A. 
Federal guidelines.
(1) 
The SDWA Amendments of 1986 and other federal regulations which govern wellhead protection do not establish specifically what should or should not be regulated as part of local programs. Rather, federal regulations seek to establish a partnership among local, state and federal governments.
(2) 
State governments are assigned the responsibility to develop a "statewide" wellhead protection program which must be approved by US EPA. The statewide program must provide technical guidance for WHPA delineations and establish specific regulations for contamination source controls and management. Some states (i.e., Maryland, New Jersey, and West Virginia) are currently developing programs which will require mandatory wellhead protection for public water systems.
B. 
Guidelines of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
(1) 
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania recently released regulations which require wellhead protection measures of community systems utilizing new wells, springs, or infiltration galleries. For each new water source, communities must establish a DEP-approved Zone 1 protection area with a fixed radius of 100 feet to 400 feet. In addition, communities are encouraged to establish wellhead protection programs which include the following:
(a) 
Organization of a steering committee to oversee the establishment and implementation of the program.
(b) 
Development of public participation and education activities.
(c) 
delineation of Zone 2 and Zone 3 protection areas which protect the water source from contamination.
(d) 
Identification of existing and potential sources of contamination within each protection area.
(e) 
Development and implementation of wellhead protection area management approaches to protect the water supply source from activities that may contaminate the source.
(f) 
Contingency planning for the provision of alternate water supplies in the event of contamination of a water source and emergency responses to incidents that may impact water supply source quality.
(g) 
New water supply source siting provisions to ensure the protection of new water sources.
(2) 
PA DEP does not require that wellhead protection programs be developed for existing public water supply sources; however, PA DEP does encourage and support these programs. In addition, PA DEP will review the WHPA program, provide technical support assisting in WHPA delineations and provide recommendations concerning the management program. Acer[1] contacted PA DEP and informed it of the Authority's developing wellhead protection program.
[1]
Editor's Note: "Acer" refers to Acer Engineers & Consultants, Inc.
C. 
Zones of protection. The US EPA and PA DEP recommend that zones of protection be established to regulate activities in the region of the wellhead. Common practice is to establish three zones, each determined by hydrogeologic characteristics of the wellhead, the aquifer that supplies the well, and the region that affects the aquifer.
(1) 
Zone 1 is a fixed radius around the well or wellfield that is dependent upon the pump rate. The recommended size of this zone is 100 feet to 400 feet in radius. For this project, a radius of 400 feet was used due to source and aquifer characteristics.
(2) 
Zone 2 represents the zone of contribution (ZOC) which is based upon hydrogeologic modeling and is represented by the area affected by a pumping well. The "ZOC" is defined by EPA as the area surrounding a pumping well that encompasses all areas or features that supply groundwater recharge to the well.
(3) 
Zone 3 represents the area which contributes surface water and groundwater to the Zone 2 area.
D. 
Management approaches. The three protection zones are used to establish regulatory and management controls. Zone 1 represents the land area which should be most heavily controlled by the municipality. Less stringent controls should be developed for Zone 2 and Zone 3 areas. A detailed discussion of management approaches is provided in § 122-4.
A. 
The Vaughn Well and Graver Spring draw water from the Cambrian age limestones of the Zooks Corner and Buffalo Springs Formations. An arbitrary fixed radius of 400 feet was applied to the well as Zone 1. Zone 2 was delineated utilizing the semianalytical WHPA Flow Model (Version 2.0, U.S. EPA, 1991), based on the MWCAP solution. Zone 3 was mapped hydrogeologically based upon consideration of watershed boundaries and geologic structure.
B. 
The WHPA groundwater flow model used for the Zone 2 delineation is a semianalytical, particle tracking program. The delineation criteria for Zone 2 was established as the ten-year time-of-travel (TOT) capture zone. Some of the model's assumptions are partially violated in the hydrogeologic setting which underlies the East Petersburg area as a result of widespread fracturing of the groundwater flow system resulting in conditions that cannot be assumed to be homogeneous or isotropic. Contributing fractures to a well can provide avenues for major contributions of water and relatively rapid movement of contaminants. Zone 3 encompasses the Zone 2 delineations and contributing areas to account for the uncertainties of structural fractures. Figure 2 shows the WHPA delineations for the Vaughn Well and the Graver Spring.[1] A more detailed description of the delineation procedures is described in the following subsections:
(1) 
Vaughn Well WHPA delineation.
(a) 
Based upon pumping test records and well driller logs, the Vaughn Well is 400 feet in depth, has a diameter of eight inches, and has a maximum sustainable yield of 300 gallons per minute (gpm). It should be noted that the average pumping rate of the well is significantly less than the maximum yield of 300 gpm.
(b) 
The MWCAP solution of the WHPA Flow Model was used to calculate the Zone 2 protection area. The aquifer parameters used to run the model are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Aquifer Parameters for the Vaughn Well
Depth (feet)
400
Diameter (inch)
8
Well yield (gpm)
300
Hydraulic gradient (dimensionless)
0.03
Transmissivity (feet2/day)
500
Angle of ambient flow (degrees)
250
Aquifer porosity (dimensionless)
0.09
Aquifer thickness (feet)
200
(c) 
These parameters have been determined based upon pumping test records and published information. The model output is the ZOC of the well and represents the Zone 2 protection area. Since Zone 2 area is a topographic high, Zone 3 was expanded to incorporate the Zone 2 area as well as to include structural fractures.
(2) 
Graver Spring WHPA delineation. Delineating the zone of contribution for a spring requires a different delineation technique than for a pumping well. A combination of geologic and surface contributing area mapping was utilized to determine the Zone 2 and Zone 3 protection areas.
[1]
Editor's Note: Figure 2 is on file in the Borough offices.
Land use activities can pose a wide range of pollution threats to a water supply. Specific activities such as the use of hazardous substances, underground storage of petroleum products, municipal and industrial waste disposal, and agricultural practices are of particular concern. This section describes land uses and specific activities which pose significant threats to the EPBA's water supplies.[1]
A. 
Overview of contamination sources.
(1) 
Table 2 provides an overview of land uses likely to be encountered within the WHPAs and their relative risk to groundwater. The higher risks include activities which store or dispose of hazardous chemicals. There are lists of hundreds of chemicals and substances which are considered "hazardous" by federal and state governmental agencies. The most common hazardous materials likely to be used within the WHPAs include cleaning solvents, petroleum products (i.e., fuels and lubricants), paints, thinners, stripping agents, and industrial waste liquids or sludges.
(2) 
These materials enter groundwater through accidental spills, leaks from storage tanks, discharge into septic tanks or floor drains connected to a dry well, or illegally dumped in a waste area. Even when a high-risk land use is taking proper precautions, some of the hazardous materials can easily be spilled and enter the groundwater through surface runoff. Therefore, the high risks listed in Table 2 are not necessarily "bad" businesses but rather high risks.
(3) 
These high risk land uses are often referred to as "point sources" of pollution because they originate from a single source (i.e., storage tank, drain, discharge pipe, etc.) which can release a substantial amount of contamination to groundwater resources. The low-risk land uses include activities with potential to release small amounts of contamination over large areas and are often referred to as "nonpoint sources" because the pollution does not originate from a single source (i.e., agricultural practices, nonsewered areas, etc.). Nevertheless, nonpoint sources of contamination are a concern to the communities because small amounts of contamination released over a long period of time can adversely impact groundwater resources. Common water quality concerns associated with nonpoint contamination sources include excessive nitrate levels, pesticides, sedimentation, and surface water contamination (i.e., road salts, bacteria, etc.).
Table 2
Land Uses and Their Relative Risk to Groundwater
Low risk
1.
Land surrounding a well or reservoir, owned by a municipality
2.
Permanent open space dedicated to passive recreation
3.
Federal, state, municipal, private parks and forests
4.
Woodlands managed for forest products
5.
Permanent open space dedicated to active recreation
6.
Field crops: pasture, hay, grains, vegetables
7.
Low-density residential: lots larger than two acres
8.
Churches, municipal offices
Medium risk
1.
Agricultural production: dairy, livestock, poultry, nurseries, orchards, berries
2.
Golf course, quarries
3.
Medium-density residential: lots from 1/2 acre to one acre
4.
Institutional uses: schools, hospitals, nursing homes, prisons, garages, salt storage, sewage treatment facilities
5.
High-density housing: lots smaller than 1/2 acre
6.
Commercial uses: limited hazardous material storage
High risk
1.
Retail commercial: gasoline, farm equipment, automotive sales and service, dry cleaners, photo processor, medical arts, furniture strippers, machine shops, radiator repair, printers, fuel oil distributors
2.
Industrial: all forms of manufacturing and processing, research facilities
3.
Underground storage of chemicals, petroleum
4.
Waste disposal: pits, ponds, lagoons, injection wells used for waste disposal, bulky waste and domestic garbage landfills, hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal sites
B. 
Community inventory of potential contamination sources. The inventory of potential contamination sources within the WHPAs focuses on general land uses within the WHPAs rather than on specific industrial facilities, storage areas, etc. The purpose of the land use inventory is to provide the Township with a general understanding of potential threats to groundwater and the amount of available undeveloped and vacant land which may represent potential for new contamination sources. This understanding provides a basis for reasonable decisions concerning the type of management tools to be included as part of the EPBA's program to control and manage wellhead protection areas. The following subsections provide an overview of existing contamination sources in each of the EPBA's wellhead protection areas:
(1) 
Vaughn Well WHPA.
(a) 
The Vaughn Well WHPA includes mixed residential and commercial development located within East Petersburg Borough and adjacent areas in East Hempfield Township, as shown in Figure 3.[2] The residential and commercial development located within this WHPA is served by public sewer and water facilities. There is also a significant amount of agricultural land in East Hempfield Township.
[2]
Editor's Note: Figure 3 is on file in the Borough offices.
(b) 
There are a number of facilities which represent potential sources of contamination, including underground fuel oil storage tanks, retail sales and service companies, dry cleaners, garages and service stations, and metalworking companies.
(c) 
The most significant existing threat to the water supply is the Fulton Bank Operations Center. Prior to Fulton Bank, this facility was owned and operated by Hamilton Watch. Acer[3] is aware of the existence of historical accounts of hazardous waste discharges and that several hydrogeologic studies have been performed which reportedly identified contamination. According to a representative of Fulton Bank, a five-year cleanup project is currently being performed to remove contaminated soil. It is likely that any contaminant plume located at this facility will migrate towards the Vaughn Well.
[3]
Editor's Note: Acer Engineers & Consultants, Inc.
(d) 
Other significant threats to the water supply include the agricultural operations in East Hempfield Township and the possibility that this area could be developed. Another concern is groundwater withdrawal by the Hodecker Celery Farm for irrigation purposes. According to the modeling procedure described in § 122-2, this groundwater withdrawal will interfere with the Vaughn Well. Finally, there is also a significant threat to the water supply from fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides associated with lawn and garden care.
(2) 
Graver Spring WHPA.
(a) 
The Graver Spring WHPA includes mixed residential, commercial, and agricultural areas located in Manheim Township, as shown in Figure 4.[4] The majority of the residential and commercial development is served by public sewer and water facilities. However, there are some areas which are served by on-lot wastewater disposal facilities and on-site wells.
[4]
Editor's Note: Figure 4 is on file in the Borough offices.
(b) 
Based upon surveys performed by Acer,[5] the most significant source of potential contamination to the Graver Spring is associated with construction activities for new development. Construction activities may cause significant changes in surface water infiltration and may cause increased turbidity at the spring. Other sources of contamination include industrial operations in the Flyway Industrial Park and agricultural operations. There is also a significant threat to the water supply from fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides associated with lawn and garden care.
[5]
Editor's Note: Acer Engineers & Consultants, Inc.
[1]
Editor's Note: EPBA refers to the East Petersburg Borough Authority.
A. 
The review of existing and potential new contamination sources within the EPBA's wellhead protection areas identified a wide range of threats to the water supply. This section describes management tools which have been used by other communities throughout the country to successfully protect wellhead areas. These management tools include the following:
(1) 
Zoning and land use controls.
(2) 
Purchase of property or development rights.
(3) 
Groundwater monitoring.
(4) 
Public educational programs.
(5) 
Environmental management programs.
(6) 
Contingency and emergency response planning.
B. 
The purpose of this discussion is to introduce these management tools, explain how they have been used in the past, and how they may assist the EPBA in protecting wellhead areas.
C. 
Zoning and land use controls.
(1) 
Areas which are zoned conservation, agricultural, and low-density residential are more compatible with groundwater protection than areas zoned medium- and high-density residential, commercial, and industrial. Zoning and land use controls are tools to restrict new potential contamination sources from being located within WHPAs by "downzoning" undeveloped areas. Downzoning refers to changing an established zone to a less intensive (i.e., lower allowable development density) use than the originally designated use. For example, undeveloped areas within WHPAs which are zoned commercial or industrial could be down zoned to low-density residential or agricultural.
(2) 
Zoning controls can also be established for wellhead protection through the adoption of an overlay zoning district (i.e., a wellhead protection district). Overlay zones need not conform to the boundaries of existing zoning districts. Typically, overlay zoning is administered by plotting an opaque map that delineates existing zoning districts and then using transparent maps to delineate the overlay zone.
(3) 
Overlay zoning districts for wellhead protection is a suitable approach for the communities because it can target zoning changes to WHPAs and allow existing permitted uses outside the overlay zone to continue. In addition to downzoning, overlay wellhead protection districts can include design and operation standards, source prohibitions, and other land use controls.
(4) 
Design and operation standards are used to regulate the design, construction, and ongoing operation of various land use activities. Design standards are requirements for physical structures, such as double-walled underground storage tanks. Operation standards are procedures to prevent pollution from routine activities such as limitations on road salting or requiring industrial facilities to implement stormwater management programs. Source prohibitions simply prohibit certain kinds of activities. These activities typically include use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials and include land uses such as junkyards, landfills, dry cleaners, truck terminals, gas stations, and storage facilities, etc.
D. 
Purchase of property or development rights.
(1) 
Some communities have purchased property to protect wellhead areas. Acquisition of land is probably the surest method for a community to control land use and is one of the reasons why many states encourage municipal ownership of land in Zone 1 protection areas. Typically, municipalities will build parks and recreation areas in lands acquired for water supply protection purposes.
(2) 
Some communities have acquired partial interests in properties. Acquisition of partial interests typically involves conservation easements or development rights which prevent landowners from specified actions on the property covered by the easement but permits landowners to continue many other productive uses of their land. An easement for wellhead protection would include prohibitions on certain activities such as hazardous materials storage, junkyards, etc. Easements apply to all subsequent landowners for the full term of the easement, which may be a finite number of years or perpetual.
E. 
Inspection and monitoring programs.
(1) 
Groundwater monitoring and inspection programs include direct observation of contamination sources located in WHPAs. Municipalities use these programs to keep a watchful eye on specific contamination sources such as large industrial facilities, landfills, and junkyards.
(2) 
Inspection programs have been developed which require industries to allow community officials to review the operation of the facility on a regular basis. Some inspection programs are coordinated with efforts to implement community right-to-know requirements. Fire departments are often involved in such programs so that fire-fighting plans can be developed which evaluate potential groundwater contamination.
(3) 
Monitoring programs have been developed which require new facilities constructed within WHPAs to install their own monitoring wells and pay for the costs of the sampling and water testing.
F. 
Public education. Many communities have developed public education programs aimed at groundwater protection issues. These education programs are used to build support for regulatory programs, such as zoning and land use controls, developed as part of the wellhead protection program. Typically, communities will establish a local advisory committee composed of local business representatives, interest groups, and elected officials. The EPBA may wish to establish such a committee to be responsible for ongoing public education efforts such as periodic newsletters, public meetings, and workshops.
G. 
Environmental management programs. There are many environmental management programs which have been developed to address specific pollution concerns. These include used oil collection and recycling programs, household hazardous waste pickup days, septic system management programs, and manure/nutrient management. These programs are highly successful and can address a wide range of contamination sources in the WHPAs. Such programs often require substantial amounts of public education and community involvement.
H. 
Contingency and emergency response planning.
(1) 
Although the goal of wellhead protection is to prevent contamination events from occurring, no wellhead protection program can guarantee that such events will not happen. Therefore, effective wellhead protection planning includes a contingency plan to direct a coordinated and timely response to ensure a continued supply of potable water. A comprehensive contingency and emergency response plan:
(a) 
Determines who is responsible for the coordination of response actions;
(b) 
Identifies alternative water supply sources; and
(c) 
Makes arrangements for necessary technical, logistical, and financial resources to implement the contingency program.
(2) 
Hazardous materials (i.e., fuel oil, gasoline, etc.) transported through WHPAs represent a significant threat to the groundwater. Emergency response plans can be developed which include necessary arrangements with fire departments to clean up spills in a manner that will protect groundwater.
A. 
Federal and state regulations which govern local wellhead protection programs allow for flexibility recognizing that a successful program must be specifically tailored to local needs and conditions. These regulations do not establish specifically what should or should not be regulated as part of local wellhead protection programs. Such decisions are left up to the local municipality.
B. 
East Petersburg is a growing suburban area with a wide range of threats to groundwater. Programs to manage and control potential sources of contamination could range from simple public educational programs to more complex programs with operation standards and source prohibitions. While reviewing alternatives for wellhead protection management programs, the EPBA should carefully balance community reaction with the overall effectiveness of the program. In other words, a simple public education program may receive the most favorable community reaction but may not be effective in protecting wellhead areas. A program with stringent controls may provide effective protection; however, if the program does not receive community support, it will be difficult to implement. The following case studies provide examples of successful wellhead protection programs in other communities:
C. 
City of Renton, Washington.
(1) 
The City of Renton, Washington, relies on groundwater for approximately 85% of its water supply. Groundwater is withdrawn from the Cedar River aquifer by five wells.
(2) 
It was a potentially catastrophic incident that prompted the City of Renton to initiate its wellhead protection program. In 1983, a tanker truck carrying petroleum overturned on Interstate 405 within 100 feet of one of the city's wells. While this incident did not impact groundwater quality, it did force the City of Renton to take action.
(3) 
The wellhead protection program developed by the city includes an aggressive public education program and land use restrictions implemented through an overlay zoning district.
(4) 
In an effort to inform the public of the need to protect groundwater quality, the City of Renton prepared a public information leaflet. The leaflet discusses the importance of protecting groundwater quality and presents a series of do's and don'ts for the handling and disposal of potential contaminants (i.e., paints, solvents, lubricating oils, household cleaners, and antifreeze). The City of Renton distributed the leaflet to developers, contractors, engineers, and local citizens.
(5) 
The Wellhead Protection Ordinance requires property owners who store, handle, use, or produce potential hazardous materials to install one or more monitoring wells and sample groundwater semiannually.
(6) 
Property owners are also required to provide containment devices adequate in size to contain all unauthorized releases on site and to prepare a management plan containing procedures to be followed to prevent, control, collect, and dispose of any release of a regulated substance. Property owners are also required to apply for a wellfield protection operating permit.
(7) 
The City of Renton drafted a Secondary Containment Ordinance. This ordinance is primarily directed at establishing secondary containment and monitoring requirements for all new underground storage facilities. Specifically, the ordinance:
(a) 
Establishes construction standards for new and existing facilities; and
(b) 
Establishes separate monitoring standards for new and existing facilities.
D. 
Littleton, Massachusetts.
(1) 
Five years before the enactment of the Wellhead Protection Program by the SDWA Amendments of 1986, the Town of Littleton researched and adopted a comprehensive wellhead protection program. This program was initiated when the bordering Town of Acton lost approximately 70% of its groundwater supply due to organic contamination from industrial development. Littleton is a growing industrial town located 35 miles northwest of Boston with a population of approximately 8,000.
(2) 
The town's water system is supplied by a wellfield and three individual wells situated within highly permeable glacial outwash deposits. The WHPAs include three protection zones. Zone 1 is a four-hundred-foot radius from each municipal well. Zone 2 is the upgradient recharge area, and Zone 3 includes those portions of the watershed which recharge the Zone 2 areas. The criteria for these protection zones were recommended by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and represent the relative level of necessary management controls to protect the water supply.
(3) 
A key component of Littleton's successful program is the wellhead protection area monitoring system designed for early warning of contaminant detection and source identification and overlay zoning districts with land use controls.
(4) 
The overlay districts incorporate both developed and undeveloped land. Performance criteria were established to regulate land uses that could impact the public water supply. In this way, property owners within the overlay districts are responsible for maintaining groundwater quality at their property lines. Developers are encouraged and sometimes required to adopt better hazardous material management practices. Most preexisting industrial and commercial facilities located within the overlay districts willingly cooperate with regulatory agencies in protecting supply wells.
(5) 
Risk assessment criteria were enacted as part of the zoning bylaws to screen proposed developments within the overlay districts. High-risk facilities such as gasoline stations are excluded from development within the more protective Zone 1 and Zone 2 Overlay Districts. Moderate- to low-risk facilities are screened for development based on their proposed hazardous materials storage use, handling, and disposal practices. Other considerations in the screening process include property coverage, nutrient loading factors, and proximity to the wellhead.
(6) 
If low to moderate contamination risk is determined and a development permit is issued, then the developer must demonstrate maintenance of ambient groundwater quality at his downgradient property line. Compliance is proven by certified laboratory analyses and maintained through scheduled sampling of on-site monitoring wells.
(7) 
To supplement the town's bylaws, additional management techniques are employed to strengthen the protection program. These techniques include: source assessment coupled with industry audits, public education, contingency planning, household hazardous waste collection, and land acquisition. The combined technical and legal framework of Littleton's strategy has led to an effective groundwater protection program.
E. 
Springfield, Missouri.
(1) 
Springfield is located in the southwestern part of Missouri and has a population of approximately 130,000. The city is dependent on both surface and groundwater for its drinking supply. In response to a proposed housing development on the shore of one of the city's reservoirs, a task force was developed to perform hydrogeologic studies, identify protection areas, and make recommendations for a program to manage and control potential sources of contamination.
(2) 
One of the primary focuses of the Springfield Wellhead Protection Program is public education. Information is provided for residents and businesses located within WHPAs through monthly newsletters that keep the public up-to-date on issues concerning municipal water supplies. Information is provided for the homeowner concerning household activities and effects on water quality. An annual conference on water resources protection is held for the general public featuring state and local organizations. The conference covers topics concerning public drinking supplies and what homeowners and businesses can do to help avoid potential contamination problems. The committee also makes available a slide presentation concerning the protection of public water supplies to high schools, civic groups, and other interested groups and organizations.
A. 
A mix of land uses and sources of potential contamination exist within the EPBA's wellhead protection areas. There is also a substantial amount of land area that is currently farmed or is vacant. Some of this undeveloped land area is zoned for commercial and residential development. The possibility also exists that zoning requirements could change in the future, thereby allowing for industrial development. Therefore, a successful wellhead protection program must establish regulatory controls and management programs for existing sources of contamination and restrict new contamination sources from being located within the WHPAs.
B. 
The Recommended Wellhead Protection Program includes specific source prohibitions for each zone of protection consistent with the developing PA DEP guidelines. In addition to these source prohibitions, several programs are recommended that are applicable to all three protection zones. These land use controls and management programs are summarized in the following subsections:
(1) 
Source prohibitions. As discussed in § 122-1C, Pennsylvania's guidelines for WHPA delineations recommend three zones of protection as the basis of regulatory controls. The most stringent controls should be developed for Zone 1 areas and less stringent controls for Zone 2 and Zone 3 areas.
(a) 
Zone 1.
[1] 
PA DEP recommends direct control by the municipality of the Zone 1 land area through ownership or easements. It is recognized that the acquisition of land and/or easements is not feasible since the areas around the Vaughn Well and Graver Spring have been developed. Therefore, this program focuses on source prohibition and performance/operation standards.
[2] 
The recommended source prohibitions for Zone 1 include the following:
[a] 
Industrial, commercial, and manufacturing facilities;
[b] 
Underground storage tanks;
[c] 
Aboveground storage tanks;
[d] 
Hazardous material storage, processing, and disposal facilities;
[e] 
Road salt stockpiles;
[f] 
Golf courses;
[g] 
Quarries and mining operations;
[h] 
Nonsewered residential development;
[i] 
On-site floor drains;
[j] 
Land application of wastewater and waste sludges;
[k] 
Medical offices, veterinarian clinics, and funeral homes;
[l] 
Cemeteries;
[m] 
Junk- or salvage yards;
[n] 
Stormwater detention facilities;
[o] 
Sanitary sewer lines and other utilities and pipelines;
[p] 
Open-burning sites and dumps;
[q] 
Construction activities;
[r] 
Well drilling;
[s] 
Pumping of private wells;
[t] 
Construction material stockpiles and debris; and
[u] 
Storage and mixing of pesticides and/or fertilizers.
(b) 
Zone 2. The recommended source prohibitions for Zone 2 include the following:
[1] 
Underground storage tanks;
[2] 
Aboveground storage tanks;
[3] 
Hazardous material storage, processing, and disposal facilities;
[4] 
Road salt stockpiles;
[5] 
Golf courses;
[6] 
Quarries and mining operations;
[7] 
On-site floor drains;
[8] 
Land application of wastewater and waste sludges;
[9] 
Medical offices, veterinarian clinics, and funeral homes;
[10] 
Cemeteries;
[11] 
Junk- or salvage yards;
[12] 
Open-burning sites and dumps;
[13] 
Construction activities;
[14] 
Well drilling;
[15] 
Pumping of private wells;
[16] 
Construction material stockpiles and debris; and
[17] 
Storage and mixing of pesticides and fertilizers.
(c) 
Zone 3. The recommended source prohibitions for Zone 3 include the following:
[1] 
Hazardous material storage, processing, and disposal facilities;
[2] 
Road salt stockpiles;
[3] 
Quarries and mining operations;
[4] 
Nonsewered residential development;
[5] 
On-site floor drains;
[6] 
Land application of wastewater and waste sludges;
[7] 
Junk- or salvage yards; and
[8] 
Open-burning sites and dumps.
(2) 
Design standards.
(a) 
Design standards for new construction within wellhead protection areas are included as part of the Recommended Program. These design standards apply to facilities which represent a reasonable likelihood of discharges of pollutants to the environment, including hazardous material storage areas and waste disposal methods at commercial, industrial, and manufacturing facilities, standards for the construction of underground and aboveground storage tanks, and requirements for containment structures.
(b) 
The majority of the recommended design standards have already been established by existing federal and state regulations. Federal regulations include:
[1] 
Clean Water Act and Pollution Act of 1990;
[2] 
Clean Air Acts of 1970, 1977, and 1990;
[3] 
SUPERFUND Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA);
[4] 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA);
[5] 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and
[6] 
Occupational Safety and Health Act.
(c) 
Pennsylvania state regulations include:
[1] 
Pennsylvania Storage Tank and Spill Prevention Act;[1]
[1]
Editor's Note: See 35 P.S. §§ 6021.101 to 6021.2104.
[2] 
Pennsylvania Underground Storage Act;
[3] 
Rules and Regulations of PA DEP.
(d) 
By including these standards in the Wellhead Protection Program, the communities will be responsible for enforcement of these regulations as well as federal and state government agencies.
(3) 
Operating standards.
(a) 
The Recommended Program includes exceptions for prohibited land uses, facilities, and/or activities lawfully in existence within the wellhead protection areas prior to the enactment of this program. Operation may continue, provided that specific operating standards are achieved.
(b) 
The recommended operating standards include restrictions on hazardous material storage, best management practices (BMPs) for industrial/commercial facilities and agricultural operations, and application for a wellhead protection area operating permit. The application for the operating permit will require documentation that the facility is operating in compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulations.
(c) 
As with the design standards, the majority of the recommended operating standards are required as part of existing federal and state regulations. Again, by including the standards as part of the Wellhead Protection Program, the EPBA will be able to enforce these regulations.
(4) 
Management programs. Management Programs which are part of the recommended plan include public education and contingency and emergency response planning.
(a) 
Public education. The recommended public education program includes the mailing of literature to residents and businesses located within WHPAs with information about the EPBA's groundwater protection programs and how they can participate. Also, signs could be placed along roadways and housing developments identifying the WHPAs. The purpose of these signs is to increase public awareness of the need to protect groundwater resources.
(b) 
Contingency and emergency response planning. East Petersburg Borough Authority should develop a Contingency and Emergency Response Plan. This plan will be coordinated with area Fire Departments and community Right-to-Know Programs. Emphasis will be on the development of a cleanup strategy for hazardous material spills. The communities will also develop joint plans for alternative water supply sources.
(5) 
Program administration.
(a) 
The Recommended Program will be implemented by overlay zoning districts adopted by municipal ordinances. The Borough of East Petersburg, Manheim Township, and East Hempfield Township will be required to adopt the ordinance. The program will be administered through existing municipal agencies and staff, including the East Petersburg Borough Council, East Petersburg Borough Authority, Zoning Officers, Zoning Hearing Boards, the Manheim Township Commissioners, and the East Hempfield Township Supervisors. The following responsibilities have been assigned to each of the above agencies and staff:
[1] 
Borough Council and Township Commissioners/Supervisors.
[a] 
Adopt program through enactment of the Wellhead Protection Ordinance.
[b] 
Modify program requirements through passage of amendments to the Wellhead Protection Ordinance.
[c] 
Final approval of new land development plans in wellhead protection areas.
[d] 
Authorize enforcement actions and penalties.
[e] 
Establish fees by resolution.
[f] 
Issue notices of violation.
[2] 
East Petersburg Borough Authority.
[a] 
Review all proposed land development plans within wellhead protection areas for compliance with the provisions of the ordinance and make recommendations to the Borough Council and Township Commissioners/Supervisors for approval, disapproval, or approval with modifications.
[b] 
Issue and review wellhead protection operating permits.
[c] 
Develop public education programs.
[d] 
Develop, review, and update contingency and emergency response plans.
[e] 
Review hazardous material spill reports.
[3] 
Zoning Officers.
[a] 
Issue cease and desist orders for ordinance violations.
[b] 
Perform municipal inspections.
[4] 
Zoning Hearing Boards.
[a] 
Grant ordinance variances for undue hardships.
(b) 
Whenever a new land development plan located in one of the WHPA Overlay Zoning Districts is presented to the Borough of East Petersburg, Manheim Township, or East Hempfield Township, the land development plan must be reviewed to determine whether or not the plan meets the requirements of the Overlay Zoning Ordinance.[2]
[2]
Editor's Note: See Arts. II and III in this chapter.
Community support is essential for the successful implementation of the Wellhead Protection Program. It is Acer's[1] opinion that efforts aimed at preventing new sources of potential contamination from locating within WHPAs are likely to receive more favorable community support than efforts aimed at controlling and managing existing contamination sources. Therefore, the following phased approach is recommended for the implementation of the Wellhead Protection Program:
A. 
Phase I.
(1) 
The Phase I program will be initiated with a comprehensive public education program which will focus on the need for groundwater protection and describe the responsibilities of residents and businesses to comply with the Wellhead Protection Program. Overlay zoning districts adopted by ordinance will be established which will include source prohibitions for new development in each of the protection zones. Programs for review of land development plans within the wellhead protection districts will be established including a program for joint review by the three municipalities.
(2) 
Contingency and emergency response programs will also be developed and coordinated with each municipality. The proposed ordinance to implement the Phase I program is presented in Exhibit I in the Appendix.[2]
[2]
Editor's Note: See now Art. II in this chapter.
B. 
Phase II.
(1) 
The Phase II program will focus on controls on existing sources of contamination established through operating standards implemented and enforced through a municipal inspection and permitting program. This program will require regulated land uses within the Wellhead Protection District to submit an application for a wellhead protection operating permit. The permit will represent a legally binding agreement between the landowner and municipality allowing the landowner to continue the existing operation if it can be demonstrated that the operation can comply with specific performance standards and regulations.
(2) 
Phase II represents the implementation of the Recommended Wellhead Protection Program. The proposed Phase II ordinance is presented in Exhibit II in the Appendix.[3]
[3]
Editor's Note: See now Art. III in this chapter.
[1]
Editor's Note: Acer Engineers & Consultants, Inc.