7.

2-13

FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA
Provisions are in place and are being 7. Provisions are in place and are being
implemented across all programs to avoid implemented in at least one program to
cross-media contamination during avoid cross-media contamination during
remediation activities, remediation activities.

ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED

The State is encouraged, as part of its efforts to address potential sources of ground water
contamination which are not federally regulated, to consider the following Items:

-- Certification programs for drillers, pump installers, and test samplers;

~ A plan for addressing abandoned and poorly constructed wells (i.e., problem wells) that is
consistent with the State priorities and objectives;

-- Legally enforceable standards for well construction, abandonment, and testing, and a
compliance program that ensures that the driller community is complying (Note: For disposal
wells, these standards must be consistent with the regulatory requirements under the SDWA’s
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program);

-- Regulatory and non-regulatory approaches by the State to address on-site sewage disposal
as a ground water contamination concern; and

-- Other efforts to control sources of ground water protection not addressed by federal statutes
or regulations.


2-4


1.

2-17
STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 6

IMPROVING PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION IN ALL ASPECTS OF
GROUND WATER PROTECTION TO ACHIEVE SUPPORT OF THE
STATE'S PROTECTION GOAL, PRIORITIES, AND PROGRAMS

FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA

Public participation in the development and
implementation of a CSGWPP is equivalent to
the objectives defined and employed by EPA
in 40 CFR Part 25, (See the description of
Public Process in Appendix B.)

An active public education program exists
that addresses the key issues in decisions on
the goal, objectives, priorities, and progress
of the State's CSGWPP,

The State is implementing:

-- A mechanism to provide information to
those responsible for implementing
ground water protection measures; and

- An outreach process for making ground
water monitoring data and information
available to the public.

The State is implementing a public education
program to:

-- Enable citizens to better manage common
practices and activities that contribute to
ground water contamination (e.g., private
well construction, septic tanks, etc) that
are not now regulated; and

-- Promote methods for protecting the
ground water quality supplying individuals’
private wells.

CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA
1. Same.

2. Same.

3. Same.

4. The State has developed a public education
program to:

- Same.

- Same,

ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED

. The State is encouraged to undertake a Farm-A-Syst program in cooperation with USDA’s

Extension Service, the Soil Conservation Service, and EPA.


2-9

STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 3

DEFINING AUTHORITIES, ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, RESOURCES, AND
COORDINATING MECHANISMS ACROSS RELEVANT FEDERAL, STATE,
TRIBAL, AND LOCAL PROGRAMS FOR ADDRESSING IDENTIFIED GROUND
WATER PROTECTION PRIORITIES

FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA

. All agencies and programs responsible for
addressing the State's priorities are identified
and a primary point of contact (e.g., lead
agency, coordinating committee, Governor's
staff, etc.) with EPA is established for the

development and implementation of CSGWPPs

across all involved agencies.

. A coordinating mechanism is operating that
includes all State agencies and programs with
ground water responsibilities and all
programs’ expertise is brought to bear on the
State's ground water protection priorities.

. Sufficient legal authorities and resources are
available to address the State's ground water
protection needs, requirements, and priorities
under its CSGWPP.

. Relevant federal agencies, operating within the
State, are sufficiently consulted in the
development and implementation of the
CSGWPP,

. Neighboring Tribal officials and States
sufficiently consult each other in the
development and implementation of their joint
or independent CSGWPPs.

. The State has established capabilities and
mechanisms for inter-State coordination of
ground water protection issues.

1.

CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA
Same.

A coordinating mechanism is operating that
includes all State agencies and programs with
ground water responsibilities and more than
one program's expertise is brought to bear
on the State's ground water priorities.

Lega! authorities and resources. are available
to address the State’s ground water
protection needs, requirements, and priorities
under its Core CSGWPP and the State has
identified the gaps in authorities and
resources for achieving a Fully-Integrating
CSGWPP.

Relevant federal agencies, operating within
the State, are notified of and given
opportunity to comment on the State’s
decisions in the development and
implementation of the Core CSGWPP.

Neighboring Tribal officials and States
consult each other in the development and
implementation of their joint or independent
CSGWPPs.

Same.




2-5

STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 1

ESTABLISHING A GROUND WATER PROTECTION GOAL TO GUIDE
ALL RELEVANT PROGRAMS IN THE STATE

FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA

. A State ground water protection goal is
established through adequate public
participation.'

. The State's. ground water protection goal is:

No legs protective ‘than EPA's overall
ground water protection goal of
preventing adverse effects to human
health and the environment and
protecting the environmental integrity of
the nation's ground water resources*.

Integrated with its other water quality and
environmental goals.

. The State’s ground water protection goal
guides all federal, State and local ground
water-related programs operating within
the State which address potential sources
of contamination, including federally-
unregulated sources.

CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA
1, Same,

2. Same.

related program.

. The State is encouraged to incorporate water supply goals and objectives, including support of
valuable ecological systems and other beneficial uses, into its ground water protection goal.

established with adequate public participation. (See the description of Public Process in Appendix B.)

ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED

1A ground water goal adopted by State statute or a public participation process equivalent to the
objectives defined and employed by EPA in 40 CFR Part 25 will be considered to have been

?See Appendix A for a detailed discussion of EPA's policy regarding ground water protection
goals. ‘

SEPA is working to have the State's goal guide all ground water-related federal programs operating

in the State to the extent possible under federal law.

3. The State's ground water protection goal
guides at least one key State ground water-


2-18

FIGURE 2-1

Ground water characteristics such as, but not limited to, the following are to be
used in setting priorities, determining appropriate remediation methods, and
making siting decisions:

- Intrinsic sensitivity, hydrogeologic regimes and flow patterns
(recharge/discharge areas), geologic/hydraulic parameters and
local hydrogeologic setting;

~ Quantity and potential yield;

~ Ambient and/or background ground water quality as determined
by monitoring;

- Potential for remediation where contamination already exists;

- Current use;

~ Reasonably expected future use based on demographics, land
use, remoteness, quality, and availability of alternative water
supplies;

- Values attributed to ground water resources (See Appendix B);

- The interactions and potential contamination impacts between
surface and ground water and the value of ground water quality to

the maintenance of ecosystem integrity; and

- Inter-jurisdictional characteristics.

Please see Attachment | for a description of how a State's definitions of current
and/or reasonably expected future ground water uses and benefits will be
employed by EPA's regulatory programs (e.g., RCRA, CERCLA, FIFRA and
Radiation).



6.

FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA

Protecting public water supplies is among the
State's highest priorities and controlling
sources in wellhead protection and recharge
areas and basins of drinking water aquifers is

a priority.

The State is sufficiently coordinating its
ground water protection priorities with its
surface water quality and other environmental
priorities.

State priorities sufficiently incorporate and
support a process of ongoing review and
improvement of the six Strategic Activities of
the State's CSGWPP.

2-8

CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA
Same.

The State is coordinating its ground water
protection priorities under its Core CSGWPP
with its surface water quality and other
environmental priorities.

State ‘priorities incorporate and support a
process of ongoing review and improvement
of the six Strategic Activities of the State’s
CSGWPP.

ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED

For stability, the State is encouraged to make its priorities long-term in nature and change them
only in the face of compelling new information or needs.

The State is encouraged to include in its ground water characterization effort:

-- Detailed mapping and assessment to address the State's highest priority needs at an
appropriate scale as determined by a coordinated State effort;

-- A comprehensive well inventory that includes private and municipal production wells,
monitoring and test wells, and injection wells; and

-- Asystem for utilizing and integrating State and federal (e.g., USGS, USDA-SCS) ground water

assessment and mapping programs.

The State is encouraged to have its formally adopted measures of ground water protection

include an integrated set of direct measures such as MCLs, State water quality standards, and
indirect measures such as BMPs, technology standards, siting criteria, and construction

standards.

pollution prevention as a priority.

The State is encouraged to consider deployment of new and alternative technologies for improved




2-11

STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 4

IMPLEMENTING ALL NECESSARY EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THE STATE’S
GROUND. WATER PROTECTION GOAL CONSISTENT WITH
THE STATE'S PRIORITIES AND SCHEDULES

FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA

Prevention of Contamination

1.

Programs with measurable objectives aimed
at prevention and control of contamination
are being implemented to the degree
sufficient for attalning the State’s ground
water protection goal and addressing the
priorities of the State's CSGWPP.°

For site-specific or area-specific prevention

measures, characterization and assessment
of the ground water resource's vuinerability

and, where appropriate, the ground water's

use and value, sufficiently supports rational
decision-making.

-- Definitions and approaches for ground
water characterization and vulnerability
assessment are applied in a consistent
manner.

-- Factors considered include intrinsic
sensitivity, geologic/hydraulic parameters
and local hydrogeologic settings, and
potential sources of contamination.; when
necessary, other ground water
characteristics such as, but not limited to,
those listed in Figure 2-1 on Page 2-18
are considered.

-- The State has sufficient technical
capabilities to support its decision-
making.

1.

CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA

Prevention of Contamination

Programs with measurable objectives aimed
at prevention and control of contamination
are being implemented to address the.
priorities of the State's Core csawpp®

For site-specific or area-specific prevention
measures, characterization and assessment
of the ground water resource’s vulnerability
and, where appropriate, the ground water's
use and value, support rational decision-
making,

- Same.

-- Same.

-- The State is systematically implementing
a plan to further develop its technical
capabilities to support its decision-
making.

SThis includes programs aimed at reducing or eliminating potential environmental releases that
may adversely impact ground water, by controlling contamination sources through permitting
authorities, performance standards, enforcement and compliance activities, land use regulations,
facility siting, and other regulatory and non-regulatory activities.


2-10

FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA
7. Local governments are sufficiently included in | 7. Local governments are notified of and given
the development and implementation of the opportunity to comment on the State’s
CSGWPP and the State is sufficiently decisions in the development and
implementing coordination, guidance, or implementation of the Core CSGWPP.

oversight mechanisms where local
governments have authorization to address
State ground water-related objectives and
priorities.

ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED

. The State is encouraged to adopt a coordinating mechanism that is capable of influencing the
movement of human and financial resources to target joint efforts valuable to more than one State
program.

. The State is encouraged to provide a field management presence for ground water of priority
concern either by supporting local government efforts to protect ground water or establishing
special districts, boards, or other similar institutional arrangements.

. The State is encouraged to consider assessing fees for various activities that pose potential threats
to ground water to augment funds for prevention of ground water contamination as well as for
remediation activities.


STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 2

ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES, BASED ON CHARACTERIZATION OF THE RESOURCE,
IDENTIFICATION OF SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION, AND PROGRAMMATIC
NEEDS, TO DIRECT ALL RELEVANT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES IN THE
STATE TOWARD THE MOST EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE MEANS OF
ACHIEVING THE STATE’S PROTECTION GOAL

FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA

. The State has established basic definitions
and approaches for a coherent priority-setting
process and Is applying them In a consistent
manner across all federal, State, and local
ground water-related programs operating
within the State.

. A State's ground water priority-setting
process is based on sufficient consideration
of varying ground water characteristics such
as, but not limited to, those listed on Figure
2-1 on Page 2-18,

. The State has sufficient contamination
source inventories and assessments to
support its process for identifying all
significant potential sources of contamination
(including federally-unregulated sources) and
to consistently determine its ground water
protection priorities based on the relative
threats of these sources to the resource,

. The State has sufficlent technical capabilities
to support its priority-setting process and
determinations.

. The State has formally adopted measures of
ground water protection (e.g., performance
standards, quality standards, reference points,
etc), which are sufficient to support
consistent program priority setting and the
measurement of progress.*

CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA

. The State has established basic definitions

and approaches for a coherent priority-setting
process and is applying them in at least one
key ground water-related program.

. A State's ground water priority-setting

process is based primarily on consideration
of varying ground water characteristics such
as, but not limited to, those listed on Figure
2-1 on Page 2-18.

. The State Is systematically implementing a

plan to add to its contamination source
inventories and assessments to support its
process for identifying all significant potential
sources of contamination (including
federally-unregulated sources) and to
consistently determine its ground water
protection priorities based on the relative
threats of these sources to the resource.

. The State Is systematically implementing a

plan to further develop its technical
capabilities to support its priority-setting
process and determinations.

. The State Is systematically implementing a

plan to formally adopt measures of ground
water protection (e.g., performance
standards, quality standards, reference
points, etc.) to support consistent program
priority setting and the measurement of
progress.*

“Such measures need to be consistently applied and must not discriminate against federally-

financed remediation activities.


2-3

EPA's Regional Offices. EPA will undertake case studies and work with the States and
other federal agencies to provide examples of what should be included in a CSGWPP
at both levels.

In addition to adequacy criteria, EPA has indicated additional factors to be
considered in developing and implementing CSGWPPs. These factors have been
developed to serve as a guide to States in developing and implementing ground water
protection activities under the CSGWPP framework. These factors are not adequacy
criteria, but EPA believes that these considerations are relevant in developing and
implementing a CSGWPP.

A State, in order to elicit EPA’s endorsement of its Core CSGWPP, will indicate
in writing how it has fulfilled all of the Core adequacy criteria under each of the
Strategic Activities. (For a more detailed discussion of the CSGWPP review and
development process, please see Chapter 3 of this Guidance.)

2.4 THE SIX STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES AND THEIR ADEQUACY CRITERIA

The following section lists the specific adequacy criteria under each of the six
Strategic Activities for both a Core CSGWPP and a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. The
language in bold print indicates the specific differences between the criteria at the
Core level and the Fully-Integrating level.

The Strategic Activities and adequacy criteria are as follows:




ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED

. The State is encouraged to computerize its data bases and use geographic information systems
(GIS) technology to better integrate data in a manner most useful to comprehensive ground water
decision-making.

. The State is encouraged to use EPA's Minimum Set of Data Elements for Ground Water Quality,
which EPA programs are required to use for new ground water information systems or when
modernizing old ones.

. The State is encouraged to use EPA's location policy to assign latitude/longitude positions of
Public Water Supplies and sources of ground water contamination in its ground water-related
information systems.

. The State is encouraged to participate with EPA in the development of one or more environmental
indicators that will help provide a national picture of ground water protection progress and needs.
The State is encouraged to use the indicator(s), once developed, as part of its own efforts to
measure progress and needs.

. The State is encouraged to establish and track environmental indicators to measure progress in
protecting its ground water resources.


2-2

Adequacy criteria are presented for both the Core and Fully-Integrating levels of
a CSGWPP. Each of the adequacy criteria for the Fully-Integrating CSGWPP is
reflected in the Core CSGWPP. The primary differences in the adequacy criteria at
these two levels relate to the scope of the activity, the degree of sophistication, and
the timing and degree of influence on all relevant operating programs and activities
within the State. Generally, development of an approach, initiation of efforts, or
implementation within at least one program are all that is required to meet the
adequacy criteria of a Core CSGWPP, whereas at the Fully-Integrating CSGWPP level
approaches and activities are expected to be fully developed and influencing all
ground water protection programs and efforts operating in the State. In some
instances, the adequacy criteria at both levels are the same.

Although the overall level of effort necessary to achieve a Core CSGWPP is
significantly less than is needed for a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP, the intended scope
of a Core CSGWPP must be comprehensive and reach beyond a planning exercise.
Initial implementation of the Strategic Activities must be evident by their influence on at
least one ground water-related program operating within the State. Also, the State
must intend that the Strategic Activities, eventually will influence all ground water
programs operating within the State, although such an objective may require several
years of programmatic changes at the federal, State, and local levels. These specific
thresholds of implementation at the Core level will be key to energizing the partnership
between a State and EPA's ground water-related programs. .

EPA recognizes and is encouraged that some States, given their history of
effort in ground water protection, appear to have already met many of the adequacy
criteria outlined in this Guidance. Indeed, EPA anticipates that the majority of States
will have Core programs within the next one to two years.

2.3 OTHER GENERAL GUIDANCE

The term "sufficient" is used in a number of adequacy criteria for a Fully-
Integrating CSGWPP as one of the general indicators for where specific agreements
between EPA and a State must occur. What is considered "sufficient" will depend on
the level of flexibility a State is seeking from EPA. (The need to develop specific
agreements for flexibility may also arise with respect to adequacy criteria which do not
include the term "sufficient" in the Fully-Integrating description.)

The term "sufficient" is not included in any Core adequacy criteria because the
criteria as presented are intended to describe only the initial threshold of activity
needed to obtain EPA's endorsement. However, after the Core CSGWPP is endorsed
and the State undertakes improvements, the level of flexibility available over time will
be linked to the degree to which the State is implementing the adequacy criteria.

As policy evolves in this area, EPA will take steps to ensure that negotiations
(between the Agency and the States) are based on consistent policy across all ten of


Pe Toy,

2. THE STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES AND ADEQUACY CRITERIA OF A
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM

A Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program consists of a set of
six Strategic Activities. These six Strategic Activities foster more efficient and effective |
protection of ground water through more cooperative, consistent, and coordinated
operation of all relevant federal, State, Tribal, and local programs within a State.
Attainment of a Core CSGWPP marks the point at which all six Strategic Activities first
emerge as a cohesive program which is clearly identifiable, although not identical,
across States. Continuous improvement in the implementation of a State's Core
CSGWPP will eventually lead to the attainment of a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. A
Fully-Integrating CSGWPP occurs when the Strategic Activities fundamentally influence
and are supported by the day-to-day operations of all ground water-related programs
within the State, including those of EPA, and, where relevant, other federal programs
(See Figure 1-3).

2.1. BENEFITS OF THE CORE CSGWPP

EPA recognizes that fundamental changes in its own and other federal agency
programs are just as much a prerequisite to achieving a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP as
the Strategic Activities that a State needs to undertake. However, to initiate or
accelerate these federal program changes, there needs to be both an initial tangible
commitment and a catalytic mechanism. EPA believes its joint support with the States
of Core CSGWPPs will meet both needs, better enabling the States to leverage
increased support from numerous federal programs that involve ground water quality
concerns.

The Core CSGWPP will also serve as a distinct benchmark to assist EPA and
the States in communicating the aggregate achievements of States to Congress. As
Congress proceeds with reauthorizations of various ground water-related statutes over
the next several years, the existence of Core CSGWPPs will provide an additional
basis for meaningful dialogue regarding States’ capabilities and needs for both
flexibility and resources. Similarly, an individual State’s Core CSGWPP. could serve to
enhance the State legislature's understanding of current ground water protection
accomplishments, ongoing efforts, and remaining challenges.

2.2 THE ADEQUACY CRITERIA: CORE AND FULLY-INTEGRATING
CSGWPPs

EPA and the States, in consultation with other federal agencies, have
established adequacy criteria for each of the six CSGWPP Strategic Activities. These
adequacy criteria have been chosen to provide a balance between ensuring
accountability for effective ground water protection and providing each State with the
flexibility necessary to tailor its programs to its unique circumstances. States are,
however, encouraged to work with adjacent States to achieve consistency in how
adequacy criteria are met to facilitate resolution of inter-State ground water protection
issues.


2-12

FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA
3. The State Is sufficiently implementing an 3.

CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA
(Optional) .

EPA-approved Wellhead Protection Program
(as called for under Section 1428 of SDWA).
(Required)

4, The State is sufficiently carrying out across 4. The State is carrying out in at least one key
all programs an integrated strategy to: program an integrated strategy to:
-- Implement a variety of prevention -- Same.

measures in the absence of actual
detection of contamination;
-- Implement additional controls necessary if -- Same.
contamination is detected or increasing
towards a concentration considered as a
reference point for the State’s protection
goal; and
- Take immediate action to prevent further - Same.

contamination if contamination has
reached or exceeded a concentration
considered as a reference point for the
State's protection goal. ‘

Remediation and Facility Siting

Remediation and Facility Siting

5. Programs with measurable objectives aimed 5. Programs with measurable objectives aimed
at remediating ground water contamination at remediating ground water contamination
are being implemented to the degree are being implemented to address the
sufficlent for attaining the State’s ground priorities of the State's Core CSGWPP.
water protection goal and addressing the
priorities of the State's CSGWPP.

6. For site-specific remediation measures and 6. For site-specific remediation measures and

facility siting, characterization and
assessment based on the use, value, and
vulnerability of the ground water resource
sufficiently support rational decision-making.

facility siting, characterization and
assessment based on the use, value, and
vulnerability of the ground water resource
support rational decision-making.

-- Definitions and approaches for ground - Same.
water characterization and assessment
are applied in a consistent manner.

-- Ground water characteristics such as, but -- Same.

not limited to, those listed in Figure 2-1 on
Page 2-18 are considered.

-- The State has sufficient technical
capabilities to support its decision-
making.

-- The State is systematically implementing
a plan to further develop its technical
capabilities to support its decision-
making.


1.

2-15

STRATEGIC ACTIVITY 5

COORDINATING INFORMATION COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT TO
MEASURE PROGRESS, RE-EVALUATE PRIORITIES, AND
SUPPORT ALL GROUND WATER-RELATED PROGRAMS

FULLY-INTEGRATING ADEQUACY CRITERIA

The State collects, coordinates, and manages
information, including record-keeping,
monitoring, and other necessary information,
within and across all programs to re-evaluate
priorities, measure progress toward meeting
the State's ground water protection goal and
priorities, and support all related program
activities.

The State is using relevant data from local
governments and other State and federal
programs (i.e., Wellhead, Public Water
Supply, etc.)

The State has defined a sufficient set of data
elements to facilitate efficient data sharing
and cross media analyses and provide users
with consistent and comparable data, and is
using it in al! ground water-related
programs.

The State monitoring program scope and
design reflect the State's ground water
priorities and contain sufficient QA/QC plans
for data acquisition and analysis based on
sound scientific protocols.

CORE ADEQUACY CRITERIA

. The State has developed a systematic

process to collect, coordinate, and manage
information, including record-keeping,
monitoring, and other necessary information,
within and across all programs to re-evaluate
priorities, measure progress toward meeting
the State’s ground water protection goal and
priorities, and support all related program
activities and is using It In at least one
program.

Same.

The State has defined a set of data elements
to facilitate efficient data sharing and cross
media analyses and provide users with
consistent and comparable data, and is using
it in at least one key ground water-related
program.

The State monitoring program scope and
design reflect the State's ground water
priorities and contain QA/QC plans for data
acquisition and analysis based on sound
scientific protocols.