1-13

aggregate, presents significant risks on a national basis, but may not
represent the most important threats at specific locations to either
drinking water supplies or ground water discharge to aquatic
ecosystems.

Many small, dispersed, or nonpoint sources of contamination remain
unaddressed. Commercial, residential, and industrial development
frequently occurs with little or no recognition of the long-term impacts on
the quality of ground water. The programs that address particular
threats are not always consistent in their approaches or requirements. In
some cases, duplication of effort may occur, while in others gaps in
coverage for a resource-based perspective may exist. The programs
address different goals with differing priorities, and the institutions and
levels of government that implement them can differ from program to
program.

A resource-based perspective needs a better understanding and
recognition of the Interrelatedness of ground water quantity and
quality. EPA is exploring the linkage between ground water quantity
and quality through a study of the western States. At the urging of many
groups involved in protecting ground water, EPA wants to work with
States to further explore the interrelatedness of ground water quantity
and quality. In the future, States may need to address methods that they
will use to minimize the impacts of ground water withdrawals on ground
water quality, to ensure that both aspects of ground water are
considered. EPA continues to maintain that States have the primary role
in ground water quantity policy.

Broad public education and participation Is necessary. Because the
ground water resource is faced with such a broad array of potential
threats, the best means for protection often will be derived from public
education and support. The effectiveness of such an approach has
already been demonstrated by Wellhead Protection activities, in which
local programs successfully achieve protection of the ground water
resource through public outreach and education.

More flexible funding at all levels of government Is needed. While a
clear need may exist for all levels of government to increase the total
amount of staff and grant resources devoted to ground water, much
could be accomplished by removing some of the constraints to resource
allocation for ground water at all levels of government. Existing
resources need to be more flexible to address varying State priorities.
Some of this flexibility can be provided by reducing the potential for
programs to be at cross-purposes and avoiding inefficient expenditure
-across related programs. There also is a need to bring the federal


1-30


1-7

Tank Program; Superfund, including the criteria for the National Priorities List; and
FIFRA. Bills also may be submitted dealing with above-ground storage tanks, wastes
from oil and gas exploration and production, and fertilizers,

National Regulations and Guidances over the next five years. EPA is likely to
promulgate regulatory changes and issue new national guidelines affecting ground

water under the current statutes, whether there are legislative changes or not. These
new initiatives include: actions affecting RCRA requirements for corrective action,
municipal landfills and State/Tribal implementation, definition of hazardous waste, and
requirements for ground water monitoring; revisions to the Superfund National
Priorities List; the FIFRA Restricted-Use Rule for Ground Water Protection; the SDWA
Underground Injection Control rule on Class V wells; new rules on sewage sludge use
and disposal; réquirements for stormwater management; and rules on ground water
disinfection. EPA is also reviewing policy options for addressing ground water
ecological concerns. Table 1-1 on the following pages provides a list of some of
EPA's upcoming actions relating to ground water.

Other Federal Agencies. Several federal agencies are implementing new
initiatives relating to ground water protection. USDA is implementing a Water Quality
Initiative; DOI is reorienting the Federal/State Cooperative Program to implement a
national assessment of ground water quality, taking steps to begin implementing a
new mapping program nationwide in cooperation with the State geologists, and
engaging in joint activity with the Bureau of Reclamation on the High Plains Aquifer
Study; action by the Department of Energy is underway to implement a massive effort
to clean up radioactive nuclear sites; action by the Department of Defense has begun
to implement a massive effort to convert facilities to civilian use by cleaning up the
sites to be transferred; and the Department of Transportation is working to develop
new means of ensuring safe interstate transport of hazardous materials. These are
only some of the initiatives by other federal agencies that will have an impact on
ground water. Detailed descriptions of these agency's ground water-related programs
are provided in Part Il, Section 2.


1-17

&
State-Directed

’ RCRAD Resource-Based

Decision Making
WN ATER
stor

His

Figure 1-2. By centering all programs on a core of resource-based State goals
and priorities, and integrating all programs, coordination will be significantly

enhanced and the resource better protected.


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

2.2 THE ADEQUACY CRITERIA: CORE AND FULLY-

INTEGRATING CSGWPPS ....... ccc cece cece ee eee 2-1
2.3 OTHER GENERAL GUIDANCE ............. 0c cee ee ences 2-2
2.4 THE SIX STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES AND THEIR
ADEQUACY CRITERIA 0.0... cece cece cere eee tenes 2-3
1. Establish a Common Ground Water Protection Goal 2-5
2. Establish Priorities to Direct all Relevant Programs ... . 2-7
3. Define Authorities, Roles, and Resources ........ +. 2-9
4. Implement Efforts to Accomplish the State’s Goal .... » 2-11
5. Coordinate Information Collection and Management 2-15
6. Improve Public Education and Participation............. 2-17
3. DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS ................-..004. 3-1
4. LINKAGE TO EPA AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS ..... 4-1
4.1. COORDINATION OF EPA PROGRAMS ............... 4-1

4.2 LINKAGE TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS ... 4-4

Providing Technical Assistance ...............00005 4-6

Utilizing States’ Ground Water Protection Priorities

in Non-Regulatory Efforts ...... 0... . ccc eee ee nee 4-7

Deferring to States’ Ground Water Protection

Policies, Objectives, and Standards ................. 4-8
APPENDIX A: DEFINING GROUND WATER PROTECTION GOALS ..... A-1

A.1 HISTORICAL TYPES OF GROUND WATER
PROTECTION GOALS ....... cece eee eect eee A-1

A.2__ EPA'S GROUND WATER PROTECTION
LC 07) Ca A-3

A.3 EPA'S POLICY TOWARD ENDORSING
CSGWPP GOALS ........ cece eee eee eee A-6


1-28

EPA Regional operations: EPA's Regions will be reviewing all their
programs in.Fiscal 1993 to assess where opportunities exist for
operational flexibility across all EPA ground water protection and
remediation programs.

Technical Support: EPA is developing numerous documents to assist
the States with ground water protection efforts, including a Resource
Assessment Technical Assistance Document to assist States in setting
priorities and an Inter-Federal Agency Directory of Technical Specialties
to assist States in identifying and using federal technical assistance for
ground water protection programs. The Agency is also developing a
technical guidance on how to delineate areas with ground water and
surface water interfaces important to aquatic ecosystems. EPA will also
assist States in the development and submission of their ground water
protection profiles and Core CSGWPP determinations.

EPA’s commitment to pursuing these opportunities will lead to significant and -
fundamental change in EPA operations relating to ground water protection. EPA is
committed to the CSGWPP approach and to working with the States in the long-term
process for achieving Fully-Integrating CSGWPPs.

1.8 WHAT THIS GUIDANCE CONTAINS

This Guidance is divided into the following chapters and appendices:

This Chapter, the Introduction, provides a short description of the
CSGWPP approach.

Chapter 2, Strategic Activities, describes the six activities that constitute
the CSGWPP approach. In addition, this Chapter outlines the other
activities that States and Tribes should consider in the development of
their Comprehensive Programs.

Chapter 3, Development and Review Process, describes the process that
EPA and the States are to follow to develop each State’s CSGWPP.

Chapter 4, Linkage with Other Federal Programs, describes the linkages
between the CSGWPP and the various EPA and other federal programs
related to ground water.

Appendix A describes various ground water protection goals and clarifies
EPA’s policy on this issue.


1-14

agencies to a better understanding of each other's programs and State
programs and to provide additional federal flexibility to each of the States
based upon their identified priority needs. Finally, there is a need to
increase both the availability, quantity and quality of technical assistance
to the States to set priorities and to implement programs to address
those priorities.

e A consensus on the nature of a comprehensive state ground water
protection program is needed. Missed opportunities have arisen from
the lack of agreement about what constitutes a comprehensive State
ground water protection program and the absence of a current vehicle
for communicating the details of State capabilities and needs to other
federal programs. Given the strong and highly-varied presence of the
federal government in ground water protection issues (i.e., EPA
regulatory programs, other agencies’ regulatory programs, federal
facilities, and federal assistance to States and local governments), such a
situation is problematic even for those States that believe they have, or
could accomplish, a comprehensive program alone.

1.4 CSGWPPS AS THE FOCUS OF A NEW FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL
PARTNERSHIP IN GROUND WATER PROTECTION.

CSGWPPs are intended to build on what we have learned about ground water
protection and remediation efforts over the past two decades and to provide a
national consensus on what actually comprises comprehensive ground water
protection. Consequently, this Guidance and the CSGWPP approach incorporate
many of the lessons learned directly into CSGWPP activities. When existing federal
and State laws limit the successful incorporation of these lessons, the CSGWPP
approach will help serve as the catalyst for the necessary changes in existing and
emerging laws, regulations, and policies necessary to address the remaining lessons.

Therefore, CSGWPPs will have the following aspects:

e Prevention. A State’s goal must, at least, be based on preventing
ground water contamination whenever possible. EPA encourages each
State to determine what is "possible" explicitly and through adequate
public participation.

EPA recognizes that preventing all discharges to all ground waters in the
State is unrealistic. Therefore, States are encouraged to consider the
relative vulnerability of ground water in determining necessary prevention
measures and to consider the relative use and value, as well as,
vulnerability, of ground waters when deciding where to site potential
contamination sources or activities. EPA recognizes that the economic


1-20

e Defining authorities, roles, responsibilities, resources, and coordinating
mechanisms across relevant federal, State, tribal, and local programs for
addressing identified ground water protection priorities;

e Implementing all necessary efforts to accomplish the State’s ground
water protection goal consistent with the State’s priorities and schedules;

° Coordinating information collection and management to measure
progress, re-evaluate priorities, and support all ground water-related
programs; and

e Improving public education and participation in all aspects of ground
water protection to achieve support of the State's protection goal,
priorities, and programs.

While planning is necessary in developing and implementing these Strategic
Activities, a plan does not by itself constitute a CSGWPP. The Comprehensive
Program focuses on the coordinated and consistent implementation of the six
Strategic Activities across all ground water-related programs. The Strategic Activities
of a CSGWPP are meant to influence all ground water-related programs within the
State, including those of EPA and, where appropriate, other federal programs in a way
that results in fundamental changes in their overall approach to ground water
protection. Such influence should result in greater integration and efficiency of all
program efforts through its attention to State-directed, resource-based protection
priorities.

1.6 THE CSGWPP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: THE NEW PARTNERSHIP IN
ACTION

While many States have made enormous strides in ground water protection,
EPA recognizes that significant gaps in ground water protection remain in most States
in achieving a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. More importantly, the Agency understands
that movement towards a State-directed, resource-based comprehensive approach to
ground water protection will also require fundamental changes in a number of federal
programs, particularly in terms of regulatory policy and federal financial support to the
States. EPA expects the development of CSGWPPs that achieve all the benefits of the
approach to take place over the next several years. States will have the tead in
developing and implementing their CSGWPPs. However, EPA and the States need to
commit jointly to the CSGWPP approach as the focus of a long-term process for
effecting both improvements in existing State programs and fundamental changes in
the operation of federal programs.


1-16

focus their ground water efforts (prevention, siting, and remediation)
everywhere: : Therefore, priorities need to be set across these activities.

State flexibility. Flexibility will be provided to a State based on the
State’s meeting adequacy criteria. EPA is using the CSGWPP approach
to catalyze further State flexibility while increasing the consistency among
individual programs of the adequacy criteria that States must meet. At a
minimum, the approach is intended to reduce the burden on the States
in meeting numerous program criteria from several different programs.
EPA's intention is that this integrated approach will provide a broader
decision-making framework for States across programs, sources of
contamination, and geographic areas. EPA also will use the CSGWPP
approach as a basis for suggesting appropriate changes to existing
federal statutes and regulations to allow States greater flexibility to
achieve comprehensive resource-based ground water protection.

Program coordination. The CSGWPP approach will help to ensure that
programs work toward the same goal in a coordinated manner.
Currently, the actions of the numerous programs that affect ground
water, either directly or indirectly, can be at cross-purposes, resulting in
confusion and inefficient expenditure of efforts. By integrating all
programs and activities through a State-directed, resource-based
approach, a CSGWPP will significantly reduce or eliminate such
situations (See Figure 1-2). States will have a key role side-by-side with
EPA in designing and implementing programs to protect the resource.
States also will have greater flexibility in implementing each Agency
program related to ground water protection based on the States’
understanding of the relative use, value, and vulnerability of their ground
water resources.

Increased Recognition of the Interrelationship between Ground
Water Quantity and Quality. Under their CSGWPPs, States are
encouraged to coordinate their ground water quality and quantity
objectives, particularly with regard to maintaining aquatic habitats.

Increased Public Participation and Support. Another objective of the
CSGWPP is to improve public understanding of the ground water
protection concerns in each State and to provide a broader context for
public participation. This will enhance understanding of choices for
addressing those concerns and the social and economic as well as the
environmental implications and trade-offs of those choices. The
CSGWPP emphasis on public participation will help gain public support
for State ground water protection decision-making.


1-29

Appendix B describes the Agency's policy on the definition of reasonably
expected uses of ground water.

Appendix C describes the process followed in the development of this
Guidance.

Appendix D provides a glossary of acronyms used in the Guidance.

Part || of this document supplements Chapter 4. It provides a detailed
description of each of the major EPA programs affecting ground water
and the ways in which that program might interact with the CSGWPP
approach. It also provides a description of the programs implemented
by six other federal agencies -- Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior,
Transportation, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- and the ways
in which those programs could interact with the CSGWPP approach.


1-11

Remediation should be based on differential protection. While
prevention of contamination will be promoted to the extent possible,
decision-making concerning the appropriate level of remediation will
need to be based, in part, on the relative use and value of the
contaminated ground water. Cleanup of contaminated ground water is
both time and resource intensive. Because of the need to attend to
other environmental and societal issues in a time of limited resources,
choices will have to be made about where to focus remedial actions and
the extent of the remediation to be sought.

A local understanding of the resource Is needed to establish
priorities. The number and variety of potential threats to ground water
and the unique hydrological features of the resource vary extensively
from one location to another. The total impact on the resource of all
sources of contamination in a particular area, taking into consideration
the unique features of the ground water, must be considered in
establishing priorities and appropriate strategies for prevention and/or
remediation.

Thus, we must use the knowledge base held by State and local
governments and private and non-profit organizations. Indeed, the
technical experience of State and local personnel is a very important
component of ground water protection. Because Statewide programs,
_ ineluding all component local efforts, must address ground water
protection efforts in the field on a day-to-day basis, State and local
personnel have gained useful insights into problems and remedies.

Flexibility in setting and addressing priorities at the State and local
level is needed. EPA, through extensive discussions with the States,
has come to know more about inconsistencies and rigidities among
federal ground water-related programs, which result in inefficient
expenditures of efforts and less cost effective protection from a total
resource-based perspective. EPA also has come to realize that the
federal rigidity may be largely a result of ignorance or misconceptions
regarding State ground water protection capabilities as well as State
needs, priorities, and approaches.

Additional coordination of ground water-related programs and
authorities Is needed. The current patchwork of ground water-related
programs and efforts (See Figure 1-1) is not fully effective in protecting
the resource. Federal source control programs, which provide the
authority for many State efforts, focus on contamination that, in


1-3

contamination, and geographic areas to achieve comprehensive
resource-based ground water protection;

e Eliminate the potential for ground water-related programs to be at cross-
purposes, resulting in confusion and inefficient expenditure of efforts;

e Demonstrate the States’ effectiveness in ground water protection to
better justify additional funds for program development and
implementation and additional flexibility from EPA and other federal
agencies;

e Recognize and further delineate the appropriate roles for federal, State,
and local governments as partners in ground water protection;

e Establish a forum for a better understanding and recognition of the
interrelatedness of ground water quantity and quality concerns;

e Improve public understanding of ground water protection concerns in
each State and provide a broader context for public participation; and

e Build a consensus across all levels of government on the need for
comprehensive protection and on the basic structure of comprehensive
programs.

Many of these objectives are already being met at the State level. However,
additional effort is necessary at both the federal and State levels to ensure
comprehensive ground water protection. To achieve the changes necessary to
implement the CSGWPP approach, EPA and the States need to commit jointly to the
CSGWPP approach as the focus of a long-term process for effecting both
improvement in existing State programs and fundamental changes in the operation of
federal programs related to ground water. This Guidance describes the cooperative
process that States and EPA will use in developing and implementing the CSGWPP
approach. It clarifies why this is the best approach to protection, given current or
threatened contamination and the wide ranging responses to contamination over the
past two decades, as well as the future legislative, regulatory, and other federal
initiatives on the horizon.

1.1. GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION IS A NATIONAL CONCERN
Until the late 1970s, ground water was generally considered to be a pristine

resource, Both experts and the public believed that the subsurface waters were
naturally protected by layers of soil and earth and were self-cleansing. Contamination,


1.7

1-26

Incorporating the CSGWPP approach in emerging Agency strategies,
regulations, and national guidances (e.g., Pesticides and Ground Water
Strategy, RCRA Subtitle D rulemaking);

Gathering support for the CSGWPP approach in the Executive Branch of
the federal government, including discussions with the White House and
the Office of Management and Budget, and holding a forum with other
federal agencies;

Establishing a Ground Water Regulatory Cluster Workgroup to examine
all new relevant Agency regulations to incorporate the CSGWPP
approach, including increased flexibility to the States;

Testifying before Congress, in oversight hearings, explaining the
CSGWPP approach and its utility as part of emerging regulations under
a variety of programs;

Establishing a Ground Water Coordinating Committee in each EPA
Region to oversee implementation of ground water policy in the Regions.
These Committees will be the focus for implementing the CSGWPP
approach;

Conducting a series of Roundtables with many State and Tribal officials
to discuss how the CSGWPP approach could best address State and
local needs and concerns;

Supporting a Ground Water Subcommittee to the State/EPA Operations
Committee to provide on-going State input into EPA's efforts to further
the CSGWPP approach;

Developing this Guidance in close consultation with State
representatives; and

Issuing. this Guidance, which furthers the concept of the CSGWPP
approach and reflects a multi-program Agency effort. Of particular note,
Chapter 4 and Part Il of this Guidance provide an initial overview of all
EPA ground water-related programs, which EPA and the States can now
build upon to further define and develop the relationships between these
programs and the CSGWPP approach.

OPPORTUNITIES PRESENTED BY THE NEW PARTNERSHIP AND THE
CSGWPP APPROACH

As the catalyst for fundamental changes in the development and

implementation of ground water protection programs at the federal, State, and local


1-23

ONG \'B | 2/7.
Qn 2/8 yer

CER
RCRA “4 een
ROPAD —Y” pesource Sesed
STORMWATER. Decision Making STATE
woes {0g
wre SN ala
we) Ss 0,
&/E/ B\ENe
(Ba tee
Fully-Integrating
CSGWPP
Information
inplementation
Continual
Improvement
in the Six
Strategic
Activities
trout Core CSGWPP
3
welheed | yy " may) ate Ls and

Figure 1-5. Improvement in a State's CSGWPP will both catalyze and be energized
by changes in federal programs leading to more coherent ground water protection.


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

‘

2. LINKAGE TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS ... 2-1

United States Department of Agriculture ......... 2-3
United States Department of Defense ........... 2-9
United States Department of Energy ........... 2-13
United States Department of Interior ........... 2-17
United States Department of Transportation ..... 2-23

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ... 2-27


APPENDIX B:

B.1

B.2

APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
PART II:

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

DEFINING VALUABLE GROUND WATER
RESOURCE USES AND BENEFITS,
INCLUDING REASONABLY EXPECTED

SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER .......:....cee eee B-1
GROUND WATER VALUES ........ 0... cece eee B-1
Current Use Value 2.0... ... cece cece eee eee B-1
Future or Reasonably Expected Use Value ............ B-1
Intrinsic Value... 2. cece eee eee eee B-2
DEFINING REASONABLY EXPECTED USES

OF GROUND WATER ........-.205 Lecce eee e eae B-2
HOW THIS GUIDANCE WAS DEVELOPED............. C-1
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ...........-. cee eee eeee D-1

LINKAGE TO EPA AND OTHER FEDERAL
AGENCY PROGRAMS

LINKAGE TO EPA PROGRAMS .........0..-0e ee euee 1-1
Wellhead Protection Program ..............05. 1-3
Pesticides State Management Plan Program ...... 1-5

Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program
RCRA Subtitle C Program
RCRA Subtitle D Program ..
Underground Storage Tank Program
Superfund Program ....... cece eee eee eens

Oll Pollution Act ....... cece eee eee nets
Underground Injection Control Program

Public Water Supply Supervision Program ...... 1-23
Nonpoint Source Program......... cece eevee 1-25
NPDES and Industrial Pretreatment Program .... 1-27
Storm Water Program .......... 0c cee eee eeee 1-29
Sewage Sludge Program...........005 ve 1-31
Coastal Zone Management Program ....... vee 1-33
Toxic Substances Control Program ............ 1-35
Radiation Program ..... csc cee cece reece 1-37
Wetlands Program ........ cece eee eee 1-39
Watershed Protection Approach .............. 1-44

Pollution Prevention Program. ..........ee eee 1-43


Different
Goals =

N
iS

OK OSS

a4

SS

Se

Different
Approaches

Different
”» Priorities -

State Laws and
Strategies

§

Different
Institutions

Figure 1-1. Coordination of the patchwork of programs and efforts is difficult.


1-2

water should help determine the level of source control measures
necessary to prevent contamination. As an additional preventive
measure, the relative use, value, and vulnerability of ground waters at
different locations should be considered in decisions regarding the siting
of facilities or activities. Also, due to limited government personnel and
financial resources, the relative use, value, and vulnerability of ground
waters should be key factors in setting priorities for day-to-day
operations of relevant programs (e.g. which permits to write first, which
inspections to do first, which clean-ups to begin first).

Finally, in some cases, EPA is required by statute to base regulation on
consideration of the risks and the benefits of activities that may pose
health or environmental concerns. Such consideration could result in
targeting prevention measures to those areas where ground waters are
considered to have certain uses and values that, if not protected and
conserved, would pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the
environment now or for future generations. While under these federal
statutes EPA and the States will need to ensure protection of ground
waters with certain uses and values, States are encouraged to pursue
prevention whenever possible.

Remediation based on relative use and value of ground water.
Although the focus of ground water protection should be on the
prevention of contamination, remediation must be pursued as a final
option when prevention fails or where contamination already exists.
EPA's goal is to remediate all aquifers to meet their designated uses.
Given the expense of cleaning up ground water contamination and the
need to focus more effort and resources on prevention, EPA and the
States must take a realistic approach to restoration based upon the
actual and reasonably expected uses of the resource as well as on
social and economic values. EPA, the States, and other federal agencies
must work together to ensure consistent approaches to determining
Clean-up objectives.

EPA is seeking to make the Comprehensive Program approach the catalyst for
fundamental change in the development and implementation of ground water
protection programs at the federal, State, and local fevels. To achieve this end,
CSGWPPs will further empower States with the primary role in coordinating all ground
water-related programs and will expedite this coordination based on a State-directed,
resource-based approach. The CSGWPP approach will effect the changes required
for realization of the principles by meeting the following objectives:

Provide States with greater flexibility in directing their ground water
protection activities across the various EPA programs, sources of


1-18

e More flexible funding. Through increased program coordination, States
with Comprehensive Programs will be able to better coordinate the
expenditure of their limited resources under each relevant program.
More importantly, because the CSGWPP approach recognizes the need
to set priorities to manage ground water resources, it allows for a greater
focus of financial resources and personnel for a variety of functions (ie.,
site clean-ups, permitting, inspection activities) on the most critical
human health and environmental risks within the statutory constraints
presented by ground water protection laws such as RCRA, FIFRA, and
CERCLA.

e Consensus and future direction. This Guidance provides the vehicle
. for establishing the needed consensus on the nature of a CSGWPP. In

turn, this CSGWPP approach will help EPA, the States, and other federal
agencies to further recognize, delineate, and coordinate their appropriate
roles across ground water-related activities. Chapter 4 and Part Il of this
document describe how the CSGWPP approach can benefit specific
ground water-related programs. For example, States, working with EPA
through the CSGWPP approach, will identify where their capacity for
ground water protection allows for increased flexibility under specific
programs (@.g., RCRA, FIFRA) to better tailor protection efforts. These
benefits will be realized as a result of CSGWPP development and
implementation, which include a long-term strategy by EPA to adopt the
CSGWPP approach in new and existing regulations, as well as program
operational changes laid out in State negotiations with EPA Regional
Offices. This Guidance, therefore, cannot be a comprehensive catalog of
the benefits that eventually will be realized through the CSGWPP.

1.5 WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A COMPREHENSIVE STATE GROUND WATER
PROTECTION PROGRAM?

A Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program consists of a set of
six Strategic Activities (Figure 1-3), which foster more efficient and effective protection
of ground water through more cooperative, consistent, and coordinated operation of
all relevant federal, State, and local programs within a State. The six Strategic
Activities are:

e Establishing a ground water protection goal to guide all relevant federal,
State, and local programs operating within the State;

e Establishing priorities, based on characterization of the resource,
identification of sources of contamination, and programmatic needs, to
guide all relevant federal, State, and local programs and activities in the
State toward the most efficient and effective means of achieving the
State’s common ground water protection goal;




1-5
1.2 WIDE-RANGING RESPONSES OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES

From the mid-1970's to the present, the federal government, State and local
governments, and the private sector have responded to incidents of ground water
contamination with a diverse array of actions and studies. Additional actions are likely
in the near future.

Ground Water as a Focus of Environmental Action

Federal Laws, Regulations, and National Guidances. Many of the federal
environmental statutes enacted in the past two decades had as their primary objective
the protection or remediation of ground water. The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which at their initial enactments already
contained major ground water protection components, were both reauthorized in the
mid 1980's with provisions that increased their emphasis on ground water protection.
The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act (HSWA) to RCRA added tight
restrictions on land disposal of hazardous waste, additional technical requirements for
hazardous waste management facilities, new requirements for municipal landfills, new
restrictions on surface impoundments, and a new program to address underground
storage tanks. In addition, new corrective action requirements for cleanup of earlier
contamination at existing hazardous waste management facilities were imposed by
HSWA and may ultimately involve thousands of sites. The Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act in 1986 (SARA) placed new emphasis on remediation of
abandoned hazardous waste sites and gave new specificity to the cleanup
requirements.

The 1988 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
amendments modified pesticide registration and re-registration processes, which
enhance the Agency's ability to regulate leachable products. In 1986, the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was amended by a new provision requiring each State to
develop and implement a Wellhead Protection Program 'to serve as a mechanism for
States and local governments to protect the recharge areas of public drinking water
wells. The 1986 Amendments to the SDWA also strengthened EPA's regulatory role in
protecting ground water from underground injection control wells and in protecting
current underground sources of drinking water from contaminants.

States’ Efforts. State activities to protect ground water in the 1980’s and early
1990's have been extensive. Studies by the National Conference of State Legislatures
indicated that all fifty States enacted legislation with ground water management
provisions during the calendar years 1985-1991. This legislation included statements
of State-wide ground water policies, establishment of ground water classification
systems, definition of ground water quality standards, establishment of ground water
protection funds, and/or numerous efforts to control sources of contamination.


1-4

where it occurred, was thought to be primarily localized and the result of septic
systems operations.

Threats to Ground Water

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, releases from waste sites such as Love
Canal and the "Valley of the Drums," pesticide incidents such as releases of EDB and
widespread discoveries of DBCP and Aldicarb in ground water and increased reports
of drinking water well closures slowly focused the public's attention on ground water
contamination. Through further research, news reports, and studies, we are now
aware that there are many threats to ground water: man-made chemicals of many
kinds and uses, including synthetic organic compounds; fertilizers; pesticides; wastes
from mineral and petroleum exploration, production, transportation, storage, and use;
and human and anima! wastes, among others. Over 30 major categories of sources
of ground water contamination have been identified. They include underground
storage tanks, surface impoundments, municipal and other landfills, active and inactive
hazardous waste management sites, pesticide storage, mixing, and application sites,
septic tanks, underground injection wells and a variety of other sources.

Importance of Ground Water

At the same time as these threats to ground water began to be more clearly
recognized, the importance of protecting ground water also became clearer, not only
as a source of drinking water but also for its other beneficial uses and ecological
roles. About 50 percent of the population of the United States receives its drinking
water from ground water. While ground water supplies about 35 percent of the
drinking water used in urban areas, it supplies close to 95 percent of the drinking
water in rural areas. Several states depend on ground water for over 90 percent of
their drinking water.

Ground water is also critical for other beneficial uses such as agriculture and
industry. Ninety percent of the ground water withdrawals in Arkansas, Colorado,
Kansas and Nebraska are for agricultural activities. In the eastern and mid-western
industrial states, 30 percent of the ground water withdrawn is used in industrial
processes,

Ground water also has important ecological functions. Ground water and
surface water are interconnected. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 40
percent of the annual average streamflow in the United States is derived from ground
water, or baseflow. (U.S. Geological Survey, 1988, National Water Summary - 1986,
USGS Water Supply Paper 2325, p. 3) In some places, particularly humid zones, over
90 percent of the stream flow is from ground water. Recent research findings point to
intrinsic ground water ecology, i.e., numerous species living in ground water, as being
another reason to be concerned about the quality of ground water. Clearly, ground
water is important in maintaining ecosystems and habitats.


whos,

1-25

Agreement. Each State is expected to obtain a Core CSGWPP as early
as possible, ‘but no later than the end of 1995.

e Following EPA endorsement of its Core CSGWPP, each State should co-
develop with EPA a written Multi-Year Program Agreement. This
Agreement should describe how the State will further implement and
over time improve the Strategic Activities of its Core CSGWPP and
identify the specific actions EPA will take to support the State's efforts
across all relevant programs, including milestones for increased program
flexibility.

e The annual State/EPA agreements or all program workplans relevant to
ground water protection currently used by EPA and the States will be the
focus for implementing the multi-year CSGWPP program agreements.
Each completed yearly workplan will outline specific activities to be
accomplished in that year to move the State towards implementing
comprehensive protection of the ground water resource.

The emphasis of the CSGWPP development process is on inclusion and
coordinated action. While including all affected parties in the process may take
longer, EPA believes that it is necessary for coordinated action based on State-
directed, resource-based priorities. States will develop CSGWPPs with participation
from appropriate State and federal agencies and Tribal and local governments to the
extent possible. Indian Tribes or consortia that choose to develop CSGWPPs will
include all relevant State agencies, federal programs, and local governments.

EPA understands that the status of each State or Tribal ground water protection
effort is different and that each State or Tribe will have an individual starting point for
developing its CSGWPP. In addition, EPA recognizes and is encouraged that some
States, given their history of effort in ground water protection, have already met many
of the adequacy criteria outlined in this Guidance.

Steps EPA Has Taken and Will Continue to Take to Assist the States

EPA has already taken and will continue to take several steps indicating its
commitment to the CSGWPP approach and the long-term process for eventually
achieving Fully-Integrating CSGWPPs. These steps include:

e Issuing EPA’s 1991 Ground Water Protection Strategy, which makes a
strong Agency policy statement supporting the State-directed, resource-
based CSGWPP approach;

t) Investing, over the last eight years, more than $80 million under Clean
Water Act §106 in building States’ general ground water protection
capacity and planning to continue such grants;


1-24
Steps for States to Take

The development process for both a Core and Fully-Integrating CSGWPP
involves, as noted above, meeting adequacy criteria under the six Strategic Activities.
The development process should build on the often extensive ground water protection
efforts already being conducted within a State. States will have the lead in developing
and implementing their Core and Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. The starting point is a
State’s ground water protection strategy® and its recent profile of current ground
water programs and activities. The development process entails the following four
general steps, which a State may undertake in combination or separately:

e Based on a State's ground water strategy and profile, this Guidance, and
negotiations with the appropriate EPA Regional Offices, each State
should establish a more specific vision for what its Fully-Integrating
CSGWPP will ultimately comprise in order to reflect not only its unique
environmental and institutional circumstances, but also what roles and
responsibilities the State wants, and believes itself capable of
undertaking, in ground water protection decision-making. Because this
vision sets the State's long-term direction for its CSGWPP, all relevant
programs within the State, as well as the public, need to be involved in
its formulation.

e Each State should compare its more specific CSGWPP vision to the
information it collected during profiling to develop a written assessment
of the activities the State must undertake to achieve, first, a Core
CSGWPP and, eventually, a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. A State in
working with the Regions may document that it has already achieved a
Core CSGWPP. For many States, the written assessment will be the
documentation describing their Core CSGWPP and no other document
willbe needed. States should have a continuous dialogue with EPA
Regional Offices, so that the EPA can assist States when possible and
provide direction for each of the ground water-related programs.

e States will attain EPA’s formal endorsement of their Core CSGWPPs.
Formal EPA endorsement of a State's achievement of a Core CSGWPP
will provide the Agency, the States, other federal agencies, the Congress
and State legislatures with a foundation for understanding State
capabilities and, thereby, gain further support for the movement toward a
Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. Demonstration of a State’s tangible
commitment to comprehensive ground water protection through its
endorsed Core program will be key to bringing relevant federal
programs and agencies to the table to negotiate a Multi-Year Program

5 All States have completed a draft ground water protection strategy. However, a number of
these strategies are several years old, not finalized, or no longer operational.


1. INTRODUCTION

Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs) are the
focal point for a new partnership between EPA, the States, Native American Tribes,"
and local governments to achieve a more efficient, coherent, and comprehensive
approach to protecting the nation’s ground water resources. CSGWPPs are also an
important step in implementing EPA's ground water protection goal and principles.

EPA's overall goal is to prevent adverse effects to human health and the
environment and to protect the environmental integrity of the nation’s ground water.
This goal calls for CSGWPPs that ensure protection of drinking water supplies and
maintenance of the environmental integrity of ecosystems associated with ground
water. In addition, EPA’s goal statement notes that "in determining appropriate
prevention and protection strategies, EPA will also consider the use, value, and
vulnerability of the resource, as well as social and economic values." Given the
lessons learned over the last several years regarding the extensive use and high value
of ground water, its vulnerability to contamination, and the social and economic
consequences of such contamination, EPA will pursue the following three-tiered
hierarchy of preferred ground water protection objectives:2

e Prevention of contamination whenever possible. In order to meet the
Agency's goal of preventing adverse effects to human health and the
environment and protecting environmental integrity, prevention of
contamination must be the first priority of the CSGWPP approach.

e Prevention of contamination based on the relative vulnerabllity of the
resource, and where necessary the ground water’s use and value.
While prevention of contamination whenever possible must be the first
priority of a CSGWPP, EPA also recognizes that basic human activity has
impacts on ground water. Prevention of all discharges to all ground
water is not possible. This should not be construed as allowing ground
waters to be "written-off." Rather, EPA believes.that some level of
protection should be considered for all ground water resources.

Other factors may need to be taken into account when making ground
water protection decisions. The relative vuinerability® of the ground

' Except where necessary to reflect differences between States and Native American Tribes, the
balance of this Guidance uses ‘State’ to refer to both States and Tribes.

2See Appendix A for a more detailed discussion of EPA's ground water goal and its relationship to
State programs. .

SEPA defines ground water vuinerabllity as the relative ease with which a contaminant introduced
into the environment can migrate to an aquifer under a given set of management practices,
contaminant characteristics, and aquifer sensitivity conditions. Ground water vulnerability assessment
methods assess hydrogeoiogic characteristics, contaminant characteristics, and management
practices related to contaminants.


1-15

and social impacts of prevention measures may need to be weighed
against the use and value of specific ground water resources. As
described in. Appendix A, EPA believes that such balancing should be
done primarily at the State level, often through representative
government processes, except when federal statutes (e.g., FIFRA) or
certain conditions call for a stronger federal role. However, EPA believes
that prevention and reduction of contamination must be the first priority
of each State’s CSGWPP and that some level of protection should be
considered for all ground waters in a State. -

Where appropriate, the State should allow local governments to make
decisions concerning what is "possible" in regard to preventing ground
water contamination. Federal law will still need to be followed when
prescribing what is possible. A State’s goal must be at least as stringent
as EPA’s goal for prevention. A State’s goal may be more stringent than
EPA's, and may include a goal based on non-degradation or anti-
degradation. This does not mean that EPA expects a State to prevent all
discharges to ground water. EPA recognizes that the need will
occasionally arise for realistic balancing of the economic and social costs
of prevention against the underlying ground water's use and value.

Such decisions, however, need to.be based on an understanding of the
current and reasonably expected uses of the ground water and a desire -
to conserve resources for future generations.

Remediation. A State’s goal must, at a minimum, be based on both
current and reasonably expected uses of ground water, as well as
ground waters that are closely hydrologically connected to surface
waters (See Appendix B). For drinking waters, the attainment of
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) should be the remediation goal. For ground
waters closely hydrologically connected to surface waters, the goal
should be to reduce contamination so that its discharge to surface water
does not exceed water quality standards established under the Clean
Water Act. A State's goal for cleanup of contaminated ground water
could also be based on "relative risk to human health and/or the
environment" or on "remediation to the extent practicable.” However, the
cleanup levels resulting from these alternative approaches should be at
least as stringent, and could be more stringent, as levels resulting from
the methods described above.

State-directed, resource-based priority setting. Under a CSGWPP,
States are encouraged to set priorities for overall ground water
management efforts based on a local understanding of.the relative use,
value, and vulnerability of the underlying ground water and potential
contamination threats. Because resources are limited, States cannot


1-21
From "Core" CSGWPP to “Fully-Integrating" CSGWPP

A key aspect of the process envisioned by EPA for achieving a State-directed,
resource-based approach to ground water protection relies on a State’s continuous
improvement from a "Core" CSGWPP to an eventual "Fully-Integrating" CSGWPP as is
illustrated in Figure 1-4. To parallel the States’ efforts to improve their six Strategic
Activities of a CSGWPP, EPA will undertake self-assessments of its own programs and
will work with other federal agencies and the Congress to tailor new programs or
modify existing programs so they are flexible and capable of adopting the ground
water protection goal and priorities of each State’s CSGWPP. Improvements in a
State’s CSGWPP Strategic Activities will both catalyze and be energized by changes in
federal programs to achieve a State-directed, resource-based comprehensive
approach to ground water protection, i.e., a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP (Figure 1-5).

The eventual goal -- attainment of a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP -- means that
ground water protection efforts are coordinated and focused across all federal, State,
and local programs based on a State’s understanding and decisions regarding the
relative use, value, and vulnerability of its ground water resources, including the
relative threat of all actual or potential contamination sources, A Fully-Integrating
CSGWPP addresses ail of the adequacy criteria for each of the six Strategic Activities
of a CSGWPP described in Chapter 2 of this Guidance. The adequacy criteria for a
Fully-Integrating CSGWPP provide considerable flexibility in what each State’s Fully-
Integrating CSGWPP will actually encompass. Thus, a State can tailor its Fully-
Integrating CSGWPP to emphasize those decision-making responsibilities it believes
are most suitable to its own purposes. EPA is committed to working with each State
in a joint effort to gain additional decision-making responsibilities under various federal
programs and achieve a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP.

A "Core" CSGWPP represents a State's initial commitment to working jointly with

EPA to move toward a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. A Core CSGWPP provides the
means for States to demonstrate, and for EPA to endorse, the State's potential to be
the primary decision-maker in ground water protection efforts. A State will attain a
Core CSGWPP when it has met the Core adequacy criteria for each of the six
Strategic Activities, which are also described in Chapter 2. EPA will assist a State in
attaining the Core CSGWPP by contributing to the development and review of
program submissions and either endorsing* the State’s Comprehensive Program as
having achieved the Core level or recommending changes and improvements.

4 EPA's Ground Water Protection Strategy stated that EPA would "concur on a State's
determination that it had obtained a CSGWPP. Comments from State officials suggest that this term
does not characterize the State/EPA partnership necessary to the CSGWPP approach correctly, but
instead implies program delegation as usual. Because this program is meant to be fundamentally
cooperative and consensual, the term endorse’ has now been adopted to better indicate the intended
relationship. Endorsement is a means for EPA to bring recognition to a State's success in initiating a
more comprehensive approach to protecting its ground water resources.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

GUIDANCE TO STATES

PART I:
1. INTRODUCTION ..... ra rr rrr oie 1-1
1.1. GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION IS A NATIONAL
(ore) (ot | \ pn 1-3
Threats to Ground Water ...... sees stern c eee ee seee 1-4
Importance of Ground Water ....... 00. e cece ee ree eens 1-4
1.2 WIDE-RANGING RESPONSES OVER THE LAST TWO
| 0) [07 .\ ») > as 1-5
Ground Water as a Focus of Environmental Action........... 1-5
Possible New Initlatives Focusing on Ground Water.......... 1-6
1.3. WHAT EPA AND THE STATES HAVE LEARNED ............ 1-10
1.4 CSGWPP AS THE FOCUS OF A NEW
FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL PARTNERSHIP IN GROUND
WATER PROTECTION ..... cece cence eee eet ee ree etnne 1-14
1.5 WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A COMPREHENSIVE STATE
’ GROUND WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM .............45 1-18
1.6 THE CSGWPP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: THE NEW
PARTNERSHIP IN ACTION ..... 2... cece cece rete eennee 1-20
From "Core" CSGWPP to *Eully-Integrating” CSGWPP sevens 1-21
Steps for States to Take . 0... cc eee eee ee ee tweens 1-24
Steps EPA Has Taken and will Continue to Take to
Assist the States 2... cc ccc eee teeter eee nnn 1-25
1.7. OPPORTUNITIES PRESENTED BY THE NEW
PARTNERSHIP AND THE CSGWPP APPROACH ...........- 4-26
1.8 WHAT THIS GUIDANCE CONTAINS ......... ce eee eeees 1-28
2. THE SIX STRATEGIC ACTIVITIES AND ADEQUACY CRITERIA OF A

COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM ........ 0c eee ee eect eeen ee eenee 2-1

21

BENEFITS OF THE CORE CSGWPP ....... 0-00 se sere teens 2-1


eoovee

Table 1-1

Upcoming EPA Regulatory and Guidance Actions Relating to

Ground Water

Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS):

Guidance to States on developing Pesticide State Management Plans;
SMP Rule Workgroup;

Restricted Use Classification for Groundwater Contaminating Pesticides;
Aldicarb Speciat Review;

Storage and Disposal of Pesticides Residues;

OPTS Annual Operating Guidance;

FIFRA Cooperative Agreement Guidance;

PCB Disposal Amendments; and

Pesticide Data Requirements.

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR):

Ground Water Protection for Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings Sites;
Land Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes; and
Disposal of High-Level Transuranic Radioactive Wastes.

Office of Solld Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER):

Corrective Action for Releases from Solid Waste Management Units;
Ground Water Monitoring Rule;

Ground Water Amendments;

Mining Waste Program Rule;

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, State/Tribal Implementation Rule;
Liners and Leak Detection for Hazardous Waste Land
Disposal Units; .
Standards for the Location of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities;

Ground-Water Monitoring Anatytes;

Disposal of Containerized Liquids in Hazardous Waste
Landfills;

Modification of Mixture/Derived From Rule;

Toxicity Characteristics Rule Suspension for Oil Spill
Cleanups;

Use of Ground Water Data in Hazardous Waste Delisting
Decisions;

Corrective Action Stabilization Strategy and Guidance;
Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Restrictions 'Third-Thirds*
Rule Implementation Guidance;

Land Disposal Restrictions: Treatment Standards tor Newly
Identified and Listed Wastes & Contaminated Solls;



1-10

1.3. WHAT EPA AND THE STATES HAVE LEARNED

The activities focused on protecting and cleaning up ground water for the past
twenty years have been marked by both successes and failures and have led States
and EPA to conclude that:

A greater emphasis on prevention of ground water contamination is
needed. Preventing a problem before it starts or gets worse is generally
sound public policy. Prevention of ground water contamination is usually
much less costly than cleaning up after contamination has occurred.

One way to demonstrate the high costs of contamination is to consider
the cost of well replacement. For example, at Prices Landfill in New
Jersey, a Superfund site, a municipal well field of ten wells was
abandoned due to contamination and a new wellfield was established at
a cost of about $5 million, or about $500,000 per well. In most cases,
the costs of cleaning up ground water contamination are also extremely
high. A 1988 study of 153 Superfund sites showed that projected
ground water remediation costs, at about a quarter of these sites, were
over $10 million per site, with the most expensive site being $120 million.

Prevention, in contrast, usually costs significantly less. Communities with
small water supply systems serving hundreds to thousands of
consumers have implemented Wellhead Protection Programs at a cost of
about 5 to 10 percent of the capital costs of well installation. Economies
of scale in larger wellfields, such as South Florida, have led to a cost of
protection as low as 1 percent of the capital costs required for facilities
to treat drinking water supplies that have been contaminated.

In 1991, the U.S. General Accounting Office, looking at these cost
differences, concluded that a "shift of emphasis between prevention and
remedial programs is warranted to help states implement preventive
groundwater protection programs more effectively." GAO recommended
that EPA work with the States to develop ways to reorient some of their
existing ground water programs to provide greater emphasis on
preventive activities. ("More Emphasis Needed on Prevention in EPA's
Efforts to Protect Groundwater," U.S. General Accounting Office,
December 1991, GAO/RCED-92-47)

Even if the costs of prevention and cleanup were roughly equivalent,
prevention provides the only feasible means of addressing certain
problems. We are increasingly finding that current ground water cleanup
technologies cannot always succeed in removing certain categories of
contaminants to the degree desired, especially non-aqueous phase
liquids (NAPLs and DNAPLs) from aquifers.


United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA State Programs
implementation Workgroup

EPA Ground Water
Regulatory Cluster

EPA Ground Water Policy
Committee

Martha G. Prothro (Chair)
Patrick M. Tobin (Chair)
Richard J. Guimond
Victor J. Kimm
Daniel C. Esty
Edward J. Hanley
John H. Skinner
William J. Muszynski
William W. Rice
James R. Elder
Henry L. Longest I!
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Margo T. Oge
David W. Ziegele
Susan H. Wayland
David G. Davis
Jim McCormick
Alvin R. Morris
Harry Seraydarian
Susan G. Lepow
Frederick F. Stiehl
Phyllis A. Reed
Christopher P. Hoff
Christian H. Rice
Paul N. Guthrie

Robert W, Barles
Ronald W. Bergman

&, Ramona Trovato (Chair)
. Lisa C. Lund
Stephen L. Johnson
Geoffrey H. Grubbs
Devereaux Barnes
Matthew A. Straus
James William Gunter, Jr.
Connie A. Musgrove
Rick C. Garman
Carl B. Reeverts
Fredric D. Chanania
Robert W. Barles
Francoise M. Brasier
Louise P. Wise
William G. Painter
Dov Weitman
Jerome J. Healey
Stuart Kerzner
Beverly Houston
Jerri-Anne Garl
Michael F. Gearheard
Ron Mikulak
Doris Betuel
Virginia Thompson
William Mullen
Robert Adler
Donna M. Harris
Bruce Wilkinson
Rick Parkin
Stuart S. Tuller
Michael D. Muse
Sandy B, German
Linda Strauss
Kenneth A. Lovelace
Rodges K.E. Ankrah
Laurie R. Ford
Lourdes Maria Bufill
Jane McConathy
Susan J, Sladek
Guy A. Tomassoni
Floyd L. Galpin
Helga Butler
Pamela J. Harris

Staff Support

Roy A. Simon
Elizabeth J. Corr

Charles A. Job (Chair)
Joseph D. Retzer
Jacqueline M, Tenusak
Ellen M. Brown
Fredric D. Chanania
Kenneth A. Lovelace
Arden A, Calvert
Katherine H. Nam
Rodges K.E. Ankrah
Carl B. Reeverts
Vivian Daub
Ronald W. Bergman
Burnell W. Vincent
Margaret J, Burnett
Lourdes Maria Bufill
Natalie A. Ellington
Matthew Hagemann

Steven Y. Ainsworth


Responsibilities
Information

Implementation

Figure 1-3. The six Strategic Activities of a CSGWPP are dynamic and
inter-related; improvements in one activity lead to improvements in
the other five.


SEPA

United States Office Of EPA 100-R-93-001
Environmental Protection The Administrator December 1992
Agency (WH-550G)

Final Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection
Program Guidance

Priorities

<BeSsponsibilities r
' Implementation . “


"4-27

levels, the CSGWPP approach provides unique opportunities for the successful
implementation of State-directed, resource-based ground water protection programs,

including:

Addressing federally unrequlated sources: Presently unregulated
sources of ground water contamination may be addressed by State

programs. As each.State integrates its ground water protection
programs through a CSGWPP, it will be able to identify gaps that may
exist in ground water protection efforts (e.g., oil and gas; industrial pits,
ponds and lagoons; fertilizers) and specify where additional federal/State
efforts are needed. .

Funding: By endorsing Core CSGWPPs in the States and moving
toward a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP, EPA and the States will be better
able to demonstrate their effectiveness in protecting ground water and
thereby justify additional investment in ground water program
development and implementation.

Legislation: This Guidance and the joint implementation efforts of the
EPA and States will build a constituency for ground water legislation that
will assist the States in setting ground water protection priorities and
using federal resources to achieve them. Successful CSGWPP
implementation should help ensure that State capabilities for ground
water protection and needs are considered in any new ground water-
related legislation.

EPA Regulations: Development and implementation of the CSGWPP
approach by the States will affect at least 50 pending EPA regulatory
efforts (See Table 1-1 on page 1-8) that will impact different aspects of
ground water protection or remediation efforts. EPA will establish a
multi-program ground water regulatory agenda to set priorities for
appropriate changes to existing regulations to allow States greater
flexibility to achieve comprehensive State-directed, resource-based
ground water protection.

Other Federal efforts: Joint EPA and State implementation of the
CSGWPP approach will affect other federal agencies and their pending
federal regulatory and non-regulatory efforts. EPA is currently working
with other federal agencies to make the CSGWPP approach the
centerpiece of rational, consistent, and meaningful coordination across all
federal ground water protection activities. EPA will encourage other
federal agencies to enter into the planned Multi-Year Program
Agreements that EPA will be undertaking with States that have Core
CSGWPPs. (See Part I! Section 2 for descriptions of how USDA, DoD,
DOE, DOI, DOT, and NRC could coordinate programs with CSGWPPs.)


1-22

aay,

rate TM~ Fully -
Integrating
NG Responsibilities CSGWPP
Information SS
Continual
Improvement
In the Six
Strategic
Activities
2 =
2 3
7 °
w <
3 g
g tmplementation 3
= Core CSGWPP

Figure 1-4. Continuous improvements in each of the six interrelated Strategic
Activities move a State from a "Core" program to a “Fully-Integrating" CSGWPP.


1-6

At the same time, EPA has provided nearly $80 million since 1985 under the
Clean Water Act to all the States to develop State-wide Ground Water Strategies. With
this funding, each of the 50 States developed a Strategy and implemented significant
ground water management efforts pursuant to it. Since 1987, States have been
working to contral non-point sources of ground water and surface water
contamination under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. From FY 1990 to FY 1993,
EPA will spend about $180 million under §319 grants, with at least $20 million devoted
to ground water protection. In addition, the States developed and are implementing
many regulatory and non-regulatory programs under State statutes to address
sources of ground water contamination not addressed by the federal government,
such as diffuse sources like septic tanks.

Private Sector Activities. The private sector has also been influenced by the
trend toward greater attention to ground water. Industry has spent hundreds of
millions of dollars to clean up ground water at Superfund sites and to protect ground
water at RCRA hazardous waste sites. Environmental audits are now routinely
undertaken by industry to identify and address ground water contamination problems
before they become unmanageable. Such environmental audits are also becoming a
common practice in commercial real estate transactions to ensure that land being sold
is clear of any ground water contamination or other environmental problems.

Coordination Efforts. Beginning in the late 1980's, EPA and many other federal
agencies embarked upon a number of actions to pull together the disparate strands of
ground water protection and to undertake new initiatives. In 1991 EPA developed and
released a Strategy for ground water that established EPA's policy of promoting a
comprehensive federal/State partnership in ground water protection. EPA also
published the Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy addressing a specific threat to
ground water. EPA’s RCRA, Superfund, and Radiation Programs are also working to
develop new approaches to protect ground water that will encompass a more
comprehensive partnership with the States. Other federal agencies have been
working with EPA’s programs as well as refocusing their programs or starting new
initiatives to protect ground water.

Possible New Initiatives Focusing on Ground Water

A new set of responses to ground water issues, ranging from possible
legislation to regulatory and policy initiatives, could occur in the next few months or
years,

Legislation in the 103rd Congress. There will likely be efforts to reauthorize
many of the laws that currently address ground water, including the Safe Drinking
Water Act, which includes the Wellhead Protection Program and the Underground
Injection Control Program; RCRA Subtitles C and D and the Underground Storage


1-9

Table 1-1 (continued)
Upcoming EPA Regulatory and Guidance Actions Relating to
Ground Water

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) (continued):

e Revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous Pollution
Contingency Plan;
. OERR Strategic Plan for Addressing Ground Water

Contamination at Superfund Sites;

Guidance on Remedial Action for Contaminated Ground
Water at Superfund Sites;

Superfund/RCRA Technical !mpracticability Waiver/Guidance;
Multi-Source Groundwater Guidance;

Preliminary Assessment Guidance for HRS;

Data Useability for Site Assessment for HRS;

Site Investigation Guidance for HRS; and

HRS Guidance Document for Commonly Encountered HAS
Scoring Questions.

e
fi
e

eoeeeoe

Office of Water (OW):

e National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Contaminants
from First Drinking Water Priority List (Phase VI);
e Ground Water Disinfection Rule;

UIC Class V Well Regulation;

Technical Standards for the Use and Disposaf of Sewage
Sludge; :
Guidance for 106 funds;

Guidance for 319 funds;

Guidance for 319 State Management Plans; and
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Nuclides.

Office of Enforcement (OE):

e Guidance for State-EPA Enforcement Agreements,