REGION IV
GROUND VWVf£Fi PROTECTION
THE STORY
-------
REGION IV
GROUND WATER PROTECTION
THE STORY
D. S. EPA, Region IV
Ground Nater Protection Branch
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
January 31, 1993
-------
CONTENTS
I . Legislative History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Safe Drinking Water Act....................... 1
Underground Injection Control Program.... 2
Sole Source Aquifer...................... 15
Wellhead Protection Program. . ...... ...... 16
Emergency Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Clean Water Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. .. 17
UndergroundStorageTanks................ 17
Land Disposal Restrictions............... 18
II. Ground Water Protection Branch Organization..... 21
Underground Injection Control Section.. 21
Compliance & Enforcement Unit.... ........ 21
Permitting Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Underground Storage Tank Section.. ...... ...... 24
StateProgramsGroup..................... 24
Compliance Team. . . . . . . . . . . 24
Ground Water Technology & Management Section... 24
Ground Water Technology Unit. . ....... 24
Ground Water Management Unit.... .. . .. ..... 25
III. Ground Water Protection Programs. . . . . 29
Underground Injection Control Program. . . ...... 29
Goals. •....... ...... . .. ... . .. 29
AccomplishmentstoDate ...... 30
Accomplishments Vs. Resources..... 31
Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Anticipated Resource Needs............... 36
Underground Storage Tank Program. ... .... ...... 36
- Goals.... ............ ....... ...... . .. . .. . 36
AccomplishmentstoDate.................. 37
State Authorization................ 37
Corrective Action ....... 39
Closure Activities.... e . .. • . .... .... 38
Confirmed Releases.................. 38
Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Release Detection Compliance. . ...... 46
Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
i
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Ground Water Technology & Management Programs. 47
Ground Water Technology Programs... ...... 47
Goals...... . . . . . . . . •....... . . . . . . . . . 47
AccomplishmentstoDate............. 48
Accomplishments Vs. Resources. . ..... 48
Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Anticipated Resource Needs.......... 52
Ground Water Management Programs. . . ...... 52
Goals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Accomplishments to Date............. 53
Accomplishments Vs. Resources. ...... 55
Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Anticipated Resource Needs.......... 64
IV. EPA’s Ground Water Protection Strategy
for the Future. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Need and Goal...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Policy..... .. . .. . .. ... ... .. . . .... .. •..... 66
Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
ii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1. Public Ground Water Facilities.................. 3
2. Rega.on IV Drinking Water by Population..... ..... 4
3. Alabama Drinking Water by Population............ 5
4. Florida Drinking Water by Population............ 6
5. Georgia Drinking Water by Population. ........... 7
6. Kentucky Drinking Water by Population. . ......... 8
7. Mississippi Drinking Water by Population........ 9
8. North Carolina Drinking Water by Population..... 10
9. South Carolina Drinking Water by Population..... 11
10. Tennessee Drinking Water by Population. . . .. 12
11. Region IV Sole Source Aquifer Map............... 17
12. Ground Water Protection Branch
Organization Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13. Underground Injection Control Section
Organization Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14. Underground Storage Tank Section
Organization Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
15. Ground Water Technology & Management Section
Organization Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
16. Orders Issued By Region IV Compared to All
Other Regions 34
17 . Proposed Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
18. Permit Actions by State. ......... . 36
19 . UIC Permit Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
20. UST Tank Closures Region IV..................... 42
21. USTTankClosuresbyState......................43
22. UST Region IV Confirmed Releases. . . .. . . ......... 44
23. Clean—Ups, UST—Region IV.... ............ 45
24. Corrective Action Activity thru 1992. ........... 46
25. UST Clean—Ups Region IV......................... 47
26. Projects Completed by the Ground Water
Techno logyUnit 52
27. Projects Completed by the Ground Water
Technology Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
28. 106 Ground Water Grants Region IV,
Totals by Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
29. 106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Expenditures, 1985—1990........... 60
30. AL 106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Program Elements 1985—1990........ 61
31. FL 106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Program Elements 1985—1990........ 62
32. G 106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Program Elements 1985—1990........ 63
ii -’
-------
FIGURES (Continued
Number Page
33. MS 106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Program Elements 1985- 1990........ 64
34. NC 106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Program Elements 1985-1990........ 65
35. SC 106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Program Elements 1985-1990........ 66
36. TN 106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Program Elements 1985-1990. .. ..... 67
iv
-------
TABLES
Number Page
I. Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. .. . . .. . . ..... 1
II. Description of UIC Injection Well Classes....... 2
III. Injection Wells Located in Region iV............ 13
IV. UIC Section Accomplishments........ ... . . . ....... 31
V. GWTUWorkloadbyFiscalYear.................... 48
V
-------
Introduction
EPA Region IV and its States have been active for many years
in the business of protecting the southeastern groundwater
resource. The results of these efforts benefit all who live and
visit here. There has been, however, no single source of
information that documents the comprehensive nature of this work,
its accomplishments, and its goals.
The Story is an attempt to be a source of such information.
It is the product of a joint effort of staff from all Ground-
Water Protection Branch programs. This record charts the history
of groundwater protection in Region IV, documents our
organization, describes our accomplishments and resources, and
relays a vision of future needs and activity.
It is intended to be a living document that is periodically
updated, expanded, and improved. It should be a valuable source
of information for persons familiar with groundwater protection
as well as those new to such activity. We welcome comments and
suggestions.
vi
-------
I. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
-------
I. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
A. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Protection of the nation’s public drinking water supplies
from harmful contaminants has been a major concern of Congress
for many years. Prior to 1974, Title XIV of the Public Health
Service Act —- Safety of Public Water Systems provided the legal
authority for ensuring safe drinking water supplies. With the
increased public awareness of the potential for contamination of
ground water sources from underground injection operations,
Congress undertook a major revision to Title XIV to expand its
coverage to provide authority to regulate underground injection
to ensure that underground sources of drinking water would be
protected from contamination. The newly amended Title XIV was
enacted on December 16, 1974, and was renamed the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). Congress has amended the SDWA several times
since 1974 as shown in Table I.
Table I. SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS
Year
1974
Safe
Act
Drinking Water
Act(SDWA)
Public Law
P.L.
93-523
1977
SDWA
Amendments of
1977
P.L.
95—190
1979
SDWA
Amendments of
1979
P.L.
96-63
1980
SDWA
Amendments of
1980
P.L.
96—502
1986
SDWA
Amendments of
1986
P.L.
99-339
1988
Lead
Act
Contamination
of 1988
Control
P.L.
100—572
The SDWA directs the EPA Administrator to develop:
1. National primary drinking water regulations that set
maximum contaminant levels or treatment techniques;
2. Underground injection control regulations to protect
underground sources of drinking water; and
3. Ground Water protection grants for welihead protection
programs.
4. Programs for the administration of sole source aquifer
demonstration projects.
The SDWA provides that each of these activities be carried
out by a state. The EPA Administrator must first determine that
the state has developed appropriate regulations that enforce the
1
-------
requirements or tne SL)WA.
UndercTround Injection Control Program
Ground water is water that flows through and is stored in
soil and rock formations beneath the ground’s surface. It is a
major source of drinking water and of water used for agricultural
purposes in the United States. Over sixty percent (60 %) of the
people in the United States rely on ground water for some or all
of their drinking water (See Figures 1 through 10). In the past,
ground water was thought to be relatively free from contaminants.
However, since the early 1970’s there has been increasing concern
over the threat to public health due to underground injection of
fluids. This injection could result in the degradation of
underground sources of drinking water if done in an unsafe or
unregulated manner.
As a result of this concern, Congress included in the SDWA a
statutory mandate for establishing minimum requirements for
effective state programs. These requirements are designed to
protect underground sources of drinking water from injection. In
December 1980, Congress amended the SDWA to allow states to show
the effectiveness of their regulatory programs for Class II wells
(see Table II for well class descriptions), instead of proving
that they met the minimum requirements specified in the IIIC
regulations (Section 1425). Later amendments to the SDWA gave
EPA the authority to issue administrative orders, required EPA to
submit to Congress a report on Class V wells and to issue
regulations for underground injection practices on Indian lands.
Table II. DESCRIPTION OF UIC INJECTION WELL CLASSES
Class Definition
I Injection of municipal or industrial waste
(including hazardous waste) below the
deepest underground source of drinking
water.
II Injection of fluids associated with oil or
natural gas production or liquid
hydrocarbon storage.
III Injection for mineral recovery.
IV Injection of hazardous or radioactive waste
into or above an underground source of
drinking water. (Prohibited)
V All injection practices that are not
included in the other four classes.
2
-------
Public Ground Water Supplied
Facilities* In Region IV States
Thousand
CO
632 1 923
GA KY MS
SC TN
Figure 1
* From FRDS 1990
-------
Region IV Drinking Water
by Population*
Surface Water
39%
Ground Water
61%
* 1980 Census (1990 data not available)
Figure 2
-------
Alabama Drinking Water
by Population*
Surface Water
46%
Ground Water
54% Fi9ure3
* 1980 Census (1990 data not available)
-------
Florida Drinking Water
by Population*
Surface Water
10%
0)
Ground Water
90%
* 1980 Census (1990 data not available)
Figure 4
-------
Georgia Drinking Water
by Population*
Surface Water
52%
Ground Water
48% Figures
• 1980 Census (1990 data not available)
-------
Kentucky Drinking Water
by Population*
Surface Water
69%
Ground Water
31%
1980 Census (1990 data not available) Figure 6
-------
Mississippi Drinking Water
by Population*
Surface Water
7%
-------
North Carolina Drinking Water
by Population*
Surface Water
45%
Ground Water
55%
* 1980 Census (1990 data not available) Figure 8
-------
South Carolina Drinking Water
by Population*
Surface Water
57%
Ground Water
43%
• 1980 Census (1990 data not available) Figure 9
-------
Tennessee Drinking Water
by Population*
Surface Water
49%
Ground Water
51%
1980 Census (1990 data not available) Figure 10
-------
EPA estimates that perhaps as many as 500,000 injection
wells are in operation nationwide. In Region IV there are more
than 22,700 injection wells. Table III shows the number of wells
by class for each of the eight states in Region IV.
Table III. INJECTION WELLS LOCATED IN REGION IV
State Well Class Number of Wells
Alabama I 7
II 362
III 10
V 275
Florida I 136
II 87
V 7745
Georgia V 215
Kentucky I 4
II 5984
V 510
Mississippi I 8
II 1745
V 3579
North Carolina V 256
South Carolina V 1747
Tennessee II 13
V 55
* From Fiscal Year 1992 state inventory reports.
Under the SDWA, EPA is required to:
1. Publish minimum national requirements for effective
state Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs.
2. List states that need UIC programs.
3. Make grants to states for developing and implementing
UIC programs.
4. Review proposed state programs and approve or
disapprove them.
13
-------
5. Issue regulations for and enforce UIC programs in
listed states if the states choose not to participate
or do not develop and operate a UIC program that EPA
can approve.
To meet the requirements of the SDWA, the EPA Administrator
issued regulations that established the minimum requirements for
state programs. These requirements include:
1. The prohibition of underground injection that has not
been authorized by permit or by rule;
2. Requiring applicants for permits to prove that their
underground injection activities will not endanger
underground sources of drinking water; and
3. Inspection, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting
requirements.
The sole purpose of the UIC regulations is to protect
underground sources of drinking water from contamination by
injection.
An aquifer or its portion:
(a) (1) Which supplies any public water system; or
(2) Which contains a sufficient quantity of
groundwater* to supply a public water
system; and
(i) Currently supplies drinking
water for human consumption; or
(ii) Contains fewer than 10,000 mg/i
total dissolved solids; and
(b) Which is not an exempted aquifer.
* A flow rate of at least 2 gallons per minute (gpm) is
being used by Region IV.
Definition of Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW)
[ 40 C.F.R. S144.3]
On August 31, 1976, the proposed regulations for the State
Underground Injection Control Programs appeared in the Federal
Rec ister . It was the intent of these regulations that the state
agencies control the programs. On April 20, 1979, EPA re-
proposed regulations in the Federal Register . These regulations
still addressed the states as being the primary regulatory
14
-------
authority. On May 19, 1980, EPA issued the Consolidated Permit
Regulations, which included requirements for Underground
Injection Control.
On June 24, 1980, EPA issued the final rule for State
Underground Injection Control Programs. After that date, many
states applied for and received authority to control the federal
UIC program for some or all classes of wells in their state. On
August 2, 1982, Alabama became the first state in Region IV and
the sixth in the nation to receive authority to control the
federal UIC program in their state. Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi, North Carolina and South Carolina have received
primacy for all classes of wells in their respective states.
Florida has authority to regulate all classes of wells except
Class II.
For those states that did not seek or obtain primacy, EPA
proposed and issued regulations for direct implementation of the
UIC program. In Region IV, Kentucky and Tennessee have not
received primacy for any class of wells. EPA regulation of
underground injection practices in Kentucky and Tennessee became
effective on June 25, 1984.
In states with programs delegated for all classes of wells
except for Class II wells, the EPA implemented program for Class
II wells became effective on December 30, 1984.
The effective date for most EPA administered underground
injection control programs for Indian lands is November 25, 1988.
Sole Source Aquifer
Two new sections added to the 1986 amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act, Sections 1427 and 1428, focus on ground water
protection. Section 1427 established procedures for development,
implementation, and assessment of demonstration projects located
in critical aquifer protection areas designated as Sole Source
Aquifers (SSA). The SDWA established the Sole Source Aquifer
Program which provided EPA with the authority to designate
aquifers as Sole Source Aquifers.
A Sole Source Aquifer is an aquifer designated by EPA as the
“sole or principal source” of drinking water for a given aquifer
service area. Within this area, the aquifer must supply at least
50 percent of the drinking water with no alternate drinking water
source reasonably available should the aquifer become
contaminated.
Any individual, corporation, company, association,
partnership, state, municipality or Federal agency may petition
their EPA Regional Administrator for SSA designation. Such a
designation requires EPA to review all proposed federally funded
15
-------
projects within the defined SSA area to ensure that such projects
do not adversely impact public health. The 1986 SDWA amendments
authorized EPA to fund SSA demonstration projects within
designated SSA’s, however, funds were never appropriated for the
demonstration projects.
Region IV currently has 3 sole source aquifer areas
designated in the southeast, the Biscayne and Volusia—Floridan
Aquifers in Florida, and the Southern Hills Regional Aquifer in
Mississippi and Louisiana (see Figure 11).
Welihead Protection Program
The 1986 amendments also created Section 1428 establishing
the State Wellhead Protection (WEiP) program. The WHP was
designed to protect the areas around public water supply wells
(welihead areas) and provide Federal funds to support state
efforts to protect the ground water in these areas. Section 1428
requires each state to develop and submit to EPA a Program
designed to protect a state’s public water supply welihead areas
from contaminants.
At a minimum each state must adopt and submit to EPA a WHP
Program that includes the following provisions:
1. Duties of state and local agencies
2. Delineations of Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA)
3. Source identification
4. Management approaches
5. Contingency plan
6. New Wells
7. Public participation
Subsection 1428(k) authorized EPA to make grants to the
states for up to 90 percent of the costs a state incurs in
developing and implementing its WEiP program. The state WHP
developnent grants were contingent upon Congressional
appropriations, but Congress failed to appropriate the funds.
Therefore, WHP development funds have been extremely limited.
The absence of funding, however, does not excuse a state from the
requirements for program development and implementation. If a
state does not develop a WHP program, it will forever lose the
opportunity to obtain such funding.
As of the end of FY (fiscal year) 1992, three Region IV
states (Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina) have received EPA
16
-------
Region IV
Sole Source Aquifers
Southern Hills
Regional [
Aquifer 1
Volusia-Floiidan
Aquiler
Blscayne
Aquifer
Figure 11
17
-------
approval for their WHPPs. The remaining states are currently
developing state programs with submittals scheduled during FYs
‘93 and ‘94.
Funding of local WHP demonstration projects has occurred
since FY 1990. The WHP demonstration grant is made available to
municipalities interested in pursuing WHP activities. Region IV
has made over $400,000 available to 10 local governments since FY
1990.
Emergency Powers
The 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act also
expanded the scope of Part D, Section 1431, Emergency Powers.
These amendments allow the use of emergency powers whenever a
contaminant that is present in or likely to enter a public water
system or an underground source of drinking water may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons,
and appropriate State and local authorities have not acted to
protect the health of such persons, the Administrator may take
whatever actions he thinks are necessary to protect human health.
These actions, which the Administrator may take, includes
issuing such orders as may be necessary to protect the health of
persons who are or may be users of an endangered system. These
orders may include requiring the provision of alternate sources
of water by the person(s) who caused the endangerment. The
Administrator may also begin a civil action for appropriate
relief, including a restraining order and permanent or temporary
injunction. The amendments specified that any person who
violates, fails, or refuses to comply with the Administrator’s
order may be fined up to $5000 per day for each day of violation.
B. Clean Water Act
The principal law governing pollution of the Nation’s
waterways is the Clean Water Act (CWA). Originally enacted in
1948 as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Clean Water
Act has undergone many amendments and revisions. The goal of the
Act is the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.
Before amendment in 1987, programs in the Clean Water Act
were primarily directed at point source pollution. These are
wastes discharged from discrete and identifiable sources, such as
pipes and outfalls. very little attention had been given to non-
point source pollution and the issue of ground water pollution.
The 1987 amendments directed states to develop ground water
protection activities as part of their overall water pollution
18
-------
control efforts. Under the amendments, ground water became
recognized as a part of the Nation’s waterways. Funds were
authorized to support states in the development and operation of
a ground water protection program. These funds are awarded by
EPA under the authority of Section 106 to assist states in
administering programs for the prevention, reduction, and
elimination of pollution (see Figure 27, page 56).
C. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Underground Storage Tanks
Since the early 1900’s, petroleum and chemical products have
been stored underground in bare steel tank systems that are very
vulnerable to corrosion. According to recent estimates, as many
as fifteen to twenty percent of underground petroleum storage
tanks may be leaking. Because more than 116 million people rely
on ground water as a source of drinking water in the United
States, leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) pose a major
health risk. Even small quantities of released petroleum are
sufficient to contaminate drinking water. It takes only one (1)
gallon of gasoline to contaminate one million (1,000,000) gallons
of water according to EPA drinking water standards. Two
components of gasoline, benzene and ethyl dibromide, are
suspected carcinogens. Leaking UST5 can also contaminate surface
waters, cause fires and explosions, and generate toxic fumes that
can seep into homes and businesses.
Except in a few instances, Federal regulations prior to 1984
did not address USTs. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 (RCRA) only regulated tanks containing hazardous wastes ,
not tanks storing petroleum or hazardous products . The Clean
Water Act of 1972 required only owners of very large USTs which
were potentially direct sources of pollution into navigable
waters to take preventive measures against corrosion and leaks.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), known as Superfund, authorizes
EPA to respond to hazardous substances releases. However,
petroleum is specifically excluded from the list of hazardous
substances defined under RCRA.
In 1984, Congress was preparing to pass environmental
legislation pertaining to management of hazardous substances.
The UST problem received political attention due to several
highly publicized incidents. A bill was introduced to address
the problem of leaking USTS. In November 1984, a final version
of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA was
signed into law. Title VI of the Amendments added Subtitle I
(sections 9001 to 9010) which specifically provided for
regulation of underground storage tanks.
19
-------
In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Re-
authorization Act (SARA). Section 205 of SARA amended
Subtitle I of RCRA to provide Federal funds for corrective
actions on petroleum leaks and spills from lISTs, with priority
given to those that present the greatest threat to human health
and the environment. These funds allowed more immediate action
in those situations where the owners could not be found or were
unwilling or unable to conduct corrective action.
On September 23, 1988, EPA published the final lIST technical
regulations. On October 26, 1988, EPA published its financial
responsibility regulations. These regulations set forth the
minimum level of insurance lIST owners and operators are required
to have in order to ensure they could take “corrective action” in
response to any leaks and to compensate anyone harmed by a leak.
Land Disposal Restrictions
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA,
enacted on November 8, 1984, imposed substantial new
responsibilities on those who handle hazardous waste. The
amendments prohibit the continued land disposal of untreated
hazardous waste beyond specified dates, unless the Administrator
determines that the prohibition is not required in order to
protect human health and the environment for as long as the waste
remains hazardous (RCRA section 3004(d)(1),(e)(1),(f)(2),(g)(5)).
The statute specifically defines land disposal to include any
placement of hazardous waste in an injection well (RCRA section
3004(k)). After the effective date of prohibition, hazardous
waste can be injected under two circumstances:
1. When the waste has been treated in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR Part 268 pursuant to section
3004(m) of RCRA. EPA has adopted the same treatment
standards for injected wastes in 40 CFR Part 148,
Subpart B; or
2. When the owner/operator has demonstrated that there
will be “no migration” of hazardous constituents from
the injection zone for as long as the waste remains
hazardous. Applicants seeking an exemption from the
ban must demonstrate either:
(a) That the waste undergoes a chemical transformation
so as to no longer pose a threat to human health
and the environment; or
(b) That fluid flow is such that injected fluids would
not migrate vertically upward out of the injection
zone or to a point of discharge or interface with
an underground source of drinking water as defined
in 40 CFR Part 146 in a period of 10,000 years by
20
-------
use of mathematical models (40 CFR §148.20(a)).
EPA was required to promulgate land disposal prohibitions
and treatment standards by May 8, 1990, for all wastes that were
either listed or identified as hazardous at the time of the 1984
amendments, a task EPA completed within the statutory time-
frames. HSWA directs EPA to promulgate prohibitions and
treatment standards for wastes identified or listed after the
date of the 1984 amendments within six months after the listing
or identification takes place. These wastes are referred to as
“newly identified” or “newly listed” wastes.
On October 24, 1991, EPA published an advanced notice of
proposed rule-making (ANPRM) for treatment standards for many of
the newly listed and newly identified wastes, including
characteristic hazardous wastes generated by the mining and
mineral processing industries which are no longer exempted from
being hazardous wastes.
21
-------
II. GROUND WATER PROTECTION BRANCH ORGANIZATION
-------
II. GROUND WATER PROTECTION BRANCH ORGANIZATION
The Ground Water Protection Branch consists of 3 sections:
the Underground Injection Control Section, the Underground
Storage Tank Section, and the Ground Water Technology &
Management Section (Figure 12).
A. Underground Injection Control Section
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) Section was created
to implement the requirements of the Underground Injection
Control program. The UIC Section consists of the Compliance &
Enforcement and Permitting Units (Figure 13).
Compliance & Enforcement Unit
The Compliance & Enforcement (C&E) Unit’s primary
responsibility is to serve as the field presence of the
Underground Injection Control program in Region IV, and is
responsible for taking appropriate enforcement action whenever
violations of UIC regulations are discovered.
In order to maintain a presence in those states where EPA
has implemented the UIC program, C&E staff routinely perform
compliance inspections of as many facilities in those states as
possible. Allegations of non-compliance with the UIC regulations
are thoroughly investigated. C&E staff work closely with the
Office of Regional Counsel to ensure that appropriate enforcement
actions are taken whenever a violation is discovered. These
actions may include the issuance of administrative orders,
referral to the U. S. Department of Justice for civil
prosecution, and referral to the U. S. Attorney for criminal
prosecution.
The C&E staff perform a review of state UIC programs to
ensure that the states are adequately tracking compliance with
state UIC regulations. C&E staff also review state enforcement
actions to ensure that violations are treated in an appropriate
manner.
Diciplines within the C&E staff include but are not limited
to geology, hydrogeology, petroleum engineering, environmental
engineering, data management and clerical. Most of the C&E staff
have received very specialized training including several courses
in underground injection practices, injection well construction
and testing techniques, ground water monitoring and modeling,
field observation and evidence collection methods. Some staff
members have received specialized training in the investigation
and prosecution of criminal violations.
23
-------
Ground Water Protection Branch
EPA Region IV
Beverly Houston
Branch Chief
Georgia MircheH, 3ec
Ronald Mikulak
GW Tech. & Mgt. Sect.
Book I M cvVatfv cc.
Elizabeth Rolle
- GW Management Unit
Reflyc Burden, Sec
Dave Hill
- GW Technology Unit
Tom Han8en
UIC Section
v1arqiret (. orrea, SOc
Jeanne Dove
— Permitting Unit
Ar geI?i Wciod, :
Mike Hollinger
— Compi. & Enforc. Unit
[ T)oris : iFiif1iOflS, See.
John
Ma8on
UST
Section
[ :‘:i Thc
rna ;, C cc.
Scott Gordon
- Compliance Team
— State Programs Group
January 1993
Figure 12
-------
Ground Water Protection Branch
EPA Region IV
Jeanne Dove
Permitting Unit
An9010 Wood, oo.
Greg Fraley
- KY/FL/Class V Contact
Bill Mann
- KY/SC/Class Ii Contact
Nancy March
- KY/GA
(‘)vers$ h t •Ieo k Fi roe
Ruse McLean
• KY/AL/Tech. Advisor
Larry Meyer
- KY/M8/Florlda Class Ii
Bandra Ramsey
- Fin. Responsibility
Brian Thames
- KY/NC/Class I Contact
Mallory Miller
- Oversight Task Force
Mike Hoilinger
Compi. & Enforc. Unit
DorI. Strnmon1 ,
Ken Harris
- Western KY Team
George Ford
- Western KY Team
Dick Head
- Western KY Team
Bud Miller
• Western KY Team
Scott I4osklns
- Eastern Kentucky
Annetfe Raybon
- UIC Database Mgt.
Carol Howard
- MIT Tracking
John Trudeii
- Oversight Task Force
I
I
J
Tom
UlO
M r ret
Hansen
8ection
Corros,
I
January 1993
FIgure 13
-------
Permitting Unit
The Permitting Unit’s primary responsibility is to protect
Underground Sources of Drinking Water through the permitting
process. The Permitting Unit is responsible for overview of the
delegated state permitting programs and for administering the
grants that help fund the delegated state programs. They also
serve as technical advisors for special projects and/or
initiatives that include UIC wells or concerns.
The Permitting Unit staff consists of geologists,
environmental scientists, environmental engineers, an
environmental protection assistant and a clerk-typist.
B. Underground Storage Tank Section
The Underground Storage Tank Section operates through the
State Programs group and the Compliance Team (Figure 13).
State Programs Group
The State Programs group works with the individual state UST
programs. They assist the states with training, technical
issues, and program development. The State Programs group
advises the states during the development of a complete
application for program approval and works with the Office of
Regional Counsel to obtain final approval. Also, the LUST Trust
Fund grants are allocated to the states for remediation of sites
with leaking USTs where the owner is unknown, recalcitrant, or
insolvent. These funds can also be used for administration and
enforcement of corrective action.
Compliance Team
The Compliance Team enforces Federal law pertaining to USTs,
conducts facility inspections, assists Region IV states in
developing enforcement programs, and also assists in the
technical training of state program employees. Because the
Tennessee UST program has not yet taken the responsibility for
implementing the regulations in regard to hazardous substance
USTs, the Compliance Team implements this program directly. This
includes reviewing closure and corrective action plans in
addition to the duties already mentioned.
C. Ground Water Technology & Management Section
The Ground Water Technology & Management Section is made up
of a Ground Water Technology Unit and a Ground Water Management
Unit (Figure 14).
26
-------
Ground Water Protection Branch
EPA Region IV
John Mason
UST Section
I) E- T° orTi : ,
Scott Gordon
CompJiance Team State Programs Group
P0
Dave Ariail Steve Burton
- Engineer, Reg. Expert - AL, KY, SC & TN
Donna Seadler Jon Isbell
- Engineer - FL, GA, MS & NC
Frank Baker Gene Coker
- Scientist - Technical Support
Gloria Love
- Program Management
January 1993 Figure 14
-------
Sllzabeth R lii
OW Management Unit
aau’ o 31rior!. S jO.
Nitalls Eilir ton
• Oeoro la
Dais Froneb.r .r
8. Carolina & Florida
David Hutohini
• Kentucky 8
Robert Olive
Alabama 8 Miaa la.ippl
K*ren Wilson
• North CarolIna
Tony Able
Hydroioglet
Glenn Adan,s
• Torloolo let
Joan DuPont
- Eooloiplet
Jsnnl sr lisradon
• l4ydroio g ist
Sill OStssn
llydroioOlvt
Solomon Pollard
• RegIonal 8’pert, Tox.
Lee Thomse
Rigl nal £xpert, Hydro
Kay Wisohseuispsr
- Hydrologist
Winston Smith
• anvlronmenjal OnOlnO r
Nsnoy S.thuns
• Environmental Engln er
Gary Davis
- EnvIronm nt*l Engln er
Ground Water Protection Branch
EPA Region IV
Ronald Mikulik
0W Teob. 8 Mgt. Seot.
U I I,1 vI9tt,-, 8C
Days Hill
h no logy Unit
January 1993
Figure 15
-------
Ground Water Technology Unit
The Ground Water Technology Unit (GWTU) serves as a
technical support group to regional programs on ground water and
related environmental issues. The primary clientele are CERCLA
and RCRA project managers; but they also include UIC permitting
staff, UST program staff, NEPA project officers, NPDES permit
writers, GWMU state coordinators and other EPA personnel as they
have need of technical, ground water related assistance. The
staff includes an interdisciplinary mix of engineers, ground
water hydrologists, toxicologists, and a biologist, all of whom
specialize in providing needed, up—to—date technical assistance
to achieve the environmentally protective, regulatory goals of
the Agency.
Ground Water Management Unit
The Ground Water Management Unit is involved with a variety
of activities and programs. The Staff manages the 106 Ground
Water Grant, Welihead Protection Program (WHPP), National
Pesticide Survey, Sole Source Aquifer Program, Ag Chemicals in
Ground Water Strategy, Ground Water Strategy implementation and
several other programs for all eight (8) States in Region IV.
The unit is staffed with professionals from various disciplines
such as engineering, geology, and chemistry who provide technical
and administrative support to the States and other programs
within EPA.
29
-------
III. GROUND WATER PROTECTION PROGRAMS
-------
III. GROU1 D WATER PROTECTION PROGRANS
A. Underground Injection Control
Coal
The primary goal of the UIC program is the protection of
underground sources of drinking water. The UIC Section meets
this goal by taking the following actions:
1. Identification of any existing injection into
underground sources of drinking water.
2. Enforcement action(s) to stop unauthorized injection
into underground sources of drinking water.
3. Review of permit applications for existing or new wells
in a timely manner to assure that permit decisions,
both issuance or denial, are protective of underground
sources of drinking water.
4. Delegation of the UIC program to states in the Region
with the requirement that the state programs assure
protection of underground sources of drinking water.
5. Award grant funds to states in conformance with
national policy to aid states in carrying out delegated
programs to protect underground sources of drinking
water.
6. Review of delegated programs to assure that state
programs effectively prevent pollution of underground
sources of drinking water.
7. Maintain a strong field compliance and enforcement
presence to assure that injection operations do not
endanger underground sources of drinking water and that
operators know that EPA is evaluating their operations
on a regular basis.
8. Assure that EPA meets the national conunitments for
determining that all wells pass the federally mandated
mechanical integrity tests.
9. Develop and implement outreach programs to inform the
regulated community and the public about the regulatory
requirements and responsibilities associated with the
UIC program.
10. Take appropriate enforcement action (administrative
order, civil and/or criminal prosecution) against
31
-------
violators which impose fines and establish compliance
schedules for returning to compliance with the UIC
program.
11. Issue public notices for proposed enforcement and
permitting actions that offer interested parties an
opportunity to comment on the proposals.
12. Conduct public hearings and public meetings as
necessary to encourage public participation in the
permitting and compliance/enforcement decision-making
processes.
13. Review well logs, tests, and monitoring reports
submitted by well operators in compliance with permit
or program requirements.
14. Develop regional policy and guidance for implementing
the UIC program to assure fair and equitable treatment
for the regulated community and to assure that all
underground sources of drinking water are protected
from contamination.
15. Participate in the development of national policy and
guidance for implementing the UIC program.
Accomplishments to Date
Throughout the life of the UIC program, Region IV has been
the bench mark by which all other Regional UIC programs are
compared. Table IV summarizes the major accomplishments of
Region IV’s UIC program.
32
-------
Table IV. UIC SECTION ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Year Accomplishment
1984 First Class I UIC permit to be issued in
the country.
1985 First Emergency Administrative Order in the
country to be issued under authority of
Section 1431 of the SDWA.
1985 First Consent Order to be issued by a VIC
program under authority of Section 7003 of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
1988 First fully functional UIC database to be
developed in the country.
1991 First felony conviction in the country for
violation of the UIC provisions of the
SDWA.
1988 Region IV has lead the country in the
to issuance of Administrative Actions
Present (see Figures 16 & 17).
1984 Region IV has taken 1410 permit actions
to (i.e. issuance, denial, retraction, major
Present modification, etc.) resulting in the
issuance of 587 permits in four states (see
Figures 18 & 19).
Accomplishments Vs. Resources
When Region IV began implementing the UIC program in 1984,
the national emphasis was to bring Class I and Class II wells
into regulation. With a staff of eight technical personnel and
one clerk-typist, Region IV began developing a tJIC program with
an estimated well universe of 10,000 Class II wells and
approximately 100 Class I wells.
Although Region IV ’ S accomplishments continue to grow, the
UIC staff consists of only fifteen technical personnel and two
clerk typists.
33
-------
ORDERS ISSUED BY REGION IV
COMPARED TO
ALL OTHER REGIONS
FY 1989
Hogion IV
Alt Other Regions
FY 1990
Reg ion IV
All Otter Region*
FY 1991
Region IV
AD Other Begiorw
Figure 16
34
-------
PROPOSED ORDERS
120
100
CO
Ol
Region IV
All Other Regions
Number of Orders
1989
1990
1991
1992
Figure 17
-------
PERMIT ACTIONS* BY STATE
Number of Actions
800
600
400
200
CO
O)
Total No. Actions*
No. Permits Issued
KY
MS
FL
TN
Figure 18
* issuance, denial, retraction, major modification, etc.
-------
UIC PERMIT ACTIONS
CO
Applications Rec'd
Permit Decisions
Permits Issued
Permits Issued
Applications Rec'd
Figure 19
k Mississippi received primacy 3/29/89
** issuance, denial, retraction, major modification, etc.
Permit Decisions
-------
Prolections
Currently, the national emphasis has changed. The Regions
and delegated states are now being directed to bring Class V
injection wells into compliance. It is estimated that Region
I v’s Class V well universe is over 10,000 wells. This will bring
Region IV’s total well universe to over 20,000 wells - more than
double the current workload.
Antic iDated Resource Needs
IJIC is evolving into a program that is continuing with the
goals and objectives that formed its foundation while taking on
new challenges and their ensuing responsibilities. As the
workload increases the first challenge will be to maximize
existing resources to deal with prioritized activities. With the
anticipated doubling of the well inventory, it is inevitable that
additional resources in the form of FTE’s and funding will be
required. Region IV currently enjoys a position of leadership
with an outstanding reputation and record of accomplishment.
Without appropriate consideration as to tJIC’s place in the larger
Regional and Agency picture, it will become more and more
difficult to maintain our exemplary record of environmental
achievements.
B. Underground Storage Tank Program
Faced with the mandate of Subtitle I, EPA recognized several
unusual aspects of the regulated universe that have created
special problems in developing an effective regulatory approach:
1. The regulated universe is immense, including over two
(2) million UST systems, which include tanks and
associated piping, located at more than 700,000
facilities nationwide.
2. More than 75% of the existing systems are made of
unprotected steel, the type of tank system proven to be
the most likely to leak and thus create the greatest
potential for health and environmental damage.
3. Most of the regulated facilities are owned and operated
by very small businesses not accustomed to dealing with
complex regulatory requirements.
4. Numerous technological innovations and changes are
underway in various sectors of the lIST system service
community.
38
-------
GOALS
In response to the unique aspects of the regulated
community, and the clear need for comprehensive management of
IJSTs during their operating life, EPA has identified several
operating principles:
I. The UST program must be based on sound national
standards that protect human health and the
environment.
2. The UST regulatory program must be designed to be
implemented at the state and local levels. State and
local governments have been and continue to be the
authorities most capable of effective oversight of UST
systems and response to releases.
3. The regulations must be kept simple, understandable and
be easily implemented by the owner and operator in
order to facilitate voluntary compliance.
4. New UST technologies must not be inhibited.
5. To encourage the utmost voluntary compliance, the UST
program should build upon current industry practices
and standards.
Even if a UST is not being used, a potential threat to the
environment is still present. Prior to the implementation of the
regulatory requirements in September 1988, UST owners commonly
abandoned those tanks not being used, in order to avoid the
expense of removing the tank. Currently, there are 322,469 UST
systems in Region IV. This represents 23% of the total tank
universe in the United States. However, the total number of USTs
in Region IV has declined since the implementation of the
regulatory requirements.
In approaching the basic challenge of how to protect the
environment from thousands of potentially leaking UST5, EPA
determined that the only solution was a franchising approach to
management. Traditionally, EPA programs which were delegated to
the state level were products of a “command and control”
regulatory system. However, in the case of USTs, there already
existed a large number of state, county and local programs for
regulating USTs before the Federal regulations were implemented.
In order to encourage innovation in both regulatory methods and
technology, the regulations contained the flexibility to allow
these pre-existing programs to be incorporated into the overall
regulatory scheme. Using this approach, EPA primarily focuses on
building and suppoprting strong state and local programs.
39
-------
Accc iplishments to Date
With an average of 10 workyears staff time and a total
investment of approximately 8 million dollars in grant funds, the
UST Program has accomplished the following:
1. State Authorization
a. On April 16, 1990, the Mississippi Underground
Storage Tank program became the first state
program in the country to obtain approval to
operate the UST program in lieu of the federal
program.
b. On July 9, 1991, the Georgia Underground Storage
Tank Management Program became the third state
program in the country to obtain approval to
operate the UST program in lieu of the federal
program.
c. As of March 1992, only six states have obtained
this authorization nationwide. Mississippi and
Georgia account for 33% of the authorized programs
in the country.
d. All Region IV states have developed state UST
regulations and are successfully implementing the
regulation of new and existing tanks and cleaning
up releases from USTs.
2. Corrective Action
Each owner and operator of UST systems who confirms a
release from the system must initiate a response to the release
in accordance with the corrective action requirements, thus
triggering the corrective action authorities of the UST program.
Releases may be documented through a facility’s release
prevention mechanisms, i.e. any one of the release detection
methods contained in 40 C.F.R. §5280.43 and 280.44, or through
visual confirmation during closure activities.
3. Closure Activities :
As individual UST programs within the Region develop,
they are able to increase the amount and methods of
enforcement they use. Until 1993, the regulations will
affect mostly older tanks. Therefore, stronger
programs force UST owners to evaluate the need for
replacing, removing and/or upgrading their older tanks.
Region IV’ S states’ progress in developing their
individual programs can be seen in the following:
40
-------
a. As depicted in Figure 20, there has been a steady
increase in the number of tank closures in Region
IV. Most liSTs closed have been relatively older
tanks.
b. Each of the Region IV states has seen a steady
increase in the number of tanks removed.
(Figure 21).
c. Region IV leads the nation in the volume of tanks
which have been closed (102,573 or 28.4%).
4. Confirmed Releases :
a. With the high number of USTs in the Region coupled
with the highest volume of UST closures, there
should be little surprise that Region IV ranks
third among regional offices in confirmed
releases. To date 20,495 confirmed releases have
been documented in the Region.
b. Rapid growth has been seen in all sectors of the
regulated community related to the level of
understanding needed in dealing with a confirmed
release. The number of documented releases has
swelled from 4,150 in December 1989 to the 20,495
today. The distribution of these confirmed
releases in the states (Figure 22) illustrates a
significant problem in Florida, one of the most
sensitive ground water states in the Region.
c. Region IV states have responded to these confirmed
releases by initiating nearly 9,500 cleanups at
petroleum and hazardous substance facilities
(Figure 23).
d. Of these initiated cleanups, 2596 or 27.3% have
been completed (Figure 24). Figure 25 illustrates
that most completed cleanups have been conducted
using the funds of individual responsible parties.
Only 138 clean ups have been funded by Trust fund
monies.
Funding
a. In the RCRA amendments, Congress sought to provide
Federal funds to clean up leaks and spills from
underground stora s. This was accomplished
by creating the eaking nderground Storage Tank
(LUST) Trust Fun . Fund is intended to
strengthen current cleanup and enforcement efforts
of many states and localities.
41
-------
UST TANK CLOSURES
REGION IV
160-
1990
1991
TANK CLOSURES
Figure 20
42
1992
-------
UST
TANK CLOSURES
Thousands
60
50
40-
30
20
10
AL FL GA KY MS NC SC TN
1990
1991
1992
Figure 21
43
-------
UST - REGION IV
CONFIRMED RELEASES
Thousands
14
12-
10-
'
/
/ :
.
AL FL GA KY MS NC SC TN
* By end of FY '92
Confirmed Releases*
Figure 22
44
-------
UST CLEAN-UPS
REGION IV
Thousands
14-
12
AL FL GA KY MS NC SC TN
Initiated
* By end of FY '92
Clean-ups*
Under Control I [Complete
Figure 23
45
-------
CORRECTIVE ACTION ACTIVITY
THRU 1992
Thousands
50
40
30
O)
20
10
0
-K
. |- —
•— -* -- * -
1/90 2/90 3/90 4/90 1/91 2/91 3/91 4/91 1/92 2/92 3/92 4/92
Quarter/Fiscal Year
Confirmed Releases • Cleanups Initiated ~*~ Cleanups Completed
Based on Quarterly reports. Figure 24
-------
100000
10000
1000
100
10
UST CLEAN-UPS
Region IV, FY'92
INITIATED UNDER CONTROL COMPLETED
FY'92 CLEAN-UPS
RESP. PARTY LEAD
STATE LEAD W/STATE
STATE LEAD W/TF
Figure 25
47
-------
b. The LUST Trust Fund is being financed by a tax of
1/10 of one cent per gallon on motor fuels.
c. Distribution of the LUST Trust Fund dollars to
state programs for FY 1987 through FY 1992 was
based on the number of confirmed releases and on
the nunther of tanks in the individual states, the
percentage of ground water usage in the states ,
and the states’ capacity to utilize the money.
d. From FY 1987 to present, Region IV states have
received $35,279,030, including $8,247,073 in FY
1992 alone.
e. Distribution of funds varies from state to state,
with North Carolina being the largest single
recipient.
f. Of the $14,428,917 spent to date by the states,
the distribution of these funds are:
(1) Enforcement Costs — $1,200.013 (8.3%);
(2) Site Clean Up Costs — $7,255,903
(50.3%); and
(3) Administrative Costs(*) — $5,973,001
(41.4%).
* The costs associated with oversight of site
clean—ups performed by responsible parties
are included in the administrative costs.
Additional funding is provided to each state program for the
development of the UST regulatory program. Funding began in FY
1986. Region IV states have received a total of nearly 8 million
dollars.
Funding mechanisms have been developed in all Region IV
states to assist tank owners and operators with the cost of
cleaning up releases from petroleum USTs.
j Release Detection Compliance
Release detection requirements began to be phased in on
December 22, 1989 and will continue to be phased in until
December 22, 1993. Evaluation and enforcement at Region IV
facilities required to comply with these regulations can only be
accomplished with a concerted inspection effort at both the state
and Federal level. An enforcement presence in the field will also
benefit the states in establishing their own authorized programs.
In FY 1990, the Office of Underground Storage Tanks began to
emphasize the importance of an increased level of enforcement of
48
-------
UST regulations by both the states and EPA. The new emphasis on
federal enforcement represented a fundamental change in the
Agency’s implementation strategy. The level of direct federal
enforcement actions has steadily increased since that time and is
expected to continue to rise. Active enforcement is now
recognized as a vital element of the UST program implementation
strategy.
A clear signal will be sent to the regulated community that
the Region is serious about compliance with the UST regulations.
By initiating field activities, an accurate appraisal of the
level of noncompliance can be made and acted upon.
Proj ect ions
At the current rate of increase, the following projections
illustrate potential barriers facing the UST program in just ten
years (by the year 2002):
a. The number of confirmed releases documented in
Region IV will reach nearly 78,000, roughly 25% of
the tank universe.
b. The number of initiated clean ups will reach
nearly 39,000; less than half of the total
facilities will be addressed.
c. The number of completed clean ups will only be
9,000, slightly more than 11% of releases.
In order for all Region IV states to develop and imDlement
strong, comprehensive UST programs, state staffs need to be
substantially increased. Enforcement of the regulations and
remediation of a greater number of releases cannot take place
without this increase.
States continue to request that additional training be
provided to them. In order to provide this, EPA staff needs both
additional manpower and resources.
EPA needs additional staff in order to continue enforcement
efforts within the Region and to assist the states with
enforcement and enforcement training.
Although huge numbers of releases are reported each year,
only a small fraction of these are remediated. Increased
clean-up funds are essential for protecting human health and the
environment.
It is essential that EPA provide support for research in the
areas of monitoring (both for leak detection and during
49
-------
corrective action) and clean-up technology. Developing
technology and encouraging it’s use can result in faster clean—up
to higher standards. A faster clean-up would also be much less
costly. If resources can be provided to achieve this, corrective
action could be completed on a much larger percentage of those
sites needing remediation, resulting in a savings of resources in
the future and better protection of the environment.
C. Ground Water Technology and 1(anagement Programs
1. Ground Water Technology Programs
The Ground Water Technology Unit (GWTU) provides in-house,
technical support to regional programs on ground water and
related environmental issues. CERCLA and RCRA project managers
are the primary clientele. Others include UIC permitting staff,
UST program staff, NEPA project officers, NPDES permit writers,
and other EPA personnel who need assistance with technical,
ground water related issues. The staff includes an
interdisciplinary mix of engineers, ground water hydrologists,
toxicologists, and a biologist. All work is intended to support
the environmentally protective, regulatory goals of the Agency.
Goals
The first goal of the unit is to provide a service that is
useful and sought after. This service must be solution—oriented,
timely, helpful, and technically competent. By focusing on
technical competence the GWTU frequently sets the standards to
which contractors and outside consulting firms must adhere as
they provide products to the Agency. These standards include
issues of technical accuracy and completeness for both
investigation methods and remedial goals and ensuring that the
Agency’s environmental protection goals are met. Maintaining
this ability to provide a useful service and to set technical
standards is the basic rationale for continuing to develop the
technical expertise of the GWTU.
Accomplishments to Date
As the Remedial Project Managers (RPMS) and other Regional
personnel have come to rely on the unit’s assistance, they have
found it both helpful and essential. The GWTU staff has become
closely involved in all aspects of the hazardous waste cleanup
process. This includes initial review of work plans, public
hearings, assistance with the technical design of remediation
efforts, and other steps along the process. The GWTU has become
the arbiter of ground water remedial goals for almost all ground
water related corrective and remedial actions in Region IV.
50
-------
Accomplishments versus Resources
As shown in Table V 1 the workload of the GWTU has continued
to grow.
Resources have increased over the years from 7 professionals
and 1 clerk-typist in 1986 to 10 professionals and 1 half—time
clerk typist in 1992.
Table V. GWTU WORfl QAD BY FISCAL YEAR
Fiscal Year Number Prolects Reviewed
1986 91
1987 269
1988 273
1989 276
1990 289
1991 320
1992 577
(For more detail, see Figures 26 & 27)
In addition to an increasing number of projects to review,
the unit’s workload often includes extensive computer modeling
efforts by the staff. GWTU reviewers must often check other
ground water modeling results by running an independent model.
Modeling is also frequently needed as the basis on which to
provide technical recommendations. Some of the models used
recently by the GWTU include:
MINTEQ A geochemistry speciation model, useful for
understanding and predicting the fate of metals in ground
water contamination and remediation.
MODFLOW and MOC Ground water flow and transport numerical
models developed by USGS.
MULTIMED A multimedia flow and transport model which
couples transport through the vadose zone with ground water
transport.
WHPA A set of four modules for delineating capture zones
around pumping wells. These modules were initially designed
for the Welihead Protection program, but they are also very
useful for developing recommendations for hazardous waste
remediat ion.
SUMMERS MODEL A simplified model that couples
infiltration with ground water flow, useful for
51
-------
PROJECTS COMPLETED
GROUNDWATER TECHNOLOGY UNIT
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Ol
to
Misc.
NEPA
Water Div.
Federal Fac.
RCRA
CERCLA
Total
4
3
36
2
8
38
91
3
19
55
10
22
160
269
2
4
32
0
15
220
273
12
0
12
1
50
201
276
4
8
8
7
49
213
289
19
4
6
49
38
207
320
5
2
14
87
34
435
577
FISCAL YEAR
Misc.
RCRA
NEPA
CERCLA
Water Div.
Total
Federal Fac.
Figure 26
-------
PROJECTS COMPLETED
GROUNDWATER TECHNOLOGY UNIT
FISCAL YEAR
1986
01
CO
0
100
200 300 400
PROJECTS
500
I Misc.
CD RCRA
NEPA Mti Water Div.
CERCLA dl Total
600
700
Federal Fac.
Figure 27
-------
approximating needed soil cleanup levels.
PLUME A two- or three-dimensional program for calculating
point concentrations from a variety of sources.
PLASM A one— or two—dimensional ground water flow and
transport model.
A variety of other ground water analytical models are also
used, such as Thiem’s method, Thejs’s method, Hantush—Jacob’s
method, etc.
UPTAXE/BIOKINETIC MODEL FOR LEAD A method of predicting
blood lead levels in populations exposed to lead in air,
diet, drinking water, indoor dust, soil, and paint.
RISK ASSISTANT A program to assist in preparing Risk
Assessments.
RISK ASSESSMENT AND CHEMICALS OF CONCERN PROGRAM A
spreadsheet developed by the GWTU Toxicologist to quickly
delineate chemicals of concern from a balanced toxicological
basis.
Projections
Projections indicate a continuing increase in the demand for
GWTU reviews and assistance. This demand is expected to outstrip
the ability of the Water Management Division to provide
additional staff resources needed to meet the increasing
workload. In the absence of additional staff, there is
increasing short-term pressure to provide quick reviews with less
intensive modeling and analysis, potentially having an adverse
impact on the quality of product. A balance must be maintained
between providing this assistance and allowing the GWTU staff
time to maintain professional expertise and to learn new models.
Management assistance may be needed to maintain this balance
between short-term goals and long-term competence.
Anticipated Resource Needs
In priority order, projected needs for GWTU include:
a. Additional technical staff.
b. Training resources, especially for courses and
workshops in specialized ground water technology.
c. Additional PC software such as new models;
hardware, such as high-capacity hard disks to
allow storage and quick access to complex models;
and both hardware and software for graphical
54
-------
capabilities.
2. Ground Water Management Programs
The Ground Water Management Unit is involved with a variety
of activities and programs. The Staff manages the 106 Ground
Water Grant, Welihead Protection Program (WHPP), National
Pesticide Survey, Sole Source Aquifer Program, Ag Chemicals in
Ground Water Strategy, the Ground Water Strategy and several
other programs for all eight (8) States in Region IV. The Unit
is staffed with professionals from various disciplines such as
engineering, geology, and chemistry who provide technical and
administrative support to the States and other programs within
EPA.
Goals
The overall goal for the Ground Water Management Unit is to
prevent adverse effects to human health and the environment and
to protect the environmental integrity of the nation’s ground
water resources. It is our aim to establish prevention practices
and techniques as the preferred means of protecting ground water
resources from degradation, adverse health risks, and to preserve
the resources for present and future generations’ usage.
In order to accomplish this goal, the Unit has
responsibility for managing the 106 Ground Water Protection Grant
Program, overseeing state program development and implementation,
managing the Welihead Protection Program (WHPP), coordinating and
integrating ground water activities through the Agency’s Ground
Water Strategy, implementing the Sole Source Aquifer Program and
providing ground water technical support to the Water Division
and other Regional programs by establishing realistic clean-up
objectives and initiating and completing clean-up actions to
reduce risks to acceptable levels. Also, it is our plan to
enhance the education of the public and regulated community on
the uses and importance of ground water, the risks of
contamination, and prevention techniques.
The Ground Water Management Unit is comprised of a variety
of technical and administrative resources such as administrative
management and negotiation of state grants, analysis of state
accomplishments regarding ground water grant activities,
information and technology sharing, identification of research
needs, work with states to develop comprehensive state ground
water protection strategies, and other activities.
Accomplishments to Date
When the Agency was created in 1970, there was no specific
program which managed the ground water resource. During the
55
-------
1980’s, it was recognized that the authority to protect ground
water resources was fragmented among many different statutes and
the resource was largely undefined. In 1984, EPA adopted a
Ground Water Protection Strategy in which the federal and state
roles were more clearly defined. The 1984 Strategy targeted
several items for action: 1) Increase state capacity and
capability; 2) Develop a framework for consistent
decision—making; 3) Address previously unaddressed sources of
contamination; and 4) Strengthen EPA’S internal ground water
framework.
An initial step in building state capacity was the
requirement for States to develop state strategies that described
their program, authorities, gaps and recommendations for filling
those gaps. Each Region IV state has developed a ground water
protection strategy which defines an approach that best addresses
their particular needs. Several of the eight (8) Region IV state
strategies were updated as new programs were introduced.
As a result of the 1984 Strategy, the 106 Ground Water
Protection Program Grant was made available to the states in
support of their program development efforts. The first 106
Ground Water Grant was awarded in 1985. The ground water portion
of the grant is awarded annually to each state to develop and
implement state programs to comprehensively protect ground water.
Each state is required to submit annual 106 Ground Water
Workplans to EPA for review and approval. Presently, all region
IV states are meeting this requirement.
The Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP), an important element
of an overall ground water program, was authorized by the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986. This program was designed
to protect the public water supply systems from possible
contamination. Each state is required to develop and submit to
EPA a WHPP which includes the roles and responsibilities of
implementing state and local agencies, methods for delineation of
welihead protection areas (WHPA5), approaches to inventorying and
managing sources of contamination, contingency plans, managing
new wells and public participation. Although the Safe Drinking
Water Act authorized the WHPP, no funding to support the program
was ever appropriated. The program had to be funded from a
portion of the 106 grant. Presently, Alabama, Georgia and South
Carolina have an approved WHPP in place. The other states are in
the development and review phase. Also, the Region has conducted
several workshops and training courses over the past few years to
aid state and local agencies in developing their WHPP programs.
In recent years, several other strategies and efforts have
been initiated in the ground water protection area that interact
with many other programs. They include: Ag Chemicals in Ground
Water Strategy, National Pesticide Survey, Nitrogen Strategy,
Non-point Source (319) program, Ground Water Task Force, and the
56
-------
National Water—Quality Assessment (NWQA) Studies. Most recently,
the Agency published the Ground Water Task Force Report which
describes and outlines EPA’S new Ground Water Strategy. Under
the Strategy, the Agency has focused its efforts on four major
objectives: 1) Building State capacity; 2) Addressing sources of
contamination; 3) Establishing ground water policy direction and
program consistency; and 4) Coordinating EPA programs.
The outcomes of this strategy are policy and implementation
principles that are intended to set forth an aggressive approach
to protecting the nation’s ground water resources. The approach
is in seven (7) steps. The first step is to set a clear
statement of Agency policy which will serve as a decision-making
framework for all Agency programs relating to the ground water
resource. The second step is to focus on comprehensive resource
management which builds on current State activities by providing
financial incentives for filling in gaps in protection efforts
and building comprehensive protection programs on the State
level. Third, the Agency will place an increased emphasis on
prevention of ground water contamination and strive to achieve a
greater balance between prevention and remediation activities.
The fourth step is to clearly define the EPA and State
relationship in ground water protection. The next step relates
to the adequacy of a State program. The Agency’s new policy
describes EPA’S intention to refine over the next year the
definition of the elements of a State Ground Water Protection
Program, and how each of the elements must be addressed to
develop a program that is “adequate” to comprehensively protect a
State’s resource. A.lso, EPA will strive to provide greater
flexibility to a State in implementing Agency programs when that
State has achieved an “adequate” ground water protection program
which affords comprehensive protection of the resource.
The final two steps involves EPA oversight role and
coordinating funding. EPA oversight in the Agency’s ground water
related programs will shift from a program-specific basis to a
cross—program, resource-based approach which will be further
defined over the coming years. Concerning funding, EPA will use
the coordinated management of current ground water related grants
and the incentive of increased funding for States showing
progress with comprehensive protection of the resource.
Accomplishments versus Resources
Since 1985 the Ground Water Management Unit has been
involved with a variety of activities and programs, most of which
did not exist at that time. Some of the major GWMU activities
and programs are: 106 Ground Water Management; Welihead
Protection; State Profiles; State Ground Water Protection
Strategies; National Pesticide Survey; Ag Chemicals in Ground
Water Strategy; Nitrogen Strategy; Non-point Source Program; Sole
57
-------
Source Aquifer Program; and the Ground Water Task Force Report
(the new Ground Water Strategy).
In the past, emphasis was placed on building state capacity
and capability through developing and implementing state ground
water protection strategies, conducting ground water
investigation, data management, wellhead protection program
development, and pesticides management. Presently, pursuant to
the Agency’s new Ground Water Strategy, considerable emphasis is
being placed on developing comprehensive state ground water
protection programs that build on the current programs.
The total 106 Ground Water grant allocation for Region IV
states in FY 1987 was $1,080,000. In FY 1992, an estimated
$2,070,000 was awarded to the States (Figure 27). Figures 28
through 34 show a breakdown of 106 grant dollars versus the
program element by State.
Projections
Over the next several years, one of Region IV’s goal as it
relates to ground water will be to implement the EPA Ground Water
Strategy for the 1990s. We will seek to improve integration of
all EPA programs related to ground water protection; improve
coordination with other federal agencies; establish the elements
and criteria for oversight of adequate Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs (CSGWPP8); and identify opportunities
for increased and more consistent deference to State ground water
protection objectives, priorities, and approaches. We will
include how a State is making progress in implementing the
CSGWPPs as a part in the mid-year evaluation.
Since the CSGWIP? will be a major focus in the coming years,
it is appropriate to address the process a State will take to
move toward implementing the CSGWPP. This process involves
completing the State Profile which is a “snapshot” of the
existing State program, tailoring the National guidance to meet
State needs, assessing the current program against the National
guidance and identifying program gaps, developing a multi-year
program plan to fill these gaps, developing annual workplans that
respond to the multi-year program plan and establishing a State
coordination mechanism. By going through this process, a State
would be making significant progress toward obtaining an
“adequate” program.
Presently, we are working with the States on developing and
implementing a Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP). This effort
is expected to continue in the coming years and will be a
significant part of ground water protection.
58
-------
106 Ground Water Grants
Region IV, Totals by Year
Million $
1 5
01
to
0 5
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Fiscal Year
Figure 28
-------
O)
o
106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Expenditures, 1985-1990
Admin.
Thousand $
1400
L_l GW Invest. 120°
Data Man.
Monitoring
Pest. Man.
Pub. Info.
Res. Asses.
Wellhead
Region IV
Figure 29
-------
AL 106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Program Elements 1985-1990
Thousand $
Alabama
Program Element
Admin.
Pest. Man.
GW Inv.
Pub. Info.
Data Man. I
Res. Asse.l
Monitoring
Wellhead
Figure 30
-------
S 300
FL 106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Program Elements 1985-1990
Thousand $
Admin.
Pest. Man.
Florida
GW Inv.
Pub. Info.
Data Man. I
Res. Asse.l
Monitoring
Wellhead
Figure 31
-------
GA 106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Program Elements 1985-1990
Thousand $
400
300
o>
CO
Admin.
Pest. Man.
Georgia
GW Inv.
Pub. Info.
Data Man. I
Res. Asse.l
Monitoring
Wellhead
Figure 32
-------
MS 106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Program Elements 1985-1990
Thousand $
400
350
300
250
2 200
150
100
50
0
Admin.
Pest. Man.
Mississippi
GW Inv.
Pub. Info.
Data Man.
Res. Asse.l
Monitoring
Wellhead
Figure 33
-------
NC 106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Program Elements 1985-1990
Thousand $
600
01
Admin.
Pest. Man.
North Carolina
GW Inv.
Pub. Info.
Data Man. I
Res. Asse.l
Monitoring
Wellhead
Figure 34
-------
250
o>
O)
SC 106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Program Elements 1985-1990
Thousand $
South Carolina
Admin.
Pest. Man.
GW Inv.
Pub. Info.
Data Man. I
Res. Asse.i
Monitoring
Wellhead
Figure 35
-------
o>
•vl
TN 106 Ground Water Grant
Selected Program Elements 1985-1990
Tennessee Budget Information Does Not Allow
Object Class Information To Be Separated
Tennessee
Admin.
Pest. Man.
GW \r\\f.
Pub. Info.
Data Man.
Res. Asse.
Monitoring
Wellhead
Figure 36
-------
AnticiDated Resource Needs
Because of the increasing responsibilities in the areas of
the Ground Water Strategy, Welihead Protection and the CSGWPP,
the Ground Water Management Unit will need more personnel to
review documents/reports and to respond to inquires from other
agencies and the general public on these programs. Also, an
increase in staff is needed to perform the overall management and
implementation of the new programs as well as maintaining our
present responsibilities.
In a recent roundtable discussion with the States on the
CSGWPP, the States questioned about the possibility of increasing
their funding to implement the CSGWPP, WHP, and other new
programs. This matter is a major concern for them since locally,
they are experiencing a reduction in financial support. Also,
the States encourage EPA to continue offering the WHP
demonstration grants. These grants have been very beneficial to
the local communities in delineating their welihead protection
areas.
68
-------
IV. EPA’S GROUND WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY FOR THE ruTUIE
-------
IV. EPA’S GROUND WAiER PROTECTION STRATEGY FOR THE IeUTURE
A. NEED MID GOAL
During the early 1980’s, EPA recognized that the authority
to protect our ground water was fragmented among many different
statutes and was largely undefined. As a result, in 1984 the
Agency adopted a Ground Water Protection Strategy to articulate
both the problem and EPA’S role in a national ground water
protection program.
While this strategy was effective in creating momentum for
States to develop and implement ground water programs, the
passage of time and growing body of experience indicated that
gaps remained in protection efforts across the country. It
became clear that there was a need to assess our progress and
adjust our approach to take into account recent changes in
statutory authorities and our increased knowledge of the issue by
promoting comprehensive protection on the State and local level.
B. POLICY
In 1989, EPA Administrator, William Reilly created the
Ground Water Task Force to review the present Ground Water
Strategy and develop recommendations for providing a better
approach to protect ground water. One of the major reasons for
the creation of this task force was that ground water activities
occur within many EPA Programs and in a number of different state
and local agencies. These ground water activities are often
perceived as being uncoordinated which can lead to gaps in ground
water protection, duplication in activities, or programs working
at cross purposes.
The Task Force completed its work during the summer of ‘91
and issued the Ground Water Task Force Report which is known as
“EPA’S New Ground Water Strategy”. The report reaffirms EPA’S
policy of:
Focusing on the protection of both human health and the
environment,
Emphasizing a resource—based, prevention-oriented approach
to ground water protection,
Advocating a differential protection approach to managing
ground water quality that considers use, value, and
vulnerability.
70
-------
C. PRINCIPLES
In order to implement the policy, the report recommended
implementation principles. Three basic themes embodied in these
principles are:
PREVENTION - The cost of remediation suggests that
prevention is the most cost-effective approach to ground
water quality management.
PRIORITIZATION - The principles stress that all ground water
activities should be prioritized based on relative risk.
INTEGRATION - An effective ground water protection program
must integrate federal, state, and local activities within
each of these levels of government and across them.
Probably the most important principle is integration of
activities and programs at the federal, state, and local level.
The cornerstone of this integration is the State-developed and
implemented Comprehensive Ground Water Protection Program. The
goal of the strategy’s new federal/state relationship is to
coordinate the operations and objectives of the ground water
programs to form a coherent whole which comprehensively protects
the resource. Each program will maintain its independent
identity and continue to carry out its mandate. However, each
program will rely on common elements, goals, and principles to
assure coordination, cooperation, and comprehensive protection of
the nation’s ground water.
This new comprehensive approach, that stresses integration
and cooperation among programs, attempts to take advantage of our
collective experiences to enable more efficient use of all
resources and consistent environmental decisions. The
development of ground water programs at all levels of government
has been truly impressive.
D. CON LUS ION
As EPA moves into the twenty-first century, it is with a
keen awareness that the Nation’s ground water is of vital
importance to our country, to the health of our citizens, the
integrity of our ecosystems, and the vigor of the economy. Every
effort to protect the quality of these resources must be made.
It is not the intent of EPA’S New Ground Water Strategy to start
over again, but to build upon our previous accomplishments and
successes. Many things have been done to protect the ground
water in the last 20 to 30 years, but much still remains to be
done.
71
------- |