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 UIC class II program is overseen by EPA headquarters and managed by states or EPA regions, depending on whether the state has received primacy. States can obtain primacy in one of two ways. Under section 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, a state can adopt and implement a program that meets specific requirements established under EPA regulations and conduct reporting as EPA requires. Alternatively, under section 1425 of the act, a state can seek approval to manage its own program by demonstrating to EPA that the program is effective in preventing the contamination of underground sources of drinking water. Both types of program must meet four key requirements in the act: (1) they must prohibit unauthorized injections; (2) authorized injections must not endanger drinking water sources; (3) they must include inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; and (4) they must apply their provisions to federal agencies and federal land. However, states approved by this alternative process do not need to address all of the specific requirements, such as those related to well construction and testing, established in EPA regulations. Program oversight by EPA headquarters includes issuing regulations and guidance, assessing implementation of regulations and guidance by state and EPA-managed programs, and gathering information and reporting it. EPA regions both oversee state programs that have primacy and manage programs in states that do not have primacy, and states with primacy manage their own programs. Management includes permitting wells; inspecting wells; enforcing regulations and implementing guidance; reporting information on well inventories, inspections, violations, and enforcement actions; and investigating instances of potential contamination of aquifers. EPA issued a series of guidance documents describing the program and various responsibilities of states and EPA regions. To oversee state and EPA-managed programs and to ensure that they are protecting underground sources of drinking water, EPA collects certain information and conducts certain activities, as described in several guidance documents. Specifically: Memorandum of agreement for the UIC program. Issued in 1981, this guidance directs EPA regions to enter into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with each primacy state that includes the terms, conditions, or agreements between the state and EPA regarding the administration and enforcement of state program requirements, including state inspection, enforcement, and reporting requirements. Reporting Requirements—Underground Injection Control Program (Program Reporting). Issued in 1986, this guidance explains and clarifies the information state and EPA-managed programs are to report. Underground Injection Control Program Compliance Strategy for Primacy and Direct Implementation Jurisdictions (Strategy). Issued in 1987, this document provides guidance to state and EPA- managed programs on well inspections and enforcement of program requirements, including information that should be reported on inspections and enforcement actions. Interim Guidance for Overview of the Underground Injection Control Program (Program Oversight). Issued in 1983, this document provides guidance to EPA regions and headquarters on activities that they should take to effectively oversee state and EPA- managed programs, respectively. Guidance for Review and Approval of State Underground Injection Control Programs and Revisions to Approved State Programs. Issued in 1984 to provide guidance for EPA regions on the review and approval of changes to state program requirements, this document includes guidance for EPA regions and headquarters on how to review and approve requests to exempt aquifers and how decisions on aquifer exemptions should be documented and reported. Enhancing Coordination and Communication with States on Review and Approval of Aquifer Exemption Requests Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (Aquifer Exemption Coordination). Issued in 2014, this document provides guidance on how to improve coordination and recordkeeping on aquifer exemption decisions among states, EPA regions, and EPA headquarters. According to EPA’s 1981 MOA guidance, EPA regions should develop an MOA with each primacy state to outline areas of the applicable regulations that are relevant to the administration and enforcement of the state’s program requirements, including clarifying EPA and state roles and responsibilities and the process for sharing information between EPA and the state; state responsibilities for expeditiously drafting, circulating, issuing, modifying, reissuing, and terminating permits, consistent with applicable regulations; state responsibilities to operate a timely and effective system to track well operator compliance with program requirements, including inspection procedures; state responsibilities for taking timely and appropriate enforcement action against persons in violation of program requirements, including use of effective enforcement tools such as penalties; and state reporting requirements, including the type and frequency of data to be reported, and EPA’s annual evaluation of the state program. According to EPA’s 1983 Program Oversight guidance, EPA-managed programs are also responsible for establishing systems to track well operator compliance; taking timely and appropriate action to resolve violations, including use of effective enforcement tools; and reporting data on the program. Injection well inspections, to discover and deter violations, and enforcement are identified in EPA’s 1987 Strategy as tools to achieve operator compliance with applicable requirements. According to the Strategy, each state and EPA-managed program should have a strategy for identifying how many wells it should inspect and the types of inspections to be conducted at these wells. The types of inspections that state and EPA inspectors conduct can vary from routine inspections that ensure that well sites are being properly maintained, to inspections that include observing pressure tests to determine if wells are structurally sound, known as mechanical integrity tests (see app. IV for information on types of inspections). The enforcement process begins once an inspector identifies a violation. Violations of UIC program requirements can involve a number of actions on the part of well operators, such as injecting fluids without authorization, injecting fluids at pressures above those permitted, or failing to show that a well holds pressure during testing (mechanical integrity testing). According to EPA’s Strategy, a state or EPA-managed program can take various enforcement actions when it finds wells that are violating program requirements. When inspectors identify wells that are violating applicable program requirements, they typically first notify the well operators of the violations. According to EPA’s Strategy, these notifications can be done through discussion or in writing. For more serious violations, state and EPA-managed programs can take stronger enforcement actions. According to EPA’s Strategy, state and EPA-managed programs are to escalate their enforcement response as needed to resolve violations, although the actions taken by a program may depend on a number of factors, including the severity of the violation and its potential to contaminate drinking water sources. Actions to gain compliance with program requirements can include sanctions, such as shutting down a well, assessing administrative penalties, or referring the matter for civil or criminal adjudication (see app. V for details of the enforcement process). EPA’s regulations and 1986 Program Reporting guidance direct state and EPA-managed programs to report specific information on class II wells to assist with program oversight. The Program Reporting guidance directs these programs to report data on inspections, violations, and enforcement actions. Specifically, the agency collects information from programs on different 7520 forms submitted by state and EPA-managed programs. According to the Program Reporting guidance, information on inspections conducted by state and EPA-managed programs is collected on 7520-3 forms and includes information on the total number of different types of inspections. According to this guidance, EPA also collects information on the number of significant violations and enforcement actions conducted by state and EPA-managed programs on 7520-4 forms. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA is required to notify primacy states of any violations of state UIC programs it discovers and, if a state does not take appropriate enforcement action within 30 days, issue an order or initiate legal action itself. According to EPA guidance, the 7520-4 forms collect information on individual significant violations that threaten underground sources of drinking water to help EPA determine whether it should intervene to enforce state or EPA requirements. In June 2014, we found that the data on violations and contamination of underground sources of drinking water that EPA collects from its 7520 forms were not sufficiently complete or comparable to allow EPA to aggregate state information and report on the status of the class II program nationally. We also found that EPA was developing a national UIC database to collect comparable, well-specific data from states, but that, as of January 2014, the database was not fully populated. We recommended in our June 2014 report that to support nationwide reporting goals until the national UIC database is complete, EPA develop and implement a protocol for states and regions to enter 7520 data consistently and for regions to check 7520 data for consistency and completeness to ensure that data collected from state and EPA-managed class II programs are complete and comparable for purposes of reporting at a national level. EPA agreed that there is room for improvement in the completeness and consistency of data submitted by the states and regions through the 7520 forms. In response to our recommendation, according to EPA officials, the agency has proposed updated 7520 instructions, intended to encourage consistent reporting by states and regions. The updated instructions have not been finalized and, according to EPA officials, cannot be used for reporting until they are approved by the Office of Management and Budget. EPA has also developed new standard operating procedures that update protocols for EPA regional review of 7520 reports submitted by state programs and headquarters review of 7520 reports submitted by EPA-managed programs. EPA’s regulations and 1983 Program Oversight guidance direct EPA headquarters and regions to conduct specific activities to ensure that the state and EPA-managed programs are protecting underground sources of drinking water. These activities include conducting annual on-site evaluations of state and EPA-managed programs. In addition, EPA regulations require the agency to incorporate state program requirements, and any changes to them, into federal regulations to be able to enforce them if necessary, and to approve aquifers for exemption from protection under the act, as appropriate, to allow injection of fluids.