National
Guidance
Description
State ‘State Vision and of Core
Svategy Assessment ‘CSGWPP
of Gaps Submitted
wEPA
Profile
of Stato
Program

Increasing State Flexibility
and Program integration

Annual Workplans

EPA
Endorses

CSGWPP

Co-Develop
State/EPA
Multi-Year

Program

Agreement

Development

Fully
Integrating
csGwpP

LN

io

CT

Figure 3-1. Development of Core and Fully Integrating CSGWPPs



45

The States themselves strongly recommended in EPA/State Roundtables that
EPA discuss the CSGWPP approach with other federal agencies. The States’ interest
focused on three broad points:

Providing Technical Assistance: Many federal agencies manage
programs which provide significant technica! and financial assistance to
State ground water protection activities. This assistance should be
focused on supporting the development and implementation of
CSGWPPs.

Utilizing States’ Ground Water Protection Priorities in Non-Requlatory
Efforts: Non-regulatory efforts should be targeted such that geographic
and programmatic priorities outlined in the CSGWPP are supported.
Examples of these non-regulatory activities include demonstration
projects, public education and outreach, implementation of BMPs, and
other similar activities.

Utilizing State Ground Water Protection Policies, Objectives, and
Standards: Some ground water contamination concerns are assigned

by law to federal agencies and cannot be delegated to the States (e.g.,
high-level radioactive waste disposal) or require a national perspective to
balance national, State, and local interests. In other situations, federal
agencies should, to the degree possible, align their ground water
protection and remediation efforts with State priorities as outlined in
CSGWPPs.

In order to engage the federal agencies in a discussion of these points, EPA
held a Federal Agency Roundtable in the early Spring of 1992. The following federal
agencies, in addition to EPA, were represented at this Roundtable discussion:

Pe ee eo

Department of Agriculture

Department of Defense

Department of Energy

Department of Interior

Department of Commerce

Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Justice

Department of Transportation

Federal Emergency Management Agency
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Tennessee Valley Authority

Office of Management and Budget


4-2

implementation support to States. The Ground Water Cluster works to incorporate
EPA's ground water protection principles and the CSGWPP approach into regulations,
guidances, and policies.

EPA is committed to eliminating duplicative or inconsistent regulatory
requirements. The Ground Water Cluster is developing a ground water regulatory
agenda which will be a profile of EPA's ground water activities. Similar to the profiles
that States recently completed, EPA’s ground water regulatory agenda will identify
overlaps and inconsistencies in existing ground water-related regulations and national
guidances, and will ensure that these regulations will be reviewed and revised if
necessary to reflect EPA’s ground water principles and support the CSGWPP
approach. Through the Ground Water Policy Committee and the Ground Water
Cluster, EPA’s program ‘offices are seeking new ways to promote State resource-
based decision making in their programs through increased flexibility and assistance.

EPA is working through the Ground Water Policy Committee to make the
CSGWPP approach the centerpiece of rational, consistent, and meaningful priority
decision-making in two ways:

e Through the CSGWPP Strategic Activities and adequacy criteria, EPA is
encouraging States to establish consistent _and rational priorities by
focusing on the relative status and future prospects for their ground
waters across geographic areas. Other factors for priority setting are
also important, but it is the emphasis on State-directed resource-based
decision-making that gives CSGWPPs a unique and powerful role in
ground water protection. A State should not put off setting ground water
protection priorities until comprehensive ground water assessments
covering the whole state are completed. Most States should be in the
position of using a basic understanding of their ground water to begin
applying a systematic and consistent approach to setting priorities on an
"as needed" basis (e.g., when there is a facility siting issue).

e By introducing the CSGWPP concept into all emerging Agency
regulations and _quidances relevant to ground water, EPA is providing
States with the opportunity to influence fundamental operational

decisions of all of EPA’s ground water-related programs based on
priorities derived from a State’s understanding of its resources.

Appendix B of this Guidance describes one important aspect of State
ground water resource information -- i.e., State determinations of
“reasonably expected uses of ground water" -- which will be incorporated
into emerging EPA regulations. EPA is also working to provide similar
opportunities for States across relevant federal programs operated by
other agencies as States move toward full CSGWPP implementation.



4. LINKAGE TO EPA AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS

The primary benefit of the CSGWPP approach will be even more effective
protection of the Nation's ground water resources based on a resource-oriented
decision-making process, The other principal benefit to the States of the CSGWPP
approach is that it provides a significant catalyst for increased State flexibility and
decision-making under numerous federal programs. This allows States to tallor
protection efforts to meet their unique ground water protection needs and priorities.
The CSGWPP approach will achieve these benefits by linking other federal programs
into a partnership with the States by having:

e CSGWPPs provide a framework within which all ground water protection
efforts and activities (federal, State and local) can be coordinated. This
coordination will reduce unnecessary duplication of effort and foster
synergistic use of program resources to address ground water
protection needs within the State.

e CSGWPPs provide the foundation for State-directed, resource-based
priorities consistently applied across all federal and State ground water-
related programs within the State. This occurs when a State's
knowledge of its ground water resources (e.g., vulnerability, uses,
benefits) is being employed to determine the objectives, priorities, and
approaches far ground water protection programs operating within the
State.

Both of these linkages result in greater efficiency and effectiveness in managing
ground water protection programs so that EPA's ground water protection goal will be
realized. EPA will work with other federal agencies to adopt a consistent approach for
federal deference to State ground water decision-making across all relevant federal
programs and regulations. While this effort will lead to incremental increases in State
flexibility under the various individual federal programs, it is only through pursuit of a
CSGWPP that a State will achieve the full, consistent, and integrated flexibility to
address its ground water protection priorities across all relevant programs. This
Chapter’s primary focus is to describe how CSGWPPs put States in the lead position
of making resource-oriented decisions concerning ground water protection efforts.

4.1 Coordination of EPA Programs

EPA continues to implement its own intra-Agency approach to comprehensive
ground water protection. To promote coordination within the Agency, EPA
established the Ground Water Policy Committee. The Policy Committee works to
coordinate the Agency's ground water activities and to resolve issues of overlapping
or inconsistent regulation. It has established two workgroups, the State Programs
Implementation Workgroup and the Ground Water Cluster. The State Programs
Implementation Workgroup developed this CSGWPP Guidance and provides


4-4

help provide a State with the basis for judging one contamination
problem against another and establishing priorities. Even when
prevention of any release at a facility is a program objective, reference
points will be useful should such measures fail and decision-makers are
faced with implementing more drastic measures to prevent further
contamination (e.g., immediate closure of a facility).

Other examples, specific to individual programs, appear in Part ll. Generally
speaking, these examples demonstrate that comprehensive protection of the ground
water resource means rational, efficient, effective, priority-based management of
ground water quality.

The CSGWPP approach will be implemented within the bounds set by statutory
and regulatory mandates. Nevertheless, a review of relevant federal programs
suggests that significant opportunities exist, within the boundaries set by federal
statutes and regulations, for State flexibility to set ground water protection priorities
and tailor protection measures. EPA is working to ensure that the conditions a State
must meet to gain flexibility under the variety of federal programs related to ground
water are consistent across those programs. In addition, when new legislation or
reauthorizations are being considered, EPA will encourage Congress to provide States
with the key decision-making role based on conditions consistent with the CSGWPP
approach. EPA's task will be made easier to the extent that States have moved
aggressively to implement the CSGWPP approach and are achieving the intended
effective and efficient protection of the nation’s valuable ground water resources.

Part Il, Section I, provides a detailed program-by-program discussion of the
linkages between the CSGWPP approach and each EPA program that potentially
affects ground water. Twenty programs are described in terms of how the program
would make use of CSGWPP resource-based priority setting and how CSGWPPs
could promote program coordination. Finally, for programs that provide grants to
States, a brief discussion addresses how those grants could be used to support the
development and implementation of CSGWPPs.

4.2 Linkage to Other Federal Agency Programs

Several federal Agencies in addition to EPA are involved in activities that directly
or indirectly affect the quality of ground water in the States. A central premise of the
CSGWPP approach is that the activities of these other agencies also should be
included within a coordinated framework. This section describes some of the linkages
between other federal programs and the CSGWPP approach. Section I! of Part Il
discusses and identifies opportunities for coordination between CSGWPPs and the
activities relating to ground water of six federal agencies.




ah en,

4-7

e The Bureau of Reclamation could target its technical assistance funding
devoted to ground water based on CSGWPPs.

e All federal agencies could work together to develop a common GIS
database which would support resource-based decision making.

In order to elaborate on these ideas, the federal agencies agreed to work
together to develop a federal clearinghouse or manual on all potential ground water-
related technical assistance opportunities. This manual would heip federal agencies
coordinate their activities and would assist States in gaining access to available
technical assistance as they develop and implement their CSGWPPs. The federal
agencies also suggested that they be given some role in the review and concurrence
of CSGWPPs and CSGWPP development plans.

Utilizing States’ Resource-based Protection Priorities in Non-Regulatory
Efforts

A CSGWPP provides a framework that is intended to ensure that all ground
water protection activities occurring under State, local, and federal laws within a State
are based on a consistent understanding of the characteristics of a State's ground
water, priority geographic areas, priority contaminants, and other similar parameters.
Some examples of non-regulatory activities that other federal agencies have underway,
or may consider, that could fit into the CSGWPP framework include the following:

© DoD and DOE remediation demonstration projects could be adjusted to
reflect State ground water protection priorities. .

e USDA's water quality demonstration projects could be targeted and
implemented based on the priorities in a State's CSGWPP.

e The Public Health Service can target educational material on
contaminants or contaminating sources of concern as defined by a
State’s CSGWPP.

e Agencies such as the Soil Conservation Service and the Cooperative
Extension Service provide direct assistance to farmers and others with
best management practices implementation in the field; these services
could be targeted and tailored based on CSGWPP geographic and
programmatic priorities.

e DOJ could target litigation support based on State CSGWPPs.


4-6

The Roundtable resulted in some concrete suggestions for integrating the
activities of these departments and agencies into the CSGWPP approach. Those
suggestions are described in this section of the Guidance and in Part Il. Because the
Roundtable was mainly an introductory forum in which to acquaint the federal
agencies with the CSGWPP concept, the federal agencies have not yet committed to
specific actions in conjunction with the CSGWPP approach. EPA is working with each
agency and department to further define and finalize their support of and involvement
in the CSGWPP approach. This will result in each agency or department developing
specific program guidances, guidance memos, and/or similar materials outlining its
support of the CSGWPP approach; where discrepancies between this Guidance
document and those specific program guidances exist, the specific guidances will
prevail.

The remainder of this section focuses on the specific suggestions made by the
other federal agencies. Each of the overarching topics outlined above is addressed in
the paragraphs that follow.

Providing Technical Assistance

Federal agencies, other than EPA, provide a broad range of technical
assistance activities that could help States develop and implement their CSGWPPs.
The federal agencies have indicated a willingness to target these activities based on
the geographic and programmatic priorities outlined in each State's CSGWPP.
Examples of the types of activities contemplated include:

e The USDA's land grant university system, through cooperative extension
services, can provide direct technical assistance to implement CSGWPP
prevention activities in the field.

e Other federal agencies such as DoD and DOE provide significant funding
to universities for research and development activities related to ground
water, and to develop technical assistance materials; these funds could
be targeted based on a State's priorities as outlined in a CSGWPP and
could be coordinated with other grant- or contract-funded projects within
the context of the CSGWPP framework.

e USGS's ground water assessment and mapping activities, funded by the
agency’s cooperative agreement program, could be coordinated with
other assessment and characterization activities within the framework of
the CSGWPP.

e Ground water data collected by all federal agencies could be
coordinated within the CSGWPP framework.


4-3

Operationally, the benefits of the CSGWPP's State-directed, resource-based,
decision-making approach are best illustrated by several examples:

Siting of Facilities/Operations: Many facilities and operations offering
social and economic benefit are potential or actual sources of ground

water contamination. Even when they are subject to exacting and best
available technical and engineering requirements, some risk of release to
ground water remains. These risks to human health and the
environment can be further minimized by the State by determining where
to locate such facilities based first on prevention, and then on factors
such as use, value, and vulnerability of the resource. One example is the
draft RCRA Subtitle D State and Tribal Implementation Rule, which will
allow a State the flexibility to adjust certain permitting criteria for
municipal landfills based in part on the State’s assessment of the
underlying aquifer’s vulnerability.

Permitting, Monitoring, and Inspecting: Most States will not be able to
pursue these activities to maximum levels at all possible sites; there are

not enough resources to allow this.. The prevention approach allows
monitoring, permit limits, and inspection schedules to be tailored based
on vulnerability first and then use and value where necessary. One
example is the Public Water Supply Supervision Program, which currently
allows States to work toward flexible federal monitoring requirements.

Coordination and Targeting: Program capacity could be significantly
increased through a CSGWPP'’s coordination and targeting of "same
facility" inspections across programs. An example would be coordination
of inspections of underground storage tanks and underground injection
control wells at gasoline service stations.

Remediation Efforts: For some remediation programs the use, value, or
vulnerability of underlying ground waters can dictate the necessary
degree of clean-up. Such flexibility allows for greater focus of funds and
personnel on sites with the most critical human health and environmental
risks. An example is the Superfund Program, which gives a higher score
through the Hazard Ranking System to sites that are located within a
Wellhead Protection Area.

Reference Points: Ground water contamination control priorities and
ground water remediation measures should be based on the level of
contamination present in the ground water and on the designated uses
for the ground water (referred to as "Reference Points" in the Ground
Water Protection Strategy forthe 1990s). Although there is considerabie
uncertainty in correlating contamination contro! or remediation measures
with a particular level of contamination, the use of reference points can


3-3

Activities, and in supporting the achievement of a Fully-Integrating
CSGWPP. The multi-year program agreement should include as many
specific implementation milestones for ground water efforts as possible.

e Implementing Yearly Workplans: The annual State/EPA agreements or
all program workplans relevant to ground water protection currently used
by EPA and the States will be the primary vehicles for implementing the
multi-year CSGWPP program agreements. Yearly workplans should
include a description of the mechanism established to coordinate
authorities and programs under State and federal statutes, and should
include implementation activities that move a State toward meeting
miléstones in its multi-year program agreement. 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. EPA will specify the increased flexibility being
afforded to the State in any given year based on individual program
requirements and progress toward achieving a Fully-Integrating
CSGWPP.

e Achieving a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. EPA and each State will
negotiate through yearly workplans how to fill the gaps in a State’s
CSGWPP and how to provide additional federal program flexibility to the
State. Achievement of a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP will be negotiated by
EPA and each State in consultation with other federal agencies. A Fully-
Integrating CSGWPP occurs when all federal, State, and local ground
water protection efforts are, coordinated and when all decision-making is
based on a State’s understanding of the ground water resource, all
actual or potential contamination sources, and the State’s comprehensive
ground water protection goal, priorities, and approaches. EPA and each
State will negotiate the milestone of achieving a Fully-Integrating
CSGWPP in the yearly workplan process. While each State’s Fully-
Integrating CSGWPP will be different, all Fully-Integrating CSGWPPs will
meet all of the Fully-Integrating adequacy criteria outlined in Chapter 2.

Figure 3-1 is a schematic outlining the processes for the development and EPA
endorsement of a State's Core CSGWPP and for moving from a Core to a Fully-
Integrating CSGWPP. Given the fundamental importance of individual ground water-
related programs, EPA will ensure that all relevant Agency programs (e.g., solid and
hazardous waste, pesticides, underground storage tanks, nonpoint sources, etc.) are
involved in all plan developments, agreements, reviews and endorsements. EPA will
also encourage other federal agencies to examine the State’s CSGWPP to determine
where they may provide flexibility or a decision-making role to the State.


te vey,

3-2

Achieving a Core CSGWPP: For many States, the written assessment
is likely to be the document describing their Core CSGWPP. In this
case, no other documentation will be needed. If a State is unable to
demonstrate a Core CSGWPP through its assessment, the State will
submit an updated document to demonstrate that the remaining Core
adequacy criteria have been met. There will be flexibility in how States
meet each adequacy criterion; specific approaches are to be worked out
in a negotiated partnership between a State and its EPA Regional office.
EPA will formally endorse a State’s achievement of a Core CSGWPP.
Formal EPA endorsement will provide EPA, 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 towards a Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. Demonstration of a
State’s tangible commitment to comprehensive ground water protection,
as evidenced by its endorsed Core program, will be key to bringing
relevant federal programs and agencies to the table to negotiate a Multi-
Year Program Agreement, described below.

It is expected that each State will attain an EPA endorsed Core CSGWPP
as early as possible, but no later than the end of 1995.

Developing A Multi-Year Program Agreement: Following EPA
endorsement of its Core CSGWPP, each State should co-develop with

EPA a written multi-year program agreement that describes how the
State will further implement and over time improve the Strategic Activities
of its Core CSGWPP. It will also identify the specific actions EPA will
take to support the State’s efforts across all relevant programs, including
milestones for increased program flexibility. ‘In establishing the multi-year
program agreement, EPA and the State will utilize the State’s
assessment, described above, and EPA's Regional program reviews and
multi-program ground water regulatory agenda described in Chapter 1 of
this Guidance. Other federal agencies, including federal land
management agencies and federal facilities, will be encouraged to join in
making commitments through the agreement to support the State's
CSGWPP. Finally, through the Ground Water Subcommittee of the
State/EPA Operations Committee, EPA will seek State review and
feedback on EPA's efforts to support the CSGWPP approach.

EPA and each State will negotiate the contents of the multi-year program
agreement and specific milestones based on the State's unique
circumstances. The program agreement will serve as the basis for yearly
workplan agreements for all ground water-related activities under the
Agency's various programs. The completed multi-year program
agreement should guide all State and federal programs related to
ground water in more fully meeting the adequacy criteria of the Strategic


3. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

This chapter describes the process that will be followed for development of
each State’s Core CSGWPP and Fully-Integrating CSGWPP. The CSGWPP process is
flexible and allows each State to develop its program according to its unique
hydrageologic, demographic, and institutional characteristics.

Development of both CSGWPP levels should build on the often extensive
ground water protection efforts already being conducted within a State. The starting
point should be a State’s existing ground water protection strategy and the recent
profile developed by EPA and the State that describe the current ground water
programs and activities within the State.’ The development process entails the
following six general steps, which may be undertaken in combination or separately:

e Establishing a State-Specific "Vision" or "Template": 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" or "template" for what its Fully-
Integrating CSGWPP will ultimately comprise. This will 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 Assessing: 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, its vision or template for a Fully-
Integrating CSGWPP. A State, in working with the Region, may
document in its written assessment that it already has achieved a Core
CSGWPP. 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 Agency’s ground water-related programs. The
State’s vision and assessment will comprise a single document. The
assessment will be organized to clearly show what the State has done or
needs to do to meet each of the Core adequacy criteria for all six
Strategic Activities. Descriptions of how the State has met Core
adequacy criteria will be included.

‘Because Native American Tribes have not yet developed profiles, EPA will be exploring options with
Tribes and with agencies such as BIA and IHS or assisting them in describing their ground water
protection programs and activities on Indian lands.


4-8

In order for these activities to take place, EPA and the States must open up
lines of communication with other federal agencies. Other federal agencies must have
an early understanding of State ground water priorities so that those priorities can
impact agency planning and budgeting.

Utilizing States’ Ground Water Protection Policies, Objectives, and
Standards

This is the most difficult and challenging arena within which to link other federal
agencies to the CSGWPP approach. Just as is the case with EPA programs, other
federal agencies are concerned about limiting factors such as specific statutory
mandates and long-standing agency regulations. Nevertheless, there are broad areas
that warrant additional study and which may ultimately allow for consistent and rational
deference to States within the context of CSGWPPs. These include the following:

e Land management agencies such as DOI’s Bureau of Reclamation and
USDA's Forest Service could work more closely with the States to assure
that policies on federal lands do not lead to contamination of aquifers
designated by the States as highly valuable or vulnerable.

e Federal facilities that will be required to clean up hazardous waste sites
could change their priorities for clean up and protection to make them
consistent with CSGWPPs.

e Federal programs could participate in the development and
implementation of CSGWPPs so that facility-specific ground water
management plans become integral to overall CSGWPPs.

Priorities under the CSGWPP should be based on the resource and not on
federal facility ownership. In general, federal facilities and land managers are
concerned that States will apply priorities differentially based on land or facility
ownership rather than based on the characteristics of the ground water. This could
lead to significant discrepancies in ground water quality management policies from
site to site. Federal agencies are very interested in participating with EPA and the
States in the development and implementation of CSGWPPs in order to assure that
this will not occur.

Part Il, Section Il describes the ground water-related programs of six selected
federal agencies. For each of these agencies’ ground water-related programs, the
Section discusses how the State and the respective agency would benefit from
CSGWPP resource-based priority setting and coordination of efforts through State
CSGWPPs.