Hazardous Waste: Compliance With Groundwater Monitoring Requirements at Land Disposal Facilities (Briefing Report, 02/07/95, GAO/RCED-95-75BR). Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) groundwater monitoring requirements for hazardous waste land disposal facilities, focusing on the number of facilities that: (1) are subject to groundwater monitoring requirements; (2) have monitoring systems in place; (3) have released pollutants into the underlying groundwater; (4) have initiated corrective actions; and (5) have been issued citations for groundwater monitoring violations. GAO found that: (1) of the 1,209 facilities reviewed, about 976 had monitoring systems capable of immediately detecting groundwater releases, 169 had some monitoring wells that were not capable of detecting a release, and 54 had no monitoring wells in place; (2) of the 890 facilities where releases occurred, about 608 had groundwater monitoring systems capable of determining the rate and extent of migration and the concentrations of hazardous waste in groundwater, 260 facilities had some monitoring wells that were not capable of fully assessing groundwater releases, and 15 facilities had no wells; (3) there was incomplete data on the capability of groundwater monitoring systems at 7 facilities; (4) all facilities were not required to assess releases into the groundwater; (5) 606 facilities have initiated corrective actions to prevent further groundwater contamination and 261 facilities have not initiated any corrective actions; (6) since October 1989, 650 of the 1,209 facilities have been cited for groundwater monitoring violations; (7) the most frequent types of monitoring violations cited were sampling and analysis violations; and (8) as of September 1993, 211 of the 650 facilities were not in compliance with EPA regulations. --------------------------- Indexing Terms ----------------------------- REPORTNUM: RCED-95-75BR TITLE: Hazardous Waste: Compliance With Groundwater Monitoring Requirements at Land Disposal Facilities DATE: 02/07/95 SUBJECT: Pollution monitoring Water quality Water pollution control Industrial facilities Health hazards Safety standards Environmental policies Hazardous substances Waste disposal Potable water IDENTIFIER: EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System ************************************************************************** * 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 Briefing Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate February 1995 HAZARDOUS WASTE - COMPLIANCE WITH GROUNDWATER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS AT LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES GAO/RCED-95-75BR Hazardous Waste Abbreviations =============================================================== ABBREV EPA - Environmental Protection Agency GAO - General Accounting Office RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRIS - Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Letter =============================================================== LETTER B-259701 February 7, 1995 The Honorable John Glenn Ranking Minority Member Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Dear Senator Glenn: Groundwater is a major source of drinking water for many parts of the nation. If not properly constructed, land disposal facilities for hazardous waste may result in the leakage or release of pollutants and contaminants into the underlying groundwater. Through the enactment of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, the Congress sought to impose, among other things, control over land disposal facilities to minimize their potential adverse environmental impacts. As part of its effort to implement the act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regulations generally requiring that owners/operators of land disposal facilities used to manage hazardous waste on or after November 19, 1980, install wells to monitor the groundwater under their facilities. The regulations' objectives were to immediately detect releases of hazardous waste. If a release is detected, owners/operators must assess the rate and extent of migration and the concentrations of hazardous waste in the groundwater and may be required to take corrective action to rectify any adverse environmental impact caused by the facility. This briefing report responds to your request that we provide you with information on the implementation of EPA's groundwater monitoring requirements for hazardous waste land disposal facilities. Specifically, we are providing information on the number of (1) land disposal facilities subject to groundwater monitoring requirements and whether monitoring systems have been installed, (2) facilities where releases to the groundwater have occurred, (3) corrective actions that have been taken to prevent further groundwater contamination, and (4) citations that have been issued for groundwater monitoring violations. This briefing report summarizes the information we provided to your staff during a briefing on January 31, 1995. To obtain data for the request, we surveyed EPA and state hazardous waste officials in March 1994. However, we did not independently confirm the information provided to us by the survey respondents. In summary, we identified 1,209 hazardous waste land disposal facilities that must comply with EPA's groundwater monitoring requirements. For these facilities, respondents reported the following: At 976 facilities, or about 81 percent, all required monitoring systems are capable of immediately detecting if a release to the groundwater has occurred. Another 169 facilities, or about 14 percent, have some monitoring wells in place, but not all required systems are capable of immediately detecting a release. Only 54 facilities have no monitoring wells in place. We were unable to obtain complete data on the monitoring systems of the remaining 10 facilities. Releases have occurred at 890, or almost 74 percent, of the facilities. At 608, or about 68 percent, of these facilities, all groundwater monitoring systems are capable of determining the rate and extent of migration and the concentrations of hazardous waste in the groundwater. Of the remaining 282 facilities, 260, or about 29 percent, have some monitoring wells, but the systems may not be capable of fully assessing releases to the groundwater. However, not all facilities where releases have occurred are required to assess releases into the groundwater. At 15 other facilities, no wells have been installed. We were unable to obtain complete data on the capability of groundwater monitoring systems for seven facilities. Corrective action to prevent further groundwater contamination has been initiated at 606, or about 68 percent, of the 890 facilities where releases have occurred. Corrective action has not been initiated at 261 facilities where releases have occurred. Questionnaire respondents were unsure of the corrective status for the remaining 23 facilities. Groundwater monitoring violations have been cited at 650, or about 54 percent, of the 1,209 facilities since October 1, 1989. Sampling and analysis violations were the most frequent type of monitoring violation cited. As of September 30, 1993,\1 211 of the 650 facilities were not in compliance with EPA's regulations. Section 1 of this briefing report provides additional information on RCRA and the groundwater monitoring requirements. Section 2 discusses the universe of hazardous waste land disposal facilities subject to groundwater monitoring requirements and the extent to which these facilities have installed groundwater monitoring systems capable of immediately detecting a release of contaminants into the groundwater. Section 3 discusses facilities where releases have occurred, whether such facilities have groundwater monitoring systems that can assess those releases, and the status of corrective action at those facilities. Section 4 discusses groundwater monitoring violations. To identify hazardous waste land disposal facilities subject to EPA's groundwater monitoring regulations, we obtained data from the agency's Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS). RCRIS contains inspection, enforcement, and permit data on hazardous waste facilities nationwide. We then developed a questionnaire for the 1,427 land disposal facilities identified in RCRIS and mailed it to EPA regions and to states and territories authorized to administer their own RCRA programs. We asked the hazardous waste program officials who received the questionnaires to confirm whether each of the 1,427 facilities identified by RCRIS were subject to EPA's groundwater monitoring requirements and, if so, the status of each facility's compliance with those requirements. We also asked if the officials were aware of any additional facilities subject to these requirements. Of the 1,427 questionnaires we distributed, 1,406, or almost 99 percent, were returned. Of these 1,406 questionnaires, 1,119, or about 80 percent, confirmed that the facility is subject to groundwater monitoring requirements. The respondents completed questionnaires for an additional 90 facilities that they cited as being subject to groundwater monitoring requirements. Thus, we obtained and subsequently analyzed groundwater monitoring information for a total of 1,209 facilities. Appendix I provides details on our scope and methodology, and appendix II contains the questionnaire. We performed our work from July 1993 to December 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We did not obtain written agency comments on a draft of this briefing report. However, we discussed a draft of the report with officials in EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance--including Branch Chiefs in the agency's Chemical, Commercial Services and Municipal Division and Regional Support Division--and Offices of Solid Waste and of Ground Water and Drinking Water. The officials generally concurred with the information presented in the briefing report. However, the officials suggested that we revise the report to clarify that the agency treats assessment monitoring and corrective action as one single approach to addressing groundwater contamination. We revised the report to include this and a few minor technical comments where appropriate. -------------------- \1 This briefing report contains the most recent information that was available at the time our survey was distributed. ---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :0.1 As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this briefing report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of the briefing report to the Administrator of EPA. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-6112 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this briefing report are listed in appendix III. Sincerely yours, Peter F. Guerrero Director, Environmental Protection Issues Section 1 GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND RCRA ============================================================== Letter Cross Section of a Minimal Groundwater Monitoring System (See figure in printed edition.) Groundwater is the source of drinking water for about 50 percent of the nation's total population and nearly all of its rural population. Hazardous waste land disposal facilities present a direct contamination threat to groundwater because rain and snowmelt entering the soil can leach the hazardous constituents from such facilities and carry these contaminants to the groundwater. Depending upon the underlying terrain, the rate of groundwater flow, and the type and amount of constituents released from facilities, contaminated groundwater can easily migrate off-site and adversely affect groundwater users. Contaminated groundwater can cause cancer and other serious health problems, and clean-up of groundwater is costly and difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. Groundwater monitoring is the principal means of detecting contamination at hazardous waste land disposal facilities. Groundwater monitoring systems normally consist of a number of wells placed in strategic locations and depths around a facility's disposal units.\1 Wells, which are referred to as "upgradient wells," are required to determine the quality of the groundwater before it reaches the facility, and additional wells, which are referred to as "downgradient wells," are needed to determine the groundwater quality after it passes under or by the facility. If the wells are properly located, comparison of data from upgradient and downgradient wells should indicate if contamination is occurring at the facility. (See figure in printed edition.) The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), an amendment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, was enacted in 1976. One of RCRA's stated objectives is to ensure that hazardous waste management practices are conducted in a manner that protects human health and the environment. RCRA allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize states to implement their own RCRA programs if the programs are determined to be equivalent to and consistent with EPA's and provide for adequate enforcement. Currently, 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam have received such authorization. EPA has responsibility for implementing RCRA in the remaining states. Under RCRA, hazardous waste land disposal facilities are required to obtain permits in order to accept and dispose of hazardous waste or to close their operations. The Congress established an interim status period that allowed facilities in existence on November 19, 1980, who met certain conditions, to continue operating until their permit applications were approved or denied. The Congress, concerned with EPA's limited progress in implementing the RCRA program, amended RCRA in 1984 to, among other things, require that all land disposal facilities certify compliance with the basic interim status program requirements and apply for an operating permit by November 1985. Facilities that failed to do so by November 8, 1985, lost interim status and were required to close within the next 14 months (by Jan. 1987). If these facilities did not remove all waste and contaminated soil, they must apply for a post-closure permit that describes, among other things, what corrective action will be taken to abate any contamination and how monitoring the facility for leakage for generally 30 years will occur. (See figure in printed edition.) EPA promulgated initial RCRA groundwater monitoring requirements on May 19, 1980,\2 in order to assess the impact of a facility on the groundwater beneath it. These requirements apply only to interim status facilities. All or part of the requirements may be waived if a facility can demonstrate that there is a low potential of migration of contaminants to water supply wells or to surface water. Under the requirements, by November 1981, owners/operators of existing land disposal facilities were to install a groundwater monitoring system consisting of a minimum of one upgradient well and three downgradient wells. The hydrogeology of the site,\3 however, may require that the owners/operators install more than one system. Once wells are installed, owners/operators are required to collect quarterly data for 1 year to establish background concentrations for selected chemicals. Routine detection monitoring is then required. In the event that a significant increase of contaminants is confirmed, owners/operators must implement a quality assessment program to determine what is contaminating the groundwater, the rate and extent of contaminant migration, and the concentrations of hazardous waste in the groundwater. If the assessment shows hazardous waste contamination, the owners/operators must continue assessing the groundwater until the facility is closed. Upon closure, monitoring is required unless the facility removes all waste and contaminated soil. On July 26, 1982, EPA issued final groundwater monitoring regulations.\4 The regulations apply to land disposal units at hazardous waste facilities that received waste after this date. These units are referred to as "regulated units." The final regulations are similar to the interim status requirements and require a detection monitoring program and a compliance monitoring program. The regulations also establish a corrective action program. Detection monitoring is similar to the interim status detection monitoring requirement and is used to determine whether hazardous wastes are leaking at levels great enough to warrant compliance monitoring. Compliance monitoring is similar to the interim status assessment monitoring requirement and is used to determine whether groundwater contamination is occurring at a level requiring corrective action. Corrective action applies only to cleaning up or containing contamination resulting from releases at regulated units.\5 Section 2 -------------------- \1 A unit refers to a surface impoundment, waste pile, land treatment unit, or landfill. A facility may have more than one unit and/or several types of units. \2 40 C.F.R. part 265, subpart F. \3 Hydrogeology is the science dealing with the behavior of groundwater. \4 40 C.F.R. part 264, subpart F. \5 In general, if EPA discovers any contamination, it will evaluate the entire facility for additional contamination at both regulated units and those that stopped receiving waste before July 27, 1982. Depending on the source of the contamination, EPA can use several statutory and regulatory authorities to more comprehensively and efficiently address all contamination problems at a facility at the same time. NUMBER OF FACILITIES SUBJECT TO GROUNDWATER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS AND DETECTION MONITORING CAPABILITIES ============================================================== Letter (See figure in printed edition.) NUMBER OF FACILITIES SUBJECT TO GROUNDWATER MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1 Through a survey of EPA and state hazardous waste officials, we identified 1,209 hazardous waste land disposal facilities nationwide that are subject to groundwater monitoring requirements as of March 1994. This number is comparable to the number of facilities found by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, in a 1985 groundwater monitoring survey.\1 The Subcommittee found that 1,246 facilities were subject to the groundwater monitoring requirements. Texas and Ohio have the greatest number of facilities subject to the requirements (130 and 76, respectively), while Vermont, Rhode Island, and South Dakota have none. States and territories have, on average, 23 facilities subject to the requirements. About 77 percent of the facilities require only one groundwater monitoring system in order to determine if a release has occurred. Due to hydrogeological conditions, the remainder of the facilities require from 2 to 17 systems. (See figure in printed edition.) -------------------- \1 Groundwater Monitoring Survey, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. Government Printing Office, (Apr. 1985). DETECTION MONITORING CAPABILITIES ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2 Respondents to our questionnaire reported that all required monitoring systems at 976, or about 81 percent, of the 1,209 facilities subject to groundwater monitoring requirements are capable of determining if a release has occurred to the groundwater. At 169 facilities, or about 14 percent, some monitoring wells are in place, but either (1) the groundwater monitoring system is not capable of immediately detecting if a release has occurred or (2) if more than one system is required, not all are capable of such detection. At the remaining 54 facilities, or about 4 percent, no wells are in place. The respondents did not provide complete data on the monitoring systems at 10, or less than 1 percent, of the facilities. Detection Monitoring Capabilities, by State (See figure in printed edition.) Monitoring system capabilities vary among the 47 states and 3 territories where the 1,209 hazardous waste land disposal facilities are located. All facilities in 10 states and 1 territory have groundwater monitoring systems fully capable of detecting releases. At least 75 percent of the facilities have such systems in 23 states and 1 territory. In another 12 states and 1 territory, 50 percent or more of the facilities have systems fully capable of detecting releases. Less than one-half of the facilities in the remaining two states are fully capable of detecting releases. On the basis of the information the respondents provided for 47 states and 3 territories, 4 states (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas) account for over one-third of the facilities nationwide that have either no monitoring wells or one or more monitoring systems that are not fully capable of detecting releases to the groundwater. Section 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FACILITIES ============================================================== Letter (See figure in printed edition.) RELEASES TO THE GROUNDWATER ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3 The questionnaire respondents reported that most land disposal facilities have had a release of contaminants to the groundwater since they began receiving hazardous waste. Of the 1,209 facilities subject to the groundwater monitoring requirements, 890, or almost 74 percent, have had a release. Conversely, releases have not occurred at 156 (about 13 percent) of the facilities. The respondents were unsure whether 162 (about 13 percent) facilities have had a release, and information regarding releases was not provided for 1 facility. In the four states (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas) that account for over one-third of the facilities nationwide that have either no monitoring wells or one or more monitoring systems not fully capable of detecting releases, the respondents reported that 59 percent of the facilities have had a release and 16 percent have not had a release. The respondents were unsure whether the remaining 25 percent have had a release. (See figure in printed edition.) Nationally, releases occurred from only regulated units--units that received waste after July 26, 1982--at 360 facilities. At 384 facilities, releases occurred from both regulated units and units that had stopped receiving waste prior to July 27, 1982. At 97 facilities, releases occurred from only those units that stopped receiving waste prior to July 27, 1982. The respondents were unsure what type of units had releases at the remaining 49 facilities. (See figure in printed edition.) ASSESSMENT MONITORING CAPABILITIES AND CORRECTIVE ACTION ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4 The questionnaire respondents reported that at the 890 facilities where releases have occurred, 608, or about 68 percent, have groundwater monitoring systems that are fully capable of assessing the rate and extent of migration and the concentrations of hazardous waste in the groundwater. Of the remaining facilities, 260 have some monitoring wells, but the systems may not be capable of fully assessing releases to the groundwater, if required.\1 Although 153 of these facilities (about 17 percent) have systems capable of determining if a release has occurred but not fully capable of assessing such releases, another 107 facilities (about 12 percent), have some systems that are not capable of detecting releases. Also, 15 facilities, or about 2 percent, have installed no monitoring wells. Finally, the respondents did not provide complete data on the status of groundwater monitoring systems for seven facilities (less than 1 percent). (See figure in printed edition.) The questionnaire respondents reported that owners/operators of 606 of the 890 facilities (about 68 percent) where releases have occurred have taken corrective action to remove and/or treat hazardous constituents to prevent further groundwater contamination. Conversely, 261, or about 29 percent, of the facilities have not initiated corrective action. The respondents were unsure about the corrective action status of the remaining 23 facilities. (See figure in printed edition.) Of the 606 facilities that have initiated corrective action, 438, or about 72 percent, reportedly have systems capable of both detecting and assessing releases. Eighty-four facilities, or about 14 percent, have systems capable of detecting but not assessing releases.\2 Another 73 facilities, or about 12 percent, have some systems that are not capable of either detecting or assessing releases. Eight facilities, or about 1 percent, have installed no monitoring wells. The questionnaire respondents have incomplete data on the status of groundwater monitoring systems at the remaining three facilities, or about 1 percent. (See figure in printed edition.) Note: Numbers do not add to 100 percent because of rounding. (See figure in printed edition.) Of the 261 facilities that have not initiated corrective action, 153, or about 59 percent, reportedly have systems capable of both detecting and assessing releases. In addition, 65 facilities, or about 25 percent, have systems capable of detecting but not assessing releases. Another 33 facilities, or about 13 percent, have some systems that are not capable of either detecting or assessing releases. Six facilities, or about 2 percent, have installed no monitoring wells. The questionnaire respondents have incomplete data on the status of groundwater monitoring systems at the remaining four facilities, or about 2 percent. Section 4 -------------------- \1 Not all groundwater monitoring systems at the 890 facilities where releases have occurred may be required to assess releases into the groundwater. A facility may have multiple land disposal units that require separate systems. However, a system need not be capable of assessment monitoring unless a release has occurred from a unit the system monitors. In addition, units that stopped receiving waste before November 19, 1980, are not subject to these groundwater monitoring requirements. \2 As noted earlier, all systems may not be required to assess releases. GROUNDWATER MONITORING VIOLATIONS ============================================================== Letter (See figure in printed edition.) VIOLATIONS CITED SINCE OCTOBER 1989 ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5 Of the 1,209 facilities subject to groundwater monitoring requirements, 650, or about 54 percent, were cited for groundwater monitoring violations between October 1, 1989, and March 10, 1994. The most prevalent types of violations cited during this time period were (1) sampling and analysis violations and (2) inadequate number or placement of monitoring wells. Sampling and analysis violations were found at 328 facilities, or about 27 percent, while an inadequate number or placement of wells was found at 286 facilities, or about 24 percent. Groundwater monitoring violations vary in their degree of seriousness. Failure to perform sampling and analysis is a serious violation because it may result in a failure to detect changes in groundwater quality. Likewise, having an inadequate groundwater monitoring system may allow hazardous waste to remain undetected until a large volume of waste or leachate has been released to the groundwater. Other violations, such as minor deviations from record keeping requirements, that do not impede compliance monitoring or enforcement efforts are less serious. (See figure in printed edition.) Note: Numbers do not add to 100 percent because of rounding. (See figure in printed edition.) OUTSTANDING GROUNDWATER MONITORING VIOLATIONS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6 As of September 30, 1993, 211, or about 32 percent, of the 650 facilities that were cited for groundwater monitoring violations in the prior 4 years had outstanding Class I groundwater monitoring violations.\1 About 91 percent of these facilities have had outstanding violations for 1 or more years, while 9 percent have had outstanding violations for more than 10 years. Of the 211 facilities, 116, or about 55 percent, are considered by questionnaire respondents to be "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to comply with the groundwater monitoring requirements. Another 24 facilities, or about 11 percent, are considered as likely as not to comply. In addition, 54 facilities, or about 26 percent, are considered "somewhat unlikely" or "very unlikely" to comply. The respondents were unsure whether 16 facilities, or nearly 8 percent, would return to compliance, and information was not provided for 1 facility. (See figure in printed edition.) The reasons why facilities have not complied with groundwater monitoring requirements vary. The questionnaire respondents' most frequently cited reason was disagreement over technical/administrative requirements. Recalcitrance, or resistance to authority, was the second most frequent reason given. In addition, many of the respondents provided other reasons for noncompliance. Bankruptcy and a failure to understand the regulations were the two most frequently cited other reasons for noncompliance. Table 4.1 Violation Status Based on Groundwater Monitoring Capability, as of September 30, 1993 Number and (percent) of Number and facilities (percent) of out of Groundwater Total facilities compliance Most frequently monitoring number of with more than cited reason for capability facilities violations 5 years noncompliance -------------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------------ No wells 54 22(41) 12(22) Lack of funds Some wells; all 169 66(39) 32(19) Disagreement over systems not capable requirements of detection monitoring All systems capable 194 55(28) 16(8) Disagreement over of detection requirements monitoring but not assessment monitoring All systems capable 782 64(8) 11(1) Disagreement over of detection and requirements assessment monitoring Total 1,199\a 207(17) 72(6) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \a The questionnaire respondents did not provide data on the groundwater monitoring capabilities of 10 facilities; therefore, the facilities are not included in this table. The number of facilities that have outstanding Class I groundwater monitoring violations,\2 the length of time they have been out of compliance, and the most frequently cited reason for their failure to comply varies depending on whether owners/operators have installed adequate groundwater monitoring systems. As expected, a higher percentage of facilities without monitoring wells had outstanding Class I violations and were out of compliance as of September 30, 1993. Lack of owner/operator funds was the most frequently cited reason for why these facilities were out of compliance. -------------------- \1 EPA classifies RCRA violations into one of two categories. A Class I violation is any deviation from EPA regulations, provision of compliance orders, consent degrees, or permit conditions that could result in a failure to (1) ensure hazardous waste is destined for and delivered to authorized treatment, storage, or disposal facilities; (2) prevent releases; (3) ensure early detection of releases; or (4) perform corrective action for releases. A Class II violation is any other violation of a RCRA requirement. \2 Additional facilities may have outstanding Class I monitoring violations. However, because our questionnaire only asked for information on facilities that had been notified of violations detected since October 1, 1989, information was not obtained on facilities notified of violations detected prior to that time. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY =========================================================== Appendix I To determine the universe of hazardous waste land disposal facilities subject to groundwater monitoring, we obtained data from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS).\1 As of August 1993, RCRIS data indicated that 1,427 facilities were subject to monitoring requirements. We developed a questionnaire and distributed it to EPA regions and authorized states and territories to obtain data on the extent of groundwater monitoring compliance for each of the 1,427 facilities. In instances where states and territories are not authorized to administer the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program, we sent the questionnaire(s) to the respective EPA regional office. We asked respondents to confirm whether each facility is subject to groundwater monitoring requirements and requested that they complete questionnaires for any additional facilities not identified by RCRIS that are subject to the requirements. We also contacted three states that had no facilities among the 1,427 to confirm that no hazardous waste land disposal facilities in their respective states are subject to the requirements. We received responses for 1,406, or almost 99 percent, of the 1,427 facilities. According to the respondents, 1,119, or about 80 percent, of these facilities are required to comply with EPA's groundwater monitoring requirements.\2 We also received questionnaires for an additional 90 facilities identified by the respondents as being subject to RCRA groundwater monitoring requirements that were not identified by RCRIS as being subject to the requirements. Therefore, the universe of facilities subject to the monitoring requirements is 1,209. We determined whether facilities subject to groundwater monitoring requirements have monitoring systems in place and the capabilities of those systems. For example, we determined how many facilities have all required systems in place versus those that have only some or no systems in place. Of those that have some or all required systems in place, we compiled information on (1) how many were capable of immediately detecting releases and (2) how many were adequate to determine the rate and extent of migration and concentration of hazardous wastes in the groundwater. We then cross-tabulated this information with additional questionnaire data on groundwater violations, environmental impact, and corrective action. We did not report on the data we obtained concerning the potential effects posed by releases to the groundwater (questions 20 and 21) because the responses received were subjective, and respondents based their assessment of potential effects on different criteria. As a result, we are unable to rely on respondents' answers to these questions in analyzing questionnaire data. We did not independently confirm the information provided to us by the respondents. We performed our work from July 1993 to December 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II -------------------- \1 RCRIS contains inspection, enforcement, and permitting data on hazardous waste facilities. \2 The reasons why 287 facilities are not subject to the requirements vary. Some facilities have no regulated land disposal units, while groundwater monitoring requirements have been waived for others. At other facilities, all hazardous waste and waste residues were removed from regulated units during the closure process. SURVEY ON THE ADEQUACY OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING AT LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES =========================================================== Appendix I (See figure in printed edition.) (See figure in printed edition.) (See figure in printed edition.) (See figure in printed edition.) (See figure in printed edition.) MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS BRIEFING REPORT ========================================================= Appendix III ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ISSUES Kelly S. Ervin, Social Science Analyst Michael H. Harmond, Staff Evaluator Gerald E. Killian, Assistant Director Marcia B. McWreath, Senior Evaluator Deborah S. Ortega, Evaluator-in-Charge Dorothy M. Tejada, Computer Specialist