The Lehigh Valley Water Suppliers, Inc. is a non-profit, volunteer organization made up of 16 public water suppliers in the Lehigh Valley area. The group’s mission is to enhance and promote Valley-wide youth education efforts related to important water issues such as conservation, pollution prevention and watershed protection. The group’s activities over the past decade or so have been centered on National Drinking Water Week in May. Annual activities include a fund-raising golf tournament, distribution of educational materials to local elementary schools, a tapping contest, and a luncheon, which includes a taste-test contest. As is fitting for the first year of a new century, the Lehigh Valley Water Suppliers have recently partnered with DEP to develop ideas to raise the level of education our group is providing in the Lehigh Valley. At the core of this new program is HydroMania, an educational, fun festival that will give kids a hands-on look at why conservation and watershed protection are so important in our areas. HydroMania will be modeled after some of the successful festivals currently under operation, such as the groundwater festivals advocated by the Groundwater Foundation. HydroMania enhances the groundwater festival concept to include surface water issues and regional watershed issues. HydroMania will be coupled with resources provided to area school districts to help teachers round out their water education curriculum. While the program targets students in grades 6 and under, older students will be invited to participate as tour guides, demonstrators and program leaders. While the development of this festival in the Lehigh Valley is an exciting and momentous opportunity, the cornerstone of this project is in its statewide deployment. After the Lehigh Valley Water Suppliers have gathered adequate experience in producing events of this nature, guidelines will be developed for use by other watershed areas throughout the state to develop a HydroMania festival to fit their needs. Other sets of festival guidelines currently exist, but our intention is to provide assistance that is tailored for Pennsylvania watersheds and that encompasses the major surface water and groundwater issues our children will face in the future.

As with many other aspects of water resources management throughout the Commonwealth of PA, the question of "scale" at which the natural resources are monitored and managed is often open to debate. Chester County has been active in ground water management for many years through direct programs to monitor quality and quantity of ground water and streams in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey. Based on this experience, the advantages of "county level" involvement in ground water management are apparent. USGS/Chester County Cooperative programs have been underway for nearly 3 decades and include annual stream biological monitoring, continuous stream flow monitoring, monthly ground water level monitoring, annual ground water quality monitoring, ongoing ground water mapping, stream quality monitoring, and special investigations and interpretive studies (i.e., Elk Creeks Water Balance Study; Effects of Urbanization on Eastern Chester County; among many others). The thousands of data points and values that have been collected are now more readily understandable by the public through presentation in GIS form. CCWRA’s role for Chester County is to provide water resources information and planning for local land use and water use decisions. CCWRA serves to "translate" that information into usable, understandable information that can be directly applied to the day-to-day decisions of municipalities, planners, developers and regulators. By providing the sound science, Chester County can encourage scientifically-based planning of many major projects before they are submitted to regulators for approval, thus reducing the number of controversial projects brought forward. The role of CCWRA also promotes consensus based decision making among parties of diverse interests.

The role and benefits that counties can provide by taking an active role in ground water management are:

• Serve as "translator" of highly technical data for use by municipal officials, county agencies, and non-profit entities
• Monitor and interpret ground water conditions at a more meaningful scale
• Provide coordination in inter-state watersheds
• "Link/Coordinate" with federal/regional management & regulatory programs on behalf of local interests (coordinate drought management at the local level, evaluate impacts of proposed projects with regional implications, participate in water supply/wastewater disposal planning)
• Integrate ground water and watershed protection into land use management.

Commitments necessary for a county to become involved in ground water management include: Commitment of elected county officials to support the program; money (multi-year commitments); interest of public and municipalities to support the elected officials’ "political will" to continue the programs; technical county staff (i.e., hydrogeologist, hydrologist); and GIS water resources data management capabilities.

As required under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has developed an EPA-approved Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program to protect ground-water sources used by public water systems from contamination. The most technically-challenging aspect and focal point of local WHP efforts is the wellhead protection area (WHPA) delineation – essentially the contributing area for the water source.

Pennsylvania’s safe drinking water regulations (25 Pa. Code § 109.1) define a three-tiered WHPA. Zone I is the innermost protective zone which ranges from a 100 to 400 foot radius around the well depending on site-specific source and aquifer characteristics. A calculated fixed radius method is used to determine Zone I which for new wells must be owned or controlled by the water purveyor. Zone II is the zone of diversion (capture zone), which by default is a ½ mile radius around the source, unless a rigorous hydrogeologic delineation is performed. Zone III is the area beyond Zone II that contributes significant recharge to the aquifer within the capture zone. Zone III is important primarily in certain settings such as those involving losing streams and valley-fill aquifers that receive appreciable recharge from upland bedrock areas. Collectively, Zones II and III constitute the contributing area of a well which is typically not coincidental with the zone of influence.

Cooperative studies conducted by the USGS (Risser and Madden, 1994; Risser and Barton, 1995; Barton and others, 1999) to evaluate WHPA delineation methods for the diverse hydrogeologic settings in Pennsylvania (dominated by fractured bedrock) determined that delineation should not be method-driven. The investigations have yielded a strategy that involves the formulation of a conceptual ground-water flow model (hydrogeologic framework, boundary conditions, internal aquifer properties) to identify the major features controlling ground-water flow to the well followed by selection of an appropriate delineation method to account for those features with subsequent refinement as more site-specific data becomes available. The selection and application of a delineation method must also be justified in terms of the method assumptions, any violations of the assumptions and whether the deviations are significant or negligible for the given site.

While the strategy focuses on the technical aspects, socioeconomic factors may also need to be considered during the delineation process. WHPA delineation must also be commensurate with the intended management approaches for the protection area. Local regulatory WHPA management options (i.e., land-use controls) would require rigorous delineation to withstand legal challenges and ensure that "sound land-use planning" is scientifically-based. However, more simplistic delineations would be suitable for local WHPA management involving non-regulatory approaches (education, monitoring, etc.).

Polluted drainage from coal mines has impacted ~4,000 km of stream and is the single greatest source of pollution in Pennsylvania. Most of this pollution predates the changes to Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law, which in 1965 prohibited, for the first time, the discharge of polluted mine drainage into the waters of the Commonwealth. Prior to 1966, an estimated 50% of mines resulted in acid mine drainage. The law eventually evolved to require that permit applicants demonstrate that a proposed mine would not result in pollution. At the time this law was enacted, the science of mine drainage prediction was barely embryonic. As mine drainage prevention and prediction science matured, better permitting decisions were made and these have resulted in fewer and fewer bad permits being issued. Currently only about one percent of permits issued result in polluted discharges. This success is attributable to Pennsylvania’s "holistic" approach to mine drainage prediction, in which a variety of tools are used to achieve the best predictive results. The tools include evaluations of acid-base accounting (a comparison between abundances of acidity-producing and alkalinity-producing minerals); geologic rules of thumb (e.g., Allegheny Group sandstones are often acid producing); natural background water quality (e.g., alkaline water implies calcareous overburden); and water quality from historic mining on the same coal seams. Additionally, mine operators employ a variety of pollution prevention techniques, such as alkaline addition, selective handling of overburden, water management, special reclamation techniques, and remining. Permit decisions also consider the sensitivity of the resource to be protected and the precision of the prediction and prevention techniques. For example, overburden quality that may result in an iron of 7 mg/L and a sulfate of 500 mg/L may be perfectly acceptable for a remining site (in fact it may be an improvement over existing water quality). This same water, however, would not generally be acceptable for a mine proposed on a public water supply watershed.

Information concerning the impacts of ground water withdrawals on base flow is needed to manage the development of water resources. However, quantifying the impact of ground water withdrawals in fractured bedrock aquifers has proven difficult. This study utilizes historical ground water withdrawal and stream flow monitoring data to quantify the impact of ground water withdrawals on stream flow in a 3.7 square mile part of the Ironworks Creek watershed, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Hydrographs of stream discharge for the Ironworks Creek were compared to hydrographs for the Pauanacussing Creek and a portion of the Pennypack Creek, which have similar hydrologic characteristics. Precipitation data for all three watersheds were statistical evaluated and ground water withdrawal quantities, and surface water discharge locations and quantities were also evaluated for each watershed. Results indicate that withdrawals from the Ironworks Creek watershed reduce stream flows by an amount equivalent to the total net ground water withdrawal.

Under Pennsylvania’s Land Recycling Act (Act 2), the process for the investigation and remediation of contaminant events is centered around proper Site Characterization. The Site Characterization can be thought of as the process to complete a Site Conceptual Model (SCM). The goal of this SCM is to construct a predictable representation of the interaction of a contaminant release with the subsurface hydrogeologic environment. This allows for completion of an Exposure Assessment to determine potential risks associated with a given contaminant release. From the Exposure Assessment, remediation requirements are identified. The foundation for constructing the SCM is the hydrogeologic framework. The regional hydrogeologic setting of the site will define the types, extent and characteristics of subsurface soils, geologic formations and groundwater conditions present. The Site Conceptual Model should include an understanding of the regional hydrogeologic framework in order to identify the types of geologic and hydrogeologic features and conditions that will control site conditions. Site specific information regarding contaminant sources, impacts and distribution can be interpreted with the understanding of site hydrogeologic condition to predict migration routes and identify potential impacts. The SCM is complete when the release or potential release of contaminants from identified sources can be evaluated to predict impacts from migration pathways to potential receptors. A key to the success of predicting contaminant migration and to the design of remediation systems is understanding the distribution of contaminant mass in the Site Conceptual Model. This presentation will review the components of the SCM and illustrate the significant role of hydrogeologic characterization in the SCM process. This will include examples of applying regional hydrogeologic information to the SCM as well as samples of site geologic condition that controlled the dynamics of the SCM. Throughout the presentation, application of the SCM to the Act 2 Site Characterization process will be highlighted.

Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. Offices in: New Jersey – Pennsylvania – New York – Connecticut – Florida. Langan’s integrated engineering and environmental services approach provides practical solutions for site remediation, industrial site redevelopment, waterfront rehabilitation and environmental permitting/compliance issues. The firm specializes in risk-based site remediation and closure for UST, MGP, Voluntary Cleanup, Brownfields, RCRA and Superfund projects.

Water protection is one of those intangibles that very few people oppose in principle, but which can be very difficult to implement when it comes to a specific case. This is especially true depending on the extent or aggressiveness of a particular plan and the number of municipalities and players that can be involved. In many cases the water source to be protected is the responsibility of one organization (municipality, authority, investor-owned water company) while the area to be protected lies in one or more municipalities which may or may not be served by the water system.

This presentation will address techniques that have been successful in previous ground water protection programs. Some of the points to be addressed include:

• Establishing basic knowledge of wells, aquifers, and wellheads, in layman's terms.
• Early "preliminary" definition of the likely area to be protected.
• Steering committee representation.
• Being able to relate to what a Zone 1 area can encompass.
• Impact on Zone 2 of modeling versus use of the default one-half mile radius.
• Role of existing planning in ground water protection.
• Benefits to all persons within a protected area.
• Emphasize that a wide range of options are available.
• Who "sells" the concept to the potential participants.
• How do you measure success.

The final point to be address will discuss the need for Patience and Perseverance to develop and implement a ground water protection plan.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to began the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program in 1991 to assess the water-quality conditions of more than 50 of the Nation's largest river basins and aquifers, known as Study Units. The program is designed to help meet the continuing need for sound, scientific information on the areal extent of the water-quality problems, how these problems are changing with time, and an understanding of the effects of human actions and natural factors on water-quality conditions. The Lower Susquehanna River basin NAWQA project was one of those study units started in 1991. Data collection included surface-water chemistry and ecology and ground-water chemistry. Wells were sampled for contaminants such as nutrients, pesticides, bacteria, volatile organic compounds, and radon. Results of the sampling of 169 wells in various settings throughout the Lower Susquehanna River Basin are presented herein. Water from wells in agricultural areas underlain by limestone and crystalline bedrock commonly exceeded the USEPA MCL for nitrate in drinking water. Water from wells in urban areas underlain by limestone bedrock and in forested and agricultural areas underlain by sandstone and shale had nitrate concentrations that seldom exceeded the MCL. Concentrations of pesticides in water from the wells and streams sampled rarely exceeded levels established as drinking-water standards. More than 60 percent of well-water samples in which pesticides were present contained more than one detectable pesticide. Detections of pesticides in water were related to pesticide use, pesticide-leaching potential, and bedrock type. Pesticides were most likely to be detected in samples from agricultural and urban areas. Limestone areas were far more likely to have pesticides in well water than areas underlain by sandstone and shale. Total coliform bacteria were detected in water from nearly 70 percent of the household wells sampled, indicating that the water should not be used for drinking without treatment. Fecal coliform and Escherichia coli, bacteria that indicate contamination from human or animal feces, were detected in water from 25 and 30 percent, respectively, of the wells tested. In the Great Valley near Harrisburg, Pa., volatile organic compounds were detected more frequently from wells in an urban area than wells in an agricultural area. Radon, a product of the radioactive decay of uranium, is present in ground water throughout the Lower Susquehanna River Basi.

The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization requires (under Section 1453) that states develop a Source Water Assessment and Protection (SWAP) Program. The SWAP program will assess the drinking water sources that serve public water systems (PWS) for their susceptibility to pollution. In Pennsylvania, this represents about 14,000 permanent drinking water sources that will need to be assessed. EPA approved Pennsylvania’s SWAP Program on March 24, 2000; therefore, the source water assessments (SWA) will need to be completed in September, 2003. To avoid duplication and increase efficiency, Congress urged states to make use of state wellhead protection programs. Pennsylvania’s Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program was approved by EPA in March 1999 and serves as the cornerstone of the SWAP Program. The assessments will include delineation of the assessment area, an inventory of the potential sources of contamination in that area and an analysis of the susceptibility of the drinking water source to contamination. EPA has set a national goal for the year 2005 that 50 percent of the population served by public drinking water will receive water from sources covered by source water protection programs. These are assessments of the raw water quality, not assessments of finished water compliance. The State is to use all reasonably available data to delineate the source water assessment areas and complete the assessments. Source water assessments for the high priority surface water sources serving community water systems (CWS) will be conducted through contracted services or grants. DEP staff will conduct assessments for CWS ground water sources serving a population of 3300 or more and low priority surface water sources. Low priority surface water sources are those under 100 sq. mi., over 90 percent forested and with few potential sources of contamination. The ground-water sources of public water systems serving less than 3,300 will be initially assessed using readily available data through DEP’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS) contract. The most important purpose for conducting the source water assessments as identified by Congress is to support the development of local, voluntary, source water protection programs. DEP’s plan includes measures to support and promote development and implementation of these plans. Local, source water protection programs for surface water sources will be supported in a similar way to WHP with public education, program promotions, local grants for protection program development and implementation, federal and state agency coordination, and technical assistance.

The PA Geological Survey has information regarding about 400,000 wells in Pennsylvania. This information will be used in combination with data gathered during the 1990 census, to illustrate Pennsylvania’s dependence on ground water - particularly private water supply wells. The census estimated that 978,000 households (20%) in Pennsylvania use individual water wells. With 10,000 or more domestic wells being constructed each year, it is estimated that nearly 1.1 million households now depend upon domestic water wells. A GIS will be used to render a municipality-level picture of the resulting demand placed on Pennsylvania’s ground-water resource.

Many decisions regarding the management of groundwater resources rely upon our ability to predict certain effects of site development, facility operation, or resource utilization projects. Soluble bedrock (karst) settings may present a challenging set of heterogeneous conditions in which conventional predictive techniques may be inadequate. An understanding of the physical nature of the karst subsurface can be useful a) to improve the reliability of predictions and b) to develop a realistic appreciation of inherent uncertainties in predictions of groundwater behavior in karst terrain. It is important to be aware of the underlying assumptions and theoretical or mathematical limitations of predictive groundwater models when utilized in karst settings.

Examples of environmental program areas in which karst phenomena may be significant include:

• Waste management (stability of liner systems; groundwater quality monitoring)
• Environmental cleanup (source identification, assessment of contaminant fate and transport, risk-based corrective action)
• Wastewater management (low-flow estimation; Act 537 assessments)
• Potable water supply (surface water influence; well yield; wellhead protection; groundwater withdrawal effects upon adjacent water resources)
• Mining (dewatering; water supply diminution/degradation)
• Stormwater management (pre- and post-development runoff calculations; stability of channels and impoundments)
• Contingency planning (industrial and hazardous materials; oil spill prevention)

A variety of techniques can reduce the degree of uncertainty regarding the behavior of groundwater flow systems in karst terrain. The results of such studies should include a sensitivity analysis (i.e., self-appraisal of potential areas of uncertainty), which can be either informal or formal in scope.

Converse Consultants (Converse) is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Converse Professional Group (CPG) and a member of the Converse Family of Companies. Converse began practicing geotechnical engineering and the environmental sciences about 1950 under the name Joseph S. Ward, Inc. A merger of established East and West Coast firms in 1978 brought about the evolution to the current name of Converse Consultants. The Converse family of companies has performed geotechnical investigations and analyses of soil and rock conditions for more than 30,000 projects in the United States and about 30 foreign countries. The projects have been diverse, ranging over a wide spectrum of natural and man-imposed conditions. Converse performs hundreds of geotechnical and environmental projects each year. These projects include a variety of studies including: airports, railroads, tunnels, bridges, waterfront structures, highways, parking structures, earth embankments, rock and soil excavations, landfills, geotechnical problems, contamination studies and abatement, and many other types of projects.

Since 1985, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has collected ground water quality data in an ambient ground water monitoring program. The monitoring has included 35 ground water basins in southeastern Pennsylvania. In 17 of those basins, DEP has monitored ground water quality on a semi-annual basis. Some of the basins have been monitored since 1985. Analytes have included 27 different substances or parameters including nutrients, basic chemistry, and metals. Monitoring points are typically homeowner wells or springs. Trend analysis was performed on water quality data for 21 analytes from 419 monitoring points in southeastern Pennsylvania. The Kendall Tau nonparametric test was used to analyze for trends at the 0.05 significance level. The trend analyses suggest that ground water quality is undergoing some change. Although natural shifts probably can account for some of the variation, it is most likely that human activities are affecting the ground water quality on a regional scale. Nine analytes were determined to have either upward or downward trends at over 20 percent of the monitoring points. These included alkalinity, TDS, nitrate, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride and sulfate. Sodium and chloride had upward trends at over 30 percent of the monitoring points. Exact causes of the ground water quality trends are difficult to specify. Different areas of southeastern Pennsylvania are obviously under different combinations of stresses. In some cases, only general inferences can be made from the data. Nevertheless, notable downward trends in nitrate and sulfate at many monitoring points may be the result of reduction in sources of those substances. Potential causes include diminished agricultural areas (manure and fertilizer application), improvements in sewage treatment and a decrease in atmospheric deposition. Phosphorus was determined to be decreasing in nearly 14 percent of the monitoring points, and may be related to reduction in the use of phosphate detergents. Increases in TDS, chloride, calcium, potassium, total hardness and sodium at many monitoring points may be the result of increased nonpoint source pollution such as road salting and runoff from sprawling paved developments and suburbs.

Since the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1963, regulation of fuel and fuel additives have been authorized by Congress. Subsequent amendments to the CAA in 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990 have progressively expanded that authorization. Among other things, the 1990 amendments have reformulated gasoline (RFG) provisions that require the sale of RFG in certain ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas in the United States. Over 85% of RFG contains the oxygenate methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) which is derived from natural gas and approximately 8% contains ethanol which is derived from biomass (usually grain or corn). The federal RFG program has provided substantial reductions in the emissions of a number of air pollutants from motor vehicles, most notably volatile organic compounds (precursors of ozone), carbon monoxide, and air toxics (like benzene) in most cases resulting in emissions reductions that exceed those required by law. Despite these emission reductions, there are concerns over the use of MTBE. In 1993, the state of Alaska contended that MTBE causes nausea, headaches, and other health effects. More recently between 5% and 10% of drinking water supplies in high RFG-use areas show at least detectable amounts of MTBE. The great majority of these detections have been well below levels of public health concern; however, concerns have been raised relating to taste and odor, and increased costs relating to treatment and remediation. There is also evidence of contamination of surface waters, particularly during summer boating seasons. Since these concerns surfaced, EPA, the states, industry, the public health community, and citizens-at-large have debated the use of MTBE in gasoline. A blue ribbon panel convened by EPA has concluded that MTBE should be reduced substantially in gasoline. The World Health Organization has concluded that MTBE is unlikely to cause problems in the general population. California seeks to phase down and ban MTBE. Mobile Oil Company has paid $2 million to settle an MTBE drinking water suit. These and other public health and policy issues related to MTBE contaminated groundwater will be addressed. This presentation will broadly address MTBE and groundwater issues in the United States. It is developed for a general audience with a non-technical background. Those seeking a more focused technical discussion of these issues would probably not benefit from attending this presentation.

"As the Nation’s concerns over water resources and the environment increase, the importance of considering ground water and surface water as a single resource has become increasingly evident." This statement, from a recent USGS publication, certainly applies to the existing and emerging water-supply and water-quality issues in Pennsylvania. Whether the concern is source-water protection, drought management, wetland preservation, in-stream needs for aquatic habitat, spring-water withdrawals, or total maximum daily loads, an understanding of the interactions of ground water and surface water is needed for resource management. This presentation offers a perspective on the interrelationships between ground water, surface water, and water quality by providing some observations from USGS and other studies regarding these connections. Examples from field studies illustrate the importance of understanding the ground-water flow system when evaluating water quality in wells and streams. Ground-water flow models of hypothetical and real aquifers show how ground-water withdrawals can affect surface-water resources. Special emphasis is given to the concept that the quantity of water withdrawn by a well ultimately is balanced by an increase in the natural recharge to the ground-water system and/or a decrease in the natural discharge from the system. Both mechanisms result in a reduction of streamflow, but each may provide water of different quality to the well.

Karst groundwater systems can exhibit different flow types over a short area. For example, travel times may be much faster, and flow may be affected strongly by storm events. As a result contaminants may be stored and released suddenly. It is difficult to characterize karst systems and protect them from contamination. We used a variety of techniques to characterize karst systems in order to try to provide information for a well-head protection program near Lititz, PA. We used a combination of tracer tests, long term monitoring of geochemistry, temperature and water levels, geophysics, and modeling to contrast different types of karst flow, both diffuse and conduit. A dye tracer test was conducted in a sinkhole about 1/3 mile from a major spring in the area. Samples at the spring were collected every 15 minutes for 18 hours. Dye was detected at low concentrations in the spring, indicating discharge comes from a broad catchment. The estimated travel time to the spring was 0.03 m/s. Unexpectedly, dye also showed up in a local well that was originally believed to be upgradient (using a regional flow map) from the dye injection. The dye arrived at this location shortly after a storm event, and reached concentrations more than 100x higher than at the spring. These two locations, the spring and the well, became the focus of long-term monitoring to distinguish whether conduit or diffuse flow dominated at either location. Cation and anion concentrations are constant seasonally at Lititz spring, indicating a diffuse flow system. Cations decrease at the Buch well seasonally, showing a conduit response. However, the variation was greater in the Spring than in the Fall. The coefficient of variation was 2-3 times greater at the well than at the spring; it was 3 times greater in the Spring than in the Fall at the well. An empirical relationship between variation and residence time shows the well has a residence time of 2 days and the spring has a residence time of 9 days. Temperature varied little at either site, and no distinct conduit was identified from a limited geophysical survey near the well. Groundwater modeling, using the USGS software Modflow, examined how various types of karst conduit networks can lead to different sizes of source areas for wellhead protection. The modeling showed how much larger wellhead source protection area is created by a well-connected and expansive conduit system compared with only a localized karst conduit system. The overall lack of springs and surface water features combined with field data support evidence of only localized conduit flow passages within the watershed. Tracer tests alone may not be the best way to delineate groundwater protection source areas in karst systems with a relatively localized karst conduit system. This study shows that characterization in karst systems needs to be site specific and that continuous monitoring of flow and geochemistry characteristics can be used in addition to tracer tests in delineating source protection areas.

Naturally occurring radionuclides in the ground water of southeastern Pennsylvania may pose a health hazard to some residents, especially those drinking water from wells drilled in the Chickies Quartzite. Water from 46 percent of wells sampled in the Chickies Quartzite and 7 percent of wells sampled in other formations exceeded the USEPA MCL for total radium (defined by the USEPA as radium-226 plus radium-228). All water samples from the Chickies Quartzite with a pH less than 4.7 exceeded the MCL for total radium. Recent sampling data shows that radium-224 and gross alpha particle activities may also be elevated in water with elevated activities of radium-228. Radon-222 may pose a health problem for homeowners by contributing to indoor air radon-222 levels. The median radon-222 activity in water samples from 912 wells was 1,400 pCi/L (picoCuries per liter). The radon-222 activity of water from 89 percent of sampled wells exceeded 300 pCi/L, the proposed USEPA MCL, and water from 16 percent of sampled wells exceeded 4,000 pCi/L, the proposed USEPA alternative MCL. Uranium does not appear to be present in elevated concentrations in ground water in southeastern Pennsylvania.

All groundwater is local. Groundwater protection depends on the interest and commitment of citizens and their local officials. The WREN project and the Groundwater Guardian community recognition program both attempt to support and encourage local groups working to protect community water resources.

Since Pennsylvania has not assumed primacy for the Underground Injection Control Program, USEPA Region 3 administers this program in the Commonwealth. The Underground Injection Control regulations are set forth in 40CFR Parts 144-148. The regulations are promulgated under authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) for protection of ground water for drinking, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) relating to disposal of hazardous wastes, and the Clean Water Act (CWA) relating to discharges to storm drains and protection of surface waters. The regulations identify five classes of injection wells (Section 144.6).

They are:

• Class I. Injection of hazardous wastes beneath the lowest formation contained within ¼ mile of the well bore, an underground source of drinking water.
• Class II. Wells which inject fluids which are brought to the surface in connection with natural gas storage or conventional oil or natural gas production.
• Class III. Wells which inject fluids for extraction of minerals
• Class IV. Injection of wastes into formations or above formations which within ¼ mile contain an underground source of drinking water.
• Class V. All those not specified in Classes I, II, III and IV. These are normally the shallow disposal systems (i.e. sumps, septic tanks, dry wells) that place a variety of fluids below the land surface, into or above underground sources of drinking water.

The majority of injection wells in Pennsylvania fall into the Class II, IV, and V categories. Class II wells are associated mainly with oil and gas production and brine disposal and for the most part are located in the northwestern and western parts of the state. Class V wells are cosmopolitan and their locations are established mainly through ongoing field investigations and inspections by EPA and EPA contract personnel. Dependent on the types of wastes identified with these wells, some are ultimately classified as Class IV. Facilities selected for Class V inspection are those which produce wastes which could adversely affect ground water and drinking water quality if not properly handled, stored and disposed. These include vehicle maintenance type facilities, auto salvage facilities, photo processing shops, dry cleaners, food processing plants, manufacturing businesses, electronics manufacturing plants, pharmaceutical plants, chemical plants, electroplaters, printers, etc. Inspections include examination of records and documents relating to disposal of wastes generated on-site. Waste storage areas are inspected for signs of spillage, leaks and proximity to floor drains. Floor drains are inspected for obvious signs of improper disposal of wastes and the final discharge point. Educational materials on the UIC program are provided to all inspected facilities. When the investigation documents violations of regulations, appropriate actions are initiated. These include issuance of a Notice of Violation with instructions for corrective measures such as sealing of floor drains, and monitoring. In some cases, remediation and clean-up may be required.

A study was conducted to qualify the potential impacts on ground water resources by the land surface discharge of produced water from the shallow oil well operations in northwestern Pennsylvania. The motivation for the study was to determine if this historical practice and economically attractive produced water management methodology favored by many oil producers was detrimental to ground water.

Ten individual operating oil well sites were selected in the shallow oil fields of Venango County that;

1. Had a minimum of ten (10) years of continuous operation.
2. Produced water was discharged directly to the land surface or into unlined pits adjacent to the well.
3. Had a clearly defined topographic gradient.
4. Had a well operator or owner who would cooperate and participate with the study.

A total of 51 monitoring wells were installed at the ten locations and were designed and located to monitor ground water conditions upgradient and downgradient from the point of discharge in both the shallow (water table) and next deeper aquifer. The monitoring wells were sampled during a wet period of the year when rapid ground water recharge was occurring (April, 1996) and during a dry period of the year when water tables were low (July 1995). All ground water and soil moisture samples as well as produced water samples from each well were tested for the major chloride salt compounds, heavy metals, selected organic compounds and general chemical parameters. Seven of the ten well sites evaluated exhibited significant shallow ground water impacts as defined by chloride concentrations in excess of the drinking water standards of 250 mg/l. Similarly, three of the ten sites exhibited significant impacts to the next deeper ground water aquifer. With the exception of iron, manganese and barium, which occurred in increased concentrations in the downgradient wells at six of the ten sites, heavy metal migration was not documented. Oil and grease concentrations increased in four of the sites, while no increases in benzene concentrations were documented at any of the ten sites.