Groundwater Protection in Selected Countries
4. Groundwater Protection
In the following sections, measures which are used in the USA for the protection of groundwater are given. To improve the overview, these measures are divided into measures which can be utilized to prevent contamination from happening (prevention) and measures which are used to tackle existing contamination problems (remediation).
4.1 Preventive measures
The protection of the groundwater resources in the USA is addressed under both the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (EPA, 1998). The CWA describes the development of State Comprehensive Ground Water Protection Programs. The SDWA describes the Wellhead Protection Program, the Sole Source Aquifer Program and the Underground Injection Control Program and the Source Water Assessment Program. These programs are described below.
4.1.1 Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs
Section 102 of the Clean Water Act grants states the authority to develop comprehensive state groundwater protection programs (CSGWPP). This program is voluntary and intends to improve the management of the groundwater resource through a cooperative, multi-agency approach. A guidance document has been provided by the EPA in how to prepare such a program and obtain approval (EPA, 1992).
The guidance document requires that a submitted CSGWPP must adequately deal with each of the following six strategic activities in order to be approved:
 | Establish groundwater goals |
| Establish priorities based on local needs |
| Clarify roles and responsibilities across relevant federal, state, and local programs |
| Implement management strategies |
| Provide information and monitoring |
| Improve public participation and support |
As of early 1999, EPA has approved programs for 11 states (Evison, 1999).
Nevada example
The State of Nevada, located in the Basin and Range province, is the most arid in the USA. It is characterized by geographically isolated aquifers and a large variation in the depth to groundwater. Nevada has a very small population density.
Nevada achieved approval for a CSGWPP in 1997 (NDEP, 1998). Several points of this program – which addresses the six activities above - have special interest in regard to this report.
| All groundwater in Nevada is considered to be a potential source of drinking water, and is therefore protected to drinking water standards. This means that the State has no plans to develop a groundwater classification system with a differentiation of quality standards for each class as is recommended by the EPA. |
| The identification of the inherent vulnerablility of the resource and potential sources of contamination are included in the duties of the Bureau of Water Quality Planning. A Work Group is also determining critical hydrographic basins in terms of groundwater quality concerns.. |
| Nevada’s knowledge of potential point source contamination sites is derived from inventories via permitting programs. |
| Nevada’s CSGWPP relies primarily on addressing specific potential sources of contamination for protection of groundwater. This is largely implemented through existing programs such as RCRA, mining regulations, underground storage tank regulations, etc. |
4.1.2 Well head protection plan
The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act grants states the authority to develop well head protection (WHP) plans. Protection is achieved through the identification of areas around public water supply wells that contribute groundwater to the well and through the management of potential sources of contamination in these areas to reduce threats to the resource. As of May 1997, 43 States had achieved approval for their WHP Programs.
In order to achieve approval, WHP programs must address the following:
| roles and responsibilities of state and local governments |
| delineation of wellhead protection areas |
| potential contaminant source inventory procedures |
| contaminant source management and control procedures |
| contingency plans for alternative water supplies |
| new well/well siting standards |
| public participation |
Massachusetts example
The State of Massachusetts has prepared a guide for developing local groundwater protection controls. This guide walks one through a process for developing a wellhead protection regulatory program that has been found to be successful in Massachusetts communities.
This guide explains that the areas that must be protected include Zone 1 (typically a circular area with a 100 to 400 foot radius) and zone II (the recharge area around a well that is determined by means of hydrogeologic modelling studies). Regulation of land use in these areas can be effected by zoning bylaws (address only future land use activities), general bylaws (regulates new and existing activities), health regulations (adopted by Boards of health rather than city councils).
The guide also describes steps that can be taken to build local support for land use controls. These steps include many possible activities including public education campaigns, open house at the treatment plant, forming a committee, etc.
The wellhead protection process is completed for example by passing a by-law and preparing a wellhead protection map to show which areas are regulated.
4.1.3 Sole Source Aquifer Program
The Sole Source Aquifer Program was established under the SDWA of 1974. The program allows communities, individuals, and organizations to petition EPA to designate aquifers as the "sole or principal" source of drinking water for an area (EPA, 1996). In 1996, there were 67 designations nation-wide.
Once an aquifer is designated, EPA has the authority to review and approve Federal financially assisted projects that may have the potential to contaminate the aquifer. Typical projects include housing and construction of roads. During the period of 1990-96, a total of 1,342 projects were reviewed. Of these, 1,095 projects were approved without modification, 117 projects were modified and 11 projects were either not recommended or disapproved. Remaining projects were withdrawn. These numbers indicate that implementation of the Sole Source Aquifer Program has been successful in reducing the risk for groundwater contamination.
4.1.4 Underground Injection Control Program
This program was initiated in 1974 under the SDWA in order to regulate underground injection wells used for fluid disposal (hazardous waste, waste from oil production and mining, etc). In the USA, there are approximately a half a million injection wells
Approval of a state program gives the State primacy (primary enforcement responsibility). The majority of the States now have approved programs.
4.1.5 Source Water Assessment Program
The 1996 amendments of the SDWA established the possibility for states to develop a State Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP). A SWAP must be approved by the USEPA and must do the following:
| delineation of a source water protection area (such as fixed radius, watershed area, etc) for public water systems |
| identify significant potential sources of contamination within the protection area and map these sources |
| analyze hydrogeological aspects of the protection area (depth to water, flow rates, etc. but no monitoring or modeling) to determine susceptibility of public water systems to such contaminants |
Within 2 years of approval, assessments must be completed for all public water systems. In 1997 EPA published guidance for States for the development of SWAPs.
4.2 Remediation of existing problems
4.2.1 Prioritizing contaminated sites
The need for prioritizing contaminated sites under the Superfund and the RCRA programs is limited. As described earlier, the Superfund program includes the Hazard Ranking System, which means that only the most contaminated sites are entered onto the National Priorities List. Work at all sites on the list is initiated within a relatively short time period. There are, of course, limits to how much work can be carried out at one time, so work at some sites moves faster than at others. The 10 EPA regional offices are central in determining site priorities.
Since the RCRA program involves sites at which the polluter (who must pay for the clean-up) operates the facility, there is not the same need to prioritize as there would be where financing of the work must come from a central fund and projects must compete for limited financial resources.
4.2.2 Criteria
The Superfund program generally expects to return contaminated groundwaters to their beneficial uses wherever practicable. The clean-up levels for a given site are defined as whatever values are relevant (so-called applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements - ARARs). Drinking water standards are generally relevant and appropriate as clean-up levels for groundwater that is a source for current or future drinking water. These levels, however, are not appropriate if the groundwater is not expected to be a future source of drinking water. Other examples of ARARs are water quality criteria established under the Clean Water Act for surface waters.
In order to provide flexibility, the Superfund program allows for the use of a variety of policy tools, including the setting of so-called Alternate Concentration Levels (ACL) for clean-up.
4.3 Monitoring groundwater quality
In section 106(e) of the Clean Water Act, each state is requested to monitor groundwater quality and report the finding to Congress in so-called 305(b) State Water Quality Reports. Results from 1996 are available, with 40 States, 1 Territory and 2 Indian Tribes reporting.
The reporting styles for these reports were varied. Data sources for the reports were based on finished water quality data, ambient monitoring networks, raw water quality data and other sources. It is expected that the reliance on finished water quality data will decrease in the future as the states develop new sources of groundwater data.
For the 1996 reports, guidelines for assessing groundwater quality were developed for the first time. The most significant change was provision of data for selected aquifers or hydrogeologic settings (a total of 162 were reported in 1996).
For their reports, the states were requested to indicate the 10 top contaminant sources threatening groundwater quality. Factors that were considered by States in their selection included:
| Number of sites |
| Size of population at risk |
| The risk posed |
| Hydrogeologic sensitvity |
The four most frequently cited sources were underground storage tanks, landfill, septic systems and hazardous waste sites, in that order.