Environmental Protection: Information on EPA's Underground Injection
Control Program (Letter Report, 12/05/94, GAO/RCED-95-21).

Liquified hazardous wastes as well as oil and gas wastes are often
injected into underground wells and deposited below drinking water
supplies into porous rock formations that are separated from the
drinking water by layers of nonpermeable rock. The nonpermeable rock
reduces the likelihood of waste contaminating the drinking water. To
protect drinking water supplies, the Safe Drinking Water Act requires
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set minimum requirements
for state underground injection control programs to regulate injection
wells used for waste disposal. In addition, the 1984 amendment to the
Resources Conservation and Recovery Act require EPA, beginning in 1988,
to ban the disposal of untreated hazardous wastes into wells unless
owners/operators could prove to EPA that the wastes would not migrate
from the injection zone. This report discusses the (1) results of EPA's
efforts to implement the ban on underground injection of hazardous
wastes, (2) accuracy of EPA's inspection and enforcement data to ensure
reliable program oversight, and (3) status of recommendations to improve
the Underground Injection Control Program made in earlier GAO reports.
Because two-thirds of the nation's hazardous waste and oil and gas waste
injection wells are found in EPA Regions 5 and 6, which include
Louisiana, Michigan, and Texas, GAO included these regions and states in
this review.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-95-21
     TITLE:  Environmental Protection: Information on EPA's Underground 
             Injection Control Program
      DATE:  12/05/94
   SUBJECT:  Hazardous substances
             Oil drilling
             Waste disposal
             Potable water
             Water quality
             Pollution monitoring
             Waste management
             Water pollution control
             Environmental policies
             Health hazards
IDENTIFIER:  Louisiana
             Michigan
             Texas
             California
             EPA Underground Injection Control Program
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives

December 1994

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION -
INFORMATION ON EPA'S UNDERGROUND
INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM

GAO/RCED-95-21

Environmental Protection


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  EPA -
  RCRA -

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-258213

December 5, 1994

The Honorable John D.  Dingell
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight
 and Investigations
Committee on Energy and Commerce
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

Liquified hazardous wastes and oil and gas wastes are often injected
into underground wells and deposited below drinking water supplies
into porous rock formations that are separated from the drinking
water by layers of nonpermeable rock.  The nonpermeable rock reduces
the likelihood of waste migrating upward and contaminating drinking
water.  To protect drinking water supplies, the Safe Drinking Water
Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish
minimum requirements for state underground injection control programs
to regulate injection wells used for waste disposal.  In addition,
under the 1984 amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), EPA was to prohibit, beginning in 1988, the disposal of
untreated hazardous wastes into wells unless owners/operators could
demonstrate to EPA that the wastes would not migrate from the
injection zone as long as the wastes remained hazardous.  According
to EPA, untreated wastes may continue to be disposed of pending the
agency's issuance of treatment standards for those specific wastes. 
Disposal can also continue for up to 4 years if adequate alternative
treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity for a given waste or
facility is unavailable. 

On the basis of discussions with your office, we focused our review
on certain aspects of EPA's program governing deep-well injection. 
Specifically, we reviewed the (1) results of EPA's efforts to
implement the 1984 amendments to ban underground injection of
hazardous wastes, (2) accuracy of EPA's inspection and enforcement
data to ensure reliable program oversight, and (3) status of
recommendations to improve the Underground Injection Control Program
made in our earlier reports.\1 Because 66 percent of this nation's
hazardous waste and oil and gas waste injection wells are located in
the states under EPA Regions 5 and 6, including Louisiana, Michigan,
and Texas, we included these regions and states in this review.  (See
app.  I for a discussion of the scope and methodology used in this
review.)


--------------------
\1 Hazardous Waste:  Controls Over Injection Well Disposal Operations
Protect Drinking Water (GAO/RCED-87-170, Aug.  28, 1987) and Drinking
Water:  Safeguards Are Not Preventing Contamination From Injected Oil
and Gas Wastes (GAO/RCED-89-97, July 5, 1989). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

EPA is progressing in implementing the 1984 amendments to ban
underground injection of hazardous wastes.  The number of underground
wells that injected hazardous wastes declined from 189 wells in 1988,
when EPA began its implementation, to 118 wells in 1993.  For 103 of
the 118 wells, the owners/operators successfully demonstrated that
the untreated hazardous wastes would not migrate from the injection
zone.  However, EPA allowed 15 wells to continue injecting untreated
hazardous wastes without demonstrating this because owners/operators
of these wells lack sufficient capacity to treat the types of wastes
being injected or because EPA has not yet established treatment
standards for these wastes. 

Several key data used to oversee the Underground Injection Control
Program were not accurate.  We found errors in several key inspection
and enforcement data used by EPA to (1) determine if required
inspections are conducted and enforcement is being initiated and (2)
indicate program activity in general.  EPA does not believe that the
errors significantly compromised its ability to oversee the program. 
Although we generally agree, the errors did, in one instance, mask
information that EPA could have focused on during its oversight
reviews of the program.  EPA has corrected most of these specific
problems or plans to correct them by December 1994.  EPA currently
also has an initiative under way to determine whether these as well
as other reporting data are necessary for adequate program oversight. 

EPA has either implemented or is in the process of implementing most
of the recommendations contained in our prior two reports.  EPA
strengthened its oversight of each region's underground injection
control program, as we recommended.  EPA is currently reviewing
proposed changes to the oil and gas waste injection well program,
including requiring all well operators to search for and plug any
improperly plugged wells in the immediate vicinity of their wells, as
we recommended. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Federal regulation of underground injection began under the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974, which requires EPA to establish minimum
requirements for state underground injection control programs to
regulate all injection wells used for waste disposal.  EPA initially
issued regulations implementing the program in 1980.  According to
EPA, the regulations for hazardous and nonhazardous waste disposal
wells were revised in 1988 to better protect groundwater.  The act
establishes joint federal and state roles in regulating injection
wells.  States with EPA-approved underground injection control
programs have primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) under the
act.  In states without approved programs, EPA retains direct
responsibility for implementing the program.  EPA provides grants to
states that have assumed primacy to help fund the issuance of permits
and rules, as well as inspection, enforcement, and reporting
activities.  Annual funding for underground injection control
programs has remained nominally constant since fiscal year 1991 at
$10.5 million.  In terms of constant dollars, funding has declined. 

The Underground Injection Control Program regulations establish five
classes of injection wells.  Class I wells are used to inject
hazardous and nonhazardous wastes deep below the lowest underground
source of drinking water.  Currently, there are 413 operating Class I
wells, including 118 wells that inject hazardous wastes, in 21 states
located primarily in EPA Regions 5 and 6 along the Great Lakes and
Gulf Coast.  Of the 21 states, 13 have primacy, while EPA has direct
implementation authority in the remaining 8 states as well as on
Indian lands.  Class II wells are used to inject fluids associated
with the production of oil and natural gas or to store hydrocarbons. 
Currently, there are more than 171,000 Class II wells, most of which
are located in the Gulf Coast and Great Lakes states, as well as in
California.  Class III wells are used for special processes, such as
mining minerals.  Class IV wells, which inject hazardous wastes into
or above underground sources of drinking water, are illegal.\2

Class V wells include all other waste injection wells that do not fit
in the other four classes. 

In 1984, RCRA was amended to require EPA, in a series of stages, to
prohibit (with some exceptions) the land disposal of certain
untreated hazardous wastes listed in the Code of Federal Regulations
as of November 1984.\3 As required by the 1984 amendments, beginning
in August 1988 EPA began banning underground injection of untreated
hazardous wastes specified in the regulations.  EPA allows the
continued disposal of these wastes only if they are treated to
standards set by EPA.  Untreated wastes can be disposed of only if
(1) treatment standards for specific wastes have not yet been set,
(2) the well owner/operator submits and EPA approves a petition
demonstrating that untreated wastes will not migrate from the
injection zone while they remain hazardous,\4 or (3) there is
insufficient treatment capacity.  If the latter occurs, EPA can grant
an exemption for treatment for up to 4 years.  The agency continues
to develop treatment standards for hazardous wastes newly listed
since 1984. 

In 1987, we reported on Class I hazardous waste injection wells and
concluded that few have resulted in confirmed cases of drinking water
contamination.  While two documented cases were found, these occurred
before the states implemented EPA's 1980 regulations that prohibited
the practices that led to the contamination.  In 1989, we reported on
Class II wells and concluded that these wells have resulted in some
cases of drinking water contamination primarily because wastes
migrated through improperly plugged wells near Class II injection
wells. 


--------------------
\2 Class IV wells, however, are considered legal when used to inject
contaminated groundwater that has been treated and is reinjected into
the same formation from which it was withdrawn pursuant to RCRA or
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (Superfund). 

\3 40 C.F.R.  part 261. 

\4 Referred to as the no-migration petition demonstration process. 


   RESULTS OF EPA'S EFFORTS TO
   IMPLEMENT THE 1984 AMENDMENTS
   BANNING UNDERGROUND INJECTION
   OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The national inventory of Class I active hazardous waste injection
wells with permits declined from 189 wells in 1988 to 128 wells in
1993.  Of these 128 wells, 10 only inject nonhazardous wastes.  EPA
has approved "no-migration petitions" for 103 of the 118 wells that
inject hazardous wastes.  Of the remaining wells, 2 are allowed to
continue to inject hazardous wastes because of a lack of treatment
capacity, and 13 inject hazardous wastes for which treatment
standards have not yet been set.  Up to 149 additional Class I
nonhazardous waste wells that inject diluted wastes may be required
to obtain no-migration petitions by 1996 because a federal appeals
court determined that EPA's regulations governing dilution as a
method of treatment were not sufficient to minimize threats to health
and the environment.\5

EPA granted the two wells that continue to inject untreated hazardous
wastes a 2-year variance in August 1992 because insufficient
treatment capacity existed for brominated wastewaters generated from
the production of ethylene dibromide and methyl bromide.  The
owner/operator of the wells has requested a case-by-case extension
from EPA because it still has insufficient treatment capacity.  EPA
has yet to issue a final decision on this but indicated its intent to
approve the extension.  As of October 1994, a decision was expected
on this matter shortly.  EPA cannot grant extensions of more than 1
year plus 1 additional year for a total of 2 years to allow these
wells to continue to inject untreated hazardous wastes until
treatment facilities are installed. 

EPA has yet to develop treatment standards for the wastes injected at
13 wells.  The majority of these injected wastes are benzene and
methylethylketone, which were listed as hazardous wastes by the
agency after 1984.  The agency plans to develop treatment standards
for these two wastes by 1996.  In the meantime, owners/operators of
the 13 wells have submitted no-migration petitions to EPA, primarily
in anticipation of their wastes being banned from underground
injection without prior treatment. 

EPA Regions 5 and 6 are reviewing these petitions.  However, the
owner/operator of 4 of the 13 wells withdrew its petition to inject
wastes containing benzene in 1990 after EPA and the state agency
noted long-standing concerns with overpressuring within the injection
zone caused by continued injection by these 4 wells, another Class I
injection well and Class II injection wells.  EPA and state agency
officials were concerned that overpressuring might fracture the
confining formation resulting in wastes migrating to underground
sources of drinking water.  According to a Texas Underground
Injection Control permits section official, state agency staff are
proposing to renew the four wells' permit for a 3-year term rather
than the normal 10 years and impose lower injection pressure and more
frequent monitoring requirements.  The state will continue to
negotiate with the owner/operator to discontinue underground
injection into the overpressured formation by using another formation
or by constructing treatment facilities.  The owner/operator will
then plug and abandon the existing wells.  The owner/operator of the
other Class I well within the area plugged and abandoned its well in
August 1994 and no longer contributes to overpressuring.  The state
has also imposed a moratorium on drilling new Class II saltwater
disposal wells in the area.  The owner/operator of another of the 13
wells also withdrew its petition in 1991 after EPA determined that 11
nearby wells were inadequately plugged.  According to the EPA Region
5 Land Ban Coordinator, the owner/operator constructed a waste
treatment facility and discontinued injecting untreated benzene
wastes as of August 1994. 

EPA estimates that up to 149 additional Class I wells may be required
to obtain no-migration petitions by January 1996.  EPA, in its May
1990 rulemaking for listed wastes, determined that most
characteristic hazardous wastes--wastes that exhibit ignitable,
corrosive, reactive, or toxic characteristics--could be diluted prior
to injection and no longer be classified as hazardous.  In September
1992, however, a U.S.  appeals court determined that EPA's
regulations governing dilution as a method of treatment were not
sufficient to minimize threats to health and the environment.  In a
consent agreement to implement the court's decision, EPA agreed to
propose treatment standards for these wastes by January 1995 and to
issue final rules by January 1996.  Until then, these wastes may
continue to be diluted rather than treated prior to injection in
Class I nonhazardous waste wells. 


--------------------
\5 Chemical Waste Management v.  EPA, 976 F.2d 2 (D.C.  Cir.  1992). 


   ACCURACY OF EPA'S DATA TO
   ENSURE RELIABLE PROGRAM
   OVERSIGHT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Several key inspection and enforcement data are reported by states
and EPA regional offices on a quarterly basis and are used by the
agency (1) to determine if required inspections are conducted and
enforcement is being initiated and (2) to indicate program activity
in general.  Data reported by Texas and EPA Regions 5 and 6 in fiscal
year 1993 were not accurate either because instructions were not
received on what data should be submitted by the states and/or
regions and how data should be reported or because reporting
instructions were disregarded.  Most of these inaccuracies have since
been corrected.  EPA is planning to assess which data are most
important for its oversight of program activities. 


      NUMBER OF WELLS INSPECTED
      WAS OVERSTATED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Each calendar quarter, EPA requires primacy states and its regions
with direct implementation responsibility to report the number of
Class I wells inspected.  EPA regions can review quarterly reports
from primacy states to track progress against commitments, and EPA
headquarters uses inspection data as a general indicator of program
activity. 

Both Texas and EPA Region 5 reported in their fiscal year 1993
quarterly reports the number of actual inspections conducted at Class
I wells rather than the number of wells inspected.  As a result,
Texas, which typically inspects commercial Class I wells twice each
year and noncommercial wells once each year, reported inspecting 114
Class I wells even though it had only 102 operational Class I wells. 
Region 5, which inspects Class I hazardous waste wells in Michigan
four times each year and nonhazardous waste wells once each year,
reported that 91 Class I wells were inspected in Michigan even though
the state had only 21 operational Class I wells.  In fiscal year
1994, this practice was discontinued in both Texas and Michigan. 
Michigan discontinued the practice as a result of our work.  Texas,
in contrast, no longer completes the quarterly report because of
staff shortages.  Rather, EPA Region 6 completes the report and
accurately reports on the number of wells inspected. 

According to a program analyst in EPA headquarters' Underground
Injection Control Branch, the reporting errors we found in fiscal
year 1993 were likely due to a number of factors.  For example, the
form used to report these data as well as the instructions for
completing the form were revised in 1988.  The instructions clarified
that the actual number of wells inspected was to be reported. 
However, Texas did not have the back page of the revised form that
included the instructions, and Region 5, which had copies of both
sides of the form, disregarded the instructions by reporting the
actual number of inspections carried out by its contractor. 

EPA headquarters and Region 6 underground injection control program
officials, however, did not believe that overstating the number of
wells inspected adversely affected program oversight.  According to
an EPA headquarters' Underground Injection Control Branch program
analyst, the agency is aware that states and regions occasionally
report the number of inspections rather than the number of wells
inspected.  As a result, the number of wells inspected is used only
as a general indicator of program activity rather than a reliable
measure of performance.  According to the Region 6 underground
injection control program manager for Texas, the state's
overstatement of the number of wells inspected did not adversely
impact his oversight of the state's program.  The manager said that
although he did not realize that Texas was reporting the number of
inspections at Class I wells rather than the number of wells
inspected, the difference of 12 wells was within the range of
expected fluctuations in the number of operating wells in the
state--new wells coming into service and old wells being plugged and
abandoned result in minor fluctuations in the number of operating
wells.  We agree. 


      VIOLATIONS OF CONDITIONS OF
      NO-MIGRATION PETITIONS
      INCONSISTENTLY REPORTED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Each calendar quarter, EPA requires primacy states and its regions
with direct implementation authority to report the number of wells
with violations and the types of these violations.  Region 6 uses the
data as a general indicator of operator compliance.  According to EPA
headquarters' Chief of the Underground Injection Control Enforcement
and Compliance Section, headquarters uses the violation data as an
indicator of how active the states and regions are in identifying
violations.  Headquarters also compares the types of violations
identified to see if trends emerge. 

During fiscal year 1993, Texas inspectors identified 21 wells with
violations of the conditions of no-migration petitions but only
included 9 of the 21 wells with these violations in quarterly reports
to Region 6.  Furthermore, the state misclassified these violations
as operations and maintenance, monitoring and reporting, or
unauthorized injection violations.  According to EPA headquarters'
Chief of the Underground Injection Control Enforcement and Compliance
Section, these violations should have been classified as "other"
violations in quarterly reports. 

Errors in reporting such violations during fiscal year 1993 occurred
in Texas--the only state that has not incorporated the conditions of
no-migration petitions in all of its underground injection
permits--because EPA did not provide guidance on how to classify and
report these violations.  Texas, however, (1) identifies violations
of the conditions of no-migration petitions because EPA provides the
state with copies of the petition conditions, (2) assesses compliance
with these conditions during its inspections, and (3) refers the
violations to the region for enforcement.  According to the Region 6
underground injection control program manager for Texas, the
reporting problem should resolve itself as early as December 1994,
when all but 3 of 57 Class I hazardous waste injection wells in the
state are expected to have petition conditions incorporated into
state underground injection permits.\6 The state can then report
these violations as it currently reports other permit violations.  As
a result of our work, the regional program manager for Texas began
preparing separate quarterly reports beginning the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 1993 to accurately report on violations of petition
conditions referred by the state. 

Although Texas did not report these data consistently and accurately
in fiscal year 1993, Region 6 and headquarters' underground injection
control officials said that program oversight was not significantly
affected.  According to the Region 6 program manager for Texas, this
is because the region instructed the state to contact the region when
it found violations of the conditions of no-migration petitions.  As
a result, the region was aware of the violations even though Texas
and the region had no formal reporting mechanism.  According to EPA
headquarters' Chief of the Underground Injection Control Enforcement
and Compliance Section, excluding violations from the reports or
misclassifying them can affect headquarters' analysis of how actively
the states identify violations and the types of those violations. 
However, the Chief said that the errors in the Texas reports were not
significant enough to materially affect headquarters' analysis of
violations found nationwide.  While we agree the errors in Texas may
not have represented a significant portion of violations found
nationwide, they did represent more than half of the violations of
the conditions of no migration petitions found in Texas. 


--------------------
\6 As of October 1994, all but 12 of Texas' 57 wells had been
reissued permits by the state to include no-migration petition
conditions.  EPA projects that Texas will reissue permits for 9 of
the remaining 12 wells by December 1994.  The remaining three wells
are on hold because of pending state legal and enforcement cases. 


      OVERDUE ENFORCEMENT NOT
      REPORTED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Quarterly, EPA requires primacy states and its regions with direct
implementation responsibility to identify and report each Class I
well with violations that has not been addressed with a formal
enforcement action or has not returned to compliance within two or
more consecutive quarters.  EPA regions use quarterly reports to
determine if they should follow up with states to determine why
enforcement actions were overdue and to assess whether the region
should initiate enforcement action.  According to EPA headquarters'
Chief of the Underground Injection Control Enforcement and Compliance
Section, headquarters uses the quarterly reports to evaluate whether
timely and appropriate enforcement action is being taken in regions
with direct implementation responsibility and primacy states. 

Texas and Region 6 did not report any wells with overdue enforcement
actions in fiscal year 1993 even though 21 Class I wells with
violations had overdue enforcement actions for two consecutive
quarters.  As a result of our work, beginning in the fourth quarter
of fiscal year 1993, Texas and Region 6 began reporting overdue
enforcement actions in quarterly reports. 

The Texas Class I program liaison said that prior to our work, he was
unaware that he was required to report this information on quarterly
exception reports.  Rather, he assumed and reported in some cases
that enforcement actions had been taken when inspection results were
referred to a state screening committee for enforcement
consideration.  Because Texas was not reporting that enforcement
actions had not been taken or that wells had not returned to
compliance, Region 6 was unaware that enforcement had been delayed. 
As a result, Region 6 did not include overdue enforcement actions on
its quarterly reports to EPA.  Although the Region 6 program manager
for Texas said that he reviews a sample of the quarterly report data
during oversight reviews, resource constraints have prevented him
from undertaking a more detailed review and thus have precluded his
detecting the types of errors that we found. 

Although Texas did not report these data prior to the fourth quarter
of fiscal year 1993, the Region 6 program manager said that Texas was
making satisfactory progress in resolving overdue enforcement cases. 
Regional program management, however, now has data to determine
whether overdue cases are being resolved.  According to the EPA
headquarters' Chief of the Underground Injection Control Enforcement
and Compliance Section, however, excluding the overdue enforcement
cases can result in overlooking a potential problem during its
oversight of regional programs and affects its ability to determine
if enforcement responses meet timeliness and appropriate response
goals. 


      EPA ASSESSING WHICH
      REPORTING DATA ARE MOST
      IMPORTANT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

According to the headquarters' Chief, an enforcement data work group
has been examining the issue of which enforcement and compliance data
elements reported by primacy states and regions with direct
implementation responsibility are necessary for program oversight and
which are not.  The group plans to recommend revisions, as necessary,
to the quarterly report forms.  The group's progress has been delayed
by EPA's reorganization of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, which includes the creation of a separate Office of
Compliance.  This new office will have responsibility for compliance
reporting under the new organization.  EPA does not know when the
work group's results will be completed. 


   STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS MADE
   IN OUR 1987 AND 1989 REPORTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

In our 1987 report on EPA's controls over hazardous waste injection
well operations, we noted that the four primacy states that we
reviewed were inspecting injection wells to ensure compliance with
current regulations.  However, the report noted that EPA Region 5 did
not perform required inspections during fiscal years 1985 and 1986 in
two states the agency has responsibility for.  We recommended that
the Administrator strengthen EPA headquarters' oversight of each
regional office operating an underground injection control program to
ensure that inspections are performed and documented. 

In response to our recommendation, in 1987 EPA developed a more
extensive midyear evaluation of each region's program.  According to
headquarters' program officials, these midyear evaluations are
supplemented by detailed file reviews and reviews of data provided by
the regions on a quarterly basis.  Quarterly data include the number
of injection wells inspected and well tests witnessed by EPA regions
in those states where EPA has direct implementation authority. 
According to the program officials, these quarterly reports are
reviewed to determine whether regions are conducting required
inspections and witnessing well tests. 

We found that Region 5 is now conducting required inspections, and
headquarters is conducting oversight evaluations.  Region 5 uses a
contractor in Michigan, where the region has direct implementation
responsibility, to perform required inspections at Class I injection
wells.  EPA headquarters performed a midyear evaluation of two
(Regions 5 and 9) of the three regions with direct implementation
responsibility in 1993.  The remaining region (Region 4) was
evaluated in June 1994. 

In our 1989 report on controls over Class II wells, we found that
although operators of wells that began operating after 1980 are
required to search for and plug any improperly plugged wells in the
immediate vicinity of their injection wells, this requirement does
not apply to those Class II wells that were operating before the
Underground Injection Control Program was established.  The report
noted that injection wells already operating before 1980 accounted
for nearly all of the cases in which groundwater contamination had
occurred through wastes migrating into improperly plugged wells.  We
recommended that EPA take steps to ensure that the Class II program
be revised to make owners/operators of existing wells identify and
plug improperly abandoned wells in the immediate area of their
injection wells and that EPA establish a priority system for it and
the states to use so that those wells posing the greatest risk of
contamination are addressed first. 

EPA is currently reviewing proposed changes for the Class II
injection well program that embody the recommendations of a 1991
federally chartered advisory committee that reviewed the Class II
regulations in detail.  The committee consisted of petroleum industry
representatives, trade associations, environmental interest groups,
state underground injection control program directors, and federal
agency representatives.  The advisory committee and an EPA work group
focused on such issues as (1) upgrading new well construction
requirements, (2) requiring that owners/operators of existing Class
II wells identify and plug improperly abandoned wells in the area
around their injection wells, and (3) increasing the frequency of
well testing.  EPA expects a proposed rule for Federal Register
publication and public comment by early calendar year 1995.  While
EPA is adopting our recommendation that improperly abandoned wells
near existing injection wells be properly plugged, the agency has not
established a priority system for reviewing those wells posing the
greatest risk.  This is because some states lack information to
determine which wells pose the greatest risk. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

EPA is progressing in its implementation of the 1984 amendments to
RCRA and has approved no-migration petitions for 103 wells.  EPA is
in the process of developing treatment standards for characteristic
wastes or wastes newly listed since 1984.  Once standards are
developed, 13 wells injecting hazardous wastes and up to 149
additional wells injecting diluted wastes may require no-migration
petitions or be required to treat the wastes prior to injection.  EPA
also is progressing in implementing the recommendations in our 1987
and 1989 reports.  EPA has strengthened its oversight of regions'
underground injection control programs, and Region 5 is now
conducting required inspections.  EPA is also proposing to require
that owners/operators of all Class II wells identify and plug
improperly abandoned wells. 

Also, although some of the data used by EPA to manage the Underground
Injection Control Program has been reported incorrectly by states and
regions either because of a lack of instructions or because
instructions were ignored, EPA either has corrected or will correct
the majority of these reporting problems by December 1994.  EPA does
not believe the errors we found significantly compromised program
oversight.  Although we generally agree, in one instance information
was masked that EPA could have focused on during oversight reviews. 
We believe that it is important to ensure complete and accurate
program reporting to support effective program evaluation and
priority-setting by oversight agencies. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

As requested, we did not obtain written comments on a draft of this
report.  However, we discussed its contents with the Chief,
Underground Injection Control Branch, and the Chief, Regulation
Development and Technical Guidance Section, in EPA's Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water; the Team Leader for Wetlands and
Underground Injection Control, Water Enforcement Division, in EPA's
Office of Regulatory Enforcement; the Chief of the Underground
Injection Control State Programs Section, and the Land Ban and Texas
State Program Coordinators, in EPA Region 6's Water Management
Division; the Chiefs of the Underground Injection Control Section and
Enforcement Unit; and the Land Ban Coordinator in EPA Region 5's
Water Division. 

Headquarters' officials said that they agreed with the facts in the
report.  They added that EPA's work group assessing what data are
necessary to oversee the Underground Injection Control Program is
continuing its effort, but when the group will finalize its work is
not known.  Region 6 officials said that the report was factually
correct and provided additional information concerning the injection
well that is causing overpressuring in that region.  Region 5
officials also said that the report was factually correct and that
one well that had been injecting untreated hazardous wastes in that
region constructed a waste treatment facility and discontinued
injecting wastes.  We revised the report to include this information
where appropriate. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will
make copies available to others on request.  We conducted our review
from May 1993 to September 1994 in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding the matters
discussed in this report, I can be reached on (202) 512-6111.  Major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. 

Sincerely yours,

Peter F.  Guerrero
Director, Environmental
 Protection Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

To develop information on the (1) results of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) efforts to ban underground injection of
hazardous wastes; (2) accuracy of EPA's inspection and enforcement
data to ensure reliable program oversight; and (3) status of
recommendations to improve the Underground Injection Control Program
made in earlier reports, we examined policy and guidance documents,
as well as inspection and enforcement documents, obtained from EPA
headquarters and its Regions 5 and 6, the Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission, and the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources.  We also interviewed program officials in EPA headquarters
and Regions 5 and 6, and in Louisiana and Texas.  Although primacy
states and direct implementation regions are required to report on a
quarterly basis Underground Injection Control Program data concerning
permitting, inspection, and enforcement activities, we limited our
verification to inspection and enforcement data because this data
reflects the level of program compliance and how noncompliance is
resolved in order to prevent contamination of underground sources of
drinking water.  Our review was limited to assessing deep-well
injection units at facilities.  We did not review other units, such
as storage or treatment units, which are regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.  We also did not assess these
facilities' compliance with any air emission requirements associated
with the Clean Air Act. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ISSUES
AREA

Gerald E.  Killian, Assistant Director
David P.  Marks, Evaluator-in-Charge
Marcia B.  McWreath, Regional Manager's Representative
Dale W.  Seeley, Staff Evaluator
Bernice Steinhardt, Associate Director

