ASSESSMENT OF GROUND-WATER RELATED PROGRAMS
A Review of Selected Region VIII Programs
Which Have a Role in Support of Comprehensive
State Ground-Water Protection Programs
Mike Wireman
Rich Muza
Kris Jensen
US EPA REGION VIII
Ground-Water Branch
Water Management Division
December, 1993
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1989 the Administrator of the US EPA established a Ground-
Water Task Force to review the Agency's ground-water protection
programs. The Task Force was charged with developing a strategy
to ensure effective and consistent decision-making in all EPA
activities that affect the resource. The strategy calls for EPA
to promote the development and implementation of Comprehensive
State Ground-Water Protection Programs ( CSGWPPs ) which are
intended to provide a framework to coordinate programs and
activities under Federal, State, and local statutes and
ordinances. To facilitate the development of CSGWPPs EPA is
working with States and Tribes to develop profiles of their
current ground-water protection activities. These profiles will
serve as information baselines to allow states to identify gaps
in their ground-water protection programs. At the same time each
of the EPA Regional offices is conducting an assessment of
Regional programs that have ground-water responsibilities.
The Region VIII Assessment includes a profile of nine selected
programs, a compilation of Regional EPA ground-water related
grants and a Regional Review of 13 programs which have ground-
water management responsibilities. Completion of the Regional
Review is a voluntary STARS measure. The Regional Assessment
will be used to determine where opportunities exist for
operational flexibility. The ten Regional Reviews will be
compiled by the Ground-Water Protection Division at EPA
headquarters in order to compare across Regions, and to determine
where there is need for further flexibility within program
offices.
The Regional Assessment was conducted by the Region VIII Ground-
Water Protection QAT under the direction of the Regional Ground-
Water Steering Committee. Program assessment information was
compiled through extensive interviews with program managers,
Section Chiefs and Branch Chiefs. Significant conlclusions
derived from the assessment include:
1. There are currently 14 Regional programs that are
significantly involved in addressing ground-water
quality management responsibilities.
2. Most of these programs appear to focus on ground-water
remedial activities, with some notable exceptions. Statutory
considerations seem to drive a Regional philosophy of
remediation of existing ground-water contamination and an
awareness of ground-water pollution prevention for potential
new contamination sources.
3. Overall aquifer protection strategies are seldom considered
by programs in the implementation of their respective
i
-------
(2r
6 'J
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT DATA / INFORMATION
RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT
CONCLUSIONS
Page
i
l
l
3
6
12
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
PROGRAM PROFILES
GRANTS HANDBOOK
PROGRAM ANSWERS TO GENERIC QUESTIONS
ANSWERS TO PROGRAM SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
-------
statutorily-mandated mission. State goals and priorities may
or may not be a consideration when Regional programs conduct
their activities.
4. Currently ground-water protection coordination activities
occur among the Regional ground-water related programs on an
informal, as needed basis at the technical staff level
primarily. Program managers essentially do not see increased
coordination as a high priority activity. Coordination is
hindered by lack of resources, perceived mission conflicts,
turf battles and inconsistent EPA guidance.
5. The current major impediments to utilizing program grants
for ground-water protection activities appears to be lack of
funds for completing statutorily-mandated activities,
absence of empowerment based on legislative mandates and
program guidance, and State match requirements of various
programs. In none of the interviews .conducted did there
appear to be a philosophical disagreement that ground water
protection efforts should be funded.
6. Although the Ground-Water Branch has conducted a number of
briefings and most Regional programs have been apprised of
EPA's ground-water protection goal, most Regional ground-
water related programs are not very knowledgeable regarding
the details of CSGWPP.
7. Access to existing ground-water related data was reported to
be good and Regional programs are using existing data where
program policies allow. Data coordination at the State level
is encouraged by about half of the programs interviewed.
Coordination of ground-water data collection and management
activities at the Regional and State levels.is currently not
very effective. Few Regional programs envisioned CSGWPPs as
a vehicle for coordination of data collection and
management.
8. PubliCieducation / information appears to be strongly
emphasized in almost all Regional ground-water related
programs and that ground-water protection is included to
some degree in these activities.
The followup to this Assessment will include the development of
specific recommendations to improve coordination between Regional
ground-water related programs. These recommendations will be
developed by the QAT - based on an analysis of the data in the
four appendices of the Assessment. The recommendations will be
presented to the RGSWC for their evaluation and action. The
Region VIII Ground-water Branch will continue to be a focal point
for implementation of CSGWPP.
ii
-------
INTRODUCTION
In 1989 the Administrator of the-US EPA established a Ground-
Water Task Force to review the Agency's ground-water protection
programs. The Task Force was charged with developing a strategy
to ensure effective and consistent decision-making in all EPA
activities that affect the resource. The Strategy and
recommendations developed by the Task Force are included in a
report entitled: "Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's
Strategy for the 1990s." The Strategy calls for EPA to promote
the development and implementation of Comprehensive State Ground-
Water Protection Programs ( CSGWPPs ). The CSGWPPs are designed
to protect the resource and provide a framework to coordinate
programs and activities under Federal, State, and local statutes
and ordinances. Implementing this strategy requires specific
actions by the EPA Regional offices, including the establishment
of a Regional Ground-Water Steering Committee ( RGWSC ) to
oversee the implementation of the Task Force recommendations at
the Regional and State levels. A Regional Ground-Water Protection
Strategy Quality Action Team (QAT) was formed to serve as staff
to the RGWSC and help facilitate the implementation of the Task
Force recommendations.
To facilitate the development of CSGWPPs EPA is working with
States and Tribes to develop profiles of their current ground-
water protection activities. These profiles will serve as
information baselines to allow states to identify gaps in their
ground-water protection programs. At the same time each of the
EPA Regional offices is conducting a review of Regional programs
that have ground-water resource responsibilities . The Regional
Review is an assessment of each Region's activities in support of
CSGWPPs. The Regional Review will be used to determine where
opportunities exist for operational flexibility. The ten Regional
Reviews will be compiled by the Ground-Water Protection Division
of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water at EPA
headquarters. This will enable headquarters to compare across
Regions, and to determine where there is need for further
flexibility within program offices.
BACKGROUND
The Ground-Water Protection Strategy QAT was charged by the RGWSC
with providing a variety of information to support the decisions
of the Committee. The QAT was comprised of 13 members from 10
different Regional programs and a facilitator ( Table 1 ). The
team leader for the QAT was Mike Wireman of the Ground-Water
Branch, Water Management Division. The QAT met 14 times between
December 1991 and November 1992. A problem statement was
X
-------
developed to guide the activities of the QAT:
CURRENT STATE: The region lacks an efficient framework for
internal coordination of policy, program work and resources for
implementation of regional ground-water management activities.
IMPACT: As a result, EPA.1 s productivity and image related to
ground-water protection suffers. Because of this, maximum
benefits to human health and ecological systems may not be
achieved.
DESIRED STATE: In Region VIII, ground-water activities are
focused on the resource to be protected and are coordinated ^and
integrated, thus increasing environmental results and maximizing
taxpayer1s inves tment.
The RGWSC concurred with this problem statement and directed the
QAT to: (1) develop profiles for selected Regional programs, (2)
compile information on Regional program grants that are/can be
used for ground-water protection activities and (3) complete the
Regional Review for EPA Region VIII.
Table l - Ground- Water Protection Strategy QAT Members
Member
Program
Mike Wireman ( Team Leader )
Elizabeth Evans ( Facilitator )
Dave Schmidt
Jim Walker / Ron Zybd
Karen Hamilton
Rich Muza
Rob Walline
Darcy Campbell
Tom Aalto
Terri Bahrych
Brian Pinkowski
Don Rushton
Caren Rothstein
Ed Stearns
Ground Water
Superfund
Drinking Water
UIC
Water Quality
Ground Water
Mine Waste
Superfund
RCRA
UST
Superfund
OEA
Indian Coordinator
Pesticides
Therefore the Region VIII Assessment of Ground-Water related
programs includes a profile of nine selected programs, a
compilation of Regional EPA ground-water related grants and a
Regional Review of 13 programs which have ground-water management
responsibilities. Completion of the Regional Review is a
voluntary STARS measure.
2
-------
SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT DATA / INFORMATION
Profiles Program profiles were completed for ten Regional
programs ( Table 2 ).
Table 2 Region VIII Programs For Which Profiles Were Completed
Ground-Water Protection Program
Nonpoint Source Program
Public Water Supply Program
Underground Injection Control Program
RCRA C
Underground Storage Tank Program
Superfund Program
Regional Indian Program
Mine Waste Program
Pesticides Program
The QAT. developed an outline to be followed when completing the
profiles. This was done to assure that each program provided
similar information and to assure that the necessary-
information was consistently provided. The following outline was
used for the program profiles:
I. Description of program
A. Name of program
B. Organizational location in Region VIII
C. Authorizing legislation
D. Basic description of ground-water responsibilities
E. Status of program within states
II. Existing status of program
A.Introduction
1. Statutory requirements
2. Goals / standards
B. Activities
1. Ground-water resource assessment activities
2. Ground-water remediation activities
3. Permitting activities
4. Pollution prevention activities
5. Ground-water protection activities
6. Enforcement activities
7. Public outreach activities
8. EIS review activities
J?
-------
III. Data collection and analyses
A. Collection/analyses of samples
B. Data management
IV. Coordination
V. Resources
A. Program resources
B. Administrative funds
C. Grants to states
Complete profiles for these ten programs are included as Appendix
A. The ten programs for which profiles were completed were
determined by the QAT to be the most important Regional programs
with respect to ground-water management responsibilities.
Program grants information
To further facilitate the development of CSGWPPs the Ground-Water
Protection Division ( GWPD ) of the Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water ( HQ ) developed and issued a Grants Handbook for
State and Tribal ground-water program managers. The handbook was
issued in 1992 to assist States and Tribes in identifying
existing EPA ground-water related grants that may support the
development and implementation of CSGWPPs. The Ground-Water
Protection Strategy QAT prepared a Regional supplement to the
Grants Handbook for the RGWSC and State and Tribal program
managers to utilize for analysis and comparison purposes
( Appendix B ).
The information compiled for the Regional supplement corresponds
as closely as possible with the program areas identified in the
National Grants Handbook. For each State, grants information was
compiled for FY 92. EPA Region VIII programs for which grants
information is presented include RCRA, Nonpoint Source,
Superfund, Pesticide, Ground-Water Protection, PWS, UIC, Regional
Indian Program and Mining Waste. The Regional Grants Handbook was
distributed to the Region VIII States.
Regional Review
As discussed above, the Regional Review is an assessment of those
Regional programs which will have a role in support of- CSGWPPs.
The Region VIII review was conducted by Ground-Water Branch staff
using a Regional Review Guide developed by the GWPD. The Guide is
divided into two sections that broadly correspond to the six
strategic elements of a CSGWPP. The first section consists of 27
generic questions that are to be answered by all pertinent
Regional programs. These generic questions are based on four of
the six strategic elements; (1) Establish a Common Ground-water
Protection Goal, (3) Define Authorities, Roles and Resources,
(5) Coordinate Information Collection and Management, and (6)
-------
Improve Public Education and Participation. Answers to these
generic questions were compiled for 13 Regional programs ( Table
3 ) . The second section of the Guide consists of program-
specific questions. These questions relate to strategic elements
(2) Establish Priorities to Direct All Relevant Programs and (4)
Implement Efforts to Accomplish the State's Goal. Answers to
program-specific questions were provided by nine Regional
programs ( Table 4 }. Completed generic questionnaires for the
thirteen programs are included as Appendix C. Completed program-
specific questionnaires for the nine selected programs are
included as Appendix D. The nine programs for which program
specific questions were developed were selected by the GWPD.
Table 3 Region VIII programs which provided answers to the
generic assessment questions
Water Management Division
Ground-Water Branch
Public Water Supply Program - Drinking Water Branch
Underground Injection Control Program - Drinking Water Branch
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - Compliance
Branch
Nonpoint Source Program - Water Quality Branch
Mine Waste Program
Air. Radiation and Toxics Division
Pesticide Program - Toxic Substances Branch
Hazardous Waste Management Division
RCRA C - Hazardous Waste Branch
RCRA D - Waste Management Branch
Underground Storage Tank Program - Waste Management Branch
Superfund - Superfund Remedial Branch
Office* nf External Affairs
Regional Indian Program
Office of Policy and Management
Pollution Prevention Program
s
-------
Table 4 - Region VIII programs which provided answers to program
specific assessment questions
Nonpoint Source Program
Watershed Protection Program
UIC Program
Pesticides Program
RCRA C
RCRA D
UST Program
Superfund
Pollution Prevention Program
RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT
PrQfileg
Five of the ten Regional programs which were profiled are located
in the Water Management Division, three are located in the
Hazardous Waste Management Division, one in the Air, Radiation
and Toxics Division and one'in the Office of External Affairs.
The nine programs are authorized by four different: laws; the Safe
Drinking Water Act ( SDWA ), the Clean Water Act ( CWA ), the
Resource Conservation Recovery Act ( RCRA ) and CERCLA. One
program, the Regional Indian Program, has received Congressional
authorization to award multi-media grants. The statutory
requirements and goals for these nine programs do include
elements of ground-water protection and recognize that some
resource assessment activities may be required.
The Ground-Water Protection Program in Region VIII currently has
7.4 PTEs that are designated for ground-water protection
activities. Of the other programs which were profiled, only the
PWS program and the UST program designate a portion of an PTE to
ground-water protection activities. The PWS program designates
0.1 FTE and the UST program designates 0.2 FTE. None of the
other profiled programs specifically designate FTEs to ground-
water. However most the profiled programs ( except Superfund )
have specific ground-water protection / management
responsibilities. The Ground-Water Branch provides assistance
to these programs with respect to technical and programmatic
issues related to ground-water- protection.
Coordination between these Regional programs and the Ground-Water
Branch is very informal and is limited by resource constraints
and focused missions. The Regional programs have not, to date,
encouraged their respective State programs to coordinate with
State Ground-Water Protection programs.
(>
-------
Program grants
The grants information included in Appendix B includes the
estimated amounts of ground-water related monies distributed to
each of the Region VIII States from the following EPA programs:
RCRA, Superfund, Pesticides, Ground-Water Protection, Public
Water Supply, UIC, Mining Waste and Indian Program (multi-media).
The figures provided are estimates of the total amounts of
program grant monies that can be spent on ground-water related
activities.
For the RCRA Subtitle C program those monies that are earmarked
for corrective action program element may be used for ground-
water related activities. In Region VIII the States designate
from 5% ( Wyoming ) to 40% ( South Dakota ) of the total RCRA
Subtitle C monies for corrective action. Estimated total
corrective action expenditures for FY 92 ranged from $12,000
( Wyoming ) to $180,000 ( Colorado ). It is unknown what
percentage of the total ground-water related expenditures is
related to ground-water protection activities.
Ground-water related grants from the Nonpoint Source Program are
project specific. The number of ground-water NPS projects funded
in FY 91 and FY 92 range from one in North Dakota to 13 in
Wyoming. A total of 33 ground-water related NPS projects are
currently underway in the Region ( FY 93 ). Funding for these
projects ranges from $18,000 to several hundred thousand dollars.
All but one of the projects is funded at an amount less than
$150,000.
Ground-water related grants from the Superfund program are only
broken out for Colorado, South Dakota and Utah. These grants are
site specific and related to preremedial activities. Total
amounts range from $26,000 for South Dakota to $94,000 for Utah.
Ground-water related Pesticide Program grants for each of the six
Region VIII states ( FY 92 ) range from $51,000 ( Wyoming ) to
$103,000 ( North Dakota ). These monies are used primarily in the
development of State Pesticide Management Plans.
The Region VIII Ground-Water Branch distributes about $175,000 to
each of the six states for the development and implementation of
state ground-water protection programs. These monies are
authorized by Section 106 of the Clean Water Act. In FY 91 and FY
92 the Branch also distributed AC&C monies for project specific
work related to ground-water protection. The total amount was
less than $100,000 per year. It is unknown what level of funding
will be available in FY 93 or FY 94.
Appendix B also contains information on total monies given to the
?
-------
States through the PWS and UIC programs. However these monies are
earmarked for activities specific to these programs and are not
allocated for specific ground-water related activities. It is
recognized that the UIC program is inherently a ground-water
protection program. However, based on the response to the
questionaire, it's mission is very limited and driven by national
program objectives.
The Region VIII Mine Waste Program has issued grants to the
States of South Dakota ( $130,000 ) and Colorado ( $92,000 ) to
help fund site specific projects related to characterization and
remediation of precious metal mine waste sites. Some of these
monies have been used to characterize the hydrology and
geochemistry of ground-water at these sites.
In FY 90 and FY 91 the Regional Indian program awarded multi-
media grants to 4 Tribes in three States. These four grants
totaled about $330,000. An additional 8 grants were proposed for
FY 92 totaling $435,000. These monies were to be used for
developing and implementing multi-media.Tribal environmental
protection programs. In Region VIII ground-water is a very
important resource on tribal lands and often is the most
important source of water. A number of ground-water protection
activities were included in the grant applications. However it is
not possible to break out specific ground-water expenditures.
Regional review .
As discussed above, 13 Regional programs provided answers to the
generic assessment questions included in the Regional Review
Guide and nine programs provided answers to the program specific
questions. The questions are based on the six strategic elements
of a CSGWPP. Answers to the questionaires were obtained through
interviews conducted by the Ground-Water Branch staff with each
of the respective program managers, Section chiefs or Branch
chiefs. The results of the Regional Review will be presented
within the context of these six strategic elements.
Establish a Common Ground-Water Protection Goal
The first five generic questions are related to this first
element of a CSGWPP. These questions are designed to obtain
information on: (1) whether the Regional program is aware of
EPA's ground-water'protection goal and the ground-water
protection goals of the Region VIII states and, (2) whether the
Regional program is consistent with and supportive of the ground-
water protection goals of the States. Of the 13 programs, all
were aware of EPA's goal except the NPDES and Superfund
programs. However, some of the technical Superfund staff were
aware of the goal. Four of the thirteen programs ( UIC, NPDES,
UST and P2 ) have not been apprised of the States' ground-water
protection goals. Five of the 13 Regional programs ( UIC, NPDES,
Mine Waste, Superfund and P2) have not discussed the CSGWPP goal
-------
with their State programs. Even for those Regional programs that
have discussed the goal with the States, it was reported that
very little effort has been put forth to help the State programs
integrate with the CSGWPP goal.
When the Regional programs were asked if their program supported
the State's ground-water protection policies, the answer was most
often yes but the support was perceived to be through existing
programatic mechanisms. Five of the 13 programs ( PWS, UIC,
NPDES, RCRA C and Indian Program ) reported that their program
goal was not consistent with the States' ground-water protection
policies.
Define Authorities, Roles, and Resources
Questions 6 through 17 are related to the third strategic
element. These questions are designed to obtain information on:
(1) if / how the Regional programs are coordinating with the
other Regional ground-water programs, (2) how the Regional
programs can encourage / influence coordination between their
State programs and State ground-water protection program (3) the
problems that exist with using program grant funds ( if
applicable ) for funding ground-water activities in the Region.
When asked how the CSGWPP will be used as a coordination point
between a Regional program and other key. ground-water programs,
only the Ground-Water Protection Program and the Regional Indian
Program could identify a way to use CSGPWP to achieve
coordination. In fact, two of the Regional programs ( UST and PWS
) responded that CSGWPP could not be used as a coordination
mechanism.
Information obtained from questions 10 and 11 indicate that
coordination between Regional programs with ground-water
management responsibilities is occurring, however such
coordination is very informal and mainly on a staff to staff
basis. Coordination occurs more often between the technical staff
than between the program managers. There is a more formal
coordination between the Ground-Water Protection Program and the
Nonpoint Source Program, the Pesticides Program and the Mine
Waste Program. Most of the other programs included in the
Regional Review reported that coordination is minimal, but
adequate.
Eight of the 13 Regional programs reported that there is no
designated point of contact between the Regional program and the
State ground-water program. Very few Regional programs encourage
or require a point of contact between their State program and the
State ground-water protection program. Other than the Ground-
Water Protection Program, only the NPS Program,the Pesticide
Program and the RCRA D Program have formal contacts with State
ground-water programs. When asked to characterize the degree of
?
-------
coordination between their State program and the State ground-
water program, most Regional programs did not know the answer or
felt that the coordination is poor or questionable. Only the NPS
Program, the Pestfcides Program and the RCRA D Program reported
good coordination.
Major barriers to coordination between ground-water related
programs at the Regional and State levels include: (1) limited
resources, (2) conflicting missions, (3) no institutional drive,
(4) turf battles and (5) inconsistent EPA guidance. Suggested
ways to address this problem include: (1) institutionalize
teamwork and multi-program approach, (2) provide incentive
grants, (3) reorganize using a resource based approach.
Major barriers to using program grant funds for funding ground-
water activities in the Region include: (1) lack of recognition
that funding preventative activities is environmentally cost
effective, (2) highly prescriptive regulations, (3) lack of grant
funds and (4) matching requirements. Suggested changes to the
national program to reduce these barriers include: (1)
administrator directive to all operating programs, (2) more
funding, (3) better coordination at HQ level and (4) take a share
of all relevant programs grants to fund additional ground-water
protection efforts.
Coordinate Information Collection and Management
Generic questions 18 through 23 are related to the 5th strategic
element. These questions are designed to obtain information on:
(1) Regional programs and their State programs access to and use
of EPA and State ground-water related data, (2) Regional
programs' intent to use CSGWPP to help coordinate data collection
and provide flexibility for State recordkeeping and reporting and
(3) Regional programs' encouragement of states to identify
hydrologic connections between ground and surface water.
All of the Regional programs included in the Review except for
the RCRA D Program reported that they have access to EPA and
State ground-water related data bases. Three Regional programs -
PWS, NPDES and RCRA D - reported that they do not encourage their
State programs to use available ground-water data.
Eleven of the 13 Regional programs included in the Review
reported that they do not plan to use CSGWPPs to help coordinate
data collection and management. Only the Ground-Water Protection
Program and the Pesticides Program plan to use CSGWPP for this
purpose. Currently, only limited types of data collection are
coordinated ( ground-water sensitivity data and limited ground-
water quality data ) between EPA or State ground-water related
programs. All but four of the Regional programs ( PWS,
Pesticides, UIC and NPS ) reported that there are opportunities
for flexibility in State recordkeeping and reporting.
/O
-------
Six of the thirteen Regional programs reported that they do
encourage States to identify hydrologic connections between
ground water and surface water. These six programs are PWS,
NPDES, NPS, Mine Waste, Pesticides, RCRA C and Superfund.
Improve Public Education and Participation
Generic questions 24 through 27 relate to the 6th strategic
element. These questions are designed to obtain information on
the public education efforts of the 13 Regional programs included
in the Review. All of the programs included in the Review include
public education efforts in their mission. All but five of the
programs ( NPDES, RCRA D, UST, Regional Indian Program and
Pollution Prevention ) provide information to the regulated
community. All but two of the programs ( PWS and Mine Waste )
include ground-water protection in their public education
efforts. However, only three of the programs ( NPS, Regional
Indian Program and Pollution Prevention ) have invited the
Regional Ground-Water Protection Program staff to participate in .
their public education efforts.
Establish Priorities to Direct All Relevant Programs
Implement Efforts to Accomplish the State's Goal
The nine Regional programs listed in Table 4 provided answers to
the program specific questions ( Appendix D ). The program
specific questions relate to two of the six strategic elements:
Establish Priorities to Direct All Relevant Programs and
Implement efforts to Accomplish the State's Goal. Each of the
nine programs provided answers to a different set of questions.
However all of the questions are designed to obtain information
on how the nine Regional programs are considering State
priorities and geographic targeting in the implementation of
their program.
An analysis of the answers to the program specific questions
indicates that only four of the nine programs are effectively
including state priorities in the implementation of their
program. These are the PWSS program, the Pesticide Program, the
Nonpoint Source Program and the Superfund Program.
The information reported in Appendix D is very extensive and
Region VIII specific. This information will be valuable to the
RGWSC as this Committee moves forward to direct the development
and implementation of CSGWPPs. An individual analysis of Appendix
D will demonstrate the usefullness of these data in pursuing
CSGWWP concepts in Region VIII.
//
-------
CONCLUSIONS
An preliminary analysis of the data provided to the Region VIII
Ground-Water Protection QAT demonstrates some overall trends in
Regional support of the CSGWPP concept. These conclusions are
provided as a synopsis of the data collected by the QAT. These
conclusions represent an overview of Region VIII trends and do
not apply to each program included in the Assessment. They are
only intended to provide a broad overview of the Assessment
report.
l. There-are currently 14 Regional programs that are
significantly involved in addressing ground-water
quality management responsibilities.
• 2. These programs have been authorized by four separate Federal
statutes are located within five different Regional Offices
/ Divisions.
3. Most of these programs appear to focus on ground-water
remedial activities, with some notable exceptions. Statutory
considerations seem to drive a Regional philosophy of
remediation of existing ground-water contamination and an
awareness- of ground-water pollution prevention for potential
new contamination sources.
4. Overall aquifer protection strategies are seldom considered
by programs in the implementation of their respective
statutorily-mandated mission. State goals and priorities may
or may not be a consideration when Regional programs conduct
their activities.
5. There is an increasing awareness among Regional ground-water
programs that utilization of ground-water data for making
programmatic decisions at the Regional and State level is a
good idea. However, very few Regional programs see the
CSGWPP as a vehicle to implement this idea.
6. Currently ground-water protection coordination activities
occur among the Regional ground-water related programs on an
informal, as needed basis at the technical staff level
primarily. Program managers essentially do not see increased
coordination as a high priority activity. Coordination is
hindered by lack of resources, perceived mission conflicts,
turf battles and inconsistent EPA guidance.
7. The current major impediments to utilizing program grants
for ground-water protection activities appears to be lack of
funds for completing statutorily-mandated activities,
absence of empowerment based on legislative mandates and
program guidance, and State match requirements of various
/2-
-------
programs. In none of the interviews conducted did there
appear to be a philosophical disagreement that ground water
protection efforts should be funded.
8. Although the Ground-Water Branch has conducted a number of
briefings and most Regional programs have been apprised of
EPA's ground-water protection goal, most Regional ground-
water related programs are not very knowledgeable regarding
the details of CSGWPP.
9. Most Regional ground-water related programs have discussed
with their State programs the need to coordinate with State
ground-water programs. However, few programs have
specifically discussed the CSGWPP goal with their programs.
Encouragement for the integration of this goal with each
program's priorities is perceived to be constrained by
statutory requirements.
10. Access to existing ground-water related data was reported to
be good and Regional programs are using existing data where
program policies allow. Data coordination at the State level
is encouraged by about half of the programs interviewed.
Coordination of ground-water data collection and management
activities at the Regional and State levels is currently not
very effective. Few Regional programs envisioned CSGWPPs as
a vehicle for coordination of data collection and
management.
11. Fewer than one half of the Regional programs reported that
flexibility exists for recordkeeping / reporting for those
States with developed CSGWPPs.
12. Public education / information appears to be strongly
emphasized in almost all Regional ground-water related
programs and that ground-water protection is included to
some degree in these activities.
NEXT STEPS
Region VIII anticipates that the followup to this Assessment will
include the development of specific recommendations to improve
coordination between Regional ground-water related programs.
These recommendations will be developed by the QAT - based on an
analysis of the data in the four appendices of the Assessment.
The recommendations will be presented to the RGSWC for their
evaluation and action. The Region VIII Ground-water Branch will
continue to be a focal point for implementation of CSGWPP.
/3
-------
APPENDIX A
ASSESSMENT OF REGION VIII GROUND-WATER RELATED PROGRAMS
PROGRAM PROFILES FOR SELECTED REGIONAL PROGRAMS'
-------
REGION VIII PROFILE -- GROUND-WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM
A. Name of Program - Ground-Water Protection Program
B. Organizational Location within Region VIII - Ground-Water
Branch, Water Management Division
C. Authorizing Legislation - The Sole Source Aquifer (SSA)
and Wellhead Protection (WHP) programs are the federally-
mandated ground-water protection efforts, legislated
under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 and
Amendments of 1986, respectively. Federal funding for
all ground-water protection efforts at the state level is
provided through Section 106 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA).
D. Basic Description of Ground-Water Responsibilities State
and local governments have the primary role in
groundwater protection because of the importance of land
use and water allocation issues in comprehensive
protection of the resource. The Ground-Water Branch
works with the Region VIII states in the development and
implementation of groundwater protection efforts based
primarily on national program initiatives (the
Comprehensive State Ground-Water Protection Program -
CSGWPP) as well as the SDWA legislation. EPA's overall
role is to foster development of state ground-water
protection programs and strategies and to support
implementation of ground-water protection programs by
providing technical guidance and conducting research.
E. Status of Program within States - The states in Region
VIII are on different courses in regard to the development
and implementation of ground- water protection efforts due
to the individual state strategies that were developed in
the late 1980s. In regard to legislative mandates, North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah have EPA-approved State WHP
programs and are now in the implementation stage of this
program. In the CSGWPP initiative the integrated South
Dakota Ground-Water Quality Program is an EPA pilot state
for FY93. Following plans outlined in their state
strategies, ground-water discharge permit programs are in
place in Montana, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
II., EXISTING STATUS OF PROGRAM WITH GROUND-WATER COMPONENTS
: A. Introduction
1. Statutory Reauiremenha - Established under Section
1428 of the SDWA, the WHP Program is EPA's program
to comprehensively address resource protection for
public water systems. Each state must prepare a WHP
program, containing at a minimum seven specific
elements defined by the law, and submit it to EPA
-------
for review. Once a state has an EPA-approved WHP
program, other federal agencies controlling sources
of examination in the wellhead protection area
met ccnely with the requirements of the program.
™e sir Program was established under Section
1424(e) of the SDWA of 1974. The program allows
individuals and organizations to petition the EPA to
designate aquifers as the "sole or principal source"
of dlinking water for an area. The pn™ry purpose
of SSA designation is to provide EPA review of
federal financially assisted projects planned for an
area to determine their potential for contaminating
the aquifer in the area. The SDWA Amenctaents of
1986 added Section 1427 to "establish procedures for
development, implementation and assessment of
demonstration programs designed to protect critical
aquifer areas located within designated sole source
aquifers."
2. ^ig/st-.andards - The states have developed ground-
water protection goals in their ground-water
protection strategies and/or ground-water
classification systems. For the most part standards
have been developed to maintain water qualityto
such goals. In some cases these standards are the
federal Drinking Water Program Maximum Contaminant
Levels and Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels.
Some states, however, have adopted more stringent
groundwater quality standards based on risk
assessment techniques. Other standards are
available in some states for agricultural uses, etc.
The ground-water protection goals and standards of
the Region VIII states are supported by the Ground-
Water Branch in technical support efforts to other
Regional programs.
B. Activities , ,
1. Ground-Water Resource AsseffHmsnt Activities - The
CSGWPP initiative stresses the need for states and
EPA to emphasize a resource-based approach to
groundwater protection. The Ground-Water Branch
currently provides funding and/or technical support
to a number of resource assessment projects in
Region VIII including: (1) Goshen County, Wyoming;
(2) Springhead Protection Areas, Utah; (3) Black
Hills, South Dakota; and (4) Ground-Water Atlas,
Montana. The Ground-Water Branch: also 'has
representation on a national, multi-agency workgroup
developing a Technical Assistance Document on
ground-water resource assessment.
2. Ground-Water Remediation Activities - The Ground-
Water Branch is involved in technical
support/oversight on ground- water remediation
activities within other EPA programs - - primarily
-------
Superfund, RCRA, and Mine Waste -- and the states.
At the state level in Region VIII for the most part
the ground-water protection programs are involved in
all aspects of ground-water remediation efforts
within the various programs.
Permitting Activities - Montana, South Dakota, Utah,
and Wyoming have developed and implemented ground-
water discharge permit systems. The Ground-Water
Branch provides funding through grants to these
states to assist in program implementation.
Pollution. Prevention Actlvi t-i. The SSA and WHP
programs (discussed further in 5 below) are
pollution prevention minded programs. The
Groundwater Branch implements the SSA Program and
oversees state implementation of the WHP Program.
Ground-Water Protection Activit-i. The SSA and wnp
programs are both legislated groundwater protection
activities. The CSGWPP initiative is another effort
being elevated nationally by EPA. in the SSA
program the Missoula Valley Aquifer in Montana is
the only designated SSA in the Region to date. The
Ground-Water Branch has implemented the SSA program
to overview activities on federally-funded
development . projects which could have an adverse
impact on this aquifer. The EPA Montana Operations
Office assists with this effort. The WHP program is
being implemented at the local level in a number of
Region VIII states. The Ground-Water Branch assists
the states through technical support on program
issues and through funding. The Ground-Water Branch
also provides assistance at the local level through
grants to municipalities for demonstration projects
in the WHP program. Technical assistance is also
provided to locals on wellhead protection area
delineations and assistance/information on other
program elements.
Enforcement Activities - The Ground-Water Branch is
not involved in any enforcement activities within
the Region except on a technical support basis. The
states in their various ground-water activities do
have enforcement issues to deal with (eg , in the
permitting program, through the spill program, etc) .
Public Ovtreach Activities - The Ground-Water Branch
is involved in a number of public outreach
activities. Branch staff have assisted the states
at public meetings for the WHP Program and have
provided technical support for other Regional
programs at such activities. The Branch provides
information on ground-water issues to the public
-------
both through personal communication and through
dissemination of EPA documents upon request. Branch
staff also coordinate public concerns with other
Regional programs that should be involved in the
issue. The Ground-Water Branch is involved in
numerous education activities such as childrens'
water festivals, water days, etc.
8. Review of EIS - Technical staff provide reviews of
EISs upon request for the Environmental Assessment
Branch. Technical comments are provided r and
discussed with involved parties.
III. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A. Collection / Analyses of Samples
1. OA/OC Protocols - Regulations on EPA grants
require that a QA/QC plan be submitted for EPA
approval by all grant recipients performing
environmental monitoring; the QA/QC plan
reviews are coordinated with the Environmental
Services Division (ESD) of Region VIII. The
Ground-Water Branch provides technical support
to the states and the Region on QA/QC issues.
2. SOPs - Ground-Water Branch staff are involved
with staff from other Regional programs in the
development of Region VIII SOPs. for ground-
water monitoring activities. Staff also provide
technical assistance to the states on this
issue.
B. Data Management
1. QA/QC of Data - Grant recipients performing
environmental monitoring are required to submit
QA/QC plans for EPA approval; the QA/QC plan review
is coordinated with the ESD.
2. Data Bases - The Ground-Water Branch has developed a
data base for a South Platte Alluvium ground-water
quality assessment study being performed in-house in
cooperation with the Data Integration Office (DIO)
of Region VIII. All of the Region VIII states are
working to develop a groundwater quality data base
system. The Ground-Water Branch provides
information on systems and funding to the states for
this effort.
3. GIS - GIS is being utilized by the DIO on the South
Platte Alluvium ground-water quality assessment
study. The states are encouraged by the Ground-
Water Branch to utilize GIS in their groundwater
activities. All of the Region VIII states have
access to a GIS system but operational capabilities
are lacking.
-------
COORDINATION
Within EPA Region VIII the Ground-Water Branch actively
coordinates with the Nonpoint Source Program on ground-
water research being performed within the states under CWA
Section 319 funds. The Branch is also active in working
with the Pesticides Section and the states in the
development of State Management Plans. The Ground-Water
Branch has a representative on a multi-program team to
assist states in the development of a methodology to grant
monitoring waivers to public water supplies utilizing
ground water. State project officers in the Branch are
involved in project officer teams for their states; the
teams allow for interaction as well as informational
exchange on issues occurring within other programs at the
state level. Technical assistance on ground-water issues
is provided upon request to a number of programs including
Superfund, RCRA, Mine Waste, UIC, etc.
RESOURCES
A. Program Resources - The Ground-Water Branch is staffed by
7.2 FTEs of which 4.5 FTEs are directly associated with
ground-water protection program development activities.
B. Administrative Funds - The Ground-Water Branch received
$65,000.of AC&C funds for FY92. This funding was used to
support a number of projects ranging from training course
development and implementation to resource assessment work
in Montana. An additional $35,000 was provided from
Regional AC&C funds to procure ground-water modeling
training for the state staffs in programs that deal with
ground-water issues.
C. Grants t-.n states - For FY92 all six states in Region VIII
received identical allocations of $174,945 for ground-
water protection program development and implementation
under CWA section 106 monies. For FY92 four grant awards
for WHP Program demonstration projects were provided to
three communities and a reservation for a total allocation
of $114,815.
-------
REGION VIII PROFILE -- MINING WASTE GROUP
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM
A. Name of Program - Mining Waste Group
B. Orcranizat-.lonal Location within Region VIII - Immediate
Office, Water Management Division
C. Authorizing Legislation - The Group works in all
programs as they apply to mining sites. Clean Water
Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, NEPA, CERCLA, & TOSCA.
D. The Mining Waste Group works with states nationally,
other Regions, and Headquarters offices on mining site
analysis, permitting, enforcement, technology
development, and program development. Included in this
is the mining site aspects of ground water protection
and remediation.
E. Status of Pr-oarair within States - The ground water
aspects of mining sites are most commonly addressed by a
joint effort of the water quality agencies and the mined
land reclamation/mine operations permitting agencies.
II. EXISTING STATUS OF PROGRAM WITH GROUND-WATER COMPONENTS
A. Introduction
1. Statutory Requirements - NEPA, CERCLA, RCRA, & SDWA
have ground water analysis and protection
provisions that apply to mine sites. In addition
the Group assists states in the implementation of
state ground water protection provisions.
2. ^ai p ^ct-anrfards - The states have developed ground-
water protection goals in their ground-water
protection strategies and/or ground-water
classification systems. For the most part
standards have been developed to maintain water
quality to such goals. In some cases these
standards are the federal Drinking Water Program
Maximum Contaminant Levels and Secondary Maximum
Contaminant Levels. Some states, however, have
adopted more stringent groundwater quality
standards based on risk assessment techniques. The
protection goals and standards of the states are
supported by the Mining Waste Group in technical
support efforts to other programs. This can
include site specific goal development.
-------
B. Activities
1. Ground-Water Resource Assessment Activities - The
Group is currently involved several site/basin
assessments of both surface and ground waters.
Zortman/Landusky
New World Project
Summitville
Chalk Creek
French Gulch
2. Ground-Water Remediation Activities - The Group is
involved in mining site remediation with a number
of programs including Superfund, Federal land
managers, state abandoned lands, and non-point
source (Section 319).
3. Permitting Activities - Colorado, Montana, South
Dakota, and Utah have developed and implemented
ground-water discharge permit requirements on mine
sites that the Mining waste group has provided
assistance in.
4. Pollution Prevention Activities - The technology
development and planing and analysis of new mining
operations include ground water pollution
prevention activities.
5. Enforcement Activities - The Group is involved in
enforcement activities on a technical support
basis. The states in their various ground-water
activities do have enforcement issues to deal with
as well as EPA CWA actions on ground water
connected to surface water.
6. Review of ElSs - The Group participates in selected
EIS analysis and development upon request from the
lead agencies.
III. COORDINATION
The Mining Waste Group has been a leader in developing
multi-program/multi-media (including ground water)
approaches to mine site activities. This has included
non-point source, watershed, NEPA analysis, NPDES, and
enforcement projects.
V. RESOURCES
A. Program Resources - The Ground-Water Branch is staffed
by 3.0 FTEs and 2 SEEs.
-------
B. Grants to States - FY '92 MINING WASTE GROUND WATER
RELATED GRANTS
1. Chalk Creek (Colorado $60,000) Incremental funding
of a mining site remedial project with a significant
ground water component.
2. .Incremental funding of the Clear Creek Basin
headwaters mining waste project (Colorado $32,000). A
multi-agency basin effort that will involve some ground
water efforts.
3. Special study project related to the Annie Creek
joint Water Division/Superfund mining site remedial
project (South Dakota $30,000). The ground water
pathway will be characterized and included in remedial
design if necessary.
4. "Heap Leach Spent Ore Dump Monitoring Program"
(South Dakota $100,000). This is a continuation of a
study to determine how well sodium cyanide
detoxification is working. Monitoring will take place
throughout the West. This will have a ground water
pollution prevention effect as well as providing ground
water release data.
LEAD REGION ACTIVITIES
The following activities will be done in coordination
with the appropriate regions. The other regions will be
given the opportunity to take the lead role on these
projects if they so desire.
5. "Tri-state Project" (Idaho, Nevada, Oregon
$120,000). This project will create a joint state
permits and enforcement team to address mining site
issues in the three states. These states are in Regions
IX & X. Region VIII will be involved in the project
providing regional coordination and technical
assistance. Mine site activities will involve ground
water.
6. "Development of Mining Waste Technical Standards"
(Alaska $75,000). Alaska needs funds to develop
technical background documents to support the revision
of existing mining waste regulations. This could
include ground water approaches.
-------
Regional Groundwater Profile
Clean Water Act Section 319 Program
Descrinl-inn nf Program
A. Program Name - Section 319 - Nonpoint Source Program
B. Organizai-.-ional Location - Water Management
Division/Water Quality Branch/Watershed Section
C. Authorizing Legislation - Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act provides for a state program to prevent nonpoint
source pollution of ground water that may be voluntary
or regulatory. It provides for ground water research,
planning, assessment, enforcement of state regulations,
technical assistance, education, and training but not
remediation of polluted ground water.
D. Descrini-.-inn nf GW Responsibilities - All states in
Region VIII have ground water assessment activities,
public information and education for protecting ground
water, ground water protection efforts such as abandoned
well sealing, or some combination of these activities
being conducted through Section 319.
Existing stafcug/sr*t-e of Program With Ground Water Components
A. Introduction
1. st-at-iif-ory Requirements - Clean Water Act Section
319(h) (5) (D) says that ground water quality
protection activities which the Administrator
determines are part of a comprehensive nonpoint
source pollution control program are one of the
priorities for Federal funding. Requirements for
funding are an EPA-approved state nonpoint
assessment report and state nonpoint source
management plan. The Clean Water Act lists
required contents of the report and the plan, but
they include best management practices (BMPs) and
measures for reducing nonpoint source pollution
and an identification of programs to achieve
implementation of the BMPs. Also, to the maximum
extent practicable the State must develop and
implement a management program on a watershed
basis.
2. CnaiQ/standards
-------
Institutionalize State and local nonpoint
source programs.
d. Encourage strong relationships among Federal,
State and local nonpoint source, and nonpoint
source-related programs and activities to
create long-tern program effectiveness.
One of the criteria to consider in evaluating
watersheds for ranking is vulnerability of ground
water/surface water to additional environmental
degradation. Groundwater priorities should be
consistent with State Comprehensive Groundwater
Programs and State groundwater classifications,,
B. arr-ivities
1. nrnnnd-water resource assessment activities - All
states in Region VIII are using 319 grant funds
for groundwater assessment of targeted areas.
2. rtroimd-waf.er remediation activities -
3. Permitting activities -
4. Pollution Prevention activities - Some states have
projects meant to demonstrate agricultural
technologies that are protective of ground water.
North Dakota also has an abandoned well sealing
project. All states are reviewing Farm*A*Syst,
which includes elements of ground water
protection, for implementation.
5. flrmmd-water protection activities -
6. Enforcement activities -
7. public Outreach activities - Some States have
specific public education projects for groundwater.
Colorado is developing a public education campaign to
complement a wellhead protection pilot project. All
projects funded by 319 should strong information
dissemination components, including those which focus
on groundwater. All states have a nonpoint source
newsletter which include articles on groundwater, and
EPA publishes a national nonpoint source newsletter
and supports an electronic bulletin board.
8. Keview of EIS -
III. nai-a Collection and Analyse^
A. collection/analyses of aampi
1' operatina^ororeHi" QA/QC and accompanying standard
Thlse p??cedSs are a3r* rec^ired for all EPA grants.
These procedures are either in a draft form or have
-------
been approved by EPA for all states. Project QA/QC
plans are also required.
B. Data management
1. OA/QC of Data - Data QA/QC is included in the State
QA/QC plan for nonpoint source activities supported by
Section 319.
2. Databases - Data is stored in appropriate state and
federal data bases. Use of STORET is required for EPA
funded data.
3. GIS - Some groundwater modeling is being conducted
with Section 319 funds, including DRASTIC modeling.
Use of GIS for groundwater data is not being used at
this time, or unknown.
IV. Coordination
The nonpoint source program is a State program with EPA oversight
and approval. Coordination between the State and EPA is
conducted through constant communication between the EPA Project
Officer and the State nonpoint source coordinator. The bulk of
program development takes place through the State Nonpoint Source
Task Force and its various subcommittees. Many agencies and
interests are represented and active in these forums providing
for coordination.
Within EPA coordination is conducted by informing appropriate
programs, such as the groundwater program, of related activities
and requesting comment and technical assistance from such
programs.
V. Resources
A. Program resources are found in the FTEs supported by agency
funding: in the Region VIII office there are five project
officers, one section chief, one secretary, and two agency
liaisons whose FTEs are 50-supported by EPA. Montana has
one project officer whose time is divided between at least
three programs.
B. The program receives a variable amount of AC&C funding each
year. It is approximately $200,000.
C. The grant program funding varies annually, but the past two
years, and probably, FY93, has been $4.2 million for Region
VIII. The funding to the State is divided based on requests
and EPA's evaluation of the strength of the proposals.
-------
GROUND WATER PROFILE
PWSS PROGRAM
October, 1993
I. Description of Program
Program Name - Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
Program
Organizational Location - The PWSS program is administered
by |;two sections within the Drinking Water Branch of the
Water Management Division. Those two sections are the
Public Water Supply Program Section and the Public Water
Supply Implementation and Enforcement Section.
Authorizing Legislation - The PWSS program is authorized
by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974. The Act
was amended in 1986 and is expected to be reauthorized
again in Fiscal Year '94.
Description of Ground-Water Responsibilities - The PWSS
program regulations require all public water systems to
monitor for regulated contaminants and to either treat
their water or find alternative sources if any monitoring
shows contaminants which exceed the Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL). There are currently MCLs for inorganic
(including radionuclides), organic, and microbiological
contaminants. Under recent regulations (Phase II and
Phase II rules), States may develop "monitoring waiver
programs" whereby a water system, upon meeting state
criteria that shows it is not vulnerable to contamination,
may reduce or eliminate monitoring for many chemicals.
Program Status Within States - All Region VIII states,
except Wyoming, have primacy for the PWSS program. The
regional PWS Implementation and Enforcement Section
implements the program in Wyoming and on Indian lands. As
new Federal regulations are promulgated, states have 18
months to adopt them, and may apply for two year
extensions after that.
II. Bv-iating flt-.atus of Program
A. Tnf.roduction
1. statutory requirements - Section 1412 of the SDWA,
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR)
and Section 1431 Emergency Powers gives the PWS
program the authority to protect the public from
drinking contaminated ground water (GW) supplies.
2 . nna] .g I standards (regulatory/technical) Regulations
that have GW components are: Phase I (Vocs) , Phase
II (SOCs/Vocs/PCBs), Phase V (SOCs/VOCs), Surface
Water Rule (SW influences) , GW Disinfection Rule
(viruses). Each contaminant has an MCL goal and an
MCL or a treatment technique associated with it.
A.
B.
C.
D.
-------
LU UO.V
flmund-water resource assessment activities - There
are currently no ground water resource assessment
activates authorized or required under the SDWA.
2. Around-water remediation activities - PWS staff
interacts with the Superfund program in order to
assess impact and provide technical support when
contamination threatens a public water system. If a
PWS exceeds the MCL, treatment is required of that
source prior to entry to the distribution system.
Aquifer remediation is authorized under 1431,
however, it has not been utilized.
3. Permitting activities - There are currently no
permitting activities authorized or required under
the SDWA.
4. Pollution prgvgtit;j,9n activities - Pollution
Prevention is indirectly addressed through a state's
monitoring waiver program. Through the waiver
program, a system may be required to; implement a
wellhead protection program. Through wellhead
protection the PWS can address the actual prevention
of pollution.
5. ground-water protection activities - Ground water
protection activities are encouraged under the
state's monitoring waiver program.
6. enforcement activities - A state that has primacy
for the PWSS program is responsible for implementing
an adequate enforcement program. Each year, EPA
negotiates Enforcement Agreements with each state.
If a state fails to take adequate enforcement
action, EPA may unilaterally take action against a
water system. Details regarding communication and
cooperation are outlined in the Enforcement
Agreement. PWSs that violate an MCL, treatment
technique or public notice can be issued a state
bilateral compliance agreement, administrative
order, or civil action. EPA has authority to issue
a Federal administrative order (penalties not to
exceed $5,000) or a civil referral (penalties, .not
exceed $25,000 per day per violation).'
7. public flCUvUi^ - The state, EPA, Rural
Water, AWWA, environmental training centers and
others are among many who have been "mobilized"
la ^ Provide training and
fSna -i« ^ wa,iyer/wellhead protection area.
U 13 producing videos and written materials on
"viJ™ f0r ^lic and private water
systems. South Dakota has a pollution prevention
-------
grant to produce material on GW protection. During
the next mobilization conference call discussions
will include the protection of GW.
8. Review of EIS - PWS staff review EIS documents when
requested by the Environmental Assessment Branch.
III. Data Collent-i on/Analvses
A. Collection/Analyses of Samples
1. OA/OC protocols - All water samples that are
analyzed for compliance with the PWSS program must
be analyzed by a certified drinking water
laboratory. The Region VIII ESD program certifies
state labs, and state labs, in turn, certify private
labs within the state. An integral part of the
certification process is an adequate QA/QC program.
Water systems themselves take the compliance
samples. There is no chain-of-custody procedures
required. Certified labs are supposed to reject
samples that they determine do not meet proper
sampling, container, or holding-time requirements.
2. SOP* s - Procedures for sample collection of a
particular set of chemicals are included, by the lab
when sample bottles are sent to the system.
Laboratories follow the SOP's of sample analysis
that are- .listed in the regulations and in the EPA
drinking water methods manual.
B. nata Management
1. na/nc of data - QA/QC for data management varies in
each state. States typically do not set time aside
to perform this function. EPA has tried to
incorporate QA/QC into the state's SEA.
2. rial-abases - Data management practices for storage of
sampling data vary widely from state to state. At
one end is the computerized entry and storage in the
laboratory with electronic transmission to the
state's compliance tracking database. At the other
end, analytical results are handwritten on the
sample collection form, and that form is sent to the
drinking water program which manually enters the
data into its compliance tracking database.
3 GIS - GIS of analytical results is currently not
being utilized to any significant extent by any
Region VIII state.
IV. rwvrvjH nation
In the past, the PWS program has had minimal need to interact
with the GW branch. Because of the development of the waiver
program, coordination with the GW Branch has become essential.
-------
This coordination is in its infancy.
V. Resources
A. In the past, the PWS Program has devoted probably less
than one tenth of an FTE to coordination with the GW
Branch. More time has been spent recently because of the
waiver program.
B. The regional program will occasionally qualify for AC&C
contract funds. In FY93, none of these funds were
directed toward ground water activities.
C. Every year, state grants (AC&C funding) are provided to
those states with primacy for the PWSS program. None of
that money is directly targeted or restricted to ground
water-related activities, although some may go on at the
state level (such as the monitoring waiver program). In
FY93, the Region VIII allocation (which includes Wyoming
and Indian lands) totalled- $3,472,200.
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROFILE
I. Description of Program.
A. Name of program - Underground Injection Control (UIC)
B. Organizational location within Region VIII - Water
Management Division, Drinking Water Branch, UIC Section
C. Authorizing legislation - The Underground Injection
Control (UIC) program was promulgated under Part C of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (Pub. L. 93-523f as
amended; 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) and, to the extent that
they deal with hazardous waste, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Pub. L. 94-580 as amended; 42
U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).
UIC specific regulations; Title 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR): Parts 124; 144; 145; 146; 147; 148.
D. Basic description of ground-water responsibilities - The
purpose of the Underground Injection Control (UIC) is to
protect underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from
the improper injection of fluids.
There are five classes of injection wells regulated by the
Underground Injection Control (UIC) program that are
summarized as follows;
Inject hazardous and non-hazardous wastes
beneath the lowermost formation containing
an USDW within one-quarter mile.
Used in conjunction with oil and gas
production (e.g., salt water disposal,
enhanced recovery).
Inject for the extraction of minerals.
Inject hazardous or radioactive waste
into or above a formation within one-quarter
mile of an USDW (PROHIBITED).
All injection wells not included in
Classes I-IV and wells specifically named
as Class V Wells.
gfrania of program within states - The latest UIC
regulatory revisions relating to implementation were
promulgated in the Federal Register on November 25, 1988.
These regulations established the EPA Direct
Implementation (DI) for Indian lands in primacy states.
In Region VIII the UIC Direct Implementation (DI) program
now applies to Montana (all classes of. wells); South
Dakota (Classes I, III, IV, and V); Colorado (Classes I,
III, IV, and V); Wind River Indian lands in Wyoming (all
Class I
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Class V
-------
classes of wells); Uinta and Ouray Indian lands in Utah
(all classes of wells); Southern Ute Indian lands in
Colorado (all classes of wells); and Ft. Berthoud Indian
lands in North Dakota (all classes of wells).
UIC programs delegated to states as follows; Colorado -
Class II; North Dakota - Class I, II, III, IV, V; South^
Dakota - Class II; Utah - Class I, II, III, IV, V; Wyoming
- Class I, II, III, IV, V
States do not command UIC regulatory rights over Indian
lands (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 147).
IX. Existing status of program with ground-water components
A. Introduction.
1. statutory requirements - The Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program was mandated by federal statute (Safe
Drinking Water Act) and subsequent regulations developed
by the U.S. EPA. (See i.-c.).
Any underground injection, except as authorized by permit
or rule issued under the UIC program, is prohibited. The
construction of any well required to have a permit is
prohibited until the permit is issued (Title 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) §144.11).
2. Goals standards (regulatory standards and technical
standards).
Goals : to protect the nation's potentially usable fresh
water aquifers from contamination by underground injection
operations.
standards (regulatory) - 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 144 - sets the regulatory framework for the
program.
Standards (technical) - 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 146-Establishes the technical standards to be
used by the state or EPA in implementing the program.
B. Activities.
1. Ground-water resource assessment activities - None known
of.
2. Ground-water remediation artivitiea - Region VIII UIC
controls the reinjection of treated fluids in remediation
projects in the following areas:
Montana, South Dakota, Colorado, All Indian Reservations
in the Region.
All remediation reinjection wells are Class V wells and
conform to Class V regulations.
-------
3. Permitting activities - All under-ground injection wells
require a permit or rule authorization except Class IV
which are prohibited (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
§144 .; 1(g)) .
Permitting and rule authorization is conducted for the
various well classes by EPA, Region VIII in states and on
Indian lands as described in item I.-e.
4. Pollution prevention activities - As part of Class V
closure - to insure the proper disposal of fluids.
5. Ground-water protection activities - It is the
responsibility of the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Pr'ogram, which was mandated by federal statute (Safe
Drinking Water Act) and subsequent regulations developed
by the U.S. EPA, to protect useable and potentially
useable fresh water aquifers from contamination by
underground injection well operations.
6. Enforcement activities - Administrative Orders for
violations in Direct Implementation (DI) programs, mostly
Class II and Class V wells.
Referrals for civil litigation to Department of Justice.
: I
State overfile . When state has not commenced timely and
appropriate action UIC can overfile an enforcement action
after notification.
Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
provides "emergency powers" above and beyond normal UIC
regulatory control to protect against contamination of
real or potential drinking water sources.
7. Public outreach activities - Through public notice and
comment on permit applications. Periodic talks with civic
organizations. Meetings with local water board and health
department personnel and concerned citizens in areas where
current UIC activity is occurring. Available UIC
pamphlets and brochures.
8. Review of EIS - Regional groundwater expert reviews for
groundwater impacts regarding oil, gas and mining
activities.
9. Oversight - The monitoring of all state UIC programs to
insure conformity with Federal/State requirements and
approved UIC grant activities.
III. naf.a collation and analysis
A. Collection / analysis of samples.
l. OA / PC protocols - A Quality Assurance Project Plan
(QAPP) is being prepared. It will be the guidance
-------
document for all UIC sampling and data collection
activities. A site specific sampling and analysis plan is
prepared before each sampling event.
2. SOPs - Specific SOP's are referenced in the sampling and
analysis plan for all sample collecting and handling.
B. Data management.
1. qa /PC of data -Currently handled at a manual level.
More refined system is under development that may
include automated transaction confirmation and
processing.
2. Data bases - Inventories for the wells of Classes I, II,
and III are maintained as database files, and a Class V
inventory is being developed in correspondence with the
Class V initiative.
3. Reporting - A compliance review capability is being
developed that will simplify reporting procedures.
. Coordination
A. Program resources - Employees - 17.6 FTEs.
Region VIII (UIC) FY92 budget as follows;
STATE
PRIMACY
EPA-DI
TQTAIj
COLORADO
94,700
98,700
193,100
MONTANA
0
179,800
179,800
N. DAKOTA
163,100
0
163,100
S. DAKOTA
40,500
42,500
83,000
UTAH
125,200
0
125,200
WYOMING
360,900
0
360,900
REGION TOT
784,400
320,700
1,105,100
B. arim-imatrative funds - None.
C. Cranta to states - Only currently active UIC grant:
Missoula, Montana.
City County Health Department for conducting Class V well
inventory functions, (amount of grant not known at this'
time.) 1
-------
RCRA SUBTITLE C GROUND WATER PROGRAM
I. Description of Program
A. Name of Program - RCRA Subtitle C Ground Water Program.
B. Organizational Location Within Region VIII - Hazardous
Waste Management Division, Hazardous Waste Branch.
C. Authorizing Legislation - Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 as amended.
D. Basic Description of Ground Water Responsibilities -
Establishes requirements for ground water monitoring and
remediation at hazardous waste land disposal facilities.
E. Status of Program Within States - All states in the
Region are delegated to administer the program except
Wyoming and South Dakota. Wyoming is in the process of
trying to obtain delegation. South Dakota does not have
any hazardous waste land disposal facilities, and is not
currently seeking delegation.
II. Existing Status/State of Program With Ground Water Components
A. introduction - The RCRA Subtitle C Ground Water Program
consists of two basic elements. The elements are
specific ground water monitoring and response
requirements for regulated land disposal units, and non-
specific requirements for corrective action (clean-up)
of hazardous waste constituents from all solid waste
management units at hazardous waste facilities. These
basic elements are derived from the following statutory
and regulatory requirements:
1. statutory Requirements - RCRA Section 3004,
"Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities", and RCRA Section 3005, "Permits For
Treatment, Storage or Disposal of Hazardous Waste".
2. Regulatory Requirements - The regulatory
requirements consist of "interim status"
requirements, and "permit" requirements. The
interim status requirements are located in 40 CFR
Part 265 Subpart F, and 40 CFR 270.14(c), and
include requirements for adequate ground water
monitoring. The permit requirements are found in
40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F, and contain requirements
for ground water monitoring and corrective action.
Permit requirements for ground water quality
usually follow MCLs established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
-------
B. activities- Direct Implementation and Oversight:
1. a-round Water Resource Assessment- Based on State
standards.
2. Ground Water Remediation (Corrective Action) -
Usually to MCLs or State standards.
3. Permitting and/or Closure- For all LDFs.
4. Pollution Prevention- Through outreach and permit
conditions, and orders.
5. around Water Protection- Through Ground Water
Protection Standards in permits and siting location
standards.
6. Enforcement- RCRA 3008(a), 3008(h), 3013, and 7003.
7. Public Outreach- Permitting processes and Corrective
Action process.
8. Environmental Impact Statements- Siting location'
standards.
III. Data Collection and Analysis
These activities are almost always performed by contractors.
A. Collection/Analysis of Ground Water Samnlpa-'
1. OA/PC Protocols - SW- 846
2. SOPs - Program Plans and Project Plans
B. Data Management
1. QA/OC of Data - Data Management Plans
2. Data Bases - RCRIS
3. SIS - Not actively used at this time. However
interest in using GIS is increasing.
IV. Coordination
The primary ground water program that RCRA Subtitle C personnel
coordinate with is CERCLA Only limited coordination occurs with
programs other than CERCLA.
V. Resources
A. Program Reggmrcsa - Not specifically earmarked for ground
wdUcx«
-------
B. Administrative Funds - Contractor support.
C. Grants to States - The RCRA State Grant program for
FY'92 totals $2.8M. The table indicates individual
amounts for each state and the percentage of State
resources (EPA grant funds plus State funds) targeted to
each of several RCRA program activities - of which
corrective action is the most prominent in the area of
ground-water protection. There currently exists no more
specific way to break out the amount of EPA grant funds
targeted to ground water protection in the RCRA
hazardous waste program.
There is no EPA grant program to the States for the
solid waste program component (subtitle D) of RCRA.
EPA Region VIII and the six States perform a mix of
activities including state, regional and national
priorities and initiatives, as well as a base level
commitment to activities such as inspections, issuance
of operating and post-closure permits, closure plan
approvals, enforcement, RCRIS, and authorization.
Region VIII EPA resources that may be utilized for
ground water are distributed amongst the various major
program elements. Eight activities make up the Regional
workload including 6% closure and permitting, 22%
corrective action, 23% compliance monitoring and .
enforcement, 7% RCRIS, 8% oversight, 4% Authorization,
4% Capacity Assurance/Waste Minimization Activities, and
26% Management/Administrative.
STATE RCRA "C" STATE/EPA %
CORRECTIVE ACTTDM*
COLORADO
$895,699
20%
MONTANA
$558,000
10%
N. DAKOTA
$300,495
25%
S. DAKOTA
$287,000
40%
UTAH
$798,225
20%
WYOMING
$231,325
5%
~Corrective Action is probably most closely related to expenditures
related to ground water and is therefore included here for comparison.
-------
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM PROFILE
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
A. Program Name - Underground Storage Tank Program
Organizational Location
C. Authorizing Legislation - Subtitle I, RCRA
D. Description of Ground Water Responsibilities - The UST
program directly implements the regulations on Indian
Lands. This involves reviewing corrective action reports
on leaking UST sites. A component of this review deals
witfh groundwater. Permissible petroleum contaminant
levels are based on drinking water MCLs.
E. Program Status within States - North Dakota has been
formally delegated the program. As of October 5, 1992,
South Dakota, Utah and Colorado have submitted a draft
application for program approval.
Existing Status of Program
A. Introduction
1. Statutory requirements - There are no statutory
requirements for corrective action levels of cleanup
in the UST program. This was purposely left out of
the regulations so states could use their own
levels.
2. /standards (regulatory/technical) - Goals
and/or standards are left vague. "No harm to human
health and the environment" is used instead of
definitive numbers. No technology standards are
used.
B. Activities
1. Ground-water resource ^gggggmgnt frgtjvitieg -
Groundwater resource assessment is done only at a
leaking UST site.
2. Ground-water remediai-ion activities - Pump-and-treat
has historically been the popular method of
remediation. However, innovative methods are
becoming more popular. Cleanup activities may
involve discharging of contaminated water. This may
require water permits.
3. P«armittinfT Activities - There are no permitting
requirements directly relating to the UST program.
-------
4.
Pollution prevention activities - Pollution
prevention activities were built into the federal
regulations.
5. Ground-water protection activities - One main
requirement of the UST program requires leak
detection on all tanks by December 1993. This will
prevent large leaks from occurring and contaminating
groundwater.
6. Enforcement activities - Enforcement activities
include inspections with the possibility of field
citations or administrative orders. EPA is active
in three states with enforcement activities.
7. Public outreach activities - The Region VIII UST
program has written a public outreach booklet.
Since the program (for the most part) is directly
implemented by the states, public outreach has not
been an issue. Technical assistance is provided to
all states and Reservations by Region VIII staff.
8. Review of EIS -
III. Data CollP^t-ion/Analvses
A. roll Pction/Analvses of Samples
1. oa/OC protocols - Appropriate QA/QC procedures are
used when sampling is needed. EPA's lab is used for
sample analysis.
2. SQP's -
B. n*i-a Management
1. riA/QC of data -
2. Data treses and 3. Review of bts - no data bases,
modeling programs or GIS is used in the corrective
action review process.
IV. Coordination - There is very little coordination between UST
and other EPA programs with the exception of multi-media
activities. This is because the UST program is state
implemented.
V. Resources
A. Program Rgsgyirggii) - Since the program is designed to be
implemented by the states and not EPA, most of the program
monies are given directly to the states. Each year there
-------
are some monies for special projects. These projects are
Region and state specific. They may deal with groundwater
but do not have to deal with corrective action or
technical issues.
B. Administrative Funds - There are LUST intramural monies
(30 K) which can be used to buy equipment for site work on
Indian Lands. Some of the equipment bought is used for
groundwater study. States are given UST and LUST funds
yearly. The UST funds per state is approximately 162.5 K
and the LUST funds range from 400 to 450 K for the Dakotas
and WY and between 700 and 750 K for CO, UT and MO. Total
FTE for Region VIII personnel dealing with groundwater is
.2.
C. Grants to States -
-------
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL PROGRAM
I- Description of program
A. Name of program - Superfund Remedial Program
B- Organizational location within Region VIXI - Located
within the Hazardous Waste Management Division, under the
Office of the Regional Administrator
C. Authorizing legislation - The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980, Public Law 96-510, as amended; and the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, as
amended.
The regulation affecting Superfund is the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP), Final Rule, published in 40 CFR Part 300 on March
8, 1990.
D. Basic description of ground-water responsibilities - The
steps involved in the process include: site discovery,
site evaluation for listing or immediate action, Removal
Action, Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study, remedy
selection, remedial design, remedial action, long-term
operation and maintenance, and deletion of, site from NPL.
The purpose of site discovery and site evaluation is to
identify those sites posing a risk and requiring further
action. During site discovery and site evaluation,
available ground water data are collected, the site is
visited and samples are collected, if applicable. A few
wells are sometimes installed. Water levels are measured
and NAPL thickness is measured. NAPLs are often sampled.
Well surveys are conducted of persons using the ground
water for domestic or other uses. Well locations and
elevations are often surveyed in.
If short-term action can remediate the problem, the
Removal Program takes over (project must meet certain
threshold criteria for risk and the project must be
completed within 1 year and for less than two million
dollars (mandated by statute).
If ! the Removal Program does not take over, the ground
water pathway is evaluated using the Hazard Ranking
System, and if the value of the hazard is high enough,
considering all risks at the site, the site is listed on
the National Priorities List.
If a site is listed on the NPL and ground water is
suspected of being of concern at the site, then during
-------
the Remedial investigation the field work often involves:
sampling existing wells; installing additional monitoring
wells, often nested; monitoring water levels, often
monthly for a period of 1-2 years; sampling monitoring
and domestic wells for the contaminants of concern at the
site, often quarterly for one year, to determine the
nature and extent of contamination in the horizontal and
vertical; conducting slug tests and aquifer tests to
determine hydraulic conductivity and connections between
aquifers, establishing a conceptual hydrogeologic model
of the site, and sometimes conducting ground water flow
and transport modeling.
The risk is analyzed to current and future users of
ground water.
If a remedy is required, during remedial design and
remedial action, often additional information is needed
to design the remedy, such as: an additional round-of
sampling to establish where the plume is; water level
monitoring; aquifer testing to establish the number and
location of extraction wells; modeling to establish the
number and location of extraction wells; installation of
monitoring wells and/or piezometers to monitor the remedy
(plume location and concentration and gradient control).
Monitoring of the remedy is often quarterly or
semiannually until the aquifer meets its cleanup goals.
E. Sf-afcufl of program within states - EPA does not delegate
authority for the Superfund Program to states in Region
8 - Some states are the lead on sites and EPA gives money
to the states through cooperative agreements. On
enforcement lead sites, a State Superfund Enforcement
Agreement (SSEA) is required. On Fund-lead sites, the
Superfund Memorandum of Agreement applies. The state
must match 10% of the cost of the remedial action for
Fund-lead sites.
II. St.atus/gtate Of Program with groundwater nnmponpntn
A. introduction - In general, the objectives of the program
are to determine the level of hazard at sites; to
undertake remedial planing and remedial irrrolementation
most imminent hazards to human health.
1. fit-afcutorv requirements - The
given in CERCLA and SARA.
The requirements are
2. Qoalg/ (regulatory standards and
1il(!i?(r^nica-^—standards) - The cleanup goal for
-------
contaminated ground water is to return ground
water to its beneficial uses within a reasonable
time frame, where practicable.
Cleanup standards for contaminated ground water
are generally based on protection of human health
and the environment. Site-specific ground-water
cleanup standards are established based on
applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) for the use classification of
the ground water and/or acceptable human health
and environment risk levels for current and future
pathways of exposure. ARARs include standards
established under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
Clean Water Act, or applicable State standards.
In practice, MCLs are applied when restoration is
the goal, where MCLs exist. Where MCLs do not
exist, MCLs or 10-4 to 10-6 risk levels are
calculated based on toxicological data available.
B. Activities
1. Ground-water resource assessment activities - in
the classical sense, resource assessments are not
conducted. However, in the process of collecting
water quality data, water level, and hydraulic
data at a site, the resource in the vicinity of
the site is assessed in terms of the aquifer's
productivity and quality.
2. Ground-water remediation activities The action
taken at most Superfund sites in Region 8 falls
under the broad categories of no action,
containment, or restoration. Monitoring is nearly
always required for any remedy. For restoration,
pump and treat is generally used. Containment is
accomplished either physically (slurry wall) or
hydraulically (pumping wells). Natural
attenuation (no action) has been used at some
sites where contaminant concentrations are low and
no receptors are located down gradient.
3. Permitting activities - No permitting is included
in the program.
4. Pollution prevention activities - Often sources of
contamination in the vadose zone are removed to
prevent additional contamination of ground water.
NAPLs (dense or light) are usually pumped out when
possible, thus reducing sources of ground water
contamination.
Fear of Superfund liability is credited by some
-------
for causing an increased awareness of
environmental protection, particularly among large
companies.
Ground-water protection activities - One of the
goals of the Superfund program is to prevent
contamination of uncontaminated portions of
aquifers. Containment is used to prevent further
migration of plumes. Sources or contamination in
the unsaturated zone and saturated zone are
removed, if possible, thus reducing sources of
ground water contamination.
Enforcement activities - The three major thrusts
of the enforcement program are: achieving private-
party responses; overseeing private party
responses; and recovering costs of EPA cleanups.
Section 106 of CERCLA and SARA allow EPA to seek
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) cleanup of
sites or spills. Section 104 allows EPA to
require a Remedial Investigation or Feasibility
Study without proving that an imminent and
substantial endangerments exists. Section 107
authorizes EPA to seek repayment of government
expenses from PRPs. Section 122 provides
mechanisms for reaching settlements between EPA
and PRPs.
In summary, the major activities in the
enforcement process are identifying PRPs,
negotiating with PRPs to reach a settlement,
taking administrative or judicial action if
negotiations fail, and overseeing cleanup
activities.
T?nblic outreach activities - Community relations
activities are conducted for the Superfund Program
in Region 8 to:
A. Gather information about the local community
to identify how citizens would like to be
involved in the Superfund process.
B. Give citizens the opportunity to comment on
and to provide input to remedial decisions.
Public meetings _ are required to be held at
specific steps in the process (e.g., one is
held when the remedial decision is being
decided on, to^ get public input). In
addition to required meetings, more frequent
public meetings are often held. The public
has ^ a legally specified comment period to
review and comment on the remedial decision
for the site.
-------
C. Inform the public of planned or ongoing
actions. Fact sheets and press releases in
local newspapers are also issued regularly.
D. Focus and resolve conflict.
8 • Review of EIS - This is not included in the
Superfund program.
111• Data collection and analyses
A. Collection/analyses of samples
1. OA/OC protocols - The Superfund Remedial program
follows strict QA/QC protocols, which are generally
described in the project-specific Sampling and
Analysis Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan.
The Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to be used
in the field are -specified in the Sampling and
Analysis Plan.
There is Superfund guidance on how to set data
quality objectives (cite). Generally, for risk
assessment and enforcement-sensitive decisions,
level 4/5 data is required. The samples are sent
to labs participating in the Contract Laboratory
Program, and the data undergo data validation after
analysis.
2. SOP' s - Each project develops its own SOPs for a
given project, and the SOPs are reviewed either by
the Environmental Services Division, the project
manager, or the project contractor. Region VIII
SOPs are under development by ESD and once
developed,, will be followed by the Superfund
Program.
b. Data management
1. QA/QC of data
2. Data base
3. GIS
IV- Coordination
v. Regonrria«=» (Broad breakdown with explanation of assumptions) .
Ask Branch Chief or Section Chief.
A. Program resources
B. Administrative funds
C. Grants to states
-------
MULTI-MEDIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM FOR INDIAN TRIBES
Program Description
A. Program Name - Multi-Media Environmental Protection
Program for Indian Tribes
B. Organizational location - within Region VIII Office of
External Affairs
C. Authorizing legislation - EPA received Congressional
authorization to award multi-media grants to Indian
tribes in FY 91 and FY 92 through the Agency's FY 91 and
FY 92 Appropriations bill. Regions V and VIII have each
awarded a demonstration multi-media grant to a tribe in
their region. Since the Agency did not receive an
appropriation to award these grants to the tribes in FY
91, the EPA regions and headquarters are in process of
identifying any state or tribal program funds that can be
re-programmed into multi-media funding for tribes in FY
91j The Agency did receive Congressional authorization
for approximately $3 million in its FY 92 budget for
funding multi-media grants to= tribes. There are no
established regulations; rather the program is
implemented according to an annual Guidance Document.
On October 3, 1992, Bill H.R. 5686, which includes
Section 505 entitled "Indian Environmental General
Assistance Program ofl992n, was passed by Congress. The
General Assistance Program will enable EPA to continue to
provide funds to tribes to build capacity, develop
environmental plans, and put in place comprehensive
environmental programs. This Bill is currently awaiting
signature by the President which the Agency believes will
occur. Once signed, the Bill requires the development of
regulations within twelve months.
D. Basic description of ground-water responsibilities - The
intent of the multi-media grant program is to provide
tribes with flexibility to develop their environmental
programs in a holistic manner using an ecosystem approach
to environmental planning and protection. The multi-
media grants allow tribes to build or enhance their
infrastructure to address environmental Problems or
potential problems on the reservations. A multimedia
grant ensures an environmental presence on the
reservation which provides tribes the flexibility to
assess reservation resources and to address environmental
needs according to their priorities. - This program puts
tribes in a better position to meet Federal environmental
statutes by developing appropriate Tribal environmental
programs, ordinances and regulations. Ultimately, this
means a stronger tribal environmental protection program.
-------
This multi-media grant approach streamlines the grant
process that tribes must go through currently to develop
environmental programs. The multi-media approach is
intended to lessen the - administrative requirements on
the tribes in having to meet different program
requirements which may be unnecessary and resource
intensive.
Since many tribes rely on ground water as a drinking
water source in Region VIII, it is highly likely that
ground water program development will be addressed in
part under their multi-media grants. Tribes could°assess
ground water needs, generate ground water related data,
develop GIS capacity to map ground water, build tribal
capacity to operate a ground water program, develop codes
with multi media funds etc...
E. Program Status Within Tribes - Currently there are eight
Indian tribes which have received grants to implement or
multi-media environmental program.
Two tribes, Oglala Sioux and Southern Ute have included
ground water protection as major elements of their multi-
media workplans.
Tftcisting Hf.at-.ua of program
A. Trji-.rnduction
1. Statutory requirements - The Agency is still
waiting for the new legislation mentioned above to
be signed by the President. Once passed the
legislation would require the following:
EPA would develop regulations within twelve months
after passage of the Bill;
EPA would provide general assistance grants- to
Indian tribal governments and intertribal
consortium to build
B. Activities
1. Ground-Water resource aaasaament acHv4Ho« -
2. Ground-Water remediation art-iv-i .
3. Permitting Activities -
4. Pollution Prevention activ-im.
5. Ground-water protection arUv-ii-^ .
6. EnljQyggmgnt—9.CtAvit3.gg - Enforcement authority is
not authorized under this program. Should a tribe
obtain such authority under a specific program,
-------
funds would be available to undertake enforcement
activities.
7. Public outreach activities - Public outreach is
built into all multi-media workplans.
8. Review of EIS -
III. Data collection and analyses
A. Collection/analyses of samples
1. QA/QC protocols -
2. ; SOP'S
B. Data management
1. QA/QC of data -
2. Databases - Tribes are requested to undertake an
assessment of all existing data as well as to
identify gaps where data generation is needed.
3. GIS - Tribes are also asked to explore development
of GIS capacity as a planning tool under these
grants.
IV- Coordination
v- Resources
A. Program Resources -
b. Aflfriiustrfttive Funds -
C. Grants to States -
-------
PESTICIDES PROFILE
Description of Program
A. Name of program: Pesticides Section
B- Organizational location within Region VIIT: Air,
Radiation, Toxics Division; Toxic Substances Br.
C. Authorizing legislation: Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act as Amended [7 U.S.C.
136] (FIFRA)
D- Basic description of ground water responsibility pa ;
To regulate the production, distribution, and use of
pesticides to prevent any unreasonable risk to man or
the environment, taking into account the economic,
social, and environmental costs and benefits associated
with that pesticide.
E. Status of program within states/tribes: When EPA
determines that a specific pesticide must be closely-
managed to prevent ground water contamination, states
and tribes will be asked to develop a management plan
that will establish and implement a series of measures
to tie pesticide use restrictions to degree of aquifer
vulnerability, pesticide use practices, and level of
existing contamination'. Failure by a state or tribe to
develop these plans will prohibit the continued use of
that pesticide in that state or reservation. EPA has
not yet requested any management plans.
Existing status/state of program with ground water omponenta
A. Introduction
1. Statutory requirements: FIFRA Section 3(c)(5)(C)
requires the Administrator of EPA to allow the
distribution and use of a pesticide if "it will
perform its intended function without unreasonable
adverse effects on the environment". Once a
pesticide is registered, the Administrator may
cancel that registration if information becomes
available indicating that the pesticide is causing
unreasonable adverse effects to man or the
environment but only after he considers the
effects of further restrictions on its use. For
purposes of FIFRA, a state management plan is
considered to be further restrictions on use.
2. Goals/standards: The EPA pesticide regulation
program incorporates by reference existing water
quality standards such as MCL's when establishing
ground water quality standards. In the absence of
such standards, Health Advisories are established
based on an individual who would use the water for
-------
drinking for a 70 year lifetime. The Pesticide
program works within the existing system to
eventually convert health advisories to MCL's.
One of the announced intentions of the
pesticide/ground water protection program is to
set standards to protect sensitive ecosystems from
the harmful effects of pesticides where there is a
hydrologic connection between ground water and
surface water. This aspect of the program has not
yet been implemented.
B. Activities
1. around water resource assessment activities: One
of the required elements of a state management
plan for pesticides is an assessment of the
vulnerable areas that need to be protected and an
explanation of the basis for that assessment.
When information to make an assessment is lacking,
the management plan must be overly protective
until the data can be developed. Pesticide grant
funds can be used to develop resource assessments.
2. around water remediation activities; The state
management plan must discuss the types of response
to contamination that a state will take to protect
health and the environment. These responses may
or may not include remediation but must insure
that each water user has safe drinking water.
Pesticide grant funds cannot be used for
remediation.
3. Permitting activities: There are no site specific
permitting requirements under the pesticide
program. EPA can classify pesticides as
"restricted use" and require applicators to
demonstrate competency and become "certified"
before using those pesticides. EPA can require
states/tribes to develop management plans, and the
success of those plans determine the continued
availability of pesticides with ground water
contamination potential in that state or
reservation.
4. Pollution prevention activity The entire
emphasis of this program is to prevent
contamination.
5. around water protection ar-t-^r-f<¦¦}The
pesticides and ground water program places the
burden of developing a series of actions to
prevent contamination on state and local
thS to each area
and the pesticide use practices in that area.
-------
6- Enforcement activities-- The concept behind state
management plans is one of increased regulation
and enforcement by state and local governments as
the level of contamination rises. When EPA
determines that a plan has failed {i.e.
contamination exceeds standards), the only option
open to EPA is to prohibit further use of that
particular pesticide.
7• Public outreach activities: Public outreach is a
major element both in the development and the
implementation of state management plans. Because
the first levels of protection activities in most
states will be voluntary actions on the part of
pesticide users, public acceptance of the
management plan and ownership of the goals must be
built into the plan development. If contamination
levels rise, there must be outreach efforts to
inform users of the problem and implement a higher
level of protective actions and regulations.
8. Review of EIS: This activity is not addressed
anywhere in this program.
111• Data collection and analyses
A. Collection/analyses of samples
1. OAJOC protocols: EPA grant regulations require
that all environmental monitoring be conducted
under an EPA approved QA/QC plan. Model plans are
provided to grantees.
2. SOP* s: EPA relies primarily on QA/QC methods as
standard.
B- Data management
1. oa/oc: of data: See III (a) (1) above
2. Data bases: EPA has established a national ground
water monitoring data base accessible by all
levels of government to report monitoring results.
EPA encourages standardized collection and
reporting of results to facilitate not only use of
the data base but sharing of information by
federal, state, and local governments.
3- GIS: EPA pesticide grant funds may be used to
record aquifer assessments and monitoring results
on a GIS system only if the system is accessible
and used by all state agencies involved with
ground water protection.
IV' -Coordinate gn
Within EPA Region VIII, the pesticide program shares grant
applications and program review reports with the Ground
-------
Water Branch and the Water Quality Section for their review
and comment and seeks to coordinate with them on their own
program reviews. As states/tribes begin to submit pesticide
and ground water management plans, these two offices will be
a formal part of the plan review process.
V. Resources
A. Program resources: The Toxic Substances Branch devotes
1.65 FTE to ground water protection activities which
includes grant administration and technical assistance
to the states and tribes.
B. Administrative funds: In FY 92, Region VIII,
Pesticides Section had $45IK in ground water grant
funds. For FY 93, we expect $487K. No other funding
is available to administer the program except through
national competition for special projects.
C. Grants to states: See b.
-------
APPENDIX B
REGION VIII SUPPLEMENT TO GRANTS HANDBOOK FOR STATE
AND TRIBAL GROUND-WATER PROGRAM MANAGERS
-------
NORTH DAKOTA
RCRA "C"
CORRECTIVE
STATE/EPA %
ACTION*
N. DAKOTA $300,495 25%
'Corrective Action is probably most closely related to expenditures related to ground water and
therefore included here for comparison.
is
NORTH daktita
Town of Barnes, abandoned
well plugging
FY 92
$30,000
SUPBtauui) GROUND-WATER RELATED GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS SUMMARY
SUPERPUm GROUND-WATER RELATED GRANTS - CORE FUNDING
* "Technical Assistance Grant monies are expended only to
review documents; no new studies are made, no new data collected.
Sl&UND WATER ENFORCEMENT CERTIFICATION
^103,000 $t 88,500 $55,500
Note: Certification funding requires 50% match, other funding requires 15% match.
Clean Water Act
Section 106
Ground Water
Well Protection Program
Demonstration Grants
PrgiS£l Vegr
Larimore
1991
Award
$30,106
NORTH DAKOTA $174,945
eUBUnwArm SYSTEM SUPERVfSJPWSSJ BannttAM? PEP. PWSS GRANTS FUNDS FOR PY 92
SIAIE AMOUNT
NORTH DAKOTA 416,
300
1
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL (UlCi PROGRAM: FEDERAL <
Class
Implemented I, III, Class
by State by Region IV & V II
State (Primacy) (DM (1422) (1425) Total
North Dakota 158,400 -0- 83,300 75,100 158,400
FY 92 MINING WASTE GROUND-WATER RELATED GRANTS
THE MULTI-MEDIA GRANT PROGRAM'S - IMPACT ON GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
FY 30 & 31 Realm VIII Multi-Media Grants
2
-------
?* "Technical Assistance Grant monies are expended only to
review documents; no new studies are made, no new data collected.
Sits
Amount of
Grant
Sharon Steel/Midvale 100,000
Hill AFB 26,000
Ground
Water
10,000
19,500
PESTICIDE PROGRAM GRANTS FOR GROUND WA TER
PES71CIDF SECTION GRANTS - FY 92 FUNDING ALLOCATION* {ACTUAL AWARD MAY DIFFER
STATE GROUND WATER ENFORCEMENT ^ir^nn
SST Tswo "5,400
Wyoming 952,000 | ^ s _0^
Tribes (4) $ $112,400 $ 0
* Note: Certification funding requires 50% match, other funding requires 15% match.
GROUND WATER BRAN™ fijBANTS - FY 92
Clean Water Act
Section 106
Ground Watar
$174,945
Well Protection Program
Demonstration Grants
Project
PUBUC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVJS-lPWSSl'PROGRAM -FED. PV
AMOUNT: 444,500
State
Utah
JlCLPl
Class
Implemented I, III,
by State by Region IV & V
(Primly) Ml <14221
m-Fi
122,200
-0-
80,400
Class
II
<1425)
41,800
URANT FUNDS FOR FY 92
URANT FUNDS FOR FY 92
Total
122,200
__ - goneihin-WATER PROTECTION
THE MULTI-MEDIA GRANT PROGRAMS IMPACT ON ft/tyt/iv
FY 90 & 91 Region VIII Grants
NONE
2
-------
UTAH
RCRA C GRANT FUNDS
STATE
RCRA "C"
STATE/EPA %
ACTION*
20%
CORRECTIVE
UTAH $798,225
'Corrective Action is probably most closely related to expenditures related to ground water and is
therefore included here for comparison.
NONPQ8MT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Ground Water Quality Mahagement
GW protection regulations, policy,
technical assistance, UIC, data
management
Urban Fertilizer Application
Assessment
FY 92 106
(see attached from SEA)
Not able to distinguish
different sources of
funding for all activities
in SEA
Proposed for FY 92 319
<$30,000
SUPERFUND GROUND-WATER RELATED GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE - AGREEMENTS
SUMMARY
SUPERFUND GROUND-WATER RELATED GRANTS - CORE FUNDING
MULTS-SITE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE - Ptrgr&madial
Site Tpt9l Amggnt Estimated for G-W
American Barrel
Midvale Slag
Monticeilo
Portland Cement
Richarson Flats
Rose Park Sludge
Sharon Steel
Wasatch Chemical
Total:
$ 20,000
0
10,000
0
0
$ 30,000
These figures were
arrived at by
estimation by the
site Remedial Project
Manager (RPM).
SUTE-SPECIFC COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS - Pra-ramadial
SM Petes Total Amount
Portland Cement
Sharon Steel
Kennecott
3/17/92 to 12/31/93
12/31/90 to 9/30/93
8/01/91 to 9/30/92
9/30/91 to 9/29/92
These figures were arrived at by estimates of the RPMs.
$1,077,411
950,000
326,000
300,000
Estimated for GW
0
0
0
0
1
-------
COLORADO
RCRA "C"
STATE/EPA %
rnRRFPTlVE ACTION*
COLORADO $895,699 j20%
•Corrective action is probably most closely related to expenditures related to ground water and is
therefore included here for comparison.
Ground Water Data Management
West Slope Agricultural
Area Ground Water Assessment
Weld County GW Assessment
San Luis Valley GW Assessment
San Luis Valley Demo Project
GW Protection Public Education
SUPERFUND
Date of Contract:
Amount of Grant:
MULTI-SITE CQQPi
Sila
Broderick Wood
California Gulch
Chem Sales
Central City
Denver Radium
Shattuck
Eagle Mine
Lincoln Park
Lowry Landfill
Marshall Landfill
Sand Creek
Smuggler
Woodbury
PJKS
PASI PA
SI
JND-WATER RELATED
1/5/89 to 6/30/92
$248,889* "It to AM pood Mo to dotomtoo whot anount, if my, hMftrwflbt
FY 92 106 - $38,953,$93,376 from 106
FY 91 319
$48,660
FY 91 201(g)/319, $45,000
FY 90 201(g)/319, $90,000
FY 92 319, $132,000
FY 92 319, $18,626
GRANTS AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS SUMMARY
•pom on ground woeor.
-IBATlX/F (AGREEMES
Tn^l Amount
$ 30,000
-7-
14,033
27,000
84,371
30,000
100,000
20,000
¦W MANAGEMENT A
Estimated for G-W
60,000
15,629
63,000
75,000
Total:
9,000
-0-
12,600
-0-
-0-
3,000
40,000
15,000
-0-
-0-
15,000
-0-
$ 94,600
These figures
were arrived at by
estimations by site
Remedial Project
Managers (RPMs).
Central City
Shattuck
6/15/88 to 6/30/92
6/24/88 to 6/30/92
Amount
$2,066,561
$1,424,456
Fstimated for GW
$400,000
142,000
1
-------
TAIM<£/M
-------
SOUTH DAKOTA
STATE
S. DAKOTA
RCRA "C"
PORRECTIVE
$287,000
STATE/EPA
ACTION*
40%
'Corrective Action is probably most
therefore included here for comparison
closely related to expenditures related to ground water and is
Big Sioux Aquifer Study
Pesticides and nitrates in
Ground Water
Information and Education
Abandoned Well Plugging
Ground Water Quality
Management
WPERFUND GamiMD-WAT£B ^
¦8PERFUIMD GROUND-WATER PP' ATED GRAIMT$ VV V
Estimated for
SOUTH DAKOTA Qr^ipd W?t9f.
Administration and These figures were arrived
Public Relations «5.000 Th*^ ^
Scientists 2,400 budget.
FY 91 319
several hundred thousand
FY 91 319
small grant
FY 89 201 (g)/319
small grant
proposed for FY 92 319
$30,000
FY 92 106
$74,600
Hydrologists
Analyst
8,000
1,100
Total $ 26,500
fnr G~W
Annie Creek $ 25,000
Williams Pipeline
Whitewood Creek
Ellsworth AFB
1,300
1,105
104
1,092
Total: $ 3,601
¦remedial
These figures were
arrived at by
searching the
Statement of Work (SOW)
and the budget of the
application.
1
-------
SITE-SPECIFC COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS - Pro-remedial
WfflHllMllG^lL $&83STMtf€IE &1/MIMT8* •Technical Assistance Grant monies are expended only to
review documents; no new studies are made, no new data collected.
PESTICIDE PROGRAM GRANTS FOR GROUND WATER
PESTICIDE SECTION GRANTS - FY 92 FUNDING ALLOCA HON* (ACTUAL A WARD MA Y DIFFER
BECAUSE OF CARRYOVER!
STATE GROUND WATER ENFORCEMENT CERTIFICATION
S.Dakota $75,000 $193,500 $63,400
* Note: Certification funding requires 50% match, other funding requires 15% match.
GROUND WATER BRANCH GRANTS - FY 92
Clean Water Act Well Protection Program
Section 106 Demonstration Grants
Ground Water Project Year Award
$174,945 Pine Ridge 1992 $35,400
PUBUC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVIS.fPWSSI PROGRAM: FED. PWSS GRANTS FUNDS FOR FY92
AMOUNT: $424, 800
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL fUlC) PROGRAM: FEDERAL UIC GRANT FUNDS FOR FY 92
Class
Implemented I, III, Class
by State by Region IV & V II
State (Primacy) m (1422) (1425) Total
South Dakota 41,200 41,800 41,800 41,200 83,000
FY92 MINING WASTE GROUND-WATER RELATED GRANTS
1. Special study project related to the Annie Creek joint Water Division/Superfund mining site
remedial project (South Dakota $30,000). The ground water pathway will be characterized and
included in remedial design if necessary.
2. "Heap Leach Spent Ore Dump Monitoring Program" (South Dakota $100,000). This is a
continuation of a study to determine how well sodium cyanide detoxification is working.
Monitoring will take place throughout the West. This will have a ground-water pollution prevention
effect as well as providing ground-water release data.
THE MULTI-MEDIA GRANT PROGRAM'S IMPACT ON GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
PYjmj. <^1 Region VIII Multi-Media Grants
(Grants represent total program activities which may include ground water protection).
Yankton Sioux $105,880
Cheyenne River Sioux $105,880
FY 92 Proposed Grants
These figures represent tola! grant amounts which may cover some ground-water protection
activities.
Draft targets for FY 93
EL22 based on HQs Allotmantg
Cheyenne River $ 19,000 $31,000
Pine Ridge $105,000 $50,000
Yankton Sioux $ 19,000 $31,000
2
-------
MONTANA
IRCRA C GRANT FUNDS
STATE
RCRA "C"
fnppppTIVF ACTION*
MONTANA
$558,000
STATE/EPA %
10%
* Corrective Action is probably most closely
therefore included here for comparison.
related to expenditures related to ground water and is
Bullhead Saline Seep
Statewide Ground Water Mapping
& Vulnerability
Ground Water Quality Management/
Wellhead Protection
FY 91 319
$124,408
FY 90
$68,900
FY 92 106
1PFRA T/VE A GREEMENTS SUMMARY
Sl/PFflPIINn nRntlND'MAJtp GRANTS ANQ ,
¦ i Had in the analysis because the paperwork to complete the analyse
Montana was not included in trie ana y
in.the Montana office.
SUPERFllMn GRniJND-WATPR RELA rpn GRANTS CORF FUNDtN(j
i r "-1 r r*1'' :r^1
, ,-rr -
PESTinnF PROGRAM GR,AhlTC P9R GR01 |NP> WATE" DIFFER
Y— ^nTltAI AWAM MAY DIFFER
PESTin/DF SFCTIDN GoaMT^ ~ ^ &
BECA11SF OF CARRYOVER! cERTIElCAliQN
SI&II QBQyNfimSE IM£Q5££-E— ^ ^
$69,000 . 50% matchf
-------
GROUND WATER BRANCH GRANTS - FY 92
Clean Water Act Well Protection Program
Section 106 Demonstration Grants
Ground Water Project Year Award
MONTANA $174,945 Missoula 1992 $21,415
PUBUC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION fPWSSI PROGRAM
FEDERAL PWSS GRANTS FUNDS FOR FY 92
STATE AMOUNT
MONTANA 569,100
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL (UICI PROGRAM
The UIC program allows States to maintain primacy for all five classes of wells, for Class II
wells (oil & gas) only, or for Class I, II, IV, and V wells. States must provide a 25% match of
funds.
FEDERAL UIC GRANT FUNDS FOR FY 92
Class
Implemented I, III, Class
by State by Region IV & V II
State (Primly) iDJl (1422) (1425) Total
Montana -0- 171,900 60,300 111,600 171,900
THE MULTI-MEDIA GRANT PROGRAM'S IMPACT ON GROUND-WATER PROTFrrsniu
FY 90 & 91 Region VIII Multi-Media Grants
(Grants represent total program activities which may include ground water protection).
Fort Peck $17,000
FY 92 Proposed Grants
These figures represent ISM grant amounts which may cover some ground-water
protection activities.
Draft targets for FY 93
EL31 based on HP? Allntm»nt1
Fort Belknap $ 65,000 $50,000
Fort Peck $ 58,000 $50,000
Salish Kootenai $ 75,000 $50,000
2
-------
WYOMING
RCRA "C"
SIAIE
CORRECTIVE
WYOMING $231,325 .
* Corrective Action is probably most closely related to expenditures related to ground water and is
therefore included here for comparison.
STATE/EPA %
ACTION*
5%
University of Wyoming Statewide
Vulnerability Mapping
Wyoming Department of Agriculture
Chemical Collection
University of Wyoming - Torrington
Wellhead Protection
University of Wyoming
Wellhead Protection
Teton County GW Assessment
Univ. of Wyoming Goshen County
Vulnerability Mapping
FY 91 319 (partial GW)
$56,000
FY 91 201(g)/319
$5,000
FY 91 201{g)/319
$137,113
FY 91 201{g)/319
$35,000
FY 91 201(g)/319
$21,384
FY 91 201{g)/319
$26,760
FY 91 319
$20,000
FY 91 319
$68,220
TECHNirA, ASSlSTA/une GRANTS* *Technicai Assistance Grant monies are expended only tn
tew (iocympnts. nn nn nt>\y data Collected.
ff'Sr?Vng GRANTS FOR GROUND WATER
¦ g fECTmu rtDANTS -FY 92 FUNDING ALLOCA TtON* (A CTUAL A WARD MA Y DIFFER
CLAURP nc r>ARRYnvFm
vfiZS GROUND WATER ENFORCEMENT CERTIFICATION
*m° $52,000 $ -0- $30,500
ot0: Certification funding requires 50% match, other funding requires 15% match.
'RQUM/n \A/A Trrr-im , ,
RANTS — FY I
Well Protection Program
Demonstration Grants
PraifiSi Yggr
Torrington 1992
/AID lA/ATFR
Clean Water Act
lection 106
faunsiijvgjgr
$174^5
Award
$18,000
SUPERVISJPWSSI PROGRAM: FED. PWSS GRANT FUNDS FOR FY qo
wfoMlNr ,cn* AMOUNT
MING (EpA) 422,000
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL (UICi PROGRAM - FED. USC GRANT FUNDS FOR FY 92
Class
Implemented I, III, Class
by State by Region IV & V II
State (Primacy) (PI) (1422) (1425)
Wyoming 353,600 -0- 165,900 187,700
FY92 MINING WASTE GROUND-WATER RELATED GRANTS
THE MULTI-MEDIA GRANT PROGRAM'S IMPACT ON GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
FY9Q& $1 Region VIII Multi-Media Grants
(Grants represent total program activities which may include ground water protection).
Wind River $100,000
FYS^^ngos^Gr^i^
These figures represent total grant amounts which may cover some ground-water protection
activities.
Draft targets for FY 93
FY 92 based on HQs Allotments
Wind River $ 19,000 $31,000
2
-------
APPENDIX C
ASSESSMENT OF REGION VIII GROUND-WATER RELATED PROGRAMS
ANSWERS TO GENERIC REVIEW QUESTIONS
FOR 13 REGIONAL PROGRAMS
-------
THE FOLLOWING REGION VIII PROGRAMS PROVIDED ANSWERS TO THE
GENERIC ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
GW - GROUND-WATER BRANCH
DW-PWS - PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SECTION; DRINKING WATER BRANCH
UIC - UNDERGROUND INJECTION PROGRAM? DRINKING WATER BRANCH
NPDES - NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM;
COMPLIANCE BRANCH
NPS - NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM; WATER QUALITY BRANCH
MW - MINE WASTE BRANCH
AIR. RADIATION AND TOXICS DIVISION
SMP - PESTICIDE STATE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PESTICIDES SECTION;
TOXIC SUBSTANCES BRANCH
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
RCRA C - HAZARDOUS WASTE BRANCH
RCRA D- SOLID WASTE SECTION; HAZARDOUS WASTE BRANCH
UST -UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM; UST PROGRAM SECTION;
WASTE MANAGEMENT BRANCH
SUPERFUND - SUPERFUND MANAGEMENT BRANCH
OFFICE OF EXTERNA!' AFFAIRS
RIP - REGIONAL INDIAN PROGRAM
OFFICE QF POLICY fffl? MANAGEMENT
P2 - POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
2
-------
GOAL
1. Is the Regional program apprised of EPA's ground-water
protection goal, which identifies prevention of contamination as
the preferred management choice for ground water ? How does the
Regional program link its goal with EPA's goal ?
GW - Yes, through Ground-Water Strategy. Through SSA, WHP
and coordination w/ other programs.
DW - PWS definitely is aware of ground-water role to prevent
pollution. PWS not linked well with that goal because with
a few exceptions, PWS is not able to "pay much attention" to
the water prior to the time it reaches the PWS system.
UIC - Yes. The Class V program certainly meets EPA's
ground-water protection goal through the search and destroy
mission; however, the Class II program deals with disposal
of waste into ground waters with TDS >10,000 ppm.
NPDES -No. The Compliance Branch chief did not know about
EPA's ground-water protection goal. The NPDES does not
really link it's goal with the ground-water protection goal.
NPS - Yes. Linkage occurs primarily through the Ground
Water program's support to the 319 program in the approval
and implementation of NPS projects.
MW - Yes. The MWP pushes a multi-media, multi-program
approach. The program recommends a performance based
approach with compliance standards based on use and
vulnerability. Ground-water protection is driven by
siting criteria and source prevention. Ground-water
protection is focused on the aquifer not on treatment.
SMP - Yes. Program goals are identical. The Pesticides
Program and the Ground-Water Program share draft
documents/program plans for future FY's. They have in the
past jointly-funded projects i.e., implementing state-wide
GIS systems (hardware, coverages: aquifers, vulnerability,
susceptibility, surface activities affecting
vulnerability]). Also use GIS for storage of monitoring
results, utilizing MSDE.
RCRA C - Yes. Design, construction, and operation
requirements for LDFs are intended to prevent ground water
3
-------
contamination before it occurs. The Region is responsible
for ensuring that applicable requirements are met.
RCRA D - Yes. The Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal (40 CFR
258) were developed with the Ground-Water Protection
Strategy as a foundation (see Preamble of Regulations).
UST - Yes. UST program has three priorities one of which is
leak detection monitoring of tanks which is preventative.
SUPERFUND - Not formally. The Superfund Program is more
familiar with the State's ground-water protection goals
which are applied on a site-specific basis.
RIP - Yes. Reservations have identified ground water as an
important issue.
P2 - Yes. Have not discussed linkage with State/EPA P2
contacts.
4
-------
2. Has the Regional program discussed the CSGWPP goal with its
State program ? How does the Regional program encourage its
State program to integrate with the CSGWPP goal ?
QW - Yes. Region VIII Roundtable on January 14-16, 1992.
Through grants requirements for CWA 106 monies,
meetings and technical assistance.
BW - PWS does bring up the need for the State to work with
State counterparts in ground water (there is a general
statement in State/EPA agreements requiring this).
HI£ - No. There is a major conflict between the UIC
statutory and regulatory requirements for protection of all
ground waters with TDS < 10,000 ppm and the CSGWPP goal of
deference to the States; this conflict has caused major
problems in one Region VIII State's attempts for UIC program
delegation.
NPDES - No. NPDES hasn't discussed CSGWPP with it's State
program. NPDES has not encouraged it's State to integrate
with CSGWPP.
NPS - Coordination at the State level within the 319 program
is necessary for successful development of competitive
project proposals. The Regional program stresses
coordination to its State counterparts.
MW - No. Integration is encouraged by including state
mine permitting programs and state ground-water protection
programs in the mining program activities.
SMP - Yes. Regional states attended initial roundtables and
were on mailing list to receive final CSGWPP. There has
been some discussion of the difference between the CSGWPP
approach and SMP's; while goals and approach are generally
the same, there are 3 primary differences:
1. Under CSGWPP money is the incentive; under SMP's,
regulations serve as the incentive.
2. The CSGWPP approach is priority-driven by the
states, while under the SMP approach, EPA decides
the priorities (i.e., the pesticide), not the
states.
3. The level of detail required. CSGWPP has six
strategic activities to be addressed while SMP's
have 12+ areas to be addressed requiring a higher
level of detail. PSMP's were originally intended
to be on a fast-track, but in practice CSGWPP
seems to be moving ahead more quickly.
5
-------
RCRA C - Yes. By supporting and participating in the CSGWPP
effort.
RCRA D - A State program must be considered adequate to meet
the Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal (40 CFR 258) to
achieve EPA approval. In order to meet 40 CFR 258 the States
will need to integrate with the CSGWPP goal.
UST - Yes. The Regional UST program encourages protection /
prevention because it is more efficient. UST program
stresses leak detection through training and tech
assistance. Also bonus moneys are available for States that
encourage/implement strong leak detection programs.
SUPERFUND - No. The Superfund Program at both levels works
with the State's ground-water protection goals.
RIP - Yes. The former Regional Indian Coordinator has
discussed EPA's ground-water protection goals with many of
the Regional tribes. Tribal multi-media grants commonly
include ground-water components.
P2. - No. It doesn't.
6
-------
3. How does the Regional program support the State's ground-water
protection policy ?
£W - Through interaction with other EPA and Federal
programs.
BW - Phase 2 and 5 rule has formalized the cooperative
process between ground water and drinking water, but most of
the time the law precludes it.
IZI£ - For DI there is currently no mechanism of coordination
between EPA and the States; for delegated States there can
be a conflict between the UIC program requirements and the
States' ground-water protection policies.
NPDES - It doesn't.
NPS - The Regional program supports the State's policy
primarily through the support provided by the Regional
Ground Water program which has knowledge of each Region VIII
States' policies.
E1W - By pushing for compliance with state standards and
state ground-water management policies.
SMP - The Regional program supports the State's ground water
goal with everything from grant funds to developing
Pesticide Management.Plans. The Pesticides Section's
organization also supports the state's program through
technical assistance. The section is set up in two parts:
Technical Assistance and Grants Management.
OPT?A C - Thr-ovxch B.CBJV. Correctiva Actios
-------
is consistent with P2 goals.
8
-------
4. Does the Regional program have a goal consistent with the
State's ground-water protection policy ?
GW - Yes, for the Ground-Water Branch only. We attempt to
defer to State decision making whenever possible.
DW - No, not really. Because of the way the legislation is
designed to impact the water when it enters the PWS system.
Exceptions to this include Phase I,II, V and Surface Water
Treatment Rule.
UIC - The Regional program is implemented based on national
program goals which may or may not be consistent with
States' ground-water protection policy.
NPDES - The Branch chief did not know the answer to this
question. The NPDES program is a surface water discharge
program. Not much ground-water responsibility.
NPS - Yes. The Regional program's goal is provided by the
Regional Ground Water program's support which is consistent
with the State's policies.
MW - Yes. The goal is to be protective of ground-water
resources.
SMP - Yes. Generally, states have a legal goal of zero
degradation, but-practically speaking they don't have
resources to do that, so in practice state and EPA goals are
about the same, even though their legal goal is more
stringent.
RCRA c - State requirements are typically more stringent.
RCRA d - The State's ground-water protection policy for this
program should be consistent with EPA's ground-water
protection policy as defined under 40 CFR 258.
UST - Yes. Preventative component.
SUPER ft tmti - Yes. As long as the State's policy is
reasonable and consistently applied across the State, it is
considered by the Regional program in developing remedial
actions.
- Not formally. The RIP's goal is to help the tribes
meet their goals.
£2. - Yes.
9
-------
5. Is the Regional program apprised of its States' ground-water
protection goals' ? How does a State's ground-water goal exert
influence on the Regional program ?
SW - Yes through SEA negotiations and customer feedback
surveys.
DW - As a program, no, but there are individuals within the
program (rule experts for Phase I, II, V & Surface Water
Treatment Rule) but as a whole PWS does not spend much time
on the state's ground water rules.
HI£ - No. There is no mechanism for coordination so the
Regional program is implemented based on national program
goals.
NPDES - No. It doesn't.
NP§ - The State's ground-water goals exert influence on the
Regional program through the coordination between the State
Ground Water program and the State NPS program.
MW- Yes but limited to mining applications.
State ground-water management policies and standards
directly influences actions and recommendations of MWP.
SMP - Not in every case. Generally are apprised of Utah's,
Montana's, Wyoming's, South Dakota's and North Dakota's.
Don't know in the case of Colorado because they have not
started development of PMP's. They don't accept grant funds
from EPA so they do not provide up-dates. Part 2 of
question: If a state had special program needs as a result
of a legally mandated goal, to the extent possible, the
Pesticides Program would assist them through additional
grant funds and technical assistance. Example: In Wyoming,
the Pesticides Program designated additional regional
discretionary funds to hire a contractor to assist them in
organizing their approach to the SMP process.
RCRA c - Yes. Corrective Measures Implementation is directed
or influenced by State requirements.
RCRA d - Yes. The State's regulations impact the State's
ability to undertake the program and, therefore, to achieve
EPA approval.
IZSI - Not fully apprised. The opportunity is there for the
State ground-water program to exert influence on Regional
UST program but it is not really done.
SUPERFTTNT) - Yes. On a site-specific basis the State's
ground-water protection goals effect the remedial action
10
-------
objectives selected for cleanup
RIP - In some cases. The Tribal
£2 - No, not really. It doesn't
goals drive the RIP goals.
at this point in time.
11
-------
ROLES/COORDINATION/RESOURCES
6. Is there a designated point of contact between the Regional
program and the State ground-water program ?
<2W - Yes. State project officers.
DW - Yes, informally: Dave Schmidt.
UIC - No. There is no contact at this time.
NPDES - No.
NPS - Yes. The State NPS Coordinators.
MW - No. The contact is with State water quality office.
SMP - Yes. Two in each state, one for CSGWPP, one for
SMP's. Actually lots of points. No established lead.
RCRA C - No.
RCRA D - No. Contact should be between State program and
State ground-water program.
UST - No.
SUPERFUND - No. State Superfund efforts are organized
differently on a state by state basis.
RIP - Point of contact is the Tribal environmental office
director. Tribes rarely have a separate ground-water
program.
P2 - No. Don't think this is the best way to do it. As it
exists now, the "contact hierarchy" is Regional Program to
state P2 contact to state ground water contact.
12
-------
7. Does the Regional program encourage/require a designated point
of contact between its State program and the State's ground-water
program ?
£W - Not required; interaction directly with State Ground-
Water Program.
DW - Yes. But it is required as a result of the work he
does to implement the regulations.
£I£ ~ A point of contact is encouraged. For the Class V
program this is rather simple since for many of the States
the UIC program staff are located within the same
organization as the State ground-water program staff.
However, for the Class II program there is a disconnect as
the program is typically run out of a different organization
than the State ground-water program.
NPS - No. Due to the way that the program is organized, it
makes sense that the two State programs coordinate.
NPDES - No.
MW - The MWP can help with encouraging State program to
interact with State ground-water program. However the
problem is that ground-water decisions at a mine site are
made by the state mine.permitting agency, not by the state
ground-water protection program. Often the ground-water
issues are thought of as an engineering problem only with
predetermined engineering solutions.
SMP - Yes. It exists in every state.
RCRA C - Not formally.
RCRA D - Yes. It is more than encouragement as the Regional
program expects contact between its State program and the
State ground-water program in order for the State to meet 40
CFR 258 and achieve program approval.
UST - No.
SUPERFTTND - No. State Superfund efforts are organized
differently on a state by state basis but in site-specific
instances coordination is necessary.
RIP - There is no point of contact between a Tribal
environmental office and a State Ground-water Program. There
is definitely a point of contact between a Tribal
environmental director and a tribal ground-water person as
they are often one and the same.
13
-------
P2 - Yes. It is required for all regional programs to begin
institutionalizing P2 into their work regimes.
14
-------
8. How does the Regional program encourage its State program to
coordinate with the State's ground-water program ?
QW - NA; one and the same.
M ~ By the item/language in the State/EPA agreement.
PIC - Through the workplan activities for the Class V
program, coordination is inevitable due to the risk-based
nature of the program.
NPDES - It doesn't.
NPS - Overall, there is not a real problem in regard to
coordination at the State level as there are typically a
number of ground-water project submittals.
MW - Encouragement is done by considering ground-water
monitoring and early warning monitoring for mining
facilities to be an integral part of a mining operation.
This means that the state ground-water program will need to
be involved.
SMP - It is a required element of the grant awards. Dallas
Miller, of the Pesticides Program, has specific language to
include in each grant award.
RCRA C - This is done on an "as-needed" basis.
RCRA D - Through the program approval process, this
coordination will need to be established in order to
persuade the Regional program that the State is doing the
right thing.
UST - The Regional UST program assumes that coordination is
taking place.
SUPERFTiwn - This coordination will occur through the ARARs
process when all State policies are identified.
RIP - Multi-media grants require that all Tribal programs
coordinate.
£2. - Coordination will occur by institutionalizing P2 into
all of the various programs.
15
-------
9. How will the CSGWPP be used as a coordination point between
the Regional program and other key ground-water programs ?
QW - A vehicle for the implementation of the State's goal
and strategy.
DW - The way the legislation is currently written, the
interviewee (Doris) does not see how it will be a
coordination point, but depending on how the reauthorization
goes, it could be.
UIC - Unknown at this time.
NPDES - Unknown.
NPS - N/A. Coordination will still occur through the State
NPS Task Force.
MW - By adopting a multi-media, multi-program team approach
to mine sites.
SMP - To the extent that pesticides are identified as a
priority in the CSGWPP, the Pesticides Program would throw
the "full force of joint effort" behind that priority. The
Ground-Water QAT has been that coordination point in the
past.
RCRA C - Not sure.
RCRA D - Aside from the approval process, the Regional
programs role has yet to be defined.
UST - Coordination is not through CSGWPP but only through
individuals.
SUPERFUND - This coordination mechanism will assist in the
ARARs process when all State policies are identified.
RIP - Through the Regional Indian Workgroup which is
comprised of Regional program staff.
P2 - P2 should be a central component of CSGWPP.
16
-------
10. What coordination between the Regional program and ground-
water programs now occurs in the Region ? '
QW - NA One and the same.
DW - Mainly occurs based on I, II, and V (emphasis on II and
V)- and not so much emphasis on the Surface Treatment Rule.
VIC -tPrimarily review of proposed program regulations and
coordination on specific EPA-funded projects within the
States.
NPS - The Ground-Water and Pesticides programs provide
support on 319 proposals and projects. The Ground-Water
program is involved in watershed protection work groups.
MW - A Regional ground-water person is a team member on all
mine sites that the MWP is involved with.
NPDES - Some coordination occurs but only on a staff to
staff basis.
SMP - This information is in the regional ground-water
profile.
RCRA C - Ground water QAT and CSGWPP are main areas of
coordination. There is also infrequent coordination on
facility-specific issues;
RCRA D - The Regional program takes advantage of training
opportunities offered by the Regional ground-water program,
including briefings on the CSGWPP process.
UST - Project specific coordination.
SUPERFUND - The Regional program requests site-specific
technical assistance from the other Regional ground-water
programs.
RIP - Through the RIWG, on a staff to staff basis and
through common Task Forces.
P2 - Coordination is designed to occur between the regional
program and the g-w program through the regional P2 Steering
Committee which has two members from WMD.
17
-------
11. How would the program characterize the degree of this
coordination ?
SH - NA See question # 10.
DW - Coordination occurs on a sporadic, as-needed basis, but
productive and good when it occurs.
UIC - Adequate at this time.
NPDES - The coordination is related to permits and
enforcement where shallow ground-water resources may be
impacted.
NPS - Good but it can be better.
MW - Coordination is excellent for those mine sites with a
ground-water issue. However the MWP is not involved in all
-important mine waste sites.
SMP - Extensive, close working relationship.
RCRA C - Minimal and infrequent. Close coordination has not
been required to this point. Closer coordination is
anticipated in the future.
RCRA D - Minimum but adequate at this point.
UST - On an as needed basis.
SUPERFUND - Coordination occurs on a situational, as needed
basis.
RIP - Very good.
P2 - An excellent beginning. As much as possible at this
time.
18
-------
12. How would the Regional program characterize the degree of
coordination between its State program and the State's ground-
water program and why ?
£W - NA One and the same.
DW - Don't know for sure. Think it probably varies all over
the books from extensive to none.
- For the Class V program coordination is adequate due
to the location of the two programs within the same
organization. For the Class II program coordination
typically does not occur due to the autonomous status of the
delegated agency.
NPDES - Don't know. However the Regional NPDES program does
know that the South Dakota NPDES program does coordinate
with the South Dakota ground-water program.
NPS - Good but it can be better. A number of ground-water
projects receive funding each year.
MS - Not very good because of different missions and
institutional problems in state programs.
SMP - in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and North Dakota the
level of coordination is very high. In South Dakota it is
adequate and improving. Utah does not appear to be
adequate.
RCRA c - Satisfactory. Communication appears to be routine,
and/or on an "as-needed basis".
RCRA D - Significant. The State program uses the State's
ground-water protection regulations and policy as the basis
for their program's ground-water protection element.
UST - Questionable except where programs are formally
integrated.
SUPERFTTNT) - Good. Due to differences in the way that
Superfund is handled within the States, this coordination
occurs on a site-specific basis.
RIP - Not much coordination between Tribal environmental
offices and State ground-water offices. Tribal environmental
offices usually don't have a separate ground-water office.
£2. - Don't know.
19
-------
13. What are the major barriers to this coordination ? How can
these barriers be addressed ?
£W - Lack of recognition ( at the Regional senior staff
level ) of the need for coordinated program. Need to secure
a ground-water champion at the DRA level.
DW - Major barriers: 1) Drinking water legislation, and 2)
Lack of resources to do anything more than required.
IZI£ - Autonomous status of the delegated agency for Class II
program. Coordination could potentially be encouraged
through use of incentive grants.
NPDES - No institutional / regulatory drive.
NPS - Lack of time and inconsistent EPA guidance. The
proposal process can be standardized with consistent
guidance year after year and allow more time for reviews of
proposals.
MW - a. Major barriers include limited resources,
institutional barriers, conflicting missions and conflicting
philosophies.
b. Institutionalize teamwork and multi program approach.
SMP - In South Dakota the barriers have been identified and
the state has entered into a formal MOU to dissolve those
barriers. No further effort required other than continuing
support. In Utah there is a lower than nonnal level of
interdepartmental coordination. These barriers can be
addressed by increased attention by senior management in the
state departments involved.
RCRA C - Unknown.
RCRA D - The Regional program is not in a position to know
of any barriers.
UST - Time, complexity of issues, lack of resources and
institutional barriers.
SUPERFUND - N/A
RIP - Resources, personalities newness of Tribal
environmental programs. Jurisdictional issues.
P2 - Compartmentalization between P2 philosophy and ground-
water protection. Change in organizational structure: need
to change structure based on function, i.e., permitting,
protection, and improve coordination.
20
-------
21
-------
14. What has the Regional program done or what is it planning to
do to improve coordination and communication between Regional
program personnel and State program and State ground-water
personnel ?
£W - Use technical assistance results to influence state
decisionmakers.
2W - Due to the same reasons listed in the response above,
PWS is not planning to do a lot, because of constraints
under existing legislation. Reauthorization could really
change that positively.
UIC - For the Class V program State staff are located within
the same organization as State ground-water program staff so
there is not a significant coordination problem. For the
Class II program coordination is lacking but no plans are
under way to improve the situation.
NPDES - Nothing. The Branch chief doesn't feel that it is
appropriate because there is no protocol set up to do this.
SMP - The Ground-Water QAT, Ground-Water Steering Committee;
there has been a series of joint meetings, CSGWPP
roundtables. Make it clear to the state that there is in-
house joint program review of grant submittals and program
plans. There is a grant requirement for coordination and
grant proposals without that requirement will be rejected.
Also possibly the up-coming training course: Ag-Chemicals
in Ground Water.
NPS - Nothing currently. It has been discussed that annual
meetings between the Regional programs and the State
programs be merged to discuss mutual topics.
MW - Try and include the State Ground-Water Program
personnel in mine waste site activities. In Montana this is
done through the Water Quality Bureau. Also the use of 319
funds for NPS mine waste activities involves the State water
quality people.
RCRA C - Coordination appears to be satisfactory.
RCRA D - The Regional program will encourage the State
program to work with the State ground-water program to the
extent necessary to achieve program approval from EPA.
Inherent in the federal regulations is a need for
coordination between the State programs to achieve approval.
UST - Nothing
SUPERFUND - Encourage discussions. When a ground-water
22
-------
issue comes up, attempt to assure that the State programs
are talking.
RIP - Provide training to Tribes on ground-water and EPA
programs.
P2 - The regional program is encouraging all programs to
develop their own internal P2 groups. The regional program
is planning to do a regional P2 inventory for Region 8, and
will also be doing the same for the regional states.
23
-------
15. What are the barriers to using program grant funds (if
applicable) for funding ground-water activities in the Region ?
How can they be overcome ?
SW - Lack of recognition that funding prevention activities
is environmentally cost effective. Change the perspective
that funding prevention is not a priority.
DW - Barriers are highly prescriptive regulations that do
not yet integrate ground water into the picture.
UIC - Lack of resources to accomplish the required program
activities limits the use of grant .funds to State program
implementation only. Legal barrier that some monies must be
used by Regional program for DI activities.
NPDES - No funds! Maybe some limited funds under 104 (b) 3?
NPS - None except for limited resources. More projects are
submitted by the States than grant dollars available.
MW - Since the MW program is multi-media, program funds can
be used for ground-water activities within the context of
mine waste program objectives.
SMP - This should have been covered in the Ground-Water
profile. If not, call Ed Stearns and he will provide info.
RCRA C - N/A.
RCRA D - N/A. No grant monies.
UST - Few barriers. $ 162,500 UST funds per State. However
some monies strictly clean up funds.
SUPERFUND - Grant funds are provided to the States to
undertake specific Superfund program activities. (Everybody
is trying to build their own program.)
RIP - Ground-water protection activities are eligible for
multi-media grant funds. Barrier is not enough funds.
P2 - The 50% matching requirement is a significant barrier
in a lot of cases. Also,, the program does not have "a lot"
of money in comparison to other regional programs. Only
distributed $350,000 last year. Expect to distribute a
similar amount this year. North Dakota is not participating
in this program because of the matching requirement.
24
-------
16. What changes need to be made in the national program to
reduce these barriers ?
(j|W - Administrator directive to all operating programs.
DJS - Pollution Prevention needs to be more of a component in
national legislation; i.e., a lot more watershed protection
and WHP than currently exists.
UIC - More funding for both UIC and CSGWPP activities is
needed.
NPDES - HQ needs to make a pool of funds available for NPDES
/ ground-water problems.
NPS - Better coordination is needed between the Headquarters
staff of the NPS and Ground-Water programs.
MW - There is no national mine waste program.
SMP - Finalize the PMP Guidance and distribute it. Complete
the attendant rulemaking — JUST GET IT DONE!!!!
RCRA C - N/A.
RCRA D - N/A. No grant monies.
UST - More flexibility in how monies can be spent.
SUPERFUND - If ground-water protection is important enough
to the Agency, then consider taking a hit off of the top of
all relevant grants to fund additional ground-water efforts.
RIP - More money. Put EPA people on the reservations.
P2 - Reduce the 50% matching requirement. Broaden the
definition of P2 to include sustainable uses. Better term
for P2 is Sustainability. By taking such a strict stance,
the P2 program has alienated a lot of positive people.
25
-------
17. Does the Regional program request the participation of
ground-water staff in review of programs and/or grants ? How
does the ground-water staff participate ?
CzW - Yes. We are it.
DW - Yes, especially in Phase II and V with expertise and
document review. Not in the area of grants.
UIC - Yes. The Ground Water Branch is requested to review
the Regional program's workplan and is involved in grant
awards that overlap program issues.
NPDES - No.
NPS - Yes. The Ground-Water program provides review of
proposals and assists in the selection process for project
funding.
MW - Yes. A Regional GW staff participates on the mine waste
team. Grant reviews are part of the participation.
SMP - Yes. Review and comment. Point out the
inconsistencies or overlaps. The .process could and should
work better in terms of timing and program awards; there are
occasional short deadlines conflicting with other priorities
that prevent full participation. Coordination with NPS
program difficult because they are unclear internally as to
their own priorities.
RCRA C - Program reviews may include participation of
Regional Ground Water Branch as required.
RCRA D - The Ground Water Branch reviewed and commented on
the draft guidance for ground-water monitoring at Subtitle D
facilities. There is no real need for assistance in the
program approval process unless technical issues arise.
ust - On a very limited basis for technical assistance.
SUPERFUND - No. Only technical assistance is requested.
RIP - Yes. Region VIII GWB reviews multi-media grant
applications.
P2 - Indirectly, but in reality don't think it happens.
Request P2 Steering Committee to review grants and pass on
to specific entities within the Regional office to review.
26
-------
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
18. Does the Regional program have access to EPA and State
ground-water related data ? Does the Regional program use
ground-water data, and if so, how ?
GW - Yes. data used for technical assistance projects.
DW - Yes, probably, but have not used that access very much.
It has not been needed in the type of work PWS does, again,
because work requires they not "worry" about it until it
gets into the PWS system.
UIC - Yes. Yes. The Regional program has used available
data to prioritize Class V activities in CO, MT, SD, and
Tribal lands and has worked with MT on Class II wells.
NPDES - Yes the NPDES program has access to ground-water
data. No the program does not use the data.
NPS - Yes. No. The Regional program relies on the Ground-
Water program to provide technical support.
MW - Yes to both EPA and State data. The data is used for
mine waste site characterization and remedial decision
making.
SMP - To the extent that it was developed under our grant
award and the state reports the results of monitoring data.
No, not directly. The Pesticides Program uses it as a check
on how the State is developing its program in terms of
consistency of the data with the program. The Pesticides
Program does not use the data itself, the State does.
RCRA C - Yes, access is available. However, ground water
data is typically site-specific and is therefore obtained
and submitted by specific RCRA facilities. As a result,
other ground water data for a given area may not be
required.
RCRA D - No. No. Regional program does not utilize data.
UST - UST has access to EPA data bases but not state data
bases. The regional UST program does use ground-water data
to help set standards and for remedial decision making.
SUPERFUND - Yes. Yes. The Regional program uses site-
specific data as well as data from the surrounding area in
efforts to characterize sites.
RIP - Yes. Yes. The RIP uses ground-water data to help
evaluate multi-media proposals.
27
-------
SI - N/A.
-------
19. Does the Regional program encourage its State programs to use
available ground-water data ?
SW - Yes. Through CSGWPP development coaching.
DW - No. Don't really have the opportunity for this.
UIC - Yes. Class V program activities are planned based as
much as possible on ground-water sensitivity.
NPDES - No.
NPS - Yes. The State must use all available data to define
and assess a NPS problem.
MW - To some extent.
SMP - Yes. Through the GIS-multi-agency system. There is a
grant policy/condition that EPA will not fund stand-
alone GIS in each state/agency.
RCRA C - As necessary.
RCRA D - No. State program will do whatever it needs to do
for data management to assist in running the program.
UST - Not yet but this is starting.
SUPERFUND - Yes. Especially in the scoping phase of
characterization efforts, all available data for the site
area is utilized.
RIP - Yes
P2 - N/A.
29
-------
20. Does the Regional program encourage States to identify
hydrologic connections between ground and surface waters ?
SH - Not to date, except for an emphasis for developing
resource assessment activities.
DM - Water/Surface Water Treatment Rule and I, II, V. PWS
does encourage states to pay more attention to
hydrogeological connectivity.
UIC - No. Workloads do not allow for hydrogeologic
assessments; Class V activities are primarily close-outs
with no clean-up.
NPDES - Yes. The NPDES program is very aware of the problem
related to discharges to ground water that result from "no
discharge NPDES permits.
NPS - Yes. This definition may be necessary in problem
assessment.
MW - Yes! This is important on mine waste sites because
impoundments are typically built valleys adjacent to rivers.
SMP - Encourage, yes; priority, no. The Pesticides Program
talks a lot about recharge areas. Pesticide SMP's strategy
talks about identifying ground water hydroiogically
connected to ecologically sensitive surface waters. As a
matter of practice, vulnerable ground water is the highest
priority, surface waters not a close second.
RCRA C - Yes. Often done as part of RFI.
RCRA D - No. Will be a State program call if needed.
UST - Not too much but sometimes.
SUPERFUND - Yes. Ground-water/surface-water connections are
investigated during the site characterization phase where
present.
RIP - No.
EZ - N/A.
30
-------
21. Does the Regional program intend to use CSGWPPs to help
coordinate data collection and management between its State
program and State ground-water programs ? How ?
<2W - Yes, where it is feasible at the state level to use
various funding sources to develop CSGWPP's.
DW - No.
UIC - No. The Regional program requested to their
Headquarters counterparts to undertake a pilot project
involving all Region VIII States to review all data
collection activities in the UIC program. Headquarters
denied the request stating that data collection cannot be
improved over those activities that are currently occurring.
NPDES - Don't know.
NPS - No. This should be a Ground-Water program function.
MW - There will be encouragement to use existing ground-
water data. But CSGWPP will not be the mechanism.
SMP - Because of the inseparability of the two programs, if
the states collect data under one program, they're
collecting for the other; there is no way to separate the
two.. They go into one database in the state GIS, BUT we are
not specifically using CSGWPP for this.
RCRA C - This will probably be done on a site-by-site basis.
RCRA D - No. Regional program is not in the loop so it is
up to State programs to determine data coordination needs.
UST - The UST program is not doing much on this.
SUPERFUND - No. This would be a State function.
RIP - Some multi-media grants include data management /
collection activities.
P2 - N/A.
31
-------
22. What types of data collected under the two programs is now
being coordinated at the State or Regional levels ?
QW - WHP info, local resource assessment completion, aquifer
vulnerability demonstrations, etc.
DW - Know of none routinely: again on as-needed basis with
I, II and V.
UIC - At the State level Class V inventories are utilized by
the Wellhead Protection Program.
NPDES - None.
NPS - At the State level shared data is primarily nitrates
and agricultural chemicals data collected by 319 project
sponsors. At the Regional level no data is coordinated but
State QA/QC plans are a focus.
MW - None.
SMP - Sensitivity, vulnerability and monitoring.
RCRA C - Site-specific.
RCRA D - N/A. Regional program does not utilize data and
does not know what coordination occurs at State level.
UST - Not much.
SUPERFUND - Not aware of data coordination activities at the
State level; at Regional level Superfund has provided data
to Ground Water Branch for specific projects (eg., South
Platte Alluvium Study).
RIP - Water quality data, institutional data.
P2. - N/a.
32
-------
23. Are there opportunities for flexibility to be given to the
States for recordkeeping or reporting if they have developed a
CSGWPP ?
QW - Yes in counting beans under delegated programs, ie,
less oversight reporting.
DW - No.
UIC - CSGWPP process will not influence EPA regulatory
requirements for financial tracking and progress reporting.
NPDES - Yes. The Permit Compliance System data base (very
large data base on compliance information) could /
should be used by ground-water group.
NPS - CSGWPP process will not influence EPA regulatory
requirements for financial tracking and progress reporting.
M - Yes.
SMP - No, except that any report developed for the
Pesticides Program probably could serve other programs'
needs. The concept really has not been developed yet.
RCRA C - Flexibility will be program-specific.
RCRA D - Flexibility is provided to the State upon program
approval.
UST - UST reporting is at bare minimum so flexibility.
SUPERFUND - There may be some opportunities; current
reporting is not an accurate description of the State's
activities and is, therefore, not very useful.
RIP - Yes.
21 - N/A.
33
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
24. Does the Regional or State program include public education
efforts ? How ?
£W - Yes, speeches, school programs, public meetings, etc.
DW - Yes, at the regulatory and state level through
mobilization program. Very active in all six states.
UIC - Yes. Informational meetings and presentations on
Class V wells are held for interested parties, trade
organizations, etc; public meetings on Class V wells are
held when an area has been targeted for close-out
activities.
NPDES - Yes. School presentations , press releases,
enforcement actions - always include info on ground water.
NPS - Yes. Information and education are a significant
aspect to all NPS projects. I and E are provided on a
project by project basis.
MW - Limited.
SMP - Yes. Generally, SMP for Pesticides has mandatory
elements for public outreach and information dissemination
(this is a legally proscribed process). Also, all
pesticides requiring a Management Plan will be classified as
a Restricted Use Pesticide requiring a trained and licensed
user (requiring proscribed training and competency
determination).
RCRA C - Yes. Public meetings are often held to keep
interested citizens informed about important actions
regarding given facilities, including corrective action
activities.
RCRA D - Yes. Regional program is required to follow public
notice process during State program approval. State program
is required to have public participation in the permitting
process.
UST - Yes though not fully developed in practice.
SUPERFUND - Yes. The Superfund Program includes an
elaborate community outreach element.
RIP - Limited.
P2 - Yes. Mostly the purview of the States. Really what P2
is about: Outreach.
34
-------
25. Does the Regional or State program provide information to the
regulated community regarding ground water or ground-
water/surface-water connections ?
QW - Yes, in response to inquiries from public entities.
DW - Yes, when they have it available, and then it comes
from the Ground-Water Branch.
UIC - Yes. At public meetings information on ground-water
use in the area as well as general information on septic
systems and Class V wells and their potential impacts to
ground water are discussed.
NPDES - NO.
NPS - Yes. This information would be supplied as
appropriate by the project sponsor.
MW - Limited.
SMP - Yes. This is a proscribed part of the plan.
RCRA C - This is done through public meetings often relating
to corrective action activities.
RCRA D - No for Regional program. State program may provide .
such information for a specific facility.
UST - No.
SUPERFUND - Yes. On a site-specific basis where such
information exchange is warranted these topics will be
addressed in outreach efforts.
RIP - Poorly done.
22. - No. N/A.
35
-------
26. Is ground-water protection included in public education for
the Regional program ? Describe.
£W - Yes, Ground-water Branch only. Water fairs, career
days, Earth Day demonstrations, school presentations, civic
group meetings, etc.
DW - Can't think of anything. No.
UIC - Yes. Ground-water protection is discussed in the
context of the Class V program and the impacts that these
wells can have to ground water.
NPDES - Yes - to some extent.
MW - Not really.
NPS - Yes. Information on ground-water protection is
provided to all sponsors in program guidance.
SMP - Yes, directly depending on the specific topic
requested when groups request a speaker. But no specific
proactive ground-water protection public education targeted
by the regional Pesticides Program; only in response to the
needs of the public as they express them.
RCRA C - Yes. Ground water protection is included as an
important, component of RCRA public education.
RCRA D - Training on Subtitle D (which was provided by the
Regional program to the States, Tribes, and interested
groups/public) covers ground-water protection as the
underlying basis of the regulations.
UST - A little bit. Only as it relates to preventative.
SUPERFUND - Yes. Community outreach efforts will include
discussions of site-specific ARARs which can include State
policies on ground-water protection.
RIP - included as part of overall pollution prevention.
P2 - Yes. Where appropriate.
36
-------
27. Has the Regional ground-water staff been invited to
participate in the program's public education efforts ?
GW - Yes, we are it!
DW - No.
UIC - No. Not at this time.
NPDES - No.
NPS - Yes. The Ground-Water program is involved through
review and comments on draft guidance and through comments
on I and E efforts on individual projects.
MW - No.
SMP - No. Context for presentation does not allow us to set
the agenda and include multi-program perspectives.
RCRA C - No. This has not been routinely done.
RCRA D - No. There has not been a need to this point.
UST - No.
SUPERFTJND - Occasionally, scientists from the Regional
Ground-Water Program are involved as technical experts.
RIP - Yes. Through RIWG and specific tribes.
£2 - Yes.
37
-------
APPENDIX D
ASSESSMENT OF REGION VIII GROUND-WATER RELATED PROGRAMS
ANSWERS TO PROGRAM SPECIFIC REVIEW QUESTIONS
FOR 9 REGIONAL PROGRAMS
-------
PWS PROGRAM
What is the Region doing to encourage integration of State
ground-water protection priorities for sampling, inspections, or
enforcement ?
The Regional PWS program encourages the PWS program in each
state to work with GW/WHP programs, specifically with regard
to Phase II and V monitoring waivers. In this area, the
Regional program is pushing hard to get the state ground
water staff people involved. However, there is no
formalized mechanism for integrating this. In the areas of
inspections and enforcement, integration is not occurring or
being pushed.
Are priorities being set based on wellhead protection areas?
For chemical sampling and monitoring, PWS programs are being
encouraged to work with State WHP programs. The state of
Utah has a mandatory WHP program. The states of South
Dakota and Colorado are designing their WHP monitoring
waiver programs using areas of delineation based on the WHP
program (Colorado's WHP is currently in the approval
process is not yet an EPA-approved program). ¦ ¦
Since small systems are typically ground water systems, are small
systems getting priority treatment in the ground water program
for sampling, inspection, and enforcement?
It really varies. In most States, inspection and
enforcement actions are prioritized based on available
resources and the threat to public health. This "generally"
means the larger water systems gain the most attention. But
it is relative; if resources are available, the Region and
States will take enforcement and do inspections on the
smallest systems (25 people). Attention is given to
community systems first. Many transient non-community
systems (bars, restaurants, highway rest stops, camp
grounds, etc.), of which 99.9% are served by groundwater,
are at the bottom of the list. In some States, many have
probably not been inspected for years.
In regards to sampling, because of the high cost of sampling
for the Phase II/V contaminants, many States are attempting
to give waivers to the small systems that will allow them
not to monitor. In Colorado, the State's first priority is
assessing PWS with "protected sources," i.e., good-
construction deep wells in rural areas; it will give waivers
1
-------
to these systems. Utah is allowing waivers for small
syst.ems that have adequately filled out a survey showing
potential contamination sources - waivers will be re-
evaluated when mandatory wellhead protection kicks in.
Is the Region using the State's Wellhead Protection Program as
the basis for defining the monitoring waiver application review
area?
This question answered above in question 2. It is up to the
State's PWS program as to whether or not they will use its
own WHPP delineation areas.
For identifying potential contamination sources in
monitoring waiver application review areas, is the Region
using results or information from other programs, such as
RCRA, UST, Superfund, State septic tanks, Pesticides, WHP,
SSA, or other?
We encourage states to do that, but honestly do not believe
that it is occurring.
Is the PWS program using any other authority or review to
identify potential contamination sources? What is the result of
this identification?
No. No time or resources. Might also be other Federal
agency databases that could be tapped into'. Might-be looked
at as a" second level of effort.
What source management measures is the Region encouraging to
protect the raw water supply?
As part of the Phase II/V monitoring waiver program,
groundwater systems will eventually learn that the State can
ease up on monitoring requirements if the system's source
water is protected.
In light of the Disinfection By-product regulations, the
Regional program is looking at ways of encouraging water
systems to find supplies of raw water that have minimal
amounts of organic matter. An interesting point has been
brought up by Regional PWS/NPS staff with regard to this.
Such an approach in the SDWA may be in conflict with NPS
approach in CWA where restoration of riparian areas (that
would contribute greater amounts of organic matter to the
water) is encouraged.
As a part of the P2 initiative, staff members within the
Regional PWS program are committing to implementing the
Executive Order requiring federal facilities to make public
lists of contaminants on their sites. This will provide
2
-------
more information to regional states where federal facilities
are located about which contaminants to sample and monitor
for.
Regional PWS program staff are also researching what happens
to sludge generated by water treatment plants, and how the
uses of this sludge might be affected in light of changes in
the regulations regarding "contaminants" such as radon and
arsenic.
Under the Surface Water Treatment Rule, watershed management
is a requirement for systems that do not filter (avoid
filtration). In the future, systems classified as GW under
direct influence of surface water may also be required to
implement watershed management practices. All surface water
systems are being encouraged to practice good watershed
management practices.
3
-------
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM
Does the NPS program rely on State, geographically-based
priorities in selecting 319 grant projects ?
Yes. The States must prioritize their NPS concerns and all
projects must fall within the priority list.
What does the Region expect from a State to show these are
credible priorities ? Are these criteria consistent with those
of other EPA programs {eg., Pesticide SMPs, UIC, CSGWPP, UST) or
other federal agency programs (eg., USDA, USGS) ?
The priorities must be defined in the NPS Management Plan
which is developed through the assistance of the NPS Task
Force. The Task Force is composed of representatives from
many different programs and agencies.
What criteria will be used to set priorities under the coastal
NPS programs ? What will the Region do to ensure that these
priorities are consistent with priorities of the EPA ground-water
programs ?
N/A
Is ground-water protection an explicit consideration in State NPS
priority setting ?
Yes. Aquifer priorities are provided in the NPS Management
Plans and many ground-water projects are funded each year.
Do State ground-water officials have a role in proposing or
selecting priorities for the NPS program ? If yes, describe
their role.
Yes. State Ground-Water program officials are members of
the NPS Task Force. The Task Force selects and ranks all
project proposals to be submitted to EPA.
Are ground-water priorities listed as NPS priorities in State NPS
assessment or management reports or, as an alternative, are
priorities identified in State ground-water strategies referenced
in these reports ?
Yes. Ground-water priorities are listed in all State NPS
Management Plans.
Is there evidence that an appropriate share of ground-water
projects are being funded ? Do you expect this share to decrease
due to competition for 319(h) funding from coastal NPS programs ?
Yes. The number of ground-water projects varies from State
4
-------
to State but is a significant number Regionally.
Are some of the 319 funds being used for ground-water assessments
and priority setting ? If yes, what type of projects ? If no,
why not ?
Yes. Ground-water vulnerability projects are underway in a
few States; this includes water-quality monitoring in a
couple of States. CWA reauthorization may limit future
assessment work such that future activities would begin
addressing ground-water problems.
How will the CSGWPP approach be tied into the NPS program ? will
the NPS program incorporate the ground-water goal and priorities
of CSGWPP ?
Coordination within the State and the Regional office should
allow State ground-water goals and priorities to be
addressed within the NPS program.
In general, do the NPS ground-water related projects being
implemented in the Region address State ground-water priorities ?
Yes. The NPS process mandates that State priorities are
addressed.
Does ground-water characterization and assessment of ground-water
vulnerability support decisions on what specific measures (eg.,-
BMPs) to implement ?
Yes. State Ground-Water program staff are involved in BMP
selection within the State.
Do the ground-water related NPS projects generally include a
monitoring component or some other way to measure the
effectiveness of the projects ?
Yes. Region VIII NPS program philosophy requires all
projects to have a component that monitors the project
effectiveness.
Do NPS surface-water projects generally consider the possible
impacts on ground water in selecting or adapting measures to
specific sites of locations ? How will these possible impacts be
considered under coastal NPS programs ?
Yes. All watershed projects have at least minimal ground-
water considerations.
5
-------
WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
Note: The Region VIII Watershed Protection Program has been
active over the last few years on various efforts in three
targeted watersheds. At this time the Program is going through a
formal development period so many of these questions involve
issues that are evolving and will be addressed in the near
future.
Are the Region's watershed efforts based on State priorities ?
If yes, what does the State have to do to show these are credible
priorities ? If no, who established the priority and what is the
rationale for not relying on the State ?
No. The Regional program does want to work with the States
on priority issues; however, current efforts have arisen
from either ongoing EPA activities or locally-driven
interests.
Is ground-water protection a consideration in watershed priority
setting in the Region ? If no, why not ? If yes, is ground
water only considered as ancillary to a surface-water problem or
are there watershed efforts focused on ground-water protection
endpoints (eg., drinking water well protection) ?
No. Ground-water protection fits into the watershed
protection approach but .there needs to be. more-development
on how to address ground water in the prqgram.
Do State or Regional ground-water officials have a role in
proposing or selecting watershed priorities ? Do these officials
have a role in proposing or selecting ground-water activities in
a watershed for watershed funding ? If yes, please describe
their role.
No to State; Yes to Region. Regional ground-water staff
take part on watershed protection workgroups and have input
into project proposals and project selection.
Are ground-water resource characterizations sometimes conducted
as part of watershed protection efforts in the Region ? If so,
please list examples of how these are funded.
Yes. These activities are typically targeted ground-water
nonpoint source problems and funded through CWA Section 319
grants to the States.
Are States in the Region delineating areas of ground-
water/surface-water interaction for protection as part of
watershed protection efforts ? If so, what methods are they
using ?
6
-------
No.
How will the Region's watershed effort tie-in with the CSGWPP
approach ? Will the priorities established under a CSGWPP be
used to help select watershed efforts ?
CSGWPP efforts will tie-in as a way to work together and get
the job done to protect the quality of all water resources
in the watershed. Sure, CSGWPP priorities can be used to
focus some watershed protection efforts.
Are there measurable objectives being used in the Region's
watershed efforts ? Do these objectives include ground-water
protection endpoints ?
Yes. However, EPA needs more data in order to establish
measurable, environmental objectives for all water resources
within the watersheds.
In general, do the watershed ground-water related efforts being
implemented in the Region address State ground-water priorities ?
Yes. EPA is funding through the 319 grants numerous ground-
water efforts by the States in watershed areas that the
State has targeted.
Do the ground-water related watershed projects generally include
a monitoring component or some other way to measure the
effectiveness of the projects ?
Yes. All 319 projects require measuring project
effectiveness.
Are there efforts to assure that cross-media contamination
concerns are being taken into account in the Region's watershed
efforts ? Do these include potential ground-water impacts in the
watershed and outside the watershed (eg., trucking sludge to
dumpsites outside the watershed) ? Are the States' key players
in these determinations ? Could these decisions be tied to
CSGWPPs ?
Yes. Most of the watershed protection efforts to date in
the Region are based on Superfund sites where multi-media
contamination is present.
7
-------
UIC/UIC CLASS V RULES
Does the UIC program rely on State priorities in issuing permits,
conducting inspections and enforcement actions, siting injection
wells, or in implementing any other activities for Class V
wells ? If so, are these geographically-based priorities ?
No. There is no formal point of contact between the
Regional program and the States to address this action.
What are the Region's criteria for setting priorities ? Are
these criteria consistent with those of other EPA programs (eg.,
Pesticide SMPs, CSGWPP, UST) or other federal agency programs
(eg., USDA, USGS) ?
Geographic factors -- population, ground-water use,
hydrogeologic setting (sole source aquifers) -- and risk.
These criteria are consistent with some programs (eg.,
Pesticide SMPs).
Do State ground-water officials have a role in proposing or
selecting priorities for protection under UIC Class V controls ?
If yes, describe their role.
No. A point of contact has not been established.
How does the Region encourage the State to incorporate CSGWPP
priorities into its Class V plan ?
In most cases the State Class V program is located in the
same organization as the State ground-water protection^
program and the two programs interact on a routine basis.
The UIC program requires the States to address the most
sensitive ground water which will in all likelihood be State
priority areas.
Has the Region encouraged States (or localities) to map the
location of Class V wells in relation to: public water supply
wells, wellhead protection areas, recharge areas of USDWs, or
zones of significant ground-water/surface-water interaction ? If
no, what is needed to accomplish this ? Should the UIC program
support this activity ? If so, how ?
No. Yes. However, resources to gather this information are
needed as well as a consistent data base for this
information and the locations of closed out Class V wells.
Does the UIC program in your Region (where the program is run by
EPA) consider State ground-water priorities in scheduling permit
issuance, monitoring, inspections, enforcement, cleanup, and
other implementation activities ?
8
-------
Not really. The UIC regulations require equal protection of
ground waters with TDS <10,000 ppm, whereas the States may
have other means to prioritize ground waters that are not
consistent with the federal regulations.
Do State UIC programs in your Region consider State ground-water
priorities in implementing such activities ?
Yes for the Class V program; no for the Class II program.
Are these implementation activities generally coordinated with
activities under related programs ? If no, why not ?
Yes for the Class V program; no for the Class II program.
The autonomous status of the Class II program delegated
agency is an impedance.
How is the effectiveness of implementation activities evaluated
by the UIC programs in your Region (whether DI or State
delegated) ?
For the DI program the effectiveness of EPA actions are
rarely reviewed for effectiveness; a one-time study was
undertaken to look at PWS water-quality data before, during,
and following Class V actions in Missoula, MT.
Do you think that CSGWPPs will have a valuable role to play in
coordinating the implementation of UIC with other ground-water
activities in your Region ? How ?
Yes. CSGWPPs can help the Regional program set priorities
and can assist in coordination of multi-program problems,
issues, etc.
9
-------
PESTICIDE STATE MANAGEMENT PLANS
Does the Region expect, or will it encourage, States to establish
priorities for implementing measures under their SMPs ? Are they
currently implementing pesticide control measures in accordance
with State-determined ground-water priorities ? Please describe
these priorities.
Absolutely. Embodies the whole concept of differential
protection based on different hydrogeological areas and
their vulnerability.
To a very limited extent. Prohibited use of some pesticides
in areas of extremely vulnerable aquifers. Example: Turtle
Mountain prohibited use of TORDON in area where the aquifer
was < 4 feet from the surface. Wyoming voluntarily
discontinued use of TORDON in a recharge area. The
manufacturer of the herbicide AMBER has listed counties in
Colorado where use is prohibited, becoming an enforceable
violation if it is used.
Did the basis for setting priorities include ground- water
characterizations and assessments ? If so, what agencies
conducted the assessments and how were they funded ?
Yes. .In all cases the assessment performed using existing
data. Not-a resource-intensive effort. Joint 'Ag.
Dept./Health Dept. effort. ¦
Does the Region encourage States to use pesticide use information
to help identify areas of potential vulnerability ?
Yes. It's a required element from a Regional Pesticides
Program point of view.
Does the Region encourage States to use FIFRA/106 grants for
ground-water resource assessment and priority setting ?
Yes. Developed regional grant guidance directing states to
use this approach. Guidance up-dated annually.
In general, do the ground-water related pesticide control
activities being implemented in the Region address State ground-
water priorities ?
Primary state-wide priorities are nitrates which are
agricultural chemicals. Localized areas have industrial
chemicals as high priorities. So, in general, yes.
Does the region encourage States to routinely conduct ground-
water resource assessments and use these to support decisions on
what specific pesticide control measures to implement ?
10
-------
Yes, but it's not the main priority of the planning process.
This highlights another basic difference between the 2
programs. CSGWPP responds to state identified priorities
(through environmental assessments).
Pesticide SMP's set the priorities, the state develops a
plan in response to the priorities and then the Region does
an assessment to see if they match.
Does the Region encourage States to generally conduct monitoring
or use some other way to measure the effectiveness of pesticide
control measures in protecting ground water ?
YES.
Are pesticide control activities involving ground water often
coordinated with related activities ? If no, why not ?
The potential is there for this coordination to occur. We
would expect it to occur based on program design, i.e., WHP,
PSMP's, waiver program, but because of the formative stages
of these programs this has not been implemented.
11
-------
RCRA SUBTITLE C.
How does the Region encourage States to target high value ground
waters for protection ?
Through RCRA stabilization/containment efforts and listing
as "high priority" site.
Is the Region using, or does it encourage its delegated States to
use, its (25%) compliance monitoring flexibility to set
priorities based on use, value, and vulnerability ?
This is an option that can be considered.
Is the Region using, or does it encourage its delegated States to
use, its (25%) enforcement flexibility to set priorities based on
use, value, and vulnerability ?
This is an option that can be considered.
What latitude is given by the Region to States to set
priorities ?
Some latitude is given based on environmental
considerations.
The RCRA program gives Regions/States the flexibility to elevate.
15% of facilities currently being addressed to "high priority"
based on "other considerations". How does the Region use, or
encourage its delegated States to use, geographic targeting as
one of its "other considerations" ?
Geographic targeting can be used based on environmental
considerations.
Is the Region encouraging States to use their 25% flexibility in
grants to support CSGWPP efforts ?
NA
Does the Region encourage targeted geographic initiatives based
on valuable and vulnerable ground water ?
Yes. This has been considered during planning for
inspections.
How does the Region support the coordination of permits for RCRA
C, NPDES, UIC, and Section 404 ?
On an "as-needed" basis.
12
-------
What flexibility does the Region provide to the State in
determining environmental benefit ?
This is typically facility-specific.
How does the Region support the State's multi-media activities
(ie., case screenings, inspections) ?
To date, most multi-media activities have been lead by EPA.
What technical and administrative assistance and training does
the RCRA Regional program provide to the States that would
enhance development of a CSGWPP ?
RCRA-related ground water training.
What does the Region use to measure State success in protecting
the ground water ?
Compliance with RCRA, undertaking stabilization/containment
activities and achieving clean-up standards.
Does the Regional RCRA program share its Beginning of the Year
Plan and its End of the Year Report with the Region's ground-
water coordinator ?
This has not been routinely done.
13
-------
RCRA SUBTITLE D
How does the Regional program use a State's assessment of the
ground-water vulnerability in making site-specific permit
decisions ?
N/A. No site-specific permit decisions at Regional level.
How is a State's characterization of the ground water used by the
Region in corrective action decisions ?
N/A. No corrective action decisions at Regional level.
How are Subtitle D program actions coordinated with the NPDES,
Sewage Sludge, and/or UIC programs ?
Under an approved State program, coordination will be
required as all discharges will have to be permitted and
sewage sludge must be codisposed.
What flexibility is currently given to the States for siting and
monitoring decisions ?
Some flexibility is given if the State program has received
EPA approval. General location requirements will always
apply; however, some monitoring requirements can be waived.
How have RCRA grants been used by the Region to build State
capacity through activities such as ground-water assessments,
mapping, or characterization ?
N/A. No grant monies to States.
Does the Region encourage targeted geographic initiatives based
on valuable and vulnerable ground water ?
N/A. The Region has no role on such decisions due to the
nature of the program.
What flexibility does the Region provide the State in determining
environmental benefit ?
The State has flexibility in how ground-water protection is
accomplished and not really where it gets done.
What technical and administrative assistance and training does
the RCRA program provide to the States that would enhance
development of a CSGWPP ?
Training is provided on the technical guidance manual for
the Subtitle D program but this is not directly related to
CSGWPPs.
14
-------
What does the Region use to measure State success in protecting
ground water ?
At this time the only measurement by the Region is the
adequacy of the State program. The Regional program's role
on oversight has not been established. Facilities are
required to submit ground-water quality data to the State
and this information can be a measuring tool at a later
time.
Does the Regional RCRA program share its Beginning of the Year
Plan and its End of the Year Report with the Region's ground-
water coordinator ?
N/A. Such plans/reports are not available for the Subtitle
D program.
15
-------
UST PROGRAM
1. How are use, value, and vulnerability used by the Region to
set State priorities ?
States can prioritize UST actions based on ground-water
sensitivity or classification.
2. How does the Region encourage the State UST program to
coordinate enforcement efforts with other programs ?
Under multi-media inspection and enforcement efforts.
3. Does the Region encourage States to consult with the ground-
water program when setting priorities ?
No.
4. Is the UST program inventory coordinated with the ground-water
program ?
No.
5. Is the' Region assisting, in training State personnel for other,
programs to look for UST violations ?
Somewhat -County health inspectors in Utah have been
trained.
16
-------
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
How are State priorities taken into account by the Region when
setting priorities for PA/SI listing evaluations ?
It varies State by State and site by site; some States are
very vocal on ground-water use and vulnerability and will
push for action on a site. The Regional Programs takes the
setting of the site into account and will elevate a site in
a vulnerable area (eg., Sioux Falls, Missoula, etc).
However, since ground water is just one of many routes of
exposure investigated, typically sites are dealt with based
on when they were brought to EPA's attention.
How does the Region involve the States in determining the type or
scope of remedial actions ?
CERCLA requires that the State have meaningful and
substantial input into the selection of remedial actions.
Regionally, this input tends to be State by State based
primarily on State wants and State capacity.
Is a State's determination of the use, value, or vulnerability of
its ground water taken into account when setting remedial
priorities ? Are these determinations ARARs ?
Yes. Yes. In the ARARs process a site-specific
determination of the use, value, and vulnerability of.the
local ground water is taken into account in the decision
process.
Does the Superfund program use State use designations when
determining longterm cleanup actions ?
Yes. Other considerations are taken into account on a site
by site basis.
How does the Region involve the States in the remedial decision
process ?
The Regional preference is for the State to concur with the
ROD. For some sites EPA provides the lead to the State.
However, in all cases final authority in the remedial
decision process rests with the Agency.
Does the Superfund program follow State designations when
determining reasonably expected future use of ground water ?
Yes. In the ARARs process a site-specific determination of
the use, value, and vulnerability of the local ground water
is taken into account in the decision process.
17
-------
Does the Superfund program coordinate actions with the RCRA
Corrective Action program ?
Yes. When overlapping jurisdictions occur, the programs
work together. An attempt is made, if possible, to separate
out the authorities.
Does the Superfund program coordinate its efforts with the State
ground-water program ?
Yes. This coordination will occur through the State
Superfund Program contacts on a site by site, as needed,
basis.
18
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
Is the pollution prevention staff targeting grants and activities
to Wellhead Protection Areas or other State-designed ground-water
priorities ?
Yes.
Are other programs including pollution prevention techniques in
their activities ?
Yes. Trying to incorporate into the grants. Will be
involved in a baseline assessment to see which grants have
good P2 language. Re-write regional grant guidance to
include P2 by April '94. Will inform project officers after
project completion.
19
------- |