EPA REGION IV
GROUND WATER REVIEW
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
j'V" ? 7 icgj;
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Region IV Ground Water Review
FROM: Elizabeth Rolle, Chief ฃ
Ground Water Management Unit/*
TO: Ground Water Advisory Board Members and Facilitators
Attached is the first completed version of the Region IV
Ground Water Review. As you know, completion of the report is
largely the result of your own efforts. The Ground Water
Management Unit is sincerely appreciative of the support you
provided.
We are transmitting the Review to Headquarters for their use
in compiling a national summary of identified barriers to
achieving a "comprehensive" ground water protection program
within EPA, as well as barriers to extending this approach across
all federal agencies involved in ground water issues. The
national summary will help direct Headquarters in strategic
planning and in developing Congressional testimony on a broad
range of ground water related issues. We are also providing the
Review to our State Ground Water Protection Program counterparts
as evidence of Region IV's commitment to "lead by example" in
guiding States toward the development of CSGWPPs.
We do anticipate that the Review will need to be updated
frequently to reflect newly identified barriers, changing
priorities, and other operational changes within Region IV.
Although your input will continue to be formally solicited
through the Ground Water Advisory Boards, please do not hesitate
to let us know at any time of corrections, changes, or updates
that you feel are warranted.
Again, thank you for your help I
Attachment
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SETTING GOALS AND DOCUMENTING PROGRESS ... 8
Ground Water Protection Goal 8
Regional CSGWPP Action Plan 10
Evaluation Mechanism 15
III. CHARACTERIZING THE RESOURCE AND PRIORITIZING
ACTIONS 17
Resource Assessment 17
Aquifer Mapping 17
Ground Water Classification 17
Geographic or Geological Targeting
Initiatives and Systems 20
Wellhead Protection 21
Sole Source Aquifer Designation 23
Ground Water Quality Assessments 23
Ground Water/Surface Water Interaction 25
Relationship of EPA Programs to Programs
of USGS 25
Contaminant Source Identification 26
Setting Priorities 28
Data Sources and Coordination 32
Use of Data in Program Decisions 36
IV. DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING CONTROL AND REMEDIATION
PROGRAMS 40
Source Reduction 40
Siting Criteria 42
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 42
Hazardous Waste TSD Facilities 43
Public Drinking Water Systems Utilizing
Ground Water 43
Sole Source Aquifers 44
Control and Remediation Programs 44
NEPA 44
CWA 44
SDWA 46
CERCLA and SARA 47
SARA Title III 48
RCRA 49
FIFRA 53
Quality Standards 53
i
-------
V.
DEFINING ROLES WITHIN REGION IV AND THE REGION'S
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS, AND
STATES 59
Internal Region IV Coordination . . . . . .... .59
Targeted Accomplishments and Activities" . . . . ..61
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies 63
Coordination with the States . . 67
VI. PUBLIC EDUCATION 74
VII. BARRIERS TO AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF
A COMPREHENSIVE GROUND WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM ... 75
ii
-------
Executive Summary
Since the release of EPA's New Ground Water Strategy in mid-
1991, states have been working with EPA to develop Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs). The overall
aim is to achieve a more efficient, coherent, and comprehensive
approach to protecting ground water resources. In developing
their CSGWPPs, states have called upon EPA to "lead by example"
by facilitating changes that will bring about greater efficiency
and consistency in the operation of federal programs related to
ground water.
As a first step toward achieving the goals of greater
efficiency and consistency, each EPA Regional Office is preparing
a "Regional Review" of its programs involved in ground water
issues. The EPA Region IV Ground Water Review presents an
assessment of Region IV's ground water programs with respect to
their potential benefit from and contribution to a
"comprehensive" program. It also describes an institutional
framework that the Region has developed to pursue operational
changes within the Regional Office itself, as well as among other
federal agencies involved in ground issues in the Southeastern
United States. The organization of the document is loosely
patterned after the six Strategic Activities presented in EPA's
National CSGWPP Guidance.
Key to the Region's framework for affecting change are
Ground Water Advisory Boards (GWABs) created for each of the six
major Offices/Divisions within the Regional Office. Comprised of
senior staff knowledgeable about ground water programs within
their respective Divisions, the GWABs are largely responsible for
development of this document. Working under guidance provided by
the Ground Water Protection Branch, GWABs offered their expertise
in the compilation of pertinent information, as well as in the
review and editing of all draft versions of the report.
It is anticipated that updated versions of the Review will be
prepared in the future. These updated versions will further
explore opportunities for filling identified gaps in the Region's
overall ground water protection program and identify specific
opportunities for Region IV to provide its states and other grant
recipients with greater flexibility in directing their own ground
water protection activities. The Regional Office will continue
to use its established framework as a means of linking states'
CSGWPP needs with federal support capabilities as we move toward
the goal of ensuring a coherent approach to protecting the
nation's ground water.
iii
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
EPA uses authority provided by a number of federal statutes
to prevent and control sources of ground water contamination, as
well as to clean up existing contamination. In the early 1980s,
the Agency recognized that these ground water protection
authorities were largely undefined and were fragmented among many
different statutes. As a result, in 1984 EPA adopted a Ground
Water Protection Strategy to articulate both the problem and the
Agency's role in a national ground water protection program.
Under the 1984 Strategy, EPA focused its efforts on four major
objectives: (1) building state capacity, (2) addressing sources
of contamination, (3) establishing ground water policy direction
and program consistency, and (4) coordinating EPA programs.
While the 1984 Strategy was effective in creating momentum
for states to develop and implement ground water programs, the
passage of time and experience revealed gaps in protection
efforts across the country. It became clear that there was a
need to assess progress and adjust our approach to take into
account recent changes in statutory authorities and our increased
knowledge of the issue by promoting comprehensive protection on
the state and local level.
In July 1989, former EPA Administrator William Reilly
established a Ground Water Task Force, chaired by Deputy
Administrator F. Henry Habicht II, to review the Agency's ground
water protection program and to develop concrete principles and
objectives to ensure effective and consistent decision-making in
all Agency decisions affecting the resource. The Task Force
included membership from all Headquarters offices with ground
water protection responsibilities and selected Regional
representation. Several work groups were created to develop
recommendations on issues of special interest. In addition, a
substantial outreach effort succeeding in obtaining input on two
key issues Agency principles and the character of the
federal/state relationship from major federal, state, local,
public interest, industry and agricultural leadership groups and
the Governors and agency officials of all states.
The outcomes of this effort are presented in the Final Report
of the EPA Ground Water Task Force. Released in July 1991, the
Task Force Report is entitled Protecting the Nation's Ground
Water; EPA's Strategy for the 1990s, but is commonly referred to
as the "New Ground Water Strategy" or the "New Strategy". The
document presents policy and implementation principles that set
forth an aggressive approach to protecting the nation's ground
water resources and direct the course of the Agency's efforts
over the coming years. These principles follow closely with new
EPA.Administrator Carol Browner's identified priorities of
1
-------
pollution prevention, building partnerships, ecosystem
protection, and environmental equity. The New Strategy will be
reflected in EPA policies and programs, which will guide EPA,
states, local governments, and other parties with whom we work in
carrying out the Agency's ground water responsibilities.
Perhaps the most significant feature of the New Strategy is a
call for state-developed and implemented Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs). The CSGWPP approach
emphasizes the importance of coordination and cooperation among
ground water related programs and agencies; it is not intended
that any individual program be dissolved by a CSGWPP. In
essence, it is a call for the "fitting-together" of the
components of each state's overall ground water protection
program (Figure 1-1). Improved levels of coordination and
cooperation between the various programs will foster a more
cohesive, or "holistic" approach to protecting ground water
resources. It is EPA's hope that through the CSGWPP development
process, effective and consistent decision-making in all
activities affecting the resource will be achieved.
In order to define a CSGWPP, EPA invited representatives of
each state's environmental, health, and agricultural agencies to
participate in Regional Ground Water Roundtables. The Region IV
State Ground Water Roundtable was held in Atlanta in January
1992. During the meeting, EPA's new ground water policy was
outlined by several Headquarters officials and a senior
management team from the Regional Office. State representatives
were presented an opportunity to discuss the New Strategy and
provide input for EPA's effort to develop national guidance that
the states will use over the next several years in developing
CSGWPPs. During the Roundtable discussions, states provided
input on four key issues:
1. the appropriate elements of a CSGWPP;
2. the necessary criteria for determining the adequacy of a
CSGWPP;
3. the process for EPA's review and endorsement of such
programs; and
4. opportunities for increased and more consistent deference
by EPA to state decision-making.
Discussions from the Region IV Roundtable were recorded and,
in combination with other Regions' Roundtable discussions, were
used by EPA Headquarters in preparing the Final CSGWPP Guidance,
which was released in Spring 1993. As presented in the Guidance,
a Comprehensive Ground Water Protection Program addresses a set
of six "Strategic Activities". The six Strategic Activities of a
CSGWPP are dynamic and interrelated (Figure 1-2). Improvements
in one activity lead to improvements in the other five. In
2
-------
Figure 1-1. CSGWPPs Coordinate Existing Ground Water
Programs.
3
-------
Figure 1-2. The Six Strategic Activities of a CSGWPP.
4
-------
brief, the Strategic Activities are as follows:
1. Establishing a ground water protection goal.
2. Establishing priorities.
3. Defining authorities, roles, and responsibilities.
4. Implementing efforts to accomplish the goal consistent
with established priorities.
5. Coordinating data collection and management.
6. Improving public education.
A key aspect of the CSGWPP-development process relies on a
state's continuous improvement from a "Core" CSGWPP to a "Fully-
Integrating" CSGWPP (Figure 1-3). Attainment of a Core CSGWPP
marks the point at which all six Strategic Activities first
emerge as a cohesive program which is clearly identifiable. A
Fully-Integrating CSGWPP is achieved when the Strategic
Activities fundamentally influence and are supported by the day-
to-day operations of all ground water related programs within the
State.
The Final CSGWPP Guidance presents "adequacy criteria" for
both the Core and Fully Integrating levels of a CSGWPP. Each of
the adequacy criteria for the Fully-Integrating CSGWPP is
reflected in the Core CSGWPP. The primary differences in the
adequacy criteria at these two levels relate to the scope of the
activity, the degree of sophistication, and the timing and degree
of influence on all relevant operating programs and activities
within the State. Generally, development of an approach,
initiation of efforts, or implementation within at least one
program are all that is required to meet the adequacy criteria
for a Core CSGWPP, whereas at the Fully-Integrating CSGWPP level
approaches and activities are expected to be fully developed and
influencing all ground water protection programs and efforts
operating in the State. In some instances, the adequacy criteria
at both levels are the same.
The Core CSGWPP will serve as a distinct benchmark to assist
EPA and states in communicating the aggregate achievements of
ground water protection programs to Congress. As Congress
proceeds with re-authorizations of various ground water related
statutes over the next several years, the existence of Core
CSGWPPs will provide a basis for meaningful dialogue regarding
states' capabilities and needs for both flexibility and
resources. Similarly, an individual state's Core CSGWPP could
serve to enhance the State legislature's understanding of current
ground water protection accomplishments, ongoing efforts, and
remaining challenges.
5
-------
Continual
Improvement
In the Six
otVWQQw
Activities
Fully-
Integrating
CSGWPF
Core CSGWPP
Figure 1-3. Movement from a Core to a Fully-Integrating
CSGWPP.
6
-------
It is EPA's hope that through the CSGWPP development process,
more effective and consistent decision-making in all activities
affecting the resource will be achieved.
7
-------
CHAPTER II
SETTING GOALS AND DOCUMENTING PROGRESS
II. A. Ground Water Protection Goal
The New Ground Water Strategy establishes that the "overall
goal of EPA's Ground Water Policy is to prevent adverse effects
to human health and the environment, and to protect the
environmental integrity of the nation's ground water resources."
This marks EPA's first formally established agency-wide ground
water protection goal. The New Strategy also states that "... in
determining appropriate prevention and protection strategies, EPA
will consider the use, value, and vulnerability of the resource,
as well as social and economic values."
EPA's reason for aspiring to the above goal is that its
attainment is necessary to achieve the sustainability of the
ground water resource and closely hydrologically connected
surface water systems for both current and future potential use.
In addition, because ground water cleanup is extremely costly,
and usually difficult and in some cases impossible to achieve and
demonstrate, EPA's goal of pollution prevention is, in the long
term, more cost effective than trying to clean up contaminated
ground water at each point of occurrence.
Most major aspects of ground water protection within EPA
Region IV are housed in one of the four Divisions. Branches
within each Division have their own Sections (some of which are
further divided into Units) to provide review and oversight of
ground water issues pertaining to the responsibilities of that
Division. These are:
Water Management Division
Ground Water Protection Branch
- Ground Water Technology and Management Section
- Underground Injection Control Section
- Underground Storage Tank Section
Municipal Facilities Branch
- Drinking Water Section
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds Branch
- Watersheds Section
- Wetlands Section
Water Permits and Enforcement Branch
- Permits Section
- Enforcement Section
Waste Management Division
RCRA Branch
- RCRA Permits Section
- RCRA Compliance Section
8
-------
Waste Management Division (cont.)
Federal Facilities Branch
- DOD Remedial Section
- DOE Remedial Section
Superfund Emergency Response and Removal Branch
- Emergency Response Section
- Removal Operations Section
- Removal Management Section
North Superfund Remedial Branch
- Kentucky/Tennessee Remedial Section
- North Carolina Remedial Section
- South Carolina Remedial Section
South Superfund Remedial Branch
- North Florida Remedial Section
- South Florida Remedial Section
- Alabama/Georgia/Mississippi Remedial Section
Waste Programs Branch
- Site Assessment Section
Office of Municipal Solid Waste
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch
- Pesticides Section
- Title III and Toxics Section
Environmental Services Division
Environmental Compliance Branch
- Hazardous Waste Section
- Air and Water Compliance Section
Additionally, several Branches and Sections within the Office
of Policy and Management have responsibilities related to ground
water protection.
Office of Policy and Management
Policy, Planning and Evaluation Branch
- Planning and Pollution Prevention Section
Federal Activities Branch
- Environmental Policy Section
Office of Integrated Environmental Analysis
Three other Offices within Region IV are involved in ground
water related activities:
Office of Regional Counsel
RCRA/Air Branch
CERCLA Branch
Water Branch
Office of Public Affairs
Education and Outreach Staff
Office of Congressional Affairs
9
-------
An organizational chart identifying each of the major
Divisions and Offices within EPA Region IV is presented in Figure
II-l.
In support of the Agency's established ground water
protection goal, specific statutes and regulations established;tc>
protect and remediate ground water are implemented.and enforced
by the organizational groups identified above. These statutes
and regulations apply primarily to the management-of'waste
streams, hazardous materials, and other potential ground water
pollutants, as well as to the remediation of contamination caused
by improperly managed wastes, hazardous materials, and other
pollutants. Additional protection measures are afforded through
the establishment of ground water classifications and standards,
internal planning activities, and through programs designed to do
the following! (1) reduce the amount of wastes, hazardous
materials, and other potential pollutants generated; (2) prepare
the public for chemical emergencies; (3) reduce the threat of
contaminants already released from impacting public water
supplies; and (4) educate and otherwise involve the public in
ground water issues. The statutes, regulations, and programs are
discussed in greater detail in following chapters.
II. B. Regional CSGWPP Action Plan
In addition to establishing EPA's goal with respect to ground
water protection, the New Ground Water Strategy provides a
framework for fostering improved coordination and integration
between programs within each state and within the Region IV
Office. A key ingredient in the Strategy is the identification
of principles considered to be essential to achieving the overall
ground water protection goal. It is EPA's aim to execute the
principles in accordance with federal law. The six Ground Water
Protection Principles are as follows:
1. Ground water should be protected to ensure that the
nation's currently used and reasonably expected drinking
water supplies, both public and private, do not present
adverse health risks and are preserved for present and
future generations.
2. Ground water should be protected to ensure that ground
water that is closely hydrologically connected to surface
waters does not interfere with the attainment of surface
water quality standards, which is necessary to protect
the integrity of associated ecosystems.
3. Ground water protection can be achieved through a variety
of means, including pollution prevention programs, source
controls, siting controls, the designation of wellhead
protection areas and future public water supply areas,
and the protection of aquifer recharge areas.
.10
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region Iv Organization
BKI^onriaH
FTI ACOnrantelPntx (KM) 3(7-
Mmi
F1ป tOmnhl Mi 0M|646-
OfBca of RmfJaaM Conn<
JohnR.Bซkar-22S6
Ra^onal AChaHaMor
John H. Hnkfcmm, Jr.-4727
pซtignab)
Deputy Ragkxai AdsMatntor
Pskldc M.Tobin -47Z7
PBct of ConaaaloiK AIMra
Lorotta Hank* - 3004
Otto of Pubic AIMra
Frank Radmond (Adatg)
EnvkvnaaaW 8ซvIom Dhtaioa
Jamas H. Fiiger - 3136
Water HmgMMi DMaioa
W. Ray Cviningham -4*50
OOoaofPoBcy and Hantaan!
Donald J. GukiyanJ - 7287
Air, Paaflddaai Tcodca
UanagMiMt DMaton
Wnston A. Smith-3043
Wmdbm Hnqwiant DMปton
Joseph R. Franzmaties - 34 S4
Figure Il-l. Region IV Organizational Structure.
11
-------
4. Ground water remediation activities must be prioritized
to limit the risk of adverse effects to human health
first and then to restore currently used and reasonably
expected sources of drinking water and ground water that
are closely hydrologically connected to surface waters,
whenever such restorations are practicable and
attainable.
5. The primary responsibility for coordinating and
implementing ground water protection programs always has
been and should continue to be vested in the states. An
effective ground water protection program should link
federal, state, and local activities into a coherent and
coordinated plan of action.
6. EPA should continue to improve coordination of ground
water protection efforts within the Agency and with other
federal agencies that have ground water responsibilities.
In EPA's January 15, 1992, "Next Steps" Memo, former Deputy
Administrator Hank Habicht sets forth a plan for ensuring that
these principles are adhered to by the Agency. In following the
plan, Region IV organized and facilitated the Region IV State
Ground Water Roundtable, which led to development of the Final
CSGWPP Guidance (discussed in detail in Chapter I). During the
Region IV Roundtable and other Regions' roundtables, state
representatives repeatedly related their view that in order for
the CSGWPP approach to be successful, EPA must "set and example"
for the states to follow by identifying and filling gaps in EPA
and other federal ground water programs, by developing mechanisms
for integrating separate programs, and by improving priority
setting mechanisms.
To address the need identified by the states, and in
continuing efforts to follow the plan outlined in Mr. Habicht's
"Next Steps" Memo, Region IV has established a Ground Water
Coordinating Committee made up of Division Directors from the
Regional Office and Chaired by the Deputy Regional Administrator.
The Coordinating Committee is responsible for reviewing all EPA
programs at the Regional level with respect to their impact on or
contribution to the development of a comprehensive program. The
Committee also assesses common needs across all Region IV ground
water related programs which could, through coordinated grants
management and the CSGWPP vehicle, be mutually supported to
achieve not only greater efficiency, but also better
inter-program consistency.
Lending support to the Coordinating Committee are Ground
Water Advisory Boards (GHABs) for each Division, and the Ground
Water Council. Comprised of senior-level staff, each GWAB
provides product-oriented support to the Region IV CSGWPP effort
(including preparation of this Regional Review). The GWABs are
also charged with developing "Ground Water Compacts", or
12
-------
agreements between each Division and the Deputy Regional
Administrator that spell out the roles and expectations of that
Division in support of the Region's CSGWPP effort. In effect,
the GWABs serve as Total Quality Management (TQM) teams (although
not formally designated as such) to facilitate continuous
improvement in the Region's overall ground water protection
program. The Ground Water Council serves as an intermediary
between the GWABs and the Coordinating Committee, providing
oversight and direction to the GWABs in the implementation of the
compacts. This group is comprised primarily of Branch Chiefs of
Region IV programs involved in ground water issues, and is
chaired by the Chief of the Ground Water Protection Branch.
Recognizing that ground water responsibilities are shared by
many agencies at the federal level, in October 1992 the Region IV
Office hosted a Federal Interagency Roundtable (FIR). The FIR
brought together some 60 regional-level representatives from more
than a dozen federal agencies to discuss ground water related
programs in relationship to EPA's New Strategy. Major barriers
to implementing the New Strategy across federal agencies in the
Southeast were identified, as were priority action items for
improving our overall ground water protection effort. During the
meeting, participants agreed to the need for establishing a
Ground Water Steering Committee to continue the dialogue,
planning, and cooperation between and among federal
representatives in the Southeast. It was recognized that this
committee should also have representatives of state government to
improve the state-federal interface. Nine (9) federal agencies
and five (5) Region IV states are represented on the Steering
Committee, which met twice during 1993. The Steering Committee
is focusing its work on the identification of gaps between
federal ground water programs and on ways to fill those gaps
using the collective resources of all involved agencies.
The responsibility for coordinating the various elements that
contribute to the Region's overall action plan falls with the
Ground Water Protection Branch (GWPB). In this capacity, the
GWPB monitors the process to see if it is working, why it is or
isn't, and corrects problems as they develop. A conceptual
diagram of Region IV's CSGWPP action structure is presented in
Figure II-2.
Through the support offered by the GWABs and the Ground Water
Council, the Ground Water Coordinating Committee will establish
specific priorities, milestones, and commitments for all Region
IV program groups involved in the CSGWPP Initiative. This will
require a change in the process through which priorities are set
by EPA, as well as create a need for new flexibility regarding
each program's requirements and performance measures. The shift
from a predominantly source control emphasis to consideration of
ground water as a resource, as called for in the New Strategy,
will first require identification of the institutional barriers
to change. It is expected that this shift will be fully
13
-------
NATIONAL GROUND WATER
POUCY COMMITTEE
Figure II-2. Region IV CSGWPP Action Structure.
14
-------
reflected in strategic plans, operating guidance, and some
program-specific STARS targets by 1995, which it is hoped will
resolve as much as possible any conflicts and redundancies that
exist in EPA's current ground water protection efforts.
II. C. Evaluation Mechanism
A cross-program STARS measure in support of the development
of CSGWPPs established for each EPA Regional Office for FY 93 has
been continued for FT 94. Region IV is implementing the
previously described action plan in order to meet the primary
STARS goal of "initiating the necessary operational improvements
across programs".
To coordinate growth of the Region's environmental protection
effort, the Region IV Strategic Plan: FY 1992-1996 was released
in January 1992. The Strategic Plan establishes priorities among
environmental protection activities so that Region IV can be more
effective in accomplishing its mission of "ensuring the maximum
protection and enhancement of the environment under the
directives of the President and the laws enacted by the U.S.
Congress, consistent with sustainable growth now, and for future
generations".
Included in the Strategic Plan is a five-year plan for
protecting ground water in Region IV. A key ingredient in this
portion of the plan is the identification of four goalB
considered necessary to achieve in order to adequately protect
ground water in Region IV. Specific objectives, strategies, and
action steps associated with each of the goals, including general
timeframes, are also provided. The goals are as follows:
1. Establish prevention practices and techniques as the
preferred means of protecting ground water resources from
degradation in order to avoid risk from contaminants.
2. Focus waste reduction efforts on existing high-risk
activities, especially in identified vulnerable ground
water resource areas in order to minimize risk from such
activities.
3. Identify all existing contaminated ground water areas,
establish realistic and flexible clean-up objectives and
initiate/complete clean-up actions to reduce risks to
acceptable levels for those areas.
4. Educate the public and regulated community regarding the
uses and importance of ground water, the risks associated
with contamination and how prevention, reduction, and
restoration are all needed, as well as how these
objectives can be accomplished.
15
-------
The responsibility for achieving these goals rests
principally with appropriate program groups in the Region IV
Office. Specific timetables and strategies are incorporated in
the individual programs' planning and review processes. Project
costs and results are generally discussed in specific program
work plans and in EPA/State grant agreements.
The Region IV Strategic Plan is not used to guide budget and
program decisions on a day-to-day basis. Rather, it serves as a
standard against which long-term program direction and progress
can be gauged during the review and planning process. Annual
program planning is generally conducted by review of the previous
year's accomplishments and identification of specific program
needs through comparison with guidance provided by the Strategic
Plan document itself.
16
-------
CHAPTER III
CHARACTERIZING THE RESOURCE AND PRIORITIZING ACTIONS
III. A. Resource Assessment
Ground water is used as a source of water by more than 31,000
public water supply facilities in EPA Region IV, and over 60% of
the combined population of Region IV states relies on ground
water for some or all of their drinking water (Figures III-l,
III-2). This points to the importance of resource assessment as
an element of the Region's "comprehensive" ground water
protection program. Region IV relies primarily on stateB and the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct large-scale aquifer and
ground water assessments. Many of the state projects are funded
by EPA. Impact assessments made by hydrologists and project
managers in the Regional Office are typically based on the
reports and accompanying hydrologic maps prepared as part of the
state- and USGS-conducted assessments.
Aquifer Mapping
The 1984 National Water Summary, published by USGS, provides
a summary description of the hydrogeologic framework for each of
the 50 states. Included with each state synopsis is a
hydrogeologic map delineating the principal aquifer systems
within that state. In 1990, USGS published the Ground Water
Atlas of the United States. Like the National Water Rnrnmary. the
Atlas provides information relating to the hydrogeologic
conditions for the major aquifers within a particular regional
area in the United States.
On a more localized scale, information submitted by
responsible parties under the requirements of the various
regulatory programs provides information relating to aquifer
stratigraphy and proximity of a particular site to public and
private .wells. This information is routinely used by_ Region IV
in guiding Agency decisions that affect specific sites under the
various regulatory programs.
Region IV's Ground Water Technology and Management Section
has participated in the EPA Headquarters-led development of the
Ground Water Resource Assessment Technical Assistance Document
that will be used by state ground water programs in assessing
their ground water resources in support of the development of
CSGWPPs. A draft of this document is currently under review.
Ground Water Classification
With the release of EPA's first Ground Water Protection
Strategy in 1984, a set of "ground water protection guidelines"
was developed to establish consistency in decision-making across
17
-------
Thousands
201
16.756
AL FL GA KY MS NC SC TN
from FRDS 1990
Figure III-l. Public Ground Water Supplied Facilities in
Region IV States.
18
-------
Surface Water 39%
Ground Water 61%
Figure III-2. Drinking Water Sources in Region IV,
Population.
19
-------
program lines. The guidelines are based on recognition of the
highest beneficial use or potential use for ground water
resources. Protection policies were defined for three categories
reflective of the value of the ground water and its vulnerability
to contamination. The three classes are:
Class I - Special Ground Water (i.e., irreplaceable sources
of drinking water)
Class II - Current and Potential Sources of Drinking Water
and Waters Having Other Beneficial Uses
Class III - Ground Waters Not Considered Potential Sources of
Drinking Water and of Limited Beneficial Use
In December 1986 the Agency expanded upon the classification
approach first presented in the 1984 Strategy by publishing a
draft document titled Guidelines for Ground Water Classification
under the EPA Ground Water Protection Strategy. The document
presents criteria used in classifying ground water according to
the scheme described in the Strategy. The classification scheme
is used in the establishment of appropriate levels of protection
and remediation goals by Region IV technical support staff and
project managers.
Geographic or Geological Targeting Initiatives and Syst^ma
As a result of EPA's agency-wide strategic planning effort,
former Administrator William Reilly designated South Florida as
the subject of a geographic targeting initiative. The decision
was prompted by recognition that South Florida's communities are
faced with a unique set of complex environmental issues that
affect the well-being of the public and the area's natural
resources. Most of the issues relate to agriculture, an
expanding population and associated land use, land conservation,
and the long-term protection of the sub-tropical landscape and
environment of the region. In 1992, Region IV completed a study
identifying the major environmental issues in South Florida.
From the study came EPA's recognition of the technical
feasibility of using the Upper Floridan Aquifer to store excess
wet-season streamflows for use during the dry season. Region IV
established the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Workgroup,
which also includes representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and state agencies that are involved in ground water
protection issues. The ASR Workgroup is focusing its efforts on
evaluating the potential uses of recovered water and identifying
regulatory obstacles to implementing such a program.
The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA) is another EPA
strategy designed to focus cooperative actions to solve specific
water quality problems, including those related to ground water.
It looks at all sources of pollution in a specific watershed, and
addresses identified sources through cross-program cooperative
20
-------
efforts of federal and state agencies, local governments, and the
private sector. Region IV's Watersheds Section is spearheading
efforts to carry out this approach for two (2) areas in the
southeastern United States:
Flint Creek Watershed (Alabama)
Savannah River Watershed (Georgia and South Carolina)
In addition to coordinating the WPA projects, the Watersheds
Section also encourages states to target geographic areas through
State Nonpoint Source (NPS) Assessment Reports. The targeted
areas are then given priority by Region IV in awarding NPS
grants. Through this process, the Region has been able to target
a portion of funds awarded under Section 319 of the Clean Water
Act toward activities addressing the karst aquifers around
Mammoth Cave, Kentucky, as well as areas:encompassing the most
vulnerable karst aquifers of Florida. The Ground Water
Technology and Management Section and the Pesticides Section
support grant activities for state ground water and agricultural
programs to develop GIS capabilities. Information is generally
used to identify ground water that is highly vulnerable to
contamination, including contamination caused by the application
of pesticides.
The Water Management Division has established a divisional
Watershed Protection Policy Committee to consider how the
Division will involve all water programs in watershed planning
and protection.
Wellhead Protection
The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
established the Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program to protect
ground water sources that serve public water supply systems.
Each state is required to develop and submit to EPA for approval
a program which describes the roles and responsibilities of
involved state and local agencies, methods for the delineation of
wellhead protection areas, approaches to inventorying and
managing sources of contamination, contingency plans, strategies
for managing new wells, and plans for public participation.
Administration of the Wellhead Protection Program in Region IV is
the responsibility of the Ground Water Technology and Management
Section.
In March 1992, Alabama's WHP Program became the first in
Region IV to be granted EPA approval. Approval of Programs for
South Carolina and Georgia followed in September 1992, and for
Kentucky and Mississippi in September 1993. Other Region IV
states have had draft WHP Programs reviewed by EPA. Revised
Program submittals from these states are expected during FY 94.
Each of the three Region IV states not yet granted EPA
approval for their WHP Programs (Florida, North Carolina,
21
-------
Tennessee) has initiated activities in support of Program
development. The Ground Water Technology and Management Section
awarded WHP demonstration project grants to 11 local governments
in seven (7) Region IV states during FY 91 and FY 92. These
projects were selected for funding, in part, on the basis of
their potential applicability across the Regionwith emphasis on
problems of special concern to the states in developing and
implementing WHP Programs. Several of these projects have been
completed, and several are still underway.
During FY 93 and FY 94, Region IV has continued with direct
assistance to local governments in support of WHP through the
Regional Minority Community WHP Initiative. Many rural
communities, including minority communities, are without
knowledge as to the vulnerability of ground water resources or
the threat posed to ground water supplies by incompatible land
uses in areas around public supply wells. Consequently, citizens
in these towns are at the greatest risk for contaminating their
own wells. Through the award of a grant to the City of
Keysville, Georgia, Region IV has initiated an effort to empower
rural minority communities with the ability to protect their
wells from contamination. When educated about the vulnerability
of their drinking water supplies and provided knowledge on how
threats to ground water can be minimized, the communities can
serve as models for other rural minority communities to follow in
establishing programs to protect their own wells from
contamination.
The Keysville Project showcases EPA Administrator Carol
Browner's priorities of pollution prevention and environmental
equity. It also demonstrates the application of a
"comprehensive" approach to ground water protection by linking
federal, state, and local government together in an effort to
protect a high priority resource area the area around the City
of Keysville's only source of drinking water, a single municipal
water supply well. Major objectives of the EPA grant project
are: (1) installation of a high-grade fence around the town's
well house and water storage tank; (2) delineation of wellhead
protection areas around the well; and (3) development of a WHP
educational program for the citizens of Keysville and nearby
rural communities.
Under an EPA Headquarters grant agreement with the National
Rural Water Association (NRWA), in FY 93 Region IV participated
in a series of workshops hosted by the Georgia Rural Water
Association for the purpose of providing training to small water
systems in establishing local ground water protection programs.
This support is continuing in FY 94 through similar involvement
with the Florida Rural Water Association and Kentucky Rural Water
Association.
22
-------
Sole Source Aquifer Designation
Major components of the Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) Program
were established under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act. This section authorizes EPA, on the Agency's initiative or
upon petition, to determine that an aquifer is the "sole or
principal source" of drinking water for an area. The program
also authorizes EPA to review federally funded projects planned
for a SSA area to determine the potential for contaminating the
aquifer and adversely affecting public health. Based on the
findings of EPA's review, no commitment of federal assistance may
be made for projects which EPA determines may contaminate a sole
source aquifer so as to create a significant'hazard to public
health, although federal funds may be used to modify projects to
ensure that they will not so contaminate such aquifers. The
Ground Water Technology and Management Section administers the
Sole Source Aquifer Program for Region IV.
As of December 1993, three (3) SSA areas have been designated
in Region IV. As shown in Figure II-3, they are as follows:
Biscayne Aquifer - Florida
Volusia-Floridan Aquifer - Florida
Southern Hills Aquifer System - Mississippi/Louisiana
(Region IV/Region VI)
No SSA designation petitions are currently under review in
Region IV. During FY 93, the Ground Water Technology and
Management Section reviewed 23 proposals for federally funded
projects in SSA areas. Total cost of the projects approximated
$37,000,000. Of the 23 proposals, 13 were approved without
modification. Approval of the remaining 10 proposals is pending
the submittal of additional information regarding potential
ground water impacts associated with the projects.
Ground Water Quality Assessments
Although a great deal of ground water quality monitoring is
presently being carried out within Region IV, most often this is
at industrial or commercial sites regulated under the CERCLA,
RCRA, UIC, and/or UST Programs. The Ground Water Technology Unit
of the Ground Water Technology and Management Section employs a
staff of eight "hydros" (hydrologists, environmental scientists,
and environmental engineers), two toxicologists, and one
ecologist who provide technical expertise to the various
regulatory programs in evaluating ground water quality impacts
and health hazards resulting from releases of chemicals to ground
water, as well as threats to ecosystems and human health posed by
the discharge of contaminated ground water into surface water
bodies. Monitoring of regulated sites often only provides
information relating to ground water quality in the uppermost
aquifer, and although background monitoring is generally required
under the ground water related regulatory programs, such
23
-------
Southern Hills
Regional Aquifer
Biscayne Aquifer
Figure III-3. Region IV Sole Source Aquifers.
24
-------
background data is not necessarily representative of ambient
ground water quality.
Drinking Water
EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water is developing
a ground water disinfection rule that will require public water
supply systems utilizing ground water to disinfect for certain
bacterial and viral contaminants. In developing this rule,
Region IV's Drinking Water Section is participating in a
nationwide hydrogeologic assessment that focuses on identifying
the occurrence of bacteria and viruses in water supply systems
(including those using ground water). Sites determined to be
potentially affected by the rule will be categorized according to
the findings of the "Virus Occurrence Study".
Pesticides
In January 1992, EPA completed a five-year, $12,000,000 study
to characterize the presence of pesticides and nitrate in
drinking water wells on a nationwide scale. The National
Pesticide Survey attempted to determine the relationship of
pesticide use and ground water vulnerability to the presence of
pesticides and nitrate in drinking water. To achieve this
objective, water samples from more than 1300 community water
systems and domestic wells were tested for the presence of 127
analytes. The Ground Water Protection Branch served as the lead
Region IV program office for the national Pesticide Survey.
Responsibilities of the Branch included participation in field
work and meetings, dissemination of Survey information and
reports, and coordination of the review of working documents by
appropriate program groups within the Regional Office.
Ground Water/Surface Water Interaction
Ground Water/Surface Water interaction is evaluated on a
project-specific level by individual regulatory program groups in
Region IV. Program groups generally coordinate with the Ground
Water Technology Unit of the Ground Water Technology and
Management Section on ground water/surface water quality issues.
Other activities focusing on ground water/surface water
interaction issues include state-conducted Nonpoint Source
Program projects that are funded by Region IV's Watersheds
Section. Also, the NPDES Permits Section regulates the discharge
of contaminated ground water into surface water and coordinates
with other programs on issues relating to the resulting impacts
on surface water quality.
Relationship of EPA Programs to Programs of USGS
In recent years EPA has become increasingly involved in
ground water resource evaluations. However, the Agency's primary
25
-------
responsibility with respect to ground water continues to be that
of protecting aquifers from man-made sources of contamination
through the implementation of regulations. U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) offices in the various states are responsible for
describing the geologic and hydrologic framework and evaluating
water quality in Region IV. Although BPA coordinates with USGS
on a variety of projects and often enters into agreements with
USGS that call for USGS to provide assistance to EPA or the
states in project-specific ground water related efforts, a
broader level of cooperation between the two agencies is needed.
III. B. Contaminant Source Identification
In October 1984, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)
released a report for the Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works entitled Protecting the Nation's Groundwater from
Contamination. OTA's report contained a generic list of 33
sources of actual or potential ground water contamination (Table
III-l). This list served as a focal point for hearings held by
the Senate Subcommittee on Toxic Substances and Environmental
Oversight in 1985. EPA's Office of Ground Water Protection
(OGWP) subsequently decided to compile an inventory of
Agency-wide involvement in activities that address the sources on
the OTA list, in order to respond to future Congressional
inquiries and to facilitate intra-Agency coordination on ground
water activities. Compilation of this inventory resulted in
OGWP's preparation of the document EPA Activities Related to
Sources of Ground Water Contamination, which was released in
February 1987.
The 1987 publication reports that most of the Agency's ground
water related activity is source-specific. At the time of
publication, EPA program offices had some level of activity for
25 of the 33 sources identified by OTA, as well as for nuclear
facilities and abandoned waste sites, which were not included on
the OTA list. The Agency's emphasis clearly was and continues to
be on waste management. Twenty three of the 35 OTA listed
sources are related to waste management, and as of 1987, EPA was
addressing 19 of them. Nine sources had no reported ground water
protection related activity as of 1987. These were:
1. material stock piles
2. graveyards
3. animal burial
4. animal feeding
5. percolation of atmospheric pollutants
6. other wells
7. ground water/surface water interaction
8. construction excavation
9. residential disposal
26
-------
Ciiiimi l-iป
Subaurfaet
Haadouii
Norvwaete (e^, enhanced recover* artificial
solution mining, and kvsitu mining)
land apdteatton
i irrigation)
r byproducts (eg, sludge)
Httadou weate
Norvhazaidoua waste
Cetegcir) ISources dulgnid to atom. keel
i el-
and drainage
Landftlla
Industrial hazardous watts
Industrial norvhaartous waste
Municipal sanitary
Open dumpe. including IBegal dumping
Residential (or local) disposal (westei
Surtaoe Impoundments
Hazardous waste
Norvhaardous waste
Waste tailings
Hazardous wests
Norvhazardous waste
Matertals stockpiles (norvwaste)
Qrawyards
Animal burial
Abowground storage tanks
Hazardous waete
Normaartous waste
Norvwaste
Underground storage tanks
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Containers
Hazardous waste
Non-hazaidous waste
NorHveete
Open burning and detonation Bites
fattoactto dttpottf HtN
^H||
Nonwaete
Materials tianeport
Hazantoua waste
Norvhazaidoua waste
Noivwasts
to retain
and tiauler operations
Category IVSources
wnaequawm d
Irrigation pcacticee (t^, return flow)
Fertilizer applications
Animal fsedlng operations
Oe^cing salts applications
Urban runoff
Percolation of atmospheric pollutants
Mining and mine drainage
Surface mine related
uncwQrouno nvnHwno
Category V^Soutom pravWnQ oowdylt of inducing
tlvOUCQOn MHI
OH (and gas) weds
Geothetmal and heat recovery wells
Water supply wells
Other wells (norvweste)
Monitoring wells
Exploration wells
Construction excavation
Category VI^HetureNy occmfcig eouroes arfiooo tfeohnQi
is cteated andtor esacertwted by human actwty
Groundwatersurface water interactions
Natural leaching
Salt-water intrusiorVbraekish water upconing (or intrusion of
other poor-quality natural water)
Source: Office of Technology Assessment, Protecting The Nation's
Groundwater From Contamination, October 1984.
Table III-l. Sources of Ground Water Contamination.
.27
-------
Specific sources of potential ground water pollutantB around
Region IV are defined and categorized through regulations
promulgated under the statutory authority granted to each
program. Inventorying of these sources is also on a
program-specific basis, and is commonly achieved through
compilation of information obtained from the regulated community
through reporting requirements, permit and compliance
information, etc. Informational files are updated continually as
required submittals are received by EPA from the regulated
community. Because the amount of information received from
regulated facilities is voluminous, and because the waste
management activities documented in report submittals to EPA are
often of a "time sensitive" nature, individual program groups
seldom attempt to quantify the total amount of a given type of
waste at all of the facilities that they regulate.
In order to continue assessing the quality of ground water in
Region IV states, and to estimate the effects of man's
activities, most EPA program groups maintain an inventory of
cases of ground water contamination in the Region that are known
to be caused, or could have been caused, by activities regulated
under that program.
III. C. Setting Priorities
Per the recommendations of EPA's New Ground Water Strategy,
the Agency will set priorities for preventive and remedial
actions according to risk. Beyond the strategic planning
initiatives discussed previously, Region IV currently prioritizes
ground water related activities on a program-specific level.
Program groups that are primarily involved in the direct
implementation of ground water regulations may have quantitative
schemes for prioritizing specific sites. Groups that are
primarily involved in state oversight, planning, administration,
or technical support have only broad priority areas and focus on
the most critical elements of the program. In all program
groups, highest priority is assigned to situations that present
an imminent threat to human health.
Superfund
As authorized by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), the Superfund
Program utilizes the National Priorities List (NPL) as its
primary tool in setting priorities for remedial action. The NPL
currently includes 154 sites in Region IV. The Site Assessment
Section, Waste Programs Branch, is responsible for assessing
sites to determine if they meet criteria necessary to be placed
on the NPL. A score is computed for each site assessed using the
Hazard Ranking System (HRS). The HRS score must be above 28.5 in
order to propose a site to the NPL. The HRS is a mathematical
model that evaluates four pathways of exposure: ground water,
28
-------
surface water, air, and soil. The model considers all available
data about ground water usage within a four mile radius of a
site.
Clearly, ground water quality is but one piece of the
Superfund assessment and remediation process, and not all sites
with ground water contamination are proposed-for the NPL. Those
sites scoring below 28.5 are designated Site Evaluation
Accomplished and referred to the appropriate state for further
action. NPL sites in Region IV are further prioritized by either
the North Superfund Remedial Branch, South Superfund Remedial
Branch, or the Federal Facilities Branch, with the "worst" sites
being addressed first. For federal facilities (e.g., DOD and DOE
installations), the entire facility is typically placed on the
NPL. Since most of these federal facilities have numerous known
or potential releases of hazardous substances, a second round of
prioritization occurs internal to a single facility (i.e., sites
within the facility are prioritized for investigation and
cleanup). This internal NPL site prioritization is typically
based on a semi-quantitative determination of the level of threat
to human health and the environment.
An NPL site's ground water prioritization depends on the
classification of the aquifer underlying the site per EPA's 1984
"Ground Water Protection Strategy," which considers the use and
value of the resource in categorizing ground water. The
Superfund Program relies on the Ground Water Technology Unit for
assigning an appropriate classification on a case-by-case, site
specific basis in conjunction with site reviews. The assigned
classification determines the clean-up goal and remediation
alternatives that are considered for the site.
RCRA
Priorities are established in the RCRA Program through the
RCRA statute, regulations promulgated under the law, and through
policy statements. Subtitle C of the RCRA statute establishes a
program to manage hazardous waste from "cradle-to-grave". The
objective of the Subtitle C Program is to ensure that hazardous
waste is handled in a manner that protects human health and the
environment. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA) significantly expanded the scope of RCRA in the area of
ground water protection by addressing three program priorities.
First, HSWA requires waste generators to certify that they have
taken steps to reduce the volume of hazardous waste they
generate. Second, HSWA established the land disposal
restrictions, banning certain wastes from land disposal. HSWA
also requires facilities to take corrective action for any
release of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents into the
environment. The 1984 HSWA Amendments set strict deadlines, or
"hammer dates" for the implementation of many of these new
requirements.
29
-------
The RCRA regulations are the legal mechanism that defines how
the statute's broad policy directives are to be implemented. In
essence, these regulations codify the goals and priorities (e.g.,
waste minimization, land disposal restrictions, and corrective
action) established in the statute.
Beyond those priorities identified in the statute and
specified in the regulations, policy statements identify RCRA
priorities on an annual basis. Policy is generally established
by EPA Headquarters, but Regions are given latitude in selecting
actual sites at which to implement the policies. An example of a
recent Headquarters policy effort is the Stabilization
Initiative. Under this initiative, RCRA C facilities were first
ranked using the National Corrective Action Prioritization
Systems (NCAPS). Using the NCAPS, facilities were evaluated as
to their impact on ground water, surface water, air, and soil.
For the ground water evaluation, factors such as depth to
aquifer, net precipitation, waste characteristics (including
toxicity), and distance to nearest drinking water well were
considered. Facilities were placed into high, medium, and low
priority groups. High priority facilities were considered for
stabilization. Stabilization can be defined as "source control
and prevention of further spreading of contamination". The idea
is to address exposure quickly, before a final corrective measure
is developed and implemented. EPA Headquarters tracks the
Region's progress on this and other RCRA policy initiatives using
STARS.
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
Because of a lack of federal resources, the magnitude of the
UST problem, and the fact that program success depends on the
states' commitment, Region IV's UST program group has identified
three broad priority areas: (1) state program development, (2)
leak detection, and (3) corrective action. These priority areas
emphasize the importance of ensuring proper tank installation and
maintenance, proper tank closures, finding and correcting leaks,
and the cleanup of existing leaks. Hence, they reflect both
preventive and remedial approaches to ground water protection.
Some state programs supported through grants administered by
Region IV's UST Section target leak detection inspections toward
facilities that could directly impact drinking water supplies.
Other states have focused UST inspection activities on identified
aquifer recharge areas. Each state has its own priority system
for state-lead cleanups of UST sites. Highest priority is given
to cleaning up sites which impact drinking water. Removal of
free product is also a high priority since prompt removal can
drastically reduce ultimate cleanup costs.
ซ Underground Injection Control (UIC)
The UIC Section in Region IV emphasizes a preventive approach
to ground water protection by focusing permitting, compliance and
30
-------
enforcement efforts on mechanical integrity and other operating
requirements which ensure that injection wells are being
constructed, operated, and plugged in a manner that protects
underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from contamination.
Violations are prioritized according to a qualitative evaluation
of risk posed to human health and the environment, and these
violations are addressed through enforcement actions. Water
supply wells in areas suspected to be contaminated through UIC
activities are inventoried and sampled.
Pesticides
Priorities for prevention of ground water pollution caused
by pesticides are set under two principles presented in the
Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy, which was released by EPA
in October 1991. The principles are as follows:
1. Ground water should be protected to ensure that the
nation's currently used and reasonably expected
drinking water supplies, both public and private, do
not present adverse health risks and are preserved for
present and future generations.
2. Ground water should be protected to ensure that ground
water that is closely hydrologically connected to
surface waters does not interfere with the attainment
of surface water quality standards, which are designed
to protect the integrity of associated ecosystems.
An integral part of the Pesticides Strategy is a call for
states to develop State Pesticide Management Plans. These
Management Plans are to set priorities that are at least as
protective as those in EPA's Strategy. Identified state
priorities are examined by Region IV staff as part.of EPA's
State Management Plan review process. Priorities for
remediation of ground water contamination caused by pesticide
use are to be set by those agencies responsible for
remediation. Region IV's Pesticides Section encourages states
to share information found during monitoring projects. If a
site is found to be contaminated, the State's pesticide office
works with the state agency responsible for remediation to
ensure that appropriate clean-up action is taken.
Region IV states vary regarding the hydrological and
agricultural data available for assessing the vulnerability of
ground water to contamination by pesticides. Geographic
Information System (GIS) technology is being used by some
states to analyze available data for vulnerability assessment
and program planning. All Region IV states have developed
draft generic State Management Plans for pesticides using the
data available to them. The Pesticides Section in Region IV
reviews these plans upon their submittal to evaluate their
completeness and adequacy for ground water protection. The
31
-------
Pesticides Section also works with the states to encourage and
ensure the further development of vulnerability assessment data
and analytical capabilities.
Nonpoint Source (NPS)
Water resources (including ground water resources) are
prioritized for activities supported by the Region IV'8 MPS
Program through state-developed MPS Assessment Reports and MPS
Management Programs. Each EPA-approved management program
outlines a methodology that is used by the State in
prioritizing watersheds for study and cleanup. These
prioritization schemes are based on the documentation of cases
of NPS pollution within given watersheds. The prioritization
process may include both the need to protect unimpaired waters,
as well as restore impaired waters (prevention and remediation).
Under the guidance of Region IV's NPS Program, each'state has
developed an activities priority list that is included in its NPS
Management Program. Ground water resources are included on
several of these lists. Other NPS Program priorities, Buch as
the targeting of 10 percent of each state's grant toward ground
water related projects, are set by EPA Headquarters and the
Regional Office.
Watersheds
The Water Management Division has established a multi-program
Watersheds Protection Policy Committee to explore the issue of
better integrating the Watershed Protection Approach (WPA) in the
Division's programs. Although just initiated, this effort is
evidence of the importance and role the WPA approach will have in
priority setting.
III. D. Data Sources and Coordination
Region IV does not utilize a ground water data collection
network coordinated across program lines. The Region's data
collection efforts focus primarily on obtaining site-specific
hydrogeologic information (i.e., monitoring well specifications,
sampling data, hydraulic parameters, ground water flow paths) in
association with specific contamination investigations. Specific
monitoring requirements are different for each program group
within the Regional Office, and most groups maintain their own,
independently operated data base. The Region, for the moBt part,
relies on self-monitoring from owners/operators of industrial
facilities and potentially responsible parties, but under the
authority granted to the various programs, reserves the right to
collect samples at any time.
Although the Office of Integrated Environmental Analysis does
employ GIS to integrate data and information, the Region's GIS
has not been developed to a point where cross-program ground
32
-------
water data sharing can regularly take place though use of this
technology. The power of GIS is its ability to take a great
amount of information, condense it into an easily-accessible
computer data set, which facilitates simplified retrieval of the
data (or subsets of the data) for focused evaluations based on
the data sets of interest. When high-quality information is
provided through spatial analyses and displays, it helps foster
independent assessments of complex environmental issues. The
Region hopes to eventually use this powerful tool at every
appropriate opportunity to analyze information and data in order
to make better environmental decisions related to ground water
protection across program lines. Presently, data sharing is
generally limited to situations when one program specifically
requests information from another program. Most often, data is
provided to the requestor in hardcopy form.
Superfund
The Site Assessment Section, Waste Programs Branch, uses a
systematic approach to evaluating a hazardous waste site. Under
the "umbrella" of the program, either the states (via their
cooperative agreement with EPA), or an EPA contractor may
evaluate a site. The process consists of a Preliminary
Assessment (PA), Site Inspection (SI), and if necessary, an HRS
Package to be used for proposing a site to the NPL. The PA
generally consists of gathering existing site data, and is of
limited scope. An SI is a more comprehensive evaluation that
usually involves the collection of field samples. In general,
the purpose of the SI is to document site contamination, while
site characterization is reserved for the Superfund Remedial
Branch if and when a site is placed on the NPL. Accordingly, the
SI usually involves the collection of an adequate number of
samples (10-15) to determine background conditions and the
presence or absence of on-site contamination. An attempt is
almost always made to sample ground water, unless the preliminary
HRS score warrants its exclusion.
The minimum data collected for PAs and Sis is detailed in
each Statement of Work. In addition, the PAs and Sis performed
by Region IV's Site Assessment Section are tracked on the
Superfund data base CERCLIS. Currently, CERCLIS tracks such
management criteria as event qualifiers, dates of completion,
etc., and is available upon request by all EPA programs. There
is no automated system for tracking ground water sampling data
collected by the Site Assessment Section.
The North and South Remedial Branches may obtain data on an
NPL site through an Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
contractor, or it may use EPA's "in-house" Environmental Services
Division% Often, the Branch requires a Potentially Responsible
Party to collect and analyze samples from a site. Very few NPL
sites are "state-lead".
33
-------
The Federal Facilities Branch requires the lead agency (i.e.,
the regulated federal facility or regulated federal agency) for
CERCLA response actions to collect data regarding ground water
contamination. Typical enforcement vehicles used by Region IV's
Federal Facilities Branch to ensure collection of ground water
data include Federal Facility Agreements (FFAs) under ง120 of
CERCLA, and administrative orders on consent pursuant to $106 of
CERCLA. Typically, the FFAs require the lead agency to develop
data management plans that establish consistent reporting
formats. The Federal Facilities Branch is coordinating with the
Office of Integrated Environmental Analysis to evaluate some
pilot sites utilizing a standardized data reporting format and
GIS. Although ground water data is not retained in the Superfund
CERCLIS database tracking system, CERCLIS is used to monitor
progress in characterizing and remediating sites which may
include ground water remediation activities.
RCRA
The RCRA Program only addresses the ground water quality
directly beneath the site of a Treatment/Storage/Disposal
Facility (TSDF) and any ground water adjacent to the site that
has been impacted by releases from the TSDF. Ground water data
is collected at RCRA Subtitle C facilities in accordance with
Subpart F of 40 CFR ง264. Two programs have been established
under the Subpart F requirements, one for "regulated units" and
one for "solid waste management units" (SWMUs). Regulated units
that are still operating or that have closed with hazardous waste
in place are required to have permanent ground water monitoring
wells installed and used for sampling to assure that the unit is
not contaminating ground water. Analysis may be required for
only "indicator parameters" or for some or all hazardous
constituents (40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VIII). Prior to being
permitted, a RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) is conducted at all
TSDFs. The purpose of the RFA is to identify SWMUs which may
have a potential to release hazardous constituents to surrounding
environmental media, including ground water. This information is
used to rank the facilities under the National Corrective Action
Prioritization System (NCAPS). These rankings are based on
several factors, including the toxicity/mobility of the
contaminants, the vulnerability of the aquifer and the proximity
of potentially exposed populations. Information regarding RCRA
sites, including their NCAPS ranking and other project tracking
information is available to all EPA program groups on RCRA's
RCRIS database. Although ground water data is not retained in
RCRIS, RCRIS is used as a tracking mechanism to monitor progress
made in characterizing and remediating sites, including those
where ground water contamination exists.
The Federal Facilities Branch requires federal facilities
subject to SWMU corrective action requirements under permits
issued pursuant to Section 3004(u) of RCRA to collect ground
water data and remediate ground water contamination.
34
-------
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
The UST Program in the Region IV office does net maintain a
site-specific ground water database. Ground water quality data
is used and the present and future use of an aquifer is
considered by the state UST program group (in accordance with the
state classification system and state ground water policies) when
determining appropriate corrective action technologies and ground
water cleanup level goals. Once cleanup levels are met at a
site, ground water is monitored to ensure that no further action
is necessary. All information pertaining to corrective actions
at contaminated sites is kept on file in the state offices. This
information includes analytical data, as well a3 non-parametric
data such as identification of the contaminant source and
tracking data for each phase of abatement and cleanup. In
addition, each state maintains a database of all underground
storage tank systems governed by the UST regulations. This data
base identifies the locations of the tanks, the ages and
materials used to construct the tanks, compliance status, and
type of leak detection being used. Florida and Alabama are
including latitude and longitude data in locating their tanks,
which provides important and useful information for other EPA
program groups.
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
The UIC Program in Region IV usually requires ground water
monitoring for operators of injection wells in areas of known
contamination and in areas where contamination is suspected.
Unique sources of drinking water such as springs are often
monitored as a requirement of injection well permits. Operator
files and permit files contain all relevant data concerning well
construction, operating procedures, monitoring data, geologic and
hydrologic data, etc. Data is available to other EPA programs.
Drinking Water o
Region IV's Drinking Water Section requires all public water
systems to monitor for the following categories of contaminants:
1. Microbiological (Bacteria)
2. Volatile Organic Compounds
3. Synthetic Organic Compounds
4. Inorganic
5. Radiological
6. Turbidity
7. Lead and Copper
Each state maintains copies of these analytical results, and
the Drinking Water Section in Region IV maintains an automated
database that identifies instances of violations for any of the
contaminants. The sampling data records are available for use by
any EPA program.
35
-------
Pesticides
While actual data generating activities related to ground
water are not undertaken by the Pesticides Program, this group
does support monitoring activities by the states. Most states in
Region IV have established programs to analyze drinking water
well samples for pesticides and nitrates. This is of extreme
importance since many regulatory programs involved in ground
water monitoring activities do not require analysis for
pesticides.
Under the State Management Plan approach, states are required
to keep monitoring data records for four years. Any significant
findings are reported to the regional EPA Pesticides Office as
soon as an investigation shows such findings are found to be
"significant". "Significant" findings include, but are not
limited to, those that prompt a state to increase its degree of
oversight of use of a particular pesticide or modify the State
Management Plan. Under an approach outlined in the Pesticides
and Ground Water Strategy, states report annually to EPA the
number of samples analyzed, detections noted, and enforcement
actions taken. This data is available to other EPA programs.
In addition to data collected from monitoring activities, states
can obtain monitoring data that EPA or other states have required
as a condition of pesticide registration, or from other
regulatory programs and private efforts. Under FY 93 EPA grants,
state Pesticide Programs were encouraged to use EPA's "Minimum
Set of Data Elements" in their ground water data collection
efforts.
NPDES
While the NPDES permit program regulates only discharges to
surface water, the Permits/Compliance System database does
contain information relevant to ground water. Any Florida NPDES
permittee using deep well injection is coded into PCS so the
injection can be inventoried.
Nonpoint Source (NPS)
Region IV's NPS Program does not actively maintain a ground
water database. However, water quality data, including ground
water quality data, is collected in conjunction with projects
funded by this EPA program. An EPA-approved QA/QC plan is
required for all monitoring data collected under a NPS project
funded by Region IV. Upon submittal, final NPS project reports
are distributed to appropriate EPA program groups.
III. E. Use of Data in Program Decisions
Ground water data collected by the various Region IV program
groups often serve as the basis for making decisions regarding
36
-------
inspections, permits, enforcement actions, and contaminant
control strategies.
Superfund
Data collected through a Preliminary Assessment (PA) and Site
Inspection (SI) is used by the Region IV Site Assessment Section
to calculate each HRS score under the Superfund Program. The HRS
score is the sole criteria for determining a site's eligibility
for the NPL. The North and South Remedial Branches use collected
data to prepare a site's Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS). The RI essentially compiles data collected on a site
through the PA and SI processes, and involves the collection of
additional data to allow for a thorough site characterization.
The FS presents the cleanup options available, and the
feasibility of each option. The RI/FS is eventually used to
prepare the Record of Decision (ROD), wherein the cleanup method
chosen is documented.
The Federal Facilities Branch conducts oversight of federal
facilities collecting data for the RI/FS and for selection of
remedies. In the event that an agreement on selection of the
remedy can not be made between EPA and the regulated federal
facility, remedy selection is made by EPA.
o RCRA
The RCRA regulated unit ground water evaluation methodology
is established under 40 CFR $264 Subpart F. Initial ground water
monitoring conducted under the authority of RCRA is termed
"detection monitoring". In detection monitoring ground water
samples are analyzed for indicator parameters. Although these
parameters are not specific contaminants, they are sensitive
indicators that can signal when ground water contaminants may be
present. Statistically significant changes in any indicator
parameter requires that the detection monitoring program be
expanded to analyze for specific contaminants that may be
present. If individual contaminants are detected then an
expanded sampling program is required to define the full scope
and extent of any ground water contamination that exists. This
expanded sampling program generally must determine all the
hazardous constituents (40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VIII) that are
present, the range of concentration of each contaminant and the
vertical and horizontal extent of contamination within the
aquifer (i.e., delineate the plume). If the contamination
exceeds EPA Drinking Water Standards such as Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs), then the owner/operator is required to implement a
ground water remediation program to reduce the contamination to
levels that meet the drinking water standards. For those
hazardous constituents that do not have a specified drinking
water standard, the cleanup goal will be a background level.
37
-------
ง264.101 of 40 CFR Subpart F establishes the corrective
action program for releases of hazardous constituents from SWMUs.
Currently, this program is based on guidance and policy, although
draft regulations have been developed to provide a specific
methodology for characterizing the nature and extent of
contamination resulting from SWMU releases, as well a8 for the
selection of appropriate corrective actions. Region IV'8 Federal
Facilities Branch conducts oversight of this portion of the RCRA
corrective action program for regulated federal facilities.
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
Ground water monitoring data is used by state UST Programs to
determine the effectiveness of corrective action and to determine
when cleanup is complete. Soil permeability data along with
aquifer characteristics dictate corrective action technologies
selected at individual sites. Ground water resource data is also
used to target leak detection initiatives. Soil characteristics
and depth to ground water are used to determine the applicability
of certain leak detection methods. Most ground water data are
collected for individual site remediations and are not currently
being used by other EPA program groups.
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
The UIC staff attempts to make an inspection of all injection
wells at least once every two years. Violations of UIC jrules and
regulations are revealed through data gathered during the
inspections, from file reviews, and through reports of ground
water contamination received from concerned citizens. In
consideration of available relevant data (well construction
details, operating procedures, monitoring data, geologic and
hydrologic data, etc.), violations are categorized as
"significant" or "non-significant" and addressed by an
appropriate EPA enforcement action.
Drinking Water
The Drinking Water Section uses monitoring data as evidence
in enforcement actions, to evaluate monitoring waiver requests,
and to provide a characterization of each public water supply
source. As mentioned previously, microbiological data is
presently being collected under the Virus Occurrence Study, which
is designed to predict possible water sources contaminated by
viruses. Results of the study will aid in the development of a
proposed drinking water disinfection rule. The rule will require
certain public water systems utilizing ground water to disinfect
for viruses.
Pesticides
Within the Pesticides Program, ground water data submitted
under each State Management Plan is reviewed by Region IV. The
38
-------
Management Plans are evaluated to see that inspection targeting
schemes, permitting systems, and use restrictions are appropriate
for a state's identified problem areas.
Nonpoint Source (NPS)
Targeting of watersheds under Region IV's NPS Program is
accomplished through analysis of existing water quality data.
Additional water quality data are collected to further establish
the severity of an identified problem and to track improvements
in water quality. Data is also collected and used by the NPS
Program to evaluate the effectiveness of Best Management
Practices that are recommended for program implementation in
states. Since the NPS Program is non-regulatory at the federal
level, Region IV relies on states to take regulatory action when
necessary. Grant money awarded by Region IV is often used as
leverage in directing states and other federal agencies to target
NPS activities toward EPA-priority watersheds.
39
-------
CHAPTER IV
DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING CONTROL AND REMEDIATION PROGRAMS
IV. A. Source Reduction
Region IV's Planning and Pollution Prevention Section is
charged with administering pollution prevention programs that are
consistent with national pollution prevention policies,
strategies, and goals that are established by EPA Headquarters'
Office of Pollution Prevention. EPA's Administrator Carol
Browner issued a Pollution Prevention Policy Statement in June
1993, calling it the "new environmental ethic". The
Administrator's policy gives new direction for environmental
protection. The summary of the objectives states that pollution
prevention is influenced by a number of factors, including EPA
regulations and state programs, collaborative efforts that offer
recognition and technical assistance, public data, the
availability of clean technologies, and the practices and
policies of large public agencies. To be more effective, our
pollution prevention program must establish objectives in the
following six areas:
Regulations and Compliance. The mainstream activities at
EPA, such as regulatory development, permitting, inspections,
and enforcement, must reflect our commitment to reduce
pollution at the source, and minimize the cross-media
transfer of waste.
State and Local Partnerships. Increasingly, state and local
agencies are the "face of government" for the general public.
We will strengthen the national network of state and local
prevention programs, and seek to integrate prevention into
state and local regulatory, permitting, and inspection
programs supported with federal funds.
Private Partnerships. We will identify and pioneer new
cooperative efforts that emphasize multi-media prevention
strategies, reinforce the mutual goals of economic and
environmental well-being, and represent new models for
government/private sector interaction.
Public Information/The Right-to-Know. We will collect and
share useful information that helps identify pollution
prevention opportunities, measure progress, and recognize
success.
Technological Innovation. We will try to meet high priority
needs for new pollution prevention technologies that increase
competitiveness and enhance environmental stewardship through
partnerships with other federal agencies, universities,
states, and the private sector.
40
-------
New Legislation. Where justified, we must not hesitate to
seek changes in federal environmental law that will encourage
investment in source reduction.
The Southeast Waste Reduction Resource Center is one of the
prime showpieces of the aggressive pollution prevention
activities going on in the southeastern states and is supported
by EPA Region IV's Planning and Pollution Prevention Section, the
State of North Carolina, and the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA). Located in Raleigh, North Carolina, the Resource Center
functions as an information clearinghouse, with a library of over
5,000 pollution prevention publications and a staff of engineers
and scientists trained in waste reduction who are ready and
willing to "brainstorm" with company officials looking for
solutions to their waste problems. The Center has provided "jump
starts" for a number of state pollution prevention programs by
means of its "Core Reference Library," which consists of the
basic documents needed to undertake a waste reduction technical
assistance program, as well as copies of bibliographies outlining
available resource documents. In response to popular demand, the
Center is hoping to enlarge its activities to conduct more
on-site work with state programs, supply training to regulators,
and expand its holdings of publications.
The Planning and Pollution Prevention Section, together with
TVA and the Region IV states, has also put in place a program
which uses part-time retirees to offer technical assistance to
industries. Each of the Region IV states utilizes retired
engineers in varying numbers to provide pollution prevention
technical assistance for businesses in their state. Region IV
has established a database that includes each retiree's area of
expertise. By accessing the Region's database, states can
utilize each other's resources when their own staff is missing a
particular specialty. Retirees selected for the program have
industrial work experience in the type of industries that the
State and Regional Office have selected as priorities. They have
been trained to conduct pollution prevention opportunity
assessments, and are familiar with various source reduction and
recycling techniques and technologies. In a number of locations,
retired engineers are now working on-site at industrial plants
and businesses conducting waste reduction audits and helping to
identify pollution prevention opportunities.
Regulatory mechanisms are also in place to aid Region IV's
waste minimization/pollution prevention efforts. Under the
authority of RCRA, large quantity generators of hazardous waste
and hazardous waste Treatment/Storage/Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)
are required to have a program to minimize the volume and/or
toxicity of waste they generate. Permits issued for such
facilities generally include provisions which require the
permittee to certify, no less often than annually, that such a
program is in place and that the chosen method of treatment,
storage, or disposal is the most practicable method available
41
-------
which minimizes the present and future threat to human health and
the environment.
IV. B. Siting Criteria
EPA's land use restrictions are implemented in Region IV
through administration of separate programs, -both regulatory, and
non-regulatory.
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Under the authority of Subtitle D of RCRA, on October 9,
1991, EPA promulgated regulations that established siting,
design, and operational standards for municipal solid waste
landfills (40 CFR Part 258). The Solid Waste Disposal Facility
Criteria rule, which went into effect October 9, 1993, applies to
new, existing, and lateral expansions of municipal solid waste
landfills (MSWLFs) that receive household waste on or after
October 9, 1993. The location provisions presented in the rule
are intended to prevent or restrict the siting of MSWLFs in areas
that are especially vulnerable to ground water contamination.
The location criteria restrict the siting of MSWLFs near
airports, in 100-year floodplains, in wetlands, in seismic impact
zones and "unstable areas", and around active fault zones.
Although none of the location restrictions included in the rule
specifically addresses ground water, the schedule for owners and
operators to have ground water monitoring systems in place for
existing MSWLF units and lateral expansions is dependent upon the
location of the landfill with respect to the nearest drinking
water intake. The schedule is as follows:
Distance from Unit to Nearest
Drinking Water Intake (Surface
or Subsurface)
Less than 1 Mile
1 -2 Miles
Greater than 2 Miles
Date MSWLF Unit Must
be in Compliance with
Applicable Ground Water
Monitoring Requirements
October 9, 1994
October 9, 1995
October 9, 1996
The new solid waste rule is self-implementing. The Office of
Municipal Solid Waste in Region IV is responsible for reviewing
and approving/disapproving municipal solid waste landfill permit
programs developed by the states. The siting criteria
established in 40 CFR Part 258 serve as minimum requirements for
the state MSWLF permit programs. States must demonstrate that
their regulations are technically comparable to the federal
criteria. Region IV also considers it important for state MSWLF
permit programs to recognize that the requirements of a state's
42
-------
Wellhead Protection Program should be followed during the
landfill siting process. If a state's MSWLF permit program has
not received EPA approval by the effective date of the federal
criteria, owners and operators of MSWLFs in that state will be
responsible for meeting the federal standards, and enforcement of
the regulations will be accomplished via citizen actions (suits,
etc.). EPA has the authority to enforce the federal criteria in
states which are determined to have inadequate MSWLF permit
programs.
Hazardous Waste Treatment/Storage/Disposal Facilities
Currently, federal RCRA regulations prohibit the siting of a
new Treatment/Storage/Disposal Facility (TSDF) in a location
where flood or seismic events could affect a waste management
unit. Bulk liquid wastes are also prohibited from placement in
salt domes, salt beds, or underground mines or caves. Provisions
in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA (HSWA)
required EPA to further strengthen these location criteria. The
Agency is currently working on revising the regulations to
reflect the statutory directive. The federal location standards
have not yet been formally proposed.
Project managers in Region IV's RCRA program are not
routinely involved in enforcing the TSDF location restrictions.
All states within the Region have been delegated authority to
implement a base RCRA program that includes siting criteria
provisions. Since delegation of program authority is contingent
upon a state having regulations that are as stringent, or more
stringent than the federal regulations, it follows that siting
criteria established under each Region IV state RCRA program with
EPA-delegated authority are at least as stringent as the federal
standards. At least one Region IV state has developed more
stringent location standards under their state law. These
regulations address sole source aquifers and recharge areas as
well as wetlands and surface water bodies.
Public Drinking Water Systems Utilizing Ground Water
Region IV does not usually play an active management role in
any of the project-specific tasks associated with the various
local Wellhead Protection (WHP) Programs that are in place around
the Region. However, the state WHP Programs approved by Region
IV and the demonstration projects administered by Region IV's
Ground Water Technology and Management Section do provide states
and local governments an opportunity to further restrict certain
activities within delineated wellhead protection areas around
public water supply wells. Activity restrictions within wellhead
protection areas are often established through local ordinances
and other mechanisms that are outlined in guidance provided in
the state WHP Programs.
43
-------
Sole Source Aquifers
Any federally-funded project proposed for within one of the
three designated Sole Source Aquifers in Region IV is subject to
the Ground Water Technology and Management Section's review for a
determination of whether the project poses a threat of
contaminating the aquifer and adversely affecting public health.
If the project is judged to pose a significant threat, the Ground
Water Technology and Management Section will call for project
modification or the withholding of federal funds.
IV. C. Control and Remediation Programs
EPA Region IV uses several statutory authorities to control
sources of ground water contamination and remediate contaminated
ground water. These statutes contain both regulatory and
non-regulatory source control provisions, and most programs have
both a source control and remediation component.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA^
NEPA requires the development of Environmental Impact
Statements (EISs) or Environmental Assessments (EAs) for many
federal actions. In these documents, the lead agency must
examine potential environmental impacts (including ground water
impacts) of the proposed action as well as impacts associated
with reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. The NEPA
process can be used by the various federal agencies to develop
and promote guidelines for ground water protection on both a
programmatic and specific project basis. Since EPA has
responsibility to review and comment on other agencies'
environmental documents, the process offers EPA an opportunity to
work cooperatively with other agencies and assist them in the
development of these guidelines and provide input on ground water
protection issues related to specific projects. Hence, NEPA
offers EPA the ability to provide early input on ground water
protection strategies and reduce potential impacts related to
projects during the important planning and development stages of
each federal project.
Clean Water Act (CWA)
States have long been awarded grant funds by EPA under
Section 106 of the Clean Water Act to support their water quality
programs. In 1984 the 106 Program was expanded to include grant
funds to support the development of state ground water protection
programs that are primarily preventive in nature. The ground
water portion of the 106 grant is awarded annually to each state.
In the past, EPA has emphasized the need for states to use
the 106 ground water grant to conduct pollution control studies,
for surveillance and enforcement, public outreach (such as
44
-------
training and providing assistance to citizens), and long-term
planning. Program emphasis has now shifted to the development
of Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs)
that build upon existing ground water related programs. The
Region IV effort involves staff within the Ground Water
Technology and Management Section working with state 106 ground
water program staff in the development, review, approval, and
management of annual work plans.
Some states in Region IV continue to use a significant
portion of the 106 ground water grant to address sources of
contamination at sites and facilities.that do not fall under the
jurisdiction of any specific regulatory authority. Generally, a
broad provision of some state water quality statute prohibiting
any type of pollution of the State's waters provides the
necessary authority for states to do this. Also, industrial
facilities will sometimes conduct voluntary self-assessments and
monitoring programs. Review of ground water assessment reports,
corrective action proposals, and monitoring data submitted by
facilities that have had a release of chemicals from an
unregulated source represents the majority of work that state 106
ground water programs perform in this regard.
The Clean Water Act's Section 319 Nonpoint Source (NPS)
Program is a non-regulatory program with the overall goal of
controlling and abating nonpoint source pollution. In accordance
with Section 319, each Region IV state has developed a NPS
Assessment Report and Management Program to assess the impairment
of state waters due to NPS pollution, identify sources of
nonpoint pollution, and develop a state program to control and
abate NPS pollution. Region IV's NPS Program is administered by
the Watersheds Section. This group awards grants to support each
state's NPS Management Program.
Each Region IV state submits an annual NPS work plan to the
Watersheds Section for review and approval prior to receiving a
grant award. EPA uses the NPS Program as a tool to focus state's
efforts on established EPA priorities, to leverage other
agencies' monies in controlling NPS, and to implement
demonstration projects using NPS technologies. In recognition of
the importance of NPS pollution impacts on ground water, Region
IV has an established policy that least 10 percent of each
state's proposed NPS work activities should to be targeted toward
addressing the state's identified priority ground water/NPS
activities. Following submission, the Watersheds Section
distributes the work plans to other pertinent Region IV program
groups, including the Ground Water Technology and Management .
Section, for their input in the review and approval process. The
Watersheds Section uses comments from the other program groups to
evaluate and rate each state work plan. This rating procedure
determines which work plan project elements will be funded by
Region IV with Section 319 grants. The NPS Program monitors
progress through semi-annual reviews of each state's program and
45
-------
through evaluation of final reports for specific projects funded
by the Regional Office.
Also under the CWA, when a remediation project results in the
discharge of contaminated ground.water into surface water or a
municipal storm sewer system, an NPDES permit is required. To
expedite the process, Region IV's NPDES Permit Section issues a
general permit that allows for the discharge to be covered
through a permittee's submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to
discharge.
Safe Drinking Water Act fSDWA^
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 was enacted to
safeguard public drinking water supplies for human consumption.
The Act calls for EPA to meet this goal through the establishment
of drinking water standards, through the promulgation and
enforcement of regulations designed to control the underground
injection of waste, and through implementation of a program
designed to protect especially valuable aquifers (Sole Source
Aquifers) from contamination. The 1986 Amendments to the SDWA
added provisions requiring EPA to support states in the
development of Wellhead Protection Programs to protect ground
waters that supply wells and wellfields that contribute drinking
water to public water supply systems.
The Drinking Water Section administers Region IV's Public
Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) Program. The goal of the PWSS
Program is to ensure that a satisfactory quality and sufficient
quantity of water are available to all persons served by a public
water supply system within the Region. This is achieved by
ensuring that all community, non-community, and
non-transient/non-community water systems are in compliance with
both state and federal drinking water regulations. These
regulations require periodic inspection of treatment facilities
and monitoring of the. quality of water provided to customers.
Region IV's role in implementing the program is primarily one of
state oversight. The Drinking Water Section works with states to
ensure that new regulations are adopted and implemented in a
timely manner. Funds provided to the states through EPA grants
and state matching funds are used to address EPA priorities, as
established in the PWSS Fiscal Year Work Plan, and to comply with
the requirements of each EPA/State enforcement agreement.
In recognition of the need for a strong, effective
enforcement program at both the state and federal levels, the
Drinking Water Section continues to aggressively implement new
drinking water regulations, concentrating on the Surface Water
Treatment Rule, the Lead and Copper Rule, and the Phase II
(organic.and inorganic contaminants) Rule. Enforcement of new
regulations as they become effective will continue to be a high
priority. The Section provides rule interpretation and technical
assistance for the Surface Water Treatment Rule, Total Coliform
46
-------
Rule, Radionuclides Rule, Phase II and the Lead and Copper Rule,
while continuing to provide health advisories an promote water
treatment to reduce risks to human health from drinking water.
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program was also
created by EPA under authority provided in the SDWA of 1974. It
is intended to protect underground sources of drinking water
(USDWs) from contamination caused by injection activities. All
injection wells under the jurisdiction of the program are
required to be in compliance with the UIC rules and regulations.
The federal UIC regulations are contained in 40 CFR Parts 144
through 147. All aspects of injection activity (i.e., well
construction, operation, plugging, etc.) are regulated.
An underlying premise in UIC Program implementation is the
assumption that injectors in compliance with the regulations are
most likely not contaminating USDWs. Region IV's UIC Section
inspects all injectors at least once every two years and reviews
each injection well permit every 2 to 5 years. This assures
continued protection of the USDWs. The Section awards grant
funds to support state UIC Programs that show a need and desire
to develop and implement EPA-identified priorities. Grant funds
have typically been used by states to develop Best Management
Practices (BMPs), update regulations, and put into place
pollution prevention measures.
The UIC Section in Region IV measures progress toward
protection of USDWs from contamination as a result of injection
activities by tracking Agency enforcement actions, as well as by
tracking reported cases of ground water contamination resulting
from UlC-related activities.
Region IV's Sole Source Aquifer Program and Wellhead
Protection Program are both administered by the Ground Water
Technology and Management Section of the Ground Water Protection
Branch. Authority for creation of the programs is provided in
Sections 1424 and 1428 of the SDWA, respectively. Both programs
are described in Chapter II.
Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability
Act f CERCLA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA)
The Superfund Program, authorized by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
of 1980, was established to address the nation's abandoned
hazardous substance sites. The Program, with regulations
promulgated under Subpart E of the National Contingency Plan, is
charged with performing three primary taskss
1. Identify sites where releases of hazardous substances
have occurred or may occur in the future, and that pose a
serious threat to human health or the environment.
47
-------
2. Take actions to remediate the identified sites.
3. See that parties responsible for the releases pay for the
cleanup actions.
The overall aim of the Program is to get Potentially
Responsible Parties (including federal facilities) to clean up
sites under EPA oversight. However, CERCLA also provided EPA
with direct authority for cleanup and created a $1.6 billion
trust fund ("Superfund") to pay for government cleanups in
situations where PRPs are unwilling to perform the work. During
the five-year period of the original Superfund program, it became
clear that the problem of hazardous waste sites was more
extensive and complex than originally believed. The Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 increased the
Superfund from $1.6 billion to $8.5 billion. SARA also
established new standards and schedules for site cleanups.
For situations where PRPs refuse to pay for a site cleanup in
Region IV, the Cost Recovery Section will sue the PRP in an
attempt to recover costs. The National Priorities List (NPL) is
the primary administrative mechanism used by EPA to facilitate
remediation of abandoned hazardous waste sites. Currently, there
are about 150 NPL sites in Region IV. The Region's North
Superfund Remedial Branch and South Superfund Remedial Branch are
responsible for remediating those sites placed on the NPL.
The Emergency Response and Removal Branch (ERRB) is
responsible for addressing sites and/or situations that pose an
imminent threat to human health or the environment within Region
IV. ERRB does not address long-term remediation of ground water
contamination. However, in responding to emergency situations,
this group does identify sites for the Site Assessment Section
(SAS) to evaluate for potential listing on the NPL. Many sites
are referred to ERRB by SAS for removal actions that are
undertaken to prevent further ground water contamination from
occurring.
SARA Title III
SARA Title III, the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), was enacted to help
communities and industrial facilities prepare to respond in the
event of a chemical release emergency and to increase the
public's knowledge regarding the presence and threat of hazardous
chemicals. The SARA Title III (EPCRA) Program is administered by
EPA Headquarters under two different Assistant Administrators
(AAs): the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response directs
aspects of the program dealing with chemical emergency
preparedness-and prevention; the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances directs the part of the program
dealing with the toxic release inventory and pollution
prevention. Both of these offices are involved in the community
48
-------
right-to-know part of the program. In Region IV, the SARA Title
III (EPCRA) Program is administered by the Title III and Toxics
Section of the Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch.
- The SARA Title III (EPCRA) Program administers certain
aspects of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (particularly Section 112[r] regarding the
prevention of accidental releases), and the Hazardous Materials
Uniform Transportation Safety Act of 1990. The focus of SARA
Title III (EPCRA) is not limited to wastes. It also addresses
the presence or emission of hazardous substances that facilities
may manufacture, import, process, store, otherwise use, or emit.
Communities and industrial facilities prepare emergency response
plans that identify the sources of potential emergencies,
establish procedures for responding to emergencies, and designate
individuals to coordinate the emergency response.
SARA Title III (EPCRA) also requires facilities managing
hazardous chemicals to notify the appropriate state and local
authorities if releases of certain chemicals occur. Facilities
must compile certain information about hazardous substances they
have on site and the threat posed by those substances. Some of
the information must be provided to state and local authorities.
More specific data must be made available by the facilities upon
request from the state and local authorities, or upon request by
the general public.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA^
Three distinct yet interrelated programs exist under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The first
program, under Subtitle C of the Act, establishes a system for
controlling hazardous wastes from "cradle-to-grave." The second
program, under Subtitle D, calls for states to develop
comprehensive plans for managing primarily non-hazardous solid
wastes. Certain underground storage tanks (USTs) are regulated
under Subtitle I of RCRA. The UST Program of Subtitle I is the
only RCRA program not administered by Region IV's Waste
Management Division. Working on the premise that the effects of
leaking USTs generally only impact soil and ground water, senior
management within Region IV elected to house the UST Program
within the Ground Water Protection Branch of the Water Management
Division. In June 1989, the Ground Water Protection Branch and
the RCRA Branch developed a position paper to clarify
responsibilities of each program and to avoid potential overlap
of Subtitle C and Subtitle I requirements for USTs that contain
hazardous waste. Since the development of the position paper, .
there has been very little confusion between the two Branches in
this regard.
49
-------
Subtitle C
The initial regulations that allowed implementation of the
Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Program went into effect in November
1980. These regulations, administered by Region IV's RCRA
Permitting and Compliance Branch, established an environmental
regulatory program that applies to generators and transporters of
hazardous wastes as well as to those facilities that treat,
store, or dispose of hazardous waste.
With respect to ground water, there are.two main aspects of
the RCRA Hazardous Waste Program. They are: (1) clean up and
remediation required as a result of.past waste disposal
practices, and (2) protection of ground water from the effects of
current and future hazardous waste disposal activities.
Generators and transporters of hazardous waste are required to
clean up any spills or releases of hazardous wastes as they
occur, and they are required to remediate any contaminated soils
or ground water that result from such spills or releases. The
bulk of the ground water aspects of the Program, however, focus
on Treatment/Storage/Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) whose past waste
disposal practices have caused ground water contamination or
whose current management practices could potentially lead to
ground water contamination.
There are two categories of waste storage/disposal units at
TSDFs that have potential to contaminate ground water and are
subject to the requirements of the RCRA Hazardous Waste Program:
1. Regulated Units. These are units that were in existence
and were receiving and actively managing hazardous wastes
after July 26, 1982, or which did not begin managing
hazardous wastes until after July 26, 1982, when the
hazardous waste regulations regarding the operation of
regulated units went into effect. These units include
surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment units,
and landfills.
2. Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs). These are units
that have been used for the treatment, storage, or
disposal of waste at any time, irrespective of whether
the unit is or ever was intended for the management of
waste. RCRA regulated units are also SWMUs. SWMUs
include areas that have been contaminated by routine and
systematic releases of hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents, excluding one-time accidental spills that
are immediately remediated and cannot be linked to waste
management activities.
The original RCRA regulations only addressed regulated units.
However, the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to
RCRA required TSDFs to clean up releases of hazardous waste or
hazardous constituents that have come from any SWMUs.
50
-------
For regulated units, routine ground water monitoring is
required to assure that there has not been any ground water
contamination caused by releases from the unit. In designing a
ground water monitoring system, a TSDF is required to
characterize the hydrogeology beneath the site to assure that the
uppermost aquifer and direction of ground water flow are clearly
defined. New regulated units are also required to meet certain
design and construction standards that are intended to minimize
the potential for ground water contamination. These standards
include requirements for double liners and leak detection systems
for surface impoundments, waste piles, and landfills. In
addition, wastes that are placed in a land disposal unit must be
treated to the extent possible prior to land disposal for the
purposes, of minimizing the potential impacts of ground water
contamination resulting from the release of such wastes.
Owners/operators of TSDFs must conduct investigations for
SWMUs suspected of releasing hazardous constituents to determine
if such releases have caused ground water contamination. EPA
regulations for corrective action at SWMUs have not been
finalized; however, the clean up standards that will be applied
to ground water contaminated by release from SWMUs will be
similar to those standards established for.releases from
regulated units (MCLs or background levels, unless a less
stringent standard can be justified).
Subtitle D
Subtitle D of RCRA establishes a framework for federal,
state, and local government cooperation in managing nonhazardous
solid waste. Region IV's Office of Municipal Solid Waste guides
overall program direction for the states and local governments in
the Region primarily by providing technical assistance to the
states in their efforts to develop solid waste management plans.
A major component of the Subtitle D program is the "Criteria
for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
Practices" that are provided in 40 CFR Part 257. These criteria
are used to determine which solid waste disposal facilities and
practices (other than municipal solid waste landfills) pose a
reasonable probability of causing adverse effects on human health
and the environment. Facilities failing to satisfy the criteria
are considered open dumps for purposes of state solid waste
management planning. The criteria include general environmental
performance standards addressing eight major topics:
floodplains, endangered species, surface water, ground water,
land application, disease, air, and safety. The ground water
protection standards require that facility practices not result
in MCLs being exceeded in underground sources of drinking water
(USDW), beyond a solid waste unit boundary or .beyond. an
alternative boundary established by the State.
51
-------
The other main component of Subtitle D is the Solid Waste
Disposal Facility Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
(MSWLFs), which were promulgated under 40 CFR Part 258. These
criteria are designed to improve the safety of existing and
future MSWLFs which are used for the disposal of household waste.
The purpose is to protect the nation's ground water resource from
the effects of household waste disposal. The criteria contain
both design and performance standards and a wide range of
management practices aimed at preventing releases from MSWLFs.
In addition to new design standards, operational
requirements, and location standards, MSWLFs must also comply
with specific ground water monitoring and corrective action
provisions that are very similar to provisions that apply to
regulated units under Subtitle C.
Subtitle I
There are over 2 million Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
containing hazardous substances or petroleum products in the
United States. It is estimated that some 320,000 of these tanks
are located in the area encompassed by EPA Region IV. Over
100,000 confirmed leaks from USTs have been discovered
nationwide. To address the problem, in 1984 Congress added
Subtitle I to RCRA, requiring EPA to develop regulations to
remediate ground water contamination caused by these leaks and
prevent future leaks from occurring.
In 1988, technical and financial responsibility requirements
were promulgated in 40 CFR Part 280. Subpart B of 40 CFR Part
280 covers design, construction, installation, and notification
requirements. In order to reduce the number and severity of
future leaks, Subpart D includes leak detection requirements. A
schedule for owners/operators to comply with tank tightness
testing, line testing, and monthly monitoring requirements calls
for the oldest tanks to be in compliance first. Existing tanks
were required to have corrosion protection and spill
prevention/overflow measures in place by December 1988. Release
reporting and response, corrective action, and closure are
covered by Subparts E, F, and G, respectively. 40 CFR Part 280
also lists performance standards for new UST systems. State
program approval requirements are presented in 40 CFR Part 281.
Region IV's UST Section targets a significant level of effort
toward direct enforcement initiatives, but the Section is
primarily involved in state-oversight activities. The Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 provided $500
million for a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund.
Region IV uses EPA's LUST Trust Fund to support state efforts to
clean up old leaks in certain situations where..a responsible
party cannot be identified or is unable to proceed with the
cleanup.
52
-------
Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRiU
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), EPA's pre-eminent role with respect to ground water
protection is that of establishing a regulatory approach for
individual chemicals that may threaten ground water. This will
be accomplished through the use of: (1) data call-in measures
specifically pertaining to ground water; (2) registration data
review to determine leachability; (3) label restrictions based on
data review; (4) classification of certain pesticides as
"restricted use only"; (5) State Pesticide Management Plans, as
required for certain pesticides; and (6) cancellation and
suspension actions.
The Regional Offices' role in these actions is primarily
related to supporting the development of State Pesticide
Management Plans and enforcement programs that will be
implemented by the states. Region IV's Pesticides Section
operates its Pesticides and Ground Water Program under guidelines
provided in EPA's Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy, which was
published in October 1991. The Pesticides Strategy describes a
framework that EPA intends to use to address risks of ground
water contamination caused by pesticide use. It is designed in
accordance with the overall goals and principles presented in the
New Ground Water Strategy, which guide all of the Agency's
programs relating to ground water.
The goal of the Pesticide Strategy is to prevent
contamination of ground water resources resulting from the
normal, registered use of pesticides that present a risk of
adverse effects to human health and the environment, by taking
appropriate actions in areas that are vulnerable to
contamination. In order to accomplish this, the Strategy calls
for a significant new role for the states. It offers them the
opportunity to exercise primary responsibility for reducing the
risks of pesticide contamination by means of developing State
Pesticide Management Plans for pesticides of concern. Since the
goal of the Pesticide Strategy is prevention oriented, the
Regional Office will attempt to see that Management Plans focus
on strategies for preventing contamination from occurring rather
than on strategies for simply responding to contamination
incidents. This will be accomplished by regularly reviewing data
collected by state, federal, and local agencies. Since there is
little historical information available regarding the occurrence
of pesticides in ground water, it will take time to build enough
data to recognize significant ground water quality trends.
IV. D. Quality Standards
EPA has not formally adopted a set of ground water quality
standards that are applicable to all of the Agency's regulatory
programs. Most program groups within Region IV utilize Maximum
53
-------
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) and Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) set in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NPDWRs) as clean up goals for incidents of ground water
contamination.
The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
require EPA to publish MCLGs for contaminants which may have any
adverse effect on human health and which are known or anticipated
to occur in public water systems. MCLGs are set at levels which
present no anticipated adverse effects on human health and which
allow for an adequate margin of safety. At the same time EPA
publishes an MCLG, which is a non-enforceable health goal, it
must also promulgate a NPDWR (that is enforceable) which includes
either: (1) an MCL; or (2) a specific, required treatment
technique. A treatment technique may be set only if it is not
economically or technologically feasible to ascertain the level
of a contaminant in water. Due to analytical detection
limitations, sometimes it may be possible to ascertain the level
of a contaminant in water only when that contaminant is present
in concentrations at some level above an established MCLG. In
such cases, the MCL is set at a level higher than the MCLG (i.e.,
usually the analytical detection limit). The SDWA directs EPA to
set the MCL as close to the MCLG as "feasible".
Compounds for which MCLGs or MCLs do not exist are evaluated
on a case-by-case basis (site-by-site) basis within the
constraints of the applicable regulations, and in consideration
of the classification of the ground water beneath the site where
the contamination has occurred. The case-by-case evaluation
procedure may result in calculation of a health-based clean up
standard that is based on a 10~4 to 10"6 risk during a lifetime of
ingestion of the contaminated ground water as drinking water.
For ground water that is hydrologically connected to surface
water, ambient water quality criteria, which are based upon the
protection of aquatic life, are used as the clean-up goals. In
most situations where the contaminated ground water is
categorized as Class III Ground Water and is not considered
hydrologically connected to surface water. Region IV's Ground
Water Technology and Management Section recommends that no
federal clean up levels be set.
Some regulatory program groups in Region IV rely on some
variation of the above-outlined protocol in setting contamination
clean-up goals. Determinations as to whether contamination
exists at a site depend on procedures that differ widely from
program to program in Region IV.
Superfund
..Region. IV's Site Assessment Section does not.set its own
criteria for contamination standards. Generally, an observed
release to a given media, such as ground water, is said to occur
when a sample measurement of a contaminant is three times greater
54
-------
than the background level or, if a background concentration is
not detected, when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the
sample quantification limit. However, the Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) does consider health-based standards from other EPA
programs as a measure of risk in the computation of a site score.
These may include drinking water standards and ambient water
quality criteria. Generally, Level I Contamination is said to
occur with exposure above a given benchmark; Level II
Contamination is said to occur with exposure levels below the
benchmark; and Potential Contamination is said to occur when no
evidence of exposure exists.
In conducting remedial actions at National Priorities List
(NPL) sites, the North Superfund Remedial Branch, South Superfund
Remedial Branch, and Federal Facilities Branch are directed to
follow Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs), standards, criteria, and limitations under federal or
more stringent state environmental laws. If chemicals of concern
at an NPL site do not have established ARARs (which may include
MCLs), then Region IV attempts to set specific quantitative
clean-up levels that are based on acceptable levels of risk.
RCRA
The objective of the RCRA compliance monitoring program is to
evaluate the concentration of certain hazardous constituents in
ground water to determine whether ground water contamination is
occurring at a level requiring corrective action. Appendix IX of
40 CFR Part 264 lists those constituents that could originate
from a regulated unit at a Treatment/Storage/Disposal Facility
(TSDF). Owners/operators of TSDFs with land-based regulated
units must monitor for appropriate constituents. The relevant
ground water protection standards may be: (1) background levels;
(2) MCLs; or (3) site-specific, health- or ecologically-based
Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs) approved by the Regional
Administrator. If compliance monitoring indicates a
statistically significant increase over applicable standards,
then corrective action is required to bring the facility back
into compliance with the standards.
Compliance monitoring is not generally required for Solid
Waste Management Units (SWMUs) at RCRA TSDFs. However, the
clean-up standards that are applied to.ground water that is
contaminated by SWMUs are similar to those standards for releases
from regulated units (i.e., MCLs or background, unless a. less
stringent standard can be justified).
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
Under, the UST regulations, incidents of contamination are
most commonly first documented through monitoring of release
detection equipment rather than through chemical analysis of
ground water samples. Acceptable release detection methods for
55
-------
regulated tanks and piping include tightness testing,
interstitial monitoring, soil gas monitoring, and water table
monitoring. Release detection checks are required monthly.
When a leak or spill is confirmed from a UST system, an
investigation to determine the extent to which the release has
damaged the environment must be conducted. This generally
entails a determination as to whether free product is present on
the ground water, and if so, beginning free product removal.
Based on the results of the initial assessment, the appropriate
Region IV state UST program decides if long-term corrective
action is required.
Per 40 CFR Part 280.66, clean-up standards for releases from
USTs are determined by the states. Region IV has an opportunity
to influence the standards during the program review/approval
process. State health-based drinking water standards apply where
UST releases impact a drinking water source. In Region IV,
typical state clean-up standards for total petroleum hydrocarbons
are 100 ppm. Benzene clean-up standards are typically 5 ppb.
Some states set less stringent clean-up levels for situations
where the release is at considerable distance from a well or if
the release has impacted ground water of limited potential use as
a drinking water source. Once free product has been removed,
petroleum spills tend to naturally bioremediate with time. There
are approximately 55,000 confirmed releases in Region IV. Long-
term monitoring is being conducted by several states for low
priority sites, which are being allowed to naturally bioremediate
because they have been judged to not be impacting surface and
drinking water sources.
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
The UIC Section sets ground water monitoring requirements in
some injection well permits, in consideration of the nature of
the material to be injected. In general, Class I wells
(injection below the lowermost USDW) require installation of a
ground water monitoring system that allows for measurement of
levels of hazardous constituents of concern in wells both
upgradient and downgradient of the injection well. Artificial
increases of the chemicals of concern above background levels are
construed to signify the contamination of ground water. In areas
of Class II wells, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), chlorides, oil
and grease, and VOC measurements are required as "indicators" of
ground water contamination. More chemical-specific monitoring
may be required of the permittee if the indicator parameter
measurements show cause for concern. Fluids injected into Class
V wells must not contain chemicals in concentrations above
established MCLs. In overseeing remedial activities associated
with documented cases of ground water contamination, Region IV's
UIC Section enforces the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations.
56
-------
Drinking Water
There are two types of standards used by Region IV's Drinking
Water Section in administering the Public Water Supply
Supervision Program. As mentioned above, the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) contain standards (MCLs or
treatment techniques) that are health-based and enforceable. The
National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWRs) are based
on aesthetic quality and are not enforceable. MCLs are the
numbers against which water samples from public water supply
systems are judged for compliance with the regulations; hence,
MCLs serve as reference points for indicating when contamination
has occurred and when clean up has been achieved.
The treatment technique requirements of the NPDWRs specify a
treatment technique or techniques for each specific contaminant
which leads to a reduction in the level of such contaminant
sufficient to comply with 40 CFR Part 141. These treatment
technique requirements are set as an alternative to MCLs for
contaminants that, are difficult or costly to measure in water.
Typical treatments required by EPA to prevent health problems
from exposure to such contaminants include filtration or
corrosion control.
The NSDWRs include Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels
(SMCLs). A SMCL is "the maximum permissible level of a
contaminant in water which is delivered to the free-flowing
outlet of the ultimate user of a public water system."
Contaminants added to the water under circumstances controlled by
the user, except those resulting from corrosion of piping and
plumbing caused by detrimental water quality, are excluded from
the definition. Further, SMCLs are associated with the aesthetic
quality of the water (i.e., taste, odor, or color). Water with
contaminant levels above SMCLs may not be palatable, but if it is
free of other contaminants, it is potable and safe to drink.
Again, SMCLs represent guidelines and reasonable goals for
drinking water quality and are not enforceable. States may
establish higher or lower levels which may be appropriate
depending upon local conditions, such as the availability of
alternate sources of drinking water.
Pesticides
States are required to use either EPA-established reference
points or to set their own at levels at least as protective as
those established by EPA. MCLs set under the Safe Drinking Water
Act are used.when current
-------
approved health-based levels are recommended for use as reference
points.
With respect to prevention, states will use reference points
to define the point of failure of a particular management
strategy. Detections below a reference point should trigger an
evaluation of the existing prevention measure. A determination
may be made that more restrictive measures need to be implemented
to protect ground water from contamination as a result of the use
of a particular pesticide. Detections at or above a reference
point will indicate that the existing prevention measures have
not succeeded; hence, more stringent measures (i.e., permitting
or prohibition of the pesticide) may be necessary.
For purposes of remediation, state pesticide programs will
indicate to EPA the agency responsible for remediation in their
state and abide by the standards of that agency. Pesticides
program groups within each lead state agency will work with other
state agencies and federal agencies in coordinating enforcement
activities pertaining to the misuse of a pesticide, including
cases of illegal disposal, and leaks or spills.
Nonpoint Source (NPS)
EPA's Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program does not have numerical,
health-based standards established to govern program
implementation. The Watersheds Section in Region IV relies on
state-developed surface water quality standards to determine the
degree of watershed impairement or need for protection. The
state standards are developed and reviewed/approved by Region
IV's Water Quality Standards Section.
58
-------
CHAPTER V
DEFINING ROLES WITHIN REGION IV AND THE REGION'S
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS, AND STATES
V. A. Internal Region IV Coordination
Region IV's three-tiered approach to implementing the New
Ground Water Strategy within the Regional Office offers an
institutional mechanism for cross-program communication on ground
water issues. Serving as the top tier and offering "buy-in" to
this approach is the Ground Water Coordinating Committee, made up
of Region IV Division/Office Directors. At the program level,
Ground Water Advisory Boards (GWABs) composed of senior staff
from each division have the responsibility for overall CSGWPP
coordination. The Ground Water Council, composed of ground
water-related Branch Chiefs, serves as an intermediary between
the GWABs and the Coordinating Committee. This Regional CSGWPP
action structure is discussed in full in Chapter I.
Beyond the institutionalized CSGWPP action structure, most
Region IV programs involved in ground water-related activities
coordinate regularly with other programs. Much of this
coordination is carried out via informal mechanisms.
Informational requests are often made by one program of another,
and these requests are routinely satisfied in a timely manner.
Cross-program coordination and participation in EPA/State
planning meetings is common among ground water-related programs
in Region IV, although resource constraints keep such
coordination at less than an optimal level. The EPA/State
planning meetings are generally held to discuss special
initiatives, implementation of new rules, rule updates, and
grants issues. Also, multi-program planning groups are
occasionally created to develop policy directives such as the
Region IV Strategic Plan. Multi-media geographic initiatives in
Region IV usually involve most or all programs with ground water
related responsibilities.
Programs also collaborate on specific activities designed to
characterize the ground water resource. For example, the
Pesticides Section provides the Ground Water Technology and
Management Section with an opportunity to review State Pesticide
Management Plans submitted by Region IV states. Similarly, state
Wellhead Protection (WHP) Programs submitted to the Ground Water
Technology and Management Section are distributed to appropriate
Region IV programs for comment during the review process. For
industrial facilities that fall under the jurisdiction of both
RCRA and CERCLA, the Region IV groups administering these two
programs work closely together in overseeing.site
characterization and remediation activities. In general, the
RCRA Branch takes the lead for these sites, although this is not
the case for every site. Region IV's Environmental Services
59
-------
Division routinely provides both field and laboratory services in
support of both the RCRA and Superfund Programs. Each year, the
Watersheds Section develops a formal work plan with the
Environmental Services Division to support the completion of
specific NPS Program projects. Some of these projects have
ground water components.
Region IV's South Superfund Remedial Branch, North Superfund
Remedial Branch, and Federal Facilities Branch have been directed
by senior-level management to have all site-specific, technical
decisions relating to ground water approved by the Ground Water
Technology and Management Section of the Ground Water Protection
Branch. Ground Water Technology and Management Section staff
review pertinent documents submitted to EPA Region IV by the
regulated community, participate in public meetings as well as
meetings between EPA and Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs),
and make recommendations regarding ground water aspects of the
projects to the Superfund Program. In addition, a signed
Memorandum of Understanding between the Ground Water Protection
Branch and the Site Assessment Section of the Waste Programs
Branch has facilitated the Site Assessment Section's sharing of
ground water sampling results with the Ground Water Protection
Branch in cases where contamination of a public or private well
is documented during a Site Investigation. Within Region IV, the
RCRA Permitting and Compliance Branch and the Federal Facilities
Branch also work closely with the Ground Water Technology and
Management Section on issues related to appropriate site clean-up
levels;
The Federal Activities Branch is involved in coordinating
Region IV responses to ground water protection issues involving
federal agency actions that require preparation of NEPA
documents. When these documents are received by the Federal
Activities Branch, they are distributed to the Ground Water
Protection Branch for review and comment. Ground Water
Protection Branch comments are included with the response letter
that is sent to the agency responsible for the action. If a NEPA
document is required for any EPA action, these two programs also
work cooperatively to identify, assess, and eliminate or minimize
the potential ground water impacts associated with the project.
Coordination within Region IV program groups involved in
ground water protection is also achieved through joint-program
review of state work plans and other documents submitted by
states to the Region. For example, Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program
work plans submitted by states under Section 319 of the Clean
Water Act are reviewed by the Ground Water Technology and
Management Section, and comments are provided to Region IV's NPS
Program for consideration in the final review. State work plans
submitted to EPA Region IV for award of funds allocated under
FIFRA are reviewed by both the Pesticides Section and the Ground
Water Technology and Management Section. Other documents
submitted by states to the Ground Water Technology and Management
60
-------
Section are distributed to appropriate program groups within
Region IV for comment as part of the review process.
Region IV's Water Management Division has established a
divisional Watershed Protection Policy Committee. The Committee
has been charged with developing a plan for involving all Region
IV water programs in watershed planning and protection.
V. B. Targeted Accomplishments and Activities
The Ground Water Protection Branch has been charged with
spearheading Region IV's efforts to implement the recommendations
of the New Ground Water Strategy, and this effort will continue
to be a priority activity for the Branch during FY 94. The
elements of a Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program
(CSGWPP) that were outlined in the New Strategy are presented in
detail as "Strategic Activities" in the National CSGWPP Guidance.
Ground Water Protection Program Profiles for each of Region IV's
eight.(8) states were finalized during FY 92. As part of the
CSGWPP development process, each state, with EPA's assistance, is
comparing the current state ground water program as outlined in
the State's Profile with the Strategic Activities provided in the
National CSGWPP Guidance. In FY 93, each Region IV state
committed to initiating an assessment of their ground water
programs to identify gaps and specific areas where improvements
are needed. These assessments will be finalized during FY 94.
Beyond the CSGWPP Initiative, individual programs within the
Regional Office continue to have their own targeted objectives
relating to ground water protection.
Ground Water Technology and Management
Bearing the responsibility for CSGWPP development and
implementation in Region IV is only one of several priorities for
the Ground Water Technology and Management Section of the Ground
Water Protection Branch in FY 94. The Section's Ground Water
Management Unit will continue to provide assistance to states in
developing and implementing their Wellhead Protection (WHP)
Programs, placing special emphasis on elevating those programs
not already approved (Florida's, Tennessee's, and North
Carolina's) to an EPA-approvable level. The Unit will also
continue involvement in the minority-community WHP initiative and
will provide support to other state grant programs in the Region
on ground water management issues. The Section's Ground Water
Technology Unit will provide in-house, technical support to
Region IV programs on ground water and related environmental
issues; CERCLA and RCRA projects managers will be the primary
clientele.
61
-------
Superfund
For the Site Assessment Section, the Superfund Comprehensive
Accomplishment Plan (SCAP) completion targets for FY 93 were as
follows:
Preliminary Assessments (PAs) 150
Site Investigations (Sis) 125
Expanded Sis 40
SI Prioritizations (SIPs) 400
HRS Packages 20
At the time of final preparation of this document, it was not
known as to which of these targets were met, exceeded, or not
met.
The FY 93 SCAP target for completed Remedial Actions by the
South Superfund Remedial Branch, North Superfund Remedial Branch,
and Federal Facilities Branch in Region IV was 7. These SCAP
targets address contamination of all media, including ground
water.
RCRA
For the RCRA Subtitle C Permitting Section, STARS
accomplishments for FY 93 related to ground water protection were
as follows:
Post Closure Permits Issued 10
Closure Plans Approved 16
RFA's Completed 25
NCAP's Rankings 120
Stabilization Questionnaires 98
RFI Work Plan/Report Approval 25
CMS Work Plan Approval 2
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
The significant UST Section priorities in FY 94 are
enforcement of leak detection requirements, streamlining of
states' corrective action programs, and delegation of program
authority to eligible states. The Section has also assigned high
priority to implementation of a field citation program in an . _
effort to eliminate some of the administrative burdens associated
with enforcement activities.
ฎ Underground Injection Control (UIC)
For FY 94, Region IV's UIC Section continues to place high
priority, on enforcement actions and state oversight activities.
Enforcement agreements have been signed with all Region IV states
that have primacy for the UIC Program. Region IV state
coordinators visit the state program offices to review files and
62
-------
interview staff during annual mid-year reviews. Periodically,
Region IV staff conduct field inspections along with state
personnel.
Pesticides
The Pesticides Section is focusing ground water related
priorities during FY 94 on the review of generic State Management
Plans and on providing technical and financial assistance to
states as they continue working on two key elements of these
Management Plans, ground water protection and vulnerability
assessment.
V. C. Coordination with Other Federal Agencies
One recommendation voiced by participants in the Region IV
State Ground Water Roundtable held in Atlanta in January 1992 was
that representatives of federal agencies involved with ground
water protection in the southeastern United States should have a
similar meeting. The Regional Office responded by convening the
Region IV Federal Interagency Ground Water Roundtable in October
1992, also in Atlanta. More than 60 representatives from over a
dozen federal agencies participated in the roundtable, which was
designed to open lines of communication and explore avenues for
ground water related information sharing among the different
agencies.
In preparing for the meeting, EPA Region IV recognized the
need for a "Ground Water Steering Committee" to continue the
dialogue, planning, and cooperation between and among federal
representatives. In keeping with the New Strategy, it was
recognized that this committee should also have representatives
of state government to improve the state-federal interface.
Formation of the Steering Committee was supported by most
roundtable participants.
Twelve federal agencies/departments and five states nominated
representatives to serve on the Committee. Member agencies are
as follows:
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
Department of the Air Force
Department of the Army
Department of the Navy
Department of Energy
National Park Service
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Soil Conservation Service
Tennessee Valley Authority
US Geological Survey
Environmental Protection Agency
63
-------
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Georgia Geologic Survey
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
At the first meeting of the Committee in June 1993, members
agreed on the need for federal representatives on the Committee
to develop a "Regional Road Map" for implementation of the New
Strategy across federal agency lines. The Road Map is intended
to establish a framework for federal agencies and departments in
the southeastern United States to describe which elements of a
"comprehensive" program are underway, which are missing, and what
can be done to improve our overall effort. At their second
meeting in December 1993, the Committee established seven (7)
specific objectives to guide their activities:
1. identify opportunities for linking state and federal
educational resources, objectives and initiatives;
2. assess existing mechanisms and develop new mechanisms for
creating incentives to protect ground water resources,
and identify and address disincentives;
3. identify technology transfer mechanisms among agencies at
all levels of government;
4. identify inconsistencies and provide input on policies,
guidelines, and regulatory interpretations to promote
consistency within and across agencies;
5. identify remaining barriers to accomplishing ground water
protection objectives and make recommendations for
overcoming these barriers;
6. link state and federal ground water protection programs
and initiatives; and
7. promote consistency among state standards and guidelines.
As an "action item" from the second meeting, each federal
representative is describing where their agency has
inconsistencies under any of these specific objectives. The
Committee will then collectively decide how these issues can be
addressed through cross-agency coordination.
Since there is no unified approach or single group in EPA
Region IV that encompasses all ground water protection
activities, formal agreements and informal coordination are
usually negotiated or conducted through one or.another of the
individual program groups. Often, other programs could benefit
from the agreements, but are not even aware that they are in
existence. No one program group can effectively negotiate
64
-------
agreements with other federal agencies that will benefit all
Region IV programs involved in ground water related activities.
The following summaries describe existing ground water related
coordination between Region IV and other federal agencies.
Ground Water Management
Region IV's Ground Water Technology and Management Section
(GWTMS) is currently entered into an Interagency Agreement (IAG)
with Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Under the agreement, EPA
provides funding to support TVA's aerial photo reconnaissance
study of the Rio Springs Area in Kentucky.
During the past several years, several projects have been
conducted under IAGs established between Region IV's GWTMS and
the US Geological Survey (USGS). In 1991, the South Carolina
District of USGS completed work on three (3) projects designed to
evaluate Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) delineation criteria and
methods in the coastal plain hydrogeologic setting. Completion
of the projects was crucial to development of South Carolina's
Wellhead Protection Program. In a cooperative attempt to meet
the need for an analytical "tool" to assist in ground water
management and protection activities in karst areas, the GWTMS
and the Kentucky District of USGS prepared a 1988 manual entitled
Application of Dve-Tracinq Techniques for Determining Solute-
Transport Characteristics of Ground Water in Karst Terranes. A
water supply data inventory conducted by the Florida District of
USGS in support of the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation was also funded by EPA Region IV through an IAG with
USGS.
The GWTMS is actively involved in other projects with USGS
and with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which are not
backed by formal coordination mechanisms such as IAGs. In 1991,
USGS began a four-year National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA)
to describe the status and trends of the Nation's representative
surface and ground water resources to provide a sound scientific
understanding of natural and human impacts on these resources.
The GWTMS has the lead for representing EPA Region IV on the
Liaison Committee formed by USGS for the Georgia-Florida Coastal
Plain Study Unit because this study will focus on the Floridan
Aquifer System. The Committee, composed of water management and
technical personnel, will provide USGS with information,
guidance, and comments throughout the study. In another effort,
the GWTMS is working with USGS in determining appropriate
methodologies for delineating Wellhead Protection Areas around
municipal supply wells in Hamilton County, Tennessee. This work
is being performed in support of Hamilton County's EPA-funded
project in which the County is attempting to implement a
comprehensive management plan to protect their ..wells from
contamination. Finally, along with several organizational groups
within USDA, Region IV's GWTMS is involved in the Mammoth Caves
Special Water Quality Project, a multi-agency exercise designed
65
-------
to study water quality within a five (5) county area covering
parts of Kentucky and Tennessee.
Superfund
Region IV's Superfund Program uses Memorandums of
Understanding (MOUs) as a primary means for formal coordination
of activities with other federal agencies. There are several
federal agencies designated in CERCLA as "trustees" for natural
resources. Through procedures outlined in MOUs, the Superfund
Program interacts with these agencies. Specifically, when
negotiations are begun with Potentially Responsible Parties to
take action at a site, the trustees are formally notified. This
allows these federal agencies to participate in the process if
they so desire.
The Superfund Program has also established Interagency
Agreements (lAGs) with several agencies, most notably the US Army
Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. The IAGs
facilitate the transfer of funds to have site work performed.
The Federal Facilities Branch is responsible for oversight of
remediation activities at federal facilities under the authority
in CERCLA and RCRA. Towards this end, IAGs termed "Federal
Facility Agreements" (FFAs) are negotiated for each federal
facility placed on the NPL. The FFAs are typically three-party
agreements between the federal facility, EPA, and the State. The
FFAs establish the procedural framework for remediation of the
site.
Region IV's Site Assessment Section is coordinating the
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) project in conjunction with
the US Army Corps of Engineers in order to identify those sites
which need to be assessed. This project was mandated by the
Defense Environmental Restoration Project (DERP), which is part
of the Superfund legislation.
Under SARA Title III, Region IV's Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention Program works with the Regional
Response Team (with membership from 14 federal agencies and all
eight states) on emergency-related issues, many of which involve
potential ground water contamination. The Regional Response Team
is chaired by Doug Lair, Chief of EPA Region IV's Emergency
Response and Removal Branch.
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
At the present time no formal agreements exist between Region
IV's UST Program and other federal agencies. However,
coordination with, federal agencies through formal ..agreements is
an option available to state UST programs. Presently, the
Commonwealth of Kentucky utilizes USGS to conduct contamination
assessments at leaking UST sites.
66
-------
Like many other EPA regulatory programs, in the UST Program,
federal agencies comprise a significant portion of the regulated
community. Therefore, state UST programs maintain regular
contact with federal agencies who own or operate USTs through the
routine compliance and administrative mechanisms (i.e., tank
registration, correspondence, submittal of monitoring data).
Nonpoint Source (NPS)
Currently, the Watersheds Section has on-staff liaisons for
coordinating Region IV's Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program activities
with the Soil Conservation Service and the US Forest Service. In
the recent past, this program group also employed a liaison with
the Tennessee Valley Authority. Region IV has established an
Ag-Policy Committee that is being expanded to include five (5)
members representing federal and state agricultural interests.
The NPS Program maintains active involvement in associations and
programs sponsored by other federal agencies, including the Rural
Abandoned Mines Program (RAMP), Land and Water 201, and the
National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD). Through
the NPS Program, Region IV sponsors programs and conferences to
which various state and federal agencies are invited.
V. D. Coordination with the States
Administrative support is being provided to the states for
developing Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs
(CSGWPPs) by Region IV's Ground Water Technology and Management
Section (GWTMS). This involves GWTMS staff working very closely
with states in the development, review, approval, and management
of annual work plans that are used to guide each state's CSGWPP
development effort under annual grants awarded by EPA through
Section 106 of the Clean Water Act. Through the work plan
negotiation process, state ground water management program groups
commit to completing specific CSGWPP-related tasks. In FY 93,
$1.96 million was awarded to Region IV states to support
establishment of CSGWPPs. The grant amounts for each state are
shown in Table V-l. Since the federal ground water management
program was created primarily for the purpose of establishing a
mechanism whereby EPA can provide states with institutional and
technical support in developing ground water programs and
strategies, delegation of program authority to states is not
appropriate (Table V-2). In the future, for states that have
"EPA-endorsed" CSGWPPs, EPA intends to defer to state policies,
priorities, and standards to the extent authorized by federal law
and consistent with federal objectives.
Superfund
The South Superfund Remedial Branch, North Superfund Remedial
Branch, and Federal Facilities Branch do not provide general
funding to the states for program support (Table V-l). DOD and
67
-------
Program
ALABAMA
1
FLORIDA
ฆ" -
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NORTH
CAROLINA
SOUTH
CAROLINA
TENNESSEE....
CSGWPP
$268K
$260K
$304K
$180K
$180K
$344K
$218K
$205K
Superfund
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RCRA
(Subtitle C)
$1.8M
$2.4M
$2. 2M
$1.5M
$1. 1H
$2. 1M
$1. 8M
$1.8M
UST
$163K
$157K
$163K
$163K
$163K
$163K
$163K
$163K
trie
$146K
$243K
$78K
$0
$194K
$78K
$75K
$0
Drinking
Water
$612K
$2. 3M
$1. 3M
$592K
$817K
$2. 3M
$757K
$629K
Pesticides
$143K
$203K
$212K
$11 IK
$100K
$123K
$210K
$97K
Nonpoint
Source
$464K
$926K
$552K
$405K
$454K
$550K
$369K
$376K
K ฐ thousand M = million x = funding not offered by EPA
Amount shown for UST Program does not include funds awarded under the LUST Trust Fund
or special project grant awards.
Amount shown for Nonpoint Source Program includes only "base" program awards.
Table V-l. Region IV Funding in Support of State Ground Water Related Programs FY 1994.
-------
Program
ALABAMA
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI ฆ
NORTH
CAROLINA
SOOTH
CAROLINA
TENNESSEE
CSGWPP
Not
EPA-End
Not
EPA-End
Not
EPA-End
Not
EPA-End
Not EPA-
Endorsed
Not
EPA-End
Not
EPA-End
Not
EPA-End
Wellhead
Protection
EPA-App
Not
EPA-App
EPA-App
EPA-App
EPA-
Approved
Not
EPA-App
EPA-
Approved
Not
EPA-App
Superfund
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RCRA
(Subtitle C)
Auth
B. RCRA
Auth
B. RCRA
Auth
B. RCRA
& HSWA
Auth
B. RCRA
Authorized
for
Base RCRA
Auth
B. RCRA
& HSWA
Auth
B. .RCRA
Auth
B. RCRA
UST
Not
EPA-App
Not
EPA-App
EPA-App
Not
EPA-App
EPA-
Approved
Not
EPA-App
Not
EPA-App
Not
EPA-App
Solid Waste
Not
EPA-App
Not
EPA-App
EPA-App
EPA-App
EPA-App
EPA-App
EPA-App
EPA-App
UIC
Primacy
Primacy
Ex C II
Primacy
No
Primacy
Primacy
Primacy
Primacy
No
Primacy
Drinking
Water
Primacy
Primacy
Primacy
Primacy
Primacy
Primacy
Primacy
Primacy
Pesticides
Primacy
Primacy
Primacy
Primacy
Primacy
Primacy
Primacy
Primacy
Nonpoint
Source
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EPA-End = EPA-Endorsed EPA-Ap = EPA-Approved B. RCRA = Base RCRA
Ex C II = Except Class II x = program delegation not applicable
Table V-2. Status of Ground Water-Related Program Delegation to Region IV States.
-------
DOE have established MOUs with some Region IV states for the
purpose of reimbursing the states for regulatory oversight at NPL
facilities.
The Superfund Program is not delegated to states (Table V-2).
Generally, EPA retains oversight responsibility for remediation
of NPL sites, with the states taking an active role in the review
of progress related to site clean-up. Region IV's Superfund
Program has two mechanisms, both site-specific, whereby a state
may take action at an NPL site under the auspices of CERCLA. A
cooperative agreement provides funds from EPA to the State so
that specific state-led work can be performed at a site; the Site
Assessment Section has a cooperative agreement set up with each
Region IV state that allows the State to perform site
assessment work under CERCLA authority. An EPA/State enforcement
agreement gives the State permission to take certain enforcement
actions at a site. In either case, however, EPA retains ultimate
authority to make clean-up decisions.
RCRA
The RCRA Hazardous Waste Program provides financial
assistance to state hazardous waste program groups in the form of
grants awarded under Subtitle C of RCRA. For FY 93, the funding
amounts for each state in Region IV are shown in Table V-l.
These grants assist each state in administering the entire
hazardous waste program, including those portions that relate
directly to ground water protection. Hence, it is not possible
to estimate what portion of each grant is targeted specifically
toward ground water protection efforts.
In FY 94 the Region's RCRA Branch has asked that each state
grant work plan contain a statement that commits the state RCRA
program to support CSGWPP. The requested grant commitment iss
"The State's RCRA program agrees to actively support the
State's ground water coordinating mechanism established
by the State's ground water program to support and
implement the State's Comprehensive State Ground Water
Protection Program."
Within Region IV the RCRA Program that addresses regulated
units (Base RCRA Program) has been delegated to each of the eight
states (Table V-2). Hence, each Region IV state hazardous waste
program group is responsible for imposing the RCRA regulatory
requirements for protecting ground water and remediating ground
water contamination associated with regulated units. For this
part of the RCRA Program, Region IV's role is one of providing
technical assistance to the states and overview of state
activities... For many.facilities where ground .water contamination
has been documented, the Regional Office works very closely with
state staff to ensure.that the hydrogeology beneath the site is
fully characterized and that the extent of contamination is fully
70
-------
defined. In a related effort, Region IV also assists the states
in evaluating proposed remedial actions for contaminated ground
water.
The portion of the RCRA Hazardous Waste regulatory program
that requires evaluation and remediation for solid waste
management units (SWMUs) other than regulated units has only been
delegated to one Region IV state (Georgia) (Table V-2). North
Carolina has been given interim authorization to implement this
program at facilities that do not already have federal permits.
For the remaining six (6) states, Region IV's RCRA Branch is
responsible for direct implementation of the applicable
regulations.
Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)
The immense number of UST sites subject to regulation
prompted an innovative management technique, known as
"franchising", to be adopted to coordinate the UST Program
between the states and EPA. EPA's role as "franchiser" is to
provide the states, or "franchisees", with support such as
training, money, and technical assistance. In turn, the
franchisees (states) design state UST programs to meet the unique
needs of their own states. The franchise approach allows the
states the ability to manage their respective UST programs with
minimal EPA oversight, while also ensuring that national program
objectives are met.
Funding for state UST programs is provided for by annual
grants awarded by EPA, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
(LUST) Trust Fund, and special project grants. The annual grants
awarded by EPA support the start-up and general development of
each state's UST program (Table V-l). The LUST Trust Fund is a
federal fund that provides money for clean-up of UST-contaminated
sites whose owners cannot be immediately identified or if the
owners are recalcitrant. Special project grants are awarded to
state UST programs to improve and alleviate specific program
development and implementation problems.
Most states fund a larger portion of their UST program than
the portion funded with federal sources. The principal sources
of state funds are general appropriations and state UST trust
funds. The state trust funds have been established as a means of
complying with federal and state financial responsibility
requirements. An indirect benefit of these trust funds is that .
they provide a source of operating revenues for the state UST
programs. Generally, state trust funds are supported by tank
registration fees, state tax on gasoline, or some combination of
these two mechanisms.
Only Georgia's and Mississippi's UST programs have been
delegated formal federal approval by EPA (Table V-2). Other
states are in various stages of developing their UST programs.
71
-------
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Region IV's UIC Section awards an annual grant to each state
to support UIC Program development and implementation efforts at
the state level. Funding amounts for each Region IV state are
shown in Table V-l.
The UIC Section has responsibility for direct implementation
of regulations applicable to all classes of wells in Kentucky and
Tennessee, and Class II wells in Florida. Other states have
primacy over all classes of injection wells (Table V-2). The
Regional Office lends technical assistance to states with primacy
in situations where the state staff lacks appropriate experience.
Drinking Water
Region IV's Drinking Water Section provides funding to states
through an annual Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) grant.
The grant provides financial assistance to the states in their
efforts to meet and enforce the requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). Each state's grant application includes a work
plan that identifies specific tasks that will be completed with
the federal grant funds.
Funds appropriated each year to the states are allotted on
the basis of a formula that considers such factors as state
population (20%), land area (10%), and the number of community
(56%) and non-community water systems (14%) in the State. These
formula factors are imposed by the SDWA; EPA assigns relative
weightings to each factor. States are required to match federal
grant funds by a minimum of 25%. During FY 92, Region IV
received 14.6%, or $7.22 million of the national PWSS Program
grant monies allotted to the Regional Offices by EPA
Headquarters. State grant awards for each Region IV state are
shown in Table V-l.
All Region IV states have primacy for the PWSS Program (Table
V-2). This delegation provides the states with responsibility
for direct implementation of the Primary Drinking Water
Regulations and related requirements applicable to Public Water
Systems. Revisions to state requirements in concert with federal
changes are necessary for states to retain primacy.
Pesticides
The primary federal statute for the regulation of pesticides
is the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). Under Section 23 of FIFRA, EPA is given authority to
enter into cooperative agreements with states and Indian tribes
for the purpose of aiding the enforcement of FIFRA provisions, as
well as for training pesticide applicators consistent with
federal standards. Under Section 24 of FIFRA, a state may
regulate the sale or use of any federally-registered pesticide or
72
-------
application device within that state. Section 26 of FIFRA calls
for EPA to delegate primary enforcement responsibility for
pesticide use violations to states in situations where the States
(1) has adequate laws, (2) has adequate enforcement procedures,
and (3) will keep records and report to EPA as required.
All eight (8) states in Region IV have accepted grants to
initiate a pesticide and ground water protection program (Table
V-l). With assistance from Region IV's Pesticide Section, each
state is working toward the development of either a generic or
pesticide specific management plan. All eight (8) states in
Region IV have primacy for pesticide enforcement (Table V-2).
Nonpoint Source (NPS)
Region IV's Watersheds Section involves the states through
award of an annual Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program grant, through
Region IV sponsored training and conferences, through technical
assistance efforts performed cooperatively with the Environmental
Services Division, technology transfer, and other general
assistance (Table V-l). A minimum of 10% of each state's overall
NPS grant funds are targeted to support ground water protection
activities. State NPS Programs report to the Region IV Office on
a weekly basis so that Region IV staff can keep abreast of State
Program status. The Watersheds Section has also assisted each
state in sponsoring a state environmental/agricultural agency
coordination meeting.
The NPS Program is not delegated to the states (Table V-2).
It is, however, a state-based program. Each Region IV state has
a completed and EPA-approved NPS Assessment Report and Management
Program in accordance with the provisions of Section 319 of the
Clean Water Act.
73
-------
CHAPTER VI
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Public outreach programs relating to ground water protection
are conducted by individual regulatory program groups in Region
IV and by the Education and Outreach staff of the Office of
Public Affairs (usually associated with specific projects).
Public notices of significant actions and subsequent public
comment periods create a formal mechanism whereby the general
public can affect the direction of projects conducted under the
requirements of the different regulatory programs. Public
notification and public hearing requirements for these programs
conform with procedures described in 40 CFR Part 124.
Region IV's Education and Outreach Staff is extensively
involved in coordinating the development of educational
materials, training programs, seminars, and workshops related to
all aspects of environmental protection, including ground water
protection. The group also promotes environmental protection by
presenting EPA exhibits and distributing environmental literature
at industry and public service expositions held throughout the
Southeastern United States. In addition, the Press and
Information Unit of the Office of Public Affairs supports the
Region's ground water protection efforts by publicizing meetings,
hearings, and milestones reached.
74
-------
CHAPTER VII
BARRIERS TO AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT
OF A COMPREHENSIVE GROUND WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
Barriers blocking the Region's development of a comprehensive
program can be categorized by CSGWPP Strategic Activity. A
sampling of barriers that Region IV has identified to date, and a
recommendation for overcoming each barrier, is provided below.
Authorities. Roles, and Responsibilities
1. A major barrier to Region IV's overall effort to develop and
implement a comprehensive ground water protection program
lies with the inability to coordinate consistent objectives
across program lines. Also, statutes and national policy
directives do not generally reward cross-program
coordination. EPA's regulatory programs are fragmented; each
has its own mission. Although there may be gaps,
redundancies, and inconsistencies that extend across program
lines, most groups are understaffed and faced with an
overwhelming list of commitments. Hence, it is difficult for
these programs to justify allocating staff for anything
beyond the minimal level of commitment needed to satisfy the
Region's Cross-Program STARS measure for support of CSGWPP.
Recommendation: Greater support for CSGWPP is needed at the
national level. EPA Headquarters CSGWPP-dedicated FTE
positions need to be returned to pre-FY 94 levels. National
policy directives need to provide greater incentive for
cross-program coordination at the Regional level.
Establishing Priorities
1. The responsibility for ground water resource assessment at
the federal level rests primarily with USGS. Currently,
coordination between USGS and EPA generally only occurs on a
project-specific basis. Broader levels of cooperation
between the two agencies is needed to help ensure that
resource characterizations used to guide EPA program
priorities are scientifically sound.
Recommendation: Region IV should use the Federal/State
Ground Water Steering Committee as a forum for exploring
opportunities for a broader level of cooperation between the
two agencies. Identified coordination opportunities should
be pursued by both agencies. In support of the Regional
discussions, EPA Headquarters needs to explore and pursue
opportunities for coordination with USGS at the national
level.
75
-------
2. Each state in Region IV has different priorities with respect
to ground water protection, and states do not currently have
the flexibility to transfer EPA grant money among programs.
As a result, some state priorities are not addressed through
EPA grant programs.
Recommendation: EPA needs to seek ways for allowing states
greater flexibility in the use of EPA grant funds so that
identified state ground water protection priorities can be
addressed.
3. Implementation of the Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program in
Region IV states has been hampered because funding to support
the states in their WHP activities, although called for in
the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, has never
been appropriated. State funding for WHP has come primarily
from annual grants awarded by EPA under Section 106 of the
Clean Water Act.
Recommendation: The level and extent of funding can be
translated to the degree and timing of WHP implementation.
The significant progress made in WHP to date reflects the
ability of the states to respond to an important, yet
underfunded, program. It is hoped that provisions for
increasing funding for WHP, or an equivalent program, will be
included in Safe Drinking Water Act re-authorization.
Another key will be to see that authorized funds are
appropriated. WHP implementation can be a valuable "priority
setting" tool for many EPA programs, especially through the
use of GIS.
4. The Safe Drinking Water Act is not adequately protective of
designated Sole Source Aquifers. The Act only allows EPA to
examine potential impacts of federally-funded projects on
Sole Source Aquifers during the "post-designation" review
process. Construction and operation of projects that are not
federally-funded poses an equal threat of contaminating Sole
Source Aquifers to the point of creating a significant hazard
to public health. Additionally, the Sole Source Aquifer
Program as currently implemented is understaffed and
underfunded by the Agency.
Recommendation: In the process of re-authorizing the Safe
Drinking Water Act, Congress should consider including
provisions in the Act which allow EPA or states to review
both federal and non-federal projects in designated Sole
Source Aquifers. In doing so, staff and resources to
adequately implement the program need to be provided. If
this is not feasible, it may be appropriate to eliminate the
Sole Source Aquifer Program altogether.
76
-------
Implementing Efforts to Achieve the Established Goal
1. Like other EPA Offices, Region IV lacks consistency in the
application of standards for ground water protection
purposes. In many cases, the overall procedures for
determining applicable standards and making decisions
regarding compliance with such standards differs from program
to program. Often the decision-making process is
inconsistent within a particular regulatory program.
Sometimes standards are applied for purposes other than for
what they were intended (i.e., "trigger" standards applied as
clean-up standards). These situations present far-reaching
impacts. Regulated entities become reluctant to aggressively
pursue implementation of control measures and remedial
actions on their own initiative, for fear that EPA will
change the Agency's interpretation of regulations regarding
applicable standards. It also has the effect of eroding the
public's confidence in EPA to carry out the mission for which
the Agency is charged.
Recommendation: EPA must place high priority on improving
staff's and management's awareness of the framework by which
standards are established and applied and strive for the
consistent application of such standards.
2. Although above-ground bulk petroleum storage tanks represent
a threat to ground water and public water supply wells, to
date there are no federal regulations to control threats
posed by these tanks.
Recommendation: There is a clear need to enact prevention
and mitigation measures for EPA to address this situation.
Of special importance is the need to ensure that new tanks
which are not protective of ground water are not situated
within wellhead protection areas, areas near public water
supply wells, or other vulnerable ground water resource
areas.
3. Supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) are increasingly
being used by EPA as tools in settlement of enforcement
cases. Typically, they provide a regulated entity the
opportunity to carry out a project which offers direct
environmental benefit in lieu of paying a penalty fee (or
portion of a fee) to EPA. There remain, however, many
programmatic and regulatory barriers that inhibit EPA's use
of SEPs across all ground water programs.
RECOMMENDATION: EPA should continue the trend of increasing
use of SEPs in enforcement settlement. The agency also needs
to make special effort to identify and eliminate barriers to
their use.
77
-------
4. RCRA Subtitle C regulations require facilities that operate
land disposal units to monitor ground water to determine if a
release of hazardous constituents has occurred prior to
issuance of a RCRA permit. If a release is detected, the
owner/operator must conduct a ground water quality assessment
to determine concentration, and rate and extent of migration
of hazardous constituents in ground water. The facility
permit application must delineate the identified plume of
contamination. Any corrective action deemed necessary is
specified in the permit.
States and EPA have little ability to see to it that
corrective action is initiated until a permit is issued,
unless an owner/operator agrees to begin the process
voluntarily. Quite often, there are delays in the
contamination assessment and in other aspects of the permit
application process. As a result, corrective action is
further delayed.
Facilities subject to post-closure permitting tend to "drag
out" the assessment and permit application process over many
years; thus delaying corrective action. This in part
reflects the difficulty in assessing large contaminant plumes
and characterizing complex hydrogeologic terranes like karst,
but also reflects the fact that regulated facilities have no
incentive to pursue post-closure permits. In many cases
enough information has been gathered to determine that a
significant ground water contamination problem exists long
before a permit can be issued. The contamination continues
to spread while the assessment and permitting processes lag.
Facilities with the most significant ground water
contamination problems tend to be the farthest behind in the
assessment/permitting process. Although addressing these
facilities represents the RCRA Program's highest priority,
the Program is without authority to begin remediating the
sites quickly. While other EPA programs, and even some areas
of the RCRA Program, allow interim measures (i.e., CERCLA
emergency removals, RCRA 3008(h) corrective action orders) to
be implemented prior to final corrective measures being
selected, the RCRA regulations under 40 CFR ง265.93 and
ง270.14 do not allow this flexibility.
Recommendation: Region IV is currently working with the
State of Alabama to determine if there is any flexibility in
EPA or the Region's policy with regard to this issue.
However, the problem may only be.alleviated through
regulatory change.
Data Collection and Management
1. Ground water related data which is currently being collected
by the various Region IV program groups is collected for
widely differing reasons. Hence, different types of data are
78
-------
collected by each program. Some programs do not maintain
site-specific ground water databases. Even fewer programs
have their databases automated. This situation has resulted
in the development of a fragmented, non-standardized database
in the Regional Office that does not lend itself to cross-
program data sharing through utilization of GIS.
Recommendations Development and maintenance of a fully-
integrated, standardized, cross-program data management
system should be among the Region's top priorities.
Establishment of such a system will be contingent on funding
and will be resource-intensive.
The barriers identified above represent only a portion of
those that will have to be overcome for Region IV to establish a
comprehensive ground water protection program. Undoubtedly,
barriers other than those listed here exist. It will be
incumbent upon the Region to use its established CSGWPP framework
to identify additional barriers, as well as to explore
opportunities for overcoming them. The work of the Federal/State
Ground Water Steering Committee will help broaden the scope of
the effort by ensuring that other federal agencies in the
Southeast are involved. Revised versions of this report will
identify additional barriers to a comprehensive program in Region
IV and update the Region's progress in following through with its
planned approach for linking states' CSGWPP needs with federal
support capabilities.
79
------- |