State Policy and Regulatory Barriers to
In Situ Ground Water Remediation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Innovation Office (5102W)
EPA 542-R-96-001
March 1996
-------
Preface
This report is based on a series of interviews with State regulators involved in
the review and approval of applications for demonstrations or applications of
surfactant technologies for the remediation of contaminated ground water.
Treatment of aquifers contaminated by non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) by
traditional pump-and-treat systems has proven impracticable in many instances.
State regulators, researchers, and engineers are working on innovative solutions
to this problem. This report focuses on identifying specific State regulatory and
policy barriers to the use of techniques that enhance in situ ground water
treatment technologies through the use of surfactants, co-solvents, and
nutrients. The goal of the study was to identify barriers and describe strategies
for success in gaining State regulatory approval to promote the use of these
techniques.
The Technology Innovation Office gratefully acknowledges the assistance of those
individuals on the attached list of State contacts who gave their time and
consideration to this project, as well as the various investigators and
researchers in the area of in situ technologies who dedicate their considerable
resources to the search for innovative solutions to the nation's hazardous waste
remediation problems.
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D.
Director
U.S. EPA Technology Innovation Office
-------
The information in this document has been funded by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under contract number 68-W2-0004 to
Environmental Management Support, Incorporated. It has been reviewed by the
Agency and has been approved as an EPA document. The opinions expressed herein are
those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Any mistakes are attributable to the authors and
not those interviewed. Mention of trade names does not constitute endorsement nor
recommendation for use.
Comments or questions regarding this report should be directed to:
Rich Steimle
Technology Innovation Office (5102W)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
703-308-8800
-------
State Policy and Regulatory Barriers to In Situ
Ground Water Remediation
Introduction
The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Technology Innovation
Office (TIO) is to stimulate the development and application of innovative
treatment technologies at sites contaminated from hazardous wastes and to
identify and remove impediments to the use of such technologies. As part of this
effort, TIO is engaged in promoting the development and field application of
alternative technologies to increase the options available for implementing
effective in situ ground-water remediation technologies.
Numerous studies and experiences at contaminated ground-water sites have shown
that remediation or containment of contaminated aquifers using conventional pump-
and-treat technology is difficult, time-consuming and, in most cases, incomplete.
For example, certain contaminants, particularly dense non-aqueous phase liquids
(DNAPLs) such as trichloroethylene (TCE), can not be remediated or contained
effectively using conventional pump-and-treat systems. DNAPLs have very low
solubility in water and can migrate downward into bedrock fractures, where they
are difficult to reach. These characteristics lead to very slow rates of removal by
pumping. To improve the performance of pump-and-treat systems, new in situ
technologies are being developed that mobilize or solubilize these contaminants
to improve removal efficiency. Other in situ technologies under development
enhance biodegradation and other natural processes.
The in situ ground-water remediation alternatives in this report involve the
introduction of treatment agents into contaminated ground water, typically
through an underground injection well. These technologies either treat the
contaminant directly or increase the solubility and mobility of contaminants,
enhancing the efficiency of a pump-and-treat system. An example of the former
technology type is nitrate enhancement, which introduces nitrates to increase the
rate of biodegradation. The latter type of technology includes the injection of
surfactants that enhance the removal efficiency of pump-and-treat systems for
DNAPLs.
While these new technologies offer significant benefits, their use may be
restricted or prohibited by regulatory or procedural barriers within States. For
example, nitrate concentrations in drinking water are restricted by the Safe
Drinking Water Act and further restricted by some States. Also, the injection of a
common surfactant, sodium dodecyl sulfate, may be subject to State control, since
some States restrict the concentration of sodium and sulfate in ground water.
Authority for regulating injection wells is split between the States and the
Federal government under the national Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program, and some delegated States may restrict injection wells or require a
permit (see sidebar, p. 2).
-------
State Policy and Regulatory Barriers to In Situ Ground Water Remediation
Purpose
This report seeks to promote the use of
innovative in situ technologies for
ground-water remediation by
identifying barriers to their
implementation. During a workshop in
June 1992, representatives from
universities, industry, and
consulting firms reached a consensus
on the need for a more favorable
regulatory environment for the use of
these technologies. Workshop
participants identified impediments
such as: 1) regulations that prohibit
injection; 2) enforcement of water
quality standards for injected
substances (such as nitrates); 3) "No
Degradation" or "Anti-Backsliding"
policies, which may prohibit the use of
Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs)
for ground-water cleanup; and 4) the
use of drinking water standards as
applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) under CERCLA.
The purpose of this study is to provide
interested parties, particularly
technology developers, with a better
understanding of the regulatory and
policy climate in the States regarding
in situ ground-water remediation
technologies by examining regulations
and policies in the States that may
restrict or prevent injection of
surfactants, co-solvents, nutrients,
or other injectants into contaminated
aquifers as part of a remedial or
corrective action. The study also
provides a regulatory contact person
in each State.
Procedures
Injection Wells and the UIC Program
Injection wells are regulated by the
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program under the Federal Safe
Drinking Water Act. Under the UIC
program, injection of any fluid into a
well is prohibited, except as
authorized by permit or rule. State
UIC programs may be delegated
complete or partial enforcement
responsibility (or primacy) by EPA.
Twenty-five State UIC programs have
been delegated complete primacy,
while ten hold primacy over some
portion of the State UIC program. If a
State does not seek primacy, or its
program is not approved, EPA enforces
the Federal UIC program for that
State. Fifteen State UIC programs are
administered by EPA Regional Offices.
Injection wells incidental to aquifer
remediation and experimental
technologies are distinguished from
hazardous waste injection wells and
are designated as Class V under the
UIC program. Class V wells covered by
the Federal UIC program are
authorized by rule and do not require
a separate UIC permit. A Class V well
regulated by a State UIC program may
require a permit. While permit
requirements are not a direct barrier
to in situ ground water remediation,
States that require UIC permits are
noted in the summary table.
The purpose of the UIC program is to
protect underground sources of
drinking water (USDW) by prohibiting
injections that may affect water
quality in USDWs. Contaminated
aquifers at Superfund sites may not
serve as a USDW. For this reason, UIC
requirements may not apply to wells at
CERCLA sites.
-------
State Policy and Regulatory Barriers to In Situ Ground Water Remediation
State policies and regulations were obtained using the Envirotext Retrieval
System (ETRS), a Federal database operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
database contains abstracts of Federal, State, Territorial, and Native American
environmental regulations. EPA is a co-sponsor of the database. Only State
regulations that prohibit the use of in situ ground water remediation technologies
directly or impose regulations more stringent than Federal regulations are
included. State requirements incidental to the operation of in situ technologies,
such as siting and monitoring requirements, engineering and construction
standards, restrictions on transfer of ownership, etc., are not included. To
confirm the information in the database, follow-up discussions and interviews
with State regulators were conducted. Summary findings were distributed to State
regulators for final comments.
Conclusions
• Some States with delegated UIC programs were unsure of the role of the UIC
program, especially those which have not received or reviewed applications.
Some require a UIC permit, while others may only require a review by the UIC
program.
• No State has a direct regulatory prohibition on injection technologies for
treating contaminated aquifers. Until recently, a few States prohibited the
use of injectants, either through bans on new Class V injection wells or
prohibition of injectants that did not meet ground water quality criteria.
Currently, exceptions are made for Class V remediation wells, and the States
that prohibit injection of fluids that do not meet ground-water quality
standards allow the use of site-specific criteria for contaminated aquifers.
• Few States have policies that discourage use of injection technologies, and
most of those with such policies have approved individual projects. A small
number of States have rejected most or all of the proposals they have received
on policy or technical grounds. Reasons given for rejecting proposals include
failure to include or adequately demonstrate a monitoring and recovery plan in
the proposal, failures of previously-approved injection projects, lack of a
clearly defined process for obtaining approval and uncertainty over the
identity of authorized agencies, and lack of experience with injection
projects.
• About two-thirds of the States have allowed some sort of injection incidental
to an in situ ground water remediation technology, mostly the injection of
nutrients to enhance bioremediation.
• Eleven States have allowed surfactant injection, mostly for the enhancement of
existing pump-and-treat systems. Most surfactant approvals were at CERCLA
sites.
-------
State Policy and Regulatory Barriers to In Situ Ground Water Remediation
• The use of co-solvents has not been proposed to any State for direct
remediation; one State has approved a co-solvent demonstration in a controlled
cell.
• The technical merits of a proposed technology, as reflected in a proposal or
application for State approval, are the most important factors considered by a
State. Almost all States rely on the terms of the technical proposal, and almost
all decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. Few States have a clearly
defined process for obtaining final approval for injection. Approvals have
been both formal and informal. One surfactant project at a CERCLA site received
verbal approval from the State agency after a brief review.
• Several States require closed systems or some other evidence that all injectant
will be captured and removed, verified by a comprehensive monitoring system,
particularly for surfactant injection. Others States are more open to risk and
affect analyses.
• Fifteen States have not received an application or proposal to review. None of
them indicated any particular reason why a proposal would not be approved.
Summary
A summary of findings is presented in the following table. "Regulatory
Prohibition" means the State has or does not have a strict regulatory ban on
injection. "Policy Prohibition" means the State has or does not have policies that
prohibit or discourage the use of injection technologies. Policies may be either
written or a regulatory agency custom. For example, the State of Nebraska, which
approved injection in the past, indicated its unwillingness to approve proposals
for injection in the future.
"Proposal Reviewed" means the State agency accepted for review a proposal that
includes injection and completed that review. It is meant to indicate whether the
agency is willing to receive proposals, and to indicate that the agency has some
experience in reviewing such proposals; it does not indicate whether the proposal
was approved or rejected. "Injection Allowed" means the State approved (or failed
to disapprove) a proposal for injection, or otherwise allowed injection; it does
not indicate whether injection was actually completed. Several approved projects
did not result in actual injection for a number of reasons (funding, superseding
Federal disapproval, etc.). Likewise, "Injectant" corresponds to the type of
injectant allowed; it does not indicate whether the approval led to actual
injection.
"Comments" focus on the results of interviews with State contacts. Approvals at
CERCLA sites should be distinguished from other proposals, since potential UIC
-------
State Policy and Regulatory Barriers to In Situ Ground Water Remediation
barriers are not an issue for contaminated aquifers at CERCLA sites. Agency review
requirements should be distinguished from formal permit requirements, which may
include significantly greater technical specifications. Finally, States that
have not received or reviewed any proposals may have indicated a likely response to
a proposal.
-------
STATE REGULATORY AGENCY CONTACTS
IN SITU GROUND WATER REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGY REPORT
ALABAMA:
Robert Ban-
Water Quality Branch
Water Division
1751 Congressman Dickinson Dr.
Montgomery, AL 36130
(205) 271-7741
ALASKA:
Ric Davidge
Alaska DNR
P.O. Box 107005
Anchorage, AK 99510
(907) 762-2145
Jonathan Williams
U.S. EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)553-1369
ARIZONA:
Chuck Graf
Groundwater Section
Arizona DEQ
2005 N. Central Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(602) 207-4661
ARKANSAS:
Clark Bates
Hazardous Waste Division
Arkansas Dept. of Pollution Control
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
(501) 570-2863
CALIFORNIA:
Susan Timm
Central Valley Regional Water Quality
Control Board
3443 Routier Rd., Suite A
Sacramento, CA 95827
(916)255-3057
Dave Walls
Colorado Dept. of Health and Environment
(HMWMD-SWIM-B2)
4300 Cherry Creek Drive S.
Denver, CO 80222-1530
(303) 692-3360
CONNECTICUT:
Mark Lewis
Water Management Bureau
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(203) 566-5486
DELAWARE:
Margie Zhang
Delaware DNR
715 Grantham Lane
New Castle, DE 19720
(302)323-4540
FLORIDA:
Tim Larson
Florida DEP
Bureau of Waste Cleanup
2600 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(904) 488-3935
GEORGIA:
Jennifer Kaduck
Georgia EPD
Floyd Tower East, Suite 1162
205 Butler Street, SE
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 657-8600
COLORADO:
-------
STATE REGULATORY AGENCY CONTACTS
HAWAII:
Tom Arizumi
Environmental Management
Hawaii Dept. of Health
919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 300
Honolulu, HI 96814
(808) 586-4304
IDAHO:
Al Murrey
Bureau of Water Quality
Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare
1410 N.Hilton St.
Boise, ID 83706
(208)334-5860
ILLINOIS:
Ken Liss
Groundwater Unit
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 524-3300
INDIANA:
Greta Hawvermale
Indiana DEM
Office of Environmental Response
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317)233-4166
IOWA:
Lavoy Haage
Iowa DNR
Solid Waste Section
Wallace Building
DesMoines, IA50319
(515)281-4968
KANSAS:
Mike Cocha
Division of Environment
Kansas Dept. of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Bldg. 740
Topeka, KS 66620
(913) 296-5560
KENTUCKY:
Tuss Tailor
DOE/Federal Facility Oversite Unit
14ReillyRoad
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-6716
LOUISIANA:
Steve Chustz
Louisiana DEQ
P.O. Box 82215
Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2213
(504) 765-0487
MAINE:
Bruce Hunter
Maine DEP
Station 17
Augusta, ME 04333
(207)287-2651
MARYLAND:
John Fairbanks
Maryland Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410)631-3497
-------
STATE REGULATORY AGENCY CONTACTS
MASSACHUSETTS:
Jan Nafarsteck
Water Pollution Control Division
1 Winter St., 7th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 292-5697
MICHIGAN:
Tom Grossman
Michigan DNR
Environmental Response Division
P.O. Box 30426
Lansing, MI 48909
(517)335-3397
MINNESOTA:
Tim Turnblad
Groundwater & Solid Waste Division
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
(612) 296-8582
MISSISSIPPI:
Russell Smith
Mississippi DEQ
P.O. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39289-0385
(601) 961-5072
MISSOURI:
Evan Kifer
Missouri DNR
P.O. Box 250
Rolla, MO 65401
(314)368-2168
MONTANA:
John Arrigo
Groundwater Section
Water Quality Bureau
Cogswell Bldg.
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-2406
NEBRASKA:
Phil Hargis
Ground Water Section
Water Quality Division
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402) 471-4230
NEVADA:
Marcia Greybeck
Division Of Env. Protection
333 West Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89710
(702) 687-4670
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
Carl Baxter
NH Dept. of Environmental Services
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-2909
George Lombardo
NH Dept. of Environment
GW Protection Bureau
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-3645
-------
STATE REGULATORY AGENCY CONTACTS
NEW JERSEY:
George Nichols
New Jersey DEP
Div. of Publicly Funded Site Remediation
Bureau of GW Pollution Abatement
401 E. State St. (CN413)
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-8427
NEW MEXICO:
Dale Doremus
Groundwater Section
New Mexico Dept. of Environment
1190 St. Francis Drive
Santa Fe, NM 87502
(505) 827-4300
NEW YORK:
Jim Harrington
Room 208
New York DEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-7010
(518)485-8792
NORTH CAROLINA:
Arthur Mouberry
Ground Water Section
Div. of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626
(919)733-3221
NORTH DAKOTA:
Dave Glatt
North Dakota State Health Department
1200 Missouri Avenue
P.O. Box 5520
Bismark, ND 58502-5520
(701) 221-5233
OHIO:
John Sadzewicz
Division of Drinking & Ground Water
P.O. Box 163669
1800 Watermark Drive
Columbus, OH 43216
(614) 644-3020
OKLAHOMA:
Rod Horton
(6W41C)
1000 NE 10th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73117-1299
(405) 271-7899
OREGON:
Rene Dulay
Oregon DEQ
Water Quality Division
811 S.W. Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 229-5374
PENNSYLVANIA:
Jim Shaw
Division of Remediation
P.O. Box 847
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8471
(717) 783-9475
RHODE ISLAND:
Mark Dennen
Groundwater Protection Program
Division of Groundwater
291 Promenade St.
Providence, RI 02908
(401) 277-3872
-------
STATE REGULATORY AGENCY CONTACTS
SOUTH CAROLINA:
Rob Devlin
South Carolina DHEC
Ground Water Protection Division
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803)734-4672
SOUTH DAKOTA:
Ron Holm
South Dakota Dept. of Environment
523 East Capitol Avenue
Joe Foss Building
Pierre, SD 57501
(605)773-3296
TENNESSEE:
Robin Bell
Division of Water Supply
401 Church Street
6th Floor
Nashville, TN 37243-1549
(615)532-0191
TEXAS:
Gary Beyer
TNRCC (Room 200-18N, Building D)
P.O. Box 13087, Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711
(512)239-2361
UTAH:
Larry Mize
Groundwater Section
Water Pollution Control Bureau
288 N. 1460 W.
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
(801)538-6146
VERMONT:
Richard Spiese
Hazardous Material Management Div.
103 South Main Street
West Building
Waterbury, VT 05671-0404
(802) 241-3880
VIRGINIA:
Howard Freeland
Virginia DEQ
Waste Division
P.O. Box 1009
Richmond, VA 23240
(804) 527-5324
WASHINGTON:
Bert Bowen
Groundwater Unit
Water Quality Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 407-6423
WEST VIRGINIA
Pete Costello
Division of Env. Protection
Office of Waste Management
1356 Hansford Street
Charleston, WV 25301
(304) 558-2745
Mark Priddy
Division of Env. Protection
Office of Water Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, WV 25311
(304) 558-2108
10
-------
STATE REGULATORY AGENCY CONTACTS
WISCONSIN: WYOMING:
Terry Evanson Bob Lucht
Wisconsin DNR, SW/3 Ground Water Operations
P.O. Box 7921 Water Quality Division
Madison, WI 53707 122 W. 25th St.
(608) 266-0941 Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7095
11
------- |