	Background

This section presents information on roles and responsibilities of EPA and  states in the UIC class II program, information on UIC class II inspection  and enforcement processes, information collected from state and EPA- managed programs, and activities to oversee state and EPA-managed  programs. The Program Reporting guidance directs  these programs to report data on inspections, violations, and enforcement  actions. EPA’s minimum annual inspection goals are specified at the well level  (e.g., 100 percent of wells associated with emergency responses). Under federal standards for internal control, managers need to compare  actual performance to planned or expected results and analyze significant  differences. However, our review of data collected by EPA on significant violations  demonstrated that EPA’s ability to take action may be limited by  incomplete and inconsistent enforcement data reported by state and  EPA-managed programs. Specifically, our analysis of 93 significant  violations for fiscal years 2008 thru 2013 for the seven state and EPA- managed programs we reviewed found that there were 29 that were not  resolved within 90 days of operator notification and for which formal  action had not been taken within that time. EPA headquarters officials told us they are aware that the information  reported by states and EPA regions is not complete or consistent, but  they have not clarified, in guidance or otherwise, what information should  be reported. EPA Has Not Consistently Conducted Oversight Activities Necessary to Assess Whether Programs Are Protecting Underground Sources of Drinking Water

EPA has not consistently conducted three oversight activities necessary  to assess whether state and EPA-managed programs are protecting  underground sources of drinking water, as required by regulations and  specified in guidance: (1) incorporation of state program requirements, or  changes to state program requirements, into federal regulations; (2) the  final review and recordkeeping for all aquifer exemption applications it  approves; and (3) annual on-site program evaluations. According to the Program Oversight guidance,  annual on-site evaluations of state programs should also include a review  of permitting and inspection files or activities to assess whether the state  program is protecting underground sources of drinking water. Without conducting such an analysis, EPA will not be able to  identify the human capital and other resources it needs to carry out its  oversight of state and EPA-managed programs and help ensure that they  are effective at protecting underground sources of drinking water. However, the findings in our June 2014 report, our findings on inspection  and enforcement information and oversight activities in this report, and  the recent decision that California’s program was not complying with state  and EPA requirements illustrate that EPA does not have the information,  or consistently conduct the oversight activities, needed to assess state  and EPA-managed class II programs to help ensure that they protect  underground sources of drinking water. Until EPA requires and collects  well-specific data on inspections from state and EPA-managed programs,  including when wells were inspected, the types of inspections conducted  at each well, and the results of those inspections, the agency does not  have the well-specific information to assess whether the programs are  meeting annual inspection goals to protect underground sources of  drinking water. Until it clarifies  guidance on what data should be reported on the 7520-4 form, EPA does  not have reasonable assurance that state and EPA-managed programs  report complete and consistent information on unresolved significant  violations or that it has the information needed to assess whether it must  take enforcement action, as required under the act, to protect  underground sources of drinking water. Finally, although EPA headquarters officials said they do not have the  resources necessary to conduct the oversight activities needed to assess  whether state and EPA-managed programs comply with applicable  requirements, the agency has not conducted a workforce analysis to  identify the resources, including human capital resources, the agency  needs to oversee state and EPA-managed programs. In a series of letters from July 2014 through July 2015,  EPA Region 9 and the Division reached agreement on a plan to improve  California’s UIC class II program. Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)  Underground Injection Control (UIC) class II program to determine the  extent to which EPA has collected the inspection and enforcement  information needed, and conducted the oversight activities necessary, to  assess that state and EPA-managed programs are protecting  underground sources of drinking water. Specifically, we  selected a nongeneralizable sample of eight states with class II programs. Other programs we reviewed do not set specific  annual goals for individual types of well inspections. According to EPA and state officials, the enforcement process  generally begins when program officials notify a well operator that the well  is in violation of applicable requirements.
Why GAO Did This Study

Since the early 2000s, increased oil and gas production has resulted in an increase in wastewater that must be managed properly. The majority of wastewater from oil and gas production is injected into underground wells known as class II wells. These wells are regulated to protect drinking water sources under EPA's UIC class II well program and approved state class II programs. EPA oversees state programs, and EPA regions manage programs in states without approval.
GAO was asked to review EPA's oversight of programs' inspection and enforcement information and activities. This report examines the extent to which EPA has collected inspection and enforcement information and conducted oversight activities needed to assess that class II programs protect underground sources of drinking water. GAO reviewed federal and state laws and regulations and EPA guidance and analyzed a nongeneralizable sample of significant violations. GAO interviewed EPA and state officials from programs in a nongeneralizable sample of eight states selected based on shale oil and gas regions, among other factors.

What GAO Found

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not collected specific inspection and complete or consistent enforcement information, or consistently conducted oversight activities, to assess whether state and EPA-managed Underground Injection Control (UIC) class II programs are protecting underground sources of drinking water. EPA guidance calls for states and EPA regions to report certain information and for EPA to assess whether programs are effectively protecting underground sources of drinking water, but the agency does not. Specifically:
EPA annually collects summary data from state and EPA-managed programs on the types of inspections they conduct. However, these data are not specific enough to determine the number of different types of inspections that states and EPA regions are to conduct to meet their annual goals. Such goals are specified at the well level (e.g., to inspect 100 percent of wells associated with emergency responses). Under federal internal control standards, managers are to compare actual performance to planned or expected results and analyze significant differences. Without well-specific data on inspections, EPA cannot assess whether state and EPA-managed programs are meeting annual inspection goals.
EPA collects information on unresolved significant violations of state and EPA-managed programs to determine if the agency needs to take action to enforce applicable program requirements. However, GAO's analysis of a nongeneralizable sample of 93 significant violations for fiscal years 2008 through 2013 found that state and EPA-managed programs did not report data on such violations completely or consistently. For example, of 29 such violations that had not been enforced after 90 days as required, programs reported 7 to EPA. According to EPA and state officials, the cause was inconsistent interpretations of EPA's reporting guidance. EPA officials said they are aware that the data reported on such violations are not complete or consistent, but the agency has not clarified in guidance what data programs should report. Until it does so, EPA does not have reasonable assurance that it has the data needed to assess if it must take enforcement action.
EPA has not consistently conducted oversight activities necessary to assess whether state and EPA-managed programs are protecting underground sources of drinking water. For example, GAO found in June 2014 that EPA does not consistently conduct oversight activities, such as annual on-site program evaluations. According to EPA guidance, such evaluations should include a review of permitting and inspection files or activities to assess whether the state is protecting underground water. In California, for example, EPA did not regularly review permitting, and in July 2014, after a state review of permitting, EPA determined that the program was out of compliance with state and EPA requirements. EPA officials said that they have few resources to oversee UIC class II programs, but EPA has not conducted a workforce analysis consistent with GAO's work on strategic human capital management to identify the resources needed for such oversight. Without conducting such an analysis, EPA will not be able identify the human capital or other resources needed to carry out oversight of the UIC class II programs to help ensure that they protect underground sources of drinking water.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that, among other things, EPA require programs to report well-specific inspections data, clarify guidance on enforcement data reporting, and analyze the resources needed to oversee programs. EPA generally agreed with GAO's findings, but does not plan to require well-specific data and analyze needed resources. GAO continues to believe that EPA should take both actions to better assess if programs protect underground sources of drinking water.