United States Office of Ground-Water March 1985 Environmental Protection Protection (WH-550G) Agency Washington DC 20460 <>EPA Overview of State Ground-Water Program Summaries Volume 1 ------- OVERVIEW OF STATE GROUND-WATER PROGRAM SUMMARIES VOLUME I U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Office of Ground-Water Protection Washington, D.C. 20iป60 March 1985 ------- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Ground-Water Protection, in Washington, D.C., and the Ground-Water Offices of the ten EPA Regions. Steve Page of the Office of Ground-Water Protection coordinated this project. It was reviewed by state officials. EPA appreciates the assistance provided by the states in this effort. Technical support was provided by Policy Planning & Evaluation, Inc., located at 8301 Greensboro Drive, Suite 160, McLean, Virginia 22102. ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION i I. GROUND-WATER USES AND CONTAMINATION 1 Primary Uses of Ground Water 1 Domestic Use 2 Agricultural Use 2 Industrial Use 3 Nature of Ground-Water Contamination 3 Movement of Ground Water 3 Discharge to Surface Water 4 Ground-Water Withdrawals 4 Characteristics of Recharge Areas and Unsaturated Zones 5 Sources of Ground-Water Contamination 5 Waste Disposal Methods and Facilities 6 Landfills ซซ 6 Surface Impoundments 7 Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites 7 Septic Systems 7 Brine Pits 7 Injection Wells 8 Land Treatment 8 Nondisposal Activities 8 Agricultural Practices 8 Industrial and Manufacturing Operations 9 Underground Storage 9 Other Sources 9 II. STATE ACTIVITIES AIMED AT PROTECTING GROUND WATER 11 Developing Ground-Water Policies and Strategies 11 Nondegradation 12 Limited Degradation 12 Differential Protection 13 Quality Standards 14 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page No. II. STATE ACTIVITIES AIMED AT PROTECTING GROUND WATER (CONTINUED) Administering Ground-Water Programs T4 Establishing Responsibility for Ground-Water Protection Programs 15 Assessing and Monitoring Ground-Water Resources 15 Ground-Water Resource Assessment 16 Ground-Water Contamination Assessment and Monitoring 16 Nonhazardous Waste Sites 17 Hazardous Waste Sites 17 Salt-Water Intrusion 17 Pesticides 17 Drinking Water 18 Other Areas of Monitoring 18 Developing State-Originated Control Programs 18 Land Use 18 Septic Tank Regulations 19 Agricultural Contamination Control 19 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 20 Contamination Response 20 Brine Disposal 20 Radioactive Materials 20 Formulating Interagency Agreements 21 Policy and Strategy Development 21 Protection of Specific Aquifers 21 Discharges to Ground Water 22 Underground Injection Control 22 Response to Contamination 23 Hydrogeologic Studies 23 Managing and Funding Federally Delegated Programs .... 23 UIC Program ^ RCRA Subtitle C Program 25 FIFRA Program 25 CWA Program 26 PWS Program 27 Involving the Public in Protecting Ground Water 27 Appendix A: Summary Tables on Ground-Water Use and Quality ... A-1 Appendix B: EPA Regional Ground-Water Representatives B-1 Appendix C: State Contacts C~1 ------- INTRODUCTION In the last decade, ground-water contamination has emerged as a major problem throughout the country. State and local agencies, which have the primary responsibility for protecting ground water, are in various stages of developing and implementing policies, statutes, and strategies to meet their particular needs. In August 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released the EPA Ground-Water Protection Strategy. Among other things, the strategy commits EPA to assisting states in building the institutional capability they need to protect their ground water. This report is part of that effort. It presents information EPA compiled from available sources on the basic elements of ground-water programs and activities in the fifty states and selected territories. It is not a comprehensive summary of all state ground-water programs. EPA will use this report for program development purposes. In addition, EPA will make it available to the states to help them exchange information and ideas on approaches for addressing common ground-water problems. State officials have reviewed this report for accuracy. However, some of its information may differ from information in other sources. In certain cases, this is because information was not readily available and thus could not be provided in time for this report. Also, this report was prepared before EPA awarded $7 million to the states and territories for identifying ground-water problems in their jurisdictions and for developing and implementing ground-water protection strategies and programs. EPA intends to update this information periodically using information from the state ground-water grants and other sources. i ------- This report is divided into two volumes. Volume I first discusses the uses and contamination of ground water and then provides an overview of state policies and strategies for protecting ground water. Volume II presents the background information compiled by EPA. This information was used in preparing Volume I. Each volume contains the same three appendices. Appendix A provides summary tables on ground-water use and quality, Appendix B lists the EPA Regional Ground-Water Representatives, and Appendix C lists the state officials who verified the information. Any questions about Volume I should be directed to Marian Mlay, Director, Office of Ground-Water Protection, ^01 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Any questions about Volume II should be directed to the EPA Regional Ground-Water Representatives or the appropriate state officials. ii ------- I. GROUND-WATER USES AND CONTAMINATION Ground water is a vast resource beneath the surface of the earth. It appears in aquifers, which are geologic formations that contain enough water to yield usable amounts to wells and springs. Usable ground water is present nearly everywhere in the United States. The volume of known ground water is about fifty times greater than annual surface flow in the entire nation. Another way to conceptualize the immense size of this resource is to consider that the volume of ground water to be found within one-half mile of the earth's surface is estimated to be more than four times that of the Great Lakes. Because of its dimension and because of geologic and geochemical factors that influence its movement and characteristics, ground water is a very complex resource to understand. Once contaminated, ground water is difficult to monitor and expensive to clean. Sometimes it cannot be cleaned using proven technology. Following is a brief discussion of the primary uses of ground water and the nature and sources of its contamination. PRIMARY USES OF GROUND WATER In general, the degree to which people use ground water depends on a number of factors. One is whether good-quality surface water is available, and another is the relative cost of delivering the ground water to individual users. Ground water makes up about one-fourth of all the fresh water used in the United States. Between 1950 and 1980, total ground-water withdrawals increased from 3^ to 89 billion gallons per day (BGD), an increase of 162 percent. The 1980 figure represents 2k percent of all the fresh water used (372 BGD) that year. In part, this increase has -1- ------- been the result of changes in irrigation and population migration during the 1970s to rural and suburban areas, where ground water is more easily accessible than surface water. The 1985 ground-water withdrawals are projected to reach 100 BGD. The principal uses of ground water in 1980 were for irrigation (60 BGD) and public drinking water (12 BGD). While smaller amounts were used in industries and rural households, the degree of dependence was often more acute.^ Domestic Use About 117 million people in the United States rely on ground water for their domestic needs (Table A-1). Of the 100 largest cities, 3*4 derive their water either completely or partly from ground water. And in the seven most populated states New York, California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Texas, and New Jersey more than 52 million people receive their drinking water at least partly from ground water. Of the 622 public water supply systems in New Jersey, 558 obtain most of their supplies from ground water. In the less populated, rural areas of the country, 95 percent of the residents depend entirely on this resource for domestic uses. Agricultural Use The agricultural states in the Midwest and the West depend heavily on ground water for irrigation. Arkansas, Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas use over 90 percent of their ground water for agricultural activities (Table A-2). ^"Ground Water: Issues and Answers," American Institute of Professional Geologists, 1983. -2- ------- Industrial Use Although small when compared with the quantities of ground water used for agriculture, some states' withdrawals for industrial uses constitute a large portion of their total withdrawals. Because a significant number of industries are located in the eastern half of the country, many states there use over 30 percent of their ground water for industrial purposes. Kentucky uses 58 percent of its ground water for industry (Table A-3). NATURE OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION Ground-water contamination and its impact on the environment depend in part on geologic and hydrologic characteristics that vary from state to state. These characteristics determine how quickly ground water moves, how and whether it is discharged to surface water, how withdrawing it affects surface water, how effectively soils filter out pollutants, and how easily pollutants can enter aquifers. Movement of Ground Water In general, ground water moves very slowly. Formations containing layers of consolidated clays with little fracturing allow ground water to move as slowly as a few inches a year. But in strata containing unconsolidated sand and gravel, ground water moves as fast as 800 feet a year or more. Ground water may also move comparatively rapidly through cavernous limestone formations. These slow rates do not allow contaminants to spread or mix quickly. The contaminants thus remain concentrated in slow-moving plumes, which can remain undetected until water wells or surface waters are contaminated. -3- ------- Moreover, contaminants in ground water unlike those in surface water generally move in a plume with relatively little mixing or dispersion, so concentrations remain high. These plumes move slowly through the aquifer and are typically present for many years sometimes for decades or longer making the resource virtually unusable over periods of time. Although opportunity exists for chemical or biological transformation, changes in the concentrations of contaminants occur slowly, so that they may not be readily discernible in the short term. Because an individual plume may underlie only a very small part of the land surface, it is difficult to detect by aquiferwide or regional monitoring. Discharge to Surface Water Even though ground water moves slowly through the ground, it usually discharges to surface waters. In some areas of the country, springs and aquifers contribute large quantitites of water to the flow of streams. In the coastal states, aquifers discharge into the seas and wetlands and supplement fresh-water flows. In other areas, ground waters discharge into lakes, ponds, and inland wetlands. If ground water becomes contaminated, the contamination may eventally appear in surface water. Depending on the geologic and hydrological characteristics of the aquifers involved, contaminated ground water may discharge to surface areas as quickly as within one year or as slowly as within one thousand years or more. Ground-Water Withdrawals In almost all parts of the country, ground water is present in alluvium along streams and rivers. In these settings, the ground water often interconnects with the surface water. This means that at times excessive ground-water withdrawals can reduce stream flows. If the stream waters are polluted, the withdrawals can thus increase the concentration of pollutants in ground waters. -H- ------- Characteristics of Recharge Areas and Unsaturated Zones The potential for contamination also depends on the characteristics of recharge areas. These are areas where water enters the aquifers through geologic formations. In many parts of the country, the recharge areas are close to the land surface and may be affected significantly by land use and industrial practices. The depth and types of soils above the aquifer, the depth from the earth's surface to ground water, and many other facts also affect the potential for contamination. In some areas, the water table is within twenty feet of the land surface, and the unsaturated zone consists of highly permeable sand and gravel beds. Ground water in these areas can become contaminated relatively quickly by industrial, domestic, and agricultural activities. In other areas, the unsaturated zones are deep, and their beds consist of layers of highly impermeable materials. Contaminants in such areas may not reach ground waters, or will do so only after a very long time. Finally, certain aquifers are buried deep beneath other aquifers. They become contaminated either through leakage from other aquifers, through poorly cased wells, or through pollutants' entering their recharge zones. Because the geologic and hydrologic characteristics of aquifers vary within and among states, they are too numerous to discuss in this summary report. Thus, they are described briefly for each state in Volume II. SOURCES OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION Ground-water contamination can result from a wide variety of sources and substances. The substances include inorganic compounds, such as nitrates and chlorides; complex organic compounds, including -5- ------- trichloroethylene, benzene, and dioxin; metals; pesticides; and radioactive materials (Tables A-^ and A-5). Some of these substances occur naturally. They include salts, nitrates, radium, and barium. Nitrates can also be man-made, such as fertilizers and human and animal waste disposal. However, the focus here is on man-made sources of ground-water contamination. This is because of the feasibility of using preventive measures to control them. There are two categories of sources of ground-water contamination: waste disposal methods and facilities, and nondisposal activities. As a result of differences in hydrogeologic conditions and ground-water use, the threats posed by these sources vary greatly with each specific site. Waste Disposal Methods and Facilities Improper waste disposal accounts for a substantial amount of ground- water contamination. Many types of waste disposal methods and facilities have contaminated ground water substantially. They include landfills, abandoned hazardous waste sites, surface impoundments, septic systems, brine disposal, injection wells, and land application. Landfills There are an estimated 93,000 landfills in the United States. Of these, 75,000 are classified as on-site/industrial landfills, and we know little about them. Another 18,500 are classified as municipal landfills. Landfills have been located on such sites as marshlands, old strip mines, and limestone sinkholes. Many of these sites are susceptible to ground-water contamination. As a result, over half of the states have experienced contamination problems from on-site industrial landfills (excluding surface pits, lagoons, and surface impoundments) and municipal landfills. -6- ------- Surface Impoundments A situation similar to that at landfills is found at pits, ponds, and lagoons. Usually grouped and referred to as surface impoundments, these sites receive both hazardous and nonhazardous wastes. Most of them are unlined, and about 40 percent are located over thin or permeable soils, over aquifers currently used for drinking or that could be used for drinking. As a result, thirty-six states have ground-water contamination at these sites. Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites It is estimated that there are more than 20,000 abandoned hazardous waste sites across the United States. It is expected that ground-water contamination is occuring at a majority of these sites. Septic Systems Approximately 20 million American households use septic systems. These systems discharge high volumes of waste to ground water. The primary health hazard is from the release of pathogens and nitrates to ground water. Thirty-six states have experienced ground-water contamination due to septic tanks. The presence of organic cleaning solvents from efforts to clean the tanks is a growing concern as well. Brine Pits The disposal of brine-containing fluids into unlined pits has contaminated the ground water in many oil-producing states. Twenty-one states have known ground-water contamination due to oil and gas brine pits. -7- ------- Injection Wells The practice of disposing of wastes into the ground through injection wells has contaminated ground water in at least eighteen states. Currently, underground injection is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Wastes legally disposed of into injection wells include hazardous and toxic industrial wastes, municipal sewage wastes, radioactive wastes, and oil-field brines. The abandoned and improperly plugged wells also cause ground-water pollution and can be more problematic than operating wells. Land Treatment The disposal of wastes through land treatment is intended to return nutrients and waters to the soil. This method, when done incorrectly, can introduce toxic materials into the ground water. Seven states have experienced such contamination. Nondisposal Activities Nondisposal practices account for a large number of the incidents of ground-water contamination across the country. These include using pesticides, animal feedlot wastes, fertilizers, and chemigation (where chemicals are mixed with irrigation waters) for agricultural activities; applying chemicals in industrial and manufacturing operations; and storing liquids in underground tanks. Agricultural Practices Pesticides have been found in ground water in about half of the states. Besides being detected in the primary agricultural states, pesticides have been discovered in ground water in such states as Arizona, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. -8- ------- Industrial and Manufacturing Operations Information has been gathered on synthetic organic chemicals in general, and volatile organic chemicals in particular. Both result, in part, from industrial and manufacturing activities. Often contaminants enter ground water by percolating as leachate from unlined Industrial waste pits. Accidental leaks and spills of these chemicals from storage and transportation facilities also contaminate ground water. At least thirty states have documented ground-water contamination because of synthetic organic chemicals, and thirty-three have experienced localized contamination by volatile organic compounds. Underground Storage Underground storage tanks containing gasoline, oil, and hazardous chemicals have received increasing attention recently. Many bare steel tanks are over twenty years old and are not protected from corrosion. Detecting cracks, corrosion, and leakages in them is difficult. In at least forty-one states, these facilities have contaminated ground waters. Other Sources High concentrations of sodium chloride can seep into ground water from road de-icing and the improper storage of road salts. Eleven states, including all the New England states, attribute some ground- water contamination to de-icing practices. Because of excessive ground-water withdrawal, salt water in nineteen states has intruded into fresh-water supplies. This intrusion can occur from a saline aquifer located beneath the fresh-water supplies or from the ocean. This problem exists principally in the coastal states. Contamination from other inorganic chemicals has been found in the ground water of about a dozen states. For example, sulfate and chloride -9- ------- contamination have resulted from improperly constructed wells and damaged well casings. Abandoned mines have discharged acidic waters and caused contamination in some states. About half the states have documented contamination due to metallic residues. Much of the problem can be attributed to mineral processing and heavy industrial activites. Contamination due to metals has occurred in mining as well as nonmining states. Radioactive substances occur as waste products from uranium mining, nuclear-reactor operations, and hospital activities. As a result, they have been found in the ground-water supplies of about a dozen states. -10- ------- II. STATE ACTIVITIES AIMED AT PROTECTING GROUND WATER In structuring a comprehensive ground-water protection program, a state has a number of possibilities: to develop a protection strategy, to adopt a ground-water classification system, to establish protection standards, to enact specific statutes, and to create an organizational structure. In addition, a state may assess its resources and develop monitoring programs. Individual states develop interagency agreements to coordinate the activities of state agencies and direct federal grants to ground-water protection. The order in which these activities are conducted depends on the particular needs of a state. In general, state activities can be divided into two broad categories: development of policies and strategies, and administration of programs. DEVELOPING GROUND-WATER POLICIES AND STRATEGIES Before developing their policies, several states prepared extensive background information. For example, Delaware prepared a "Ground-Water Quality Management" report in 1983; Michigan, a "Ground-Water Protection Initiatives" report; Oklahoma, a background report called the "Task 832 Report"; and Kansas, a "Ground-Water Quality Management Plan." To date, twenty-seven states have already developed policies for protecting ground-water quality, and twenty-eight states are either formulating or revising such policies (Table A-6). Many factors influence how a state develops its ground-water protection policies. These factors include the state's geography and hydrogeology, the nature and extent of its water resources, its economic interests, and how heavily it depends on ground water. States with a high demand for ground water generally establish policies very different from those in states where surface water is abundant. -11- ------- While some states rely on statutes to carry out their policies for protecting ground water, many others rely on existing administrative authorities. Twelve states have enacted specific ground-water protection statutes. States use these statutes for a variety of purposes, including to establish discharge limits in permits, to prevent further degradation of ground-water quality, to bring enforcement actions, to clean contaminated ground waters, and to control land uses. Many states have adopted or proposed one of three general policies: nondegradation, limited degradation, or differential protection. Although these categories are different, some states have combined more than one policy (Table A-7). For example, while some states have differential protection policies, they may also have limited degradation policies to protect their drinking-water supplies. Ground-water quality standards are also used by some states to determine the permissible level of contaminants in ground water sometimes in combination with differential protection policies. Nondegradation A nondegradation policy protects the quality of ground water at existing levels. This policy is generally accompanied by waivers for specific activities for which nondegradation is not achievable. Sixteen states have policies incorporating nondegradation goals. Limited Degradation A limited degradation policy is designed to preserve ground-water quality above a specified standard. Seventeen states have adopted limited degradation policies. Most of them use a combination of prescriptive and narrative standards. -12- ------- Differential Protection A differential protection policy focuses on the present and potential uses of ground water. Among the states and territories, those uses and the accepted levels of purity for them will vary. Twelve states have policies incorporating differential protection. To reduce the complexity of their task, states have classified their ground water and established criteria for the different classifications. Twenty-two states have adopted or proposed some type of classification system (Table A-8). Following are some examples of the diversity of the criteria for classifications. Types of uses While some states protect drinking-water supplies only, others protect waters suitable for domestic uses, agricultural uses, fish and aquatic life (ground water may discharge to surface waters), and livestock. Degree of treatment In certain states, the classifications are based on degree of treatment. Sources of drinking water that are usable without any treatment and those that may have to be treated to be potable receive different levels of protection. Salinity-quality levels In some states, waters with chloride concentrations of less than 250 mg/1, between 250 mg/1 and 1,000 mg/1, and over 1,000 mg/1, and with total dissolved solid concentrations of less than 500 mg/1, between 500 mg/1 and 10,000 mg/1, and over 10,000 mg/1, are divided into separate classes and receive different degrees of protection. Vulnerability to contamination Only a handful of states have classified ground water based on depth to the saturated zone. However, they have not specified any criteria for permeability of the aquifers. 0 Environmental importance of aquifers A few states have taken steps to protect the ground water of unique and fragile ecosystems. These areas have usually received the highest level of protection. Availability of other water supplies Some states apply as a classification standard whether drinking water is available from surface supplies or whether ground water is the only source of supply. -13- ------- Quality Standards In general, states have specified two types of quality standards: prescriptive and narrative. Prescriptive standards specify the contaminants and their respective levels that must not be exceeded. Narrative standards, on the other hand, are general and contain such statements as: "discharges shall not cause a public health hazard," or, "discharges shall not impair future uses." Narrative standards are, thus, general guidelines that must be implemented on a case-by-case basis. In specifying prescriptive standards, states have generally begun by listing chemicals for which maximum contaminant levels have been specified or for which health advisories under the Safe Drinking Water Act have been issued. Then, after further examination, they have expanded the list. For example, New York regulates more than eighty chemicals, New Jersey has specified between thirty-five and forty organic and inorganic chemicals, and North Carolina has regulated twenty to thirty chemicals. In addition to specifying regulated chemicals, many classifications also contain standards for taste, odor, color, biochemical oxygen demand, and coliform bacteria (Table A-9). ADMINISTERING GROUND-WATER PROGRAMS States have undertaken a variety of actions to manage their ground- water resources. These include establishing responsibility for ground-water protection programs, assessing and monitoring ground-water resources, developing state-originated control programs, formulating interagency agreements, managing and funding federally delegated programs, and involving the public in protecting ground water. -1H- ------- Establishing Responsibility for Ground-Water Protection Programs Across the states, different agencies are handling similar responsibilities for protecting ground water (Table A-10). For example, almost all states have programs for collecting data related to ground- water and aquifer mapping programs. In many states, agencies share these responsibilities. Depending on the state, the state geological survey and the departments of natural resources, water resources, environmental management, health, or mining may be responsible for collecting data. Assessing and Monitoring Ground-Water Resources Ground-water resource assessments, which are often complex, require extensive time and money. For this reason they are not conducted frequently by the states. In addition, the lack of testing methods for some chemicals and a growing list of potential contaminants make this task more difficult. Nevertheless, all states have at least assessed their ground-water resources or the extent of ground-water contamination (Table A-11). Increased monitoring and assessment of ground-water resources have created the need in many states to develop and maintain many types of databases. In addition to water-quality data, some states are also gathering data on pollution sources. For example, Vermont and Florida have developed an inventory of ground-water pollution sources. Ground-Water Resource Assessment Several states have undertaken studies to map their aquifers, to assess the vulnerability of aquifers for contamination, and to evaluate the quality of ground water. For example, Maryland and Illinois have completed atlases that classify aquifers and their vulnerability to -15- ------- contamination. Wyoming and New Mexico have performed reconnaissance- level mapping based on existing data, and Missouri has conducted a hydrological study of shallow aquifers in the western part of the state. Similarly, West Virginia is mapping aquifer recharge areas, and New York is mapping valley aquifers. Several states, including Rhode Island and Vermont, are identifying recharge areas of aquifers from which public water systems withdraw their water. Furthermore, many states, Including Louisiana and Arkansas, have prepared an inventory of public water supply wells. Finally, some states have prepared maps containing geographical information. Florida, for example, has developed maps showing the locations of cities and communities in relation to its aquifers, while Nebraska has developed maps indicating sensitivity to ground-water pollution. Ground-Water Contamination Assessment and Monitoring Thirty states have recently conducted major assessments of waste sites to evaluate the extent of contamination. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's hazardous waste and the Superfund programs, most states are conducting water-quality assessments. Some are developing databases to facilitate data retrieval. With respect to nonhazardous waste facilities, such as the RCRA Subtitle D facilities, states usually undertake major studies of specific types of facilities. For example, Florida is assessing how industrial surface impoundments and septic tanks affect ground water. Similarly, California is studying ground-water contamination by pesticides. Generally, monitoring programs focus on nonhazardous waste sites, hazardous waste sites, salt-water intrusion, pesticides, and drinking water (Table A-12). Nonhazardous Waste Sites. Nonhazardous waste facilities are generally regulated under the RCRA Subtitle D or similar state -16- ------- programs. In most cases, monitoring requirements are developed on a site-specific basis as part of the permitting process. The operators of these facilities also are required to report the results of their periodic testing. Many states have established the programs either as part of their enforcement efforts or as an ongoing effort to identify sources of contamination. In the latter case, states monitor specific types of facilities, such as municipal landfills, lagoons, and surface impoundments. Note that contaminants for which drinking-water standards have been set are usually monitored at these sites. Recently thirty-two states conducted monitoring at nonhazardous sites. Hazardous Waste Sites. Monitoring hazardous waste sites ranges from operating joint federal-state programs following RCRA and CERCLA guidelines in several states, to monitoring spills and leaks. Most states have established programs under which either they or responsible private parties monitor the quality of water. A few states have conducted special studies to detect the presence of specific contaminants in drinking-water supplies that are threatened by hazardous waste sites. These states include Connecticut, Kansas, Missouri, and New York. Salt-Water Intrusion. Salt-water intrusion, the replacement of fresh ground water by salt water, has caused concern in several coastal states. Since most of the affected states are aware of this problem, they are periodically conducting salt-water-intrusion studies. Pesticides. At least twenty-two states have conducted some monitoring for levels of specific pesticides in sources of drinking water and other areas. States developing more extensive monitoring programs include Iowa, Florida, Wisconsin, Texas, Nebraska, and Washington. The pesticides that are monitored include EDB and Aldicarb. In Texas, state efforts are under way to expand laboratory services and the environmental monitoring plan to include monitoring of ground water in areas susceptible to pesticide contamination. -17- ------- Drinking Water. Monitoring public drinking-water supplies under the Safe Drinking Water Act is a joint federal-state program. The actual monitoring, however, is conducted by each public water supply. Monitoring is conducted at the point where the drinking water is used at the "tap"not at the well for ground-water supplies. Other Areas of Monitoring. Forty-six states have a variety of other types of ground-water monitoring programs. Permit holders for ground- water discharge are required to conduct periodic tests and file reports in several states. Water-quantity levels are monitored in a number of states, particularly those located in the West where water supplies are limited. Specific-site monitoring programs are under way in some states. New Jersey tests ground water for contaminating substances at road construction sites, while Arkansas monitors selected irrigation wells for contaminants associated with agricultural practices. In New Mexico, studies are currently investigating the potential for nitrate contamination from dairy waste ponds. Arizona is monitoring areas in close proximity to Phoenix's water supply for acidity, heavy metals, and sulfate. Developing State-Originated Control Programs To carry out their ground-water policies, states are developing or have already developed various control programs. Many of these programs focus on land use, septic tanks, agricultural contamination, underground storage tanks, response to contamination incidents, brine disposal, and radionuclides. Land Use In many states protection of the recharge areas is a major ground- water issue, and some states are developing land-use policies. For example, Massachusetts has instituted an Aquifer Land Acquisition -18- ------- program, and Florida has banned the location of certain types of facilities (including landfills) in the recharge areas. New Hampshire state statutes prohibit earth excavations that would substantially damage a known aquifer. Virginia has designated ground-water management areas. Septic Tank Regulations Septic tanks have been regulated in the past mostly by local governments. New cleaning treatments and other contamination problems associated with septic tanks have caused recent public concern. Many states are also undertaking regulatory actions. For example, the states of Maine, Mississippi, and New Jersey are developing regulations for septic tanks. South Carolina, Florida, and Pennsylvania are either developing regulations for septic tanks, individual waste-treatment systems, and land waste-treatment disposal systems or assessing soil- dependent sewage systems. Agricultural Contamination Control Pesticides and animal feed lot wastes have also contributed to ground-water pollution. Iowa, Florida, and North Dakota are, respectively, monitoring ground water, drinking-water wells, and public water systems for specific pesticides. Nebraska is conducting a study in the southeast part of the state to assess the extent of contamination from all agricultural practices. Montana has conducted a survey of the potential for ground-water contamination, specifically from agricultural production practices. Indiana has an Animal Waste Control Program to prevent ground-water contamination from nitrates. And several states, including Texas, are developing plans for monitoring ground water for the presence of pesticides. Other states are taking action to prevent ground-water contamination from pesticides. Oklahoma has taken a variety of actions to prevent ground-water contamination from pesticides including measures to -19- ------- coordinate generation, storage, treatment, and disposal of pesticide waste. Maine has a Returnable Container Program including deposits, labeling, identifying distributors, and a state collection program. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks The potential for contamination from gasoline, diesel, and other petroleum and nonpetroleum products stored in underground tanks has emerged as a major environmental issue. Some states, such as Massachussetts, are developing inventories and assessments of their leaking underground storage tanks. About a dozen states have already developed regulations, and others are developing regulations to control leaks from such tanks. Contamination Response The complexities of issues involved in any contamination incident have required that states undertake coordinated actions. Many states, including Maine and North Carolina, have developed and implemented emergency response programs as precautionary measures. Brine Disposal Several states have developed programs to regulate the disposal of oil and gas wastes in open pits and ponds. Both New Mexico and North Dakota have banned brine disposal pits. Other states are regulating brine disposal pits and underground injection wells. Radioactive Materials Some states have created programs to protect ground water from contamination by radionuclides, byproducts of uranium mining. Texas is regulating in situ uranium mining and New Jersey has imposed a moratorium on uranium mining. -20- ------- Formulating Interagency Agreements By entering into comprehensive interagency agreements, state agencies, regional authorities, and local governments have been pooling their resources and defining their responsibilities for protecting ground water. The interagency agreements that have evolved over the last few years cover such topics as policy and strategy development, protection of specific aquifers, ground-water discharges, underground injection control, contamination incidents, and hydrogeologic studies (Table A-13)- Policy and Strategy Development Most states have formed task forces, ad hoc commissions, or councils to develop policies and strategies for protecting ground water. Usually, these groups are composed of various high-level officials from environmental, health, natural resources, geology, agriculture, and transportation departments; water planning boards; and oil and gas commissions. After developing the overall policy and strategy, these groups sometimes work out implementation issues as well. Protection of Specific Aquifers Federal, state, and local agencies have been working to develop protection programs for specific aquifers and to conduct comprehensive studies. In many states, there are agreements for cooperation among the agencies responsible for public water systems, geological surveys, and natural resources; those responsible for regulating sources that may be threatening aquifers; the USGS; the EPA; and local governments. Such agreements are usually of limited duration. Some interagency agreements have been developed to protect inter- state aquifers. For example, the High Plains Technical Coordinating Committee was involved in a six-state study of the Ogallala aquifer. Also the states of Washington and Idaho are cooperating to protect the Spokane/Rathdrum aquifer. -21- ------- Discharges to Ground Water Interagency groups that comprehensively assess and control ground- water discharges can be found in only a handful of states. However, they represent useful examples of arrangements that can be made. In Virginia, the State Water Board, the Health Department, and the Division of Mine and Land Reclamation coordinate periodic reviews of various projects, such as injection wells, sanitary landfills, and mining projects. In Hawaii, an existing state commission has started to investigate ground-water contamination due to pesticides. In Iowa, the Department of Water, Air and Waste Management, the Department of Soil Conservation, the U.S. Geological Survey, and county conservation districts are working together to control contamination in twenty-two counties. Also, in Wyoming, the Department of Environmental Quality and the state engineer provide comments to the oil and gas commission before the latter approves permits for salt-water-disposal impoundments. Underground Injection Control The UIC program covers deep injection of hazardous wastes, secondary recovery of oil and gas, solution raining, and municipal wells. The major oil and gas states have interagency agreements to regulate or provide proper oversight. Agreements covering other classes of wells or abandoned wells, however, exist only in a few states. In Florida, for example, a technical advisory committee consisting of representatives of USGS, EPA, regional water management districts, and local agencies provides broad guidance. In Missouri, a council made up of members of the divisions of geology and land survey, a university, and the clean-water commission periodically reviews the program for illegal, malfunctioning, or unplugged wells. And in Nebraska, a memorandum of agreement between the Department of Environmental Control and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission governs the in-situ mining of uranium ores. -22- ------- Response to Contamination Memoranda of agreement or other interagency agreements have been developed more and more to address contamination incidents. The frequency and nature of the incidents that is, the types of contaminants, the urgency of the response, and the types of natural resources threatened have affected the types of agreements that have evolved. Following are examples of three types of agreements. Definition of agency role Often the department of police and other law enforcement, health, and environmental management and planning boards for emergency preparedness and water resources become involved in contamination incidents. The agreements specify the duties of each agency. Sharing of data The state geological surveys and departments authorizing private and public drinking-water wells have often gathered geological and hydrological data in the past. These data are useful for taking effective emergency actions as well as for planning long-range studies. Hence, agreements are necessary. Resolution of issues Most agreements specify the procedures for resolving issues in contamination cases. Hydrogeologic S tud ies Most states, through their geological survey or natural resources departments, have working agreements with USGS to conduct specific water-quantity and -quality studies. In general, states contribute 50 percent of the funds required to conduct the studies. Managing and Funding Federally Delegated Programs Various federal programs can be used to protect ground water. While many of them fall under the aegis of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, other federal agencies also play a role through their authority over such activities as soil conservation and raining. -23- ------- Most of the states have accepted full administrative responsibility, or primacy, for many EPA programs. However, some states prefer that the federal government assume full responsibility for these programs, and some states share the administrative burden with federal agencies. For the remaining programs, the federal agencies retain their full authority. The states that are managing either fully or partially federal water-protection programs have chosen different agencies to administer them (Table A-14). Which agencies they select very often depends on the organization of existing state agencies. The following EPA programs offer some financial resources to protect ground water: the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program; the programs under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIRFA), and the Clean Water Act (CWA); and the Public Water Supply (PWS) program. UIC Program Established as part of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the UIC program protects ground-water drinking sources from contamination by regulating the well-injection of liquids and liquid wastes into the ground. For fiscal 1985, EPA is distributing among thirty-five delegated states a total of $5.3 million under the UIC program. They are using these funds for such activities as ground-water mapping, assessment of potential discharges to aquifers, and assessment of Class V wells. In over half the states, the departments of natural resources and/or environmental conservation administer these programs. Twelve states have oil and gas commissions operating at least part of their UIC program, and in seven states, delegation for the program is pending. -24- ------- RCRA Subtitle C Program Proper planning and management practices for treating, storing, and disposing of hazardous waste is the goal of RCRA. During fiscal 1985, $^7 million is available for such RCRA-related activities as monitoring ground water, testing laboratory samples, reviewing results, and preparing technical information for permit writers. Twenty-five states are fully authorized to run this program, and most other states have received partial authorization. In about sixteen states, the departments of natural resources and/or environmental conservation administer the program, and in about twelve, the health department administers it. FIFRA Program FIFRA establishes procedures for classifying, registering, selling, using, researching, monitoring, and disposing of pesticides. No pesticide may be bought, sold, or distributed unless registered, and all registered pesticides are classified for either general or restricted use, depending on their potential environmental hazards. In fiscal 1985, two grants are available to the states under FIFRA. One, for $1.3 million, is for certification and training of pesticide applicators; it is going to forty-nine states. The other, for $9.7 million, is for enforcement and compliance; it will go to fifty states. Two states are using a portion of their funds for ground-water activities. North Dakota is allocating funds toward developing a strategy for protecting ground water. South Dakota is conducting pesticide contamination sampling, a study of a disposal site for farm chemicals, and a chemigation educational program. In forty-one of these states, the agriculture department is responsible for these programs. In the other states, the managing agencies include the departments of environmental protection and natural resources. -25- ------- CWA Program Various sections of the CWA authorize states to use federal funds to protect ground water. Section 106. Section 106 of the CWA authorizes states to receive federal funds designed for preventing, reducing, and eliminating water pollution. This authority includes enforcement activities. In fiscal 1985, $64 million is available to the states under the 106 program. Of this amount, $7 million has been earmarked for states to support development and implementation of their ground-water programs. States were encouraged to give highest priority to development of a state ground-water strategy. The states will also use the funds to undertake a variety of program development activities, including developing data management systems, establishing programs for investigating ground-water pollution on site, and designing monitoring networks and aquifer-mapping programs. Section 205(.1). Section 205(j) of the CWA allows states to receive federal funds for managing water-quality programs. In fiscal 1985, the states have received over $24 million. Several states are using these funds for such ground-water protection activities as developing a ground-water protection strategy; designing programs for managing septic systems; initiating an inventory of leaking underground-storage tanks; assessing the impacts of pesticides, surface impoundments, and abandoned or other landfills on ground water; studying the control of on-lot waste treatment; identifying the best agricultural management practices; and assessing dairy waste disposal. Section 205(g). In fiscal 1985, $94 million is available to forty- nine states and Puerto Rico for carrying out activities related to construction grants. South Carolina will use 2 percent of its grant to review how proposed land treatment and disposal systems will affect ground water. Wyoming will apply 38 percent of its grant toward developing small waste-water facilities. -26- ------- PWS Program The Safe Drinking Water Act established drinking-water standards specifying the maximum allowable contamination levels for certain substances and how to ensure compliance with these standards. The levels and procedures apply to every public water supply system in each state. In fiscal 1985, approximately $27 million is available to forty- seven states and two territories to administer this program. Usually administered by the health department, the program is handled by the department of natural resources in ten states. Involving the Public in Protecting Ground Water All states are actively including the public in their development of ground-water programs. Although the types of activities may not vary considerably, the extent of public involvement may. States are required to hold public hearings before approving permits under RCRA, UIC, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. And public officials often hold public hearings before issuing well-drilling permits. The public generally participates in decisions concerning siting landfills and hazardous waste facilities. Several states have encouraged public participation while revising those parts of the Clean Water Act's Section 208 plans that deal with ground water. A few states have published handbooks to inform the public about issues concerning underground storage tanks. Finally, there is extensive public participation when states are formulating plans for long-range water use or development. As a first step in developing ground-water policy and strategy, most states have formed ground-water task forces or commissions. These groups usually obtain the public's views by holding public hearings, meeting with local public officials, and publishing handbooks and -27 ------- brochures explaining ground-water issues. In addition, they have provided the public with knowledgeable speakers to explain the issues in more detail. Some states have also provided for public participation in the implementation stages of their ground-water policy. Specific elements that require public participation are aquifer acquisition, approval of ground-water discharge permits, aquifer delineation, and ground-water cleanup. Hence, it appears that the public is involved to some extent in all phases of state policy development and implementation. -28- ------- APPENDIX A SUMMARY TABLES ON GROUND-WATER USE AND QUALITY ------- TABLE A-1 PERCENTAGES OF PEOPLE RELYING ON GROUND WATER FOR DOMESTIC USE Percent of States State Population Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico Over 90 South Dakota 80-89 Delaware, Iowa, Maine 70-79 Alaska, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin, Utah 60-69 Arkansas, California, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming 50-59 Georgia, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia 40-49 Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon 30-39 Colorado, Kentucky, Rhode Island 20-29 Maryland, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands Under 20 Note: For the purposes of this report, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are treated as states in this table and all following tables. The information for these tables has been developed from Volume II of this report. A-1 ------- TABLE A-2 USE OF GROUND WATER FOR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITES Percent of Ground Water States Used for Agricultural Activities Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska Over 90 Arizona, California, New Mexico, Texas, Wyoming 80-89 Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah 50-79 Florida, Montana, North Dakota MO-49 Georgia, Indiana, Minnesota, Puerto Rico 30-39 Illinois, Missouri 20-29 Delaware, Maine, Vermont, Wisconsin 10-19 Alabama, Alaska, Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia Under 10 Note: Information available on forty-five states. A-2 ------- TABLE A-3 USE OF GROUND WATER FOR INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES Percent of Ground Water States Used for Industrial Activities Kentucky, West Virginia Over 50 Maine, Tennessee *10-^9 Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island 30-39 Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Virginia 20-29 Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, Vermont, Wisconsin 10-19 Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wyoming Under 10 Note: Information available on forty-five states. A-3 ------- TABLE A-1 MAJOR TYPES OF 0BOUND-WATER CONTAMINATION Organic Chemicals Inorganic Chemicals States Volatile Synthetic Nitrates Fluorides Arsenic Brine/Salt Other Alabama X X X xซ X Alaska X X* Arizona X xซ X* Arkansas X X X X X California X X xb X X X Colorado X X Connecticut X X X Delaware X Florida X X X X Georgia X X X Hawa 11 X Idaho X X X X X Illinois X X X xc,d Indiana X X X Iowa X xb x" Kansas x Kentucky X X x Louisiana X X" X X** Maine X X X Maryland X X Massachusetts X X X X X Michigan X X X X X Minnesota X X X X Mississippi X X X Missouri X Montana X X X X xc Nebraska X xb X Nevada X xป X" Xซ X* New Haspshire New Jersey X X X X X X x New Mexloo X X X xซ X New York X X x North Carolina X X X North Dakota X X X X Ohio X X X Oklahoma X X X Oregon X X X X X Pennsylvania Puerto Hloo X Rhode Island X X South Carolina X X X X South Dakota X X X X Tennessee X X X X Texas X X X Utah X X X Vermont X X X X X Virgin Islands X Virginia Washington X X X X X X x" Vest Virginia X X Wisconsin X X Wyoming X Total 33 30 31 16 15 as 10 (Continued) A-4 ------- TABLE A-ป (Continued) Metals Radioactive Materials Pesticides Other Alabama X X X Alaska 1 Arizona X Arkansas X Xs 3 California X X Colorado X Connecticut X Delaware Florida X X z Georgia X Hawaii X Idaho X 1 Illinois x" Indiana X Iowa xa X Kansas Kentucky X X Louisiana 3 Maine X X Maryland Massachusetts X X Michigan X X 2 Minnesota X X Mississippi X Missouri Montana X X 1 Nebraska X Xb Z Nevada X X New Hampshire New Jersey X X X \ New Mexico X 1 New Kork X 2 North Carolina X X North Dakota 1 Ohio X 1 Oklahoma X Oregon 1 Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island X X South Carolina X X X South Dakota X X X 2 Tennessee X X Texas X Utah X 1 Vermont X X X Virgin Islands X Virginia Washington X X X 1,2 West Virginia Wlsoonaln X X 1 Wyoming Total 28 13 25 18 Natural mineral deposits. ^Sulfates, ^Agricultural activities. ''Chlorides (other than salt water). KEY: t > baoterla; Z * petroleum products; 3 - sodium; and 1 ป acids. A-5 ------- TABLE A-5 MAJOR SOURCES OF GBOUND-WATER CONTAMINATION States Septic Tanks Municipal Landfills On-Siteฎ Industrial Landfills Other Landfills Surface" Impoundments Oil and Gas Brine Pits Alabama X X X X X Alaska X X Arizona X X X Arkansas X X California X X X Colorado X X X X X Connecticut X X X Delaware X X X Florida X X X X X Georgia X X Hawaii X Idaho X X Illinois X X Indiana X Iowa X X X Kansas X Kentucky X X X X Louisiana X X X Maine X X X X Maryland X X X X X X Massachusetts X X X X Michigan X X X X X Minnesota X X X X X Mississippi X X X X X Missouri X X Montana X X X X Nebraska X X X X Nevada X X New Hampshire X X X X New Jersey X X X X X X New Mexico X X X New York X X X X North Carolina X X X North Dakota X X X X X X Ohio X X X X X Oklahoma Oregon X X X Pennsylvania X X X X X X Puerto Rico X X Rhode Island X X X X X South Carolina X X X X South Dakota X X X X X X Tennessee X X X X Texas X X X X Utah X X Vermont X X X X Virgin Islands X Virginia X X Washington X X X West Virginia X X X Wiaoonsln X Wyoming X X Total 36 31 30 20 36 21 (Continued) ฆExcluding surface pita, lagoons, surface impoundments. Excluding oil and gas brine pits. A-6 ------- TABLE A-5 (Continued) Underground Storage Tanks Injection Wells Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites Regulated Hazardous Waste Sites Land Salt-Water Application/ Intrusion Treatment Alabama X X X X X Alaska X Arizona X X X Arkansas X California X X X X Colorado X X Connecticut X Delaware X X Florida X X X X Georgia X X Hawaii X Idaho X X X Illinois X X X Indiana X X X Iowa X X X X Kansas X Kentucky X X X 1 Louisiana X X 1 Maine X X X Maryland X X X X X Massachusetts X X Michigan X X Minnesota X X X X X Mississippi X X X Missouri X Montana X X X Nebraska X X Nevada X New Hampshire * New Jersey X X X X X New Mexico X X New York X X North Carolina X X North Dakota X X X Ohio X Oklahoma X X Oregon X X X X Pennsylvania X Puerto Rico X X X X Rhode Island X X South Carolina X X X X X South Dakota X Tennessee X X X X Texas X X Utah X Vernont X X Virgin Islands X Virginia X Washington X X X X West Virginia Wisconsin X X Wyoming X Total 1(1 16 25 15 19 7 (Continued) A-7 ------- TABLE *-5 (Continued) States Agricultural Highway De-lclrut Otherฎ Alabama X 8 Alaska X 8 Arizona Arkansas 7 California X 7 Colorado X 1.8 Connecticut X X 7.8 Delaware X Florida X 8 Georgia X Hawaii X Idaho X Illinois X 2.7.8 Indiana 8 Iowa X Kansas 1.5,7 Kentucky 4 Louisiana X 1.2.8 Maine X X Maryland X X Massachusetts X X Michigan X X 7.8 Minnesota X X Mississippi Missouri X 2,3,1,7 Montana 1,7 Nebraska X e Nevada u New Hampshire X New Jersey X X 1.2,1,8 New Mexico X 1.5 New York X 7 North Carolina 7 North Dakota 5 Ohio X 8 Oklahoma 3,6 Oregon X Pennsylvania 1,8 Puerto Rico X 6,8 Rhode Island X X South Carolina X South Dakota X 3,6 Tennessee X 2,1 Texas X 2,8 Utah 1.5 Vermont X X Virgin Islands 8 Virginia Washington X 8 Vest Virginia 1.1 Wisconsin X 1.7 Wyoming 1.5 Total 33 11 35 aExcludlng surface pits, lagoons, surface Impoundments. KEY: 1 = abandoned wells; 2 = Inadequately constructed wells; 3 > Improperly plugged wells; 4 ซ mining activities; 5 * oil and gas activities; 6 = petroleum product storage; T = accidental spills snd leaks; and 8 z miscellaneous. A-8 ------- TABLE A-6 STATE CHOUND-WATER POLICY -- CURRENT STATUS OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT States Specific State Statutes for Ground Water Existing Policy for Protecting Ground-Water Quality Policy under Development Alabama X Alaska Arizona X X Arkansas X California X X Colorado X Connecticut X Delaware X X Florida X X Georgia X X Hawaii X X Idaho X Illinois X Indiana X Iowa X Kansas X X Kentucky X Louisiana Maine X X X Maryland Massachusetts X Michigan X X Minnesota X X Mississippi X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska X Nevada X New Hampshire X New Jersey X X X New Mexico X X New York X X North Carolina X North Dakota X Ohio X Oklahoma X X Oregon X Pennsylvania X Puerto Rico Rhode Island X South Carolina X South Dakota X Tennessee X Texaa Utah X X Veraont X Virgin Islands X Virginia X Washington X X West Virginia X Wlaaonain X X Wyoming X X Total 12 27 28 ------- TABLE A-7 STATE GROUND-WATER POLICY: CHARACTERISTICS OF POLICIES DEVELOPED Limited Differential States Nondeflradation Degradation Protection Alabama Alaska Arizona X X Arkansas California X Colorado X X Connecticut X Delaware Florida X X Georgia X Hawaii Idaho X X X Illinois X Indiana Iowa X Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine X Maryland X X Massachusetts X Michigan X Minnesota X X Mississippi Missouri X Montana X Nebraska Nevada X X New Hampshire X New Jersey X X New Mexico X New York X North Carolina X North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon X Pennsylvania X Puerto Rico Rhode Island X South Carolina X X South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont X X Virgin Islands X Virginia Washington X X X West Virginia Wisconsin X Wyoming X X Total 16 17 12 ------- TABLE A-8 EXISTING AND PROPOSED GROUND-WATER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS States Number of Classes Criteria for Classification California3 Connecticut Based on use quality, land use, and flow system. Florida Highest protection for "single source" and potable aquifers. Hawaii 2 Fresh water and saline water. Idaho 2 Special-resource water protection against degradation, unless social or economic factors override; potable-water supplies protection as drinking water without treatment. Illinois 4 Domestic use, limited use, or general non- domestic use or limited use. Iowa 5 Based on vulnerability to contamination by considering hydrogeologic characteristics. Kansas 3 Fresh; usable; and brine water. Maine 2 Suitable for drinking-water supplies; suitable for everything else. Maryland3 3 Massachusetts 3 Drinking-water quality; saline; below drinking-water quality. Montana H Based on present and potential beneficial uses. New Jersey 1 Total dissolved solids. (Continued) information regarding number of classes and/or criteria for classification not available. ------- TABLE A-8 (Continued) States Number of Classes Criteria for Classification New Mexico 2 Full protection of ground water with less than 10,000 mg/1 TDS; ground water with more than 10,000 mg/1 TDS not covered by standards. New York 3 Fresh ground water; saline ground water; saline ground water with chloride concentra- tions in excess of 1,000 mg/1 or TDS greater than 2,000 mg/1. North Carolina 5 Fresh ground water used as the primary source of drinking water (GA); brackish waters at depths greater than 20 feet below the land surface that recharge surface and ground water (GSA); fresh water at depths less than 20 feet that recharge surface and ground water (GB); brackish waters at less than 20 feet (GSB); contaminated water technically or economically infeasible for upgrading to a higher class (GC). Oklahomaa Beneficial uses have been designated for 21 ground-water basins and formations, but standards being developed for each beneficial use. Texas3 - - Vermont 2 Ground waters that supply or could supply community water. Virgin Islands n Ranked categories of use. West Virginia3 - - Wyoming 7 Domestic; agricultural; livestock; aquatic life; industry; hydrocarbon and mineral deposits; unsuitable for any use. information regarding number of classes and criteria for classification not available. A-12 ------- TABLE A-9 SAMPLE OF STATE GROUND-WATER QUALITY STANDARDS States Range of Contaminants Covered by Standards Alaska 13 contaminants. Arizona Any contaminant that would interfere with current or future uses of ground water. Connecticut EPA drinking-water standards; includes taste, odor, and color. California Inorganic salts. Florida Primary and secondary drinking-water constituents, MCLs for 8 other organics, and natural background levels for other constituents. Idaho Primary and secondary drinking-water standards.3 Kansas Federal drinking-water standards, inorganic chemicals. Maryland Federal drinking-water standards. Minnesota National primary and secondary drinking-water standards. Montana All drinking-water parameters and all substances deleterious to beneficial uses. Nebraska Federal primary drinking-water standards and most of the secondary drinking-water standards. New Jersey Nutrients, metals, and organics. New Mexico 35 numerical standards, plus a generic "toxic pollutant" standard defining acceptable levels of protection for human and animal health. New York 83 contaminants. North Carolina 19 contaminants. Oklahoma Primary standards, including 10 inorganic chemicals and 5 radiological contaminants and secondary standards. Utah Regulations from Safe Drinking Water Act. Vermont Less stringent than federal drinking-water standards. Wyoming Maximum 26 contaminants, depending on class, pH, and TDS. aTo be adopted in FY 1985 - A-13 ------- TABLE A-10 STATE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR GROUND-WATER PROTECTION ACTIVITIES Number of State Agencies Activities Involved Aquifer Mapping Department of Natural Resources 20 State Geological Survey Water Resources/Supply ^3 Department of Health ^ State Department of Environmental Protection 8 Geology/Hydrology 2 Minerals/Mining 2 Department of Conservation 2 Miscellaneous 1 73 Ground-Water Quality Monitoring Department of Health Department of Natural Resources 13 State Department of Environmental Protection 10 Water Resources/Supply 5 Department of Conservation 5 Minerals/Mining 3 Miscellaneous 2. 65 Ground-Water Policies/Rules/Standards Department of Natural Resources 12 Department of Health 12 Water Resources/Supply 9 State Department of Environmental Protection 10 Pollution Control Commission 3 Miscellaneous -1^ 56 De-icing Department of Transportation 7 Environmental Protection 3 Department of Natural Resources 3 Department of Health 1 State Geological Survey _1 15 A-14 / ------- MBLB STATUS Of GROUND-WATER RESOURCE ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES States Ground-Water Resource Assessment Assessment at Waste Sites Other Alabama X Alaska X Arizona X X Arkansas X X California X X X Colorado X Connecticut X X Delaware X X Florida X X Georgia X Hawaii X Idaho X X Illinois X X Indiana X X X lowa X X Kansas X X X Kentucky X Louisiana X X X Maine X X Maryland X X Massachusetts X X Michigan X Minnesota X X X Mississippi X X Missouri X Montana X Nebraska X X Nevada X X X New Hampshire X X New Jersey X X X New Mexico X X New fork X X North Carolina X X North Dakota X X Ohio X X Oklahoma X Oregon X X Pennsylvania X Puerto Rico X X Rhode Island X X South Carolina X X X South Dakota X Tennessee X X Texas X X Utah X Vermont X X X Virgin Islands X* Virginia X Washington X X X Vest Virginia X Vlsoonaln X X Wyoming X X Total 51 31 16 ฆUSGS has plana to conduct aquifer mappings In the Virgin Islands. A-15 ------- TABLE A-12 STATE GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAMS States Nonhazardous Waste Sites Hazardous Waste Sites Salt-Water Intrusion Pesticides Ambient Monitoring Other Alabama X Xa X X X Alaska X Arizona X X X X X Arkansas X X X California X X X Colorado X X Connecticut X X X X X Delaware X X X X Florida X X X X Georgia X X X X X X Hawa11 X X Idaho X X X X Illinois X* X X Indiana Xs X X Iowa X X Kansas X X X X X X Kentucky X Louisiana X X X Maine xa X X Maryland X X X X X Massachusetts xa X X X X Mich igan X X X Minnesota X X X X X Mississippi X Missouri X X X Montana X X Nebraska X X X X Nevada X X X New Hampshire x" X X New Jersey X X X X X X New Mexico X X X X X X New York X X X X X X North Carolina X X X x X X North Dakota X X X X X Ohio X X X Oklahoma X X X Oregon X X X X Pennsylvania X X X Puerto Rico X X X Rhode Island Xa X X X X South Carolina X xa X X X South Dakota X X X X X Tennessee X X Texas X X X xb X X Utah X X Vermont X X X X Virgin Islands X Virginia X X X X Washington X X X X X X West Virginia X X Wisconsin X X X X Wyoming X X X Total 32 38 \T\ CM i CJ "to 46 "Follow RCRA guidelines. ''Program under development. A-16 ------- TABU *-13 mTKIUOENCY AOREEHEHTS States Protection of SpecIflo Aoulfera Polloy and Strategy DeveloDnent Ground-Water Dlaoharsea Underground Injection Control Oround-Water Contamination Incidents Geological Survey Other Alabama X X Alaska Arizona X X X X X X Arkansas X X X X X California X X Colorado X X X Connecticut X X X X Delaware X X X Florida X X X X Georgia X Hawaii X Idaho x" X X X Illinois X X Indiana X X Iowa X X X X Kansas X X X X X Kentucky X Louisiana X X X Maine X X X Maryland X X Massachusetts X X Michigan X X X X Minnesota X X Mississippi X X Missouri X X X Montana X X Nebraska X X X Nevada X X New Hampshire X X New Jersey X X X X X X New Mexico X X New York X X X North Carolina X X X X North Dakota X X X Ohio X X X Oklahoma X Oregon X Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island X X X X South Carolina X X X South Dakota Tennessee X Texas X X Utah X Vermont X X X Virgin Islands X Virginia X Washington X* X X West Virginia X X Wisconsin X X X Wyoming X X Total 8 21 9 19 16 25 30 interstate agreement between Idaho and Washington. A-17 ------- TABLE A-14 STATE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR FEDERAL PROGRAMSa Number of Responsible Agency States CWA Department of Environmental Management 52 RCRA Department of Health 16 Department of Natural Resources 15 State Department of Environmental Protection 13 Water Resources/Permits 3 Pollution Control 2 Hazardous Waste Management 50 UIC Department of Natural Resources 16 State Department of Environmental Protection 12 Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 11 Department of Health 6 Water Resources/Supply/Permits _5 50 PWS Department of Health 30 State Department of Environmental Protection 8 Department of Natural Resources 8 Water Supply/Potable Water _2 48 FIFRA Department of Agriculture 41 State Department of Environmental Protection 6 Department of Natural Resources -1 50 (Continued) aIn some cases, responsibility is shared by more than one agency. A-18 ------- TABLE A-14 (Continued) Number of Responsible Agency States Soil Conservation Department of Agriculture 7 Soil/Water Conservation Commission 7 Department of Natural Resources 5 State Lands/Land Resources 3 State Department of Environmental Protection 2 Minerals/Mining 2 State Geological Survey _J_ 27 Mining Department of Natural Resources 13 State Department of Environmental Protection 8 Minerals/Mining 8 State Geological Survey/Geologist Land Resources/Soil Conservation 3 Water Allocation/Permits 3 Miscellaneous *ป3 A-19 ------- APPENDIX B EPA Regional Ground-Water Representatives ------- EPA Regional Ground-Water Representatives Region I Carol Wood Office of Ground Water Water Management Division JFK Federal Building, Room 2113 Boston, MA 02203 (8)223-6486; (617) 223-6486 Region VI Eloy Lozano Office of Ground Water Water Management Division 1201 Elm Street, (60 CL) Dallas, TX 75270 (8)729-9984; (214) 767-2605 Region II William Pedicino Office of Ground Water Water Management Division 26 Federal Plaza, Room 805 New York, NY 10278 (8)264-5635; (212) 264-1148 Region VII Timothy Amsden Office of Ground Water Water Management Division 324 E. 11th St. Kansas City, MO 64106 (8)757-2815; (214) 236-2815 Region III Thomas Merski Office of Ground Water Water Management Division Curtis Building 6th & Walnut sts. Philadelphia, PA 19106 (8)597-2786; (215) 597-2786 Region VIII Richard Long Office of Ground Water Water Management Division 1860 Lincoln St., 8W Denver, CO 80295 (8)564-1445; (303) 293-1445 Region IV Stallings Howell Office of Ground Water Water Management Division 345 Courtland St., N.E. Atlanta, GA 30365 (8)257-3781; (404) 881-3781 Region IX James Thompson Office of Ground Water Water Management Division 215 Fremont St. San Francisco, CA 94105 (8)454-8095; (415) 974-8093 Region V Robert Hilton Office of Ground Water Water Management Division 230 S. Dearborn St. Chicago, IL 61604 (8)886-1490; (312) 886-1490 Region X William Mullen Office of Ground Water Water Management Division 1200 6th Avenue, M/S 437 Seattle, WA 98101 (8)399-1216; (206) 442-1216 B-1 ------- APPENDIX C State Contacts ------- State Contacts In Region I Connecticut Robert Smith Assistant Director Water Compliance Unit Department of Environmental Protection 122 Washington Street Hartford, CT 06115 (203)566-2588 Maine Gary S. Westerman Management Planning Division Department of Environ- mental Protection State House, Station 17 Augusta, ME 04333 (207)289-2811 Massachusetts David Terry Director Water Supply Planning and Development Department of Environmental Quality Engineering One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 (617)292-5529 New Hampshire David Scott Acting Director Office of State Planning 2 1/2 Beacon Street Concord, NH 03301 (603)271-2155 Rhode Island Michael Annarummo Supervisor Permits and Planning Section Division of Water Resources Department of Environmental Management 75 Davis Street, Health Bldg. Providence, RI 02908 (401)277-2234 Vermont David Butterfield Chief Ground-Water Management Section Water Quality Division Department of Water Resources and Environ- mental Engineering State Office Building Montpeller, VT 05602 (802)828-2761 C-l ------- State Contacts in Region II New Jersey John Gaston Director Division of Water Resources Department of Environ- mental Protection CN029 Trenton, NJ 08625 (609)292-1638 New York Dan Barolo Director Ground-Water Division Department of Environ- mental Conservation 50 Wolfe Road Albany, NY 12233 (518)457-6674 Puerto Rico Carl-Ixel P. Soderberg Environmental Water Quality Board P.O. Box 11488 San Turce, Puerto Rico 00910 (809)725-0717 Virgin Islands Angel Lebron Commissioner Department of Conservation & Cultural Affairs P.O. Box 4399 Charlotte Amalle, St. Thomas Virgin Islands V100801 (809)774-3320 C-2 ------- State Contacts in Region III West Virginia Marc Nelson Hazardous Waste Branch Division of Water Resources 1201 Greenbrier Street Charleston, WV 25311 (304)348-5935 Virginia P.J. Smith Divison of Enforcement & Environmental Research Water Control Board 2111 Hamilton Street Richmond, VA 23230 (804)257-0072 Maryland Rick Collins Program Development Division Office of Environmental Programs 201 W. Preston Street Baltimore, MD 21201 (301)383-5740 Delaware Michael Apgar Chief Water Supply Branch Division of Environmental Control P.O. Box 1401 Dover, DE 19903 (302)736-5743 Pennsylvania John 0. Osgood Bureau of Water Quality Management Department of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717)783-3638 C-3 ------- State Contacts in Region IV Alabama John Poole Chief Ground-Water Section Department of Environmental Management 1751 Federal Drive Montgomery, AL 36130 (205)271-7832 Florida Dr. Rodney DeHan Administrator Ground-Water Section Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-3601 Georgia Harold Reheis Assistant Director Environmental Protection Division Department of Natural Resources 270 Washington St., S.W. Room 825 Atlanta, GA 30334 (404)656-4713 Kentucky Karen Armstrong-Cummings Assistant to the Commissioner Department for Environmental Protection Fort Boone Plaza 18 Reilly Road Frankfort, KY 40601 (502)564-3035 Mississippi William A. Barnett Coordinator Ground-Water Protection Program Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 10385 Jackson, MS 39209 (601)961-5171 North Carolina Perry Nelson Chief Ground-Water Section Department of Natural Resources Community Development P.O. Box 27687 Raleigh, NC 27611 (919)733-5083 C-4 ------- State Contacts in Region IV (cont'd) South Carolina Don Duncan Director Ground-Water Protection Division Environmental Quality Control Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29201 (317)758-5213 Tennessee Don Rima Coordinator Ground-Water Program Division of Water Management Department of Health & Environment T.E.R.R.A. Bldg., 7th Floor 150 Nineth Avenue, North Nashville, TN 37219-5404 (615)741-0690 C-5 ------- State Contacts in Region V Indiana Robert Carter Coordinator Environmental Programs Indiana State Board of Health 1330 West Michigan Street Indianapolis, IN 42606 (317)633-8467 Illinois Robert Clarke Manager Ground-Water Section Division of Public Water Supplies Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 2200 Churchill Road Springfield, IL 62706 (217)782-9470 Michigan Richard Johns Director Ground-Water Quality Division Michigan Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48989 (517)373-1947 Minnesota John Hoick Chief Ground-Water Unit Program Development Section Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1935 W. County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 (612)296-7787 Ohio Russ Stein Chief Ground-Water Section Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment Division Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 361 E. Broad Street Columbus, OH 43216 (614)466-9092 Wisconsin Kevin Kessler Chief Ground-Water Management Section Bureau of Water Resources Management Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 7921 Madison, WI 53707 (608)267-9350 C-6 ------- State Contacts in Region VI Arkansas Ralph H. Desmarais Planning Specialist Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology P.O. Box 9583 Little Rock, AR 72209 (501)562-7444 Louisiana Patricia L. Norton Secretary Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 44066 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 (504)342-1265 New Mexico Maxine Goad Program Manager Ground-Water Section Groundwater & Hazardous Waste Bureau New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division P.O. Box 968 Santa Fe, NM 87504-0968 (505)984-0020 Oklahoma David Harkness Assistant Director Oklahoma Department of Pollution Control P.O. Box 53504 Oklahoma City, OK 73152 (405)271-4677 Texas Henry Alvarez Chief Data Collection & Evaluation Section Texas Dept. of Water Resources P.O. Box 13087, Capitol S tation Austin, TX 78711 (512)475-3681 C-7 ------- State Contacts in Region VII Iowa Richard Kelley Environmental Specialist Iowa Department of Water, Air, and Waste Management Henry A. Wallace State Office Building 900 E. Grand Des Moines, 10 50319 (515)281-3783 Kansas James A. Power, Jr. Environmental Engineer Bureau of Water Protection Kansas Department of Health & Environment Bldg. 740, Forbes Field Topeka, KS 66620 (913)862-9360, ext. 235 Missouri Jerry Vineyard Assistant State Geologist Division of Geology and Land Survey Missouri Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 250 Rolla, MO 65401 (314)364-1752 Nebraska U. Gale Hutton Acting Chief Program Plans Section Water & Waste Management Division Nebraska Department of Environmental Control P.O. Box 94877, State House Station Lincoln, NB 68509 (402)471-2186 C-8 ------- State Contacts in Region VIII Colorado Mary Gearhart Public Health Engineer Colorado Department of Health 4210 East 11th Avenue Denver, CO 80220 (303)320-8333 Montana Fred Schewman Supervisor Water Quality Bureau Department of Health & Environmental Sciences Cogswell Building Helena, MT 59601 (406)444-2406 North Dakota Rick Nelson Environmental Engineer Water Supply & Pollution Control State Department of Health Bismarck, ND 58501 (701)224-2372 South Dakota Steve Pirner Director Office of Water Quality Department of Water & Natural Resources Pierre, SD 57501 (605)773-4523 Utah Jay Pitkin Deputy Director Bureau of Water Pollution Control Department of Health P.O. Box 45500 Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0500 (801)533-6146 Wyoming Anthony J. Manclnl Ground-Water Control Supervisor Department of Environmental Quality 122 W. 25th Cheyenne, WY 82002 (307)777-7938 C-9 ------- State Contacts in Region IX Arizona Phil Briggs Deputy Director Engineering Department of Water Resources 99 E. Virginia Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602)255-1554 Jack Bale Arizona Division of Environmental Health Services 2005 N. Central Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602)257-2291 Hawaii Brian Choy Environmental Planner State Department of Health P.O. Box 3378 Honolulu, HW 96801 (808)548-6767 California Fran Anderson State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95801 (916)322-4562 Nevada Wendell McCurry Water Quality Officer Division of Environmental Protection 201 South Fall St. Carson City, NV (702)885-4670 C-10 ------- State Contacts in Region X Alaska Dan Easton Environmental Engineer Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Pouch 0 Juneau, AK 99811 (907)465-2653 Oregon Nell Mullane Contract Administrator Oregon Department of Environ- mental Quality P.O. Box 1760 Portland, CR 97207 (503)229-6065 Idaho Gary Shook Senior Water Quality Analyst Idaho Department of Health & Welfare Division of the Environment 450 West State Street Boise, ID 83720 (208)334-4251 Washington Tony Barret Program Manager Ground-Water Protection Program Washington Department of Ecology Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, WA 98504 (206)459-6072 ft U.S. OOVDMCNr PRINTING 0TFICK 1985 527-134/30431 C-ll ------- |