPA reference samples
for aromatics were documented. All
accuracy values were within the contract
limits for the primary analyses, and the
precision values for all but two of the
compounds fell within the error limits of
the primary analysis. In addition, ap-
proximately 5 percent of all the samples
were reanalyzed by gas chromatogra-
phv—mass spectrometry for additional
confirmation and tentative identification
of unknown peaks.
Blind samples. Five blind samples were
prepared by TSD in the initial phase of
the survey to ascertain the contractor’s
ability to identify particular compounds
qualitatively and to measure them quan-
titatively. The blinds consisted of five
different mixtures of compounds, spiked
into organic-free distilled water. These
were periodically sent to the contractor
early in the survey period disguised as
survey samples. The mixtures were
designed to pose selected anomalies in
the analytical system, such as interfer-
ences or compounds with similar gas
chromatographic retention times. Prior
to shipment. the blinds were analyzed
by TSD, and these results were compared
with those subsequently reported by the
contractor. In every case, the contractor
correctly identified the spiked com-
pounds. Although no quantitative cri-
teria were established for the blind
samples, the percent differences between
the contractor’s results and TSD-deter-
mined concentrations were within the
error limits for duplicates for 27 of 32
pairs of values.
TSD analysis of duplicate samples. Rep-
licate samples were collected in separate
bottles and stored at TSD so they could
be analyzed as an additional check on
the contractor’s laboratory results. The
check samples to be analyzed by TSD
were chosen from those that the con-
tractor had reported to contain one or
more of the VOCs. The percent differ-
ences between the contractor’s results
and those of TSD were within the error
limits for 48 of the 64 pairs of values in
excess of the quantitation limits. The
error limits used are those established
for a single laboratory conducting dupli-
cate analyses of the same sample. Larger
percent differences were expected for
this comparison since the analyses were
done on duplicate samples and analyzed
by independent systems. Also, the dupli-
cate samples often contained several
compounds at widely varying concen-
trations, from less than 1 g/L to more
than 100 g/L.
The quality assurance program was a
critical part of the analysis. It consumed
a significant portion of the analytical
resources and required considerable time
and effort from TSD personnel. Careful
attention to the monitoring, control, and
documentation of the quality qf the data
resulted in a high degree of confidence
that the identification and quantitation
of compounds were accurate.
An in-depth description of the analyt-
ical quality assurance program for this
survey can be found elsewhere.67
Results
The distribution of all samples is
shown in Table 3 and Figures 1 and 2.
The final number of random systems
was 280 from systems serving fewer
than 10 000 persons and 186 from sys-
tems serving more than 10000 persons.
The final tally for state-selected sites
was 479. The number of random-sample
sites in each state was roughly propor-
tional to the number of groundwater
systems in that state. The number of
nonrandom samples allocated to a state
was also based approximately on its
number of groundwater systems. Figures
1 and 2 show all sampling locations.
The quantitation limits are not the
same for all compounds. In most cases,
the quantitation limit is either 0.2 g/L
or 0.5 g/L. This difference in quantita-
tion limits can confuse the interpretation
of the data somewhat, so the results of
the survey should be viewed with the
differing quantitation limits in mind.
Unless otherwise stated, an “occur-
JOURNAL AWWA
VI-3
54 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
-------
VI-4
rence” is any specific organic parameter
that was found at, or in excess of, the
quantitation limit.
Raadem sample oc irraces . Tables 4
and S summarize occurrences from the
random sample for each of the 34 param-
eters. Table 4 contains data from the
random sample of systems serving fewer
than 10000 persons, and Table 5 con-
tains the results for systems serving
more than 10 000 persons. These tables
list the quantitation limit, the frequency
of occurrence, the median concentration
of the positive values of each compound,
and the highest concentration for each
parameter.
Because the two subsets of the random
sample were selected independently and
because a much higher percentage of
large systems than small systems were
included (15 percent of roughly 1200
systems serving more than 10000 and
0.6 percent of nearly 48000 systems
serving fewer than 10 000 persons), the
data from the large systems and the
small systems were not combined. The
normal curve approximation to the
binomial distribution for large samples
was used to conduct tests of the signif-
icance of the difference in frequency of
occurrence of compounds in the two
subsets of the random sample. 3 The
large systems’ frequency of occurrence
was greater than the small systems’
frequency of occurrence for trichioro-
ethylene, cis- and/or trans 1,2-dichloro-
ethylene, and tetrachioroethyleneat the
0.01 significance level and for 1,2-dichlo-
ropropane, carbon tetrachioride, and
1,1,1-trichioroethane at the 0.05 signif-
icance level. No other significant differ-
ences in the occurrence of specific
parameters could be discerned between
the samples from large systems and
those from small systems.
Though the data indicate that the
frequency of occurrence of several of the
compounds is higher among the larger
communities, a similar inference cannot
be drawn regarding the severity of con-
tamination from a casual observation of
Tables 3 and 4. The highest concentra
tions of 1 2-dichloropropane, trichioro-
ethylene. and benzene were found in
samples from the larger communities,
whereas samples from small systems
contained the highest levels of 1,1,1-
trichioroethane, carbon tetrachioride,
and tetrachloroethylene.
Trihalomethanes occurred more fre-
quently in the samples from larger sys-
tems, but this could be because a higher
percentage of large systems chlorinate
their water supplies (85 percent of the
large systems versus 56 percent of the
smaller systems). The THM concentra
tions were generally low, although some
groundwaters can produce high concen-
trations of THMs. Again, the different
quantitation limits must be considered
when the frequency of occurrences and
the median of the positive values for
THMs are evaluated. Since the samples
were normally analyzed alter one to four
weeks of low-temperature storage, the
THM concentrations reported are un-
doubtedly higher than they would have
been had the THM formation reaction
been stopped by a reducing agent at the
time of sampling. Therefore, the con-
centrations reported may not be repre-
sentative of concentrations in the dis-
tribution systems. However, the data
provide an indication of the tendency for
THMs to form in groundwater supplies.
There is no evidence in the literature
that chlorination of drinking water
TABLE 1
Specific organic parameters
Contaminant
Vinyl chloride
1.1 .Dichloroethylene
I 1-Dichloroethane
cis- and/or trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
2•Dich1oroethane
1 1-Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
1.2-Dichloropropane
Trichioroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Bromobenzene
m-Xylene
o + p-Xylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
11,2-Trichloroethane
1.1.1.2-Tetrachloroethane
1.1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
I 2-Dibromo-3-chtoropropane
n-Propylbenzene
o-Chloroto luene
p-Chlorotoluene
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Styrene
Isopropylhenzene
Chloroform
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Dichloroiodomethane
Bromoform
TABLE 2
Quality assurance protocolfor the analysis of VOCs
Quality
Assurance
Analysis
Frequency
or Amount
Si,ectfied_Limits
Source of Sample
Parameter
<5 g/L
percent
>5 g/L
percent
USEPA reference
samples
Duplicate analyses
Confirmatory
analyses
Blind samples
TSD analysis of
duplicate
samples
1 per week for each
instrument
10 percent of samples
100 percent of
positives
Variable
10 percent of
positives
Precision
Accuracy
Agreement
Qualitative
agreement
None
specified
None
specified
±40
±40
40
±20
±20
20
Environmental
Monitoring Sup-
port Laboratory.
Cincinnati
Survey samples
Survey samples
TSD
Survey samples
TABLE 3
Number of supplies sampled by state
State
Random
Nonrandom
State
Random
Nonrandoen
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
7
4
8
3
34
2
8
1
44
14
0
6
15
8
12
11
4
14
0
4
11
8
10
14
6
4
5
4
9
4
30
6
7
1
31
13
2
8
12
8
13
6
3
10
2
6
4
12
9
14
10
5
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
NewJersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
8
2
2
17
1
22
13
0
14
4
7
16
1
5
4
6
41
8
2
9
19
4
7
0
2
6
3
4
5
6
25
31
3
15
5
7
26
2
11
4
4
33
2
3
18
10
5
13
2
2
MAY 1984
JJ. WESTRICK ET AL 55
-------
VI-5
TABLE 4
Summa?y of occurrences from 280 random sample sites servingfewer than 10000 persons
Parameter
Quanthation
Limit
Mg/L
, -
currences
Median of
Positives
Mg/L
Maximum
Value
Mg/L
Number
Percent
Vinyl chloride
1.0
0
0
l.1 DichIoroethyIene
0.2
4
1.4
1.2
6.3
1.1-Dichloroethane
0.2
10
3.6
0.51
32
cis- andlor trans-
1,2-Dichloroethylene
0.2
3
1.1
0.23
1.7
12 DichIoroethane
0.5
0
0
1,1.1 Trichloroethane
0.2
12
4.3
0.32
18
Carbon tetrachloride
0.2
5
1.8
0.37
16
1.2-Dichloropropane
0.2
1
0.4
0.75
0.75
Trichloroethylene
0.2
9
3.2
0.88
40
Tetrachloroethylene
0.2
13
4.6
0.35
23
Benzene
0.5
1
0.4
0.61
0.61
Toluene
0.5
4
1.4
0.62
0.85
Ethylbenzene
0.5
2
0.7
0.94
1.1
Bromobenzene
0.5
3
1.1
1.9
5.8
m-Xylene
0.2
6
2.1
0.32
1.5
o+p Xylene
0.2
6
2.1
0.34
0.59
p-Dichlorobenzene
0.5
2
0.7
0.60
0.68
1.1,2 Trichloroethane
0.5
0
0
1.1.1.2-Tetrachloroethane
0.2
0
0
L1.2.2Tetrachloroethane
0.5
0
0
Chlorobenzene
0.5
0
0
12 Dibromo.3-ch loropropane
5.0
1
0.4
5.5
5.5
n-Propylbenzene
0.5
0
0
o-Chlorotoluene
0.5
0
0
p-Chiorotoluene
0.5
0
0
m -Dichlorobenzene
0.5
0
0
o ’Dichlorobenzene
0.5
0
0
Styrene
0.5
0
0
lsopropylbenzene
0.5
0
0
Chloroform
0.2
104
37.1
1.4
140
Bromodichloromethane
0.2
100
35.1
1.4
60
Dibromoch loromethane
0.5
87
31.1
2.1
52
Dichloroiodomethane
1.0
2
0.7
2.8
4.1
Bromoform
1.0
44
15.7
2.4
54
TABLE 5
Summary of occurrences from 186 random sample sites serving more than 10000 persons
Parameter
Quantitation
Limit
Mg/L
Occurrences
Median of
Positives
g/L
Maximum
Value
g/L
Number
Percent
Vinyl chlonde
1.0
1
0.5
1.1
1.1
1.1-Dichloroethvlene
0.2
5
2.7
0.28
2.2
1.1-Dichloroethane
0.2
8
4.3
0.54
1.2
cis and’or trans-
1.2-Dich loroethylene
0.2
13
7.0
1.1
2.0
12 -Dichloroethane
0.5
3
1.6
0.57
0.95
1.1.1-Trichloroethane
0.2
15
8.1
1.0
3.1
Carbon tetrachloride
0.2
10
5.4
0.32
2.8
12-Dichloropropane
0.2
5
2.7
096
21
Trich loroethylene
0.2
21
11.3
1.0
78
Tetrachloroethylene
0.2
21
11.3
052
5.9
Benzene
0.5
2
1.1
9.0
15
Toluene
0.5
2
1.1
2.6
2.9
Ethylbenzene
0.5
1
0.5
0.74
0.74
Bromobenzene
0.5
1
0.5
1,7
1.7
m -Xylene
0.2
2
1.1
0.46
0.61
o+p-Xylene
0.2
2
1.1
0,59
0.91
p-Dichlorobenzene
0.5
3
1.6
0.66
1.3
l.1.2-Trichloroethane
0.5
0
0
1.1.L2-Tetrachloroethane
0.2
0
0
l.l.22-Tetrachloroethane
0.5
0
0
Chlorobenzene
0.5
0
0
12 -Dibromo-3 -chloropropane
5.0
0
0
n-Propylbenzene
0.5
0
0
o-Chlorotoluene
0.5
0
0
p-Chlorotoluene
0.5
0
0
m-Dichlorobenzene
0.5
0
0
o-Dich lorobenzene
0.5
0
0
Styrene
0.5
0
0
lsopropylbenzene
0.5
0
0
Chloroform
0.2
106
57.0
1.6
300
Bromodichloromethane
0.2
101
54.3
1.6
71
Dibromochloromethane
0.5
96
51.6
2.9
59
Dichloroiodomethane
1.0
3
1.6
1.8
4.1
Bromoform
1.0
57
30.6
3.8
50
causes the formation of any of the VOCs
other than THMs. There have been
reports that commercial chlorine can
contain traces of carbon tetrachloride,
thereby contaminating chlorinated drink-
ing water. Therefore, the carbon tetra-
chloride occurrence data should be qua!-
ified by the possibility that the cause of
some occurrences of carbon tetrachioride
could be contaminated chlorine.
The data from the random sample of
systems serving fewer than 10000 per-
sons were examined for any other
possible effects of chlorination. There
was no significant difference in the
frequency of occurrences of any VOCs
between small systems that chlorinate
and those that do not. The larger systems
that do not chlorinate are too few in
number to provide a valid comparison
with larger systems that do chlorinate.
The number and percentage of con-
taminated supplies in each part of the
random sample are listed in Table 6. Of
280 small systems, 47 contained one or
more of the 29 VOCs included in the
analysis. Of those 47 supplies, 19 had
multiple contaminants above the quan-
titation limit. Of the 186 larger systems,
52 contained at least one contaminant.
Of those, 25 supplies contained more
than one VOC.
Water samples from 16.8 percent of
the systems serving fewer than 10 000
persons and 28 percent of the larger
systems’ supplies contained at least one
VOC. Confidence limits, based on the
binomial distribution, 3 were constructed
around the point estimates (16.8 ançi 28
percent) of the probability of VOC
occurrences in systems in the two size
categories. The confidence interval is
simply a function of the observed fre-
quency and the sample size and does not
account for uncertainty owing to ana-
lytical variability or variation in water
quality. The frequency of occurrence in
all systems serving fewer than 10 000
persons can be estimated with 95 percent
confidence to lie in the range of 12.9—21.7
percent. The large systems’ frequency
of occurrence can be estimated with 95
percent confidence to lie in the range of
22.1-35 percent. The frequency of oc-
currence for the large systems was
greater than that for the small systems
at the 0.01 significance level.
Table 7 shows the supplies by popula-
tion category with summed VOC con-
centrations in various ranges of concen-
trations. For example, there were 88
supplies in the population category of
101-500 persons. Of those 88 supplies,
77 contained no VOC above the quantita-
tion limit, 9 contained one or more of the
contaminants with sums of concentra-
tions less than 5.0 g/L, and 2 had a
summed VOC concentration in the range
of 11-50 g/L.
The number and percentage of sup-
plies containing various levels of summed
56 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
JOURNAL AWWA
-------
VI-6
VOC concentrations are shown in Table
8. The point estimate of the probability
that a system serving more than 10 000
persons contains a summed VOC con-
centration greater than 5.0 g/L was 6.5
percent (12 of 186), with a 95 percent
confidence interval of 3.8—11 percent.
Eight of 280 small systems (2.9 percent)
contained a summed VOC concentration
greater than 5.0 sg/L. resulting in a 95
percent confidence interval for the esti-
mate of 1.5—5.6 percent. The frequency
of occurrence of summed VOC concen-
trations greater than 5.0 pg/L was higher
in large systems than in small systems
at the 0.05 significance level.
Nonrandom sample occurrences. The
nonrandom sample data are given in
Tables 9 through 13. Obviously, higher
frequencies and concentrations were
found in this sample set than in the
random sample. Nearly 25 percent of the
large systems and 7 percent of the small
systems selected were contaminated
with trichloroethylene. Other com-
pounds that appeared frequently in-
cluded cis- and/or trans-1,2-dichloro-
ethylene, 1,1, 1-trichloroethane, tetrachlo-
roethylene, and 1, 1-dichloroethane. Of
the 131 systems found to becontaminated
with VOCs. more than half showed the
presence of multiple contaminants; the
water from one smaller community con-
tained eight VOCs. Trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, and cis- and -or
trans-i ,2-dichloroethvlene were found
18, 11, and 10 times, respectively, in
concentrations greater than 5.0 g/ L.
Trichloroethylene occurred three times
in concentrations greater than 50 sg L
and tetrachioroethylene and cis- and/or
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene once each in
concentrations greater than 50 ug/L. All
xylene occurrences were in supplies
serving fewer than 10000 persons; in
fact, only six occurrences of aromatic
compounds were found in the larger
supplies. Although 1,1. 1-trich loroethane
was the second most frequently found
compound, it was found only four times
in concentrations greater than 5.0 g/L.
Of the larger supplies selected. 37 percent
had at least one measurable VOC and 18
percent had a summed VOC concentra-
tiongreaterthan5.0 gL. Of thesmaller
systems, 22 percent showed some con-
tamination. The summed VOC concen-
tration exceeded 5.0 Mg/L in 5 percent of
the samples.
Resainpling of contaminated supplies
Approximately 100 contaminated sup-
plies were resampled. The states were
asked to resample the finished water
and were also given the opportunity to
collect several raw water samples of
their choosing. in many cases, the
original sample point was not resampled
or the sampling points were not described
well enough to enable comparison of the
original sample with the resample.
An example of data from resampled
finished water illustrates some aspects
of the groundwater VOC data. Table 14
shows the concentrations of VOCs in
two samples of finished water, collected
nine months apart, from a single well
owned by a small town (city A).
These two samples show much the
same pattern of contamination, with a
possible slight decrease in concentrations
in the second sample. Trichioroethylene.
which was counted as an occurrence in
the original sample, was not found above
thequantification limit in the resample.
When the original sample and the re-
sample were from a single well, both
usually contained nearly identical pat-
terns of contamination. This increases
confidence that the original results were
accurate and reinforces the belief that
levels of groundwater contamination
usually change slowly.
The occurrence of a compound at or
near the quantitation limit was often
not repeated in the resample. For exam-
ple. in the 37 supplies resampled from
the original point. 25 occurrences in the
original sample did not recur in the
resample. (Many of the supplies resam-
pled had multiple occurrences.) There
were also 16 instances, however, in
which a compound that was not found in
the original sample was quantified in
the resampled finished water. This
nonrepeatability occasionally occurred
in well samples, such as those shown in
Table 14. with low levels of contam-
inants. This situation could result from
either normal analytical variability or
from actual changes in concentration at
the well. This phenomenon was more
common in larger systems in which the
finished water was a blend of water
from multiple wells with various levels
of contamination. In these cases, changes
in the concentrations of contaminants
could result from changes in the relative
contributions of the various wells as
TABLE 6
Summary of random sample multiple occurrences 01 contaminants
Number of Contaminants
Population Category
1O 000 Persons
>10 000 Persons
,Vumber I
Percent
.Vumber
Percent
.4
0 233
1 28
2 10
3 6
4 1
5 1
6 0
7 1
Total ] 280
83.2
10.0
35
2.1
0.4
0.4
0
0.4
134
27
8
6
5
3
2
1
186
72.2
14.5
4.3
3.2
2.7
1.6
1.1
0.5
TABLE 7
Summed concentrations* of VOCs in random samples
Population
Number of Supplies With Summed Concentrations of VOCs
Below
Quantitation
Limit 5.0 g/L
Quantitation Limit
5.1-10 11-50
g/L Mg ’L
51-100
‘L
>100
g/L
<100 70 9 0 1 0 0
101-500 77 9 0 2 0 0
501-1000 24 2 2 0 0 0
1001-2500 26 . 1 0 1 0 0
2501-5000 26 8 1 0 1 0
5001-10000 10 7 0 0 0 0
1000l-100000J 123 38 5 6 1 0
>100000 11 2 0 0 0 0
Summed concentrations = summation of all VOcs exclusive of THMs.
TABLE 8
Summed concentrations in random samples
Supplies with Summed Concentrations
of VOCs Greater Than Value Shown
Population Category
l 000 0Persons ‘l OO O OPersons
Summed Concentrations I
of VOCs— g L . Number Percent .Vumber Percent
>Quantitation limit 47
>1.0 20
>5.0 8
‘>10 . 5
>50 , 1
>100 0
16.8 52 . 28.0
7.1 26 14.0
2.9 12 6,5
1.8 7 3.8
0.4 ‘ 1 0.5
0 0
MAY 1984
J.J. WESTRICK ET AL 57
-------
VI-7
TABLE 9
Summary of occurrences from 321 nonrandom sample sites servingfewer than 10 000 persons
Parameter
Quantitation
Limit
g/L
currences
Median of
Positives
g/L
Maximum
Value
Mg/L
Numbei-
Percent
Vinyl chloride
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,1-Dich loroethane
cis- and/or trans-
1.2-Dichloroethylene
1 . 2-Dichloroethane
1,L1-Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
l,2-Dichloropropane
Trich loroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Bromobenzene
m-Xylene
o+p-Xy lene
p-Dichlorobenzene
1,1,2-Trich loroethane
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1.1,22-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3 -chloropropane
n -Propy lbenzene
o-Chloroto luene
p-Chlorotoluene
m.Dich lorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Styrene
Isopropylbenzene
Chloroform
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromoch loromethane
Dichloroiodomethane
Bromoform
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.5
5.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.0
1.0
0
5
6
11
3
25
9
3
23
27
5
4
3
2
8
10
4
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
155
144
135
5
88
0
1.6
1.9
3.4
0.9
7.8
2.8
0.9
7.2
8.4
1.6
1.2
0.9
0.6
2.5
3.1
1.2
0
0
0
0.3
0
0.3
0
0
0
0.3
0
0
48.3
44.9
42.1
1.6
27.4
0.35
0.62
1.3
2.9
1.2
0.44
1.2
1.2
0.79
1.6
0.67
0.87
0.97
0.38
0.44
0.74
2.7
0.98
2.2
1.6
2.0
3.5
1.4
, 3.7
3.0
1.2
17
3.4
8.2
15
1.4
29
21
12
0.79
0.95
1.2
0.83
2.5
0.90
2.7
0.98
2.2
100
49
63
4.2
110
TABLE 10
Summary of occurrences from 158 nonrandom sample sites serving more than 10 000 persons
Parameter
Quantitation
Limit
Mg/L
CUlT
ences
Median of
Positives
Mg/L
Maximum
Value
ig/L
Number
Percent
Vinyl chloride
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis- and/or trans-
1,2-Dichloroethylene
1 .2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1-Trich loroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
1,2-Dichloropropane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrach loroethylene
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Bromobenzene
,n.Xylene
o + p-Xylene
p-Dichlorobenzene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1,12-Tetrach loroethane
1,12,2-Tetrach loroethane
Ch lorobenzene
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
n-Propylbenzene
o-Chlorotoluene
p-Chlorotoluene
,n-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
Styrene
Isopropylbenzene
Chloroform
Bromodich loromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Dichloroiodomethane
Bromoforrn
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.5
5.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.0
1.0
6
10
17
27
4
26
6
4
38
18
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
100
100
87
8
60
3.8
6.3
10.8
17.1
2.5
16.5
3.8
2.5
24.1
11.4
1.9
0.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6
0
0
0.6
0
0
63.3
63.3
55.1
5.1
38.0
27
0.34
0.87
2.7
1.8
0.93
0.70
0.70
1.5
0.66
2.7
1.5
2.4
2.7
2.1
2.2
4.6
1.2
5.1
8.4
0.64
4.2
120
9.8
21
9.4
18
130
69
12
1.5
2.4
2.7
430
110
51
4.1
68
determined by their pumping rates.
Temporal changes in concentrations
could also result from a relatively rapid
movement of the plume of contamina-
tion, which could occur during recharge
and withdrawal in a highly permeable
aquifer.
The data from resampling of finished
water from individual wells reinforce
confidence that the identification and
quantitation of compounds in the sam-
ples were accurate. The data from larger,
multiple-well systems show that concen-
trations of compounds in a finished
water can vary considerably over time.
Therefore, sampling a large number of
supplies, as in this survey, provides an
accurate representation of the percent-
age of systems with water containing
VOCs and an indication of the magnitude
of the levels of concentrations.
The variability of the quality of fin-
ished water from groundwater supplies
is site-specific and not amenable to
definition by a national survey such as
this. In the face of this variability, the
sampling approach was a compromise
between providing broad national cov-
erage and obtaining representative sam-
ples at each site.
Conclusion
The groundwater supply survey was
undertaken primarily to strengthen the
body of data on the occurrence of VOCs
in groundwater supplies. Careful atten-
tion was paid to quality assurance so
that a reliable representation of the,
occurrence of VOCs in US groundwater
supplies would result. The frequencies
of occurrence of 29 volatile compounds
were documented in samples collected
from 466 randomly selected communities
and from 479 communities selected by
the state agencies. The three most
frequently detected compounds were
trichioroethylene, tetrachloroethylene,
and 1,1,1-trichloroethane. The percent-
ages of supplies containing at least one
VOC above the quantitat ion limit in the
subsets of the survey were: random
sample of systems serving fewer than
10000 persons, 16.8 percent: random
sample of systems serving more than
10000 persons, 28 percent: nonrandom
sample of systems serving fewer than
10000 persons, 22.4 percent: and non-
random sample of systems serving more
than 10 000 persons, 37.3 percent. The
percentages of supplies containing
summed VOC concentrations in finished
water greater than 5 g/L were: random
sample of systems serving fewer than
10000 persons, 2.9 percent; random sam-
ple of systems serving more than 10 000
persons, 6.5 percent: nonrandom sample
of systems serving fewer than 10 000
persons, 4.7 percent; and nonrandom
sample of systems serving more than
10000 persons, 17.7 percent.
Simple statistical tests, based on ran-
58 MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
JOJRNAL AWWA
-------
VI-8
TABLE 11
Summary of non random-sample multiple occurrences of contaminants
Number of Contaminants
Population Category
1O 000 Persons
>10000 Persons
Number Percent
Number P Percent
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
249 77.6
35 10.9
15 4.7
11 3.4
7 2.2
2 0.6
0 0
1 0.3
1 0.3
321 j
99 62.7
19 12.0
14 8.9
7 4.4
7 4.4
7 4.4
4 2.6
1 0.6
0 0
158
TABLE 12
Summed concenlration$* of VOCs in non random samples
Population
Number of Supplies With Summed Concentrations of VOCs
Bcw
Quantitation
Limit
Quantitation Limit
5.O g/L
5.1-10
, g/L
11-50
M g/L
51-100
p .g ’ L
>100
ug/L
<100
101-500
501-1000
1001-2500
2501—5000
5001-10000
10001- 100000
>100000
24
38
27
62
43
55
85
14
10
4
5
8
18
12
29
2
1
0
0
0
0
4
6
0
-t.
0
1
2
1
2
4
13
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
Summed concentrations = summation of all VOCs exclusive of THMs.
TABLE 13
Summed concentration levels in nonrandom samples
Supplies with Summed Concentrations
of VOCs Greater Than Value Shown
Population Category
Summed Concentrations 10 000 Persons >10 000 Persons
of VOCS—Mg/L Number Percent Number Percent
>Quantitation limit
>1.0
>5.0
>10
>50
>100
72
41
15
10
0
0
22.4
12.8
4.7
3.1
0
0
59
43
28
22
6
3
37.3
27.2
17.7
13.9
3.8
1.9
TABLE 14
VOCs found in original sample and resample in city A
Parameter
June 1981
M g/L
March 1982
Mg,’ L
LI-Dich loroethane
1.1,1-Trichloroethane
Trich loroethylene
Tetrach loroethytene
0.62
1.9
0.21
1.3
0.51
1.4
<0.2
0.94
dom sampling, showed significant differ-
ences in the frequency of occurrences of
VOCs in the larger and smaller com-
munity subsets. The results of the ran-
dom sample were also used to construct
statistical confidence limits of estimates
of the probabilities of occurrence.
The nonrandom portion of the sample
provided additional data on the high side
of the occurrence curve, since the sites
were selected in hopes of finding a greater
frequency of higher levels of contamina-
tion. For example, six of the eight sup-
plies with summed VOC concentrations
greater than 50 . g/L were from the
nonrandom sample, including all three
of the supplies with summed VOC con-
centrations greater than 100 g/L.
Resampling of contaminated supplies
strengthened confidence in the quality
of the analytical data. It also showed
that finished water quality, with respect
to VOCs, can vary over time, especially
in systems supplied by multiple wells.
Additional analysis of the data gener-
ated by this survey will appear in docu-
ments prepared by the USEPA in support
of VOC regulatory recommendations.
The authors acknowledge those who
assisted in this sampling and analysis
program: the SRI International analysis
team, led by Barbara Kingsley; members
of the Office of Drinking Water in
Washington, D.C., and Cincinnati, Ohio,
who participated in the planning and
execution of the project and in the
preparation and review of this document,
including VictorJ. Kimm, Lowell A. Van
Den Berg, Joseph A. Cotruvo, Arnold M.
Kuzmack, Herbert J. Brass, Craig Vogt,
David Schnare, Eric Bissonette, Richard
Johnston, Waymon Wallace,Jane Gruber,
Audrey Kroner, Dale Ruhter, and
William Coniglio; the USEPA regional
water supply personnel who coordinated
and monitored the survey, and, in some
cases, carried out the activities in their
regions; and the personnel of the state
drinking water agencies.
References
1. National Revised Primary Drinking
Water Regulations. Volatile Synthetic
Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water:
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemak-
ing. Fed. Reg.. 47:9350 (Mar. 4, 1982).
2. BRAss, H.J.; WEISNER. M.J.; & KINGSLEY,
BA. Community Water Supply Survey:
Sampling and Analysis for Purgeable
Organics and Total Organic Carbon.
AWWA Ann. Conf., St. Louis, Mo. (June
1981).
3. MiLLER, I. & FREUND,J.E. Probability and
Statistics for Engineers. Prentice-Hail,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs. NJ. (1965).
4. The Determination of Halogenated
Chemicals in Water by the Purge and
Trap Method. USEPA Method 502.1.
EPA-&00i4 -81-059. Cincinnati, Ohio (Apr.
1981).
5. The Analysis of Aromatic Chemicals in
Water b ’ the Purge and Trap Method.
USEPA Method 503.1. EPA-600/4-81.057.
Cincinnati. Ohio (May 1980).
6. Determination of the Quality of Ground
Water Supplies. SRI Intl. Final Rept.
USEPA Contract 68-03-3031 (Dec. 1982).
7. KINGSLEY. BA. Quality Assurance in a
Contract Laboratory. Proc. AWWA
WQTC. Nashville, Tenn. Dec. 19821.
About the authors:
James J. Westrick is
chief of the Water
Supply Technology
Branch, J. Wayne
Mello is an environ-
mental engineer, and
— _____ Robert F. Thomas is
a chemist with the Technical Support
Division, US Environmental Protection
Agency. 26 W St. Clair St., Cincinnati,
OH 45268. Westrick has conducted and
managed research on advanced waste
treatment technology, studies on the oc-
currence of contaminants in drinking
u’ater, and evaluations of drinking water
treatment technologies. He isa member of
AWWA, ASCE, and WPCF.
MAY 1984
J.J. WESTRICK ET .4L 59
-------
VII. GROUND-WATER RESOURCES IN THE UNITED STATES
• Summary of Ground-Water Resources in Geologic
Regions*
• Summary of Ground-Water Production*
• Summary of Ground-Water Use*
• Report on Estimated Use of Water in the United States
*Se/ections from Ground Water Issues and Answers,
American Institute of Professional Geologists,
1984.
-------
Ground Water Resources in
Geologic Regions
1. Western Mountains —Underlain by hard, dense
rocks; weathered rock locally yields modest sup-
plies, as does alluvium in intermontane valleys.
Large supplies are rare.
2. Alluvial Basins — Large depressed areas flanked
by highlands and filled with erosional debris. Allu-
vial fill functions as an ideal aquifer, absorbing
water readily from streams issuing from highlands
and yielding large supplies to wells. Supports large-
scale irrigated agriculture and provides municipal
water for many cities.
3. Columbia Lava Plateau — Underlain by thou-
sands of feet of basaltic lava flows, interbedded
with alluvial and lake sediments. Lava rocks are
highly permeable because of lava tubes, shrinkage
cracks, and interfiow rubble zones. Yields large
supplies of water for irrigation and municipal use.
4. Colorado Plateaus and Wyoming Basins—
Underlain by gently dipping sediments, mainly
poorly-permeable sandstone and shale. Most pro-
ductive aquifers are sandstone, furnishing small
supplies for stock and domestic use. Prospects
poor for large-scale ground-water developments,
but such supplies are found at a few favorable
localities.
5. High Plains — Underlain by alluvium of the Ogal-
lala Formation, as much as 450 feet thick, which
yields large supplies to wells, mainly for irrigation.
Opportunity for recharge from streams is small,
due to low rainfall and because large streams have
cut below the base of alluvium. Water table is grad-
ually declining in much of the area due to overdraft.
6. Unglaciated Central Region —Complex areaof
plains and plateaus, underlain by consolidated sedi-
mentary rocks. Alluvium of stream valleys pro-
vides large supplies for industry and cities. Most
productive aquifers in much of the region are dol-
omitic limestones and sandstones of low-to-mod-
erate yield.
7. Glaciated Central Region — Similar to Ungla-
ciated Central Region, except that area is mantled
by glacial deposits as much as 900 feet thick.
These contain lenses and beds of well-sorted sand
and gravel, which yield large supplies of water
for industrial and municipal use.
8. Unglaciated Appalachians — Mountainous area
underlain mainly by consolidated sedimentary
rocks of small-to-moderate water yield. Locally,
limestones yield large supplies of water.
9. Glaciated Appalachians — Glacial deposits man-
tle steep areas and underlie valleys and lowlands.
Yields from bedrocks are generally small to mod-
erate. Principal ground-water sources are sand
and gravel of glacial outwash plains, or channel
fillings in stratified drift.
10. Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains A huge, sea-
ward-thickening wedge of sedimentary rocks con-
sisting mainly of clay, sand, marl, and limestone.
Thickness along coast increases southward from
300 to 30,000 feet. Large supplies of ground water
can be obtained almost anywhere, although salt-
water encroachment is a problem locally.
Alaska — Most has been glaciated, and large sup-
plies of ground water can be obtained from glacial
sand and gravel. Permafrost is present in northern
Alaska, restricting the availability of ground water.
Hawaii — Entire island chain is composed of
basaltic lava flows, which are highly permeable and
yield water readily to wells and tunnels. Fresh-
water body forms a lens floating upon sea water,
so extraction must be carefully managed to avoid
sea-water intrusion.
-------
GROUND-WATER RESOURCES
Watercourses related to aquifers
Areas of extensive aquifers that yield more
than 50 gallons per minute of fresh water
Areas of less-extensive aquifers having
smaller yields
Ground water sufficient for domestic and
livestock supplies can be found throughout
the country.
Larger ground-water supplies for industry,
municipal use, and irrigation are obtained
from high-permeability rocks and river
deposits (alluvium).
Numbers indicate major regions
described on opposite page.
LY1
Li
I
-------
Where G round-Water
VII—3
o Although ground water is the main source of rural water supplies, and is the source
for many cities, those uses are relatively small compared to irrigation demand.
Irrigation accounted for about 70% of the ground-water production in 1980.
O Ground-water production for irrigation tripled between 1950 and 1980, increasing
from 20 to 60 billion gallons per day.
o Irrigation demand, and thus the largest ground-water production, is concentrated
in the semi-arid western states and in Florida.
o The four leading ground-water pumping states — California, Texas, Nebraska,
and Idaho — account for almost half the total national production of ground water.
Use Is Concentrated ___
RELATIVE PRODUCTION OF GROUND WATER, 1980
— In Millions of Gallons Per Day.
(From U.S. Water Resources Council, Bulletin 16)
-------
VII—5
Ground Water Serves
Many Users
Ground water provides 23% of the fresh water
used in the United States. In the 17 semi-arid western
states, it provides 38% of the fresh-water supply. It is
the chef supply for rural domestic and stock use, and
for small community supplies throughout the Nation.
Although not generally considered a “use,” ground
water serves another vital function: it sustains stream
flows in dry weather. In highly permeable areas, ground
water is the main source of stream flow at all times.
Self-supplied
Industrial
170
Water Uses Supplied by Ground Water
35Uo of Public Suppli, -- Ground water is the most
efficient supply for medium-sized cities and small
communities because it does not require costly
reservoirs and aqueducts. Of the 100 largest
U.S. cities, 34 depend wholly or partly on ground
water. The largest populations (1980) served
entirely by ground water include Nassau-Suf-
folk Counties of Long Island, N.Y. (2.6 million),
Miami (1.6), San Antonio (1.1), Memphis (0.9),
Dayton (0.8), Honolulu (0.7), and Tucson (0.5).
SO ’ of Rural Domestic and Stock Lse Ground
water generally is the only feasible supply in most
of the Nation.
-1O of trrigation Ground water, where readily
available, is the most efficient supply because
it does not require storage and transport facilities.
6’ of Self-supplied md ri:! L ’ Ground
water generally is unsuitable for very large indus-
trial supplies, such as power-plant cooling. owing
to the huge concentrated demand at a single point.
60
Rural
Domestic
and Stock
11
All
Fresh
Water
290
88
Irrigation
90
KEY
Surface Water
I ) Ground Water
Public
Supplies
r H-L
12 1
Fresh-Water Withdrawals in the United States, 1980, in billions of gallons per day.
-------
ESTIMATED USE OF WATER
IN THE UNITED STATES
IN 1980
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 1001
-------
VII— 8
ABOUT THE COVER
Comparison of water withdrawals, by States,
in 1980.
The total national rate of withdrawal of ground
and surface water was 450 billion gallons per day.
See table 14 for each State total.
Water-resources regions of the United States as established by the U.S. Water Resources
Council in 1970. This map shows the relationship of the regions to the States. (See
glossary in this report for definition of water-resources region.)
-------
V]II—9
ESTIMATED USE OF WATER
IN THE UNITED STATES
IN 1980
By Wayne B. SoMey, Edith B. Chase,
and Wiiham B. Mann iv
ABSTRACT
Water use in the United States in 1980 was estimated to be an average of 450 bgd
(billion gallons per day) of fresh and saline water for offstream uses—an 8-percent increase
from the 1975 estimate and a 22-percent increase from the 1970 estimate. Average per
capita use for all offstream uses was 2,000 gpd (gallons per day) of fresh and saline water,
and 1,600 gpd of fresh water; this represents a slight increase since 1975.
Offstream uses include(l) public supply (domestic, public, commercial, and industrial
uses), (2) rural (domestic and livestock uses), (3) irrigation, and (4) self-supplied industrial
uses (including thermoelectric power). From 1975 to 1980, public-supply use increased
15 percent to 34 bgd, rural use increased 14 percent to 5.6 bgd, irrigation use increased 7 per-
cent to 150 bgd, and self-supplied industrial use increased 8 percent to 260 bgd. Within the
industrial category, thermoelectric power generation increased 9 percent to 210 bgd, whereas
other self-supplied industrial uses remained approximately constant at 45 bgd.
Total fresh water consumed—that part of water withdrawn that is no longer available
for subsequent use.— by these offstream uses increased 7 percent to 100 bgd, with irrigation
accounting for the largest part of water consumed, estimated at 83 bgd.
Estimates of withdrawals by source indicate that from 1975 to 1980, total ground-
water withdrawals increased 7 percent to 89 bgd, and total surface-water withdrawals increased
9 percent to 360 bgd. Total saline-water withdrawals increased by about 2 bgd to 72 bgd, of
which 71 bgd was saline surface water. Reclaimed sewage amounted to about 0.5 bgd in
1980, an 11-percent decrease from 1975.
A comparison of withdrawals by States indicates that California withdrew the most
water for offstream use, 54 bgd, more than double the amounts withdrawn by Florida and
Texas, the next largest users. A similar comparison by water-resources regions indicates that
the California and Mid-Atlantic regions accounted for nearly one quarter of the total water
withdrawn in the United States. Total withdrawals for offstream use in the eastern water-
resources regions, which include the Mississippi and Souris Rivers, accounted for 55 percent
of the Nation’s total withdrawals. Fresh-water consumptive use in the East was 8 percent of
the total eastern withdrawals and accounted for only 19 percent of the national total con-
sumptive use of 100 bgd. By comparison, consumptive use in the western water-resources
regions accounted for 41 percent of the withdrawals in the West. The higher consumptive
use in the West can be attributed to the fact that 91 percent of the total water withdrawn
for irrigation occurred in the West and irrigation accounts for the largest part of water
consumed.
Water used for hydroelectric power generation, an instream use, remained unchanged
from 1975 at 3,300 bgd. This is in contrast to the increasing trend from 1950 to 1975.
Although 1980 estimates of water use were higher than the 1975 estimates for all
offstream categories, trends established during the periods 1970 to 1975 and 1975 to 1980
indicate a general slackening in the rate of increase of total withdrawals in comparison to
the period 1965 to 1970.
-------
vu—b
Public Supply
Public supply refers to water
withdrawn by public and private
water suppliers and delivered to a
variety of users for domestic or
household use, public use, industrial
use, and commercial use. Public
suppliers served about 186 million
people in 1980, about 81 percent
of the total population, a slight
increase in percentage since 1975.
Domestic use includes such activities
as drinking, food preparation, bath-
ing, washing clothes and dishes,
flushing toilets, and watering lawns
and gardens. Public use includes
water for fIrefIghting, street wash-
ing, and municipal parks and swim-
ming pools. Many industrial and
commercial establishments use pub-
lic supplies, especially where the
volume of water required is small
and the quality of water must be
high. However, some industries
that require large amounts of water
also use public supply for principal
or auxiliary water. Among commer-
cial users are hotels, restaurants,
laundry services, office facilities,
and institutions, both civilian and
military. Data on population served
by public supply and public-supply
withdrawals and deliveries usually
are reliable because local govern-
ment agencies generally maintain
relatively complete files.
Total water withdrawn for
public supply in 1980 was estimated
as 34 bgd, or an average of 183 gpd
for each individual served (see
tables I and 2). This amount repre-
sents a 15-percent increase from
1975 when 29 bgd of water was
withdrawn for public supply or a
per capita use of 168 gpd. (See
“Methodology” section for how
percentages were derived.) Part of
this increase is due to the fact that
nearly 2 bgd of water erroneously
identified in previous reports as
self-supplied industrial withdrawals
is now included in the public-supply
category. Another factor in the in-
crease in this category is a 6-percent
increase from 1975 in population
served by public supplies along with
higher per capita use. Combined
daily average for domestic and pub-
lic uses accounted for almost
two-thirds of the public-supply
withdrawals and was estimated at
22 bgd, or an average of 120 gpd
for each individual served,compared
to apercapitauseoflllgpdin
1975. Included in the 22 bgd is
water lost in the distribution system.
Industrial and commercial users re-
ceived the other third of the public-
supply withdrawals, about the same
distribution as in 1975.
Water consumed by public-
supply users increased 6 percent to
7.1 bgd in 1980, and accounted for
about 21 percent of the public-
supply withdrawals, approximately
the same proportion as in 1965,
1970, and 1975. The larger cities
were supplied principally by surface-
water sources, which furnished
about ‘ two-thirds of the public-
supplied water.
California, New York, and
Texas, the three most populated
States, withdrew the most water for
public supplies, and accounted for
about 30 percent of the Nation’s
total withdrawal by public suppliers.
Per capita domestic use from public
supplies averaged 100 gpd for the
Eastern States and 150 gpd for the
western States (see table 13). The
two most populated water-resources
regions, California and Mid-Atlantic,
withdrew the most water for public
supplies, and accounted for about
28 percent of the total withdrawal
by public suppliers.
The range in public-supply
fresh-water withdrawals by States
and water-resources regions is shown
in figure 1. Public-supply water-use
data by States are given in table 1,
and the same data by water-
resources regions are given in table 2.
The source of and disposition of
withdrawals for public supply are
shown in the chart below.
Jc c
C:]
34 JJON GALLONS P8 DAY W!TI ’CRA
Re m w
SOURCE
D I S P 0 S I T I 0 N
WAT Wrfl CRAWN FOR PL UC SU ’L.Y BY XJRCE AP D SPOSmON. 1980, PJ PEPCB4T.
-------
Range
(bgd)
0 -
0.58 -
1.20-
2.30-
fc;\
t \
! ‘ )
(D/
EXPLANATION
0.57
1.19
2.29
4.10
Percentage
of Total
25
24
28
23
EXPLANATION
Range Percentage
(bgd) of Total
0.1-1.5 24
1.6- 3.4 25
3.5-3.9 23
4.0- 5.4 28
A. States
vu—il
PUERTO RICO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
B. Water-resources regions
CARIBBEAN
Figure 1. Public supply fresh-water withdrawals, by States and water-resources regions, 1980.
-------
VII— 12
Table I_PUBlIC SUPPlIED FRESH. WA TER USE. BY STA TES. 1980
(Water—use data generally are rounded to two significant figures, population data and per capita data are rounded to three signif i—
cant figures; figures y not add to totals because of independent rounding. .gd — million gallons per day; gpd — gallons per day]
POPUlATION SERVE1),
in thousands
PER
CAPITA
USE,
in gpd
WATER WITdDRA IJALS.
in agd
WATER DELIVERED, BY
TYPE OF USE, in ngd
CONSLWP—
TIVE UsE,
in d
STATE
Source
Total
Source
Total
Industrial
and
co rcial
Domestic
and
public 1
Ground
water
Surface
water
Ground Surface
water water
Alabama 1200 1740 2950 210 160 460 620 230 390 44
Alaska 172 113 286 187 23 30 53 14 40 33
Arizona 1490 945 2440 230 300 260 560 180 380 340
Arkansas 880 816 1700 155 110 150 260 77 190 64
California 9580 12700 22300 183 1900 2200 4100 800 3300 1700
Colorado 320 2220 2540 233 48 540 590 80 510 160
Connecticut 521 1980 2500 143 55 300 360 140 220 89
Delaware 254 240 494 158 30 48 78 8.6 69 0
D.C 0 638 638 326 0 210 210 62 150 21
Florida 6800 991 7790 175 1200 180 1400 240 1100 330
Georgia 1320 2860 4180 185 230 540 770 360 410 180
Hawaii 914 51 965 207 180 15 200 64 140 60
Idaho 592 117 709 231 150 16 160 15 1 50 51
Illinois 4050 6690 10700 170 480 1300 1800 1000 790 18
Indiana 1920 1430 3350 172 300 280 580 270 300 79
t wa 1600 528 2120 146 230 84 310 92 220 47
Kansas 903 832 1140 168 140 150 290 71 220 83
Kentucky 375 2080 2450 145 47 310 350 72 280 23
Louisiana 1850 1310 3160 192 270 340 610 91 510 350
Maine 101 372 473 221 20 85 100 34 70 10
Maryland 417 3040 3460 141 48 440 490 87 400 24
Massachusetts 1550 3850 5400 149 190 610 800 240 560 41
Michigan 1310 5280 6590 190 220 1000 1300 670 580 100
Minnesota 1910 1010 2920 150 230 210 440 130 300 44
Mississippi 1800 182 1980 147 250 42 290 80 210 100
Missouri 1520 3160 4690 156 160 570 730 300 440 150
Montana 184 339 524 273 50 93 140 54 89 53
Nebraska 961 276 1240 213 210 56 260 69 190 53
Nevada 329 392 721 322 93 140 230 80 150 69
New Ma shire 392 366 758 117 43 46 89 25 64 4.9
New Jersey 3420 3940 7360 145 450 620 1100 250 820 200
New Mexico 798 82 880 240 190 21 210 12 200 99
1 1ev York 3510 12100 15700 143 350 1900 2200 950 1300 380
North Carolina.... 474 2640 3110 184 70 500 570 230 340 110
North Dakota 258 247 505 116 26 33 59 5.6 53 34
Ohio 2950 6040 8990 160 380 1100 1400 630 800 180
Oklahoma 662 1670 2330 130 86 220 300 100 200 120
Oregon 344 851 1200 193 66 160 230 90 140 47
Pennsylvania 2180 6620 8800 172 240 1300 1500 350 1200 160
Nhode Island 142 723 844 147 19 110 130 50 77 6.3
South Carolina.... 541 1780 2320 152 78 270 350 130 230 53
South Dakota 321 134 455 167 52 24 76 21 55 15
Tennessee 1450 2270 3720 137 200 310 510 140 370 55
Texas 5030 6360 11400 335 930 290<) 3800 2000 1800 640
Utah 662 634 1300 575 380 370 750 140 610 300
Verment 113 207 320 149 17 31 48 15 33 5.8
Virginia 707 3160 3860 154 120 480 600 150 450 32
Waah ingtoo 2100 1200 3300 246 300 510 810 370 440 170
West Virginia 411 921 1330 134 49 130 180 61 120 0.6
Wisconsin 1620 1420 3040 188 290 280 570 250 320 57
Wyoxing 122 200 322 256 27 55 82 IS 68 48
Puerto Nico 669 2530 3200 109 73 281) 350 88 260 74
Virgin Islands.... 32 32 64 63 2.0 2.0 4.0 0.2 3.8 0.8
Total 73,700 112,000 186.000 183 12.000 22,000 34,000 12,000 22.000 7.100
‘Includes loesas in the distribution system.
-------
VII—13
Table 2.—PUBLIC SUPPLIED FRESH-WA TSR USE, BY REGIONS. 1980
(Water—use data generally are rounded to two significant figures, population data and per capita data are rounded to three signif i—
cant figures; figures awy not add to totals because of independent rounding. agd — million gallons per day; gpd — gallons per dayj
WATER-RESOURCES
REGION
POPULATION SERVED,
in thouaanda
PER
CAPITA
USE,
in gpd
N
ATER WITHDR.AMALS,
in gd
WATER DELIVERED, BY
TYPE OF USE, in mgd
C O NS%R IP-
‘fIVE USE,
in gd
Source
Total
Industrial Do.estic
and and
Source
Total
Ground
Surface
Ground
Surface
water
water
water
water
co rcial publict
9ev England
Mid—Atlantic
2)30
9440
7310
24600
10000
34100
148
159
330
1100
1200
4300
1500
5400
490 1000
1500 3900
1 50
710
South Atlantic-Gulf..
11400
10000
21400
177
1900
1900
3800
1200 2600
760
Great Likes
2970
18600
21500
182
440
3500
3900
2100 1800
310
Oblo
5600
9710
15300
144
730
1500
2200
790 1400
240
Teeneasee
727
1950
2680
153
89
320
410
95 310
44
Upper Mississippi....
8330
4240
12600
155
1100
820
1900
860 1100
180
Lover Mississippi....
4170
1170
5330
172
610
310
920
210 710
400
Souris—&ed—Rainy
253
241
494
116
27
30
57
11 46
22
Mlieouri Basin
3360
4730
8090
171
530
850
1400
320 1100
360
Arkanaa i-Wbite—ked...
2280
3810
6090
255
320
1200
1600
790 760
310
Tezas—Guif
4330
5810
10100
298
800
2200
3000
1400 1600
550
Rio Grande
1100
268
1370
232
240
74
320
21 300
140
Upper Colorsdo
91
266
357
347
23
100
120
18 110
41
Lover Colorado
1710
1200
2910
248
370
350
720
230 490
390
Great Basin
800
169
1570
514
400
410
810
160 650
310
Pacific Northwest....
3050
2260
5320
237
530
730
1300
500 770
290
California
9610
12700
22300
183
1900
2200
4100
800 3300
1100
Alaska
172
113
266
187
23
30
53
14 40
33
Hawaii
914
51
965
207
180
15
200
64 140
60
Caribbean
Total
701
2560
3260
108
15
280
350
88 270
75
73,700
112,000
186,000
163
12,000
22,000
34,000
12,000 22,000
7,100
t lncludes losses in the distribution system.
-------
VII—14
Rural Use
Water for rural use includes
self-supplied domestic use, drinking
water for livestock, and other uses
such as dairy sanitation,evaporation
from stock-watering ponds, and
cleaning and waste disposal. The
number of people served by self-
supplied systems was detemiined by
subtracting the total number of
people served by public-supply
systems from the total population,
as derived from the U.S. Bureau of
Census advance population data for
1980. The difference between
these totals showed that 44 million
people were served by their own
water-supply systems in 1980,
compared to 41 million people in
1975. Rural self-supplied systems
rarely are metered and few “hard”
data exist. Therefore, water for
rural use can only be estimated.
The quantity of fresh water
withdrawn for rural domestic and
livestock use in 1980 was 5.6 bgd,
a 14-percent increase from 1975.
Rural domestic withdrawals were
3.4 bgd, a 23-percent increase from
1975. This large increase is the
result of the increased population
being served by self-supplied systems
and an increase in the per capita
use, which was about 79 gpd com-
pared to about 68 gpdin 1975. The
increase in per capita use reflects
the application of more realistic
estimating techniques, which also
indicate that previous estimates were
probably too low. The quantity of
water used by livestock increased
slightly from 2.1 bgd in 1975 to
nearly 2.2 bgd in 1980.
The consumptive use of fresh
water for rural domestic use and
livestock use in 1980 was about
2.0 bgd and 1.9 bgd, or 57 and
88 percent of withdrawals, respec-
tively. Total consumptive use was
69 percent of total rural withdraw-
als. Only about 5 percent of the
rural domestic water was surface
water, but some 45 percent of the
water used for livestock was surface
water.
Rural domestic and livestock
water use is fairly evenly distributed
among the States with Texas and
Florida the major users accounting
for 7 percent and 6 percent, respec-
tively. The South Atlantic-Gulf
water-resources region withdrew the
most water for total rural use, and
it also experienced the largest vol-
ume increase in rural domestic with-
drawals. The Missouri Basin region
withdrew the most water for rural
livestock use and accounted for
about 18 percent of the total with-
drawals for livestock use.
The range in rural fresh-water
withdrawals by States and water-
resources regions is shown in fig-
ure 2. Rural water-use data by States
are given in table 3, and the same
data by water-resources regions are
given in table 4. The source of and
disposition of withdrawals for rural
use are shown in the chart below.
Groisiø waler
waler
8 BIWON GALLONS PER DAY W THDRAV
EJ Rehsn flow
JC s&rvtrve
SOURCE
D I S P o S I I I 0 N
WATER WITI -CRAWN FOR R%J AL DOMESTIC AND LIVESTOCK USE BY SO CE AND D OSITK)N. 1980.14 PERCENT.
-------
vII—15
A. States
EXPLANATION
Percentage
of Total
PUERTO R CO
VIRGIN ISLANDS
B. Water-resources regions
-0.10
.016
-0.19
• 0.40
24
26
26
24
EXPLANATION
CARIBBEAN
Percentage
of Total
24
27
20
29
0.01 -0.31
0.32 - 0.49
0.50 0.59
0.60- 0.96
Figure 2. Rural fresh-water withdrawals, by States and water-resources regions, 1980.
-------
VI 1—16
Tab4e 3.—RURAL FRESH.W4TER USE. BY STATES. IN MILUON GALLONS PER DAY, 1980
(IMta generally are rounded to two significant figures; figures may not add to totals because of independent roundingj
STATE
DOhESTIC
USE
LIVESTOC
K 1 )5 5
TOTAL DOMESTIC
AND
LIVESTOCK USE
Withdrawals
Consu -
dye
use
Withdrawals
Conau -
tive
use
Withdrawalø
Con su-
tive
use
By
source
Total
By
source
Total
By source
Ground Surface
Total
Ground
Surface
Ground
Surface
water
water
water water
water
water
k labaaa 100
Alaska 11
Arizona 32
Arkansas 57
California 130
0 100 100 25
0.1 11 0.1 0
0 32 24 9.8
0 57 51 22
9.5 140 82 36
63 88 88
0.1 0.2 0.2
1.8 12 8.1
39 61 61
51 87 46
130 63 190 190
11 0.3 11 0.3
42 1.8 43 32
78 39 120 110
160 60 220 130
Colorado 35
Connecticut 53
Delaware 25
D.C 0
Florida 250
62 98 24
0 53 32
0 25 0
0 0 0
0.1 250 42
19 86 110 35 54
0.4 1.8 2.2 2.2 54
2.0 0 2.0 2.0 27
0 0 0 0 0
39 20 59 59 290
150 200 59
1.8 56 34
O 27 2.0
0 0 0
20 310 100
Georgia 140 0 140 85 17 11
Hawaii 3.5 0.4 3.9 3.4 5.3 0.2
Idaho 44 2.0 46 11 9.3 13
Illinois 79 3.6 82 58 49 16
Indiana 110 5.6 120 120 24 19
Iowa 55
Kansas 58
Kentucky 54
Louisiana 54
Maine 26
0.2 55 22 100 25 130 130
4.3 63 59 35 46 81 79
6.3 61 48 1.9 .37 39 39
O 54 39 12 5.2 18 18
0.5 26 26 1.0 0.? 1.7 1.?
160 25 180 150
93 50 140 140
56 43 99 87
67 5.2 72 57
27 1.2 28 28
Maryland 49
Massachusetts 32
Michigan 160
Minnesota 120
Mississippi 27
0 49 32 10 0.5 11 11
O 32 3.9 0.7 0.5 1.2 1.2
0 160 27 17 5.0 22 19
0 120 120 58 10 68 68
0 27 24 9.7 12 21 21
59 0.5 60 43
32 0.5 33 5.1
180 5.0 180 46
180 10 190 190
31 12 49 45
Missouri 68
Montsua 60
Mabraska 49
Mavada 11
Ne w Ha sbire 9.1
24 92 39 17
O 60 60 14
0 49 49 93
0.7 ii 6.6 3.7
0.2 9.3 0.5 0.2
48 65 58
14 28 28
23 120 110
8.5 12 8.9
0.5 0.8 0.7
85 72 160 98
74 14 88 88
140 23 170 160
14 9.2 24 15
9.3 0.8 10 1.2
New Jersey 75
New Mexico 32
New York 130
North Carolina.... 140
North Dekota 11
0 75 15
1.1 33 IS
0 130 13
0 140 140
0.2 11 11
2.0 1.0 3.0 2.5
9.6 9.6 19 9.6
37 20 58 52
33 5.6 39 39
13 8.2 21 21
77 1.0 78 17
42 11 52 25
170 20 190 65
170 5.6 170 170
24 8.4 32 32
Ohio 80 8.8 89 42 24 16 40 36
O kl sho.s 29 5.2 35 31 8.2 50 58 58
Oregon 130 19 150 150 7.1 19 26 26
Pennsylvania 150 0 150 15 54 7.0 61 41
kbode liland 4.9 0 4.9 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
100 25 130 98
38 55 93 89
140 38 170 170
200 7.0 210 56
5.0 0.1 5.1 1.0
South Carolina.... 65
South Dskota 21
Te nnessee 43
Texas 130
Utah 26
0.2 65 65 12 10 22 22
1.4 22 16 81 11 92 85
0 43 12 7.0 35 42 42
0 130 130 120 150 270 270
3.3 29 10 31 9.0 40 11
77 10 87 87
100 12 110 100
50 35 85 54
250 150 400 400
57 12 69 21
Ver.oat 17
Virginia 150
Washington 40
West Virginia 18
Wisconsin 72
2.6 20 1.0 5.7 3.5 9.2 9.2
0.1 150 74 2.3 26 28 17
11 52 18 4.1 2.0 6.1 3.0
1.3 19 0.2 1.0 6.6 7.6 6.7
0 72 7.0 72 3.0 15 75
23 6.1 29 10
150 26 180 91
44 13 58 21
19 7.9 27 6.9
140 3.0 150 82
Wyo.ing
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands....
8.8 0.8 9.6 6.7 3.1 12
3.0 3.0 6.0 1.0 15 15
2.0 0.1 2.1 1.0 0 0.1
15 15 12 13 25 21
30 7.0 18 18 36 8.0
0.1 0.1 2.0 0.2 2.2 1.1
28 28
5.5 4.8
22 19
65 65
42 42
150 11 160 110
8.8 0.6 9.4 8.2
53 15 68 30
130 20 150 120
130 24 160 160
Total 3.300
180 3,400 2.000 1.200
980 2 20O 1.900 4,400 1.200 5,600 3,900
-------
VII—17
Table 4.—RURAL FRESH WA TER USE. BY REGIONS, IN MILUON GALLONS PER DAY. 1980
tUsta generally are rounded to two significant figures; figures may not add to totals because of independent rouodingJ
WATER—AESOUP ,CES
REGION
DOMESTIC
USE
LIVESTOCK USE
TOTAL DOMESTIC AND
LIVES
TOCK USE
Withdrawals
By source
—
Con au —
tive
Withdrawals
Co nau -
tive
—
Withdrawals
Consu-
tive
By source
By
source
- - -
Total
use
Total
use
T otal
use
Ground Surface
Ground Surface
Ground
Surface
water water
water water
water
water
New England
130 1.1
130
63
4.5 4.7 9.2
9.2
140
5.8
140
73
Hid—Atlantic
430 2.4
430
110
79 32 110
86
510
35
550
190
South &tia tit—GuLf.,
720 0.4
720
440
130 110 21.0
240
850
I II
960
670
Great Lakes
270 2.9
270
7*
64 20 84
77
330
23
350
150
ObOe
290 21
310
200
63 90 iSO
140
360
110
470
350
Tennessee
61 0
61
39
12 29 41
40
73
29
100
79
Upper Mississippi....
290 10
300
190
220 Si 270
170
510
61
570
460
Lower Mississippi....
94 0.5
94
61
17 25 42
41
110
25
140
110
Souri —Red—Rainy
Missouri B 5in
23 0
210 22
23
230
23
170
9.8 3.8 14
270 20 390
14
380
33
480
3.8
150
37
630
37
550
Ark.nsas- dt .ite—Ked...
i30 25
160
120
85 150 240
230
210
180
390
350
Texas-Gulf
120 0
i20
120
78 120 190
190
200
120
310
310
Rio Grande
33 0.7
33
iS
26 6.0 32
26
58
6.7
65
44
Upper Colorado
tower Colorado
iS 43
37 0.1
58
37
17
21
2.4 91 94
12 5.2 17
22
ii
18
48
130
5.4
150
54
39
38
Great Basin
32 3.8
36
14
34 12 46
17
66
16
82
30
Pacific Northwest....
230 32
270
200
21 34 55
49
250
66
320
250
California
130 9.4
140
84
36 50 86
47
170
60
220
130
Alaska
11 0.1
11
0.1
0 0.1 0.2
0.2
11
0.3
11
0.3
Rawaii
3.5 0.4
3.9
3.4
5.3 0.2 5.5
4.8
8.8
0.6
9.4
8.2
CarEbbean
Total
5.0 3.1
8.1
2.0
15 15 30
7.1
20
18
38
9.1
3,300 180
3,400
2,000
1,200 980 2,200
1,900
4.400
1,200 5,600
3.900
-------
VII—18
Irrigation
Irrigation of crops developed
along with the settlement of the
arid West because most years
farmers needed to irrigate to raise
any crops. in the humid eastern
States, irrigation has been used to
supplement natural rainfall in order
to increase the number of plantings
per year and yield of crops per
acre, and to reduce the risk of
crop failures during drought periods.
Irrigation also is used to maintain
recreational lands such as parks and
golf courses. Estimates of with-
drawals for irrigation vary greatly.
In some instances, they are based
on subjective amounts of water
required to raise an acre of a given
crop. In other instances, accurate
records of water application rates
are available. Reliable estimates of
water withdrawn for irrigation can
be made if the number of acres ir-
rigated and the water application
rates are known. It usually is diffi-
cult to obtain reliable estimates for
consumptive use and for conveyance
loss. Thus, some of the estimates
of consumptive use and conveyance
loss may be only rough approxima-
tions of actual conditions. Never-
theless, it is likely that better
estimates were made of water used
per acre in 1980 than in 1975,and
in particular, the values given for
conveyance loss for 1980 are more
realistic because of progressively
better records being kept by the
water users.
The quantity of water with-
drawn for irrigation in 1980 was
estimated at about 170 million
acre-feet or 150 bgd. (See tables
5 and 6.) The water was used on
approximately 58 million acres of
farmland. This represents an in-
crease in both water use and irrigated
acreage of about 7 percent from the
1975 estimate. Where irrigation is
used primarily to supplement natu-
ral rainfall, it is to be expected that
there normally will be large differ-
ences in irrigation withdrawals from
year to year.
The consumptive use of irriga-
tion water was estimated to be
93 million acre-feet or 83 bgd in
1980. This was 55 percent of the
irrigation water withdrawn, and
accounted for about 81 percent
of the total consumptive use by the
Nation. Conveyance loss was esti-
mated at about 26 million acre-feet
(24 bgd) or 16 percent of 1980 irri-
gation withdrawals. Consumptive
use and conveyance losses in 1980
were slightly higher than in 1975
but were essentially in the same
proportion to irrigation water with-
drawn as they were in 1975.
Surface water was the source
of about 60 percent of the irrigation
water (the same as 1975) and,except
for a small fraction of 1 percent
that was reclaimed sewage, ground
water furnished the remainder.
The nine western water-
resources regions (regions 10—18),
led by the California region, ac-
counted for 91 percent of the total
water withdrawn for irrigation in
1980, compared to 93 percent in
1975. In the eastern regions, most
of the water used for irrigation was
in the South Atlantic-Gulf and
Lower Mississippi regions, which to-
gether withdrew over 3 bgd more
water in 1980 than in 1975. The
State of California was by far the
largest user of irrigation water, with-
drawing about 37 bgd, 25 percent
of the national total, which is more
than the next two largest users,
Idaho and Colorado, combined.
Nebraska and Georgia showed the
largest increase in number of acres
irrigated from 1975 to 1980.
The range in irrigation water
withdrawals, by States and water-
resources regions is shown in fig-
ure 3. A comparison of withdrawals
for self-supplied industrial use and
irrigation use by both States and
water-resources regions is shown in
figure 10. Irrigation water-use data
by States are given in table 5 and
the same data by water-resources
regions are given in table 6. The
source of and disposition of with-
drawals for irrigation use are shown
in the chart below.
Gfou d waSer
s . ws
150 UJON GALLONS PER DAY WITHDRAWN
D I S P 0 S I T I 0 N
Return flow
C—
use
—
ss
SOURCE
WATER WITPCRAWP4 FOR GATON BY SOLJ CE AND DISPOSITION. 1980. t I PERCENT
-------
VII—19
EXPLANATION
Percentage
of Total
23
25
27
25
Percentage
of Total
11
26
38
25
EXPLANATION
• 5.7
• 14.9
- 29.9
- 38.0
A. States
Range
(bgd)
0 - 5.9
6.0- 9.9
10.0- 16.9
17.0-37.0
B. Water-resources regions
CARIBBEAN
Figure 3. Irrigation water withdrawals, by States and water-resources regions, 1980.
-------
VII — 20
Table S—IRRIGATION WATER USE. BY STATES, iN THOUSAND ACRE-FEET PER YEAR AND MILliON GALLONS PER DAY. 1980
IData generally are rounded to two significant figures; figures nay not add to totals because of independent rounding]
STATE
IRRIGATED
1.480, in
thousand
acres
THO4SAND ACRE
—FEET FE
B YEAS
MILLION
GALLONS PER DAY
Withdrawals
Convey—
ance
losses
Cona —
tive use,
fresh
water
W Ithdrawals
Convey—
ance
losses
Cons p—
tive use,
fresh
water
source
Total
By source
Total
Fresh water Re—
clai.ed
Fresh water
he—
damned
Ground Surface sewage
Ground Surface
sewage
£iab.as 75 11 27 0 37 0 37
Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arigona 1300 4100 3800 3.9 8000 1000 4400
Arkansas 1800 3900 1800 0 5700 310 3500
California 9100 20000 22000 110 42000 6300 25000
Colorado 2700 3000 12000 0 16000 1800 4100
Connecticut 17 1.8 21 0 23 0 23
Delawar e 10 4.6 2.7 0 7.3 0 7.3
D.C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Florida 2000 1800 1600 0 3400 40 1700
G.orgta 1000 420 230 0 650 0 650
Wawai l 140 520 500 0 1000 340 681)
Idaho 4000 4500 13000 15 18000 4000 6300
Illinois 150 110 5.9 0 120 2 120
Indiana 65 240 24 0 260 0 260
imia 150 55 7.5 0 62 0 62
W . 4n a aa 3400 5800 490 0 b300 11,0 4904)
Rentucky 14 0.3 5.2 0 5.5 0 5.5
Louisiana 140 1100 1400 0 2500 490 180))
Mime 11 0.2 6.6 4) 6.6 2 6.5
Maryland 33 11 11 0.1 22 U 22
Ma saacts aetts 45 6.1 II 2 21 0 21
Michigan 320 86 120 33 240 0 240
Minnesota 460 160 20 0 180 0 180
Mississippi 480 950 150 0 1100 110 560
Missouri 240 110 33 0 140 0 120
Montana 2600 120 12000 0 12000 2700 2900
Nebraska 7100 7500 2902) 0 10000 2100 8300
Nevada 650 590 2900 3.7 3500 800 1700
Maw IsWahire 1.8 0 1.8 0 1.8 0 1.5
New .lersay 75 45 17 0 62 0 50
N .y Mexico 1400 1800 2200 0 4000 35 1900
New York 56 24 28 0 51 0 51
North Carolina.... I SO 44 100 0 150 0 150
North Dikota 180 73 240 0.4 310 3’. 280
io 48 2.1 3.8 0 5.9 0 5,4
Okishoaw 900 820 160 0 980 59 690
Oregon 2100 950 5700 4.0 6600 *90u 33 (X)
Pennsylvania 63 25 160 0 180 0 180
Rhode Island 4.0 0.6 5.1 0 5.6 0.6 5.0
South Carolina.... 73 19 42 0 61 0 61
South Dikota 390 170 340 1.1 510 47 380
lioness.. 21 7.2 6.8 0 14 0.7 10
Tex as 7700 7300 2100 78 9500 230 900(1
Utah 1200 600 3000 0 3600 360 2100
V.rawnt 1.6 0.3 1.3 0 1.6 0 1.2
Virginia 41 9.4 22 0 31 4.3 19
Washington 1600 300 6900 0 7200 1300 2900
Vast Virginia 2.4 0.1 1.4 0 1.5 0 1.5
Wisconsin 240 92 3.4 0 95 0 86
Vyoaing 1800 420 5000 0 5400 1800 2800
Puerto Rico 75 150 200 (3 350 34 220
Virgin island..... 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
9.4 24 0 33 0 33
0 0 0 0 0 0
3700 3400 3.4 7100 900 4000
3500 1600 0 5100 270 3100
18000 19000 150 37000 5600 23000
2700 11000 0 14000 1600 3600
1.6 19 0 21 0 21
4.1 2.4 0 6.5 0 6.5
0 0 C 0 0 0
1600 1400 2 3000 35 1500
380 200 0 580 0 580
460 ‘.50 0 910 300 610
4100 12000 13 16000 360u 5600
100 5.3 C 110 0 110
210 21 o 230 0 230
49 6.7 0 56 0 56
5230 440 0 5600 150 4300
0.2 4.7 C 4.9 0 4.9
99u 1300 m 2200 610 1600
0.2 5.9 C i 6.1 0 5.8
10 9.’. 0.1 20 0 19
5.4 14 0 19 0 19
77 110 30 210 0 210
140 18 U 160 0 160
840 lb 0 980 99 500
98 30 0 130 0 100
110 10300 0 11000 2400 2600
6700 2600 0 9300 1900 7400
530 26(10 3.3 310u 720 1500
O 1.6 C 1.6 0 1.3
40 15 0 55 0 45
1600 204)0 0 3600 31 1700
21 25 (2 46 0 46
39 93 0 130 0 130
65 210 0.4 280 30 250
1.9 3.4 0 5.3 0 4.8
730 140 0 870 53 610
850 5000 3.6 5900 1700 3000
22 140 0 160 U 160
0.5 4.5 0 5.0 0.5 4.5
17 31 0 54 0 54
150 310 1.5 460 42 340
6.4 6.1 C 12 0.6 9.2
6500 1900 70 8400 200 8000
530 2104) 0 3200 320 2400
0.3 1.2 0 1.4 0 1.0
8.4 19 0 20 3.9 11
264) 6100 0 6400 1200 2600
0.1 1.2 0 1.3 0 1.3
82 3.0 0 85 0 77
310 4500 0 4900 1600 2500
140 180 0 310 30 200
0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 58.000 68,000 100,000 310 170,000 28,000 93.000
60,000 90,000 280 150,000 24,000 83.000
-------
New ingland. 79
Kid—Atlantic . 230
South AtianticGulf.. 3400
Great Laken. 450
ot oo 84
Tennessee 14
Upper Mississippi.... 820
Loser Kississippi.... 2900
Sauna-Red—Rainy 120
Ki.so ri Basin 14000
A kansas—White—Red... 7000
Texas—Gulf 5200
RI O Grande 1400
Upper Colorado 1300
1 .ower Colorado 1400
Great Basin 1900
Pacific Northwest.... 7700
California 10000
Alaska 0
I4 w.jj 140
Caribbean 76
vII—21
2.7 4.1
350 29
4800 2900
46 18
11000 18000
8400 2400
3900 16.00
1600 2700
81 7400
3900 3700
1000 4900
5100 24000
18000 20000
0 0
460 450
140 180
0 6.8 0.2 6.8
o 380 0 370
0 7700 960 4800
0.2 64 3.9 60
1.7 28000 5900 15000
15 11000 360 8200
55 5500 140 4900
0 4300 290 2100
0.1 7500 830 2000
6.2 7600 950 43 ( 30
3.7 5900 1000 3500
17 29000 6800 11000
150 38000 5800 23000
0 0 0 0
0 910 300 610
0 310 30 200
Table 6.—IRRiGATION WA TER USE. BY REGIONS. IN THOUSAND ACRE-FEET PER YEAR AND MILUON GALLONS PER DAY. 1980
IDats generally are rounded to two significant figures; figures asp not add to totals because of independent rounding!
WATER—RESOURCES
REGION
IRRIGATED
LAND, in
thousand
acres
THOUSAND ACRE-IEET
PER YEAR
MILLION GALLONS PER
DAY
Withdrawal.
Convey—
ance
losses
CO 5U.p
tiw. us.,
ftu.b
Withdrawals
By source
Total
By source
Total
Convey—
ance
Losse,
Cona —
tive use.
fresh
water R .
Fresh
Fresh water Re—
clai.ed
water
clajasd
Ground
Surface sewage
Ground Surface sewage
7.8 45
97 150
2000 1800
180 120
88 60
O 53
0.1 250
O 3800
30 340
O 150
8.7 50 0 59 0.6 54
110 170 0.1 280 1.9 260
2300 2000 0 4300 42 2600
200 140 33 380 0 370
99 68 0 170 0.1 160
3.0 4.7 0 7.6 0.2 7.4
390 32 0 420 0 410
5400 3200 0 8700 1100 3400
52 20 0.2 72 4.4 67
12000 20000 1.9 32000 6600 16000
9500 2700 17 12000 400 9100
4300 1800 62 6200 160 5500
1800 3000 0 4800 330 2400
90 8300 0.1 8400 930 2200
4400 4200 7.0 -8500 1100 4800
1100 5500 4.1 6600 1100 3900
5700 27000 19 33000 7600 12000
20000 22000 170 42000 6500 26000
0 0 0 0 0 0
520 500 0 1000 340 680
150 200 0 350 34 220
0.5 52
1.7 240
38 23(30
0 330
0.1 150
Total 58.000 68,000 100,000 310 170,000 26,000 93.000
60,000 90.000 280 150.000 24.000 83.000
-------
VII— 22
Self-Supplied Industrial
All Self-Supplied Industrial Use (Thermoelectric Power
and Other Industries)
Self-supplied industrial water use
is categorized in this report as thermo-
electric power (electric utility) and
“other” self-supplied water-using indus-
tries (see tables 7 and 8). “Other” self-
supplied water-using industries include,
but are not limited to, steel, chemical
and allied products, paper and allied
products. mining, and petroleum refining.
Thermoelectric power plants can be
powered by fossil-fuel, geothermal, or
nudear energy, and account for the
largest quantity of water withdrawn for
ofistream use. (See table 22.) Because
of the magnitude of water required for
thermoelectric power generation, the
estimates of use are discussed here as part
of the total self-supplied Industrial use
and in more detail in a separate section
(see page 23 and tables 9 and 10)- Self-
supplied industrial water systems often
are metered and estimates of water with-
drawn and consumed generally are
reliable. It is likely that better estimates
were made in 1980 than in 1975 because
more comprehensive inventories were
obtained and mce e accurate and complete
records were available from the users.
More water continues to be
withdrawn for industrial use than for
any other category. In 1980, the amount
of self-supplied industrial water with-
drawn was estimated at 260 bgd of
which about 72 bgd was saline (see
tables 7 and 8),thisisan increase of8per-
cent from the 1975 estImate. Of the
260 bgd, about 210 bgd or 83 percent of
all industrial withdrawals was withdrawn
by thermoelectric power plants (see
tables 9 and 10). Withdrawals for
thermoelectric power plants showed a
9-percent increase from 1975, and with-
drawals for “other” industrial uses (about
45 bgd) remained about the same as in
1975. Saline water constituted about
28 percent of the total self-supplied in-
dustrial withdrawals, approximately the
same proportion as in 1965, 1970, and
1975. Public-supply systems delivered
about 2 bgd for thermoelectric power
generation and about 10 bgd for other
industrial and commercial uses. The
withdrawal estimates for thermoelectric
power plants (see tables 9 and 10) include
the water from public supplies; however,
public supplies are not included in the
estimate for total self-supplied industrial
use (tables 7 and 8) but are summarized
in the public-supply category (see tables 1
and 2).
Consumptive use of fresh water
by thermoelectric plants was about 2 per-
cent and for other self-supplied industrial
uses about 13 percent, giving a combined
consumptive use of about 4 percent for
all types of self-supplied industries. Saline
water consumed by thermoelectric plants
also was about 2 percent of the saline
withdrawals, and about 15 percent for
other industrial uses. These consumptive
use figures are higher than in previous
years and indicate an increased reuse of
water.
The relative proportion of source
of supply has remained constant since
1965—ground water still supplied nearly
5 percent, surface water about 95 percent,
and reclaimed sewage only a fraction of
1 percent.
The Mid-Atlantic water-resources
region withdrew slightly more water for
industrial use in 1980 than in 1975 and
withdrew the most saline water and total
water (fresh and saline). The Ohio region
withdrew about 6 percent more water
for industrial use in 1980 than in 1975
and accounted for the most fresh-water
withdrawals. Withdrawals in the State of
illinois for self-supplied industrial use
increased 50 percent from 1975 to 1980,
based on a more complete inventory of
industrial users, making illinois the
second largest user of self-supplied in-
dustrial water behind Florida.
The range in self-supplied indus-
trial water withdrawals by States and
water-resources regions is shown in
figure 4. A comparison of withdrawals
for self-supplied industrial use and irriga-
tion use by both States and water-
resources regions is shown in figure 10.
Self-supplied industrial water-use data by
States are given in table 7, and the same
data by water-resources regions are given
in table 8. The source of and disposition
of withdrawals for self-supplied industrial
use are shown in the chart below.
SOURCE
o I S P 0 S I T I 0 N
Ae fl Sow
° ‘ use.
fresh w
2eo BLUON GAiLONS PER DAY WITHDRAWN
WATER WITHDRAWN FOR AU. SELF-SUPcUED P4DUST AL U BY SOURCE AND DISPOSITION. 1980,14 PERCENT.
-------
B. Water-resources regions
VII— 23
EXPLANATION
Range
(bgd)
0-
58-
9.9 -
14.0-
5.7
9.8
13.9
17.0
Percentage
of Total
EXPLANATION
Percentage
of Total
11.9 24
34.9 29
29
18
35.0 - 40.9
41.0-46.0
A. States
V
ViRGIN ISLANDS
25
25
27
23
CARIBBEAN
Figure 4. Self-supplied industrial water withdrawal3, by States and water-resources regions, 1980.
-------
VII—24
Table 7.—SELF-SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL WA TER USE. BY STATES, iN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY. 1980
[ Oats generally are rounded to two significant figures; figures may not add to totals because of independent roundingi
STATE
ALL SELF—SUPPLIED INDU
STRIAL USE
Withdrawals
Constaptive
use
By
source
and type
Total, excluding
reclaimed sewage
Ground water
Surface water
Re—
claImed
sewage
Fresh Saline
Total
Fresh Saline Total
Fresh Saline Total Fresh Saline Total
Alabama 53 1.4
Alaska 14 0
Arizona 180 0
Arkansas 320 0
CalifornIa 1300 250
54 9700 13 9800
14 140 0 140
180 69 0 69
320 9900 0 9900
1600 1100 9800 11000
0 9800 75 9900
0 160 0 160
1.8 250 0 250
0 10000 0 10000
8.9 2400 10000 12000
300 1.3 300
1.5 0 1.5
170 .8 170
300 0 300
230 100 330
Colorado 16 0
Connecticut 27 1.0
Delaware 21 .3
D.C 0.8 0
Florida 710 42
16 890 0 890
28 860 2400 3200
21 6.2 1100 1100
0.8 130 0 130
750 1900 14000 16000
0 910 0 910
0 880 2400 3300
0 27 1100 1100
0 130 0 130
0 2600 14000 17000
170 0 170
21 0 21
2.6 110 110
2.3 0 2.3
500 55 550
Georgia 400 0
Hawaii 140 0
Idaho 2100 0
Illinois 220 38
Indiana 640 0
400 41G0 200 4900 0 5100 200 5300
140 45 1200 1300 10 190 1200 1400
2100 120 0 120 0 2200 0 2200
260 16000 U 16000 0 16000 38 16000
640 12000 0 12000 0 13000 0 13000
180 2.0 180
0 0 0
180 0 180
350 0 350
220 0 220
Maryland 37 0
Massachusetts 93 U
Michigan 62 420
Minnesota 120 0
Mississippi 310 0
37 520 6600 7100 160 560 6600 7100
93 1500 3500 5000 0 1600 3500 5100
480 13000 0 13000 0 13000 420 14000
120 2200 0 2200 0 2300 0 2300
370 1200 660 1900 0 1600 660 2200
17 22 39
25 5 30
99 120 220
65 0 65
69 20 89
Missouri 130
Montana 32
Nebraska 89
Nevada 11
New Hampshire 13
New Jersey 160 0
New Mexico 18 .9
New York 250 12
North Carolina 490 0
North Dakota 3.4 .2
160 1500 1500 9000 0 1700 7500 9200
18 54 0 54 0 71 .9 72
260 5300 8600 14000 0 5500 8600 14000
490 6700 42 6700 0 7200 42 7200
3.6 930 0 930 0 930 .2 930
120 570 690
59 .4 59
100 46 150
340 11 350
16 .1 18
South Carolina 58
South Dakota 26
Tennessee 190
Texas 360
Utah 68
0 58 5600 38 5700 0 5100 38 5700
3.4 29 21 0 21 0 47 3.4 50
0 190 9300 0 9300 0 9500 0 9500
0 360 1400 6600 8000 0 1700 6600 8300
4.0 72 460 56 510 0 520 60 580
83 .1 83
5.5 3.4 8.9
150 0 150
980 920 1900
90 45 130
Vermant 5.2 0
Virginia 110
Washington 150 0
West Virginia 150 0
Wisconsin 97 0
5.2 260 0 260
.2 110 4700 4100 8800
150 830 42 880
150 5300 0 5300
97 4900 0 4900
0 260 0 260
0 4800 4100 8900
0 990 42 1000
0 5400 0 5400
0 5000 0 5000
24 0 24
90 48 140
ISO 6.3 150
190 0 190
91 0 91
Wyoning 130 24
Puerto Rico 88 5.0
Virgin Islands 0 0
150 270 0 270
93 30 2400 2400
0 0 32 32
0 390 24 420
0 120 2400 2500
0 0 32 32
71 0 71
26 0 26
.2 4.0 4.2
Iowa
320
0
320
3400
0
3400
0
3800
0
3800
31
0
31
Kansas
190
0
190
340
0
340
0
530
0
530
110
0
110
Kentucky
150
0
150
4200
0
4200
0
4400
0
4400
180
0
180
Louisiana
440
19
460
8900
390
9300
0
9400
410
9800
870
38
910
Maine
34
0
34
670
710
1403
0
710
710
1400
8.9
0
8.9
0
130
5700
0
5700
0
5800
0
5800
320
0
320
2.1
34
250
0
250
0
280
2.1
280
28
.8
29
0
89
2200
0
2200
0
2300
0
2300
25
0
25
9.0
80
160
0
160
11
230
9.0
240
79
7.6
86
0
13
270
620
900
0
280
620
910
10
0
10
Ohio
500
0
500
11000
0
11000
0
12000
0
12000
270
0
270
Oklahoma
100
95
200
350
0
350
0
450
95
540
220
95
320
Oregon
80
0
80
440
0
440
0
520
0
520
20
0
20
Pennsylvania
560
0
560
13000
93
13000
0
14000
93
14000
550
1.0
550
Rhode Island
13
0
13
23
330
350
0
35
330
360
2.9
0
2.9
Total 12.000 930 13,000 180,000 71,000 250,000 190 190,000 72,000 260,000
8,200 2,200 10,000
-------
VII—25
Table 7.—SELF-SZJPPLIED INDIJSTRJAL WA TER USE. BY STATES, IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY. 198O—Cont ,nuvd
IData generally are rounded to two significant figures; figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding]
TYPE OF SELF—SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL USE
Thermoelectric power
(electric
utility)’
Other
industries
STATE
Withdrawals, by source
Total
fresh
water
Consumptive
use
Withdrawals,
by source
Total, ex—
cluding re—
claimed sewage
Conau sttve
use
Fresh Surface water
Ground ,ater Surface
water
Re—
ground
claimed
water FreSh Saline
Fresh Saline
Fresh Saline Fresh
Saline
sewage
Fresh Saline
Freah Saline
1.5 8500 73 8500 29 0.1 51 1.4 1200 0.2 0
Alaska 8.4 22 0 30 0.3 0 6.1 0 120 0 0
Arizona 40 49 0 89 51 0.8 140 0 20 0 1.8
Arkansas 3.1 9700 0 9700 100 0 320 0 190 0 0
California 890 1100 9200 2000 41 60 420 250 45 560 8.9
Colorado 9.4 160 0 170 97 0 7.1 0 730 0 0
Connecticut 0.2 610 2400 610 1.9 0 26 1.0 250 1.0 0
Delaware 5.4 0 670 5,4 0.5 67 15 0.3 6.2 390 0
D.C 0 130 0 130 2.0 0 0.8 0 0.6 0 0
florida 70 1800 14000 1900 32 48 640 42 140 15 0
Georgia 4. 1 4400 160 4400 120 0 400 0 380 42 0
Hawaii 130 9.0 1200 140 0 0 9.1 0 36 7.0 10
ldibo 5.3 0 0 5.3 1.3 0 2100 0 120 0 0
Illinois 8.4 14000 0 14000 260 0 210 38 1600 0 0
Indiana 5.0 9700 0 9700 65 0 640 0 2500 0 0
1300 1.6 270 1.2
130 0 1.2 0
160 0 120 0
510 0 200 0
470 820 190 41
730 0 73 0
270 2.0 19 0
22 390 2.1 39
1.4 0 0.3 0
780 57 410 6.4
780 42 59 2.0
45 7.0 0 0
2200 0 170 0
1800 38 88 0
3100 0 160 0
lawa 4.0 3200 0 3200 20
Kansas 46 300 0 350 39
Kentucky 15 4000 0 4100 140
Loatiiana 46 5800 180 5900 320
Maine 1.0 55 700 56 0
O 320 0 230 0 0
O 140 0 41 0 0
0 130 0 190 0 0
9.1 390 19 3100 210 0
0 33 0 620 11 0
550 0 ii U
180 0 66 0
320 0 33 0
3500 230 550 29
650 11 8.9 0
Maryland 3.0 400 6100 410 2.0 17 34 0 120 500 160
Massachusetts... 0 1300 3400 1300 13 13 93 0 220 64 0
Michigan 0 12000 0 12000 0 0 62 420 1600 0 0
Minnesota 2.2 1700 0 1700 7.2. 3 120 0 470 0 0
Mississippi 17 1100 500 1100 33 3.5 360 0 97 160 0
0 400 30 0
3.4 19 0 0
0 1500 0 0
0 410 1100 0
4.0 390 50 0
150 500 15 5.0
310 64 25 5,1
1700 420 99 120
590 0 58 0
450 160 36 16
460 30 47 0
42 3.4 2.3 3.4
1700 0 150 0
730 1100 490 450
460 54 80 40
15 0 2.3 0
470 81 47 8.1
990 42 150 6.3
830 0 82 0
450 0 45 0
170 24 25 0
120 930 20 0
0 0 0 13
Total 1.600 150.000 65,000 150,000 3,200 1,300 10,000 930 29,000 5,400 190
39,000 6,300 5,000 970
Missouri 16
Montana 0
Nebraska 31
Nevada 8.1
Nevlia ,shire... 0
5500 0 5500 300
180 0 180 12
2200 0 2200 22
86 0 94 20
74 620 74 0
0 120
0 32
0 58
0 63
0 13
0 190 0 0
2.1 76 0 0
0 6.3 0 0
9.0 74 0 11
0 200 0 0
New Jersey 5.0 910 6500 910 70 500 150 0 600 1000 0
New Ifesico 11 54 0 63 55 0 6.6 0.9 0.1 0 0
New York 130 4300 8500 4400 4.6 34 120 12 980 120 0
North Carolina.. 0 4300 6.4 4300 67 7.8 490 0 2400 36 0
North Dakota.... 1.2 920 0 930 14 0 2.2 0.2 4.7 0 0
Ohio 21 10000 0 10000 93
Oklahoma 7.7 170 0 180 110
Oregon 0 22 0 22 0
PennsylvanIa.... 6.8 10000 93 10000 290
Rhode Island..., 0 0.1 330 0.1 0
300 0 24 0
110 2.1 15 0.8
64 0 3.1 0
140 9.0 58 7.6
210 0 10 0
750 1000 50 65
6.6 0.9 4.2 0.4
1100 130 96 11
2900 36 270 3.5
7.0 0.0 4.3 0.1
2000 0 180 0
270 95 120 95
500 0 20 0
3600 0 260 0
35 0.6 2.9 0
0 470 0 1500
0 95 95 170
0 80 0 420
1.13 550 0 3100
O 13 0 23
South Carolina.. 0.5 5200 7.7 5200 35 0.1 57
Death Dakota.... 2.4 2.5 0 4.9 5.2 0 23
Tennessee 0 7800 0 73u0 1.0 0 190
38 960 5500 990 300 470 320
Otah 0.2 64 5.9 64 9.9 4.6 68
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.6 0
Ver ot 0 250 0 250 22 0 5.2 0 9.6 0 0
Virginia 1.2 4300 4000 s300 43 40 110 0.2 360 81 0
Washington 0 1.3 0 1.3 1.1 0 150 0 830 42 0
Rest Virginia... 0 4600 0 4600 110 0 150 0 680 0 0
Wisconsin 1.2 4500 0 4500 46 0 96 0 350 0 0
Wyoming 1.1 220 0 220 45 0 130 24 44 0 0
Puerto Rico 3.0 0 1500 3.0 6,0 0 85 5.0 30 920 0
Virgin Islands.. 0 0 32 0 0.2 4.0 0 0 0 0 0
1 See Table 9 for additional information.
-------
VII—26
Tsbk 8.—SELF-S(JPPUED INDUSTRiAL WA TER USE. BY REGIONS. IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY. 1980
[ Osti generally are rounded to two significant figures; figures may not add to totals because of independent rounding)
ALL SELF—S )JFPLIEO) INDUSTRIAL USE
WATER-RESoURCEs
REGION
Withdrawals
Cons , it1ve
uae
By source and type
Total, excluding
Ground water Surface water Re— reclaimed sewage
claimed
Fresh Saline Total Fresh Saline Total sewage Fresh Saline Total
Fxesh Saline Total
New England
180 1.0 180 3600 7500 11000 0 3700 7500 11000
87 5.1 92
Mid—Atlantic
690 12 700 i&000 28000 45000 160 18000 28000 46000
540 780 1300
South Atlantic—Gulf..
1800 44 1900 23000 15000 38000 0 25000 15000 40000
1300 92 1400
Great Lakes
660 420 1100 32000 0 32000 0 33000 420 33000
470 120 590
Ohio
1300 24 1300 34000 0 34000 0 35000 24 35000
930 0 930
Tennessee
97 0 97 11000 0 11000 0 11000 0 11000
240 0 240
Upper Mississippi....
660 15 670 19000 0 19000 0 20000 15 20000
470 0 470
Lower Mississippi....
1100 19 1100 11000 390 11000 0 12000 410 12000
1100 38 1200
SourlsRed ’kainy....
5.1 0 5.1 59 0 59 0 64 0 64
6.6 0 6.6
Missouri Basin
430 26 450 8.400 0 8.400 0 8800 26 8900
420 4.5 430
Ark .snaas-White—Red...
390 95 480 10000 2.0 10000 0 11000 97 11000
140 96 840
Texas—Gulf
270 0 270 1200 6600 7800 0 1500 6600 8100
110 920 1400
Rio Grande
30 .9 31 3.0 0 3.0 0 33 .9 34
24 .4 25
Upper Colorado
23 3.5 26 700 .7 700 0 ‘30 4.2 730
190 .1 190
Lower Colorado
200 .2 200 130 0 130 12 340 .2 340
200 .2 200
Great Basin
130 13 140 500 55 550 1.1 630 68 700
110 52 160
Pacific Northwest....
2300 0 2300 1400 42 1500 0 3700 42 3800
350 6.3 360
California
1300 250 1600 1100 9800 11000 8.7 250c) 10000 12000
230 100 330
Alaska
14 0 IA 140 0 140 0 60 0 160
1.5 0 1.5
Hawaii
140 0 140 45 1200 1300 10 190 1200 1400
0 0 0
caribbean
88 5.0 93 30 2500 2500 0 120 2500 2600
26 4.0 30
Total
12.000 930 13,000 180,000 71,000 250.000 190 190.000 72,000 260,000
8,200 2.200 10,000
Tabk 8—SELF -S (JPPUED INDUSTRiAL WATER (158. BY REGIONS, IN MILUON GALLONS PER DAY.
1980—Continued
IData generally are rounded to two significant figures; figures may not add to totals because of I
ndependent rounding)
TYPE OF SELF—SUPPLIED INDUSTRIAL USE
Thrrmeelectrlc power (electric utility)’ Other Industries
WAXER—RESOURCES Withdrawals, by source Withdrawals, by source Total, cx—
REGION ______________________ Tot. Consuwti,e cluding re— Ccnau itive
Fresh Surface water fresh u s. Ground water Surface water Re— claimed sewage 55*
ground water claimed
water Freah Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Saline Fresh Saline sewage Fresh Saline Fresh Saline
New England 1.2 2300 7400 2300 21 0 180 1.0 1300 77 0 1500 78 66 5.1
Mid—AtL antic 110 15000 25000 15000 240 660 580 12 2900 2100 160 3400 2100 280 130
South AZI.antit—Gulf.. 88 19000 15000 19000 210 8,3 1800 44 4100 280 0 5900 330 1100 29
Great Lakes 30 27000 0 27000 93 0 630 420 5100 0 0 5700 420 370 120
Ohio 52 30000 0 30000 520 0 1300 24 3700 0 0 5001) 24 420 0
Tennessee 0 9300 0 9300 20 0 97 0 2000 0 0 2000 0 220 0
Upper Mississippi.... 13 16000 0 16000 290 0 650 15 2600 0 0 3300 15 170 0
Lower Mississippi.... 54 7100 180 7700 400 9.1 1000 19 3200 210 0 4300 230 740 29
Souria—P Sd—Rainy 0.9 53 0 54 1.0 0 4.2 0 5.1 0 0 9.3 0 5.6 0
Niaaouti Basin 48 8100 0 8200 350 0 380 26 300 0 0 680 26 77 4.5
Arkanaas-4Jhite-Red... 70 9900 0 10000 410 0 320 95 530 2.0 0 840 9? 330 96
Tesas—Qaif 30 950 5500 980 340 470 240 0 280 1100 0 520 1100 350 450
Rio Grande 15 2.5 I) 17 ii 0 16 0.9 0.5 0 0 16 0.9 13 0.4
Upper Colorado 0 140 0.7 140 130 0.1 23 3.5 560 0 0 590 3.5 63 0
Lower Colorado 45 45 0 90 49 0.8 160 0.2 86 0 12 250 0.2 150 0
Great Basis 4.5 120 5.2 130 5.9 4.5 130 13 370 50 1.1 500 63 100 48
Pacific Northwest..,. 5.3 23 0 29 2.4 0 2301) 0 1400 42 0 3700 42 350 6.3
California 890 1100 9200 2000 41 60 430 250 58 560 8,7 480 820 190 41
Alaska 8.4 22 0 30 0.3 0 4.1 1) 120 0 0 130 0 1.2 0
l lawaii 130 9.0 1200 140 0 0 9,1 0 36 7.0 10 45 7.0 0 0
Caribbean 3.0 0 1500 3.0 6.2 4.0 85 5,0 30 920 0 120 930 20 0
Total 1,600 150,000 65,000 150,000 3,200 1,300 10.000 930 29,000 5,400 190 39,000 6.300 5,000 970
‘See Table 10 for additional information.
-------
VII—2 7
Summary of Offstream and Instream Uses
The estimated withdrawal of 450 bgd for all offstream uses (public supply,
rural, irrigation, and self-supplied industrial use) in 1980 was about 8 percent
greater than the withdrawals estimated for 1975. Ground-water withdrawals
accounted for 89 bgd, a 7-percent increase over 1975; of this amount, 88 bgd
was fresh water. Surface-water withdrawals accounted for 360 bgd, a 9-percent
increase from 1975, of which 71 bgd was saline water. Reclaimed sewage
amounted to 0.5 bgd in 1980, an 11-percent decrease from 1975.
Fresh-water consumptive use in 1980 was estimated at 100 bgd, a 7-percent
increase from 1975. The percentages of water consumed by the various use
categories were nearly the same as in 1970 and 1975. Irrigation water accounted
for the largest amount of water consumed, 83 bgd. In addition, conveyance
losses associated with irrigation were estimated at 24 bgd. Geographically, 80 per-
cent of the consumptive use was in the Western States, a decrease of 4 percent
since 1975 and 6 percent since 1970, whereas, the 20 percent consumed in the
Eastern States reflects an increase of 6 percent since 1970. The range in fresh-
water consumptive use by States and water-resources regions is shown in figure 8.
Several tables and illustrations are included in this section to summarize
the vast amount of data given in this report. The percentages of water withdrawn
and consumed by the four offstream water-use categories are shown in figure 6.
The ranges in total offstrearn withdrawals by States and water-resources regions
are shown in figure 7, and the ranges in comsumptive use are shown in figure 8.
A comparison of withdrawals from ground- and surface-water sources for both
States and water-resources regions is shown in figure 9. The withdrawals of the
two largest offstream users, self-supplied industrial and irrigation use, are com-
pared in figure 10.
The per capita withdrawals and consumptive use for the United States and
for the eastern and western water-resources regions are given in table 13. The
total offstream water use (withdrawals, conveyance losses, and consumptive use)
is given by States in table 14 and by water-resources regions in table 15. A
summary of withdrawals for the offstream water-use categories is given by
States in table 16 and by water-resources regions in table 17. Ground- and
surface-water withdrawals are summarized in tables 18 through 21 and also in
figure 9.
Total offstream withdrawals by source and disposition are shown in the
chart below.
SOURCE
0.2 saline
198
fresh
64 16 [ ousdw.Ie
fresh saline EJ s , ’ace watec
450 BILLICN GALLONS PER DAY
TOTAL OF1 ’SThEAM WATER WIThCRAWALS BY 93URCE AND C19’O TICN 1980. IN PERCENT
D I S P 0 S I T I 0 N
Consuscptue use.
tcestc watef
Conuwyance Cu.
abOn
-------
VII—28
cJ
Oflstream withdrawals (fresh and saline)
(Total. 450 bgd)
Fresh-water consumptive use
(Total, 100 bgd)
Figure 6. Percentaie of total offst.ream withdrawals and fresh-water consumptive use,
h . categories of use, 1980.
Tabk 13.—PER CAPITA WA TER W I THDR 4 WALS AND CO\SLMPT!VE USE
Eastern and western water-resources regions and United States, 1980
LNote: AU per capita data calculated from unrounded figures and rounded to two
significant figures)
Conterminous United States
water-resources regions
United States
(50 States,
District of
Columbia,
Puerto Rico,
and Virgin
Islands)
Eastern Western
(9 regions = (9 regions =
31 States)’ 17 States)’
Population, in millions:
Total
155.7 69.1
229.6
Served by public supplies
Self supplied (rural)
123.5 58.1
32.2 11.0
186.1
43.5
Per capita water use, in gallons per day:
Offstream use:
Total withdrawals .
1,600 2,900
2,000
Public supplies:
All uses’
160 230
180
Domestic and public uses and
losses’
100 150
120
Rural domestic use 4
73 98
79
Irrigation’
Self-supplied industrial’
Consumptive fresh-water use ’ - . -
82 2,000
1,300 660
120 1,200
660
1,100
450
lnstreain use:
Hydroelectric power’
Total offstream and instrearn use’ . -
8,900 27,000
10,000 30,000
14,000
16,000
‘Approximate boundaries.
‘Baed on total population.
Based on population served by public supplies.
4 sased on rural population.
8
4
7
-------
A. States
B. Water-resources regions
VII—29
EXPLANATION
Range
(bgd)
- 7.9
- 13.8
-17.9
- 54.0
Percentage
of Total
EXPLANATION
Percentage
of Total
21.9 22
37.9 26
49.9 28
50.0 - 54.0 24
25
25
25
25
Figure 7. Total offstream water withdrawals, by States and water-resources regions, 1980.
-------
A. States
B Water-resources regions
VI I — 30
EXPLANATION
2.8
5.8
10.9
25.0
Percentage
of Total
25
26
24
25
Percentage
of Totai
25
23
28
24
EXPLANATION
6.4
11.9
12.0- 16.9
17.0-25.0
NOS
CARIBBEAN
Figuze 8. Fresh-water consumptive use, by Stite and water-resources regions, 1980.
-------
Al.bama. 3890
Alaska . 403
A.rieona. 2718
Arkansas. 2290
California. 23669
Colorado 2889
Connecticut 3108
Delaware 595
D.C 638
Florida 9740
Georgia 5464
kawali 965
Idaho 944
Ulinois 11418
Indiana 5396
t aa 2913
Kanaas 2363
Kentucky 3661
Lo uisiana 4199
Maine 1125
Maryland 4216
Massachusetts 5737
Michigan 9258
Minnesota 4061
Mississippi 2521
Misso tj 4888
Montana 786
Nebraska 1570
Nevada 199
New Ha shlre 921
New Jersey 7360
New Mexico 1300
New York 17557
North Carolina.... 5874
North Dakota 652
Ohio 10791
Oklahoma 3025
Oregon 2614
Pennsylvania 11824
ghode Island 947
South Carolina.... 3119
South Dakota 695
Tennessee 4591
Texas 14013
Utah 1462
Vermont 511
Virginia 5346
Washington 4127
West. Virginia 1950
Wisconsin 4710
Wyoming 471
Puerto Rico 3400
Virgin islands.... 100
11000 540
240 .510
63 4.0 0
0 11000 75 11000 0 570
o 220 0 220 0 35
5.3 8000 0 8000 900 4500
0 16000 0 16000 270 3600
160 44000 10000 54000 5600 25000
0 16000 0 16000 1600 4000
0 1500 2400 3700 0 160
0 140 1100 1200 0 11
0 340 0 340 0 23
0 7300 14000 21000 35 2400
0 6700 200 6900 0 1000
10 1300 1200 2500 300 680
13 18000 0 18000 3600 5900
0 18000 38 18000 0 590
0 14000 0 14000 0 690
0 4300 0 4300 0 290
0 6600 0 6600 150 4700
0 4800 0 4800 0 290
0 12000 410 13000 610 3500
0 850 hO 1600 0 53
160 1100 6600 7700 0 100
0 2500 3500 5900 0 90
30 15000 420 15000 0 460
0 3100 0 3100 0 450
0 2900 660 3500 99 710
0 6900 0 6900 0 670
0 11000 2.1 11000 2400 2700
0 12000 0 12000 1900 7600
14 3600 9.0 3600 720 1700
0 380 620 1000 0 ii
0 2900 7500 10000 0 380
0 3900 0.9 3900 31 1900
0 8000 8600 17000 0 590
0 8100 42 8100 0 760
0.4 1300 0.2 1300 120 330
0 14000 0 14000 0 550
0 1700 95 1800 53 1000
3.6 6800 0 6000 1/00 3200
0 16000 93 16000 0 920
0 170 330 500 0.5 15
0 6200 38 6200 0 280
1.5 690 3.4 690 42 460
0 10000 0 10000 0.6 270
70 14000 6600 21000 200 10000
0 4500 60 4600 320 2900
0 340 0 340 0 41
0 5630 4100 9700 3.9 230
0 8200 42 8300 1200 2900
0 5600 0 5600 0 200
0 5800 0 5800 0 310
0 5300 24 5400 1600 2600
0 610 2400 3200 30 300
O 6.3 32 38 0 2.1
VII—31
Tabk I 4.—TOTAL OFFSTREAM WA TER USE. BY STA TES. Ps MILLION GALLONS PER DAY (except as noted). 1980
tWater—use data generally are rounded to two significant figures; figures may not add to totais because of i depeudent rounding
WITHDRAWALS
STATE
P0P11—
LATION,
In thou—
PER
CAPITA
USE,
fresh
(includes
irrigation conveyance losses)
CONVEY—
&NCE
LOSSES
CONSUIIP—
TIVE USE
fresh
water
By source and
type
Total, excluding
sands
water Ground water
in gpd
Fresh Saline Total Fresh
Surface water
-
Saline Total
Re— reclaimed sewage
claimed
sewage Fresh Saline Total
2700 350 1.4 350 10000 73 10000
550 49 0 49 170 0 110
2900 4200 0 4200 3700 0 3700
6800 4000 0 4000 12000 0 12000
1900 21000 250 21000 23000 9800 33000
5400 2800 0 2800 13000 0 13000
420 140 1.0 140 1200 2400 3600
230 82 0.3 82 57 1100 1100
530 0.6 0 0.8 340 0 340
750 3800 42 3800 3600 14000 17000
1200 1200
1400 800
19000 6300
1600 930
2600 1300
1500 760
280) 5600
1300 250
2900 1800
750 80
210 150
430 320
1600 530
760 670
1100 1500
1400 470
14000 260
7700 7200
4500 110
420 65
390 730
3000 1800
450 780
1400 770
2000 120
1300 980
570 960
2600 1100
1300 1000
180 37
2000 230
990 330
2200 450
1000 8000
3100 1000
660 45
bOo 390
2000 770
2900 220
1200 610
0 1200 5500 200 5100
0 800 510 1200 1700
0 6300 12000 0 12000
38 910 17000 0 17000
0 1300 13000 0 13000
0 760 3500 0 3500
0 5600 980 0 980
0 250 4600 0 u600
19 1800 11000 390 11000
0 80 770 710 1500
0 150 970 6600 7600
0 320 2100 3500 5600
420 950 14000 0 14000
0 610 2400 0 2400
0 1500 1400 660 2000
0 470 6400 0 6400
2.1 260 11000 0 11000
1) 7200 4900 0 4900
9.0 720 2900 0 2900
0 65 320 620 940
0 730 2100 7500 9600
0.9 1800 2100 0 2100
12 800 7200 8600 16000
0 710 7300 42 1300
0.2 120 1200 0 1200
0 980 13000 0 13000
95 1100 760 0 760
0 1100 5700 0 5700
0 1000 13000 93 15000
1) 37 140 330 460
0 230 5900 38 6000
3.4 330 360 0 360
O 450 9600 0 9600
0 8000 6300 6600 13000
4.0 1000 3500 56 3600
0 45 290 0 290
0.2 390 5200 4100 9300
0 770 7500 42 7500
0 220 5400 0 5400
0 610 5200 0 5200
24 560 4800 0 4800
5.0 320 500 2400 2900
4.0 2.2 32 36
Total 229,592
1,600 88.000 930 89,000 290,000 71,000 360,000
470 380.000 72.000 450,000 24.000 100,000
-------
vII—32
Table I 5.—TOTAL OFFYTREAM WA TER USE. BY REGIOIS ’S. IN MILUON GALLONS PER DAY (except asotedj 1980
twater—use data generally are rounded to two significant figures; figures eay not add to totals because of independent roundingj
WITHDRAWALS
WATER—RESOURCES
140108
POPU—
I.ATION.
in thou—
sands
(includes
PER
CAPITA By source and type
USE,
fresh Ground water
water
in gpd Fresh Saline Total Fresh
irrigation conveyance losses)
CONVEY—
404CE
LOSSES
CO1iSIP4P—
jVB
fresh
w.ter
Total, excluding
reclai.ed sewage
Surface water
Re—
cIai.ed
sewage
S l1ne Total
Fresh Saline Total
New England 11941 450 650 1.0 650 4800 7500 12000 0 5400 7500 13000 0.5 360
Mid—Atlantic 38881 630 2400 12 2400 22000 28000 50000 160 24000 28000 52000 1.7 1700
South Atlantic—Gulf.. 29449 1100 6600 44 6600 27000 15000 42000 0 34000 15000 49000 38 5L00
Great Lakes 21489 1700 1600 420 2000 36000 0 30000 30 37000 420 38000 0 1300
Ohio 21441 1800 2500 24 2500 35000 0 35000 0 38000 24 38000 0.1 1700
Tennessee 3677 3200 260 0 260 12000 0 12000 0 12000 0 12000 0.2 370
Upper Mississippi.... 21083 1100 2600 15 2600 20000 0 20000 0 23000 15 23000 0 1300
Lower Mississippi.... 6874 3000 6700 19 6700 14000 390 15000 0 21000 410 21000 960 7100
Souris—Red—Rainy 796 280 110 0 110 110 0 110 0.2 220 0 220 5.9 130
Missouri baain 9761 4000 12000 26 12000 27000 0 27000 1.7 39000 26 39o00 6000 16000
Ark.an,&a-Mhite—Red... 7900 3000 9400 95 9500 14000 2.0 14000 15 24000 97 24000 360 9600
Texas-Gulf 12524 820 5100 0 5100 5200 6600 12000 55 10000 6600 17000 140 6500
Rio Cr nde 1775 2700 1900 0.9 1900 2800 0 2800 3 4700 0.9 4700 290 2400
Upper Colorado 548 16000 140 3.5 150 8400 0.7 $400 0.1 8500 4.2 8500 830 2300
Lower Colorado 3241 2700 4500 0.2 4500 4200 0 4200 18 8700 0.2 8700 950 4900
Great Basin 1782 4200 1600 13 1600 5800 55 5900 4.8 7400 68 7500 1000 3904)
Pacific Northwest.... 7870 4400 8200 0 8200 24000 42 24000 17 34000 42 34000 6800 12000
California 23671 1900 21000 250 21000 23000 9800 33000 160 44000 10000 54000 5800 25000
Alaska 403 550 49 0 49 170 0 170 0 220 0 220 0 35
Hawaii 945 1400 800 0 800 510 1200 1700 10 1300 1200 2500 300 680
Caribbean 3500 230 320 5.0 320 500 2500 3000 0 820 2500 3300 30 310
Total 229.592 1.600 88,000 930 89,000 290,000 71,000 360,000 470 380,000 72,000 450,000 24,000 100,000
-------
A. States
VII—33
Figure 9. Withdrawals for offstream use from ground- and surface-water sources, by States and
water-resources regions, 1980.
B. Water-resources regions
WITHDRAWALS
WITHDRAWALS
-------
vII—34
TRENDS IN WATER USE, 1950-1980
Water use for public supply, rural needs, irrigation, industry, and hydro-
electric power generation has increased steadily from 1950 to 1980. This trend
is shown graphically in figures 11 through 13. Data in table 22, which is a summary
of estimated water use—offstream withdrawals, source of withdrawals, consump-
tive use, and instream use (hydroelectric power)—at 5-year intervals for the
period 1950—1980, also confirm this trend. Table 22 also shows the percentage
increase or decrease for the various categories of water use and sources of supply
for the periods 1970—1975 and 1975—1980.
Trends established over the period 1950 to 1975 did not change significantly
during the 1975—1980 period. Formost categoriesof use, the general slackening
in the rate of increase that was observed from 1970 to 1975 is again detectable
for the 1975 to 1980 period. There are two exception to this trend: public
supply and rural withdrawals increased 15 and 14 percent, respectively, compared
to corresponding increases of 8 and 10 percent from 1970(0 1975. Part of the
increase for public supply is due to the fact that nearly 2 bgd of water previously
identified as self-supplied industrial withdrawals was actually public-supplied
water, and it is now identified in the public-supply category. The increase in
rural withdrawals resulted from an increase in the population being served
by self-supplied systems and an increase in per capita use. This per-capita-use
increase reflects the application of more realistic estimating techniques, which
indicate that previous estimates were probably too low.
Irrigation water use declined from 1955 to 1960, when there was a decrease
in the amount of surface water used, but irrigation water use has continued to
increase since 1960. The amount of surface water used for irrigation increased
7.1 percent from 1975 to 1980—nearly double the 3.7 percent increase from
1970 to 1975. In contrast, the amount of ground water used for irrigation has
increased steadily since 1950;however, the increase from 1975 to 1980 was only
5 percent compared to 27 percent from 1970 to 1975. The average amount of
water required per acre for irrigation in 1980 (2.9 acre-ft per acre) was the same
as in 1975. Although the acreage irrigated in 1980 was about 7 percent greater
than in 1975, it was less than the 9-percent increase that took place from 1970
to 1975 and the 13-percent increase that took place from 1960 to 1965 and
from 1965 to 1970.
More water continues to be withdrawn for industrial use than for any
other category even though the rate of increase in water withdrawals for thermo-
electric power continued to decline—a 33-percent increase from 1965 to 1970,
an 18-percent increase from 1970 to 1975, and a 9-percent increase from 1975
to 1980. Withdrawals for other industrial uses remained about the same in
1970, 1975, and 1980.
Water used for hydroelectric power generation had been increasing steadily
from 1950 to 1975, but in 1980 hydroelectric power water use was approximately
the same as in 1975, compared to a 21-percent increase between 1970 and 1975.
-------
VII—35
A shift in the source of total withdrawals also is shown by table 22, which
indicates that the withdrawal of fresh surface water increased by 10 percent
between 1975 and 1980, compared to a 5-percent increase between 1970 and
1975. Fresh ground water and saline surface water, which showed substantial
increases from 1970 to 1975 (22 and 31 percent respectively) only increased
7 and 2 percent, respectively, from 1975 to 1980. The slowdown in the rate of
increase in total withdrawals, 8-percent increase between 1975 and 1980, more
closely follows the rate of increase in total population of 6 percent during the
same period. This is in contrast to the rate of increase in total withdrawals
during the period 1970—1975, which was more than double the rate of population
Table 22.—SU fM.4R V OF ESTIMA TED W4 TER USE IN THE UNITED STA TES, IN BILLION GALLONS PER DAY.
AT 5-YEAR INTERVALS, 1950-80
Data for 1950—75 adapted from MacKichan (1951 1957), Mackichan and Kammerer (1961), M urray (1968). and Murray and Reeves (1972,
1977). The data generally are rounded to two significant figures: however, the percentage changes are calculated from unrounded numbers
Esti
mated water
use in billion
gallons pe
r day
Percentage increase 1+)
or decrease (—)
1950’
1955’
1960’
1965’
1970’
l975
1980’ 1970—75 1975—80
Population, in millions
150.7
164.0
179.3
193.8
205.9
‘216.4
229.6 +5 +6
Oftsrrc.sm use:
Total aithdrawals
‘180
240
270
310
370
420
450 +12 +8
Public supply
14
17
21
24
27
29
34 +8 +15
Rural domestic and
livestock
3.6
3.6
3.6
4.0
4.5
4.9
5 ,6 +10 +14
Irrigation
‘89
110
110
120
130
140
150 +11 +7
Self-supplied industrial:
Thernsoelectric. posser
use
40
72
100
130
170
200
210 +18 +9
Other industrial uses . . .
37
39
38
46
47
45
45 —6 +1
Source of withdrawalc:
Ground ssater:
Fresh
34
47
50
60
68
82
88 +22 +7
Saline
(°)
.6
.4
.5
I
1
.9 —6 — ‘5
Surface water
Fresh
‘140
180
190
210
250
260
290 +5 +10
Saline 10
18
31
43
53
69
71 +31 +2
Reclaimed sewage
Consumptireuse (6)
.2
(‘
‘.6
61
.7
77
.5
‘87
.5
196
.5 +2 —Il
‘100 +10 +7
Instream use:
Hydroelectric power 1.100
1.500
2,000
2,300
2.800
3,300
3.300 +21 —2
‘48 States and District of Columbia. ‘Corrected from published report.
‘50 States and District of Columbia, 6 Data not available.
‘so States, District of Columbia. and Puerto Rico. ‘Fresh water only.
‘50 States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands.
-------
VII—36
growth. The rate of increase in consumptive use of fresh water has steadily de-
creased from 13 percent for the period 1965—1970 to 7 percent for the period
1975—1980. The changes shown in table 22 and figures 11—13 can be attributed
to several important factors:
1. Demands on the ground-water system influence the pumping lift, flow
rate, or quality of the water supply. Each of these factors also in-
fluences the cost of water, and make users, especially irrigators, more
selective and efficient with their use of ground water.
2. The price of water influences the volume used and encourages efficient
use and may determine when the use of reclaimed water and increased
reuse are viable alternatives.
3. Availability of water in a particularyear, especially streamfiow, strongly
affects the quantity of water used for irrigation and hydroelectric
power development.
Although 1980 estimates of water use were higher than the 1975 estimates
for all offstream categories, trends established during the periods 1970 to 1975
and 1975 to 1980 indicate a general slackening in the rate of total withdrawals
in comparison to the period 1965 to 1970. Even with the slackening of the rates
of water withdrawal and consumptive use, major attention must be given to
water-management problems, because in addition to the need for an adequate
water supply, water-quality conditions must be suitable if supply and demand
are to be in balance. The degree to which the different uses of water degrade the
supply vary widely and affect the potential reuse of the return flows.
Projections of future water use are beyond the scope of this report,
although the trends established over the past 30 years provide some basis for
estimating future water demands. Many other agencies and commissions have
made projections of national water use to the year 2000. Notable examples are
studies by the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources (U.S.
Congress, 1961), Resources for the Future, Inc. (Woilman and Bonem, 1971),
the National Water Commission (1973), and the U.S. Water Resources Council
(1968 and 1978). Summaries of these national projections and projections for
individual States to the year 2000 are included in a report prepared by the
Congressional Research Service (Viessman and DeMoncoda, 1980). The projec-
tions vary greatly based on availability of reliable data and different assumptions
of future population growth, economic conditions, environmental regulations
and energy-resources development. Regardless of which projection proves
correct, major attention must be given to water-management problems to ensure
that maximum benefits will be obtained from use of the Nation’s water resources.
-------
VII —37
3000
0
2500
2000
z
0
1500
1000
w
I—
0
1950
YEAR
3500
OFFSTREAMI2I
— — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — Surface water Ground water
.t..........1... . . .e•e••t••••••••es
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
Figure 11. Trends in offstream and mstream water use, 1950—80.
-------
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1950
VII—38
C , .)
300
250
z
0
200
450
400
350
w
U)
w
>
I-
0
C l)
z>-
0<
o cr
zw
U)CS)
. JZ
<0
0
Iz
-J
w
I-Z
w
U-
U-
0
YEAR
Figure 12. Trends in withdrawals, consumptive use, and population, 1950—80.
-------
45
30
15
VII—39
m
w
a-
U)
z
0
-J
1
0
z
0
-j
-J
z
U)
- J
200
w
I—
100
U i
I —
U)
U-
U-
0
>-
w
a-
U)
z
0
-J
-J
0
z
0
-J
-J
z
(I)
-j
150
0
I
I-
100
U i
50
w
C ’)
U-
. 0
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
YEAR
0
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1960
YEAR
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
YEAR
0
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
YEAR
Figure 13. Trends in water withdrawals for public supplies, rural supplies, irrigation, and self-supplied industry, 1950—80.
-------
VIII. COSTS OF GROUND-WATER MONITORING
-------
March 8, 1985
Page 1 of 10
Office of Ground—Water Protection
Cost of Ground—Water Monitoring
Introduction
Ground—water monitoring is currently being done at all
levels of government and by the regulated community in con-
junction with a variety of regulatory and research programs.
The cost of existing ground—water monitoring is an important
consideration in understanding the current monitoring efforts
and the emphasis placed on monitoring by the various programs.
In addition, the cost information is important in the develop-
ment of realistic approaches for ground—water monitoring in
the Ground—Water Monitoring Strategy.
General or “level of magnitude” cost information would
seem to meet these needs rather than detailed data reguiring
elaborate study. Therefore, a Study was designed that would
use existing data that could be readily provided by the EPA
programs, the other Federal agencies, and selected States.
No attempt was made to survey all agencies nor integrate
these diverse cost elements into a rigorous cost study, and
therefore the results must be used with caution. The results
do, however, provide a general perspective on where the
“action” has been in ground—water monitoring.
Three types of cost data are provided in this report.
1) Selected program costs of EPA and other Federal
agencies
2) Unit costs for ground—water sampling and laboratory
analysis
3) Selected State expenditures
Study Assumptions
The data provided in this study does not necessarily
represent the actual costs incurred by the various EPA and
other government programs in performing ground—water monitor-
ing nor do they represent a complete listing of all the
ground—water monitoring costs incurred in the United States.
The limitations of this cost data result from the following
problems identified during the data gathering process:
-------
March R, 19R5
Page 2 of 10
o Most agencies and programs do not include
ground—water monitoring costs as a separate
line item in their budgets. Consequently,
they had to extrapolate a cost from their
total budget.
o The monitoring costs incurred by the
regulated coNmunity are not easily acces—
sible to EPA especially in the time—frame
of a short study.
o Monitoring is defined differently by the
various programs/agencies and therefore
there is limited consistency across the
individual cost elements.
o One factor in ground—water monitoring costs
is well installation. In some cases, these
monitoring costs may not include both capital
and operation costs.
o Only selected agencies/programs were included
in the study and some agencies/programs were
unable to provide data within the time—frame
of this study.
-------
March 8, 1985
Page 3 of 10
TABLE 1 Selected Federal Ground Water Quality
Monitoring Programs (Costs Year in Million dollars)
I. EPA
A. Safe Drinking Water Act 18
B. RCRA (Interim Status) 17—54
C. CERCLA 38—50
D. Federal Insecticide Fungicide
Rodenticide Act 2—3
II. Other Federal
A. Department of the Interior
1. United States Geological Survey 9
2. Bureau of Land Management 0.4
B. Department of Energy 5—10
C. Department of Defense 245—290
D. Department of Aqriculture 0.2 — 0.3
*Figures include both government and some private sector costs
-------
March 8, 1985
Page 4 of 10
TABLE 2 Selected Unit Costs
For Various Ground—Water Monitoring Elements
(Costs in Dollars)
I. Installation (Depends on depth & construction)
A. Drilling/well installation $2.60 — $48.00/foot
(USGS) Test Wells Average 8.83/foot
B. Drilling/well installation
(State of Illinois) Monitoring $50 — $100/foot
We 11 s
II. Sampling Costs (Interim Status RCRA) Average $200/well
III. Analytical Costs
A. CONTRACT LAB PROGRAM FOR CERCLA ANALYSIS -
Average 1984 sample price
1. Organic Routine Analytical
Service 550
2. Inorganic Routine
Analytical Service 68
3. Dioxin Routine
Analytical Service 304
4. Special Analytical
Service (SAS) 282
-------
March 8, 1985
Page 5 of 10
Table 2 — Continued
B. Prices of Ground—Water nalysis required under the
Interim Status Subpart F Regulations of RCRA.
1. Parameters required by §265.92(b)(l)
Price Range Mean Price
a. Arsenic 8—50 22
b. Barium 5—35 14
c. Cadmium 5—43 14
d. Lead 5—43 14
e. Mercury 8—55 24
f. Selenium 8—66 23
g. Silver 7—40 14
h. Fluoride 5—39 15
i. Nitrate 7—50 15
j. Turbidity 1—35 8
k. Coliforms 6—75 18
1. Radium 13—187 70
m. Gross Alpha 8—66 31
n. Gross Reta 8—66 33
o. Endrin 11—69 29
p. Lindane 11—69 29
q. Methoxychior 11—69 29
r. Toxaphene 11—69 29
-------
Table 2 — Continued
13—200
13— 200
March 8, 1985
Page 6 of 10
49
49
15
a. Iron
b. Manganese
C. Phenols
r i, Chloride
e. Sodium
f. Sulfate
5—35
5—35
13—130
5—35
5—35
4—35
12
12
27
10
12
13
a. pH
b. Specific Conductance
C. TOX
d. TOC
Price Range
O_i51
2_251
9_2001
8—80k
Mean Price
4
6
67
26
‘These prices account for only one sample; the regulations
require that four samples be analyzed.
s. 2,4 — D
t. 2,4, 5 —T P Silvex
u. Chromium
2. Parameters required by §265.92(b)(2)
3. Parameters required by §265,92(b)(3)
-------
March 8, 1985
Page 7 of 10
4. Prices of Ground—Water Analyses not currently
required under the Interim Status Subpart F
regulations.
Price Range Mean Price
a. Volatile Organic
Scan 50—1,500 208
b. Extractables (base/
neutral) 40—1,500 307
C. RCRA Annual Costs (Average)
For Intermin Status Wells
Baseline Monitoring $4100/Well/Yr
Assessment Monitoring $2000/Well/Yr
Detection Monitoring $ 740/Well/Yr
-------
March 8, 1985
Page 8 of 10
TABLE 3* Selected Ground—Water Monitoring
Expenditures in Illinois for
1984 — 1985 (Costs in 1000 dollars)
I. Illinois EPA
A. Division of Drinking Water 400 — 581
B. Division of Land Pollution Control 3,500 — 8,600
1. RCRA 75 — 85
2. CERCLA 3,400 — 8,500
3. Non Hazardous Waste Program 20
II. Illinois State Geological Survey 70—90
III. Illinois State Water Survey 400
IV. Illinois Department of Health 130
A. Non—Community Water Supplies 54
B. Private Well Analysis 76
V. Metropolitan Sanitary District 450
VI. Private Well Monitoring Program 350—360
VII. Industry
A. RCRA 400 — 1,200
*These costs estimates were provided by the State of Illinois.
Individuals from the programs listed provided the line item
cost estimates.
-------
March 8, 1985
Page 9 of 10
TABLE 4* Selected Ground—Water
Monitoring Expenditures in Mississippi
For FY 1984 (Costs in $1000)
I. Ambient Monitoring Network 25
II. Mississippi Board of Health 50
III. Bureau of Geology 380
IV. Bureau of Land Resources 112
V. Bureau of Pollution Control 100—150
*These costs were provided by the State of Mississippi.
Individuals from the programs listed provided the line item
cost estimates.
-------
March 8, 1985
Page 10 of 10
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Geraghty and Miller, Inc. 1981. “Design and Cost Estimation
Considerations for Ground—Water Monitoring Requirements.”
Prepared by Donald A. Jackson and Mark E. Wagner for the
U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste.
ICF, Inc. and Geraghty and Miller, Inc. 1983. “Economic
Analysis of a Proposal to Modify Ground—Water Monitoring
Requirements.” Prepared for the U.S. EPA Office of
Solid Waste.
Krahl, Lane, “Cost of Ground Water Monitoring at RCRA
Facilities,” Economics Studies Branch, U.S. EPA, Office
of Policy Analysis, February 1985.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1985. Cost estimates provided
by USDA. Verbal communication.
U.S. Department of Defense. 1985. Cost estimates provided
by DOD. Verbal communication.
U.S. Department of Energy. 1985. Cost estimates provided by
DOE. Verbal communication.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1985. Cost estimates
provided by individuals from agencies: USGS and BLM.
Verbal communication.
U.S. EPA. 1985. Cost estimates provided by individuals from
program offices: CERCLA, Drinking Water, Pesticides and
RCRA. Verbal communication.
U.S. EPA. 1984. National Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
and Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities Regulated
Under RCRA in 1981 . EPA 530/SW—84—005.
U.S. EPA. 1984. “Phase III Report. Interim Status Ground-
Water Monitoring Implementation Study.” Office of
Solid Waste
-------
IX. TECHNICAL GROUND-WATER MONITORING ISSUES
• EPA Office of Research and Development
Report on Monitoring Research
• Report on Storage and Retrieval of Ground-
Water Data at the U.S. Geological Survey
• Report on Storage and Retrieval of Water-
Resources Data at the U.S. Geological Survey
• Survey of the Water Well lndustry*
Reprinted from Water Well Journal, February
1985, with permission from the National
Water We/I Association.
-------
GROUND WATER MONITORI RESEARCH
The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
is performing monitoring research in three program areas to meet the needs of
Drinking Water Monitoring (Clean Water Act), Active Hazardous Waste Site
Monitoring (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act—RCRA), and abandoned
hazardous waste sites monitoring (Comprehensive Environmental Response Compen-
sation and Liability Act, Superfund, CERCLk). Each program is carrying out
research according to its mandate. However, close coordination in all phases
of planning and management is performed to insure that duplication of effort
is avoided and that the results of investigations in one program can be
utilized in other programs.
The research carried on under the CWA in fiscal year 1985 has a goal to
provide a scientific data base on methods for regulatory, enforcement and
management decisions concerning the protection of groundwater resources,
especially sources of drinking water. Specific programs included research
into: (1) fluid movement resulting from injection well use. The program
includes developing techniques for locating abandoned wells and mapping plume
movement from the wells; (2) evaluation and development of laser—induced
fluorscence for monitoring specific pollutants using fiber optics. This
program will provide a technique for remotely measuring contaminate concentra-
tions at relatively low costs; and (3) evaluation of hollow stem auger drilling
methods to determine if sampling wells completed by this method contribute to
the verical movement of contaminants outside the well casing.
In F f ‘86, the program will increase its efforts to include technical
support to EPA Regional Offices for analyzing underground injection permits
-------
IX- 2
and locating abandoned wells. In addition, a program to determine the
effects of seasonal variation and sampling frequency on the accuracy and
confidence of data derived from groundwater monitoring will he implemented.
The RCRA program for groundwater monitoring is focused on developing and
evaluating methods for monitoring operating hazardous waste sites and for
monitoring sites closed by RCRA and Superfund actions. The program includes
development of techniques to monitor vapors in the soil column to determine
leaks and map resultant contaminate plumes. Momonitoring screening techniques
and the use of indicator parameters as guides for chemical testing are also
being investigated.
Remote sensing applications such as photography, multi—spectral scanners
and thermal sensors are being investigated for site characteriztion and post—
closure monitoring. Fiber optic uses are also being investigated for monitoring
in the vadose as well as in the saturated zone. The use of the optics are
being evaluated for leak detection as well as plume definition and mapping.
The leaking of contaminants from underground storage has been raised as a
major ground water problem with the signing of the new RCRA Act. How to determine
through monitoring of soil, surface water, ground water and air that a tank is
leaking is a major task in the Office of Research and Development. At present
there are a number of monitoring methods that have been developed for RCRA and
Superfund that may be applicable.
The major applications that will be investigated in F? 1985 and Fl 1986
include:
• Passive activated charcoal soil gas monitoring for hydrocarbons;
• Continuous gasoline monitors using fiber optics;
-------
IX— 3
• Long—term monitoring with electrical resistivity;
• Pulse impedance monitoring; and
• Geophysical monitoring for hydrocarbon contamination.
In FY 1986, the fiber optic program will investigate sensors which will
be compound specific. The tests will include ruggedness and durabilty and
the requirements to make them a long term monitoring tool. A number of
methods for monitoring the unsaturated zone will be investigated in the field
in order to determine the most variable methods. In addition, programs in
the use of geostatistical analysis and geophysical monitoring of plume defini-
tion will continue.
The Superfund program is in the process of applying what has been learned
in the RCRA and CWA research programs. Specifically, the research in geopyhsical
methods to map leachates is being applied to abandoned waste sites. In the
past, investigations of subsurface conditions at waste sites has depended upon
drilling to obtain information on the geologic setting, upon monitoring wells
for samples of ground water and upon laboratory analyses to establish the
presence of contaminants. During the past decade, extensive development in
geophysical equipment, field methods, analytical techniques and associated
computer processing has greatly improved the capability to characterize site
conditions, locate buried drums and contaminate plumes and measure ground
water flow, speed, and direction.
Under the Superfund program the ORD is providing technical support to
EPA Regions and States to characterize the extend of problems at and around
hazardous waste sites. In addition, the program is undertaking an extensive
technology transfer program to pass on ORD experience and research outputs to
the user community. Through, the use of formal short term seminars and
-------
IX- 4
extensive publication in professional journals the ORD hopes to reach EPA
regional and program office staff, CERCLA contractor personnel and state
agency managers. It is expected that the program will continue in FY 1986.
As new techniques are developed the program will continue its program to
apply them.
Outputs:
Drinking Water
Monitoring Ground Water with Fiber Optics 12/85
Mapping Fluid 4ovement from Injection Wells 12/85
Sources of Variability Affecting Ground Water Monitoring Data 12/85
Methods of Construction for Monitoring Wells 6/86
RCRA
Interim Report on Selection of Indicator Parameters 1/85
Interim Report on Soil Gas Column Monitoring 12/85
Interim Report on Fiber Optics Sensing 12/85
Interim Report on Monitoring in the Vadose Zone 12/85
Interim Report on Evaluation of Geophysical Methods for
Lechate Detection 12/85
Superfund
Annual Report on Sub—surface Geophysical Site Investigations 11/85
Management Plan for FY 1986 Geophysical Monitoring 9/85
-------
Storage and Retrieval of
Ground-Water Data at the
U.S. Geological Survey
By Maria W. Mercer and Charles 0. Morgan
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 856
1982
-------
IX-6
United States Department of the Interior
JAMES G. WATT, Secretary
Llbraty of Congress catalog-card No. 82-600558
Free on application to Distribution Branch, Text Products Section,
U. S. Geological Survey, 604 South Pickett Street, Alexandria, VA 22304
Geological Survey
Dallas L. Peck, Director
-------
IX- 7
CONTENTS
Pa c
Abstract———————————————————————————_ ———__——__ 1
Introduction————————— — —————————————————— i
Purpose—--—-—---- — —-- —--- i
History of theGWSI —-—— ——-— — — _______ —
StructureofGWS l ————— ——_ —— ——— — - — — 2
Collection of data for GWSI ——— — — — — — — 2
Quality control and entry of GWS! data — ———————— —---— — 4
Retrieval of data from GWSI——— — __ — 6
Users and use of the GWSI — — 6
Conclusions———— — — ——— 9
References cueu————————————————— — ———————-—— 9
ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Figure I. Chart showing the hierarchical structure of GWSI data base 2
2. Graph showing increase in the number of sites in the GWSI data base 5
3. Map showing the number of GWSI sites per State and Puerto Rico ———————— ——-- 5
4. Water-level table produced by using a natural language retrieval
command, which is listed above the table ————— —-—-————-- 6
5. Report table of GWSI data produced by PLEX program 7
6. Hydrograph showing water levels in a typical well during a 20-year
period of record — — 7
7. Computerized map plot from GWSI data base on
a Kansas county outline 8
TABLES
Page
Table 1. Description of GWSI schema records — ————— 3
2. Location of NAWDEX Assistance Centers — —-- 9
-------
I X— 9
Storage and Retrieval of Ground•Water Data
at the U .S. Geological Survey
By Maria W. Mercer and Charles 0. Morgan
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Geological Survey maintains a computerized Ground-
Water Site-Inventory (GWSI) file that contains information about
wells and springs at sites from all States of the United States. This
file contains data collected by US. Geological Survey personnel
and personnel of cooperating State, local, and Federal agencies.
The file is easily accessible to members or users of the National
Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX). Since the establishment of the
GWSI file in 1974, the data base has grown 19 percent per year and
contains information on about 770,000 sites as of February 1981.
INTRODUCTION
In the mid-l960’s, ever-increasing amounts of data
and a need for timely access to these data necessitated
computerized data banks for the storage of informa-
tion such as personnel records, daily business and fi-
nancial records, and, in the case of the U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey, hydrologic records. In keeping with one
of the Survey’s missions, that of collecting and pub-
lishing information about the Nation’s natural re-
sources (U.S. Geological Survey, 1981), the Survey
created and maintains a central storage facility for
water resources data known as the National Water
Data Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE),
at its National Headquarters in Reston, Va. Included
in this computerized storage facility are represen-
tative ground-water data collected throughout the
United States. This ground-water information resides
in an online computer data file, which is maintained
by a Data Base Management System (DBMS) called
SYSTEM 2000’ (MRI Systems Corp., 1974a). The
name and acronym given this data base is the
Ground- Water Site-Inventory (GWSI) file.
PURPOSE
As demand for ground water increases, the avail-
ability of site-specific ground-water data becomes
very important in solving such problems as those in-
volving water-supply and waste-disposal operations.
To make competent management decisions concern-
ing these problems, all available ground-water data
in the vicinity of a site should be scrutinized as part
of the evaluation process. This paper describes the
various ground-water data elements that reside in the
GWSI and explains how these data are entered and
retrieved.
HISTORY OF THE GWSI
Twenty years ago, ground-water data collected in
field offices by Survey hydrologists were stored in fil-
ing cabinets, many times on locally devised nonstan-
dard inventory forms. During the 1960’s, an attempt
was made within the Survey to establish a standard
approach to the storage of ground-water data in a na-
tional computer file (Lang and Leonard, 1967). Be-
cause of the specialized needs of hydrologists in
diverse climatic and geologic areas of the country and
the limitations of the data system, the national com-
puter file was not used widely.
Because of the increasing demand for timely
ground-water data, a need arose to redesign the
structure of the data system to satisfy more fully the
requirements of hydrologists and to establish a cen-
trally controlled computer file that could be easily ac-
cessed by all users. A decision was reached in the
early 1970’s to obtain a commercially developed
computerized DBMS to organize and maintain this
file of raw ground-water data. The GWSI was de-
signed and implemented in 1974, as documented in
the “WATSTORE User’s Guide, Volume 2” (U.S.
Geological Survey, 1975), using the newly acquired
‘The use of brand or company names in this report is for identification
ptirposes and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological
-------
Ix— 10
DBMS, SYSTEM 2000. The chief purposes of the
GWS1 are (I) to meet the need for storage of na-
tionally standardized ground-water data and (2) to
provide nationwide computer access to these data.
Because nationwide ground-water data are stored
in one easily accessible computer file, the GWSI is a
very useful tool for interpreting the hydrogeology of
an area. An organization using the GWSI to work on
projects throughout the Nation needs to learn only
one retrieval technique to obtain the output in a stan-
dard format; this allows more time for the analysis of
the findings. The tedious computer programing re-
quired for adjusting to different data sources is
eliminated by using the standardized GWSI data
base.
STRUCTURE OF GWSI
The structure of a SYSTEM 2000 data base is
hierarchical, sometimes called a tree structure (see
fig. I). The top node (box) of this treelike structure
is, in fact, the root, and, if turned upside down, the
structure resembles a tree with its limbs branching up-
ward. The top node, called ENTRY, which contains
a unique identification number and location infor-
mation for a ground-water site, can have many de-
scendants (branches downward). However, no de-
scendants may have more than one parent (branches
upward). Figure 1 illustrates these relations. EN-
TRY, the top node, has descendants, including
LIFT, CONSTRUCTION, and GEOLOGY data.
However, LIFT has only one parent, ENTRY.
Each of these nodes, called schema records, contains
up to 46 components of site information leading to
270 possible data items per site. Not all 270 possible
data items are coded for any one site. Some items are
unique to specific site types; for example, springs. If
a ground-water site contains only the data listed in
the top node (ENTRY (location data)) then only
these data are in the file. The other schema records
are not established until pertinent data are entered in-
to the GWSI and, thus, do not occupy valuable com-
puter disk file space. The SYSTEM 2000 DBMS uses
indexing techniques to keep track of the locations of
data items that are stored randomly in an online com-
puter disk file. This indexing feature simplifies the
addition of data to the GWSI file and makes re-
trievals more efficient.
COLLECTION OF DATA FOR GWSI
The bulk of the data in the GWSI file is collected
by Survey personnel as part of water-resources in-
vestigations and water-level monitoring programs,
in cooperation with State and local governments and
other Federal agencies. Typically, data are collected
by a hydrologist who inventories wells or springs by
Fiou r 1.—Hierarchical structure of OWSI data base.
-------
examining them in the field. The information obtained
is transcribed onto standard forms designed for the
recording of data for input to the computer file.
Most data in the GWSI file are raw ground-water
data entered by the inputting agency. Few statistical
items are stored because these values can be readily
calculated from raw data residing in the data base.
Some of the categories of data that can be stored in
schema records for each site in the GWSI are listed in
table I. Table 1 describes the schema records in
figure 1 starting with the top node ENTRY, pro-
ceeding down each branch, then left to right.
-Site identifiers such as latitude and longitude, altitude, State, county, and so forth.
•Typc, such as pump or bucket; includes horsepower, intake setting, and so forth.
MAJOR PUMP Manufacturer, serial number, energy consumption, capacity, and so forth.
STANDBY---— Alternative power types.
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCT”
Date of completion, contractor, seal type, finish, and seal bottom.
HOLES Type of well and dimensions, including diameter of top and bottom of hole.
OPENINGS Depth intervals of perforated zones, size and shape, and screen material.
CASINGS Type and material, top in reference to land surface, depth to bottom, and diameter of
each string.
MINOR REPAIRS Repair information.
GEOLOGY
GEOHYDROLOGIC UNITS Name of formation, including unit identifier and its depth.
AQUIFERS -
uvnn.111 Jr
COEFFICIENTS
static water level in aquifer.
:ludes the unit identifier.
-Includes conductivity, diffusivity, and leakance.
NETWORKS
QUALITY NETWORK Water-quality network, including name of agency that gathers samples at site.
LEVEL NETWORK Water-level network, including name of agency that collects water-level measurements
at site.
PUMPAGE NETWORK Pumpage network, including name of agency that monitors water withdrawal at site.
PRODUCTION
FLOW DATA Information about springs, including flow period and discharge.
PUMP PRODUCTION Production of the well, including production date and method.
SPRINGS---- -
The site’s owner, name, and ownership date.
data; for example, name and number of openings.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
fltttkflt ,’C ’ -
dditional remarks about the site.
MISCELLAI ’IEOUS DATA —————————— Other references and sources of data.
SITE VISITS
OTHER DATA - -
OTHER IDENTIFICATION Other site identifiers.
Ix—il
TABLE 1.—Description of GWSI schema records
Woe a detailed explanation of all components within each schema record available in the GWSI see “WATSTORE User’s Guide, Volume 2.”
Chapter II, Section B I
ENTRY -
LIFT--
Schema record Description of information
Visits to the site, such as the inventory person and date of visit.
- Location and formats of other data available about the site.
-------
Ix— 12
TABLE I.—Descrtpion of GWS! schema s cordr—Contjnued
Schema record
ENThY—Continued
WATER QUALITY
FIELD WATER QUALITY-
LOG
Description of information
-Field water-quality data, such as the sample date, the constituent, its measurement, and
source (aquifer name).
-Type of geophysical or other logs available for the well, including type and source.
Multiple wells that are manifolded to a single discharge pipe, including the number of
wells and the deepest and shallowest wells in the group.
POND, TUNNEL, DRAIN -The length, width, and depth of a pond, tunnel, or drain.
COOPERATOR DATA Data that cooperating local agencies need, such as cooperator’s Site identifier, registra-
tion number, and so forth.
LATERALS -information about Ranney wells, including the depth, length, and diameter of the
laterals that drain to the central well.
MISCELLANEOUS VALUES --—----—--Data for which no other schema record has been established.
STATE WATER USE -
OBSERVATION WELLS
OUAUTY CONTROL AND ENTRY OF
GWSI DATA
All ground-water data input to the GWSI data
base should be reviewed for accuracy. The primary
quality control measures are the responsibility of the
inputting office. Once that office is satisfied that the
data on field forms are correct, these data are tran-
scribed to the format requIred for entry into the com-
puter; for example, punched cards. Before entry into
the GWSI file, the data are checked for logic and syn-
tax errors by the inputting office by using a com-
puterized verification system. This series of computer
programs provides several types of error checks, such
as (1) syntax check, which ensures valid input data
(for example, correct codes are used and alphabetic
characters are not entered where numeric data be-
long); (2) compatibility check, which ensures com-
patibility between data elements that are being
entered or between input values and those that
already reside in the data base (the depth to water,
for example, cannot exceed the depth of the well);
and (3) out-of-range check, which indicates whether
input data fall within the bounds of certain param-
eters provided in tables in the computer programs
(for example, maximum and minimum values of
latitude, longitude, and altitude reside in the tables
for each State).
Input data will be entered into the GWSI file by the
GWSI Data Base Manager (DBM) at the Survey’s
National Headquarters when all data have passed the
error checks. All reports concerning final verification
of the update process to the GWSI are sent to the
originating office.
The inputting office may not directly update the
GWSI data base. Only the DBM may update. Once
the data are in the GWSL file, the inputting office
must verify these data and correct any errors, such as
transposition of numbers or misspelling of names
that were not detected earlier in the proofing process.
Erroneous data can be modified easily by the input-
ting office.
Non-Survey organizations that wish to enter data
into OWSI must establish access to the data base by
registering with the NAWDEX Program Manager.
Detailed information about accessing the GWSI is
discussed in a subsequent section entitled “Users and
Use of the GWSI.” Non-Survey organizations may
obtain standard forms for encoding input informa-
LOGS
SPECIAL CASES
WELL GROU’
Ste -
WATER LEVELS--
MEASURING POINT
The State’s use of water, including water type and the amount of water.
Textual information about the site.
SpecifIc year for data in the lower level schema record(s).
Includes water-level measurements and respective dates.
Includes the measuring point height and the date when the measurement was made.
Although several field collected parameters of waler-quality data (including temperature, conductance, and pH) are stored in the GWSI, the bulk of water-
quality data reside us a nationwide file called Storage and Retrieval (STORE , a file maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1973). The
National Water L ta Eschange (NAWDEX) Local Assistance Centers provided in table 2 are authorized users of the STORET file and may retrieve ground-
water .qualily data for us subscribers.
-------
IX—13
tion in the GWSI format by contacting GWSI per-
sonnel of the Survey at the National Headquarters.
Since the inception of the GWSI file, the data base
has grown at an average of 19 percent per year and
contains information related to about 770,000 sites,
as of February 1981. Figure 2 indicates the growth
pattern for the past 3 years. The number of ground-
water sites for which data have been entered into the
GWSI file for each State, including Puerto Rico, is
shown in figure 3.
- 769,451
(2/25/81)
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I_i It
_ ,_ >- — >.
1919
FIGURE 2.—Increase in the number of sites in the OWSI data base.
1980 1981
I
Ill
700
600
500
1971
ALASkA 11951
,4 MJLES
0 KILOI tTERS
PUERTO RICO
C7161 0 400 MILES
I II I
0 100 MILES{) 0 SO MILES F I I —J
______ 400 KILOMETERS
KILOMETERS 0 SO KILOMETERS
FIGuRE 3.—Number of GWSI sites per State and Puerto Rico.
-------
IX—14
RETRIEVAL OF DATA FROM GWSI
Once data reside in the GWSI, their retrieval is
relatively simple. This capacity for quick, efficient
retrieval is the primary purpose for choosing a
DBMS for storage of ground-water data. The SYSTEM
2000 DBMS “Natural Language” (MRI Systems
Corp., 1974b) computer program allows persons not
trained in computer languages to use brief, English-
like commands to retrieve simple printouts of data. A
water-level table produced by using this program is
shown in figure 4. For more elaborate presentation
of data, a feature called “Report Writer” (MRI
Systems Corp., l974c) is available as part of the
DBMS.
If the “Natural Language” and “Report Writer”
facilities are insufficient for retrieving data in a
prescribed format, SYSTEM 2000 has an additional
feature, “Programing Language Extension” (PLEX)
(MRI Systems Corp., 1979) that can include
prescribed SYSTEM 2000 statements in the code of a
higher level programing language, such as COBOL,
LIST/REPEAT SUPPRESS! C1,C235 ,C237
WH C l EQ 392854106024501 OR
Cl EQ 393439106055901 OR
FORTRAN, and PL/I. With PLEX, any GWSI data
item can be manipulated at the user’s discretion. The
user may produce specialized reports, use statistical
or graphical routines, and pass data to or merge with
other computer files. The Survey has several PLEX
computer programs that produce report tables, X—Y
plots, and map plots for many of the data in the
GWSI (see figures 5, 6, and 7).
USERS AND USE OF THE GWSI
The principal contributors to, and users of, the
OWSI are personnel of the Survey. However, many
engineering and environmental consultants retrieve
data from the GWSI file, as do university researchers
and State and local governmental agencies. Individ-
uals also request ground-water information for their
own use.
An evaluation of the ground-water resources of an
area generally begins with a perusal of the existing
data. For many areas, GWSI provides this starting
point by supplying information about many of the
Cl EQ 393633105580601:
* SITE-ID
* 392854106024501
*
*
393439106055901
WL-MEAS-DATE
08/10/1976
09/13/ 1973
09/17/1975
10/14/1974
08/0911977
08/10/1976
09/14/1973
09/17/1975
08/09/1978
08/22/1979
08/10/1976
09/231 1977
09/13/1973
09/17/1975
10/14/1974
08/09/1978
08/22/1979
08/07/1980
WL-MEASUREMENT
19.73
21.00
20.31
25.44
18.91
12.40
11.88
11.96
13.23
11.89
40.66
42.27
43.41
41.89
43.90
41.62
43.39
43.58
FIGURE 4.—Water-Ievel table produced by using a “Natural Language” retrieval command, which is listed above the table.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
393633105580601
.
-------
IX— 15
ALTITUDE
SPECIFIC
OF LAND
USE
USE
CONDUCTANCE
LOCAL NUMBER
SCO16O4632DDACI 0
SURFACE
(FEET)
75
OF
SITE
W
OF
WATER
H
OWNER
HAZENBERG, HANK
PRINCIPAL
AQUIFER
11OQRNR
TEMPERATURE
(DEGREES C)
(UMHOS/CM
AT 25 C)
—
SC01604634BCBcI 0
50
W
H
ERICKSON, ARNE
--
.-
--
SCO16O4634BCDD1 0
55
W
H
COOK, TIM
11OQRNR
--
--
SC016046348CDD2 0
55
W
H
BLUSH, ROBERT
1100RNR
--
--
SCO16O4634CBAD1 0
SCO17O4429CBDC1 0
35
90
W
U
H
U
HILL. FRANK
USAF KGSLM, 3RD
RADIO
1 IOQRNR
1100RNR
3.0
--
70
-•
SCO17O451ODCCC1 0
60
W
H
ANGASAN. RALPH
1100RNR
—
--
SCO17O4514BDDD1 0
80
W
C
RCA WH ALC. KING
SLM
11OQRNR
--
--
SC01704522BB8C1 0
50
W
H
WILLIAMS, BERTHA
11OQRNR
--
--
SC01704522CCA81 0
25
W
P
FAA, KING SLM
1100RNR
5.0
1100
SC01704523ABAC1 0
75
W
--
USAF, KING SLM
1100RNR
-
--
SCO17O4523ACCB1 0
50
U
U
USAF, KING SLM
1100RNR
--
SCO17O4523ADCC1 0
75
Z
U
USAF, KING SLM
11OQRNR
• -
--
SC01704523BACD1 0
75
W
P
USAF, KING SLM
11 OQRNR
5.0
280
SC01704523BACD2 0
75
W
p
USAF, KING SLMN
1100RNR
—
--
SC017045239BAB1 0
75
W
P
USAF, KING SLM
11OQRNR
•-
--
SC01704523CDC81 0
35
U
U
WOOD Z, LODGE
--
-.
--
SC01704523CDCB2 0
35
W
C
WOOD Z. LODGE
--
--
--
SC01704523CDCB3 0
35
W
C
EDDIES, FRPLC IN
.-
- -
SCO17O4523CDCD1 0
35
W
Z
ADF & G, KING SLM
--
--
Explanation of codes:
(1) Use of Water
W Withdrawal of Water
U Unused
Z Destroyed
(2) Use of Water
H Domestic
U Unused
C Commercial
P Public Supply
Z Other
(3) Principal Aquifer
Quaternary System
FIGURE 5.—Report table of OWSI data produced by PLEX program.
BN—24/20E/1 8—0013
MONTHLY LOW WATER LEVEL
FIGURE 6.—Hydrograph showing water levels in a typical well during a 20-year period of record. Dashed line indicates period of
intermittent record.
Lu
C.)
(I ,
0
z
0
-I
w
I-
w
Lu
I I .
z
1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1964 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
-------
U
.—0.52
.—3.0O
. 375 2.67
. a —6.40
——5.67
S •
.—1.40 • —5.08
.
.-5.25
.
—3.51 • • -7.06 a
.—0.05 .—2.87 .-l.22
—0.39 ‘—26.50
•. -935
.-O.97 .2 10
‘-239 39 )
.—8.00
• a-S 16 ‘48 1.99,
:— •
., •.776
• •—4.55 •2,45
•-2.54 •—075
I •- .a a. -380 ‘-2.06 -242. •‘ ‘•
• ‘0.66
‘-3.55
U?? 31
• ‘-3.63 • 7.98
—005
• -244’ • •_1.98 .734
‘—4.29
-3.42. •_ •-2.78
U
•-307
1,
•-3.57 -2 7
•—2.69
U —1.93 a •
L
- _.Lf 2 .! __a - ._ - - - J
Fiou z 7.—Example of computerized map plot from the GWSI data base, on a Kansas county outline. Water level changes, in feet.
are indicated at many sites.
existing wells and springs. Historical water-level
data, from which hydrographs and maps of potentio-
metric surfaces may be constructed, are particularly
helpful. These data also may aid in interpreting the
effects of climate fluctuations and resource develop-
ment in the area under study.
Data may be obtained from the GWSI either by
submitting a request to NAWDEX (Edwards, 1978)
or by establishing direct, online access to the data
bases. NAWDEX services are available through a na-
tionwide network of Assistance Centers (Edwards,
1980) located in 45 States and Puerto Rico. The loca-
tions of these centers are given in table 2, and a free
directory of all Assistance Centers may be obtained
from NAWDEX (see the address given below).
Charges for retrieving data are assessed at the rate of
the actual Cost of retrieval of the requested data
from the GWSI. Those users desiring direct, online
access to the GWSI must sign a Memorandum of
Agreement with the Survey for this purpose and must
assume full financial responsibility for their use of
the Survey’s computer system. This agreement
authorizes users to input data to the OWSI, as well as
make retrievals from it. Requests for direct access to
the data base must be submitted in writing to the Pro-
gram Manager, National Water Data Exchange, U.S.
Geological Survey, 421 National Center, Reston, VA
22092.
IX—16
• 0.99
.0.23 •
•-3.44
0.94 ,
•—0.53 • .000 —543, 1
U
-1.87
U
0
5 10 MILES
I I I
0 5 10 KILOMETERS
-------
IX—17
TABLE 2.—Locations of NA WDEX Assistance Centers
CONCLUSIONS
ALABAMA ----— Tuscaloosa.
ALASKA Anchorage.
ARIZONA Tucson.
ARKANSAS ____________Little Rock.
CALIFORNIA Menlo Park.
COLORADO Lakewood (Denver) and
Ft. Collins.
CONNECTICUT Hartford.
FLORIDA Tallahassee, Miami, Orlando, and
Tampa.
Doraville (Atlanta).
Honolulu (also serves American
Samoa and Guam).
IDAHO Boise.
ILLINOIS Champaign.
INDIANA Indianapolis.
IOWA Iowa City (2 locations).
KANSAS Lawrence.
KENTUCKY Louisville.
LOUISIANA Baton Rouge.
MARYLAND Towson (also serves Delaware
and District of Columbia).
MASSACHUSETTS Boston (also serves Maine. New
Hampshire. Rhode Island,
and Vermont).
MICHIGAN Okemos (Lansing) and
Ann Arbor.
MINNESOTA —St. Paul.
MISSISSIPPI Jackson.
MISSOURI Rolla.
MONTANA Helena.
NEBRASKA Lincoln (2 locations).
NEVADA Carson City.
NEW JERSEY Trenton.
NEW MEXICO Albuquerque.
NEW YORK Albany and Svosset.
NORTH CAROLINA —Raleigh.
NORTH DAKOTA —Bismarck.
OHIO Columbus.
OKLAHOMA OUahoma City.
OREGON Portland and Salem.
PENNSYLVANIA Harrisburg and Philadelphia.
PUERTO RICO Ft. Buchanan San .tuant (also
ser es Virgin Islands)
SOUTH CAROL!NA--------Columh:a.
SOUTH DAKOTA Huron.
TENNESSEE Nash’.ille.
TEXAS .Au tin.
UTAH —Salt Lake City (2 locations) and
Logan.
VIRGINIA —Richmond,
Rest on.
WASHINGTON Tacoma.
WEST VIRGINI.A Charleston.
WISCONSIN Madison.
WYOMING Cheyenne.
Solution of today’s complex hydrologic problems
requires the timely availability of reliable ground-
water data. The GWSI data base, in conjunction with
the SYSTEM 2000 data base management system,
provides these reliable and unbiased ground-water
data for the hydrologist or planner who requires
quick and easy access to them.
Standardization of input-retrieval procedures and
data formats exists in the GWSI for all data, and the
techniques of manipulating the ground-water data
are the same throughout the United States. The goals
of the Survey in establishing a nationwide ground-
water data base, thus, have been accomplished.
REFERENCES CITED
Baker, C. H., Jr., and Foulk, D. G., 1975, WATSTORE user’s
guide, volume 2, ground-water file: U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 75-589, 159 p. (Revised 1980.)
Edwards, M. D., 1978, NAWDEX: A key to finding water data—
National Water Data Exchange: U.S. Geological Survey, 15 p.
1980. Directory of assistance centers of the National Water
Data Exchange (NAWDEX): U.S. Geological Survey Open-
File Report 80-1193, 14 p.
Lang, S. M., and Leonard, A. R., 1967, Instructions for using the
punchcard system for the storage and retrieval of ground-
water data: U.S. Geological Survey open-file report, 93 p.
MRI Systems Corp., 1974a, SYSTEM 2000 reference manual:
Austin, Tex.
1974b, SYSTEM 2000 NATURAL LANGUAGE
reference manual for IBM releases: Austin, Tex.
1974c, SYSTEM 2000 report writer feature: Austin,
Tex -
1979, SYSTEM 2000—The language specification
manual for the (PL’l or COBOL) proeraming language, ex-
tension (PLEX) for IBM OS VS: Austin, Tex.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973, Water quality
control information system: STORET: Washington. D.C.,
U.S. Government Printing Office.
US Geological Survey, 1981. United States Geological Survey
Yearbook, Fiscal year 1980: U.S. Geological Survey. 161 p.
GEORGIA
HAWAII -
Hlacksburg, and
-------
Collection, Storage, Retrieval, and
Publication of Water-Resources Data
Standardization of Hydrologic Measurements
By G. F. Smoot
Use of Earth Satellites for
Automation of Hydrologic Data Collection
By R. W. Paulson
Operational Hydrometeorological
Data-Collection System for the
Columbia River
By N. A. Kollio
Storage and Retrieval of
Water-Resources Data
By C. R. Showen
Publication of Water-Resources Data
By S. M. Lang and C. B. Ham
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 756
7978
-------
Ix— 20
STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL OF
WATER-RESOURCES DATA
By Charles R. Showen
BSTRA( .T
The US. Geological Survey investigates the occurrence.
quantity, quality, distribution, and movement of the surface
and underground waters that comprise the water resources of
the United States. It is the principal Federal water-data
agency and, as such, collects and disseminates about 70 per-
cent of the water data currently being used by numerous
State. local. private, and other Federal agencies to develop and
manage the Nations water resources. As part of the Geologi-
cal Surveys program of releasing water data to the public, a
large-scale computerized system has been developed for the
processing, storage. and retrieval of water data collected
through its activities.
The U S Geological Survey’s National Water Data Storage
and Retrieval System WATSTORE was established in
November 1971 to modernize water-data processing proce-
dures and techniques and to provide for more effective and
efhcient management of data-releasing activites The system
is operated and maintained on the central computer facilities
of the Survey at its National Center in Reston. Va.
INTRODUCTION
The Geological Survey currently i 196 collects
data at approximately 10,000 stream. 0 aging sta-
tions. 1,300 lakes and reservoirs, 4.300 surface
water-quality stations. 4,100 water-temperature
stations. 880 sediment stations. 2.500 water-level
observation wells, and 5.800 ground-water-qual-
ity wells. Each year, many water-data collection
sites are added and others are discontinued; thus,
large amounts of diversified data, both current
and historical, are amassed by the Survey’s data
collection activities. A large-scale computerized
storage and retrieval system is used by the
Geological Survey to store and disseminate water
data acquired through its many activities.
The National Water Data Storage and Re-
trieval System WATSTORE) was established in
November 1971 to provide for more effective and
efficient management of the Survey’s data-
releasing activities. The WATSTORE system
provides for the processing, storage, and retrieval
of water data pertaining to surface water, quality
of water, and ground water. At present, there are
50 Geological Survey remote job-entry sites (fig.
5), located in various offices throughout the coun-
try, that are equipped with high-speed computer
terminals for remote access to the system.
GENERAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The WATSTORE system consists of several
files (fig. 61 in which data are grouped and stored
by common characteristics and data collection
frequencies. The system is also designed to allow
for the inclusion of additional data files if the need
should arise in future years. Currently. the fol-
lowing files are maintained: (ii Daily Values File.
which is composed of surface-water, quality-of-
water, and ground-water data measured on a
daily or continuous basis: (2i Peak Flow File,
which is composed of annual peak values for
streamfiow stations; 31 Water-Quality File,
which is composed of chemical and biological
analyses for surface- and ground-water sites: and
44) Ground-Water Site-Inventory File, which is
composed of hydrologic, geologic, and well-
inventory data for ground-water sites. In addition,
a Station Header File, an index file of sites for
which data are stored in the system, is also main-
tained.
Most of the computer programs used in the sys-
tem are written in Programming Language i
PLU for the iBM 360 or 370 series computers 2
and were developed internally to satisfy the
data-processing requirements of the Geological
Survey. The WATSTORE system is directly ac-
cessible by computer terminals which are main-
tained by the Geological Survey and other Fed-
eral and State agencies.
DETAILED SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The WATSTORE system is designed to use
magnetic disk to store current data and magnetic
tape to store historical data. This technique is
used because of the high cost involved in main-
taining online disk files. Approximately 15 per-
‘The uae of trade namea doea not c-ortstitute endoraernent by the US Geological
Survey
-------
.
IX—21
L iL L
Computer Terminal Locations
-
I T F =
? ‘‘
‘. 5.
/
• .1T .
--—-- -—---- ________ - c ___
• ! I • 7 YIN • • •
_s. --/$. ’’ .
I • ) N $S.
I ,. ‘S.
I •
;• S.
.
• ‘ 5) •
- . -I ‘
Ficuat 5.—Map indicating location of WATSTORE computer terminals.
cent of the data is stored on magnetic disk and the
remainder on magnetic tape. “Current data” is
defined as data for the current year and the year
immediately preceding. Data failing to meet this
criterion are removed periodically from disk and
merged with data in the historical file, which is
maintained in a sequential manner on magnetic
tape by station identification number and date.
The retrieval computer programs permit data to
be retrieved from the current file, the historical
file, or both files.
The Station Header File and the Daily Values
File have the option to “password” protect data
stored in these files for one or more specified sites.
The use of password protection prohibits unau-
thorized updates and (or) retrieval from the files.
These files also provide for the identification of
data by an agency code which permits data to be
stored for agencies outside the Geological Survey.
A brief description of each of the WATSTORE
files is given below:
STATION HEADER FILE
The Station Header File contains information
pertinent to the identification, location, and phys-
ical, description of over 130,000 sites for which
data are stored in the WATSTORE files. The file
serves as an automated index from which a re-
trieval list of stations may be obtained without
searching massive data files. The information
items stored in this file are listed below:
• gency code
• Station identification number
• Station locator (latitude—longitude )
• State code
• District code
• County code
• Drainage area
• Contributing drainage area
• Site code
• Station name
• Hydrologic unit code
• ALASKA
)
5 --.- -
-
/
‘ •
\
-------
I X— 22
• Gage or land surface datum
• Geologic unit code
• Well depth
• Aquifer type
• Password
The eight underlined items are mandatory
items for each station, and data are not permitted
to be stored in the data files without this informa-
tion. The mandatory fields were so designated be-
cause of retrieval purposes, for example, the
capability of being able to retrieve all stations in
a particular county in a particular State.
A typical example of the use of this file would be
to select a group of data satisfying a defined set of
criteria, such as to provide a list of stations that
have surface-water data in the files and are lo-
cated in Fairfax County, State of Virginia, that
have a drainage area of less than 20 square miles.
Computer programs are available that will per-
mit the retrieval stations to be plotted on a line
printer using various scales suitable for use as a
map overlay, as well as to print selected data only
for the retrieval stations. The retrieval stations
list also may be used as input to retrieval pro-
grams for other WATSTORE files.
DAILY VALUES FILE
The Daily Values File contains water-data
parameters measured or observed either on a
daily or on a continuous basis and numerically
reduced to daily values. Instantaneous measure-
ments at fixed-time intervals, daily mean values,
and statistics such as daily maximum and
minimum values also may be stored. This file cur-
rently contains over 120 million daily values in-
Ficup.z 6.—Schematic representation of WATSTOR .E files.
-------
IX — 2 3
cluding data for streamfiow values, river stages,
reservoir contents, water temperatures, specific
conductance values, sediment concentrations,
sediment discharges, and ground water levels.
The data in this file are identified in the follow-
ing manner:
• State code
• Agency code
• Station identification number
• Cross section locator (Distance in feet from
left bank)
• Sampling depth (Depth at which observa-
tion was made)
• Parameter code (Five-digit numeric code to
identify the parameter measured)
• Water year (The 12-month period, October
1 through September 30)
• Statistic code (Five-digit numeric code to
identify the frequency of measurement
or numeric reduction of the data)
Each record in this file contains daily values for
a water year (October 1 through September 30).
Since most retrievals from the file are made on a
State basis, the records in storage are grouped by
States to minimize retrieval costs.
Data may be retrieved from the Daily Values
File in the following formats: (1) in the form of a
computer printout (listing), (2) in punched card
form, (3) in a monthly character format on a
magnetic device (usable on almost any type com-
puter), and (4) in the standard daily values record
format on a magnetic device.
This file also has password protection to protect
records against unauthorized updating and (or)
retrieval.
A generalized retrieval program retrieves rec-
ords from this file in machine-readable form and
passes the retrieved records to computer applica-
tion programs. Examples of the application pro-
grams are:
• Publication tables
• Data inventory of selected portions of the
file
• Preparation of X—Y plots on the Calcomp
plotter
• Preparation of monthly and annual statis-
tics
• Preparation of duration tables, low- and
high-value sequence summaries, and
log-Pearson frequency distributions
WATER-QUALITY FILE
The Water-Quality File contains information
pertaining to the chemical, physical, biological,
and radiochemical composition of both surface
and ground water. The data stored in this file are
primarily obtained through the analytical
techniques performed by the three central
water-quality laboratories operated by the
Geological Survey. At present, this file contains
the results of over 850,000 analyses of water sam-
ples, and the analyses may contain data for more
than 570 different constituents.
The data in this file are identified as follows:
• Station identification number
• Collection date
• Time of collection
• Parameter code (Five-digit numeric code to
identify the parameter measured)
Data may be retrieved from the Water-Quality
File in the form of a computer printout (listing),
in punch-card form or as punch-card images on a
magnetic device, and in the standard water-
quality record format on a magnetic device.
A generalized retrieval program retrieves rec-
ords from this file in machine-readable form and
passes the retrieved records to computer applica-
tion programs. Examples of the application pro-
grams are:
• Publication tables
• Frequency analyses
• Stiff diagrams
• Piper diagrams
• Collins diagrams
• Ropes diagrams
• Irrigation classification
• Ratio tables
• Map plots
• Interface with statistical programs for
plotting and contouring on Calcomp
plotters
PEAK FLOW FILE
The Peak Flow File contains the annual
maximum (peak) streamfiow (discharge) and the
annual maximum gage height (stage) values ob-
tained at surface-water sites. It currently con-
tains more than 350,000 annual maximum obser-
vations.
Data may be retrieved from the file in the form
of tables, card images, or records on a magnetic
device. The primary application program for this
-------
IX— 24
file is a program that computes log-Pearson Type
III frequency distribution. This program produces
a table of basic statistics, theoretical values, and a
frequency distribution plot of both actual and
theoretical values.
GROUND-WATER SITE-INVENTORY FILE
The Ground-Water Site-Inventory File contains
inventory data about wells, springs, and other
sources of ground water. The data included are
site location and identification, geohydrologic
characteristics, well-construction history, and
one-time field measurements such as water tem-
perature.
The Ground-Water Site-Inventory File is man-
aged and maintained through a generalized
Data-Base Management System called SYSTEM
2000. This system is marketed by MI I I Systems
Corp., Austin, Tex. SYSTEM 2000 is oriented to
the collection, maintenance, and manipulation of
data en masse, and it provides a report-genera-
tion capability, a data-base loading facility, a
teleprocessing interface, and a query language.
The Ground-Water Site-Inventory File is de-
signed to accommodate 209 data elements. At
present, the file contains data for 140,000 sites.
This file is currently being built and the number
of sites is anticipated to increase to 1 million
within a year.
Using the retrieval language which is available
as a part of SYSTEM 2000, data can be retrieved
selectively and listed in a variety of ways. A pro-
gram to retrieve selected data and prepare publi-
cation tables has been written, and programs to
interface the file with plotter and statistical
routines are under development.
SYSTEM OPERATION
All data files of the WATSTORE system are
maintained and managed on the central computer
facilities of the Geological Survey at its National
Center in Reston, Va. However, data may be en-
tered into or retrieved from WATSTORE through
a number of locations that are part of a nation-
wide telecommunication network.
At present, there are 50 Geological Survey re-
mote job-entry sites, located in various offices
throughout the country, that are equipped with
high-speed computer terminals for remote access
to the WATSTORE system. These terminals pro-
vide rapid and efficient access to the system and
allow each site to enter data or retrieve data from
the system within several minutes to overnight,
depending upon the priority placed on the re-
quest.
The Geological Survey operates more than
9,000 data collection stations that remotely col-
lect water data on punched-paper tape. To provide
for current and timely processing and reporting of
these data, a transmission network provides for
the local translation of data to a computer-
compatible form and transmits the translated
data over telephone circuits to the central compu-
ter facility. These data are then processed by the
central computer via a computer terminal located
at the transmission site. The results obtained by
this procedure are simultaneously stored in the
WATSTORE files and printed at the transmission
site.
Data are also entered into the files which are
obtained from the LANDSAT and GOES (Geo-
stationary Operational Environmental Satellite)
satellite systems. At present data from 150 sites
are being collected in this manner.
Three central water-quality laboratories that
analyze more than 60,000 water samples per year
also contribute data to the system. The labora-
tories are highly automated and perform chemi-
cal analyses that range from determinations of
simple inorganic compounds such as chlorides to
complex organic compounds such as pesticides.
As each analysis is completed, the results are ver-
ified by laboratory personnel and then transmit-
ted via a computer terminal and stored in the
WATSTORE system.
SYSTEM PRODUCTS
Water data compiled by the Geological Survey
are used in many ways by decision makers for the
management, development, and monitoring of
water resources. Thus, in addition to its data
processing, storage, and retrieval capabilities,
WATSTORE can provide a variety of useful prod-
ucts to meet diverse needs. These products range
from simple retrieval of data in tabular form to
complex statistical analyses. A wide variety of re-
trieval options for the system are available, such
as,
• Individual station
• Polygon of latitude—longitude
• State
• County
• Aquifer code (for ground-water sites)
-------
IX—25
• Dates
• Individual parameters
• Greater than or less than specified param-
eter values
A typical retrieval request might be for a list of
all the dissolved-oxygen values of less than 5.0
mg/I (milligrams per liter) for a particular county
in a particular State.
A summary of the products available is as fol-
lows:
1. Computer-Printed Tables: Users most often
request data from WATSTORE in the form
of tables printed by the computer. These ta-
bles may contain lists of actual data or con-
densed indexes that indicate the availability
of data stored in the files. A variety of for-
mats is available to display the many types
of data.
2. Computer-Printed Graphs: Another capability
of WATSTORE is to computer-print graphs
for the rapid analysis or display of data.
Computer programs are available to produce
bar graphs (histograms), line graphs,
frequency-distribution curves, X—Y point
plots, site-location map plots, and similar
items by means of line printers.
3. Statistical Analyses: WATSTORE uses the
Geological Survey’s collection of computer
programs known as STATPAC (Statistical
Package) to provide extensive analyses of
data such as regression analyses, the
analysis of variance, transformations, and
correlations.
4. Digital Plotting: WATSTORE also makes use
of software systems that prepare data for dig-
its! plotting on peripheral, offime Calcomp
plotters available at the central computer
site. Plots that can be obtained include hy-
drographs, frequency-distribution curves,
X—Y point plots, contour plots, and three-
dimensional plots.
5. Data in Machine-Readable Form: Data stored
in WATSTORE also can be obtained in
machine-readable form for use on other
computers or for use as input to user-written
computer programs. These data are avail-
able in the standard storage formats of the
WATSTORE system or in the form of punch
cards or punch-card images on magnetic
tape.
-------
FEATURE
A Survey of the
Water Well Industry
A recent Water Well Journal survey of water
well contractors and pump installers from
around the United States describes a typical con-
tractor as a sole proprietor, most likely living in the
midcontinent area, engaged in both drilling and
pump work who has been in business for almost
20 years.
Marketing Advancements, a national market
research and consulting firm specializing In the
water well and shallow oil and gas well industries,
was commissioned by the Water Well Journal to con-
duct the survey during August and September of
1984.
The Journal’s objectives were:
• To develop a profile of contractor demographic
characteristics
• To determine the scope of the industry
• To determine how contractors purchase pumps
and construction equipment
From a sampling universe of 10,866 contractor
readers of Water Well Journal. Marketing Advance-
ments selected randomly. on an “nth ’ name basis.
1.440 names to receive a direct mail questionnaire.
An excellent 40.7 percent return rate was achieved for
a study sample of 587 respondents.
Firms of those surveyed typically installed about
50 submersible pumps in 1983. of which 45 were in
private home wells. More than half of these installa-
tions were for new wells. Contractors expect the
submersible or jet pump to have a lifetime of about
10 years. The most common types of installations
cited were ½ horsepower submersible pumps and
2¼-to 6-inch well diameters.
The typical contractor primarily installed PVC cas-
ing and homemade punched or slotted screen. Total
costs charged by contractors for private home/domes-
tic wells in 1983 were about S2,600.
The typical contractor owned one of each drilling
rig type. one pump hoist, one pipe/water truck and
two pickup trucks. A high percentage of these units
were more than six years old in 1983. leading a high
percentage of contractors to intend to purchase or
lease additional equipment before 1986.
Less than one-third of all water well contractors
were involved in any new ground water heat pump
installations. Those that were most typical con-
structed the heat pump well.
Comments included by respondents reflect a con-
tractor body interested and appreciative of the sur-
vey—and to Water Welt Journal—for their potential
benefits to the industry. Other frequent comments
included mention of declining business due to the
economy, government regulations or advancing per-
sonal age or retirement Hopes for improvement in
the coming years were also expressed.
As one would expect, the survey sample was located
predominantly in the mtdcontinent region, with
respondents here comprising more than two-fifths of
the total.
State Where Firm Is Locate&
43.1% Midcontinent (Ill., md., Mich., Ohio, Wis..
Iowa. Kan., Minn., Mo., Neb., N.D., S.D.)
22.6 South (Del., Fla.. Ga, Md., N.C.. S.C., Va.,
W.Va, Ala, Ky.. Miss., Tenn., Ark., La.. Okia,
Texas)
18.1 West (Ariz.. Cob., Mont., Idaho, Nev., N.M.,
Utah, Wyo., Alaska, Calif., Hawaii. Ore..
Wash.)
16.2 Northeast (Conn., Maine. Mass.. N.H.. RI.,
Vt.. NJ.. N.Y., Pa.)
-------
IX— 28
Sole proprietorships continued to dominate
the water well industry, although more than one-
third of the respondents classified themselves as
corporations.
Business Is A
53.8% Sole proprietorship
36.8 Corporation
9.4 Partnership
The vast majority of contractors were engaged in
both drilling and pump work.
Business’ Work Is:
61.1% Both drilling and pump work
192 Only pump work
113 Only drilling
8.4 Other
Contractors were somewhat more likely not to be
members of state water well associations than mem-
bers. Membership in the National Water Well Associ-
ation was at a lower rate.
State Association?
47.2% Yes
52.8 No
NWWA Member?
28.3% Yes
71.7 No
Firm Began Business In:
1950 or earlier
1951-1960
1961-1970
1971-1980
1981-1984
Mean (average)
Median (middle)
Mode (most frequent)
25.3%
15.4%
20.1%
28.8%
10.4%
1960
1965
1978, 1981
The ages of contractors businesses ranged from
less than one to 184 years. with the average (mean)
age at 24 years (year of establishment being 1960).
However, the median year (same number of busi-
nesses older as younger) was 1965. with 1978 and
1981 being the most frequent years.
Submersible pumps dominated water well instal-
lation activity, with the average contractor Installing
51 in 1983.
Number Installed in 1983
Mean Median
51 26
15 5
5 0
6 0
Submersible pumps
Jet pumps
Line-shaft turbine pumps
Other pump types
9.9%
9.2
5.7
0
15.6
14.9
Purchase or Lease Plans
(Before December 31, 1985),
By Equipment Type
diiverigs
Pipe/wti truck
32.7
Pickup trucks
-------
IX—29
Most water well pump Installation activity took
place in the private home sector.
Number Installed in Private Homes (1983)
Mean Median
45 24 Submersible pumps
13 5 Jet pumps
3 0 Other pump types
Pump installations for irrigation purposes were
much less frequent.
Number Installed in Irrigation Wells (1983)
Mean Median
3 0 Submersible pumps
2 0 Line-shaft turbine pumps
1 0 Other pump types
The majority of private home submersible pump
installations were for new wells, while jets and other
pumps were much less dominant.
Percentage of Pumps Installed in Private Homes
for New Wells
53% of submersible pumps
2 ofjet pumps
8 of other pumps
The average pump in private home use is per—
ceived to require replacement after about 10 to 13
years of operation.
Years Before Replacement
Mean Years
10.4 Submersible pumps
12.9 Jet pumps
12.0 Other pump types
The majority of submersible pumps installed were
in the ½ to 1 horsepower range.
Number of Pumps Installed in Each
Horsepower Range (1983)
Mean
Submersibles Jets
6.2 2.1
28.8 10.3
14.1 3.1
10.3 5.4
5.2 .7
2.4 <1.0
2.1 <1.0
2.8 .0
<1.0 .0
1.0 .0
3.5 .0
Less than or 1/3 horsepower
1/2 horsepower
3/4 horsepower
1 horsepower
1½ horsepower
2 horsepower
3 horsepower
5 horsepower
7½ horsepower
10 horsepower
Higher than 10 horsepowers
By far the greatest activity of water well construc-
tion was in the private home area.
Number of Water Wells Constructed in Each
Type (1983)
Mean
50.6
4.9
4.6
3.8
2.4
1.8
9,4
Private home/domestic
Monitoring
Commercial/industrial
Irrigation
Heat pump supply/return
Public water supply system
Other types
Total Costs Charged Typical Customer (1983)
a1 pump supply/return
Private home/domestic
$ 2,824
$ 2,613
$ 6,178
$ 7,350
$12,733
a
Monitoring wells
Iriigation
Commercial/industrial
$34,462
Public water supply systems
-------
IX—30
Water wells were most commonly installed with
diameters listed in the 2¼- to 6-Inch category.
Number of Water Wells with Each Diameter (1983)
Mean
4.5 1- to 2-inch well points
5.8 2-inch or less (not well points)
466 2¼ to 6 inches
15.9 6½tol2inches
5.2 Larger than 12 inches
PVC and steel casing dominated the amount of
casing footage installed by water well contractors in
1983.
Total Feet of Casing Type Installed (1983)
Mean Feet
3.780 PVC
3.966 Steel
1.411 Galvanized steel
474 Others
Screens used in well construction were dominated
by homemade punched or slotted types. although the
commercial varieties found widespread use as well.
Total Feet of Screen Type Installed (1983)
Mean Feet
3.65.0 Homemade punched or slotted
210.0 Commercial punched or slotted
136.0 Continuous slot (wire-wound)
134.5 Commercial plastic
131.7 Others
Water well contractors tended to own/lease only
one drilling rig of each type they used. Ownershlp/
leasing of multiple trucks was more prevalent.
Number of Equipment/Trucks Owned/Leased (1983)
Mean
.5
.9
1.0
1.0
1.4
2.6
Top dn drilling rigs
Rotary table drilling rigs
Cable tool drilling rigs
Pump hoists mounted on trucks
Pipe/water trucks
Pickup trucks
Equipment owned/leased ranged widely in age.
with many older than six years. As would be expected.
there is a very strong intent for additional equipment
purchase/lease within the next year.
Number of Equipment Units in Each Age
Category/Purchase or Leasing Plans (Before
December31. 1985)
% of units owned
under 13 4-6 more than
1 year years years 6 years
% plan to
buy/Ise.
by 1986
Top drive rigs
7.0
16.2
26.8
50.0%
9.9%
table rigs
2.4
11.5
13.0
73.1%
9.2
Cable tool rigs
.7
1.6
4.2
93.5%
5.7
Pump hoist!(rk
5.0
13.6
29.4
52.0%
15.6
Plpewtr truck
2.7
10.1
22.0
65.2%
14.9
Pickup trucks
9.3
34.4
25.2
31.1%
32.7
Number of Water Wells Constructed in Each Type (1983)
Private home/domestic 50.6 I
Monitoring 4.9
Commercial/industrial 4.6
I
Heat pump supply/return 2.4
Public water supply system 1.8
Irrigation 3.8
Other types 9.4
-------
IX—31
There was a very low degree of involvement in
1983 with new ground water heat pump installations
or new earth-coupled loop-type heat pump systems.
Water Well Contractor Involvement in Ground Water
Heat Pumps
Installations (1983)
Percent not involved with any new
ground water heat pump Installations 69.8%
Percent involved in complete
installation
Number Installed (mean)
Percent doing partial (shared with
contractors in other trades)
Well contractor share of work (mean)
Number installed (mean)
Percent only constructing well/pump
(other contractors Installing pump)
Number Installed (mean)
6.6%
19.4
7.8%
48.0%
9.8
14.0%
10.6
Percent involved in new earth-coupled
loop-type heat pump systems 2.7%
Number Installed (mean) 73
Water well Installation costs averaged around
52.600 for private applications, and more than double
that amount for the commercial sector.
Total Costs Charged Typical Customer (1983)
Mean
S 2.824
S 2,613
S 6.178
$ 7,350
$ 12.733
534.462
Heat pump supply/return
Private home/domestic
Monitoring wells
Irrigation
Commercial/industrial
Public water supply systems
Why We Ask You —
And a Thank You
M any of the 587 questIonnaires returned to
Marketing Advancements carried comments
from the participants. Many were helpful notes of
explanation and suggestions as how to better
approach a subject. But we also received several
remarks such as, “You are getting as bad as the
government with all of these forms.” We suspect that
because 853 of the 1.440 maIled questionnaires never
came back that many other members of the Industry
were also tired of answering questions.
So why does the Water Well Journal persist
In asking questions of members of the U.S. water
well industry?
For several reasons.
For 39 years the Water Well Journal has been the
recognized voice of the ground water Industry. Obvl-
ously. we wish to maintain that position and perhaps
even to build upon It. The best way for us to achieve
that goal is to learn more about our Industry and our
readers—you. While we would enjoy meeting and
talking with each of you personally—which we make
a significant effort to do at the trade shows we attend
and by the numbers we interview for each Issue of the
Water Well Journal—clearly, It would be an Impossi-
ble task. Our best alternative, which we recognize and
regret as being highly impersonal, is the mail survey.
Through the mail survey we can ask you to help
us, to explain to us things we have wondered about,
or have been asked questions about by the manufac-
turers of our industry—the people who are Interested
in providing more and better products to you so that
you can better serve your customers and make a
greater profit.
Total Feet of Casing Type Installed (1983)
Mean
3,788
3,966
1,411
Galvanized steel
474
Others
-------
IX—32
We think you also benefit from the knowledge we
gain and use to report stories that your answers have
told us that you want to read. The WWJ editorial staff
has already met and reviewed the results of this most
recent survey and has started to plan where we can
better serve you.
Of course. WWJ also benefits from your answers
because we can show our advertisers more infor-
mation about our lndustiy. They In turn utilize this
Information to showcase In the Water Well Journal
the products and services that they can offer you.
We suspect that the information we publish is also
used by trade associations. scientists, government
agencies and by our competitors. \Ve ’re happy to share
It with anyone.
We think you also find our survey reports interest-
ing. Time and again we are told by drillers and pump
Installers how much they enjoy reading about their
Industry peers from around the nation and even the
world. We see our surveys asjust another look at you.
your competitors and your livelihood.
The Water Well Journal thanks all of the busy
companies that answered our detailed questionnaire.
Your help is immensely valuable. For those who
couldn’t help us on this most recent occasion, per-
haps you 11 be able to assist us if we should call upon
you again. We hope so..
Well Types — Typical Costs (Mean) i o— 1983---
$ 2.146 —
Residence
$ 2.613
1,518 —
6,178
Monitoring
Commercial/md.
34,462
— Public water supply
2.124 —
2.824 Heat pump (supply)
Well Types Constructed (Mean)
1980— 1983———
76.8
60.6
Residence
49 Monitoring
11.2 4.6 — Commercial/md.
3.8 —— Imgation
1.8 . Public water supply
10.4
14.603 —
12,733
11.904
21.878
_____ Irrigation
7,350 ——
21.0
26.0
6.3
2.4 —.
Heat pump (supply)
-------
X. OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: FINDINGS
ON GROUND-WATER CONTAMINAT ION
-------
Protecting the Nation’s
Groundwater From
Contamination
OTA Reports are the principal documentation of formal assessment projects. These
projects are approved in advance by the Technology Assessment Board. At the conclu-
sion of a project. the Board has the opportunity to review the report, but its release
does not necessarily imply endorsement of the results by the Board or its individual
members.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
Omce of Technofogy Assessment
C C 2O5 O
-------
X- 3
Chapter 1
Protecting the Nation’s Groundwater
From Contamination: Findings
CHAPTER OVERVIEW
Contamination of groundwater—by organic and
inorganic chemicals, radionuclides, and/or micro-
organisms—has occurred in every State and is
being detected with increasing frequency. For a
long time, the land surface and subsurface were
considered safe and convenient depositories for
many of society’s wastes and non-waste products.
Only recently has the limited capacity of natural
soil processes to change contaminants into harmless
substances, before they reach groundwater, become
widely recognized.
Detailed quantitative estimates of the nationwide
extent and effects of groundwater contamination
are not now, and probably never will be, available.
The time, costs, and technical requirements to de-
velop nationwide estimates would be prohibitive.
In addition, information necessary for predicting
future contamination problems—about future uses
of groundwater. potential sources, and types of
contaminants—cannot be known with certainty.
Contaminants found in groundwater—particu-
larly organic chemicals—are associated with adverse
health, social, environmental, and economic im-
pacts. Although only a small portion of the Nation’s
total groundwater resource is thought to be contami-
nated, the potential effects of this contamination are
significant and warrant national attention.
Public health concerns arise because some con-
taminants are individually linked to cancers, liver
and kidney damage, and damage to the central
nervous system. They also arise because informa-
tion is not available about the health impacts of
many other individual contaminants, or of mixtures
of contaminants as typically found in groundwater.
Uncertainties about human health impacts are
likely to persist because impacts are difficult to
study; for example, impacts may not be observable
until long after exposure.
Social impacts are often related to anxiety and
fear about exposure to contaminants. Exposure can
occur unknowingly because even if groundwater
is contaminated, it may be odorless, colorless, and
tasteless. Exposure can also occur over many years
and in many ways—by drinking, eating, bathing,
and breathing.
Environmental impacts include the quality deg-
radation of not only soil, but also air and surface
water because of interrelationships among environ-
mental media (e.g., groundwater can provide base-
flow to streams). Vegetation, fish, and wildlife can
be affected adversely.
The economic costs of detecting, correcting, and
preventing groundwater contamination at even a
single site are high; for example, corrective action
can be tens of millions of dollars or more. Economic
losses that occur from impaired groundwater quality
include decreases in agricultural and industrial pro-
ductivity, lowered property values, the costs for re-
pair or replacement of damaged equipment and
materials, and the costs of developing alternative
water supplies.
Adverse impacts from groundwater contamina-
tion are likely to increase. Contaminated ground-
water is often located near industrialized, heavily
populated areas, which increases the likelihood of
human exposure. Groundwater is also increasingly
relied on as a source of water for many uses;
withdrawals for all uses increased from about 35
billion gallons per day in 1950 to almost 90 billion
gallons per day in 1980. Groundwater is now a
source of drinking water for approximately one-half
the Nation’s population. It also fills about 40 per-
cent of the Nation’s irrigation requirements, about
80 percent of rural requirements both in the home
and for livestock, and about 25 percent of self-
supplied industrial purposes (other than hydroelec-
tric power).
-------
X-4
Current information about the Nation’s ground-
water contamination problems may not describe the
actual situation as much as it reflects the way in
which investigations are conducted—which con-
taminants have been looked for, where they have
been looked for, and where they have been found.
Because substances found as contaminants in ground-
water are used throughout society, more widespread
detection of contamination can be expected as ef-
forts increase to monitor known problems, locate
as yet undetected problems, and monitor potential
problems. Known sources of contamination include
not only the commonly recognized point sources
associated with hazardous wastes (as defined by
Federal statutes) but also non-point sources and
sources associated with non-hazardous wastes and
non-waste products.
Examples that reflect the diversity of known
sources of contamination include: injection wells
and septic tanks, which are designed to discharge
potential contaminants into the ground; storage
tanks and landfills, which are designed to store,
treat, and/or dispose of potential contaminants:
pipelines and transfer operations, which transport
potential contaminants: agricultural practices.
which include pesticide and fertilizer applications;
production wells, which provide a conduit for po-
tential contaminants to enter groundwater: and salt-
water intrusion, which can be induced or worsened
by human activities.
Groundwater contamination problems will con-
tinue, and probably increase, as long as there are
sources, contaminants, and users not being ad-
dressed. Despite the paucity of quantitative details,
sufficient information is available about the nature
of groundwater contamination to justify national
action to protect groundwater quality—described in
this study as involving choices among activities to
detect, correct, and prevent contamination—in or-
der to minimize associated adverse impacts. Policy
options generally relate to the development and im-
plementation of Federal and State protection pro-
grams and include a broadening of programs to those
sources, contaminants, and users not now covered
and the provision of adequate and sustained Federal
support to the States. Unfortunatel , the costs and
technical uncertainties associated with detection and
correction activities effectively preclude the investi-
gation and correction of all known and/or suspected
contamination problems. Therefore, prevention is
central to any long-term approach to groundwater
quality protection. In general, selection among
detection, correction, and prevention activities—
given limited funds and technical capabilities—will
depend on policy decisions regarding which and to
what extent groundwater resources will be protected.
FEDERAL AND STATE APPROACH TO
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Numerous Federal and State programs for pro-
tecting groundwater quality—for detecting, cor-
recting, and preventing contamination—have been
established and expanded in recent years. These
efforts have made a significant contribution to the
protection of groundwater. For example, sources
of contamination have been identified, inventories
of selected sources have been conducted, numer-
ous incidents have been documented, and scien-
tific advances have been made in understanding
groundwater flow.
At the Federal level, at least 16 statutes authorize
programs relevant to groundwater protection, and
more than two dozen agencies and offices are in-
volved in groundwater-related activities. All 50
States are concerned about contamination and have
programs, at varying stages of development, to pro-
tect groundwater. As many as seven agencies with
groundwater responsibilities have been identified
in a single State.
Despite growing Federal and State efforts, pro-
grams are still limited in their ability to protect
against contamination. For example, there is no ex-
plicit national legislative mandate to protect ground-
water quality; and although the groundwater pro-
tection strategy of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency acknowledges the need for comprehensive
resource management, the details of the strategy
-------
X- 5
do not fully provide for it. Most authorized pro-
grams are in their early stages, and some are at least
10 years from being fully in place. Groundwater
quality-related programs among, and within, in-
stitUtiOnS are often not coordinated, nor are they
coordinated with programs for groundwater quan-
tity or surface water even though groundwater and
surface water quality and quantity are intercon-
nected.
From a groundwater protection viewpoint, ex-
isting Federal and State programs also generally
have a narrow focus with respect to sources, con-
taminants, and users. Essentially the programs are
concerned with managing selected sources of con-
tamination, selected contaminants, and the users
of public drinking water supplies.
Narrow Focus on Sources.—Federal and State
programs generally focus on managing only selected
point sources of contamination, particularly point
sources associated with hazardous wastes. The pro-
grams vary in their approaches to protection of
groundwater quality and generally do not take into
account the potential of the sources to contribute to
groundwater contamination. Further, the non-haz-
ardous waste, non-waste, and non-point sources that
are known to contaminate groundwater are usually
not covered.
Narrow Focus on Contaminants. —This study
has documented the detection of over 200 sub-
stances—both natural and synthetic—in ground-
water. Yet the Federal Government has established
only 22 mandatory water quality standards, 18 of
which are for specific chemicals. These Federal
standards, developed under the National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, are inadequate, as substantiated
by State responses to the OTA State survey. As a re-
sult, many States have set their own standards for
drinking water and groundwater quality; both the
types of contaminants addressed and the stringency
of standards vary from State to State.
Narrow Focus on Users. —Federal and State pro-
grams are directed primarily at the protection of
public drinking water supplies. Yet as much as 20
percent of the Nation’s population may rely on pri-
vate wells for drinking water. The extent to which
people relying on private wells are being exposed to
groundwater contaminants is unknown, and data are
generally not being collected to find out. Data are
also unavailable about the impacts of groundwater
contamination on non-drinking water uses.
As a result of the narrow focus of Federal and
State programs with respect to groundwater pro-
tection in terms of sources, contaminants, and
Sources of potential groundwater contamination are diverse and include the most commonly addressed point sources
associated with hazardous wastes as well as sources associated with non-hazardous wastes (e.g., open dumps, which
are usually point in nature and may also contain hazardous wastes) and non-wastes (e.g., product pipelines,
which are non-point).
ii
____ I •— _
Ptoto credits Stat. of Florida Department of Environmental Rgulation (left) and Office of Technology Assessment (right)
-------
X- 6
users, related activities to protect against contam-
ination are also narrow in focus. Examples are de-
scribed below.
Detection Programs
The focus of both inventorying and monitoring
efforts is on selected point sources of contamina-
tion, primarily on sources of hazardous wastes. Fed-
eral inventories of specific sources are limited to
surface water impoundments under the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act and to hazardous waste sites and
open dumps under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. State inventories are directed pri-
marily at sources designed to store, treat. and/or
dispose of wastes (e.g., landfills) and at sources de-
signed to discharge potential contaminants into the
subsurface (e.g.. injection wells). In general, only
recently has groundwater monitoring begun to in-
dude organic chemicals and trace metals. Routine
monitoring is required only for public drinking
water supplies, as opposed to private drinking
water supplies and supplies for non-drinking water
urposes.
Corrective Action Programs
Few corrective actions have been undertaken to
date relative to the number of sites identified as re-
quiring such action. For example, although feder-
ally funded corrective actions authorized by the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known
as “Superfund”) could potentially address a broad
range of sources and contaminants, actions thus far
have been restricted to primarily hazardous waste
sites; in addition, such corrective actions have gen-
erally not involved the cleanup of contaminated
groundwater. Overall, the provisions of Federal pro-
grams for corrective action vary. Two programs
establish standards for cleanup (the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act and the Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act): other programs
(e.g., CERCLA) establish cleanup standards on a
case-by-case basis.
State corrective action programs are similarly at
an early stage of development. The greatest number
of State programs relate to spills and accidents and
to leaks from storage: other activities tend to be asso-
ciated with point sources that are designed either to
retain (e.g., in landfills) or to discharge (e.g., via
injection wells) potential contaminants into the sub-
surface. Many State corrective actions result from
complaints rather than systematic efforts to identify
contaminated sites.
Prevention Programs
A limited number of potential sources are ad-
dressed in Federal and State programs to prevent
groundwater contamination. The programs focus
primarily on sources associated with hazardous
wastes and other toxic materials. Implementation
and enforcement of most program requirements are
still in their early stages. Differences among pro-
grams have little relationship to the potential for
different sources to cause contamination. Current
approaches to preventing contamination include
provisions for the design, operation, siting, re-
stricted use, and closing of sources. The approaches
may be either mandatory or voluntary. Additional
approaches to the prevention of groundwater con-
tamination from specific sources include use of
alternatives to the contaminating activity (e.g., to
land disposal), process or product changes for re-
duction of waste hazard levels and volumes, and
waste recycling and recovery.
A focus on sources is one approach to prevent
contamination: other types of approaches have not
been widely applied to groundwater For example,
few efforts have been made to control activities lo-
cated in recharge areas (i.e., portions of a drain-
age basin that replenish an aquifer). Approaches
that are not source-specific are most suitable when
there is no single identifiable source or when high
volumes of groundwater or large areas are involved
(e.g., non- point sources or a clustering of point
sources). The Federal Government does provide
some support for the protection of selected recharge
areas through the Sole Source Aquifer Program
under the Safe Drinking Water Act; selected recharge
areas are also being protected by some States and
local governments through land use controls and
land acquisition.
Another approach to prevent groundwater con-
tamination is through restrictions on the manufac-
ture or generation. distribution, and use of the
contaminating substances themselves. This ap-
proach recognizes the fact that any one substance
-------
can be released into groundwater from many dif-
ferent sources. To illustrate, pesticides may be
introduced from non-point sources such as land ap-
plication, non-waste sources such as storage tanks,
hazardous waste sources such as landfills, and non-
hazardous waste sources such as residential dis-
X- 7
posal. Although both the Toxic Substances Con-
trol Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act authorize regulation of potential
groundwater contaminants, application of associ-
ated programs to groundwater has been limited.
TECHNICAL AND NON-TECHNICAL CONSTRAINTS
The effectiveness of Federal and State programs
to protect groundwater from contamination has
been limited not only by their narrow focus but also
by technical and non-technical factors.
Underlying all groundwater protection activities
is the hydrogeologic investigation which is used.
for example, to detect existing problems, monitor
the performance of corrective actions, and moni-
tor the effectiveness of preventive activities. In gen-
eral, the technologies for obtaining hydrogeologic
information are available. Nevertheless, there will
always be some degree of uncertainty about con-
tamination because of inherent difficulties in deal-
ing with a phenomenon that is inaccessible to di-
rect observation. Many advances have been made
to improve the reliability of results (i.e., to reduce
uncertainty), but they often increase the costs and
time required to conduct the investigation.
There are major constraints on hydrogeologic in-
vestigations in some situations. For example, the
technology for conducting reliable investigations in
certain geologic environments such as fractured
rock, which occurs throughout the United States,
is lacking. Investigations can also be very costly and
time-consuming depending on site conditions and
the level of detail required by the investigation ob-
jectives (e.g., investigations just to define a con-
tamination problem could cost anywhere from
$25,000 to $500,000 and take many months to com-
plete). In addition, the reliability of a hydrogeologic
investigation depends on highly skilled personnel
because investigations must be tailored to the site-
specific nature of any groundwater contamination
problem. Adequately trained personnel are gener-
ally in short supply.
Many of the constraints associated with hydro-
geokgic investigations—costs, time, inadequate
, ,L
Ptoto credit: US. Er ,v,ror,ment Protection Agency
In general, techniques for conducting hydrogeologic
investigations are available for most environments.
Here a drilling rig provides access to undisturbed.
uncontaminated samples of a deep aquifer a hollow’
stem auger holds the drilling hole open while a
sampling tube is lowered inside and pushed
into undisturbed aquifer material.
supply of trained personnel, and technical uncer-
tainties—also apply to detection, correction, and
prevention activities. The importance of the con-
straints to these activities varies, however, and ad-
ditional constraints also become relevant.
-------
X- 8
Detection activities are primarily constrained by
the high costs of monitoring. For example, the an-
nual collection and analysis of groundwater quality
samples from the 12-14 million private wells in the
United States could cost Si billion or more depend-
ing on the techniques used: and such a sampling
program would still provide only a snapshot of data,
at discrete places and or one point in time, that
conveys little information about the sources of any
existing contamination or the potential for further
or future contamination. One institutional con-
straint on some States is their lack of authority to
obtain data about particular sources of contam-
ination.
Techniques for analyzing groundwater quality
samples are biased in terms f which of the con-
taminants present they detect, and some contami-
nants cannot be readily measured at low but po-
tentially harmful levels using routinely available
methods. Water quality data can also be difficult
to analyze and interpret, especially if trace levels
or mixtures of contaminants are present or if con-
taminants have changed chemically and biologically
into substances different than those expected.
Major constraints on alternatives for corrective
tion indude: uncertainty about the effectiveness
01 various techniques to improve groundwater
quality; :he dependence of technology performance
on the amounts of both money and time available;
the high costs of taking corrective action of any sort:
the need for suitably trained professionals to de-
sign and implement measures appropriate for site-
specific conditions: and the lack of experience, espe-
cially with the large areas or large volumes of con-
:aminated groundwater that are typical of non-point
sources. The nature of the contaminants is another
constraint: for example, treatment techniques can
be cost lv depending on the contaminants present,
and their performance is uncertain when there is
a complex mixture contaminants and/or concen-
trations change r.ipidly. Based on experience-to-
date, correction alternatives—containment, with-
drawal, treatment, in-situ rehabilitation, and man-
agement options—appear to be selected according
to how rapidly they can he implemented. how
rapidly the become effective, the extent to which
the uncertainties inherent in their performance can
Protective clothing is worn to prevent exposure to
contaminants while undertaking corrective measures.
be reduced, and whether there is clear authority
to implement the selected strategy.
Institutional constraints on corrective actions
relate to ease of access to the site, availability of
alternatives for disposal of any contaminants with-
drawn or excavated, and ability to implement some
correction activities (e.g.. withdrawal via pump-
ing) given established water rights. Corrective ac-
uon can also have environmental side-effects. For
example, the management option of closing wells
results in the continued presence of and potential
for further migration of contaminants, and excava-
tion may transfer contaminants to another site or
other environmental media (e.g., surface water and
air).
Major constraints on prevention efforts include
the lack of funds to implement existing programs,
uncertainty about the technical adequacy of avail-
able methods and ongoing efforts, and incomplete
understanding about the relationship between land
use and groundwater quality. Some techniques used
to prevent contamination are the same as those used
for correction (e.g., containment measures such as
liners), so that the same uncertainties about per-
formance are pertinent.
,.
‘-
P?,oto cvtht: U.S. Erw,ronment ProtcUon Agency
-------
X—9
NATIONAL POLICY IMPLICATIONS
National policy options generally relate to the de-
velopment and implementation of Federal and State
groundwater quality protection programs.
The existing Federal statutory framework ap-
pears to have the porenriai to protect the Nation’s
groundwater from further contamination. How-
ever, the realization of this potential will depend on
broadening the coverage of authorized programs to
those sources, contaminants, and users not presently
included and on effectively implementing programs.
Many approaches for broadening and implement-
ing programs are possible. such as mandatory re-
quirements, voluntary procedures, and/or incen-
tives and disincentives. Effective implementation
will also require the coordination of activities among
and within agencies (e.g.. health departments. State
geological surveys, and departments of environ-
mental protection) for both groundwater and sur-
face water quality and quantity. Ultimately, ground-
water quality protection will also depend on political
judgments about both the appropriate role of the
Federal Government and the importance of all
States making comparable progress in their abilities
to detect, correct. andlor prevent groundwater con-
tamination.
Fundamental to the development of any national
policy related to the protection of groundwater from
contamination is recognition of the site-specific
nature of the problems. Efforts to detect, correct.
and prevent contamination must be tailored to the
full range of conditions found at an site, includ-
ing sources, contaminants, and users. National pol-
icy must be flexible in its ability to respond to and
accommodate different groundwater quality prob-
lems characterized by varying site conditions. For
example. the choice of appropriate monitoring
parameters. locations, and frequencies cannot be
rigidly specified apart from site conditions; how-
ever, the factors that need to be considered in mak-
ing this choice could be specified. A major function
of the Federal Government would be to provide ade-
quate and sustained support to the States for detect-
ing. correcting, and preventing groundwater con-
tamination. The principal areas for Federal support
to the States that would be the most helpful in achiev-
ing groundwater quality protection are funding,
technical assistance, and research and development.
The need for flexibility in national policy is
underscored by the vast differences among State
approaches to protecting groundwater. States vary
in their perception about their contamination prob-
lems, priorities among sources and users, capabil-
ities, stages of program development and imple-
mentation, and institutional arrangements. Land
use considerations, essential for preventing con-
tamination from non-point sources or from clusters
of point sources, have traditionally been addressed
at the State and local levels.
Current Federal laws and programs have gen-
erally helped the States with their groundwater con-
tamination problems. However, based on responses
to the OTA State survey, the level of Federal sup-
port to the States is not adequate: nor is it directed
at all of the States’ problems. In some cases, cur-
rent Federal laws and programs have created prob-
lems: surface water quality problems have been
reduced at the expense of groundwater quality be-
cause Federal programs fail to recognize the inter-
relationships among environmental media; Federal
programs fail to accommodate variations in State
conditions; and the lack of an explicit national
legislative goal to protect groundwater quality has
led to uncoordinated Federal programs and has
handicapped the States in obtaining authority to
address certain problems.
Funding
Currently no Federal program has earmarked
funds specifically for the protection of groundwater
quality. In addition, funding for programs that have
supported groundwater-related activities has been
reduced or eliminated (e.g., funding under Section
208 of the Clean Water Act, for State solid waste
programs under Subtitle D of the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act, and for the Rural
Abandoned Mine Program under the Surface Min-
ing Control and Reclamation Act). As a result.
-------
X— 10
Many States lack adequate author t to deal with agriculturally related sources of groundwater contamination including
pest,cide and fertilizer applications and agricultural wastes.
groundwater and other water quality programs are
competing for limited State grants (e.g.. under Sec-
tions 106 and 205d) of the Clean Water Act). Be-
cause of the high costs associated with groundwater
protection. Federal funding assistance is desired by
the States for both the development and implemen-
tation of State initiatives.
Technical Assistance
Technical assistance to the States can include
training programs, the development of criteria
and/or guidelines. and information exchange.
Qualified personnel are essential for protection
activities because activities need to he tailored to
site conditions. The supply of qualified technical
personnel appears to be limited and to be an impor-
tant constraint on the Nation’s ability to protect
groundwater quality. Federal support for training
and education is required for a rapid increase in
the Nation s technical capabilities. The States have
been assisted by the Cooperative Proc ram t the
U S Geological Survey, and they would like to see
it and other technical assistance programs con-
tinued. Establishment of professional certification
programs or other criteria (e.g., by the Federal
Government, the States, or professional societies)
for ensuring that personnel possess minimum tech-
nical qualifications would also help to develop—and
to provide a check in the hiring of—qualified tech-
nical manpower.
Although contamination problems require site-
specific judgments, they nevertheless have common
features that are amenable to the development of Fed-
eral criteria and/or guidelines. From a national per-
spective, the goal of these criteria and/or guidelines
would be to ensure that at least a minimum set of
considerations is being taken into account for pro-
tection of groundwater quality. Further, they would
also be an efficient means of providing information
required by all States in handling their groundwater
contamination problems; for example. general
guidelines could be developed for assisting the
States in setting priorities for allocating scarce
resources among alternative protection activities.
In addition to criteria and guidelines, the Federal
Government could provide direct assistance to
States in specified situations.
/
H
Pt,oto criast Chails 0Mw. U.S Envsronmni Protect,on Agency
-------
Technical assistance coutd include:
• Vith respect to detection:
— Criteria and/or guidelines to assist the
States in conducting reliable hydrogeologic
investigations under different site condi-
tions and in addressing, for example,
monitoring of the flow system, sampling
and analysis, and data interpretation.
— Criteria and/or guidelines for addressing
contaminants for which there are no Fed-
eral standards, including for mixtures.
Standards development for these contami-
nants is also needed (see Research and De-
velopment, below).
— Criteria and/or guidelines to assist the
States in setting priorities among sources
and in determining which sources they will
monitor and inventory.
• With respect to correction:
— Criteria and/or guidelines to assist the
States in selecting and implementing cor-
rective action under various conditions.
— Criteria and/or guidelines for setting
cleanup standards on a site-specific basis.
incorporating such factors as the limita-
tions and likely performance of technol-
ogy and current and/or potential users.
• With respect to prevention:
— Criteria and or guidelines for preventing
contamination from all potential contami-
nating sources; for a given source, per-
formance criteria and/or guidelines for ad-
dressing its siting, design and operation
during its active life, and closure. Alter-
natives for reducing the wastes generated
by a source, and for waste recycling, also
need to be considered as part of prevent-
ing contamination from sources.
— Criteria and/or guidelines fo’ considering
prevention alternatives apart from those
related to specific sources, e.g., for the pro-
tection of aquifer recharge areas and for
establishing an institutional memory for
the locations of sources. contaminants, and
land uses.
Because of the complexities of groundwater con-
tamination problems and because efforts to protect
groundwater are generally in their early stages,
there are severai important opportunities for the
x— ii
Training of staff is required for dealing safely and
effectively with site-specific groundwater
contamination problems.
Federal Government to facilitate information ex-
change among the States. Information exchange
would not necessarily include the details of site-
specific case studies; rather, programmatic infor-
mation about State approaches to protection would
assist the States in learning from the successes, and
failures, of each other.
Research and Development
Some research and development activities can
provide timely information that would support all
of the States in their groundwater protection efforts.
Key activities include:
• With respect to detection:
— Research on toxicology and the adverse
health effects of contaminants that are be-
ing fcund in groundwater, with particu-
lar emphasis on the synergistic effects of
mixtures of contaminants.
— Development of water quality standards
for substances known to occur in ground-
‘:i fiU
‘I ’ -.
P -
4
. :‘ -:
- . -. ,. —.
V.’ • -
Photo creøit: John Gilbert. EPA Ertvironmentaj Response Team
-------
X— 12
water that are not now covered; these stand-
aids could be applied in State drinking
water and groundwater quality programs.
— Research on assessment of the environ-
mental and economic impacts of contam-
ination.
— Research on less costly techniques for
hvdrogeologic investigations in general
and development of reliable techniques for
conditions that cannot now be addressed
adequately (e.g., fractured rock).
• \Vith respect to correction:
— Research on the behavior of individual
contaminants in groundwater and, in par-
ticular, on the potential for the chemical
and biological transformation of organic
chemicals.
— Research on chemical and biological reac-
tions in fluids that would be necessary, for
example, for the development of tech-
niques for treating water with multiple
contaminants.
• \Vith respect to prevention:
— Opportunities and mechanisms for pre-
venting contamination, including ways of
reducing the generation (e.g., by process
or product changes) and disposal (e.g..
through resource recovery and recycling)
of potential contaminants.
Ultimately, the protection of groundwater from
contamination will also depend on raising the con-
sciousness of the public as has been done for litter-
Some communities have implemented household
hazardous waste collection programs as part of their
efforts to protect groundwater quality.
ing and air and surface water pollution. All seg-
ments L)t society need to understand how their
activities affect groundwater quality and, in turn.
how the ’ may be affected. Public confidence will
grow only as the Nation makes timely efforts to
detect, correct, and prevent groundwater contami-
nation from all sources and contaminants, to pro-
tect all of the public’s interests.
Illustration crdst’ Sacramento County. CA
-------
X I. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Petroleum Institute (API), “Guide to Ground Water Stand-
ards of the United States,” 1983.
Burmaster, D. E., and R. H. Harris, “Groundwater Contamination:
An Emerging Threat,” Technology Review , v. 85, no. 5,
pp. 50—62, 1982.
Chase, E., J. Moore, and D. Rickert, “Water Resources Division in
the 1980’s——A Summary of Activities and Programs,” USGS
Circular 893, 1983.
Clark, T. P., and Sabel, G. V., “Requirements of State Regulatory
Agencies for Monitoring Ground—Water Quality at Waste Dis-
posal,” Ground Water , v. 18, no. 2, March-April, pp. 168-
174, 1980.
Colton, D., 0. C. Braids, D. R. MacCallurn, D. W. Miller, arid
J. P. Sgambat, “Supplemental Report to the Nassau—Suffolk
Regional Planning Board on the Current Status of Ground-
Water Investigations for Organic Chemicals in the Nassau—
Suffolk Area,” prepared by Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Port
Washington, NY, 1979.
Congressional Research Services, “Resource Losses from Surface
Water, Groundwater, Atmospheric Contamination: A Catalog,”
prepared for the Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, 1980.
Council on Environmental Quality, “Contamination of Ground Water
by Toxic Organic Chemicals,” Washington, DC, 1981.
Emenhiser, T. C., and V. P. Singh, “Innovative Sampling Tech-
niques for Ground Water Monitoring at Hazardous Waste
Sites,” Ground Water Monitoring Review , v. 4, no. 4,
pp. 35-37, 1984.
Everett, L. G., Monitoring in the Vadose Zone,” Ground Water
Monitoring Review , v. 1, no. 2, pp. 44—51, 1981.
Everett, L. G., “Monitoring in the Zone of Saturation,” Ground
Water Monitoring Review , v. 1, no. 1, pp. 38—41, 1981.
Geraghty & Miller, Inc., “The Fundamentals of Ground—water Qual-
ity Protection,” New York, 1983.
-------
XI -2
Gibb, J. P., Schuller, R. M., and Griffin, R. A., “Procedures for
the Collection of Representative Water Quality Data from
Monitoring Wells,” Coop. Groundwater Rept. 7, Illinois State
Water Survey, Champaign, IL 61820, 61 pp., 1981.
Graves, L. S., “Ground—Water Monitoring Requirements of RCRA,”
Ground Water Monitoring Review , v. 1, no. 1, pp. 34—36,
1981.
Henderson, T. R., J. Traubman and T. Gallagher, “Groundwater:
Strategies for State Action,” prepared by Environmental Law
Institute, Washington, DC, 1984.
Kazmann, R. G., “An Introduction to Ground—Water Monitoring,”
Ground Water Monitoring Review , v. 1, no. 1, pp. 28—29,
1981.
Magnuson, P., “Groundwater Classification,” September 1981 (copy-
right by Geraghty & Miller, Inc., Syosset, NY, 1982).
Miller, D. W. (ed.), Water Disposal Effects on Ground Water
(Berkeley, CA: Premier Press, 1980).
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), “Subsurface Monitoring
Programs for Sites for Disposal of Low—Level Radioactive
Waste,” NUREG/CR—3l64, April 1983.
Perazzo, J. A., Dorrler, R. C., and Mack, J. P., “Long—Term
Confidence in Ground Water Monitoring Systems,” Ground Water
Monitoring Review , v. 4, no. 4, pp. 119—123, 1984.
Pye, V. I., R. Patrick and J. Quarles, Groundwater Contamination
in the United States (Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-
vania Press, 1983).
Raucher, R. L., “A Conceptual Framework for Measuring Benefits of
Groundwater Protection,” Water Resources Research , v. 19,
pp. 320—326, 1983.
Reitman, F., “Costs and Benefits in Aquifer Protection,” NeW
England Journal, Business and Economics , v. 19, no. 1,
1982.
Severn, D. J., C. K. Offutt, S. z. Cohen, W. L. Burnam, and
G. J. Burin, “Assessment of Groundwater Contamination by
Pesticides,” Hazard Evaluation Division, Office of pesticide
Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 7, 1983
(prepared for the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Meeting,
June 21—23, 1983, Arlington, VA).
-------
XI-3
Sharefkin, M. F., M. Schecter, and A. V. Kneese, “Impacts, Costs,
and Techniques for Mitigation of Contaminated Groundwater,”
Papers for and a Summary of a Workshop on Groundwater Re-
sources and Contamination in the United States , prepared by
National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, PRA Report
83-12, August 1983.
US. Environmental Protection Agency, “Groundwater Monitoring
Guidance for Owners and Operators of Interim Status Facili-
ties,” Office of Solid Waste, SW—963, March 1983.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Ground—Water Protection
Strategy,” Office of Ground-Water Protection, August 1984.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Protecting Ground Water:
The Hidden Resource,” EPA Journal , v. 10, July/August 1984.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Region V State Program
Ground Water Data Management Survey,” December 1984.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Status of the Sole Source
Aquifer Program,” Office of Drinking Water, July 6, 1983.
U.S. Geological Survey, “National Water Summary 1983——Hydrogeo—
logic Events and Issues,” USGBS Water—Supply Paper 2250,
1984.
GOVERNMENT P NTL\G OFFICE I 985 472 317/21 100
------- |