United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4606)
EPA816-R-00-013
August 2000
vwvw.epa.gov/safewater
<&EPA National Water Quality Inventory
1998 Report To Congress
Ground Water and Drinking Water
Chapters
-------
COVER PHOTOGRAPH: In 1946 the Department of Interior and the United Mine Workers
agreed to a joint survey of medical, health and housing conditions in coal communities to be
conducted by Navy personnel. Under the direction of Rear Admiral Joel T. Boone, survey teams
went into mining areas to collect data and photographs on the conditions of these regions, later
compiled into a published report titled A Medical Survey of the Bituminous-Coal Industry, 1947.
The bulk of the photographs were taken by Russell W:Lee, a professional photographer hired by
the Department of Interior for this project. These photographs cover a complete range of
activities in mining communities including drawing water from a well as reproduced for the
cover of this report.
Photograph No. NWDNS-245-MS-1279L (Photographer, Russell W. Lee); "Drawing water
from well at farm house where annual reunion of England family was held. Hensley Hollow,
McDowell County, West Virginia," August 11, 1946; Still Picture Branch; Record Group 245;
National Archives at College Park, College Park, MD.
-------
Preface
This bulletin contains the ground water chapters and drinking water sections from the
National Water Quality Inventory, 1998 Report to Congress (305(b) report). As the primary vehicle
for informing Congress and the public about general water quality conditions in the United
States, the 305(b) report summarizes information related to the quality of our nation's water
resources as reported by states, territories, and American Indian tribes in their water quality
assessment reports. Under Section 305(b), the Clean Water Act requires that the states and
other participating jurisdictions submit water quality assessment reports every 2 years and that
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) summarize the state reports and provide the
information to Congress biennially. Most of the survey information in the 1998 national report is
based on water quality information collected and evaluated by the states, territories, and tribes
during 1996 and 1997.
Information contained in this bulletin describes the quality of our nation's ground water
resources and the assessments conducted to determine the quality of water used for drinking
water. This is the first time that the information on drinking water assessments is included in this
bulletin. Using information from the 1998 Section 305(b) reports, the first two sections charac-
terize our nation's ground water quality, identify widespread ground water quality problems of
national significance, and describe various programs implemented to restore and protect our
ground water resources. The third section on drinking water assessments contains information
on state use of assessment criteria, percentages of waters assessed, and sources of impairment
submitted by the states.
An important trend observed in 1998 was the use of monitoring results to streamline and
focus state ground water monitoring programs. Many states have established state-wide moni-
toring programs and implemented improvements to support sound decision making. The moni-
toring of selected aquifers to establish baseline parameters also has taken hold in many states.
Several states are beginning to improve communication and data sharing among state agencies
and are also showing progress in the use of modern system technologies in evaluating the
results of state monitoring. Furthermore, more states are reporting on the assessments for drink-
ing water use and increasing the numbers of waterbodies assessed. Included in the state reports
is information on the classification of waterbodies, contaminant sources, and the level of assess-
ments. Continuation of these trends will surely improve the quality of data and provide more
representative and consistent data throughout the state programs.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) play a complementary
role in the protection of ground water and the assessment of waters designated for drinking
water use. The SDWA calls for states to determine the susceptibility of source waters to contami-
nation, while the CWA calls for them to assess the ability of the waters to support drinking water
use. Ensuring consistently safe drinking water requires the cooperation of federal, state, tribal,
and municipal governments to protect source water from pollution. The states are central in
creating and focusing prevention programs and helping water systems improve their operations
to avoid contamination problems. This integration of protection and assessment programs
promotes the opportunities to better protect public health and the environment.
-------
Contents
Page
Preface i
Figures iv
Tables v
Acknowledgments vi
Ground Water Quality
Ground Water Use in the United States 1
Ground Water Quality 4
Sources of Ground Water Contamination 5
Highlight: Ground Water and Surface Water - a Single Resource 6
Fuel Storage Practices 9
Waste Disposal Practices 10
Agricultural Practices 11
Industrial Practices 12
State Overview of Contaminant Sources 13
Ground Water Assessments 15
Ground Water Quality Data 17
Highlight: Tribal 305(b) Submittals 18
Highlight: Different Types of Monitoring Settings 20
Examples of State Assessments 26
Idaho 26
Pennsylvania 29
Conclusions and Findings 31
Ground Water Protection Programs
State Programs 35
Ground Water Legislation 36
Ground Water Regulations 37
Highlight: Ground Water: The Invisible Resource 38
Interagency Coordination 41
Ground Water Mapping and Classification 42
Ground Water Monitoring 43
Comprehensive Data Management Systems 44
Prevention Programs 46
Federal Programs 47
Clean Water Act 48
Safe Drinking Water Act 49
Highlight: Enhanced Public Involvement in the Development
of State Source Water Assessment Programs 51
-------
Page
Highlight: Eastern Snake River Plain Sole Source Aquifer 58
Other Federal Programs 64
Highlight: Rocky Mountain Arsenal — Colorado 70
Conclusion and Findings 76
Drinking Water Quality Programs
Drinking Water Source Assessments 81
Summary of State Drinking Water Assessments 82
Sources of Drinking Water Use Impairment . 82
Ensuring Safe Drinking Water 83
Highlight: Protecting Sources of Drinking Water 84
Drinking Water Concerns 88
-------
Figures
No. Page
1 National Ground Water Use 2
2 Ground Water Withdrawals by State in 1995 2
3 Volume of Ground Water Used for Irrigation in 1995 3
4 Ground Water Withdrawals in the United States, 1950-1995 3
5 Sources of Ground Water Contamination 5
6 Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination 8
7 Ground Water Contamination as a Result of Leaking
Underground Storage Tanks 9
8 States Reporting Ground Water Data 16
9 Texas Water Quality Inventory 17
10 Sources of Ground Water Monitoring Data 23
11 Idaho's Hydrogeologic Subareas and Major Aquifer Flow Systems . . 29
12 Ground Water Areas and Sites Impacted by Nitrate 29
13 Location of High-Priority Ambient and Fixed Station Network
(FSN) Ground Water Basins and Monitoring Points 30
14 Monitoring Points with Upward Trends in Sodium or Chloride .... 31
15 Percentage of States Having Implemented Programs 36
16 Kansas Groundwater Monitoring Network 44
17 Ohio's Major Aquifer Settings 45
18 Relative Aquifer Vulnerability in North Dakota 47
19 States with Core CSGWPP 49
20 What Actions Are Needed to Complete a Local Source
Water Assessment? 50
21 Status of Source Water Assessment Programs (SWAPS) 50
22 WHP Approval Status as of December 1999 55
23 Wellhead Protection Implementation Nationwide 56
24 Sole Source Aquifer Project Reviews 60
25 Status of Cleanup at UST Sites 67
26 Short-Term Actions Taken at Sites to Protect Human Health
and the Environment (1980 to June 1997) 72
27 States Submitting Drinking Water Use Support Data
in Their 305(b) Reports 82
28 Compliance of Community Drinking Water Systems
with Health Requirements in 1998 88
29 Waterborne Outbreaks in the United States by Year and Type 89
IV
-------
Tables
No. Page
1 Summary of Contaminant Source Type and Number 14
2 Monitoring Results for Nitrates 24
3 Monitoring Results for Volatile Organic Compounds 25
4 Monitoring Results for Semivolatile Organic Compounds 26
5 Monitoring Results for Pesticides 27
6 Monitoring Results for Metals 28
7 Vulnerability of Hawaiian Aquifers 43
8 Summary-Fiscal Year Postdesignation Project Reviews
(1990-1998) 61
9 Injection Wells in 1998 61
10 Criteria to Determine Drinking Water Use Support 81
11 National Drinking Water Use Support 83
12 Sources of Drinking Water Use Impairment 83
-------
Acknowledgments
The 1998 State Water Quality Assessments submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) by states, territories, and American Indian tribes contained a wealth of information
on water quality and monitoring. This bulletin is based primarily on that information, but other
information from other federal agencies and offices outside the Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water (OGWDW) was used to make the report more comprehensive. The EPA wishes
to thank all the EPA personnel who contributed to this report, but special thanks are due to the
authors of the state ground water assessments for their time and effort spent in preparing these
reports and in reviewing the drafts of this national assessment. Additional thanks are extended
to the water quality assessment coordinators from the EPA regional offices that work with the
states, tribes, and other jurisdictions.
The OGWDW project manager and chief editor of this document was A. Roger Anzzolin
of the Information Management Branch, Implementation and Assistance Division (IAD), Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Key contributions also were made by the following IAD
individuals: Steve Ainsworth, Rob Allison, Janet Auerbach, Thomas Belk, Jori Copeland, Robyn
Delehanty, Debra Gutenson, Betsy Henry, Lisa Kahn, James Hamilton, Harriet Hubbard, Bruce
Kobelski, Kevin McCormack, and Roy Simon. Ken Lovelace of the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response; Mark Barolo of the Office of Underground Storage Tanks; Susan
Holdsworth of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds; Chuck Evans, Arty Williams,
and Estella Waldman of the Office of Pesticide Programs; and Jill Nogi of U.S. EPA Region 10
also made key contributions to the protection chapter.
Contractor support was provided under Contract No. 68-C7-0056 with Research Triangle
Institute (RTI). The EPA contract Project Officer was Paulette Ballard. RTI provided the data
analysis, technical assistance, editorial support, design, typesetting, and graphics for the chap-
ters. Key contributors for RTI are: Michael J. McCarthy, Program Manager; Mary T. Siedlecki,
Task Leader - ground water; Susan Goldhaber, Task Leader - drinking water; Jennifer M. Lloyd,
Computer Scientist; Scott Guthrie, Geologist; Lea Anne Meschke, Environmental Scientist;
Linda Murray, Graphics Design; Kathleen B. Mohar, Technical Editor; Shari B. Lambert,
Computer Graphics Specialist; and Deborah Lee, Typesetter.
VI
-------
-------
-------
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is a vital national
resource that is used for myriad
purposes. It is used for
• Public and domestic water supply
systems
• Irrigation and livestock watering
• Industrial, commercial, mining,
and thermoelectric power produc-
tion purposes.
In many parts of the nation,
ground water serves as the only reli-
able source of drinking and irriga-
tion water. Unfortunately, this vital
resource is vulnerable to contami-
nation, and ground water contami-
nant problems are being reported
throughout the country.
This 1998 report represents the
second 305(b) cycle of data collec-
tion based on ground water guide-
lines introduced to states as part of
the 1996 305(b) reporting cycle.
This chapter presents the results
of data submitted by 37 states,
3 territories, 4 tribes, and the
District of Columbia in their 1998
305(b) water quality reports. States
(a term used to include territories,
tribes, and the District of Columbia)
reported ground water monitoring
data for a total of 146 aquifers or
hydrogeologic settings. Based on
these results, ground water quality
in the nation is good and can sup-
port the many different uses of this
resource. Despite these very positive
results, aquifers across the nation
are showing measurable impacts
stemming from human activities.
Through monitoring, elevated
levels of petroleum hydrocarbon
compounds, volatile organic com-
pounds, nitrate, pesticides, and
metals have been detected in
ground water across the nation.
The detection of some contami-
nants in ground water (e.g., metals
and MTBE) is relatively new and is
increasing. With each successive
305(b) report, emerging trends in
ground water contaminants will
become evident.
Ground Water Use
in the United States
Ground water is an important
component of our nation's fresh
water resources. The use of ground
water is of fundamental importance
to human life and is also significant
to economic vitality. Inventories of
ground water and surface water
use patterns in the United States
emphasize the importance of
ground water. The United States
Geological Survey (USGS) compiles
national water use information
every 5 years and publishes a report
that summarizes this information.
The latest USGS report was issued in
October 1998 for the 1995 water
year.
The USGS report shows that
ground water provides water for
drinking and bathing, irrigation of
crop lands, livestock watering,
mining, industrial and commercial
uses, and thermoelectric cooling
-------
2 Ground Water Quality
Figure 1
National Ground Water Use
Irrigation 63%
Commercial 1%
^^-Thermoelectric 1%
Livestock Watering 3%
Domestic Supply 4%
Mining 3%
Industrial 5%
Public Supply 20%
Source: Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995.
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200, 1998.
Figure 2
Ground Water Withdrawals by State in 1995
Volume (millions of gallons per day)
I 1 1,190 -14,500 I 1 205 - 709
I 1 710-1.189 l • 0 - 204
Puerto Rico
Source: Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995.
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200,1998.
applications. Figure 1 illustrates how
ground water use is proportioned
among these categories. As shown,
irrigation (63%) and public water
supply (20%) are the largest uses of
ground water.
About 77,500 million gallons of
ground water are withdrawn daily.
In 1995, the USGS reported that
ground water supplied 46% of the
nation's overall population and 99%
of the population in rural areas with
drinking water. Our nation's depen-
dence on this valuable resource is
clear.
Every state uses some amount
of ground water. Nineteen states
obtain more than 25% of their over-
all water supply from ground water.
Ten states obtain more than 50% of
their total water supply from ground
water.
Each state uses its ground water
differently. Ground water use in indi-
vidual states is a result of numerous
interrelated factors generally associ-
ated with geography and climate,
the principal types of business activi-
ties occurring in the state, and pop-
ulation distribution. Fresh ground
water withdrawals during 1995
were highest generally in the west-
ern states, primarily to supply an
increasing population and to sustain
important agricultural activities.
Figure 2 shows the volume of
ground water withdrawn by states.
The 13 states that have the greatest
withdrawals account for 69% of all
ground water that is withdrawn
nationally.
Overall, agricultural activities
account for the majority of ground
water used in the nation. Figure 3
shows the volume of ground water
used for irrigation. Irrigation is
important for maintaining yields
from crop land in the western and
-------
Ground Water Quality 3
southeastern states. Generally, 75%
or more of harvested crop land in
many of the western states is irri-
gated, which represents an impor-
tant ground water use. Watering of
livestock also accounts for significant
withdrawals of fresh ground water.
Of all the states, California uses the
greatest volume of ground water
supplies to support agriculture.
Ground water use trends
between 1950 and 1995 generally
reflected the observed trends for
total water use for the nation (Figure
4). From 1950 through 1980, there
was a steady increase in fresh
ground water withdrawals, which
coincided with the steady increase
in our nation's total water use. Use
of fresh water generally declined
after 1980 through 1995, and fresh
ground water withdrawals declined
in 1995 to nearly 10% less than
estimated in 1980. This decline
occurred as the nation's population
increased 16% over this 15-year
period.
The current decline in water
use, including ground water use,
is attributed primarily to growing
recognition in recent years that
water is not an unlimited resource.
Conservation programs championed
by state and local communities low-
ered public supply per capita use
over the same 15-year period.
Two factors are contributing to
a lessening demand for water. First,
an increase in dry farming practices
has decreased the acres of irrigated
lands in the west and, thus, has
decreased the demand for fresh
ground water in this region. Second,
improved and more efficient
irrigation systems and techniques
have contributed to water conserva-
tion.
Figure 3
Volume of Ground Water Used
for Irrigation in 1995
'^'Hawaii
° Virgin Islands
Volume (millions of gallons per day) Q Puerto Rico
I 1 >1,000 I 1 101 -500
I 1 501 - 1,000 I 1 0-100
Source: Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995.
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200, 1998.
Figure 4
Ground Water Withdrawals
in the United States, 1950-1995
co
Q
S.
If!
_o
"to
O
o
CD
c
co
co
100
75
50
25
0
n Rural
I I Industrial
fj Public Supply
| Irrigation
F=|
minim
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Years
Source: http://wwwga.usgs.gov/edu/earthgwusetrend.html
-------
4 Ground Water Quality
Industry has also improved the
efficiency of its manufacturing oper-
ations by focusing on water conser-
vation. For example, water recycling
practices by industries, adopted to
reduce discharges as well as operat-
ing costs, have been one important
development in the conservation
of water in industry.
Ground water continues to be
an important component of our
nation's water supply. The demand
for ground water to meet the
nation's needs must be coupled
with supply-management practices
to conserve this valued resource.
Ground Water
Quality
The evaluation of our nation's
ground water quality is complex.
In evaluating ground water quality
under Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act, our goal is to determine
if the resource meets the require-
ments for its many different uses.
Ground water quality can be
adversely affected or degraded as a
result of human activities that intro-
duce contaminants into the environ-
ment. It can also be affected by nat-
ural processes that result in elevated
concentrations of certain constit-
uents in the ground water. For
example, elevated metal concentra-
tions can result when metals are
leached into the ground water from
minerals present in the earth. High
levels of arsenic and uranium are
frequently found in ground water in
some western states.
Not too long ago, it was
thought that soil provided a pro-
tective "filter" or "barrier" that
immobilized the downward migra-
tion of contaminants released on the
land surface. Soil was supposed to
prevent ground water resources
from being contaminated. The
detection of pesticides and other
contaminants in ground water
demonstrated that these resources
were indeed vulnerable to contami-
nation. The potential for a contami-
nant to affect ground water quality
is dependent upon its ability to
migrate through the overlying soils
to the underlying ground water
resource.
Ground water contamination
can occur as relatively well-defined,
localized plumes emanating from
specific sources such as leaking
underground storage tanks, spills,
landfills, waste lagoons, and/or
industrial facilities (Figure 5).
Contamination can also occur as a
general deterioration of ground
water quality over a wide area due
to diffuse nonpoint sources such as
agricultural fertilizer and pesticide
applications. Ground water quality
degradation from diffuse nonpoint
sources affects large areas, making it
difficult to specify the exact source
of the contamination.
Ground water contamination is
most common in highly developed
areas, agricultural areas, and indus-
trial complexes. Frequently, ground
water contamination is discovered
long after it has occurred. One
reason for this is the slow move-
ment of ground water through
aquifers, sometimes as little as frac-
tions of a foot per day. This often
results in a delay in the detection
of ground water contamination.
In some cases, contaminants
introduced into the subsurface
decades ago are only now being
discovered. This also means that the
environmental management prac-
tices of today will have effects on
-------
Ground Water Quality 5
ground water quality well into the
future.
Sources of Ground
Water Contamination
Ground water quality may be
adversely impacted by a variety of
potential contaminant sources. It
can be difficult to identify which
sources have the greatest impact
on ground water quality because
each source varies in the amount of
ground water it contaminates. In
addition, each source impacts water
quality differently.
An EPA/state workgroup devel-
oped a list of potential contaminant
sources and requested each state to
indicate the 10 top sources that
potentially threaten their ground
water resources. States added
sources as was necessary based on
state-specific concerns. When
selecting sources, states considered
numerous factors, including
• The number of each type of
contaminant source in the state
• The location relative to ground
water sources used for drinking
water purposes
• The size of the population at risk
from contaminated drinking water
• The risk posed to human health
and/or the environment from
releases
• Hydrogeologic sensitivity (the
ease with which contaminants enter
and travel through soil and reach
aquifers)
• The findings of the state's ground
water assessments and/or related
studies.
Figure 5
Sources of Ground Water Contamination
»• Ground Water Movement
>- Intentional Input
> Unintentional Input
Tank
Cesspool
Discharge
Fertilizer
Deep
Injection .... .
Well Unllned
We" Landfill
-------
6 Ground Water Quality
HIGHLIGH/M |_| IjteHT HIGHLIGHT
^
Ground Water and Surface
Water - A Single Resource
Traditionally, surface water and
ground water have been treated as
separate entities in the management
of water resources. More recently,
however, it has become apparent
that all waterbody interaction is
interrelated. Water in lakes, wet-
lands, and streams recharges ground
water reservoirs, and ground water
discharges back into lakes, wetlands,
and streams, providing baseflow
maintenance. A recent report by the
USGS, Ground Water and Surface
Water - A Single Resource, summa-
rizes these interactions (USGS
Circular 1139, 1998).
Ground water contributes to
most streams, thereby maintaining
streamflow during periods of low
flow or drought. The ground water
component of streamflow is variable
across the country. In one USGS
study, 24 regions were delineated
on the basis of physiography and
climate. Ground water and surface
water interactions (i.e., ground
water contribution to streamflow)
were considered to be similar in
each of these regions. Fifty-four
streams, with at least two streams in
each region, were selected to study
ground water and surface water
interactions. Daily stream flow values
for the 30-year period, 1 961 to
1990, were used for the analysis of
each stream. The analysis indicated
that an average of 52% of all the
streamflow in the nation was con-
tributed by ground water. Ground
water contributions ranged from
14% to 90%. The ground water
contribution to streamflow for
selected streams is compared in the
figure.
Development of surface water
resources can affect ground water
resources and vice versa. Large with-
drawals of ground water can reduce
the amount of ground water inflow
to surface water and significantly
reduce the supplies of surface water
available to downstream users.
Increased demands on our water
resources prior to the 1 980 water
year (USGS Circular 1 200, 1998)
caused many surface water supplies
to be depleted, particularly in some
western states. The use of large vol-
umes or amounts of ground water
for irrigation was often identified as
the cause of drying river beds and
wetlands. Today, conservation and
changes in agricultural practices are
restoring flow to these rivers and
also to ecologically important
wetlands areas.
The water quality of each of
these resources can also be affected
by their interactions. Water quality
can be adversely affected when
-------
Ground Water Quality 7
HIGHLIG
nutrients and contaminants are
transported between ground water
and surface water. For example,
contaminants in streams can affect
ground water quality during periods
of recharge and flooding. Polluted
ground water can affect surface
waterbodies when contaminated
ground water discharges into a river
or stream. Because contamination is
not restricted to either waterbody,
both ground water and surface
water must be considered in water
quality assessments.
Coordination between surface
water and ground water programs
will be essential to adequately eval-
uate the quality and quantity of our
nation's drinking water. Ground
water and surface water interactions
have a major role in affecting chemi-
cal and biological processes in lakes,
wetlands, and streams, which in turn
affect water quality throughout the
system. An understanding of these
interactions is critical in our water
protection and conservation efforts.
It is evident that protection of
ground water, as much as protection
of surface water, is of major impor-
tance for sustaining uses such as
drinking water supply, fish and
wildlife habitats, swimming, boating,
and fishing.
GHT HIGHLIGHT
A. Dismal River, NE
J. Duckabush River, WA B. Forest River, ND
I.OrestimbaCreek, CA
C. Sturgeon River, Ml
H. Santa Cruz River, AZ
D. Ammonoosuc River, NH
G. Dry Frio River, TX E. Brushy Creek, GA
F. Homochitto River, MS
U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1139, 1998.
Ground water contribution
to stream flow
Surface water contribution
to stream flow
This map compares ground water contribution
to streamflow for selected streams.
-------
8 Ground Water Quality
For each of the 10 top sources,
states identified the specific contam-
inants that may impact ground
water quality. Figure 6 illustrates the
sources most frequently cited by
states as a potential threat to
ground water quality. Leaking
underground storage tanks (LUSTs)
are the greatest potential source of
ground water contamination. Septic
systems, landfills, industrial facilities,
and fertilizer applications are the
next most frequently cited sources
of concern. These findings are
consistent with state reports during
previous 305(b) cycles.
If similar sources are combined,
four broad categories emerge as the
most important potential sources of
ground water contamination:
• Fuel storage practices
• Waste disposal practices
• Agricultural practices
• Industrial practices.
Figure 6
Major Sources of Ground Water Contamination
Sources
Total
Storage Tanks (underground)
Septic Systems
Landfills
Large Industrial Facilities
Fertilizer Applications
Spills
Pesticide Applications
Hazardous Waste Sites
Surface Impoundments
Animal Feedlots
Storage Tanks (aboveground)
Agricultural Chemical Facilities
Salt Water Intrusion
Pipelines and Sewer Lines
Shallow Injection Wells
Mining and Mine Drainage
Urban Runoff
Salt Storage and Road Salting
Hazardous Waste Generators
Wastepiles
Irrigation Practices
Deep Injection Wells
Number Reporting on Top Ten
Contaminant Sources
Number Reporting on Contaminant
Sources in Addition to the Top Ten
37
31
31
25
23
24
20
19
21
18
18
13
13
13
14
12
12
11
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Number of States, Tribes, and Territories Reporting
-------
Ground Water Quality 9
Fuel Storage Practices
Fuel storage practices include
the storage of petroleum products
in underground and aboveground
storage tanks. Although tanks exist
in all populated areas, they are
generally most concentrated in the
more heavily developed urban and
suburban areas of a state.
Storage tanks are primarily used
to hold petroleum products such
as gasoline, diesel fuel, and fuel oil.
Leakages can be a significant source
of ground water contamination
(Figure 7). The primary causes of
tank leakages are faulty installation
or corrosion of tanks and pipelines.
Petroleum products are actually
complex mixtures of hundreds of
different compounds. Over 200
gasoline compounds can be sepa-
rated in the mixture. Compounds
characterized by a higher water
solubility are frequently detected in
ground water resources. Four com-
pounds, in particular, are associated
with petroleum contamination:
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylenes. Petroleum-related
chemicals threaten the use of
ground water for human consump-
tion because some (e.g., benzene)
are known to cause cancer even at
very low concentrations.
Compounds are added to some
fuel products to improve perform-
ance. For example, methyl tert-butyl
ether (MTBE) is added to boost
octane and reduce carbon monox-
ide and ozone levels. Unfortunately,
this compound is highly water solu-
ble and incidents of MTBE contami-
nation in ground water are widely
reported across the nation. States
report that MTBE is frequently being
added to the list of compounds
monitored at petroleum release
sites. Thus, a new threat to ground
water quality has been identified
just in the past 5 years.
States report that the organic
chemicals associated with petrole-
um products are common ground
water contaminants. Petroleum-
related chemicals adversely affect
ground water quality in aquifers
across the nation. The most signifi-
cant impacts occur in the upper-
most aquifer, which is frequently
shallow and often used for domestic
purposes.
Figure 7
Ground Water Contamination as a Result
of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
-------
10 Ground Water Quality
Efforts to Fight Air
Pollution Create a
Water Quality Concern
What began as an effort to
fight air pollution became a
water quality concern that
necessitated dozens of costly
studies and created a public
health risk. Although methyl
tert-butyl ether (MTBE) helps
lower tailpipe emissions, it also
contaminates ground water
supplies. MTBE is more soluble
in water and less likely to be
degraded than other common
petroleum constituents. It is
also tentatively classified as a
possible human carcinogen by
EPA. In studies conducted by
the USGS, MTBE was the sec-
ond most commonly detected
volatile organic compound
(VOC) in water collected from
urban wells and the seventh
most commonly detected VOC
in urban stormwater. Although
frequently detected, only 3% of
the urban wells sampled were
characterized by concentrations
of MTBE that exceeded EPA's
draft drinking water health
advisory level of 20 micro-
grams/liter. All of the concen-
trations measured in urban
stormwater were less than the
health advisory level.
Waste Disposal Practices
Waste disposal practices include
• Septic systems
• Landfills
• Surface impoundments
• Deep and shallow injection wells
• Wastepiles
• Waste tailings
• Land application
• Unpermitted disposal.
Any practice that involves the
handling and disposal of waste has
the potential to impact the environ-
ment if protective measures are not
taken. Contaminants most likely
to impact ground water include
metals, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), semivolatile organic com-
pounds (SVOCs), nitrates, radio-
nuclides, and pathogens. States
report that current laws and regula-
tions go a long way toward pre-
venting releases and that many
instances of present-day ground
water contamination are the result
of historic practices.
Improperly constructed and
poorly maintained septic systems
are believed to cause substantial
and widespread nutrient and
microbial contamination to ground
water. In Montana, approximately
126,000 individual onsite septic
systems are used by 252,000 peo-
ple, and ground water monitoring
has shown elevated nitrate levels
near areas of concentrated septic
systems. Widespread nitrate con-
tamination by individual septic
systems and municipal sewage
lagoons is a significant ground
water contamination problem
reported by Colorado and Arizona.
Landfills have long been used to
dispose of wastes and, in the past,
little regard was given to the poten-
tial for ground water contamination
in site selection. Landfills were gen-
erally sited on land considered to
have no other uses. Unlined aban-
doned sand and gravel pits, old
strip mines, marshlands, and sink-
holes were often used. In many
instances, the water table was at, or
very near the ground surface, and
the potential for ground water con-
tamination was high. Not surpris-
ingly, states consistently cite landfills
as a high-priority source of ground
water contamination. Generally,
the greatest concern is associated
with practices or activities that
occurred prior to establishment of
construction standards for landfills.
Present-day landfills are now
required to adhere to stringent
construction and ground water
monitoring standards.
Generally, discharges to surface
impoundments such as pits, ponds,
and lagoons are underregulated.
In Indiana, many surface impound-
ments neither discharge to surface
water nor have designed outfalls;
as a consequence, they have
the potential to leach metals,
volatile organic compounds, and
semivolatile organic compounds to
ground water. In Colorado, wells
located downgradient from tailings
ponds or cyanide heaps associated
with mining operations often
exhibit high concentrations of
metals. Arizona also identified sur-
face impoundments and leach fields
as significant sources of volatile
organic compounds.
-------
Ground Water Quality 11
Class V injection wells include
shallow wastewater disposal wells,
septic systems, storm water drains,
and agricultural drainage systems.
Class V injection wells are used to
dispose of wastewaters directly into
the ground. Because they are not
designed to treat the wastewaters
released through them, ground
water supplies can become contam-
inated. The large number and diver-
sity of Class V injection wells pose
a significant potential threat to
ground water. The state of Indiana
indicated that they are targeting
these installations for further legisla-
tive controls.
Agricultural Practices
Agricultural practices that have
the potential to contaminate
ground water include
• Animal feedlots
• Fertilizer and pesticide
applications
• Irrigation practices
• Agricultural chemical facilities
• Drainage wells.
Ground water contamination
can be a result of routine applica-
tions, spillage, or misuse of pesti-
cides and fertilizers during handling
and storage, manure storage/
spreading, improper storage of
chemicals, and irrigation return
drains serving as a direct conduit
to ground water. Fields with over-
applied and/or misapplied fertilizers
and pesticides can introduce nitro-
gen, pesticides, cadmium, chloride,
mercury, and selenium into the
ground water. States report that
agricultural practices continue to
be a major source of ground water
contamination.
Animal feeding operations can
pose a number of risks to water
quality and public health, mainly
because of the amount of animal
manure and wastewater they gener-
ate. Animal feedlots often have
impoundments from which wastes
may infiltrate to ground water.
Livestock waste is a source of nitrate,
bacteria, total dissolved solids, and
sulfates.
Livestock is an integral compo-
nent of many states' economies. As
a consequence, concentrated animal
feeding operations occur in many
states. The high concentration of
manure in feedlot areas causes
confined animal feedlots to be a
concern for contributing to ground
water contamination.
Shallow unconfined aquifers
in many states have become
contaminated from the application
of fertilizer. Crop fertilization is
the most important agricultural
practice contributing nitrate to the
environment. Nitrate is considered
by many to be the most widespread
ground water contaminant. To help
combat the problems associated
with the overuse of fertilizers, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Natural Resources Conservation
Service assists crop producers in
developing nutrient management
plans.
Human-induced salinity also
occurs in agricultural regions where
irrigation is used extensively. Irriga-
tion water continually flushes
nitrate-related compounds from
fertilizers into the shallow aquifers
along with high levels of chloride,
sodium, and other metals, thereby
increasing the salinity of the under-
lying aquifers.
Risk of Multiple
Contaminants
In a recent study by the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin-Madison, *
researchers noted that common
mixtures of pesticides and
fertilizers can have biological
effects at the current concentra-
tions measured in ground
water. Specifically, the combi-
nation ofaldicarb, atrazine,
and nitrate, which are the most
common contaminants detect-
ed in ground water, can influ-
ence the immune and endo-
crine systems as well as affect
neurological health. Changes in
the ability to learn and in
patterns of aggression were
observed. Effects are most
noticeable when a single pesti-
cide is combined with nitrate
fertilizer. Research shows that
children and developing fetuses
are most at risk. EPA is devel-
oping an approach to deal with
mixtures under the cumulative
risk policy. The initial step is to
deal with mixtures on a case-
by-case basis beginning with
the organophosphate pesticides
as a group. Dealing with mix-
tures of chemicals under the
Food Quality Protection Act
and Safe Drinking Water Act
will continue to be a challenge
in the future.
* Porter et al. 1999. Toxicology and
Industrial Health 15, 133-150.
-------
12 Ground Water Quality
Metals in the Environment
Metals may be present in indus-
trial and commercial process
waste streams. These metals
tend to be persistent with little
to no potential for degradation.
Predicting their mobility and
toxicity is complex due to the
large number of chemical
reactions that can affect their
behavior. The scientific commu-
nity is only just now beginning
to unravel the intricacies
involved in predicting metals
behavior in the environment.
Pesticide use and application
practices are of great concern. The
primary routes of pesticide transport
to ground water are through leach-
ing or by spills and direct infiltration
through drainage controls. Pesticide
infiltration is generally greatest when
rainfall is intense and occurs shortly
after the pesticide is applied. Within
sensitive areas, ground water moni-
toring has shown fairly widespread
detections of pesticides, specifically
the pesticide atrazine. Many states
are developing or have developed
specific management plans to better
control pesticide application rates
and frequency to lessen the impacts
on the resource.
Industrial Practices
Raw materials and waste han-
dling in industrial processes can
pose a threat to ground water qual-
ity. States noted that industrial facil-
ities, hazardous waste generators,
and manufacturing/repair shops all
present the potential for releases.
Storage of raw materials at the facil-
ity are a problem if the materials are
stored improperly and leaks or spills
occur. Examples include chemical
drums that are carelessly stacked or
damaged and/or dry materials that
are exposed to rainfall. Material
transport and transfer operations at
these facilities can also be a cause
for concern. If a tanker operator is
careless when delivering raw mate-
rials to a facility, spills may occur.
The most common contami-
nants are metals, volatile organic
compounds, semivolatile organic
compounds, and petroleum com-
pounds. States reported releases of
each of these contaminant types in
association with industrial practices
in their 1998 305(b) reports as both
a current and potential threat to
ground water quality.
Cyanide spills associated with
ore processing continue to affect
ground water quality in Montana.
Ground water contamination
extending beyond mine properties
has occurred at nine ore processing
facilities. Water supplies have been
affected by at least three spills.
Thirty-eight ore processors are
known to have used cyanide at
some point during their operation,
and, of these facilities, four remain
active. Cyanide will continue to
affect the quality of Montana's
ground water in these mining areas
from past releases as well as from
the potential threat of future acci-
dental releases.
Spills are a source of grave
concern among states. The state of
Indiana reported that about 50 spills
occur per week. In 1996, 41 million
gallons of chemicals, industrial
wastes, and agricultural products
were spilled in Indiana. Montana
reports an average of 300 accidental
spills each year. On average, approx-
imately 15 of these spills require
extensive cleanup and followup
ground water monitoring. One of
these was the 1995 derailment of
railroad tanker cars in the Helena rail
yard that threatened to contaminate
ground water with 17,400 gallons
of fuel oil. Followup monitoring
demonstrated that rapid response
actions had prevented the majority
of the contaminants from reaching
local aquifers.
Volatile organic compounds
associated with solvent spills and
leaks from electronics, aerospace,
and military facilities that use these
chemicals as degreasing agents
-------
Ground Water Quality 13
were identified by Arizona as major
sources of ground water contamina-
tion. South Carolina determined
that accidental spills and leaks are
the second most common source of
ground water contamination, and,
as in Arizona, these releases can
usually be associated with petro-
leum-based products attributed to
machinery maintenance or manu-
facturing. Spills will never become
entirely preventable, but industry,
local governments, and states are
cooperating to control spills when
they do occur so that the impact to
the environment is minimized
Development of new technolo-
gies and new products to replace
organic solvents is continuing. For
example, organic biodegradable
solvents derived from plants are
being developed for large-scale
industrial applications. Environmen-
tally responsible dry cleaning tech-
nologies are being developed that
eliminate the need for perchloro-
ethylene. Legislation is being
considered in New York and by
other local governments and states
that would ban the use of perchlo-
roethylene by the dry cleaning
industry.
State Overview of
Contaminant Sources
States inventory the types and
numbers of contaminant sources
having the potential to impact
ground water quality in selected
aquifers. This type of information
serves three purposes:
• To identify contaminant sources
with the greatest potential to impact
ground water quality based on sheer
number of sites
• To determine the number of sites
actually having impacted ground
water resources
• To determine the remedial actions
being taken to address the contami-
nation and the degree of success.
For 1998, 26 states reported
contaminant source information for
specific aquifers. Table 1 summarizes
contaminant source information for
those 26 states. Many states do not
yet track this type of information in
an easily accessible format.
As shown in Table 1, under-
ground storage tanks (USTs) repre-
sent the highest number of potential
sources of ground water contamina-
tion. These findings are consistent
with data reported during the 1996
305(b) cycle. Over 85,000 UST sites
were reported in 72 hydrogeologic
settings in 22 states. Of these tanks,
57% were characterized by con-
firmed contaminant releases to the
environment and 18% had releases
that adversely affected ground water
quality. These sites are slowly being
cleaned up and restored. Nearly
21,500 (25%) of these sites have
been remediated as of late 1998.
Much of the money that supports
cleanup operations is provided by
State Underground Tank Remedia-
tion Funds. Eighteen states reported
that they have fully established
Remediation Funds.
States ranked underground
injection sites as second on the list
of potential sources of contamina-
tion. More than 31,000 under-
ground injection sites exist in the 72
settings evaluated. The percent with
confirmed ground water contamina-
tion is less than 5%, suggesting that
underground injection sites are less
of a threat than leaking USTs.
-------
14 Ground Water Quality
State sites include unregulated
chemical spills or historic sites for
which there is no responsible party.
These sites are not covered by an
EPA regulatory program. State sites
accounted for over 12,000 sites
present in 34 hydrogeologic set-
tings. Of these sites, over 50% have
confirmed contaminant releases and
over 25% have confirmed ground
water impacts.
For each of the sources listed in
Table 1, states attempted to identify
the types of contaminants most like-
ly to be present. Although con-
taminants ranged from asbestos to
radionuclides, the most frequently
cited contaminants were
• Volatile organic compounds
• Petroleum compounds
• Metals
• Pesticides
• Nitrate.
Volatile organic compounds and
petroleum compounds were each
cited as contaminants of concern in
60% of the hydrogeologic settings
for which states reported data.
Metals were measured in ground
water collected from 52% of the
hydrogeologic settings. Pesticides
and nitrate were cited 31% and
22% of the time, respectively.
Table 1 . Summary of Contaminant Source Type and Number
Source Type
LUST
Underground Injection
State Sites
DOD/DOE
CERCLA (non-NPL)
RCRA Corrective Action
Non point Sources
Landfills
NPL
Number
of States
Reporting
Information
22
17
17
17
19
19
8
6
22
Number of Aquifers
or Hydrogeologic
Settings for Which
Information
Was Reported
72
72
34
54
59
50
29
26
66
Total
Sites
85,067
31,480
12,202
8,705
3,506
2,696
2,030
1,356
307
Number of Sites
with Confirmed Releases
Number
48,320
1,313
6,199
4,470
1,381
538
44
110
275
Percent
of Total
57
4
51
51
39
20
2
8
90
Number of Sites with
Confirmed Ground
Water Contamination
Number
15,436
172
3,139
286
802
267
31
110
249
Percent
of Total
18
<1
26
3
23
10
<2
8
81
CERCLA = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
DOD/DOE = Department of Defense/Department of Energy.
LUST = Leaking Underground Storage Tank.
NPL = National Priority List.
RCRA = Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
— = Not available.
-------
Ground Water Quality 15
Ground Water
Assessments
The 1998 305(b) reporting
cycle was the second cycle for
which states reported quantitative
ground water monitoring data
on an aquifer-specific basis. Data
reporting increased in uniformity in
1998 as states became familiar with
the revised Ground Water Guidelines
and began developing methodol-
ogies to report the data in the
format requested. Increased consist-
ency in the way data were submit-
ted allowed for more meaningful
comparisons of reported data.
Thirty-one states reported
ground water monitoring data that
were used in this assessment. Ten
states and tribes reported ground
water monitoring data for the first
time in 1998. Additional data from
14 states were also received, but the
data were not compatible with the
305(b) data format and could not
be used in the national summary.
Figure 8 shows the states that
submitted ground water data for
the 1998 305(b) reporting cycle.
States that achieved full state
coverage in 1996 reported their
most recent monitoring results for
1998. States that implemented
rotating monitoring plans reported
data for additional aquifers within
the state.
Texas is an example of a state
that uses a rotating monitoring
design. The Texas Groundwater
Protection Committee is the
Number of Sites
with Active Remediation
Number
3,044
61
753
1,717
229
95
5
2
83
Percent
of Total
4
<1
6
20
7
4
<1
<1
27
Number of Sites
with Cleanup Completed
Number
21,438
452
3,242
1,937
316
67
3
—
33
Percent
of Total
25
<2
27
22
9
3
<1
—
11
Hydrogeologic
Settings
This term describes the geologic-
related ground water and sur-
face water factors that affect
and control ground water move-
ment into an area. Factors—
such as depth to ground water,
soil type, and the amount of
recharge—can be used to map
areas with common characteris-
tics. It is possible then to make
generalizations about the
vulnerability of the setting to
potential contaminants.
Aller et al. 1987. DRASTIC — A
Standardized System for Evaluating
Ground Water Pollution Potential
Using Hydrogeologic Settings.
EPA/600/2-87/035. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
-------
16 Ground Water Quality
Figure 8
coordinating entity for Texas ground
water issues. The Texas Water Devel-
opment Board performs ambient
ground water monitoring on a
selected number of Texas aquifers
each year so that all major and
minor aquifers of the state are
monitored within a 5-year period.
Major and minor aquifers
underlie approximately 76% of
Texas' 267,338 square miles of land
surface. Major aquifers produce
large quantities of water in a larger
area of the state. Minor aquifers
produce significant quantities of
water within smaller geographic
areas or small quantities in large
geographic areas. Nine major
aquifers and twenty minor aquifers
have been delineated within the
state.
Approximately 4,200 domestic
and agricultural water wells are sam-
pled as part of this 5-year program.
States Reporting Ground Water Data
Figure 9 illustrates the aquifers
assessed during the first three moni-
toring cycles. The remaining Texas
aquifers will be assessed for 2000
and 2001.
Texas' goal is to completely
assess all major and minor aquifers
every 5 years. After this first 5-year
cycle is complete, a historical analy-
sis of ambient ground water quality
will begin as the state repeats the
cycle.
Hawaii provides yet another
plan for implementing statewide
ground water assessment. Hawaii
designed a three-phased plan.
Phase I uses existing information
from the Department of Health
aquifer research program and
wellhead protection assessments.
These data are compared with
ground water contamination maps
of detected organic chemical con-
tamination in the state. Together
these data provide an overlay of the
location of aquifers in the state,
locations where contaminants have
been detected, and specific aquifer/
wellhead areas that have been
assessed for vulnerability to contami-
nation. Phase I assessments were
submitted as part of the 1998
305(b) cycle.
Phase II assessments will be
reported as part of the 2000 and
2002 305(b) cycles. They will be
based on data from the Hawaii
Source Water Assessment Program
(HISWAP). Phase II information will
provide comprehensive data on
public drinking water sources and
will identify
Puerto Rico
Ground water section submitted
Ground water section not submitted
-------
Ground Water Quality 17
• Source water protection areas
• Sources of contamination
• Susceptibility of source water to
contamination.
Phase III assessment will include
all completed HISWAP assessments
and any ambient ground water data
collected and/or analyzed. Phase III
will produce a comprehensive
database of public drinking water
sources and ambient ground water
data. Implementation of this phase
will depend on pending policy and
budget decisions.
Ground Water Quality
Data
For the 1998 305 (b) cycle, states
assessed ground water quality using
three primary sources of data: ambi-
ent ground water monitoring data,
unfinished water quality data, and
finished water quality data (Figure
10). Furthermore, states reported
results for a smaller suite of analytes
relative to the 1996 305(b) cycle,
focusing primarily on volatile organic
compounds, semivolatile organic
compounds, and nitrate. Emphasis
on these three parameter groupings
is warranted because the presence of
Figure 9
Texas Water Quality Inventory
Aquifers inventoried in 1996
Aquifers inventoried in 1998
Aquifers to be inventoried in 1999
Framework for Compiling
State Data
Assessment of ground water quality
under the 305(b) program is evolv-
ing, and many changes have been
implemented over the past decade to
develop an accurate representation
of our nation's ground water quality.
One of the most significant changes
was the request that states begin
reporting ground water monitoring
data for specific aquifers or hydro-
geologic settings within the state. As
the states began reporting monitor-
ing data for multiple hydrogeologic
settings, EPA responded by develop-
ing a database to compile and
maintain the large volume of
ambient ground water quality data
being reported as part of the 305 (b)
program. This database provides a
framework for state-reported ground
water quality data.
Currently, the dataset contains
ground water monitoring data for
243 hydrogeologic settings, repre-
senting data reported by states for
the 1996 and 1998 305(b) cycles.
Obviously, this set of data provides
limited national coverage, and only
a limited assessment of ground
water quality on a national basis is
possible at this time. However, a
framework for reporting and compil-
ing data on a biennial basis has
been established, and, as states
report new data with each successive
305(b) cycle, the data set will
mature. With continuing efforts, an
accurate and representative assess-
ment of our nation's ground water
resources should emerge.
-------
18 Ground Water Quality
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
Tribal 305(b) Submittals
LA JOLLA INDIAN RESERVATION
Four Native American tribes
submitted 305(b) water quality
reports in 1998. They are
• La Jolla Band of Indians of Pauma
Valley, California
• Twenty-Nine Palms Band of
Mission Indians of Coachella,
California
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians of Thermal, California
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians of Palm Springs, California.
La Jolla Band of Indians is
located in the San Luis Rey River
Ground Water Basin and the other
three tribes are located in the
Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin.
The Coachella Valley Water District
has undertaken extensive studies to
estimate ground water production
and overdraft in the Valley. Recent
estimates indicate that ground water
is in an overdraft situation with
more water being pumped out of
the Valley than is entering as
recharge. Estimates of overdraft in
the lower Valley range from 50,000
to 150,000 acre-feet per year.
Approximately half of the overdraft
is attributed to agriculture and half
is attributed to municipal and recre-
ational uses.
Anthropogenic sources of
ground water contamination include
agricultural chemical facilities, ferti-
lizer applications, irrigation and
drainage practices, wastepiles, deep
and shallow injection wells, septic
systems, underground storage tanks,
and industrial facilities. The overdraft
situation in the Valley causes higher
hydraulic gradients and increases
the potential for ground water con-
taminants to affect ground water
resources. One very common con-
taminant that is detected in ground
water on the reservations is nitrate.
All four tribes assessed ground water
quality using nitrate as an indicator
parameter.
Natural sources of contamina-
tion also impact ground water qual-
ity. Fluoride-bearing minerals pres-
ent in the aquifer substrate con-
tribute high levels of fluoride to the
ground water. Arsenic and radionu-
clides may also be present in ground
water through leaching of natural
-------
Ground Water Quality 19
sources. All four tribes assessed
ground water quality for fluoride.
Three of the four tribes assessed
arsenic and either gross alpha or
uranium concentrations as well.
Arsenic and radionuclide data were
not available to the La Jolla Band of
Indians.
Ground water assessments were
conducted by reviewing historic
water quality data of operating
wells, monitoring the quality of
water from springs, and collecting
supplemental ground water quality
data in the vicinity of the reserva-
tions. The number of wells sampled
ranged from five wells (La Jolla
Band of Indians) to 47 wells (Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians).
Common parameters monitored on
the reservations included nitrate,
arsenic, fluoride, radionuclides,
volatile organic compounds, and
semivolatile organic compounds.
Monitoring data were compared to
federal drinking water standards to
assess whether the ground water
met beneficial uses such as drinking
water, agricultural supply, and/or
industrial supply.
Nitrate is present at detectable
concentrations in ground water
collected from all four reservations.
However, the maximum contami-
nant level, or MCL, for nitrate is
rarely exceeded. Fluoride and
arsenic are also present at detectable
concentrations. Radionuclides are
measured at concentrations that are
generally representative of back-
ground conditions.
Fluoride was the most frequent-
ly detected constituent at concen-
trations exceeding the drinking
water standard in ground water
collected from the 29 Palms Reser-
vation. Fluoride was measured at
concentrations exceeding one-half
the drinking water standard in
ground water collected from the
Torres-Martinez Reservation. In con-
trast, nearly 30%, or 20 out of 71
samples, exceeded the MCL for
arsenic in ground water collected
from the Torres-Martinez Reserva-
tion. MCL exceedances were rarely
observed in ground water collected
from the Agua Caliente Reservation.
Of the three tribes that tested for
volatile organic compounds or
semivolatile organic compounds, no
concentrations exceeded the MCL.
Hence, although some water quality
issues may exist on the reservations,
these water quality impacts do not
seem to be caused by anthropo-
genic sources. Rather, most of the
observed MCL exceedances can be
traced back to natural sources.
HIGHLIG
GHT HIGHLIGHT
-------
20 Ground Water Quality
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
Different Types of
Monitoring Settings
Thirty-one states reported data
summarizing ground water quality.
In total, data were reported for
146 aquifers or other hydrogeologic
settings for the 1998 305(b) cycle.
States that were unable to report
ground water quality data for
specific aquifers assessed ground
water quality using a number of
different hydrogeologic settings,
Existing Monitoring
Areas
Proposed Monitoring
Areas
Arkansas Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Program
Existing monitoring areas include Ouachita (1), Lonoke (2), Pine Bluff (3),
Omaha (4), El Dorado (5), Jonesboro (6), Brinkley (7), and Chicot (8). Expansion
areas will include Hardy (9) and Athens Plateau (10).
including statewide summaries,
counties, watersheds, basins, and
sites or areas chosen for specific
monitoring purposes. A brief
description of several ground water
assessment methods and their
rationale is presented.
Arkansas - Ambient Ground
Water Monitoring Program
The Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology
began its Ambient Ground Water
Monitoring Program in 1986 to
monitor overall ground water
quality in the state. The Program
currently consists of eight active
monitoring areas and two proposed
areas selected to evaluate potential
impacts from multiple land uses
(see figure). The areas are in differ-
ent counties covering the diverse
geologic, hydrologic, and economic
regimes within the state. One area
is characterized by the largest
community using ground water to
meet all of its needs. An objective of
the monitoring program is to moni-
tor water quality that is affected by
public and commercial well use. For
the 1998 305 (b) cycle, Arkansas
reported their most recent round of
results for the eight active monitor-
ing areas.
-------
Ground Water Quality 21
Indiana - Hydrogeologic
Settings
Indiana developed a system
that allows for data to be analyzed
according to similar surface and
subsurface environments. To inter-
pret the ground water sensitivity to
contamination, the analysis consid-
ers the composition, thickness, and
geometry of the aquifers; variability
of the confining units; surface and
ground water interactions; and
recharge/discharge relationships
(see figure). For the 1998 305(b)
cycle, Indiana selected hydrogeo-
logic settings that were vulnerable
to contamination and contain large
populated areas (i.e., areas of great-
est ground water demand). These
settings were principally outwash
deposits or fans of glacial origin.
Alabama - Cumberland
Plateau Ground Water
Province
Alabama divided the state into
physiographic provinces and is
assessing ground water quality in
aquifers in different provinces with
each successive 305 (b) cycle.
Ground water quality in the Tus-
cumbia Fort Payne Aquifer outcrop
area in the Highland Rim Province
HIGHLIG
GHT HIGHLIGHT
Hydrogeologic Setting
Ohio River Valley deposits
Outwash plain
Outwash system
Glacial outwash deposits
Outwash plain
Map of Hydrogeologic Settings
-------
22 Ground Water Quality
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
was evaluated in 1996. Alabama
provided ground water quality data
for the Cumberland Plateau Ground
Water Province for 1998 (see fig-
ure). This area includes all or parts
of 13 counties in north Alabama
that are underlain by three major
aquifer outcrop areas. The aquifers
outcropping include the Pottsville
Aquifer, the Tuscumbia-Fort Payne
Aquifer, and those aquifers of Cam-
brian-Ordovician age. The shallow
Tuscumbia Fort
Payne Aquifer Outcrop
Alabama Physiographic Provinces
aquifers of the Cumberland Plateau
Ground Water Province are consid-
ered vulnerable to contamination
from surface sources through frac-
tures and sinkholes that provide
direct recharge to the subsurface.
Some of these aquifers are also
highly vulnerable to contamination
through karst features that provide
direct access from the surface into
the aquifer.
-------
Ground Water Quality 23
manufactured compounds (i.e., the
volatile organic compounds and
semivolatile organic compounds) in
ground water is a definitive indica-
tion of contamination from human
sources. Even if only limited data are
available for assessing ground water
quality, the presence of VOC and
SVOCs is of serious concern. The
presence of nitrate at concentrations
exceeding background levels is
another sign of human impacts to
ground water quality. In fact, states
indicated that they used nitrate as
an "indicator" parameter of water
quality impacts, and all 31 states
reported nitrate data.
States also reported monitoring
data for an "others" category. This
usually referenced inorganic and/or
metallic contaminants. Inorganic
constituents generally referred to
water quality parameters that were
more reflective of natural back-
ground conditions than adverse
impacts to ground water quality
resulting from human activities.
Some examples include sodium,
calcium, magnesium, potassium,
bicarbonate, fluoride, and chloride.
In contrast, elevated concentrations
of some metals can be a strong
indication of water quality impacts
resulting from human activities.
Metals that reflect human activities
include barium, arsenic, mercury,
cadmium, zinc, lead, selenium,
copper, chromium, silver, and
nickel.
Tables 2 through 6 present state
data for nitrate, VOCs, SVOCs,
pesticides, and metals. In most
cases, the reported data represent
average concentration values for the
monitoring period. However, some
states reported results based on the
maximum concentration detected
in wells during the monitoring
period. It is important to remember
that the aquifer monitoring data
reported by states represent differ-
ent sources, often with different
monitoring purposes, and care
must be taken in making data
Figure 10
Sources of Ground Water Monitoring Data
% Total
Ambient Monitoring Network
Unfinished Water Quality Data
from PWS Wells
Finished Water Quality Data from
Private or Unregulated Wells
Finished Water Quality Data from
PWS Wells
20 40
Percentage of States
52
26
13
55
60
Note: Percentage based on a total of 31 states submitting data. Some states used multiple data sources.
-------
24 Ground Water Quality
comparisons. Monitoring data most
closely approximating actual
ground water conditions (e.g.,
untreated ground water) are given
special consideration in these assess-
ments.
States reported aquifer monitor-
ing data for nitrate more frequently
than for any other parameter or
parameter group. Nitrate is well
suited for use as an indicator param-
eter. Its presence in ground water
systems is indicative of human activ-
ities and it can be detected at rela-
tively low concentrations through
the use of standard, reliable, and
relatively inexpensive analytical
methodologies.
Table 2 presents aquifer moni-
toring data for nitrate for the 1998
305(b) reporting cycle. With the
exception of untreated water quality
data from public water supply
(PWS) wells, the maximum contam-
inant level (MCL) of 10 mg/L was
exceeded in at least 40% of the
hydrogeologic settings for which
states reported nitrate data. How-
ever, although elevated nitrate levels
were documented by states in
ground water, the percentage of
wells that were impacted by nitrate
levels in excess of the MCL was less
than 5% for ambient ground water
monitoring networks and less than
1% for drinking water sources. The
percentage of wells impacted by
nitrate was higher in the two special
studies reported by states. However,
these studies were specifically
designed to monitor land use effects
with the potential to contribute
nitrate to the environment, so their
data may be skewed.
Tables 3 through 5 provide
summary information for VOCs,
SVOCs, and pesticides. States
reported ground water monitoring
data for VOCs more frequently than
for either SVOCs or pesticides.
Table 2. Monitoring Results for Nitrates
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from PWS Wells
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from Private or
Unregulated Wells
Finished Water
Quality Data
from PWS wells
Special Studies
Number
of States
Reporting
16
8
4
17
2
Number
of States
Reporting
MCL
Exceed -
ances
10
0
3
10
2
Total
Number
of Units
for Which
Data Were
Reported
95
20
4
57
6
Number
of Units
Having
MCL
Exceedances
38
(40%)
0
3
(75%)
26
(46%)
4
(67%)
Total
Number
of Wells
for Which
Data Were
Reported
7,555
538
12,180
32,936
424
Number
of Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceed-
ances
307
0
62
379
68
Highest
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
55
out of 114
0
out of 1 73
48
out of 3,165
284
out of 3,057
33
out of 96
Average
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
8
0
21
14
17
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
PWS = Public water supply.
-------
Ground Water Quality 25
Approximately half of the reporting
states indicated that VOCs had
exceeded MCLs in ground water.
Approximately 25% of the hydro-
geologic settings were characterized
by MCL exceedances of VOCs in
ambient ground water. However,
only 6% of the wells used to assess
ambient ground water quality were
characterized by MCL exceedances
of VOCs. The greatest percentage
of MCL exceedances (9%) was
observed in private and unregulated
wells.
Four states reported data for
pesticides in ambient ground water.
Of these four states, two states
reported the presence of pesticides
at concentrations exceeding MCLs.
Levels of pesticides exceeding MCLs
impacted 17% of the hydrogeologic
settings and 2% of the wells moni-
toring ambient ground water condi-
tions. Semivolatile organic com-
pounds were rarely measured in
ground water at concentrations
exceeding MCLs.
Forty percent of the hydrogeo-
logic settings for which states
reported ambient ground water
monitoring data were affected by
metal concentrations that exceeded
MCL values. The percentage of
hydrogeologic settings affected by
elevated metal concentrations was
even higher for untreated and fin-
ished water collected from PWS
wells. Again, although the number
of settings is relatively high, the
percentage of wells that are charac-
terized by MCL exceedances is rela-
tively low with approximately only
1% of the wells monitoring ambient
ground water conditions being
impacted. In contrast, 12% of the
wells supplying untreated water
quality data from PWS were
impacted.
Table 3. Monitoring Results for Volatile Organic Compounds
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from PWS Wells
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from Private or
Unregulated Wells
Finished Water
Quality Data
from PWS wells
Special Studies
Number
of States
Reporting
9
6
1
17
1
Number
of States
Reporting
MCL
Exceed-
ances
4
3
1
9
0
Total
Number
of Units
for Which
Data Were
Reported
55
18
2
60
1
Number
of Units
Having
MCL
Exceedances
13
(24%)
3
(17%)
1
(50%)
13
(22%)
0
Total
Number
of Wells
for Which
Data Were
Reported
3,644
404
23
17,021
0
Number
of Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceed-
ances
214
(6%)
9
2
(9%)
83
0
Highest
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
143
out of 441
6
out of 1 1
2
out of 19
47
out of 1,484
0
Average
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
16
3
2
6
0
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
PWS = Public water supply.
-------
26 Ground Water Quality
Examples of State
Assessments
Although very positive strides
were made in assessing ground
water quality in 1998, ground water
data collection under Section
305(b) is still too immature to
provide national assessments.
Despite the lack of national cover-
age, states have demonstrated
strong assessment capabilities.
Following are descriptions of two
states' assessments that may be
useful to other states in designing
and implementing monitoring
programs.
Idaho
Idaho is one of the top five
states in the nation with respect to
the volume of ground water used
to meet the needs of its population.
Idahoans use an average of 9 billion
gallons of ground water daily. Sixty
percent of this water is used for
crop irrigation and stock animals,
36% is used by industry, and 3% to
4% is used for drinking water. Even
though the volume of ground water
used as drinking water is relatively
small in comparison to the total
ground water used, more than
90% of the total population in
Idaho relies on ground water for
drinking water supply.
To characterize and protect this
valuable resource, Idaho developed
a monitoring approach that
includes a statewide ambient
ground water quality monitoring
network integrated with regional
and local monitoring. The statewide
monitoring network is used to
• Characterize ground water
quality conditions
• Identify trends in ground water
quality
Table 4. Monitoring Results for Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from PWS Wells
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from Private or
Unregulated Wells
Finished Water
Quality Data
from PWS wells
Special Studies
Number
of States
Reporting
6
7
1
15
—
Number
of States
Reporting
MCL
Exceed -
ances
1
1
0
2
—
Total
Number
of Units
for Which
Data Were
Reported
18
16
1
36
—
Number
of Units
Having
MCL
Exceedances
1
1
0
2
—
Total
Number
of Wells
for Which
Data Were
Reported
357
338
2
12,518
—
Number
of Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceed-
ances
1
1
0
8
—
Highest
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
1
out of 81
1
out of 26
0
out of 2
7
out of 1 93
—
Average
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
1
1
0
4
—
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
PWS = Public water supply.
— = Not applicable.
-------
Ground Water Quality 27
• Identify existing and emerging
ground water quality concerns in
Idaho's major aquifers.
The monitoring network
consists of a statistically designed
set of more than 1,500 sites (wells
and springs) used for domestic,
irrigation, public water supply, and
stock purposes. These sites are
sampled on a rotational basis so
that most locations are sampled at
least once every 4-year period, with
some wells being sampled yearly.
Ground water samples are analyzed
for many of the analytes monitored
under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
All samples are analyzed for volatile
organic compounds, nutrients, fecal
coliform, trace elements, radionu-
clides, pesticides, and major ions.
Regional and local monitoring
can be used to (1) identify and
delineate ground water contamina-
tion problems that are smaller in
scale and may not be immediately
evident on the larger scale of the
statewide monitoring effort,
(2) determine the areal extent of
ground water contamination to
ensure that beneficial uses are pro-
tected, (3) determine the effective-
ness of remediation activities and
best management practices, and
(4) provide information, direction,
and prioritization to state ground
water quality programs. Thus far,
regional or local monitoring projects
have been used to further character-
ize many of the aquifers in Idaho,
especially those where ground
water quality has been identified as
a concern.
Idaho has a very diverse
geology and there are numerous
aquifers and aquifer types through-
out the state. Seventy major flow
systems, with each flow system
comprising one or more major
aquifers, have been identified
and combined into 22 hydrogeo-
logic areas. Each area represents
Table 5. Monitoring Results for Pesticides
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from PWS Wells
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from Private or
Unregulated Wells
Finished Water
Quality Data
from PWS wells
Special Studies
Number
of States
Reporting
4
1
1
1
2
Number
of States
Reporting
MCL
Exceed -
ances
2
1
0
1
1
Total
Number
of Units
for Which
Data Were
Reported
18
7
1
1
4
Number
of Units
Having
MCL
Exceedances
3
(17%)
1
0
1
2
Total
Number
of Wells
for Which
Data Were
Reported
758
46
27
8
328
Number
of Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceed-
ances
16
(2%)
2
0
1
2
Highest
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
8
out of 25
2
out of 3
0
out of 27
1
out of 8
1
out of 96
Average
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
5
2
0
1
1
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
PWS = Public water supply.
-------
28 Ground Water Quality
geologically similar areas and gener-
ally encompasses one or several of
the 70 major ground water flow
systems. Figure 11 shows the
hydrogeologic area boundaries and
the major flow systems within
Idaho.
For ground water quality
management purposes, including
implementation of regional and
local monitoring, areas or flow
systems are usually further broken
down to a single aquifer or portion
of an aquifer that focuses on a
specific priority area. These priority
area boundaries are usually based
on considerations such as land use,
hydrogeology, ground water quality,
political boundaries, wellhead
(source water) protection areas, and
watershed boundaries. Figure 12
illustrates some of these priority
areas where there are elevated levels
of nitrate. This information is being
used to provide direction to various
ground water quality protection
programs in Idaho.
Data collected from all monitor-
ing efforts thus far indicate that
most of Idaho's ground water is
both potable and safe for current
beneficial uses. However, no area
tested is free of contaminant con-
cerns. At least 7% of the sites had a
constituent with a concentration
exceeding the Safe Drinking Water
Act maximum contaminant level.
Initial trend analyses indicate that,
overall, nitrate concentrations
increased from the first round (1991
through 1995) of sampling to the
second round (1995 through 1998).
Although results show that only 3%
of sample sites across Idaho exceed
the nitrate MCL of 10 milligrams
per liter, within the nitrate priority
areas (Figure 12), this value increas-
es to about 17%.
Table 6. Monitoring Results for Metals
Monitoring
Type
Ambient
Monitoring
Network
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from PWS Wells
Unfinished Water
Quality Data
from Private or
Unregulated Wells
Finished Water
Quality Data
from PWS wells
Special Studies
Number
of States
Reporting
7
4
1
3
1
Number
of States
Reporting
MCL
Exceed-
ances
5
2
0
2
0
Total
Number
of Units
for Which
Data Were
Reported
40
4
1
4
2
Number
of Units
Having
MCL
Exceedances
16
(40%)
2
0
2
0
Total
Number
of Wells
for Which
Data Were
Reported
19,636
199
5
3,380
63
Number
of Wells
Impacted
by MCL
Exceed-
ances
111
(<1%)
23
(12%)
0
63
0
Highest
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
24
out of 28
20
out of 71
0
out of 5
46
out of 1,107
0
Average
Number of
Wells that
Exceeded
MCL
within a
Single Unit
5
8
0
16
0
MCL = Maximum contaminant level.
PWS = Public water supply.
-------
Ground Water Quality 29
Pennsylvania
Nearly half of the population in
Pennsylvania relies on ground water
for drinking water purposes, and, in
some areas, ground water serves as
the sole source of water. To protect
its ground water resources, Pennsyl-
vania developed a ground water
monitoring system that accomplish-
es the following goals:
• Measures ambient ground water
quality
• Provides an indication of long-
term ground water quality trends
resulting from land use practices
• Assesses the success or failure of
land management practices.
Pennsylvania's ground water
monitoring program was developed
following division of the state into
478 ground water basins (Figure
13). Although the basins are not
true hydrologic units, each basin
considers similarities in hydrologic
Figure 11
Figure 12
Idaho's Hydrogeologic Subareas
and Major Aquifer Flow Systems
Ground Water Areas and Sites
Impacted by Nitrate
Subarea Boundaries
i i Major Aquifers
Ground water quality monitoring data
compiled and provided by:
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality
Idaho Department of Water Resources
USGS
Nitrate Areas of Concern
^H Priority Group 1
(>25% wells at >5 mg/L)
B Priority Group 2
(>50% wells at > 2 mg/L)
Nitrate Sites of Concern
O Priority Group 1
(> 10 mg/L)
-------
30 Ground Water Quality
and physical features. The basins
were prioritized for monitoring
purposes in 1985 according to
three main factors:
• Ground water use
• Potential unmonitored sources
of ground water pollution
• Environmental sensitivity.
The 50 highest-ranking basins
were selected for monitoring.
Two types of ground water
monitoring are used (Figure 13).
Ambient monitoring is used to
collect basin-wide data for basins
where little ground water quality
data exist. Typically, two rounds
of samples are collected in one
Figure 13
Location of High-Priority Ambient
and Fixed Station Network (FSN)
Ground Water Basins and Monitoring Points
Monitoring
point
A Ambient
o FSN
Ground water
basin type
I I Ambient
I I FSN
Ground water quality monitoring
data compiled and provided by the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau
of Water Supply Management
hydrologic year. Ambient monitor-
ing supplements other data collec-
tion efforts and provides a general
picture of ground water quality in
the watershed. Fixed station net-
work monitoring is used when long-
term data are required. Fixed station
monitoring involves collecting two
rounds of ground water samples per
hydrologic year for a minimum of
5 years. Basins selected for this type
of monitoring are typically high-
priority basins where regional
changes are occurring such as rapid
urbanization or other modifications
in land use or where specific water
quality problems exist.
Results indicate that ground
water quality in Pennsylvania is
typically good. This is despite
sampling in high-priority basins,
which likely biases the data and
presents a more negative picture of
the overall ground water quality.
In spite of the overall good
quality of ground water, exceed-
ances of drinking water standards
were detected. Some exceedances
result from naturally elevated con-
centrations of substances such
as iron, total dissolved solids,
manganese, or low pH. However,
trend analyses of nitrate, sodium,
chloride, and total hardness suggest
that ground water quality in Penn-
sylvania is undergoing some change
that likely results from human activi-
ties. Sodium and chloride were two
of the analytes exhibiting upward
trends at more than 10% of the
478 monitoring points (Figure 14).
Analytes with downward trends at
more than 10% of the 478 monitor-
ing points included pH, nitrate,
magnesium, and sulfate.
-------
Ground Water Quality 31
Exact causes of the ground
water quality trends are difficult to
determine. Different areas of the
state are obviously under different
stresses and only general inferences
can be made from the data. Natural
shifts in ground water quality may
result from changes in precipitation
trends or cycles. Downward trends
in nitrate and sulfate at many moni-
toring points may reflect a reduc-
tion in sources of nitrate from agri-
cultural areas (fertilizers), septic sys-
tems, and atmospheric deposition.
Increasing trends in total dissolved
solids (IDS), chloride, calcium,
potassium, total hardness, and
sodium at many monitoring points
may result from increased nonpoint
source pollution such as road salting
and sprawling paved developments
and suburbs.
Conclusions
and Findings
Based on results reported by
states as part of the 1998 305(b)
cycle, the following are concluded:
• Ground water is an important
component of our nation's fresh
water resources. The use of ground
water is of fundamental importance
to human life and is also of signifi-
cant importance to our nation's
economic vitality.
• Assessing the quality of our
nation's ground water resources is
no easy task. An accurate and repre-
sentative assessment of ambient
ground water quality requires a
well-planned and well-executed
monitoring plan. Although the
305(b) program is definitely moving
in the direction of more and better
ground water quality assessments,
there is still much more that needs
to be done. Coverage, both in terms
of the area within a state and the
number of states reporting ground
water quality monitoring data,
needs to be enlarged. States also
need to focus on collecting ground
water data that are most repre-
sentative of the resource itself.
Specifically, states need to rely less
on finished water quality data and
more on ambient ground water
quality data.
• Good quality data is essential to
forming a basis for determining
ground water quality. Required
source water assessments under
Section 1453 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act should prove to be
helpful in augmenting the amount
Figure 14
Monitoring Points with Upward Trends
in Sodium or Chloride
, —;.**-:
O Carbonate rocks
O Monitoring point
Q Monitoring points with upward
trends in chloride or sodium
Ground water quality monitoring
data compiled and provided by the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Bureau
of Water Supply Management
-------
32 Ground Water Quality
of data available and to generate
good quality data that can be used
to evaluate ground water quality
over time.
• The 1996 and 1998305(b)
reporting cycles represent the first
time that states reported quantita-
tive ground water quality data.
One of the greatest successes was
the increase in uniformity of data
reported by states for 1998. There
was an increase in reporting
uniformity over the course of just
one 305 (b) cycle as states became
increasingly familiar with the
reporting guidelines and developed
methods for obtaining and report-
ing the requested data.
• Although ground water quality
assessments are being performed
and reported under the 305(b)
program, vast differences in ground
water management are apparent.
Several states have implemented
monitoring programs designed to
characterize ground water quality
and identify and address potential
threats to ground water. Other
states have only just begun to
implement ground water protection
strategies.
• One of the most important
factors in deciding state priorities
concerning the assessment of
ground water quality is economic
constraints. Characterizing and
monitoring ground water quality is
expensive. Few states have the eco-
nomic resources to assess ground
water quality across an entire state.
Therefore, states are applying differ-
ent approaches to ground water
protection. These approaches are
based on each state's individual
challenges and economic con-
straints. Approaches range from
implementing statewide ambient
ground water monitoring networks
to monitoring selected aquifers on a
rotating basis. States determine the
approach based on the use of the
resource, vulnerability to contamina-
tion, and state management deci-
sions.
• National coverage increased from
1996 to 1998. In the 1996 305(b)
reporting cycle, states reported
ground water monitoring data for a
total of 162 hydrogeologic settings.
In 1998, states reported data for
146 hydrogeologic settings. Data
for 65 of the 146 settings described
in 1998 represented the most
recent monitoring results for units
previously described in 1996. Thus,
data were reported for 81 new
hydrogeologic settings in 1998.
• The conceptual framework for
designing and implementing a
ground water monitoring network
is similar across the nation. The
Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM)
concluded that the definition and
characterization of environmental
monitoring settings is a crucial first
step in the collection of meaningful
ground water quality data. States
across the nation are taking this first
step and defining and characterizing
hydrogeologic monitoring units.
Each of the states described in detail
their approach and the rationale for
that approach.
• EPA and the states need to devise
more efficient ways to integrate
ground water data collected
through the Section 305(b) water
quality inventory reports and
ground water data collected from
state source water assessments
under Section 1453 of the SDWA.
-------
Ground Water Quality 33
Other monitoring data from well-
head protection delineations, source
inventories, and other data collec-
tion efforts also must be integrated
to increase and improve the infor-
mation that is used to make deter-
minations on the quality of ground
water across the nation in the
reporting requirement under
Section 305(b) of the CWA.
• Although much progress has
been made in the 305(b) program
to assess ground water quality, large
gaps in coverage exist. The data
submitted by states under the
305(b) program preclude a compre-
hensive representation of ground
water quality in the nation at this
time but, more importantly, may
result in a skewed characterization
of ground water quality that is more
positive than actual conditions. If
this is the case, problems in ground
water quality may not be recog-
nized until quality has been
degraded to the point that the
resource can no longer support the
desired uses.
• Based upon ground water quality
data reported by states during the
1996 and 1998 305(b) cycles,
ground water quality in the nation
is good and continues to support
the various uses of this resource.
• Ground water contamination
incidents are being reported in
aquifers across the nation. Leaking
underground storage tanks have
consistently been reported as an
important source of ground water
contamination for all 305(b) cycles
for which data were reported. In
general, the threat from leaking
underground storage tanks is due
to the sheer number of tanks buried
above water tables across the
nation. Other important sources
of ground water contamination
include septic systems, landfills,
hazardous waste sites, surface
impoundments, industrial facilities,
and agricultural land practices.
• Petroleum chemicals, volatile
organic compounds, semivolatile
organic compounds, pesticides,
nitrate, and metals have been mea-
sured at elevated levels in ground
water across the nation. The most
frequently cited contaminants of
concern were volatile organic com-
pounds and petroleum chemicals.
These classes of chemicals have
consistently been reported as
ground water contaminants. States
have also reported increasing detec-
tions of chemicals not previously
measured in ground water (for
example, MTBE and metals). The
recent detection of these chemicals
may represent emerging trends in
ground water contamination.
-------
-------
Ground Water
Protection Programs
In their 1998 305(b) reports,
states identified contaminant
sources and the associated contami-
nants that threaten the integrity of
their ground water resources. Once
ground water resources have been
compromised by contamination,
experience has shown that it is both
expensive and technologically com-
plex to restore them to their former
condition. In many cases, the
resources are never fully restored.
Consequently, ground water pro-
tection has become the focus of
numerous state and federal pro-
grams.
The responsibility for ground
water protection collectively belongs
to government agencies at the fed-
eral, state, and local levels. Federal
and state governments regulate
ground water through laws, regula-
tions, and policies. In many cases,
state and local laws are stricter
versions of federal legislation, which
serves as a valuable baseline on
which state and local laws can build.
At the federal level, the Clean Water
Act (CWA) ensures protection of
surface waters designated, in part,
for use as drinking water. Other
environmental laws—the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (which
includes the Wellhead Protection
[WHP] Program, the Sole Source
Aquifer [SSA] Program, and the
Underground Injection Program);
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA); the Compre-
hensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA); and the Federal Insecti-
cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA)—provide authorities, finan-
cial support, and technical assistance
to protect sources of drinking water,
especially ground water.
This chapter presents an over-
view of ground water protection
programs and activities that have
been described by states in their
1998 305 (b) reports. Federal laws
and protection programs provide
a framework for ground water pro-
tection for the states and are also
discussed at the end of the chapter.
State Programs
States are committed to a num-
ber of activities that address existing
ground water contamination prob-
lems and that prevent future impair-
ments of the resource. These activi-
ties include enacting legislation and
promulgating protection regula-
tions, establishing plans and pro-
grams for ground water protection,
and adopting and implementing
protection strategies.
In their 1998 state 305(b)
reports, states provided information
on their ground water protection
program efforts and activities. This
information provides an overview
of legislation, statutes, rules, and/or
regulations that were in place. State
reports also provide an indication
of how comprehensive ground
water protection activities were
progressing in the state. Some states
-------
36 Ground Water Protection Programs
provided examples of the successful
application of the state's programs,
regulations, or requirements; a
description of a major study or
assessment; or other activities that
demonstrate the state's progress
toward protecting its ground water
resources. Figure 15 presents a
summary list of state ground water
protection programs.
Ground Water
Legislation
Legislation focuses on the need
for program development, increased
data collection, and public educa-
tion activities. In many states, legis-
lation mandates strict technical
controls such as discharge permits,
underground storage tank registra-
tions, and protection standards.
Legislation may be instituted in
response to federal mandates and
local concerns, but, in any case,
Figure 19-1
Percentage of States Having
Implemented Programs
Program/Activity
Ground Water Legislation
Ground Water Regulations
Interagency Coordination
Ground Water Mapping
and Classification
Ground Water Monitoring
Comprehensive Data
Management System
Prevention Programs
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage
' Based on 30 states
states enact legislation to establish
policy and associated protection
programs with the purpose of
restoring and maintaining ground
water quality.
Missouri has used many con-
ventional and widespread methods
for protecting ground water. In
addition there are methods that
may be unique to Missouri. Two
of these methods address the wide-
spread areas of karst topography
in which sinkholes or disappearing
streams are prevalent and are in
close connection with surface water
drainage systems. The state's Cave
Resources Act specifically prohibits
the introduction of contaminants
into sinkholes and caves for the
protection of underground
resources, including ground water.
Sinkholes and caves provide a direct
conduit for contaminants to reach
shallow ground water. This law
works to prevent such incidents
from occurring.
In administration of the state
stormwater permit program,
Missouri developed a general permit
for land disturbance activities that is
specifically for use in the vicinity of
disappearing streams and sinkholes.
It contains lower limitations for sedi-
ment and other contaminants than
contained in the statewide general
permit that is available for other
areas. Special considerations were
built into the general permit for
karst areas, especially for the protec-
tion of ground water, such as mini-
mum distances from sinkholes that
land disturbance is allowed and the
quality of runoff water.
Rhode Island's Ground Water
Protection Strategy identified the
following programs to protect
Rhode Island's ground water
resources:
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 37
• Ground water classification and
standards
• Wellhead protection
• Management plan for pesticides
and fertilizers.
The strategy includes both
regulatory and nonregulatory
approaches to ground water protec-
tion. A large majority of the recom-
mended actions outlined in the
strategy have been implemented.
The Department of Environmental
Management is now in the process
of revising the strategy to reflect
new data on the state's ground
water resources. Once updated, the
strategy will continue as a useful
tool in guiding the development,
refinement, and implementation of
an effective comprehensive ground
water protection program.
Ground Water
Regulations
Federal and state governments
protect ground water quality by
issuing regulations to control busi-
ness, agricultural, and community
activities that could have an adverse
impact on ground water. Regula-
tions frequently stipulate controls
for the management of specific
sources of contamination. Controls
include Best Management Practices
(BMPs), nonpoint source controls,
and discharge permits. Controls
help reduce the amount of contami-
nation that reaches the ground
water generally with the goal of
ultimately eliminating the sources.
Georgia's ground water
regulatory programs follow an
antidegradation policy under which
regulated activities will not develop
into significant threats to the state's
ground water resources. This anti-
degradation policy is implemented
through three principal elements:
• Pollution prevention
• Management of ground water
quantity
• Monitoring of ground water
quality and quantity.
The prevention of pollution
includes (1) the proper siting,
construction, and operation of
environmental facilities and activities
through a permitting system;
(2) implementation of environmen-
tal planning criteria by incorporation
of land use planning by local gov-
ernment; (3) implementation of a
Wellhead Protection Program for
municipal drinking water wells;
(4) detection and mitigation of
existing ground water problems;
(5) development of other protective
standards, as appropriate, where
permits are not required; and
(6) education of the public to the
consequences of ground water con-
tamination and the need for ground
water protection. Management of
ground water quantity involves allo-
cating the state's ground water,
through a permitting system so
that the resource will be available
for present and future generations.
Monitoring of ground water quality
and quantity involves continually
assessing the resource so that
needed changes can be identified
and corrective action implemented.
Protection of ground water
from point sources of contamination
in Massachusetts is accomplished
by the Ground Water Discharge
Permit Program administered by the
-------
38 Ground Water Protection Programs
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
Ground Water:
The Invisible Resource
Although 75% of the earth's
surface is covered by water, less than
1% of that water is fresh water avail-
able for our use (see figure). It has
been estimated that more than 95%
of the world's fresh water reserves
are stored in the earth as ground
water. Nearly half of the world's
population depends on ground
water reserves to supply drinking
water and other needs. Yet, the
importance of ground water is
generally not recognized, and, fre-
quently, ground water resources are
taken for granted. To draw attention
to ground water, the United Nations
General Assembly selected the
theme Ground Water: The Invisible
Resource to celebrate the March 22,
Fresh Water
Available for Use
0.52%
Ice Caps and Glaciers 1.97%
Other 0.01% Surface Water'
Distribution of Water on Earth's Surface
1998, World Day for Water.
This theme was selected in
response to the United Nations'
concern regarding three principal
gaps in ground water management,
which can have enormous implica-
tions for sustainable development of
ground water resources:
• Accelerated degradation of
ground water resources
• Lack of both professional and
public awareness about the sustain-
able use and economic importance
of ground water resources
• Economic implications of not
resolving ground water demand
and supply management.
There was a sixfold increase in
global water use between 1990 and
1995. This increase is twice that of
global population growth. The
continuing high population growth,
with consequences for food pro-
duction, and justified aspirations
of nations and individuals toward
better living conditions will
undoubtedly cause the demand for
water to increase even more. In
many parts of the world, surface
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 39
water is under increasing pressure to
meet these demands, and ground
water is the only reasonable alterna-
tive water supply. Given the need to
rapidly develop new water supplies,
there is rarely adequate attention
given to, and investment in, the
maintenance, protection, and long-
term sustainability of ground water.
Sustainable development has
been broadly accepted as the basis
for the policy of many countries of
the world, and sustainable manage-
ment of ground water resources is a
relevant component. The condition
of sustainable ground water use is
that withdrawal should not exceed
replenishment. To promote sustain-
able development of ground water
resources worldwide, it is essential to
• Assess ground water resources
• Improve understanding of the
ground water component within
the hydrological cycle
• Conserve ground water for future
generations
• Protect ground water resources
from contamination.
Of these activities, assessment
is of primary importance. Assess-
ment involves determining the
sources, extent, dependability, and
quality of water resources on which
to base an evaluation of the possi-
bilities for their use, control, conser-
vation, and protection.
As indicated in the theme
chosen for World Day for Water,
ground water is seemingly invisible
and this presents serious problems in
identifying its very existence, much
less assessing its quality and quan-
tity. Accurate assessments can only
be accomplished through well-
planned and well-executed ground
water monitoring programs.
HIGHLIG
GHT HIGHLIGHT
-------
40 Ground Water Protection Programs
Division of Watershed Management
for sanitary wastewater discharges
and by the Division of Waste
Prevention, Industrial Wastewater
Program, for industrial discharges.
All discharges of industrial contami-
nants and discharges of over 15,000
gallons per day of sanitary waste-
waters into the ground water
require a ground water discharge
permit. Dischargers include, but are
not limited to, facilities discharging
a liquid effluent below the land
surface or into a percolation pit,
pond, or lagoon; facilities discharg-
ing liquid effluent into leaching pits,
galleries, chambers, trenches, fields,
and pipes; facilities discharging a
liquid effluent into an injection well;
any facility with an unlined pit,
pond, lagoon, or surface impound-
ment in which wastewaters or
sludges are collected, stored, treat-
ed, or disposed of; or conveyances
that collect and convey stormwater
runoff contaminated by contact
with process water, raw materials,
toxic contaminants, hazardous sub-
stances, or contact with a leaching
facility. Some existing facilities and
all new facilities with sanitary waste-
water discharges over 10,000 gal-
lons per day also must have a
ground water discharge permit.
Discharges to Class I waters
(designated as a source of potable
water supply) and Class II waters
(designated as a source of potable
mineral waters for conversion to
fresh potable waters) must meet the
more stringent of either Massachu-
setts technology standards or the
national primary and secondary
drinking water standards. Com-
pounds that are considered toxic or
for which there is neither a water
quality standard nor a health
advisory are prohibited from
discharge. These measures serve to
ensure that the permitted discharge
will be in compliance with ground
water standards.
In addition to the stipulation
of controls, various state regulations
specify standards for chemical
constituents in ground water as
they apply to the appropriate use
(e.g., drinking water standards, irri-
gation water standards). Ground
water standards may be either nar-
rative or numeric. Numeric stan-
dards set health-based maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) for spe-
cific constituents in ground water.
States may independently initiate
more restrictive standards. Narrative
standards are adopted for contami-
nants for which numeric standards
have not been adopted. Standards
may be used to apply limits on
allowable discharges from contami-
nant sources and/or to set contami-
nant concentration targets or
threshold levels for ground water
cleanup.
Colorado's Basic Standards for
Ground Water provide a framework
under which ground waters are
classified and protective standards
are set. The Basic Standards assign
maximum concentrations for a host
of organic contaminants applicable
to all ground waters. Recent
amendments extend the application
of an interim narrative standard to
all ground waters except those with
very high total dissolved solids, i.e.,
greater than 1,000 milligrams per
liter. This action was significant in
the overall structure for ground
water protection because it estab-
lishes a ceiling at which ground
water quality must be maintained in
cases where some degradation has
already occurred. If the water is
relatively uncontaminated, water
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 41
quality must be maintained at "table
values" or MCLs. Colorado com-
bines the following standards to
form a comprehensive and workable
foundation for source control pro-
grams:
• Statewide numeric standards to
protect public health from organic
chemical contamination
• An interim narrative standard
to maintain ambient or MCL-level
quality of inorganic and metal
parameters
• Drinking water/agricultural use
classifications and standards for
wellhead areas.
Cleanup standards used in
Missouri's voluntary cleanup pro-
gram include a methodology that
allows alternative ground water
standards to be used on a site-
specific basis. These allow the use
of risk assessment to develop stand-
ards that can be used in place of the
direct application of the water qual-
ity standards. These procedures set
up a tiered approach for reviewing
site cleanups and can result in
higher standards for contaminant
levels remaining in ground water in
some cases, provided certain criteria
are met. This allows for the efficient
use of cleanup resources while main-
taining the necessary qualities of
ground water.
Ground water monitoring data
reported by Arizona were com-
pared to state Aquifer Water Quality
Standards. Arizona's numeric Aquifer
Water Quality Standards are essen-
tially consistent with federal Primary
Drinking Water Standards (MCLs as
defined under the SDWA). However,
narrative standards have been
adopted to allow for regulation of
pollutant discharges for which no
numeric standards exist. The narra-
tive standards state that a discharge
cannot cause the following:
• A pollutant to be present in an
aquifer at a concentration that
endangers human health
• A violation of Arizona's surface
water quality standards
• A pollutant to be present in an
aquifer that impairs existing or
foreseeable uses of that water.
Interagency
Coordination
Historically, ground water pro-
tection programs have been over-
seen by many different agencies
within the states, territories, and
tribes, making coordination difficult
for those programs. Coordinating
the activities of these agencies to
ensure an efficient ground water
protection program has become a
top priority in manyjurisdictions.
Many states have developed a plan
to coordinate ground water protec-
tion programs among their agen-
cies.
The state of Alabama recog-
nized that there was a need to coor-
dinate the management of ground
water programs and, as a result,
set up the Ground Water Programs
Advisory Committee (GWPAC) in
1994. The committee includes
representatives of state and federal
agencies, consultants, water system
representatives, and others who
work in ground-water-related fields.
The meetings are used to dispense
ground water program information,
receive feedback, and coordinate
-------
42 Ground Water Protection Programs
ground water projects. A subcom-
mittee of agencies involved in area-
wide ground water monitoring
programs was formed in late 1997.
This subcommittee is working to
maximize resources to provide the
best monitoring coverage of the
state.
Ground Water Mapping
and Classification
States are developing ground
water classification systems to aid in
the protection and management of
aquifers. Classification systems can
be used as a basis for the mainte-
nance and restoration of ground
water quality, the development of
ground water quality standards, and
land use and pollution source man-
agement and regulation. Most
ground water classification systems
are based on the understanding that
some human activities have the
potential to degrade ground water.
The systems are designed to restrict
such activities to areas overlying
aquifers containing lower quality
waters while protecting the most
vulnerable and ecologically impor-
tant ground water systems. Most
states that have classification sys-
tems apply them to the permitting
of discharges or potential discharges
to ground water and the remedia-
tion of contaminated ground water.
Some states may also use them for
development of new supplies or to
site certain types of industries.
A state's classification system is
typically designed to first identify
and protect water that is currently
used or has the potential to be used
as a source of drinking water. Some
states also place importance on
ecologically sensitive aquifers.
Aquifers that do not meet require-
ments or that are unsuitable for use
because of poor ambient water
quality or because of past contami-
nation are generally classified for
other types of uses, such as industri-
al processes or agricultural use or, in
some cases, waste disposal.
Before a ground water classifi-
cation system can be applied to
ground water management strate-
gies, the state's aquifers must be
delineated and their quality
assessed. Mapping aquifer units is
an important step in identifying the
potential for interaction between
aquifer and surface waterbodies.
This information is needed to iden-
tify and protect ecologically sensitive
aquifers and those important for
water supply.
The Hawaii Department of
Health contracted the Water
Resources Research Center (WRRC)
at the University of Hawaii to iden-
tify and classify aquifers in the state.
The WRRC identified general aquifer
sectors and smaller aquifer systems
for the islands of Kauai, Oahu,
Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii.
Each aquifer system was divided into
aquifer types that were character-
ized in accordance with (1) hydro-
logic factors such as basal, high-
level, unconfined, confined, and
confined/unconfined conditions;
and (2) geologic factors such as
flank, dike, perched, sedimentary,
or combination aquifer types. They
also identified the status of the
aquifer types through identification
of their development stages, pota-
bility/salinity, utility, uniqueness, and
vulnerability to contamination. The
vulnerability determination applied
in this study was based on geo-
graphical limits of the resource,
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 43
interconnection among ground
water sources, relatively rapid time
of ground water travel, and familiar-
ity with environmental conditions.
Vulnerability was ranked high,
moderate, or low.
The WRRC studies provided a
comprehensive profile of the loca-
tion, composition, characteristics,
and vulnerability of Hawaii's aquifers
(Table 7). This information provides
insight into how their aquifers
formed and the natural conditions
that may or may not protect them
from anthropogenic impacts. To
supplement these data, investiga-
tions on surrounding land use activi-
ties and their existing and potential
impacts to ground water quality are
needed. Understanding how aqui-
fers work and what activities con-
taminate them provides the basis for
protection policies and efforts.
Ground Water
Monitoring
Various ground water monitor-
ing programs are used by states to
collect data on ground water qual-
ity. Examples of ground water moni-
toring that are initiated through
state agencies include ambient
monitoring and compliance moni-
toring. Ambient monitoring pro-
grams measure background or exist-
ing water quality and are used to
track long-term trends in contami-
nant concentrations. Compliance
monitoring programs are required
by federal or state regulations gener-
ally near facilities where ground
water contamination has occurred
or where there is a potential for
release. Compliance monitoring
activities measure for specific
constituents to ensure that their
concentrations in ground water are
below regulated levels. States may
also rely on monitoring data col-
lected by federal agencies to assess
ground water quality.
The Kansas ground water qual-
ity monitoring network was estab-
lished in 1976 as a cooperative pro-
gram between the USGS and the
Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE). The KDHE
assumed sole responsibility for this
program in 1990. Since that time,
the program has endeavored to
procure data suitable for identifying
temporal and spatial trends in
ground water quality associated
with alterations in land use, the
implementation of nonpoint source
(NPS) best management practices,
changes in ground water availability
or withdrawal rates, and shifts in
climatological conditions. In addi-
tion, the network is intended to
assist in the identification of ground
water contamination problems.
Currently, the Kansas ground
water monitoring network com-
prises 242 wells used for public or
private (domestic) water supply,
irrigation, livestock watering, and/or
Table 7. Vulnerability of Hawaiian Aquifers
Island
Kauai
Oahu
Molokai
Lanai
Maui
Hawaii
Number
of
Aquifer
Sectors
3
6
4
4
6
9
Number
of
Aquifer
Systems
13
24
16
9
25
24
Number
of
Aquifer
Types
120
90
60
22
113
82
Number
of
Unconfined
Aquifers
98
66
60
22
106
82
Percent of
Aquifer Types
Highly
Vulnerable to
Contamination
64%
73%
98%
100%
64%
84%
-------
44 Ground Water Protection Programs
industrial purposes (Figure 16). Dur-
ing the period 1996 to 1997, 267
well samples were analyzed for
common inorganic chemicals and
heavy metals; 267 well samples
were analyzed for pesticides; 43 well
samples were analyzed for volatile
organic compounds (VOCs); and
38 well samples were analyzed for
radionuclides. Network wells are
sampled for inorganic parameters
on each sampling occasion. Wells
sampled for pesticides, VOCs, and
radionuclides are rotated systemati-
cally throughout the network. Five
wells in southeastern Kansas are
repeatedly sampled for selected
radioactive constituents, owing to
known contamination in that region
of the state.
Comprehensive Data
Management Systems
Traditionally, data from monitor-
ing programs have been managed
and available only to the specific
state agency responsible for their
Figure 16
Kansas Groundwater Monitoring Network
Well location
collection. Each agency has typically
been responsible for its own data
handling and documentation meth-
ods, typically paper filing systems
or electronic records in the form of
small independent databases or
spreadsheets. This often prevented
the use of historical records in analy-
ses to identify and evaluate long-
term trends in ground water quality.
Data management has been a limit-
ing factor in monitoring the condi-
tion of the state's principal aquifers
and the general quality of the
nation's ground water resources.
Agencies are beginning to
implement more sophisticated data-
handling techniques. States are now
making progress in developing
comprehensive data management
systems. These systems will encour-
age interagency sharing of data and
cooperation in planning and imple-
mentation of monitoring programs.
The interactive database systems
that are an integral part of the data
network also allow for the use of
modern technologies such as
geographic information systems
(CIS) to display and evaluate data
spatially. These advances promise to
provide effective management tools
for state environmental managers in
making planning decisions for
implementing long-term pollution
prevention policy.
Idaho's Ground Water Quality
Plan recognizes an Environmental
Data Management System (EDMS)
as the state's comprehensive data
management system to include data
from past, present, and future
ground water quality monitoring.
Although the EDMS is currently in
use, not all relevant ground water
quality data are routinely submitted
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 45
and entered into the system and
there is a backlog of past data that
could be incorporated into the sys-
tem. Recent efforts to help increase
the amount of data routinely sub-
mitted to EDMS include develop-
ment of a compatible Access data-
base structure that can be placed
on individual computers and used
for project or program-specific data.
Once the data are entered into the
Access database, they can be trans-
ferred into EDMS.
In addition, work is in progress
to make EDMS data available on the
World Wide Web with direct queries
to the EDMS database. For data
searches relating to specific geo-
graphic areas, map sequences will
allow the searcher to visually identify
the target area. Parameter selection
will then allow "zeroing in" on
specific characteristics of available
data, providing tabular results from
the EDMS database. Searchers with
client SQL software (such as MS
Access or ArcView 3.0) will be able
to query the EDMS database directly
through an Internet connection
using the appropriate software that
links a client to the server.
The Ohio Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's Division of Drinking
and Ground Water has expanded its
effort to define ground water quality
for the state's major aquifers. This
effort reflects the progress made
using computerized water quality
databases and linking these data to
CIS to produce geographic repre-
sentations of ground water aquifers
(Figure 17). The initial focus of this
effort has been on data collected
through the Division's Ground
Water Quality Characterization
Program and evaluation of public
water supply (PWS) data. Stacking
these data against various parame-
ters (aquifer type or depth, confined
aquifers, watershed boundaries) and
using CIS has enabled Ohio EPA to
use these data to define ambient
ground water quality conditions.
The goal is to use these databases
in conjunction with other data to
identify areas where ground water
quality has been impacted by
human activities.
New York State is in the
process of developing a comprehen-
sive information base on the
geographic distribution, potential
productivity, use, and quality of its
ground water resources along with
CIS coverage of the distribution of
potential sources of ground water
contamination. Information systems
Figure 17
Ohio's Major Aquifer Settings
] A: Carbonate Bedrock
] B: Interbedded Shale & Carbonate Bedrock
] C: Clastic Bedrock
] D: Glacial/Alluvial Unconsolidated
-------
46 Ground Water Protection Programs
include ground water resource map-
ping, well-log data, water quality
data, and information on the distri-
bution of regulated facilities and
other potential contamination
sources. Such a comprehensive and
integrated system will serve many
program applications, including the
state's Source Water Assessment
Program, local government well-
head protection programs, and sup-
port for priority decisions for many
state prevention and remediation
programs.
Prevention Programs
States develop prevention
programs to prevent and reduce
contamination of ground water.
They serve to
• Analyze existing and potential
threats to the quality of public
drinking water
• Focus resources and programs
on drinking water source protection
• Prevent pollution at the source
whenever feasible
• Manage potential sources of
contamination
• Tailor preventive measures to
local ground water vulnerability.
Examples of programs that fully
or in part address pollution preven-
tion include: Source Water Assess-
ment Program (SWAP), Pollution
Prevention Program, Wellhead
Protection Program (WHPP), aquifer
vulnerability assessments, vulnerabil-
ity assessments of drinking water/
wellhead protection, Pesticide State
Management Plan, Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Program,
and Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III
Program. Prevention programs are
critical to the effective long-term
management of ground water
resources.
The Montana Wellhead Protec-
tion Plan contains many elements
of source water protection and, as
a consequence, has been renamed
the Montana Source Water Protec-
tion Program. Montana will develop
a CIS-based approach to imple-
menting this program that will result
in a technical report being provided
to each of Montana's 1,900 public
water supply systems (PWSs). The
technical plan will overlay the source
water protection area delineation on
a base map. The origins of regulated
contaminants that pose an acute
health risk or those that have been
detected through PWS monitoring
will be the focus of the potential
contaminant source inventory. These
sources and land uses will also be
shown on the base map. Other
potential contaminant sources with
regional and local significance may
also be identified. Susceptibility will
be assessed based on intake charac-
teristics, depth to ground water, soil
characteristics, slope, aspect, separa-
tion distances, contaminant charac-
teristics, and onsite use of Best
Management Practices. The delinea-
tion and assessments will be made
available to the public using the
Internet, PWS consumer confidence
reports, and local governments and
libraries.
The Pollution Prevention Bureau
of Montana's Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality will be responsi-
ble for implementing the source
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 47
water protection program. As part
of this effort, they will
• Conduct delineation and assess-
ments internally
• Negotiate and administer con-
tracts to complete assessments by
external entities where appropriate
• Coordinate statewide source
water protection efforts
• Make information available on
potential contaminant sources
• Provide technical assistance to
local communities on source water
protection plan development.
In late 1998, approximately 75
community PWSs out of a possible
610 were in the early stages of the
source water protection planning
process, and another 10 PWSs had
certified source water protection
plans in place in Montana. Hence,
the state of Montana is right on
target to meet the federal govern-
ment's requirements that delinea-
tion and assessments be completed
for all PWSs by May 2003.
To make best use of limited
financial and human resources, the
state of North Dakota prioritized
aquifers in order of their susceptibil-
ity to contamination. Prioritization
was completed using a modified
Ground Water Vulnerability Model
to calculate the relative aquifer
vulnerability score based on depth
to water, recharge, aquifer media,
topography, impact of the vadose
zone, conductivity, ground water
appropriation, and land use. Each
aquifer was evaluated as a discrete
whole unit; if all portions of the
aquifer had similar characteristics, it
was subdivided into subaquifer units
of similar hydrologic characteristics.
The evaluation does not identify
critical recharge areas or areas
where special management prac-
tices must be applied. Rather, the
evaluation identifies aquifer settings
where an increased contamination
potential exists. Aquifers identified
as having an elevated potential for
ground water contamination are
highlighted as requiring increased
assessment and educational activi-
ties relating to ground water quality
protection (Figure 18).
Federal Programs
The protection of our nation's
ground water resources is addressed
Figure 18
Relative Aquifer Vulnerability in North Dakota
Low Vulnerability
Medium Vulnerability
I High Vulnerability
-------
48 Ground Water Protection Programs
CWA Section 102
The administrator shall . . .
prepare or develop
comprehensive programs
for preventing, reducing,
or eliminating the pollution
of the navigable waters and
ground water and improving
the sanitary condition of
surface and underground
waters.
under both the Clean Water Act
and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The CWA encourages ground water
protection, recognizing that ground
water provides a significant propor-
tion of the base flow to streams and
lakes. In the CWA (Public Law 92-
500) of 1972 and in the CWA
Amendments of 1977 (Public Law
95-217), Congress provided for the
regulation of discharges into all
navigable waters of the United
States. Ground water protection is
addressed in Section 102, providing
for the development of federal,
state, and local comprehensive pro-
grams for reduction, elimination,
and prevention of ground water
contamination. Two very important
aspects under the CWA are the
development of Comprehensive
State Ground Water Protection
Programs (CSGWPPs) and the
measurement of national progress
in achieving state water quality
standards.
The SDWA was passed by
Congress in 1974 and amended in
1986 and 1996. Under the SDWA,
EPA is authorized to ensure that
water is safe for human consump-
tion. One of the most fundamental
ways to ensure consistently safe
drinking water is to protect the
source of that water. Source water
protection of ground water is
achieved through four programs:
the Wellhead Protection Program,
the Sole Source Aquifer Program,
the Underground Injection Control
Program, and, under the 1996
Amendments, the Source Water
Assessment Program.
Clean Water Act
One of the goals of the CWA is
to achieve an interim water quality
level that protects the desirable uses
that water quality should support.
These "beneficial" uses include
drinking water as well as primary
contact recreation, fish consump-
tion, and aquatic life support.
Under the authority of the CWA
Section 102, states are developing
CSGWPPs tailored to their goals
and priorities for the protection of
ground water resources. One of the
primary purposes of a CSGWPP is to
provide a framework for EPA to give
greater flexibility to a state for
management and protection of its
ground water resources. CSGWPPs
guide the future implementation of
all state and federal ground water
programs and provide a framework
for states to coordinate and set
priorities for all ground-water-related
activities.
Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs
CSGWPPs provide the means
for federal and state programs that
have ground water protection
responsibilities to coordinate efforts
and to focus on protection of prior-
ity ground waters, especially those
used for drinking water supplies.
They are the focal point for a new
partnership between EPA, states,
tribes, and local governments to
achieve a more efficient, coherent,
and comprehensive approach to
protecting the nation's ground
water. The goal of CSGWPPs is to
prevent contamination and to con-
sider use, value, and vulnerability in
setting priorities for both prevention
and remediation and to strengthen
state watershed approaches by pro-
viding an essential linkage between
the state's ground water and surface
water protection programs.
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 49
EPA is committed to working
with states in developing and carry-
ing out the CSGWPP approach.
Following EPA endorsement of a
Core CSGWPP, the states work in
partnership with EPA to further
incorporate additional state and
EPA programs into the CSGWPP,
thereby leading to a Fully Integrated
CSGWPP. Attainment of a Fully
Integrated CSGWPP means that
ground water protection efforts are
coordinated and inclusive of all
federal, state, tribal, and local pro-
grams. The implementation of a
CSGWPP provides a forum for multi-
ple agencies and multiple discipli-
nary approaches to be brought
together on a regular basis for the
purpose of monitoring and protect-
ing ground water resources.
Figure 19 shows the state's
progress in implementing the
CSGWPP approach. As of 1999,
EPA had approved 11 Core
CSGWPPs. An additional four states
are expected to have approved Core
CSGWPPs in fiscal year 2000. In
addition, many other states have
developed programs that utilize this
concept of comprehensive planning
to align their priorities across state
and federal programs.
Safe Drinking Water Act
The 1986 and 1996 Amend-
ments to the SDWA provide for an
expanded federal role in protecting
drinking water and mandating
changes in nationwide safeguards.
Source Water Assessment
and Prevention Programs
Section 1453 of the SDWA as
amended in 1996 requires all states
to complete assessments of their
public drinking water supplies. By
2003, each state and participating
tribe will delineate the boundaries of
areas in the state (or on tribal lands)
that supply water for each public
drinking water system, identify
significant potential sources of con-
tamination, and determine how
susceptible each system is to sources
of contamination (Figure 20). The
SDWA directs the states to use all
available data, including federal
information.
By February 1999, states were
required to submit plans for imple-
menting Source Water Assessment
Figure 19
States with Core CSGWPP
Puerto Rico
States with Core CSGWPP Endorsed by EPA as of 1 2/99
States with Core CSGWPP Anticipated for Fiscal Year 2000
States with no Core CSGWPP
Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 1999.
-------
50 Ground Water Protection Programs
Figure 20
What Actions Are Needed to Complete a Local
Source Water Assessment?
Delineation
Delineation of a source
water protection area
(e.g., wellhead or
surface water or ground
water/surface water)
(e.g., fixed radius,
time of travel,
topographic watershed
or watershed area)
Establish Delineation
Policy with Best
Available Data
Inventory
Identify significant
potential sources of
contamination, to the
extent practical
- Identify contaminants
- Inventory sources of
those contaminants
- Map significant
potential sources
Establish Inventory
with Best Available Data
Susceptibility
Analyses
Hydrologic and
hydrogeologic analysis
of the source water
protection area (e.g.,
depth to water, water
flow rates)
(No monitoring or
modeling required)
Do Analyses with Best
Available Data
Figure 21
Status of Source Water Assessment Programs
(SWAPS)
Approved
EPA Reviewing
D PR
Programs (SWAPs). Many of the
state source water protection pro-
grams use data from other, related
watershed-type survey activities,
such as 305(b) monitoring and
assessment activities. Furthermore,
program plans use components of
existing state Wellhead Protection
(WHP) Programs, including source
water delineation, contaminant
source inventories, management
measures, and contingency plan-
ning.
Program reviews and approvals
are conducted by regional offices.
Under an agreement worked out by
EPA's Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water and the Regions,
EPA Headquarters (HQ) concurred
on the first program from each
Region, which included the pro-
grams submitted by the following
states: New Hampshire, New York,
West Virginia, Louisiana, Nebraska,
Ohio, South Dakota, Oregon, and
California. Kentucky was the first
state source water assessment
program approved. EPA has since
approved the remaining states.
Figure 21 shows the current status
of approved programs. Assessments
for all public water systems must be
completed within 2 years of EPA
approval. As allowed under the
provisions of the SDWA, some states
requested and were granted an
18-month extension from the date
of approval to complete their assess-
ments.
With very few exceptions, most
states met the February 1999 sub-
mission deadline. All assessments are
expected to be completed by June
2003. As of January 1, 2000, EPA
had approved 39 programs.
Source: U.S. EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 1999.
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 51
Enhanced Public Involvement
in the Development of State
Source Water Assessment
Programs
A significant aspect of state
Source Water Assessment Programs
is public involvement in their devel-
opment. This involvement creates a
mechanism for the states to consider
the ideas and concerns raised by
various interested organizations
and individuals about SWAP issues,
thus leading to improved state
SWAP programs. Another equally
important result of the public partici-
pation efforts is the identification of
informed stakeholders at the state
level who are committed to ensuring
the success of the program. Obtain-
ing this involvement and support of
the state SWAP programs early in
the process is a key component in
ensuring that the assessment will be
successful and that it will lead to
drinking water protection efforts.
The EPA's Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water consid-
ered early public involvement in
state SWAP development as a high
priority and provided several grants
to organizations and states to ensure
that this participation occurred
during 1998 and early 1999. For
instance, a grant was provided to
the New York Rural Water Associa-
tion to conduct training workshops
for water suppliers, public officials,
and educators to facilitate their
involvement in state SWAP efforts.
A similar grant was awarded to the
Georgia Department of Environ-
mental Protection for outreach to
local public officials on SWAP issues.
Hawaii's Department of Health is
involving students in the assessment
process for their school's water sup-
ply, and the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality received a
grant for the creation of a SWAP
community pamphlet and regional
workshops to introduce various
stakeholders to the SWAP process.
Grants were also given to vari-
ous regionally based public interest
organizations to conduct workshops
that explain the SWAP process to
environmental, public health, and
other activist organizations and
encourage their involvement in the
development of these states' SWAPs.
For instance, Clean Water Fund local
offices in New Jersey, Texas, Colo-
rado, and California used EPA funds
to conduct workshops that resulted
in numerous public comments on
draft state programs and created
public support for drinking water
protection priorities.
EPA believes that this effort to
include the public in the develop-
ment of SWAPs will benefit states as
they implement their assessments
and create public support for local
drinking water source protection
programs in the future.
HIGHLIG
GHT HIGHLIGHT
-------
52 Ground Water Protection Programs
In most instances, the state will
perform the assessments or at least
complete delineations of source
water protection areas (SWPAs).
States are relying on individual
public water supply systems located
within the SWPAs to conduct
Drinking Water Source Agreement:
Human Health and Ecosystem Protection
in One Watershed Framework
In February 1998, President Clinton initiated the Clean Water Action
Plan to increase coordination among the existing authorities, programs,
and resources for water quality management at the federal and state level.
A key element of the Action Plan is the integration of public health and
aquatic ecosystem goals when identifying priorities for watershed restora-
tion and protection.
The Clean Water Action Plan initiative gives states the chance to
reexamine their current prioritization schemes, including how drinking
water source protection and ground water management are factors in
determining where to direct programs for water quality protection and
restoration. Success will require a shift in thinking and active involvement
by drinking water and ground water programs in the framing of water
quality management agendas.
To demonstrate federal support of the improved integration of drinking
water source protection into a watershed framework, nine federal agencies
signed an agreement on November 13, 1998:
Tennessee Valley Authority
U.S. Postal Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Agriculture
Department of Interior
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
Department of Commerce.
The intent of the agreement is to encourage federal/state partnering
on drinking water quality initiatives, increase federal awareness of the link-
ages between water quality initiatives and drinking water concerns, and to
encourage federal agencies to use the results of the assessment when devel-
oping relevant resource, technical assistance, facility management, and
water resource plans.
By 2000, the source water agreement calls for regional multiagency
summaries of federal initiatives relevant to drinking water source protection,
examples of new drinking water source protection partnerships, and
improved access to relevant data resources.
contaminant source inventories and
perform susceptibility analyses based
on inventory information. Some
states will complete the first and last
steps of the assessment (delineations
and susceptibility analyses) using
data and information gathered by
the PWSs on contaminant sources.
The state will generally review the
final product for consistency with
the SWAP program goal "for the
protection and benefit of public
water systems."
Data and information sources
outlined in the majority of individual
state SWAPs reviewed thus far
include
• EPA-approved WHP Programs
• CERCLA and RCRA databases
• Underground Injection Control
well monitoring, closure, and inven-
tory information
• Underground Storage Tank
inspection, monitoring, removal
and cleanup records
• State Sanitary Survey Inspection
data (septic tanks, etc.)
• State Pesticide Monitoring plan
records
• Nonpoint source permitting
application and inspection data
• PWSs monitoring waiver
applications and inspection data
• Land use and CIS data
• Historical and archival information
on significant contamination inci-
dents involving both ground- and
surface-water-based drinking water
supplies.
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 53
Most state SWAPs rely heavily
on EPA-approved WHP Programs as
the basis for ground-water-based
drinking water supply protection
and have essentially met the source
water protection requirements of
SDWA for completing assessments
for ground water sources under the
WHP Programs. In the few cases
where essential elements of a WHP
Program need to be modified or
revised under the SWAP plan, the
necessary changes are reviewed and
approved by EPA. For example, for
surface-water-based drinking water
supply protection, most state SWAPs
have adopted a watershed protec-
tion approach, including special
scrutiny of areas where ground
water/surface water interactions are
likely to occur. These areas may
require additional management
or protection measures to ensure
complete source water protection;
in these cases, the original WHP
Program approach (e.g., delinea-
tion, contaminant source manage-
ment) may be modified as appro-
priate to enhance this comprehen-
sive approach.
Several states have exemplary
provisions within the required
elements of their SWAPs. A good
example is South Dakota's source
water assessment dispute resolution
process. This process gives owners/
operators or concerned citizens a
negotiable risk-ranking strategy
for disputing the results of the
susceptibility analysis for a particular
PWS (e.g., ranking criteria too rigor-
ous or insufficiently protective).
Under the plan, PWS owners/opera-
tors or concerned citizens may
review the method and the risk
factors applied to the contaminant
sources or activities listed as poten-
tial sources of concern during the
inventory and susceptibility determi-
nation phases of the assessment.
Local community leaders and
planners will be encouraged to
examine the evidence provided by
the complainant (e.g., risk factors
inappropriately assigned or not
considered) and to recalculate the
risk scores and evaluate the change
in the overall risk rating. If the state
recalculates the risk scores, the
results are provided as an amend-
ment to the original assessment
report, to the individuals who
requested the revision, and to the
PWS. In either case, the state has
the responsibility for making the
final decision on the susceptibility
rating for a potential contaminant
source.
The results of the assessment
reflect the state's analysis of the
susceptibility of the PWS to the
inventoried sources of contamina-
tion in that area. EPA expects the
assessments to take the form of a
summary-type document or report,
with the size or volume of material
contained in the report dependent
upon the size of the SWPA inven-
toried and the complexity of the
hydrogeologic setting of the SWPA.
The assessment results need not be
highly detailed, but they must con-
vey to the public the results of the
source inventories and susceptibility
determinations. The results can be
in narrative form (e.g., susceptibility
for your PWS is high-medium-low)
or in a tabular ranking or rating
system (e.g., on a scale of 1 to 10,
your system ranks 6).
The assessments need to be
readily understandable to the public
and contain enough information set
forth clearly and concisely to enable
any person to interpret how poten-
tial sources or activities within their
-------
54 Ground Water Protection Programs
Section 1429 Ground Water
Report to Congress
Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to protect the
quality of drinking water in the United States. Because approximately half
of the nation's population uses ground water as a drinking water source,
the Act has become one of the principal authorities for managing and pro-
tecting ground water resources. Under Section 1429 of the 1996 amend-
ments to the SDWA, Congress authorized EPA to report on the current
status and effectiveness of state ground water protection efforts and to
examine our nation's approach to protecting ground water. The first
Ground Water Report to Congress under Section 1429 was released in late
1999. Additional reports are required every 3 years thereafter.
To complete the Report, EPA compiled data from the following sources
of information:
• Existing literature and research reports developed by federal
agencies, states, universities, and private research organizations
• A survey of state ground water management programs completed
in April 1999
• Data reported by states in the Section 305(b) State Water Quality
Reports.
EPA also convened a state and federal agency Work Group to review
the report and to assist in compiling and reviewing information from the
states. Based on these sources of information, EPA concludes that states
have made progress in remediation or prevention of specific types of
ground water contamination problems. However, a more comprehensive,
resource-based approach would yield better results for effective ground
water protection. More than a dozen states have begun to take a compre-
hensive look at ground water protection, but only a few states have priori-
tized protection activities or identified funding to meet this protection
approach. Although the importance of a more comprehensive effort is
recognized, more resources are needed to accomplish the priority setting,
coordinating of activities, and monitoring and assessment deemed neces-
sary to better protect ground water.
SWPA impact the quality of their
drinking water. Maps will be provid-
ed to show the delineated SWPA,
the sources of contamination inven-
toried within that area, and, if
desired, the final results of the sus-
ceptibility determination for each
PWS on the map. Persons wishing
to examine the raw data from which
the delineation, source inventories,
and susceptibility determinations
were derived may do so by request
to the state. Final results of assess-
ments can be sent out with water
bills, posted on the internet, main-
tained in public libraries, and refer-
enced in toll-free hotline access. In
addition, the results of the assess-
ments are required to be communi-
cated in the Consumer Confidence
Reports issued by every PWS, which
describe the condition, quality, and
safety of public drinking water deliv-
ered to the consumer.
Wellhead Protection
The 1986 Amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act established
the Wellhead Protection Program.
It is essentially designed to provide
a pollution prevention program for
underground sources of drinking
water. Under Section 1428 of the
SDWA, each state must develop a
WHP Program to protect wellhead
areas from contaminants that may
have an adverse effect on human
health. Protection is achieved
through (1) the identification of
areas around public water supply
wells that contribute ground water
to the well, and (2) the manage-
ment of potential sources of con-
tamination in these areas to reduce
threats to the resource.
Before the SDWA Amendments
of 1996 established the Source
Water Assessment and Protection
Programs, the WHP Program was
the nation's only federally mandated
drinking water source protection
program and, as such, dealt
solely with ground water sources
(including ground water under the
influence of surface water). With the
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 55
passage of the 1996 Amendments
to SDWA, the WHP Program
assumed new prominence and a
higher profile in drinking water
source protection, becoming the
cornerstone in states' development
of Source Water Assessment and
Protection Programs. With these
new programs now dealing with
surface water as well as ground
water sources of drinking water,
states with EPA-approved WHP
Programs in place have essentially
met the ground-water-based
requirements for Source Water
Assessment Programs under SDWA
1996. As EPA reviewed individual
state Source Water Assessment
Programs for approval starting in
February 1999, EPA and the states
looked at individual elements of
approved WHP Programs to see if
any modifications or refinements
were necessary in the technical or
program implementation elements
(e.g., wellhead protection area
delineations; contaminant source
management strategies) to enhance
the state's approach to implemen-
tation of SWAPs.
Although states are given the
freedom to develop WHP programs
that best meet their needs and par-
ticular regulatory and hydrogeologic
environment, the SDWA stipulates
that WHP operations plans must
have EPA approval. For EPA approval
to be granted, state WHP programs
must contain specific elements
addressing the roles and responsibil-
ities of state and local governments,
delineation of wellhead protection
areas, potential contaminant source
inventory procedures, contaminant
source management and control
procedures, contingency plans for
alternative water supplies, new
well/well siting standards, and public
participation.
As of March 1, 1999, almost
90% of the states and territories had
developed and implemented WHP
programs. Specifically, 48 states and
2 territories have EPA-approved WHP
Programs in place and 2 states are
continuing their efforts to develop
an approved WHP Program (Figure
22). Most of these state WHP
Programs are based on existing
ground water and drinking water
protection programs.
Each state with an EPA-approved
WHP program is also required to
submit a biennial status report
describing the state's progress in
implementing the program. States
with approved programs have com-
plied with the required submittals
Figure 22
WHP Approval Status as of December 1999
^
10/21/94 8/4/92 13/18/96
ji/19/90
3/17/90
12/5/91
5/10/90
'6/17/91
'12/17/92
6/28/96 U/17/qcl LrfJ
^,^9/30/93
2/2/99
American Samoa
Guam and Northern
Mariana Islands
Approved an 6/93
Pending Approval/Continuing Efforts
Source: U.S. EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 1999.
-------
56 Ground Water Protection Programs
for three biennial reporting periods,
ending FY93, FY95, and FY97. The
deadline for the 2-year period end-
ing in FY99 was October 30, 1999.
The 1997 biennial report, released
in December 1999, indicates that
42 of 44 states and 2 territories with
approved programs have submitted
reports for FY97. State reporting
indicates that a total of 6,570
community water supply systems
have Step 5 in place. Figure 23
illustrates all five steps of implemen-
tation for each reporting period.
EPA's Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water also supports
the development and implementa-
tion of WHP programs at the local
level through many efforts. For
example, EPA-funded support is
provided through the Ground
Figure 23
Wellhead Protection Implementation Nationwide
0)
4-1
&
CO
I_
o
4-»
O
O
8,000 -
6,000
4,000
2,000
1995
Year
1993
Getting Started
Delineation
Source Identification
Source Management
Contingency Planning
Source: U.S. EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 1999.
1997
Water/Wellhead Protection pro-
grams of the National Rural Water
Association (NRWA). Currently, these
state Rural Water Association pro-
grams are being implemented vol-
untarily in 48 states. In each of these
states a ground water technician
works with small and rural commu-
nities to help them develop and
implement WHP plans. These plans
are integrated with the WHP pro-
gram so that they meet state
requirements. Only Alaska and
Hawaii are not included in the
program at this time.
This effort with NRWA began in
March 1991. As of December 31,
1998, over 4,500 communities had
become involved in developing local
WHP plans. These 4,500 communi-
ties represent over 9,900,000 peo-
ple. Over 2,800 of these communi-
ties have completed their plans and
are managing their wellhead pro-
tection areas to ensure the commu-
nity that their water supplies are
protected. EPA has also funded
Wellhead Protection workshops for
local decision makers. Over 243 of
these workshops have been held in
48 states. The workshops have been
attended by 8,500 people.
Another effort supported by
EPA's OGWDW is the Groundwater
Guardian Program, an international
program of The Groundwater
Foundation. Groundwater Guardian
empowers citizens to initiate ground
water protection projects in their
communities. Communities earn
Groundwater Guardian designation
for their work to protect local
ground water supplies. Their activi-
ties range from education and
awareness programs to full imple-
mentation of WHP plans and local
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 57
land use ordinances. Regional and
state agencies, in addition to organi-
zations and businesses, earn desig-
nation as affiliates by supporting the
efforts of nearby Groundwater
Guardian communities with educa-
tional materials, technical support,
and/or financial assistance. National
entities earn designation as national
partners by supporting the long-
term sustainability of the program.
Interested citizens can learn more
about participating in Groundwater
Guardian by contacting The
Groundwater Foundation toll-free
at 800-858-4844 or by visiting their
website at www.groundwater.org to
request a copy of Guide to Ground-
water Guardian.
Sole Source Aquifer
Protection Program
Congress first established the
Sole Source Aquifer Protection
Program in 1974 under Section
1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act and reauthorized the program
under the August 1996 SDWA
Amendments. The program allows
communities, individuals, and orga-
nizations to petition EPA for protec-
tion of the aquifer that is the "sole
or principal" source of drinking
water for the local population. Since
the first sole source aquifer designa-
tion of the Edwards Aquifer near
San Antonio, Texas, in 1975, there
are now 69 designations in 24
states and Guam.
A region is eligible for sole
source aquifer status if more than
50% of the population in the
defined area relies on the desig-
nated aquifer as their primary
source of drinking water. Once EPA
designates an aquifer through a
public process, EPA has the authori-
ty to review and approve federal
financially assisted projects that may
potentially contaminate the sole
source aquifer. If the proposed proj-
ect poses no threat, then the project
continues as planned. However, if
there is potential for contamination
of the aquifer, then EPA works with
the project leader and associated
federal agency to recommend engi-
neering, construction, or design
modifications. Some examples of
federally funded projects that EPA
reviews include
• Transportation-related improve-
ment and construction
• Infrastructure upgrades of public
water supply systems and waste-
water facilities
• Agricultural projects involving
dairies and feedlots that involve
animal waste management
concerns
• Construction of multifamily
housing, business centers,
gasoline stations, and hospitals.
These types of projects often
include activities that may impact
ground water quality. This does not
mean that these projects cannot go
forward in a sole source aquifer
area, but rather that the project
needs to take special measures to
minimize the risk of contaminating
the aquifer. Frequently, modifica-
tions are made for storm water
runoff, hazardous waste manage-
ment, underground storage tank
placement and containment, proper
-------
58 Ground Water Protection Programs
HIGHLIGH
HT HIGHLIGHT
Eastern Snake River
Plain Sole Source Aquifer
On March 11, 1977, a local
ranch owner near Hagerman, Idaho,
Spokane Valley Rathdrum
Prairie Aquifer
- Eastern Columbia Plateau
Aquifer System (Suspended)
I | Streamflow Source Area
I | Aquifer
Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer and Streamflow Source Area
petitioned EPA to designate the
Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer
(ESRP) in south central Idaho as a
Sole Source Aquifer (SSA). Despite
complicated technical and political
issues, the ESRP was finally desig-
nated by the Regional Administrator
of EPA Region 10 on October 7,
1991. The aquifer and Streamflow
source area are presented in the
figure.
The ESRP Aquifer contains most
of the population of southern Idaho
and extends from the Wyoming
border across south central Idaho.
The aquifer is a structural basin filled
with a thick sequence of Tertiary-
and Quaternary-aged highly frac-
tured volcanic basalt from lava flows.
Overlain by younger glacio-fluvial
deposits and flood plain colluvium,
the aquifer is a highly productive
ground water resource that provides
roughly 80% of the industrial, com-
mercial, and domestic drinking
water to over 400,000 residents.
Approximately 70% of the citizens
in the area rely on the aquifer to
supply their primary source of drink-
ing water. Protecting ground water
from nutrient loading from poorly
managed animal feeding operations,
leaking sanitary sewer pipes, failing
onsite septic systems, unsealed
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 59
private drinking water wells, and
stormwater runoff has become
increasingly difficult because of
rapid growth of both industry and
agriculture over the aquifer area.
Under EPA's Sole Source Aquifer
Protection Program, risk evaluations
are performed to determine the
potential impacts that a federally
funded development project may
have on ground water quality. The
intent of this program is to ensure
that the federal government is not
funding projects that may adversely
impact ground water quality in the
ESRP. Potential projects may include
new or expanded dairy facilities,
apartment buildings, business devel-
opment projects, and transportation
improvements and water system
upgrades.
In 1998, EPA Region 10
reviewed 44 projects, 35 of which
were proposed for the ESRP. One
such project EPA reviewed was a
proposed gas station and conven-
ience store to be located in south
central Idaho. In partnership with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture-
Rural Development, EPA was asked
to review this project that was guar-
anteed for over $1 million of federal
financial assistance. Upon review,
EPA recommended that the gasoline
storage tanks needed proper certifi-
cation and installation. Where dry
wells were proposed for stormwater
disposal, EPA recommended grassed
retention basins for treating storm-
water runoff before it infiltrated the
subsurface. EPA worked with the
project proponent, architects, and
engineers to design the basins and
incorporate an underground
oil/water separator tank into the
project design to treat any large
petroleum spills before the effluent
is discharged to the grassed reten-
tion basins. EPA also recommended
the development of a spill response
and containment plan for emer-
gency response procedures and pro-
vided up-to-date information on the
Underground Storage Tank Regula-
tions and registration procedures.
The result was a gas station
designed to substantially minimize
the impact to ground water quality
and prepared to respond to handle
emergency situations.
HIGHLIG
GHT HIGHLIGHT
-------
60 Ground Water Protection Programs
location of large-capacity onsite
sewage systems, protective contain-
ment of large equipment or truck
refueling stations, and provisions for
proper disposal and containment of
aircraft deicer compounds.
Nationwide, from January 1997
to December 1998, EPA reviewed a
total of 439 projects with the proj-
ect leaders to protect drinking water
resources (Figure 24 and Table 8).
Reviews occurred in 31 of the 70
aquifers located in 18 states. EPA
completed over 95% of the project
reviews in cooperation with the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Rural
Development Program (USDA-RD),
and the U.S. Department of Trans-
portation's Federal Highway Admin-
istration (FHWA).
Underground Injection
Control Program
EPA protects ground water from
a potential source of contamina-
tion—underground injection. EPA's
Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program focuses on ground
water that is used or may be used
by a public water system. EPA sets
minimum requirements for state
programs to protect ground water
from injection of waste and other
Figure 24
450
400 -
Sole Source Aquifer Project Reviews
1800
O
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
| Projects Reviewed
f_H Projects Approved
HH Projects Modified
Projects Reviewed (cumulative)
Projects Approved (cumulative)
Source: U.S. EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 1999.
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 61
fluids that contain harmful con-
taminants. Injection means the
subsurface emplacement of fluids
through wells, shallow disposal
systems, and similar practices.
EPA describes different kinds of
injection methods as "wells" and
regulates five categories or "classes"
of injection wells to ensure that they
do not endanger underground
sources of drinking water (USDW).
Table 9 details the five classes of
wells.
EPA and states ban Class IV
wells unless they are authorized for
ground water cleanups. Most Class
V wells inject untreated wastewater
above the water table and pose
the greatest risk to drinking water
sources. Typical Class V wells include
stormwater and agricultural
drainage wells, large septic systems
and cesspools, dry wells, floor
drains, and similar types of shallow
disposal systems that discharge to
ground water.
EPA is studying the prevalence
and potential risk of Class V wells in
the United States; current estimates
range from 700,000 to 1 million
wells. The UIC Program does not
regulate small septic systems and
cesspools that are used by fewer
than 20 people and are used only
for sanitary waste disposal.
Research Related to Protection
of Drinking Water
• In 1998, EPA completed a feas-
ibility study looking at existing fed-
eral reporting requirements. The
feasibility study showed that all
EPA offices and states are moving
toward electronic reporting, which
should reduce the state reporting
Table 8. Summary — Fiscal Year Postdesignation Project Reviews
(1990-1998)
Fiscal
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Total
Number of
Projects
Reviewed3
159
152
214
275
239
153
150
225
214
1,781
Funds
Affected
($)
571,748,000
570,886,000
1,818,665,000
2,078,266,000
1,173,545,000
307,153,000
1,756,535,000
>8,002,375,994
>3,378,040,822
>19,657,214,816
Number of
Projects
Approved
136
117
186
231
168
130
127
204
175
1,474
Number of
Projects
Modified
20
25
6
13
10
20
23
21
39
177
Number of
Projects
Disapproved
or Not
Recommended
0
4
1
0
0
3
3
0
0
11
Differences in annual totals by category are due to projects "under review" at year's end.
Source: U.S. EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 1999.
Table 9. Injection Wells in 1998
Well Class
Class I
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Class V
Number of Wells
(rounded to nearest 100)
500
164,300
29,600
Banned by all states and
EPA under the Safe Drinking
Water Act unless authorized
for ground water cleanup.
Actual numbers unavailable
Description of Injection Practice
• Inject fluids into deep, confined
geologic formations
• Associated with municipal or industrial
waste disposal, hazardous or radio-
active waste sites
• Inject fluids used in oil and gas
production into deep, confined
geologic formations
• Inject fluids into shallower formations
for mineral extraction
• Inject hazardous or radioactive wastes
directly or indirectly into drinking
water sources
• Includes all injection methods not
included in other four categories.
Source: U.S. EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 1999.
-------
62 Ground Water Protection Programs
burden and make available much
needed resources to address high-
risk Class V injection wells in critical
source water protection areas.
• EPA is studying the potential risks
to underground sources of drinking
water posed by hazardous waste
(Class I) injection wells. One study
examines the treatment of wastes to
render them noncorrosive, nontox-
ic, nonreactive, and nonignitable.
This study, when completed, will be
sent to Congress in 2000. A second
study examines the safety of inject-
ing hazardous waste into deep
formations and the interaction of
wastes with formation fluids.
• Class V wells and the risks these
wells pose to drinking water are
another area of investigation. One
study, completed in September
1999, was related to a consent
decree that required the Agency to
complete a study on all Class V well
types not addressed by the Novem-
ber 1999 final rule. Another study
identifies shallow disposal systems
that contribute to drinking water
contamination at Superfund sites
throughout the United States.
• EPA also began a study of the
resource needs of state programs
to implement UIC requirements
for Class V wells. The study will
continue through 2000.
UIC Technical Workgroup Study
Technical Issues
The UIC Technical Workgroup,
made up of representatives from
EPA regional and national offices,
examines technical issues facing
the direct implementation of UIC
programs to ensure existing UIC
requirements are adequate to
protect USDW. Some of the recent
issues studied include
• Fracture slurry injection
• Downhole hydrocarbon separa-
tion
• Existing Class II permit "boiler-
plate" language
• A compilation of Naturally-
Occurring-Radioactive Materials
(NORM) studies.
The Workgroup has developed
recommendations for consideration
by the national program managers.
Legal Challenges Facing
State Programs
• Texas Audit Privilege. In 1995,
Texas passed legislation granting
privilege and immunity to compa-
nies that voluntarily disclosed
information on violations of appli-
cable environmental laws. EPA was
concerned that the Texas Audit
Privilege Law contained broad
privilege and immunity provisions
that compromised the ability of the
Texas Natural Resource Conserva-
tion Commission to enforce the
state's UIC program to protect
drinking water. As a result of the
enactment of this law, the Environ-
mental Defense Fund and the Oil,
Chemical, and Atomic Workers
Union petitioned EPA to withdraw
the Texas UIC Program.
Based on the petitions, Texas
revised its statute to eliminate crimi-
nal amnesty and privilege. The
revised statute also meets EPA's civil
penalty criteria, provides the state
with access to any information
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 63
needed to verify compliance, and
provides public access to informa-
tion required to be made public
under federal or state law. However,
the revisions still allow limited-use
immunity where (1) a violation has
been corrected or the company is
making prompt efforts to correct
the violation, and (2) information
not required to be collected, main-
tained, or reported is otherwise
made available.
• Florida UIC Wells. Florida dis-
poses of secondary treated munic-
ipal effluent into Class I wells. The
wells inject the waste into deep
limestone formations below USDW.
The federal UIC program and the
state's newly revised rules require
that the wells be constructed and
operated to prevent the movement
of any fluid into a USDW. Some
wells in some locations have posed
challenges to this standard as
migration of this fluid has occurred,
and EPA is working with the state
and other stakeholders to evaluate
alternative solutions. EPA is currently
developing a proposed rule revision
to address this issue only for the
Class I municipal wells and only in
South Florida. A rule proposal is
anticipated in early 2000. Florida
now requires that all Class V wells
have a permit and meet state
ground water standards, which
include National Drinking Water
Standards, at the point of injection.
For aquifer storage and recovery
(ASR) wells that use untreated
water, EPA will work with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and other
stakeholders to develop the parame-
ters of the environmental impact
statement for the Everglades study
where ASR wells are used.
Public Education and Community Action
EPA developed a 15-minute video in which citizens and local officials in
Great Falls, Virginia, Espanola, New Mexico, and Missoula, Montana, reveal
how chemical waste discharged to ground water through shallow disposal
systems contaminated their water resources and how it affected their
communities. The video demonstrates that
• Shallow disposal systems are common, but often overlooked,
sources of dangerous industrial chemicals
• Federal and state regulations are insufficient to control this kind
of pollution in a community
• There are simple preventive steps a community can take to reduce
this serious threat to its water supply without closing any businesses
or going into financial debt.
EPA is distributing both English and Spanish versions of the video,
primarily to tribal and local public health officials, public water systems,
and community organizations, such as Chambers of Commerce and trade
and professional associations, throughout the United States.
• Alabama Hydraulic Fracturing.
In 1997, the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals remanded a petition filed
by the Legal Environmental Assist-
ance Foundation (LEAF) for EPA to
withdraw Alabama's UIC primacy.
Alabama did not regulate hydraulic
fracturing operations of coal beds
for methane production under its
program and, therefore, the petition
maintained that Alabama was not
fulfilling the UIC mandate to protect
drinking water. EPA first attempted
to collect additional data to assess
any risks to drinking water posed
by the practice. However, LEAF
obtained a Writ of Mandamus and
the court compelled EPA to begin
withdrawal of Alabama's UIC
program. Subsequently, Alabama
passed new rules to regulate
hydraulic fracturing and EPA formal-
ly approved the state rules as a
-------
64 Ground Water Protection Programs
Ground Water Rule
EPA is developing a regulation
on ground water that specifies the
appropriate use of disinfection and
addresses other components of
ground water systems to ensure
public health protection. Various
studies seem to indicate that the
number of ground water sources
with evidence of fecal contamina-
tion is significant. EPA is analyzing
the data to determine if they rep-
resent public wells nationally. The
proposed rule also encourages
the use of alternative approaches,
including best management prac-
tices and source control.
program revision in December
1999. Withdrawal proceedings were
then stopped.
Legal Challenges Relating
to Federal Regulations
• To satisfy the requirements under
the SDWA and a modified consent
decree with the Sierra Club, EPA
published Revisions to the Under-
ground Injection Control Regulations
for Class V Wells in November 1999.
EPA added new requirements for
two types of high-risk Class V wells
when located in source water
protection areas that depend on
ground water. These high-risk wells
include large-capacity cesspools and
motor vehicle waste disposal wells.
EPA will be developing requirements
for industrial waste disposal wells
and the other subtypes of Class V
wells in the near future.
UIC Tribal Program
• The 1986 Amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act allowed
federally recognized tribes to be
"Treated as a State" and to apply
for primary enforcement authority
(primacy) for the UIC Program.
Injection wells operated on tribal
lands are regulated by EPA if the
tribe has not received primary
enforcement authority in the UIC
program. To date, no tribe has
primacy for the program, although
three tribes are actively developing
programs (Mille Lacs Tribe in Min-
nesota, Fort Peck Tribe in Montana,
and the Navajo Nation in Arizona,
New Mexico, and Utah). A current
initiative in the UIC tribal program is
to improve inventory and manage-
ment of Class V wells found on
tribal lands.
EPA and states currently admin-
ister 57 UIC programs to maintain
regulatory coverage of the large
number of underground injection
wells. Through regulatory develop-
ment and research studies, EPA is
actively promoting the protection
of ground water quality.
Other Federal
Programs
Underground storage tanks and
solid and hazardous waste treat-
ment, storage, and disposal are
regulated under the Resource Con-
servation and Recovery Act and
abandoned waste is regulated under
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act.
Two other important federal
programs to protect our ground
water are the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
and the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA). Under FIFRA, EPA is respon-
sible for registering new pesticides
and reregistering older pesticides
that were registered before current
standards were developed. EPA
must ensure that these pesticides
will not cause unreasonable risk to
human health or the environment
when used according to label
directions. FIFRA requires EPA to
balance the risks of pesticide
exposure on humans and the envi-
ronment against the benefits of
pesticide use to society and the
economy. Under FQPA, EPA must
consider human exposure to pesti-
cides through the consumption of
drinking water.
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 65
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (1976) amended the
Solid Waste Disposal Act. In 1984,
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) were passed
by Congress, which greatly expand-
ed the scope of the RCRA Program.
Statutorily, the RCRA program has
four major components.
Subtitle D Solid Waste
Program
Subtitle C Hazardous Waste
Program
Subtitle I Underground
Storage Tank
Program
Subtitle J Medical Waste
Program (federal
program expired*)
The intent of RCRA is to protect
human health and the environment
by establishing a comprehensive
regulatory framework for investigat-
ing and addressing past, present,
and future environmental contami-
nation. This is done by identifying
as hazardous those wastes that
may pose hazards if improperly
managed and establishing require-
ments for waste treatment and
management to ultimate disposal.
Specific goals of RCRA are as fol-
lows:
• To protect human health and the
environment
• To reduce waste and conserve
energy and natural resources
• To reduce or eliminate the gener-
ation of hazardous waste as expedi-
tiously as possible.
To ensure that the RCRA pro-
gram is current in its mission to
protect human health and the envi-
ronment from hazards associated
with waste management, the
Agency has recently completed or
has ongoing several activities that
focus primarily on protection of
ground water.
• EPA manages two major national
information systems to support the
RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste
program: the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Information System
(RCRIS) and the Biennial Reporting
System (BRS). EPA began reinvent-
ing information management in the
hazardous waste program in 1994
when the Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) revised its strategic plan and
identified new information man-
agement objectives. The Waste
Information Needs (WIN) Initiative
evolved from these objectives. EPA's
WIN Initiative partnered with the
states' Information Needs for
Making Environmental Decisions
(Informed) project. The joint WIN/
Informed Initiative is an effort to
reassess the information needed to
run the hazardous waste program
under RCRA. Some of the informa-
tion covered by the project includes
who is regulated, what is being
regulated, and what kinds of
activities and milestones must be
tracked for the hazardous waste
program. The Initiative seeks to
improve data quality and meet the
needs of EPA, states and tribes,
"The federal medical waste tracking program expired. It was a 2-year pilot program in response
to the ocean washup of medical instruments along the East Coast during the summer of 1988.
Several states have implemented their own medical waste tracking programs.
-------
66 Ground Water Protection Programs
and public and private sector
customers for timely and accurate
information about hazardous waste
management.
• EPA released for public comment
a list of 53 persistent, bioaccumula-
tive, and toxic (PBT) chemicals and
chemical categories that may be
found in hazardous wastes regu-
lated under RCRA. This list is a
response to states, industry organi-
zations, environmental groups, and
individuals who commented on
EPA's national RCRA waste minimiza-
tion policy, and it will be used to
promote voluntary waste minimiza-
tion efforts that reduce the genera-
tion of PBT chemicals found in
RCRA hazardous waste by at least
half by the year 2005.
• Under the Hazardous Waste
Identification Final Rule (HWIR) for
Contaminated Media, EPA is issuing
new requirements for hazardous
remediation wastes treated, stored,
or disposed of during cleanup
actions. These new requirements
make five major changes: (1) they
make permits for treating, storing,
and disposing of remediation wastes
faster and easier to obtain; (2) they
provide that obtaining these permits
will not subject the owner and/or
operator to facility-wide corrective
action; (3) they create a new kind
of unit called a "staging pile" that
allows more flexibility in storing
remediation waste during cleanup;
(4) they exclude dredged materials
from RCRA Subtitle C if they are
managed under an appropriate
permit under the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act or the
Clean Water Act; and (5) they make
it faster and easier for states to
receive authorization when they
update their RCRA programs to
incorporate revisions to the federal
RCRA regulations.
• As part of the Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule for Waste, EPA is
developing cutting-edge risk assess-
ment modeling work that addresses
the fate and transport of contami-
nants in the ground water environ-
ment through the use of a more
accurate ground water model (as
well as assesses risks posed by other
release pathways). These models
were used in the December 1995
HWIR-waste proposal to evaluate
risks from approximately 200
hazardous waste constituents.
• EPA is evaluating important
aspects of and potentially improving
the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
Program. EPA's overall goal in the
LDR reinvention project is to
examine the best way to ensure the
program is environmentally protec-
tive, less expensive, more efficient
and flexible, clearer to the public,
and more enforceable.
Underground Storage
Tank Program
The Underground Storage Tank
Program falls under RCRA. One of
the primary goals of this program
is to protect the nation's ground
water resources from releases by
underground storage tanks (USTs)
containing petroleum or certain
hazardous substances. EPA works
with state and local governments to
implement federal requirements for
proper management of USTs. As of
March 1999, EPA estimates that
about 825,000 federally regulated
USTs are buried at more than
300,000 sites nationwide. Nearly all
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 67
USTs contain petroleum—about
25,000 USTs hold hazardous waste
covered by federal regulations.
In 1988, EPA issued regulations
setting minimum standards for new
tanks (those installed after Decem-
ber 22, 1988) and existing tanks
(those installed before December
22, 1988). During the next 10 years
(by December 1998), existing USTs
were required to be upgraded to
meet minimum standards, be
replaced with new tanks, or be
closed properly. Since 1988, more
than 1.3 million old USTs have been
closed, thus eliminating a significant
number of potential sources of
ground water contamination. The
vast majority of USTs have complied
with the December 1998 require-
ments. EPA and the states are
continuing to work to ensure full
compliance.
New and existing USTs comply-
ing with EPA's standards can prevent
leaks caused by spills, overfills,
corrosion, and faulty installation.
Compliance with the leak detection
requirements also can prevent
releases from USTs before contami-
nation spreads. Corrective action
requirements ensure responsible
and timely cleanup of contaminated
sites.
As of March 1999, more than
385,000 UST releases had been
confirmed. EPA estimates that about
half of these releases have reached
ground water. Ground water
impacts include the presence of
well-documented contaminants,
such as benzene, toluene, ethyl
benzene, and xylene (BTEX). Also,
ground water contamination from
methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) has
become a significant concern in
some areas. Remediation decisions
involving MTBE can differ from
those involving BTEX, often requir-
ing more expensive and extensive
cleanups.
About 210,000 contaminated
sites have been cleaned up, and
cleanups are in progress at 115,000
more sites (Figure 25). EPA esti-
mates that the total number of con-
firmed releases will surpass 400,000
in the next year, primarily releases
discovered during the closure or
replacement of the remaining
USTs. EPA expects the number of
new releases to begin to decrease
now that most UST systems are
equipped with leak prevention and
detection.
Congress created the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
Trust Fund in 1986 to provide
money for overseeing corrective
action taken by a responsible party
and to provide money for cleanups
at UST sites where the owner or
Figure 25
Status of Cleanup at UST Sites
450,000
400,000
350,000
jj> 250,000
E
= 200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
9
•
,.;::B
• I • "
- * •
» •
-:, t •••...
A !
0 92 94 96 98
Year
• Confirmed Releases
• Cleanups Started
A Cleanups Completed
• Cleanups Awaiting Action
-------
68 Ground Water Protection Programs
operator is unknown, unwilling, or
unable to respond or that require
emergency action. Since 1986,
$677 million has been dispersed to
state UST programs for state officials
to use for administration, oversight,
and cleanup work.
UST owners and operators must
also meet financial responsibility
requirements that ensure that they
will have the resources to pay for
costs associated with cleaning up
releases and compensating third
parties. The amount of coverage
required ranges from $500,000 to
$1 million per occurrence, accord-
ing to the type and size of the UST
business. Many states have provided
financial assurance funds to help
their UST owners meet the financial
responsibility requirements. These
state funds included more than $1.3
billion in 1998 for use on UST
cleanups.
EPA recognizes that, because
of the large size and great diversity
of the regulated community, state
and local governments are in the
best position to oversee USTs. EPA
encourages states to seek State
Program Approval so they may
operate in lieu of the federal pro-
gram. So far, 27 states, the District
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have
received State Program Approval.
All states have UST regulations and
programs in place. The Agency also
has developed a data management
system that many states use to track
the status of UST facilities, including
their impact on ground water
resources. EPA also has negotiated
UST grants with all states and pro-
vided technical assistance and
guidance for implementation and
enforcement of UST regulations.
Comprehensive Environ-
mental, Response, Compen-
sation, and Liability Act
(Superfund Program)
In the late 1970s, a series of
headline stories alerted the United
States to the dangers of dumping,
burying, or improperly storing
hazardous waste. The magnitude
of uncontrolled disposal of haz-
ardous waste moved Congress to
pass the Comprehensive Environ-
mental, Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act in 1980. CERCLA,
commonly known as Superfund,
was the first comprehensive federal
law designed specifically to deal
with the dangers posed by the
nation's abandoned and uncon-
trolled hazardous waste sites. EPA's
mission under Superfund is to
• Protect human health and the
environment from uncontrolled
hazardous releases
• Study, design, and construct
long-term solutions for the nation's
most serious hazardous waste
problems
• Require parties responsible for
contamination to pay for site clean-
up.
It is difficult to describe the
"typical" hazardous waste site
because they are so diverse, and
many sites have had multiple uses
in the past. Many sites are munici-
pal or industrial landfills; others are
manufacturing plants where opera-
tors improperly disposed of wastes.
Some sites are large federal facilities
with "hot spots" of contamination
resulting from various high-tech or
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 69
military activities. Although Super-
fund's hazardous waste sites have
been abandoned, they may exist
in active industrial or commercial
areas. In general, landfills are the
most common Superfund sites,
followed by chemical and metals
manufacturing and recycling opera-
tions.
The type of contamination
resulting from past site activities
can also vary widely. Some of the
most frequently found contaminant
classes at Superfund sites are heavy
metals, such as lead and mercury,
volatile organic compounds, poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesti-
cides and herbicides, and creosotes.
These contaminants can have
adverse effects on human health
ranging from breathing difficulties
to developmental and learning
disorders and chronic health condi-
tions such as cancer. They also pose
a threat to ecosystems by indirectly
or directly affecting the ability of
animals and plants to survive and
reproduce. EPA is working to deter-
mine appropriate site outcomes and
allay concerns about human health
threats.
Because so many hazardous
waste sites exist throughout the
nation, EPA must identify and prior-
itize the most serious sites for long-
term cleanup actions under the
Superfund program. EPA uses a
mathematical scoring system called
the Hazard Ranking System (MRS)
to assess the relative risks posed by
sites to determine whether a site
is eligible for placement on the
National Priorities List (NPL). A site's
MRS score is based on the likelihood
that a hazardous substance will
be released from the site, the toxic-
ity and amount of hazardous
substances at the site, and the loca-
tion of populations potentially
affected by the contamination at
the site.
EPA uses the NPL to track the
Superfund Program's progress in
characterizing and cleaning up the
listed sites. Administrative reforms
have significantly increased the
pace and lowered the cost of site
cleanups. Almost three times as
many Superfund sites have had
construction completed in the past
6 years than in all of the prior years
of the program combined. As of
September 30, 1998, more than
89% of nonfederal sites on the final
NPL are either undergoing cleanup
construction (remedial or removal)
or are completed:
• 585 Superfund sites have reached
construction completion (41% of
the sites on the NPL) and 457
Superfund sites (32% of the sites on
the NPL) have cleanup construction
under way.
• 209 sites (15% of the sites on the
NPL) have had or are undergoing a
removal cleanup action.
• Approximately 990 NPL sites
have final cleanup plans approved.
• Approximately 5,500 removal
actions have been taken at hazard-
ous waste sites to immediately
reduce the threat to public health
and the environment. Responsible
parties continue to perform approxi-
mately 70% of new remedial work
at NPL sites, and more than 30,900
sites have been removed from the
Superfund inventory of potentially
hazardous waste sites to help pro-
mote the economic redevelopment
of these properties.
-------
70 Ground Water Protection Programs
HIGHLIGH/M |_| IjteHT HIGHLIGHT
^
Rocky Mountain Arsenal —
Colorado
Years of Army weapons produc-
tion and industrial manufacture of
chemicals for pesticides, insecticides,
and herbicides resulted in contami-
nated soil, sediment, and water at
the Rocky Mountain Arsenal site,
10 miles northeast of downtown
Denver, Colorado. For decades, the
Army and private chemical manufac-
turers disposed of liquid wastes in
numerous unlined waste disposal
basins and trenches, which allowed
the waste to reach the ground
water. By 1995, nearby residents
noticed crop damage and voiced
concern about contaminated
ground water. Since the mid-1970s,
the Army and other responsible
parties have been jointly investigat-
ing and cleaning up the contamina-
tion at the site, which is one of the
largest environmental cleanup sites
in the nation.
More than half of the 31 clean-
up projects were either in the design
or construction phase during 1 999.
In 1 998, a total of 33 contractors
worked on cleanup activities and
\
additional contractors were hired in
1999. EPA, the Colorado Depart-
ment of Health and Environment,
and the Tri-County Health Depart-
ment continue to provide invaluable
service to the Arsenal and the com-
munity in the completion of the
Arsenal's cleanup and the vision of it
as one of the largest, urban national
wildlife refuges.
Studies during the 1970s iden-
tified on-post areas with varying
degrees of contamination, including
buildings, soil, ditches, stream and
lake bed sediments, sewers, ground
water, surface water, and off- post
ground water. The most highly con-
taminated soils are located in the
central 6 square miles of the Arsenal,
which contain the manufacturing
and waste disposal areas, including
waste disposal landfills and basins.
A chemical, diisopropyl-methylphos-
phanate (DIMP, a byproduct of
nerve gas production), pesticides,
solvents, arsenic, fluoride, and chlo-
ride contaminate ground water on
the post. EPA added most of the
Arsenal to its National Priorities List
in July 1987.
Several activities at the site are
planned or have been completed to
help clean up ground water and
provide quality drinking water to
area residents in the future, includ-
ing:
• Continued operation of the
on-post and off-post ground water
treatment systems and evaluation
of these systems every 5 years
• Provision of $48.8 million to
acquire and deliver additional water
\
to the South Adams County Water
J
and Sanitation District and to furnish
drinking water to Henderson city
^j J
residents whose wells are contami-
nated with DIMP
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 71
HIGHLIG
• Installation of a slurry wall around
the Arsenal Complex and construc-
tion of disposal trenches to minimize
contact between ground water and
waste materials left in place
• Construction of a RCRA-equiva-
lent cap with a wildlife barrier over
the area
• Construction of an on-post,
double-lined, hazardous waste
landfill covering 24 acres to accept
millions of tons of material from
18 of the Arsenal's cleanup projects.
Construction on several of these
key on-post projects began in 1998
and continued into 1999. The
coming years will provide evidence
that a successful cleanup effort can
be accomplished with cooperation
and vision of state, local, and federal
governments and the involvement
of many people from the surround-
ing community. Through this vision,
a true environmental accomplish-
ment can evolve and become one of
the largest, urban national wildlife
refuges.
GHT HIGHLIGHT
Disposal Dewatering
Disposal
Trench
Soil Cover
Revegetation
Soil Horizon
Water
Table
Aquifer
Bedrock
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Complex
-------
72 Ground Water Protection Programs
NPL sites are a subset of a larger
Superfund inventory of hazardous
waste sites that also includes non-
NPL sites and sites that have no
further remedial action planned
(NFRAP). Non-NPL sites pose health
and environmental risks that can
be addressed through short-term
actions and do not always require
the complex cleanup actions
needed at NPL sites. There are cur-
rently 39,783 non-NPL sites that
Superfund has assessed. Of these
sites, 9,245 remain active and
30,438 have been archived as
NFRAP sites.
There are 60 million people
living within 4 miles of NPL sites.
Figure 26
Short-Term Actions Taken at Sites to Protect
Human Health and the Environment
1980 to June 1997
Population Relocation
| 34 NPL Sites (14,341 people relocated)
Alternative Water Supply
I 121 NPL Sites (338,767 people provided alternative water supply)
Site Security
Institutional Controls
527 NPL Sites
Removals/Emergency Actions (NPL)
595 NPL Sites
Removals/Emergency Actions
2,591 NPL Sites
CERCLIS1/98
Living near a site does not auto-
matically place a person at risk—it
depends on the amount and toxic-
ity of contaminants present and if a
person comes in contact with them
(e.g., drinking contaminated water
or breathing contaminated air). EPA
performs human health and ecolog-
ical risk assessments to determine
the amounts and types of chemicals
being released, the pathways of
exposure to these chemicals, and
the threats these chemicals pose to
human health and the environment.
EPA compiles data on human health
and ecological risks through site
investigations, field sampling, and
historical research. These risk assess-
ments are conducted to facilitate
risk management decisions, deter-
mine long-term cleanup goals, and
ensure that the selected cleanup
remedy will offer protection to the
public and surrounding ecosystems.
The Superfund Program's
mission requires addressing both
immediate threats to populations
living near hazardous waste sites
and long-term cleanup actions at
these sites. To address immediate
threats, short-term actions are often
taken to control critical situations
and ensure the safety of communi-
ties until long-term actions can
remove or permanently clean up
hazardous contamination (Figure
26). Since inception, the Superfund
program has supplied more than
300,000 people with alternative
water supplies to protect them from
contaminated ground water and
surface water. In addition, more
than 14,000 people have been relo-
cated where contamination posed
the most severe immediate threats.
To prohibit certain types of land
uses at sites, institutional controls
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 73
such as deed and fishing restrictions
have been implemented at more
than 500 NPL sites. Site security
measures, such as fencing and
guards, to restrict access have been
implemented at more than 300 NPL
sites. To ensure the safety of the sur-
rounding community from critical
emergencies caused by hazardous
waste, 1,263 removals of wastes
were completed at approximately
600 NPL sites and 2,897 removals
of hazardous substances were
completed at more than 2,500
non-NPL sites.
At most NPL sites, complex
long-term remedial actions are also
needed to clean up contaminants.
A key aspect of the cleanup process
is determining which technology is
appropriate. Superfund managers
analyze the types and amounts of
hazardous waste contamination to
determine the best method to
restore the affected area to desig-
nated cleanup levels. Cleanup tech-
nologies generally fall into the
"containment" or "treatment"
category. Containment technologies
create a physical barrier, holding the
contamination in place to protect
the public from direct contact. An
example of a containment technol-
ogy is capping, which involves con-
structing a protective barrier over
contaminated soil, solid waste, or
sediment. Treatment, on the other
hand, reduces the toxicity, mobility,
and/or volume of wastes found at
sites.
Because hazardous waste pol-
lutes soils, seeps into ground water,
and runs off into surface water,
EPA uses a "divide and conquer"
approach that involves organizing a
site into distinct cleanup efforts and
then setting cleanup goals for each
specific area of contamination (land,
ground water, and surface water).
The Superfund Program has cleaned
over 132 million cubic yards of
hazardous soil, solid waste, and
sediment and over 341 billion
gallons of hazardous liquid-based
waste, ground water, and surface
water.
States and tribes are key part-
ners in the cleanup of Superfund
hazardous waste sites. With the May
1998 release of Plan to Enhance
the Role of States and Tribes in the
Superfund Program, the Superfund
Program has provided opportunities
for increased state and tribal
involvement. As a result, 14 pilot
projects with states and tribes have
been initiated.
The Superfund Program is also
committed to continuing to involve
citizens in the site cleanup process.
EPA strives to create a decision-
making process to clean up sites
that the communities feel is open
and legitimate and improves the
community's understanding of the
potential health risks at hazardous
waste sites. This is accomplished
through
• Outreach efforts, such as holding
public meetings and establishing
community advisory groups, resto-
ration advisory boards, or site-
specific advisory boards
• Providing communities with
financial assistance to hire technical
consultants to assist them in under-
standing the problems and potential
solutions to the contamination
problems
• Distributing site-specific fact
sheets.
-------
74 Ground Water Protection Programs
Federal Insecticide, Fungi-
cide, and Rodenticide Act
FIFRA was passed by Congress
in 1947 and amended in 1988 to
accelerate the progress of pesticide
reregistration. Pesticides can enter
ground water through pesticide
spills, improper storage or disposal,
poorly sealed wells, or as a result of
normal application to farmlands and
lawns. When pesticides contaminate
ground water, there is a potential
risk to the health of those who drink
and use the water. In 1992, the
Agency's Pesticides in Ground Water
Database showed that 132 pesti-
cides had been found in ground
water in 42 states. The majority of
these samples (93%) were taken
from drinking water wells.
One of the goals of FIFRA is to
protect human health and the envi-
ronment from the risks of pesticide
use. Several programs have been
undertaken by EPA to protect
ground water from pesticide con-
tamination. These include the Pesti-
cide Management Plan (PMP),
Reduced Risk Products, and the
Registration/Reregistration
Programs.
Ground Water and Pesticides
Management Plans (PMP)
EPA's Office of Pesticide Pro-
grams (OPP) has been providing
cooperative agreement support for
voluntary state and tribal pesticide
management plans since 1991.
In response to the development
of EPA's 1991 policy document,
Protecting the Nation's Ground
Water: EPA's Strategy for the 1990s,
OPP, in conjunction with its stake-
holders, prepared its own Pesticides
and Ground Water Strategy later that
year. The heart of the strategy is a
pesticide management program
based on the concepts of preven-
tion and local action. This approach
is a departure from the traditional
pesticide registration process in
which national level restrictions are
placed on a product label as a
condition of use. Under the PMP
concept, states and tribes wishing
to continue use of chemicals of
concern are required to prepare a
prevention plan that targets specific
areas vulnerable to ground water
contamination based on actual
conditions of pesticide use and the
relative risks associated with the
local hydrogeology. Plans are to be
developed in a public process that
allows those affected to examine
the use, value, and vulnerability of
the resource, taking into considera-
tion economic and social values.
PMPs are designed to be flexible,
allowing states and tribes to adjust
them in accordance with changing
risk conditions, market trends, and
program experience. Throughout
the process, the public is kept
informed of program status and
emerging environmental trends. As
long as a state or tribe manages its
PMP so as to avoid the likelihood of
unreasonable adverse effects to
human health or the environment,
it can maintain its PMP approval
status and continue to use these
chemicals of concern. Currently,
OPP is seeking to restrict (through
rule-making) four widely used herbi-
cides (atrazine, cynazine, alachlor,
and metolachlor) that have been
shown to leach to ground water
readily and to persist in the environ-
ment. This rule would also provide
for the inclusion of any degradates
of concern or other registered
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 75
chemicals that merit restriction due
to ground water concerns.
Registration Process and
Reduced Risk Products
Reduced risk pesticides fall into
two categories: conventional and
biological. The conventional
reduced risk pesticides have low
potential for ground water con-
tamination, lower toxicity than
other pesticides, and other impor-
tant characteristics that make them
less harmful to the environment.
Four of these pesticides were regis-
tered in 1997; another two were
registered in 1998. These include
reduced-risk fungicides, herbicides,
and insecticides for a variety of crop
and noncrop uses.
Biological pesticides are based
on naturally occurring substances;
therefore, they generally pose less
risk to human health and the envi-
ronment than conventional pesti-
cides. Examples include microbial
pesticides (bacteria, viruses, or other
microorganisms used to control
pests) and biochemical pesticides
such as pheromones (insect mating
attractants), insect and plant growth
regulators, and hormones. Most
biological pesticides are applied at
very low rates or are applied in bait,
trap, or "encapsulated" formula-
tions and thus result in less expo-
sure and less likelihood of adverse
effects to humans and the environ-
ment. EPA has registered 37 new
biological pesticides. Among these
new pesticides are the first "plant
pesticide" products. Plant pesticides
are altered agricultural plants that
produce proteins that are toxic to
crop-destroying insects.
Reregistration Process
EPA must review the human
health and environmental effects
of all pesticides registered before
November 1, 1984, to determine
whether they meet today's stand-
ards. If a pesticide has been found
in ground water or has the potential
to contaminate ground water, vari-
ous mitigation measures are recom-
mended to control the contamina-
tion. These can include a variety of
measures such as advisories on the
label regarding a pesticide's poten-
tial to contaminate ground water,
restricted use (requiring that only
certified applicators can apply the
pesticide), limitations on the types
of soils to which it can be applied,
reductions in the application rate,
and cancellation of certain uses.
Special Review
A Special Review is conducted
on a pesticide when EPA believes it
creates an unacceptable risk to
human health or the environment.
A number of the pesticides under-
going the Special Review process
are ground water contaminants,
including atrazine, aldicarb, and
alachlor. EPA has taken measures to
reduce this contamination through
a number of measures including
voluntary cancellation of uses or
restrictions for application on certain
types of soils.
Food Quality Protection Act
The FQPA was signed into law
in 1996. FQPA amended FIFRAto
ensure that all pesticides would
meet new safety standards. As a
result of FQPA, EPA must now
-------
76 Ground Water Protection Programs
consider human exposure to pesti-
cides from drinking water as well as
food and home uses. The law states
that more than 9,000 pesticide uses
must be assessed by August 2006.
EPA has developed an interim
approach for addressing exposure
to pesticides from drinking water
that uses modeling as a screening
tool. Although information on pesti-
cides in ground water would be
more useful, comprehensive moni-
toring information is not readily
available for many pesticides. At
present, EPA's Office of Pesticide
Programs is developing a new com-
prehensive electronic database that
will summarize ground water moni-
toring information in the United
States. The monitoring information
in this database will be used by
federal, state, and local agencies
to help protect ground water from
pesticide contamination.
Conclusion
and Findings
Experience in the 305(b)
program shows vast differences in
the level of sophistication character-
izing state ground water protection
efforts. These differences are most
frequently attributed to differences
in state priorities and allocation of
resources. Some states have imple-
mented intensive efforts aimed at
characterizing ground water quality
and identifying and addressing
threats to ground water. In contrast,
some states at the other end of the
spectrum are only just now begin-
ning to implement ground water
protection strategies.
Despite these differences, there
is an overall trend nationwide to
preserve the quality of our nation's
ground water resources. Clearly, all
reporting states, territories, and
tribes recognize the importance of
their ground water resources and
are intent on protecting them.
One especially strong trend that
was evidenced in the 1998 305(b)
reports was an emphasis on delin-
eating hydrogeologic monitoring
units (e.g., aquifers) as a first step in
ground water protection efforts.
States provided detailed descriptions
of the methodologies they used to
delineate hydrogeologic monitoring
units and their monitoring rationale.
Frequently, detailed maps depicting
the monitoring units were provided
along with characterization of
ground water quality in the moni-
tored units. States reported that
they collect ground water monitor-
ing data to
• Identify temporal and spatial
trends in ground water quality
• Identify and track ground water
contamination problems
• Prioritize and emphasize different
aspects of protection programs
• Develop programs aimed at
remediation of existing contamina-
tion problems or prevention of
future problems
• Evaluate overall program effec-
tiveness.
Obviously, ground water moni-
toring is an important component
of any protection strategy. But just
as important is how a state man-
ages and uses the data they collect.
There is no doubt that ground
water monitoring is expensive.
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 77
Hence, it is not surprising that an
important trend observed in 1998
was the use of monitoring results to
streamline and focus state ground
water programs. This was especially
true when a state was faced with
limited financial resources. In these
cases, states prioritized their efforts
by first protecting their most
valuable and vulnerable resources.
Typically, states work either to con-
trol specific sources of ground water
contamination or to control activi-
ties that may contribute to ground
water contamination. Effective state
programs include
• Strict technical controls such as a
discharge permit program
• Strict controls on sources of point
and nonpoint source contamination
(e.g., programs that address leaking
underground storage tanks or wide-
spread application of pesticide
and/or fertilizer)
• Implementation of best manage-
ment practices
• Formulation of antidegradation
policies
• Development of ground water
quality standards.
Although these program com-
ponents are common to most state
protection strategies, it is important
to recognize that conditions,
demands for ground water, and
prioritizations vary from the east
coast to the west coast. In response
to their specific needs, states
promulgate protection regulations
that are unique to their conditions
and/or contamination challenges.
For example, Wyoming's protection
strategy includes the requirement
that chemigation wells have back-
flow protection, Indiana has devel-
oped a program for bulk storage of
agricultural chemicals, and Nevada
is developing a chemical accident
prevention program. Nearly all
states in the nation have imple-
mented some component of
protection that is unique to them.
With all these new develop-
ments, communication takes on an
increasingly important role. In most
states, ground water is protected
under multiple state and federal
programs; as a consequence, multi-
ple agencies are involved in ground
water protection activities. If com-
munication between these agencies
is lacking or inefficient, redundan-
cies or deficiencies in ground water
protection efforts may occur.
Because, historically, data manage-
ment has been a limiting factor in
monitoring ground water quality,
an important trend is the strength-
ening of communication and data
sharing between agencies. States
are making a concerted effort to
address communication problems
and enhance coordination among
agencies. Actions include:
• Development of advisory com-
mittees that include representatives
from state, federal, and private
industry
• Development of comprehensive
data management systems to
enhance data sharing
• Use of the World Wide Web
(Internet) to enhance data availabil-
ity and communication
-------
78 Ground Water Protection Programs
• Use of modern system technol-
ogies such as CIS to display and
evaluate data spatially
• Use of management tools by
state environmental managers in
making planning decisions and
implementing long-term pollution
prevention policies.
One of the most important
trends in the enhancement of com-
munication is the increasing use of
modern system technologies like
CIS. States report that they are
developing coverages depicting
monitored hydrologic units, moni-
toring well locations, contaminant
levels in individual wells, and point
sources of potential contamination.
As each successive layer is added,
threats to ground water quality are
identified and addressed as part of
an overall ground water protection
strategy. Communication is
enhanced as respective agencies
step forward to review the use of
their data and make suggestions to
improve interpretations.
The value and importance of
ground water have been recognized
across the nation by the states
reporting monitoring data through
the 305(b) program. Every state in
the nation is taking important steps
to preserve and protect our nation's
ground water resources.
-------
Ground Water Protection Programs 79
-------
-------
Drinking Water Quality
Programs
Drinking Water Source
Assessments
The Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) calls for states to determine
the susceptibility of waters to con-
tamination, while Section 305(b)
of the Clean Water Act calls for
them to assess the ability of waters
to support drinking water use.
States may prioritize their water
resources and perform drinking
water use support assessments for
a limited percentage of their water
resources. They are then encour-
aged to expand their drinking
water assessment efforts to include
additional waters at each subse-
quent reporting cycle. EPA
recommends prioritization based on
waters of greatest drinking water
demand, with further prioritization
with respect to vulnerability or
other state priority factors. In addi-
tion, states are encouraged to use a
tiered approach in the assessment.
This tiered approach accommo-
dates the different types of data
currently available to states and
allows for differing levels of assess-
ment.
States use the general criteria
outlined in Table 10 to determine
the degree of drinking water use
support for waterbodies in their
state. These criteria may be modi-
fied by the states to fit their individ-
ual situations.
Table 10. Criteria to Determine Drinking Water Use Support
Classification
Full support
Full support
but threatened
Partial support
Nonsupport
Unassessed
Monitoring Data
Contaminants do not exceed
water quality criteria
Contaminants are detected but
do not exceed water quality
criteria
Contaminants exceed water
quality criteria intermittently
Contaminants exceed water
quality criteria consistently
and/or
and/or
and/or
and/or
Use Support
Restrictions
Drinking water use
restrictions are not in
effect
Some drinking water use
restrictions have occurred
and/or the potential for
adverse impacts to source
water quality exists
Drinking water use
restrictions resulted in
the need for more than
conventional treatment
Drinking water use
restrictions resulted in
closures
Source water quality has not been assessed
-------
82 Drinking Water Quality Programs
Summary of State
Drinking Water
Assessments
Thirty-eight states, tribes, or
territories submitted drinking water
use data in their reports. Figure 27
shows which states submitted
drinking water data for rivers and
streams and/or lakes and reservoirs.
Table 11 shows the total number of
miles of rivers and streams and
acres of lakes and reservoirs
assessed and the degree of drinking
water use support for the entire
nation. The majority of waterbodies
assessed, 87% of rivers and streams
and 82% of lakes and reservoirs, are
fully supporting of drinking water
use. Only 3% of assessed rivers
Figure 27
States Submitting Drinking Water Use
Support Data in Their 305(b) Reports
'^'Hawaii
Puerto Rico
Q Virgin Islands
I Submitted Drinking Water Use Support Data
] No Drinking Water Use Support Data Submitted
Source: 1998 305(b) reports submitted by states.
and streams and 5% of lakes and
reservoirs do not support drinking
water use.
A large improvement was seen
between the drinking water use
support data reported by the states
in the 1998 305(b) report and that
reported previously. In the early
1990s, only a small percentage of
rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs
were assessed for drinking water
use. In 1998, more states reported
on how they classified waterbodies
for drinking water use and on
sources of water contamination.
The increased data resulted in a
more accurate framework for
assessing drinking water use
support in the nation.
However, 12 states did not
report data on drinking water use
support. Many of the 38 states that
reported data did not present any
information on how they classified
their waterbodies for drinking water
use support or on sources of water
contamination. This lack of infor-
mation complicates data interpreta-
tion and presents challenges for
accurately assessing and represent-
ing drinking water use support.
Sources of Drinking
Water Use Impairment
Each state analyzed for contam-
inants of concern to them, and
used different criteria for assessing
drinking water use impairment. In
addition, many states did not iden-
tify the particular contaminants that
caused drinking water use impair-
ment. Thus, it is not possible to
present quantitative data on this
issue. However, based on the limit-
ed number of states identifying
contaminants, Table 12 summarizes
all of the contaminants cited as
-------
Drinking Water Quality Programs 83
causing drinking water use impair-
ment.
Ensuring Safe
Drinking Water
Thanks to decades of effort by
public and private organizations
and the enactment of drinking
water legislation, most Americans
can turn on their taps without fear
of receiving unsafe water. Ensuring
consistently safe drinking water
requires the cooperation of federal,
state, tribal, and municipal govern-
ments to protect the water as it
moves through three stages of the
system—the raw source water, the
water treatment plant, and the
pipes that deliver finished water to
consumers' taps. Polluted source
waters greatly increase the level
and expense of treatment needed
to provide finished water that
meets public health standards.
The passage of the SDWA
Amendments of 1996 brought
substantial changes to the national
drinking water program for water
utilities, states, and EPA, as well as
greater protection and information
to the 250 million Americans served
by public water systems.
Source Water Protection
The SDWA Amendments
establish a strong new emphasis on
preventing contamination problems
through source water protection
and enhanced water system man-
agement. The states are central in
creating and focusing prevention
programs and helping water sys-
tems improve their operations
to avoid contamination problems.
States are assessing the suscep-
tibility to contamination of the
source waters supplying public
water systems. These assessments
will provide the information neces-
sary for states to develop tailored
monitoring programs and for water
systems to seek help from states in
protecting source water or initiating
local government efforts. Every
state took advantage of the oppor-
tunity to use a portion of the
Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund to initiate source water assess-
ments in FY 97.
To emphasize its commitment
to source water protection, EPA
included a source water protection
goal in Environmental Goals for
America With Milestones for 2005,
which was originally released in
Table 11. National Drinking Water Use Support
Rivers and Streams
Miles
Percentage
Lakes and Reservoirs
Acres
Percentage
Fully
Supporting
122,318
87
6,926,031
82
Threatened
5,844
4
303,374
4
Partially
Supporting
8,164
6
794,573
9
Not
Supporting
4,616
3
394,307
5
Total
Assessed
140,954
8,418,286
Table 12. Sources of Drinking Water Use Impairment
Contaminant Group
Pesticides
Volatile organic chemicals
Inorganic chemicals
Microbiological contaminants
Specific Contaminant
Atrazine
Metolachlor
Triazine
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trich loroethane
c/s-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Trihalomethanes
Carbon tetrachloride
Ethylbenzene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Arsenic
Nitrates
Iron
Copper
Chloride
Exceedance of total
coliform rule
Molinate
Ethylene dibromide
Dichloromethane
1 ,1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,1 -Dichloroethylene
Toluene
Benzene
Dichlorobenzene
Methyl(tert)butyl ether
Xylene
Fluoride
Manganese
Lead
Sodium
Exceedance of fecal
coliform rule
-------
84 Drinking Water Quality Programs
HIGHLIGH/M |_| IjteHT HIGHLIGHT
/^
Protecting Sources
of Drinking Water
Introduction
In the United States today,
approximately 1 1 ,000 community
water systems serving over 160 mil-
lion people rely on lakes, reservoirs,
and rivers as their main sources of
drinking water. There is a growing
recognition that addressing the
quality and protection of these
water sources can prevent contami-
nation, thus reducing costly addi-
tional treatment and cleanup.
Across the country, drinking water
utilities are engaged in innovative
and successful source water protec-
tion programs. These programs
rely heavily on partnerships with
local governments and often
involve working closely with water-
shed councils, entering into land
exchange agreements with land
management agencies, and engag-
ing with local farmers to implement
best management practices aimed
at protecting sources of drinking
water.
The local actions that help
protect sources of drinking water
can generally be classified as:
(1) creating partnerships, (2) assess-
ing watersheds, (3) managing land
use in watersheds, and (4) acquiring
land.
Creating Partnerships
Instituting drinking water pro-
tection with a source water protec-
tion program involves balancing
competing interests and conflicting
demands within the watershed. This
can be done through watershed
planning committees or simply by
establishing good, long-term rela-
tionships among the partners,
which encourages a level playing
field for reconciling the commu-
nity's needs. It is important for
affected parties — water utilities, local
and state governments, watershed
councils, nongovernment organi-
zations, and others — to share infor-
mation effectively.
Example: Creating
Partnerships with Groups
and Individuals, Chester
Water Authority, Chester,
Pennsylvania
To protect the water quality of
i i J
its Octoraro Reservoir, the Chester
Water Authority has forged a strong
and lasting partnership with the
Octoraro Watershed Association.
This partnership bridges the gap
between the citizens who get their
^j
drinking water from the Octoraro
-------
Drinking Water Quality Programs 85
Reservoir but do not live in the
watershed and the farmers and
landowners who live in the water-
shed but do not get their drinking
water from the reservoir. The
Chester Water Authority and the
Octoraro Watershed Association
have jointly supported many educa-
tion and outreach programs, and
the Authority has provided a meet-
ing place and administrative sup-
port services to the Association. The
Association promotes agricultural
best management practices (BMPs)
such as streambank fencing, barn-
yard management, crop rotation,
and the establishment of forested
riparian buffers throughout the
watershed. One of the Association's
greatest challenges has been con-
vincing farmers that the BMPs will
benefit both them and the water-
shed. Sharing success stories is often
a successful way to garner support
for BMP implementation. The Asso-
ciation also helps willing farmers
seek financial aid for their BMPs.
Funds are often available from local,
state, and federal partners.
Assessing Watersheds
One of the keys to a strong
watershed protection program is
the assessment of the area. It is
important to be able to identify
watershed problems and target
protection efforts. Watershed delin-
eation and assessment are tools
used to achieve these goals. Many
water utilities use geographic infor-
mation systems (CIS) to delineate
their watersheds. Afterwards, local
managers can use zoning maps to
identify land use patterns within the
watersheds and identify potential
sources of contamination that pose
the greatest threats to the drinking
water supply. A comprehensive
monitoring plan is also useful for
identifying watershed problems.
Example: Monitoring Data
to Support Protective Water
Quality Standards, Portland
Water Bureau, Portland,
Oregon
The Portland Water Bureau
draws its water from the Bull Run
River in the Mt. Hood National For-
est. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
administers the watershed under
several legal authorities including
the Bull Run Management Act (PL.
95-200). This act sets the produc-
tion of pure, clean, raw, potable
HIGHLIG
GHT HIGHLIGHT
-------
86 Drinking Water Quality Programs
HIGHLIGH/M |_| IjteHT HIGHLIGHT
^^^
water as the principal federal man-
agement objective for the area.
Consequently, the USFS must adopt
standards specific to the Bull Run
watershed that are more stringent
than its national standards. The
USFS, the Portland Water Bureau,
and the U.S. Geological Survey
share the monitoring responsibilities
of sampling, data collection and
analysis, and database manage-
ment. Monitoring is critical to unfil-
tered water systems, serving as an
early warning of turbidity-producing
events such as landslides and storm-
induced erosion. By tracking turbid-
ity levels during and after these
events, facility operators can either
divert heavily contaminated waters
or temporarily switch to an alterna-
tive ground water source. The Port-
land Water Bureau is also using the
monitoring program to estimate the
sediment loading from abandoned
roads in the national forest.
Managing Land Use
in Watersheds
The type of land use in a
drinking water supply source area,
whether it is rural, urban, forested,
and/or farmed, presents a challenge
to managing the water source. Utili-
ties whose water sources are in a
forested area usually must contend
with logging, erosion, and timber
management. Systems whose
sources are in rural or suburban
areas may need to deal with septic
systems, agricultural runoff, and
erosion or recreational uses such as
swimming, hiking, and mountain
biking. In urban areas, utilities need
to address issues such as storm
water drainage, runoff from pave-
ment, and increasing development.
Solutions to the pollution from
these various land uses range from
simple, creative ideas that other
systems can easily adopt, to capital-
intensive projects that require
significant funding commitments.
Example: Managing Urban
Storm Water, Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority,
Boston, Massachusetts
Pollutant runoff from construc-
tion sites after large rainfall events
can stress drinking water treatment
facilities. Although the Massachu-
setts Water Resources Authority does
not regulate storm water releases
from construction sites, the Metro-
politan District Commission (MDC)
Division of Watershed Management
works with petitioners to review all
plans for the design and construc-
tion of storm water and erosion
control projects. These control proj-
ects are required under the state's
Watershed Protection Act and Wet-
lands Protection Act. In addition to
reviewing plans, annual watershed
sanitary surveys help MDC staff
identify areas of concern. Once a
specific threat to human health is
identified, the MDC works with the
responsible party to mitigate the
situation. In the future, MDC plans
to analyze pollutant loading at the
subbasin level and recommend
-------
Drinking Water Quality Programs 87
HiGHUGH/f |_| JJ)GHT HIGHLIGHT
BMPs. The Massachusetts Water
Resources Authority and MDC plan
to conduct workshops to help
municipalities implement the BMPs
and may provide technical and
financial assistance.
Acquiring Land
One way to solve the problem
of competing land uses within a
watershed is to acquire all the land
surrounding a water source. Rather
than negotiate with individual
landowners, the system buys the
land surrounding a surface water
source. This solution is simple, yet
often difficult to implement.
Example: Land Acquisition
Program Targets High-
Priority Parcels, New York
City Department of Environ-
mental Protection, New
York, New York
New York City's water utility,
the Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), has embarked on
a 10-year program of land acquisi-
tion within its watersheds. DEP has
committed $250 million to acquire
property associated with the Catskill
and Delaware River supply systems.
These supplies spread over 1 ,600
square miles west of the Hudson
River and provide 90% of New York
City's water. An additional $10 mil-
lion has been set aside for the same
purpose in the Croton Watershed,
which lies east of the Hudson. This
program operates under a 10-year
water supply permit from the New
York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (NYSDEC)
issued in 1997. This permit enables
DEP to acquire, through purchase or
conservation easements, undevel-
oped land near reservoirs, wetlands,
and watercourses, as well as land
with other features sensitive to
water quality. No land will be taken
through eminent domain, and fair
market value is paid for all land. The
watersheds have been divided into
priority areas for acquisition, based
on natural features and proximity to
reservoirs, intakes, and DEP's distri-
bution system.
Conclusions
The examples provided here
are just a sampling of local actions
being taken across the country to
protect sources of drinking water.
The common thread among the
examples is the coordination of a
drinking water utility's goals with
local watershed management initia-
tives aimed at aquatic ecosystem
restoration and protection.
This highlight was drawn from
Protecting Sources of Drinking Water:
Selected Case Studies in Watershed
Management (EPA 816-R-98-019, April
1999). For more information on EPA's
efforts to protect drinking water sources,
visit the Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water on the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/protect.html.
\>
-------
88 Drinking Water Quality Programs
Drinking Water Standards
EPA sets national primary
drinking water standards through
the establishment of maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) and
through treatment technique
requirements.
MCLs are the maximum
permissible levels of contaminants
in drinking water that is delivered
to any user of a public water
system. The MCLs provide enforce-
able standards that protect the
quality of the nation's drinking
water.
Treatment techniques are
procedures that public water
systems must follow to ensure
a contaminant is limited in the
drinking water supply. EPA is
authorized to establish a treat-
ment technique when it is not
economically or technically
feasible to ascertain the level
of a contaminant.
June 1996. The revised goal states
that "by the year 2005, 50% of the
population served by community
water systems will receive their
water from systems with source
water protection programs in
place."
Source water assessment and
protection programs provided for
under the 1996 Amendments to
the SDWA offer opportunities and
tools to protect drinking water at
the source. They offer a unique
opportunity to integrate not only
drinking water programs so that
they operate in a coordinated fash-
ion, but also to integrate drinking
water, clean water, coastal, solid
and hazardous waste, agricultural,
and other environmental manage-
ment programs to better protect
public health and the environment
while reducing duplication of effort
and program costs.
Figure 28
Figure 28
Drinking Water
Concerns
Over 90% of people in the
United States get their drinking
water from public water supplies.
Although most public water sup-
plies meet drinking water standards,
a diverse range of contaminants can
affect drinking water quality. EPA's
Science Advisory Board concluded
that drinking water contamination
is one of the greatest environmental
risks to human health. This conclu-
sion is due, in part, to the variability
in quality of the source of water
supplying the drinking water. It is
also due to the potential for con-
tamination in the delivery system as
the water travels from the treat-
ment plant to the consumer's tap.
Under the Safe Drinking Water
Act, a public water system is
defined as a system that has at least
Compliance of Community Drinking Water Systems
with Health Requirements in 1998
Population served
by community
drinking water
systems in 1998
= 253 million
Number of
community drinking
water systems
= 54,367
89%
of population served
by drinking water systems
with no reported violations
of health requirements*
"As much as one-
fourth of the
community water
systems did not
complete all
required monitoring.
The compliance
status of some of
those could not be
assessed from the
data reported.
11%
• of population
,• served by systems ,
with reported violations
Source: U.S. EPA, 1999, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC.
-------
Drinking Water Quality Programs 89
15 service connections or serves an
average of at least 25 people for at
least 60 days per year. There are
three types of public water systems:
• Community water systems are
those that serve the same people
year-round (e.g., cities, towns,
villages, and mobile home parks).
• Nontransient noncommunity
water systems are those that serve
at least 25 of the same people for at
least 6 months of the year (e.g.,
schools, day care centers).
• Transient noncommunity water
systems are those that serve tran-
sient populations (e.g., rest stops,
campgrounds, and parks).
In 1998, 89% of the popula-
tion served by community water
systems (CWSs) received water that
had no reported health-based viola-
tions (MCL or treatment technique
violations). Ninety-one percent
(91%) of the CWSs had no reported
health-based violations (Figure 28).
Of the 4,630 CWSs reporting
health-based violations, 325 (7%)
were systems serving 10,000 or
more people. These systems togeth-
er served 23 million people. The
total coliform rule and the surface
water treatment rule were violated
most frequently by large water sys-
tems. Four percent of the 10,002
community water systems with a
monitoring and reporting violation
were large systems, serving a total
of 22 million peple. The rules per-
taining to synthetic organic carbon,
volatile organic carbon, and the
total coliform rule monitoring
requirements accounted for most of
these system's violations.
For public water systems in
1998, there were 128,459 violations
reported by 36,467 of the 170,376
systems. Of those, 85% were viola-
tions of significant monitoring and
reporting requirements and 12%
were violations of MCL and treat-
ment technique requirements.
Eighty-five percent of these viola-
tions were in small systems serving
500 or fewer people.
One risk from unsafe drinking
water is exposure to waterborne
pathogens, which can cause acute
health problems requiring medical
treatment. As shown in Figure 29,
bacteria, viruses, parasitic
pathogens, and chemical agents
have all been shown to cause
waterborne disease outbreaks.
For systems serving a large
population, a waterborne disease
outbreak can sharply impact a large
number of people. The 1993
Cryptosporidium outbreak in Mil-
waukee, for example, affected more
than 400,000 people, the largest
waterborne disease outbreak ever
reported in the United States.
The new amendments offer a
unique incentive for water utili-
ties and groups devoted to
watershed protection to form
partnerships and explore their
common ground. After all, the
goals of one group often affect
the goals of the other. For
instance, water utilities generally
strive to keep treatment costs
down, while watershed groups
typically look for ways to address
sources of contamination. Iden-
tifying such common pursuits
stands to benefit everyone and,
ultimately, the future of the
nation's watersheds.
Figure 29
Waterborne Outbreaks in the United
States by Year and Type
ra
0)
O
I
10
• AGI (Acute Gastro-
intestinal Illness of
Unknown Origin)
• Parasitic
D Bacterial
• Viral
• Chemical
71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95
Year
Source: Levy et al., 1998, Morbidity and mortality surveillance summaries. Surveillance
for Waterborne Disease Outbreaks, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA,
V. 47(SS-5): 1-34. http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr
------- |