joint groundwater report - Texas Commission on Environmental ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

<strong>groundwater</strong> quality for permit and operational requirements at approximately 12,400 facilities statewide.Data indicate that an estimated 39,000 monitor and water wells are being used for <strong>groundwater</strong> monitoringpurposes at these facilities. The majority (greater than 99 percent) of the facilities being monitored are underthe jurisdiction of the TNRCC, with the remainder under the jurisdiction of the Railroad <strong>Commission</strong> of<strong>Texas</strong> or the <strong>Texas</strong> Department of Health.The <strong>Texas</strong> Water Development Board and the member districts of the <strong>Texas</strong> Alliance of GroundwaterDistricts conduct <strong>groundwater</strong> monitoring to assess ambient <strong>groundwater</strong> quality conditions through theassessment of particular constituents to track changes in water quality over time. Monitoring programscarried out by the <strong>Texas</strong> Water Development Board and participating organizations involved approximately1,000 water wells in 1997. In addition, over 900 water wells were <strong>report</strong>ed as being monitored for ambient<strong>groundwater</strong> quality and changes over time by the member districts of the <strong>Texas</strong> Alliance of GroundwaterDistricts during 1997. Some monitoring programs are developed for water-quality assessment studies whichtarget specific geographic areas, specific contaminants or constituents, or specific activities. Contaminationcases discovered by these agencies or entities through <strong>groundwater</strong> studies or <strong>groundwater</strong> samplingprograms are referred to the regulatory agency with appropriate jurisdiction.The ambient <strong>groundwater</strong> monitoring network has historic limitations for the parameters which have beenanalyzed. There are very little historical analyses available for constituents which can generally be attributedto anthropogenic (i.e., man-induced) sources. For example, there are limited analyses available forconstituents such as volatile and synthetic organic compounds and certain heavy metals. Ambient monitoringhas not traditionally targeted pesticides. At the current time, various sampling projects and studies havebegun to look at potential contamination of <strong>groundwater</strong> through the normal use of pesticides. Additionalefforts are needed to characterize the potential impact of pesticides on <strong>groundwater</strong>.Regulatory <strong>groundwater</strong> monitoring data are extensive in many program areas, however, the application ofmonitoring requirements within and across regulatory programs can be diverse. This diversity is dependentupon the level of program development and the potential of the regulated activity to impact public health.In general, the waste disposal programs, primarily the TNRCC’s Office of Waste Management and the RCT,are doing an effective job of monitoring existing, permitted facilities. Groundwater monitoring requirementshave been established for the petroleum storage tank, industrial and hazardous waste, municipal waste,underground injection control, pollution cleanup (i.e., Superfund), and enforcement for waste programs.Requirements for the municipal solid waste program currently require monitoring at less than 50 percent ofthe facilities within the program. Additionally, permits required for surface storage and disposal of oil andgas waste and brine retention ensure the protection of <strong>groundwater</strong> by requiring liners, leak detection, and/or<strong>groundwater</strong> monitoring. However, less than two percent of the permanent facilities require <strong>groundwater</strong>monitoring to assure protection of <strong>groundwater</strong> resources.In the drinking water program, public water supply wells receive sufficient monitoring to ensure violations ofdrinking water standards are detected and addressed prior to distribution. Currently, there is no state programfor monitoring domestic wells. The <strong>Texas</strong> Department of Licensing and Registration (TDLR) is responsiblefor monitoring drillers in response to complaints and during spot inspections, and some domestic wellmonitoring may be performed during these site visits.With regard to drinking water programs of the TNRCC, municipal supplies are regulated by the TNRCCClean Water Program within the TNRCC’s Office of Water Resource Management. There are areas wheremonitoring for the protection of <strong>groundwater</strong> could be improved in the wastewater programs. Only 65 out of3,317 private domestic and permitted municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities are conducting4
<strong>groundwater</strong> monitoring. Generally, only the newer facilities are being monitored. There are no provisions inthe rules for monitoring at these facilities unless extenuating circumstances are documented andsubstantiated. At 581 permitted agricultural facilities, primarily concentrated animal feeding operations,monitoring of on-site water wells is required. Such monitoring may be insufficient to adequately detectingreleases at or near the surface in many parts of the state.Groundwater ContaminationThe <strong>groundwater</strong> contamination cases listed in this <strong>report</strong> have predominantly been documented throughregulatory requirements for compliance monitoring. The majority of the cases were identified by releasedetection monitoring in the TNRCC’s petroleum storage tank program. Further, the information in this <strong>report</strong>identifies <strong>groundwater</strong> contamination cases which have been documented through investigations in responseto <strong>groundwater</strong> contamination complaints. However, <strong>groundwater</strong> contamination is most commonly detectwhen site-specific <strong>groundwater</strong> monitoring is conducted at waste disposal of product storage sites.Groundwater contamination, as defined by the TGPC for this <strong>report</strong>, is the detrimental alteration of thenaturally occurring physical, thermal, chemical, or biological quality of <strong>groundwater</strong> reasonably suspected ofhaving been caused by the activities of entities under the jurisdiction of the agencies discussed within this<strong>report</strong>. The TGPC recognizes that <strong>groundwater</strong> contamination may result from many sources, includingcurrent and past oil and gas production and related practices, agricultural activities, industrial andmanufacturing processes, commercial and business endeavors, domestic activities, and natural sources thatmay be influenced by, or may result from, human activities. The contamination cases identified in this <strong>report</strong>are primarily those where contaminants have been discharged to the surface, to the shallow subsurface, ordirectly to <strong>groundwater</strong> from activities such as the storage, processing, transport, or disposal of products orwaste materials.There are 7,458 documented <strong>groundwater</strong> contamination cases contained in this <strong>report</strong>. These cases arepresented in a tabular format in the section entitled Groundwater Contamination Case Descriptions.Approximately 99 percent of the documented cases fall under the jurisdiction of the TNRCC. The remainderof the cases fall under the jurisdiction of the Railroad <strong>Commission</strong> of <strong>Texas</strong> (77 cases) and the <strong>groundwater</strong>conservation districts which make up the <strong>Texas</strong> Alliance of Groundwater Districts (20 cases). Of the 7,458cases, 121 are listed more than once. These duplicate case listings reflect separate agency actions at a distinctsite or multiple agency actions at sites with more than one source of <strong>groundwater</strong> contamination.The most common contaminants <strong>report</strong>ed include gasoline, diesel, and other petroleum products. This reflectsthe large number of contamination sites (98 percent of the documented cases) <strong>report</strong>ed by the TNRCC’spetroleum storage tank program. Less common contaminants include organic compounds (such as phenol,trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, dichloroethylene, and naphthalene), pesticides (such as alachlor,atrazine, bromacil, dicamba, and prometon), creosote constituents, solvents, heavy metals, and sodiumchloride.The <strong>report</strong> indicates the status of enforcement action for each case of <strong>groundwater</strong> contamination. Codesdescribing the enforcement status and the activity status are given for each contamination case. In general,regulatory programs are structured to achieve the desired degree of environmental protection at the lowestpossible level of agency oversight. The enforcement status code represents the level of agency proceduralaction in pursuing investigation and remediation.5
Page 5: Table of ContentsACRONYMS .........
Page 8 and 9: ACRONYMSAgencies, Divisions, and Pr
Page 10 and 11: The report further
Page 14 and 15: Describing an agency's enforcement
Page 16 and 17: Figure 2a. Groundwater Contaminatio
Page 19 and 20: GROUNDWATER PROTECTIONThe following
Page 21 and 22: core program compliance, thus provi
Page 23 and 24: ability to remove or treat all cont
Page 25 and 26: approach that will expedite remedia
Page 27 and 28: Reporting Unauthorized Discharges a
Page 29 and 30: county judges and county health ent
Page 31 and 32: USER’S GUIDEThe remaining portion
Page 33 and 34: Figure 3. Contamination Case Descri
Page 35 and 36: Figure 4. Enforcement Status Matrix
Page 37 and 38: Activity Status CodesOnce g
Page 39 and 40: GROUNDWATER PROTECTIONPROGRAM DESCR
Page 41 and 42: Status of Groundwater Monitoring Pr
Page 43 and 44: Industrial and Hazardous Waste Divi
Page 45 and 46: Since 1975, when the first Class II
Page 47 and 48: supplies from IHW's Class I Undergr
Page 49 and 50: 29 chemical parameters. Subsequent
Page 51 and 52: due to completed action from this a
Page 53 and 54: Status of Groundwater Monitoring Pr
Page 55 and 56: state agencies which have jurisdict
Page 57: systems have 8,131 entry points sup
Page 60: Figure 7. Texas Wa
Page 63 and 64:
The RCT also responds to citizen co
Page 65 and 66:
aquifers and stream baseflow. At th
Page 67 and 68:
Texas Department o
Page 69 and 70:
Texas State Soil a
Page 71 and 72:
Texas Alliance of
Page 73 and 74:
Prior to the plugging of six monito
Page 75 and 76:
egan a research study of the fresh
Page 77 and 78:
High Plains Underground Water Conse
Page 79 and 80:
Hill Country Underground Water Cons
Page 81 and 82:
An artesian brine aquifer called th
Page 83 and 84:
Plateau Underground Water Conservat
Page 85 and 86:
effort will allow the district to c
Page 87 and 88:
and methods to better evaluate wher
Page 89:
Texas Department o
Page 93 and 94:
Table 1Texas Natur
Page 95 and 96:
TABLE 1GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION CA
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 280 and 281:
Table 2Railroad Commission<
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 289 and 290:
Table 3Texas Allia
Page 291 and 292:
Page 294 and 295:
APPENDICESAppendix 1. Texas
Page 296 and 297:
Appendix 1. Texas
Page 298 and 299:
Texas State Soil a
Page 300 and 301:
Appendix 2. Texas
Page 302 and 303:
Appendix 3. Groundwater Classificat
Page 304 and 305:
Figure 15. Groundwater Classificati
Page 306 and 307:
Appendix 4. Texas
Page 308 and 309:
Appendix 5. TNRCC Spill Prevention
Page 310 and 311:
working days of the discovery of th
Page 312 and 313:
A-19
Page 314 and 315:
A-21
Page 316 and 317:
A-23
Page 318 and 319:
Appendix 7. Agency and District Con
Page 320 and 321:
Edwards Aquifer AuthorityEmerald Un
Page 322 and 323:
Appendix 8. Agency Central Records
Page 324 and 325:
Appendix 9. Other Reports and Publi
Page 326 and 327:
impact on the quality of the state'
Page 328:
This report docume
show all

joint groundwater report - Texas Commission on Environmental ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?