Detailed Information on the
Underground Injection Control Grant Program Assessment

Develop an outcome-based annual performance measure and an efficiency measure, which demonstrate the protection of source water quality.

Implement recommendations from the second triennial drinking water data quality review which are designed to improve the overall quality of the data in EPA??s drinking water compliance reporting system.

Develop an efficiency measure that is more useful and meaningful for tracking annual programmatic efficiency.

Measure: Percent of population served by community water systems that will receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards through approaches including effective treatment and source water protection.

Explanation:This measure tracks the percentage of population served by community water systems that meet all applicable health-based drinking water standards. If systems meet such standards, the population's exposure to contaminants is reduced.

Measure: People receiving drinking water that meets all applicable health-based standards per million dollars spent to manage the national drinking water program

Explanation:This measure will be changed for PWSS, UIC, and DWSRF and will include EPA funds, UIC and PWSS grants (with associated state match) , DWSRF grant set-aside funds and DWSRF funds provided for assistance (including state match, bond proceeds, repayments and interest earnings).

Measure: Percent of CWS for which minimized risk to public health through source water protection is achieved.

Explanation:This overall measure of the source water protection program tracks the percentage of community water systems that will achieve minimized risk to public health through source water protection strategic actions. Measure changed based upon changes made during current Strategic Planning process.

Measure: Percentage of prohibited Class IV and high-priority, identified, potentially endangering Class V wells closed or permitted in ground water-based source water areas.

Explanation:EPA expecting complete FY 2005 data will be available approximately end of November, 2005.

Measure: Percent of deep injection wells that are used to inject industrial, municipal, or hazardous waste (Class I) that have lost mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water.

Explanation:This measure directly measures State-related actions to protect underground sources of drinking water. While State UIC Program Directors do not actually control or influence the mechanical integrity of the deep UIC wells (Classes I, II and III), they are able to control or influence returning wells in violation of mechanical integrity requirements back into compliance. The regulated companies control operation and maintenance of the wells and therefore determine if all prevention actions are taken to prevent failures.

Measure: Percentage of identified Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells and other high priority Class V wells closed or permitted.

Explanation:This measure provides an indicator of state activity to close or permit the most critical wells for ground water protection. This measure looks statewide instead of at geographic areas within the state since most states define "sensitive ground water areas" as encompassing the whole state and data is collected on a statewide basis. The definition of high priority wells is set by each "State UIC Director," either from the Region or Primacy State. The measure allows for national comparisons among the states and identifies those states that may need technical assistance to increase performance. In calculating the measure, the denominator will include the cumulative universe of all the high priority wells in each state, including the motor vehicle waste disposal wells, and the numerator will include the cumulative number of high priority wells in the universe that were closed or permitted.

Measure: Total Federal National UIC Program costs per well managed (Classes I, II, III and V)

Explanation:Managing the wells includes all aspects of the program such as permitting, inspecting, monitoring, and maintenance and reporting. At Attachment I is a chart with: (1) a table showing the inventory of UIC wells over time; (2) a table of total Federal STAG dollars compared to the number of wells in compliance: (3) cost / well managed; and (4) a graph showing how the "cost/well managed ""has decreased over time since the budget has been the same, but the inventory of wells has increased.

Measure: Percent of deep injection wells that are used to enhance oil recovery or that are used for the disposal of storage of other oil production related activities (Class II) that have lost mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water.

Explanation:This measure directly measures State-related actions to protect underground sources of drinking water. While State UIC Program Directors do not actually control or influence the mechanical integrity of the deep UIC wells (Classes I, II and III), they are able to control or influence returning wells in violation of mechanical integrity requirements back into compliance. The regulated companies control operation and maintenance of the wells and therefore determine if all prevention actions are taken to prevent failures.

Measure: Percent of deep injection wells that are used for salt solution mining (Class III) that have lost mechanical integrity and are returned to compliance within 180 days thereby reducing the potential to endanger underground sources of drinking water.

Explanation:This measure directly measures State-related actions to protect underground sources of drinking water. While State UIC Program Directors do not actually control or influence the mechanical integrity of the deep UIC wells (Classes I, II and III), they are able to control or influence returning wells in violation of mechanical integrity requirements back into compliance. The regulated companies control operation and maintenance of the wells and therefore determine if all prevention actions are taken to prevent failures.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program mission is to protect public health by preventing injection practices that might endanger underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). The UIC Program achieves this through the implementation of the UIC regulations found in 40 CFR 144 through 148. The UIC grant program objective is to foster development and implementation of the UIC program under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The funds are to be used to develop and implement an underground injection control program adequate to enforce the requirements of SDWA.

Evidence: 40 CFR 144-148 SDWA 1421, 1422, 1443 2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan Office of Water National Program Guidance for 2005

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: About half of the U.S. population depends on groundwater as a source for drinking water. The UIC program ensures that the 800,000 (plus) injection wells used to emplace more than a trillion gallons of waste do not endanger USDWs. In the 1930's deep injection wells were used to dispose of oil field brines. Later, chemical companies used this technology to dispose of manufacturing (industrial) waste. A series of contamination cases in the 1960's and 1970's highlighted the need for minimum federal requirements to insure the proper siting, construction or oversight of injection practices. More recently, the federal UIC program is focusing on the potential endangerment posed by shallow injection wells (Class V) that inject into or above USDWs.

Evidence: The actual and potential adverse impacts to underground drinking water sources by the underground injection of waste is documented in several EPA and GAO reports to Congress.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: There is no other federal funding mechanism for the protection of USDWs from injection. Under SDWA, EPA developed minimum federal requirements for regulating the location, construction, operation and closure of injection wells as outlined in 40 CFR Part 144 and 146. States can apply for the primary enforcement authority (primacy) to implement the program. State agencies then implement State and Federal regulations and coordinate with other agencies within the State to ensure the effective implementation of the program. If a State chooses not to take on primacy, the USEPA has responsibility for direct implementation (DI) in that state. At the Federal level, the UIC Program works with states, other offices within EPA, and other federal agencies to ensure that there is no duplication of effort.

Evidence: In developing the UIC regulation in the late 1970s early 1980s, the Program worked with other EPA Offices including the Office of Solid Waste (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), other federal agencies (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), and states to develop comprehensive requirements that were not duplicative of other regulatory efforts.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: With the focus on protection of USDWs, there is no strong evidence that a different design or application of resources would better achieve the program's purpose.

Evidence: The program is designed to encourage States to take Primacy for the UIC program. It enables the Agency to leverage resources for the program's mission through permitting fees from well owners and State match funds.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: The UIC Grant is provided to Primacy States, Tribes and EPA regional offices with DI programs. SDWA provided the framework for allocating grant dollars. The allocation formula is weighted to direct resouces toward the highest risk wells to optimize public health protection

Evidence: Section 1443 paragraph (a)(4) identifies the criteria that should be used to determine each state program allotment. These criteria include: population, geographical area, number of public water systems, and other relevant factors. UIC Grant Formula (allocation formula)

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program has an outcome-based, long-term perfomance measure that supports the goals of "Water Safe to Drink" by reducing exposure to contaminants. The program is implementing a new outcome efficiency measure that will be included in the 2006 GPRA strategic plan. One long-term output measures more specific to the UIC Grants program tracks the percentage of source water areas (both surface and ground water) for community water systems will achieve minimized risk to public health.

Evidence: The performance measure tracks the percent population served by community water systems that receives drinking water in compliance with health-based standards. The measure is listed in EPA's 2003 Strategic Plan as a strategic target to track progress on the proposed goal of "Water Safe to Drink." For the efficiency measures (see measures tab) a "Measures Implementation Plan" has been submitted to OMB. The new output measure is also listed in EPA's 2003 Strategic Plan.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The targets and timeframes for the outcome performance measure and efficiency measure are ambitious given the existing external factors that limit EPA control and measurement of program progress. The measures emphasizes the importance of sustaining compliance as well as returning systems to compliance. The output measure targets are also subject to several external factors that the Agency must work to reduce in future years.

Evidence: The baselines and targets provided in the measures tab for the long-term outcome measure are published in EPA's Strategic Plan, and the program's more detailed Subobjective Implementation Plan.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The long-term efficiency measures serve as an adequate measure of outcome efficiency for the program. The program is also developing an annual output efficiency measure. Output performance measures, new or under development, assess the success of the permitting and well closure activities of the program. To receive a "Yes" in future assessments, the program will need to develop an outcome-based annual measure, which demonstrates the preservation of source water quality in support of the long-term goal.

Evidence: The mitigation of contaminant release to USDWs from underground injection wells protects the source water used for drinking water supplies and contributes to progress on the Agency's "Water Safe to Drink" goal. Measure Implementation Plans received for annual output measures.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Targets and timeframes for acceptable measures are under development.

Evidence:  

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The program does not yet have an acceptable annual outcome goal in place. However, grantees commit to and work toward key annual output performance measures. As annual outcome measures are developed, the program will need to demonstrate that its partners support these goals as well.

Evidence: Example Performance Partnership Agreements document State commitments to inventory UIC wells, inspect and permit or close wells as appropriate to protect USDWs.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Independent evaluations are not conducted on a regular basis and those within the last ten years have focused on program management rather than a determination of whether program implementation is achieving outcome goals. Additionally, audit-based approaches do not meet the quality criteria for determing the impact of the program.

Evidence:  

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The Agency estimates and budgets for the full annual costs of operating its programs, taking into consideration any changes in funding, policy and legislative changes. All spending categories and the resource levels and activities associated with them are included in the annual Congressional Justification. Presentation to Congress of the Agency's budget, including resources for the UIC Grant program, include alignment to its Strategic Plan goals.

Evidence: Annual Congressional Justification. Budget Automation System (BAS) reports. Example provided by program estimating the change in Class V well identifications for a given change in program funding.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The UIC Program has been integrally involved in the Agency Strategic Planning which resulted in the inclusion of specific UIC targets in the current 2004 - 2008 Strategic Plan. The small size of the grant program presents significant challenges to obtaining comprehensive, independent analysis of strategic deficiencies, however the program works regularly with stakeholders on improving program measures.

Evidence: Guidance documents, workgroup memos and conference notes demonstrate strategic planning efforts among the Agency and its partners.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Data for outcome performance measures are compiled from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS). EPA's Inspector General recently reported data quality problems with this reporting system and concluded that EPA is not accurately reporting its performance. The program does collect data for its output measures and uses this information to prioritize closure/permitting activities.

Evidence: OIG, March 5, 2004. EPA Claims to Meet Drinking Water Goals Despite Persistent Data Quality Shortcomings, No. 2004-P-0008. State reviews. Regional office workplans and activities summary. 7520 Federal Reporting forms.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: EPA employs designated UIC program managers in all regional offices and at the national level. The UIC staff and managers, at headquarters and in the regions, have responsibilities that are specified under performance standards through personnel performance agreement and related appraisals. Additionally, Federal regional grant project officers are held accountable for ensuring that all policies and procedures of the EPA Grants Administration Division are followed. Grantees are accountable through grant agreements and annually negotiated program plans with EPA for program costs. EPA Regions' annual review of state performance under the grants and audit results can be used to adjust grant conditions. State primacy can be revoked if its program does not meet the performance requirements of SDWA 1413.

Evidence: 40 CFR 35: EPA Grant Regulations EPA Grants Management Plan SDWA 1422 Performance Appraisal forms for Office Director, Branch Chief and Grant Officer.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Each Region's program office, and grant's management office, conducts post-award monitoring of assistance agreements that tracks the draw-down of funds and enables them to assess the timeliness of resource obligations and commitments. State grants are subject to audit under the Single Audit Act either because they are issued under Performance Partnership Grants or Performance Partnership Agreements, or because they exceed the dollar threshold required by the Act. EPA's OIG reviews the audit findings and there are procedures in place to take administrative actions as needed.

Evidence: For FY2003, EPA reports that of the $10,866,619 UIC grants allocated, $9,343,844 (86%) were obligated by the end of the fiscal year. Single Audit Act reports.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Agency has developed and sponsored a series of programs aimed at enhancing the efficiency of State UIC programs including; web-based tracking systems, use of Personal Digital Assistants (PDA's) and expanded GIS capabilities. The grant formula is periodically reviewed with UIC managers to assess whether changes are necessary to meet program goals as the program evolves.

Evidence: Class V Grant Model User Guide and Summary of the PDA project. Presentation to UIC managers at National meeting in June 2001.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: A major focus of the UIC Program's strategic efforts concerns integration with related federal programs. The UIC program works collaboratively with other EPA programs (e.g. RCRA, OAR, NPDES), other federal agencies (e.g. DOE, USGS, BLM), and many state regulatory agencies. The State UIC programs, who are typically the grantees of UIC funding, in turn, work cooperatively across related state programs and with smaller, more local programs such as health departments, rural water authorities, and agencies involved with preparing source water assessments. UIC coordinates with related EPA programs (Public Water System Supervision and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund programs) to work toward shared performance goals.

Evidence: Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) all State UIC Primacy Agencies, and Enforcement Agreements outline program responsibilities and target enforcement actions. MOU with the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), an organization of governors from oil and gas producing states on issues related to oil and gas production and Class II injection wells. Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission Memorandum of Understanding; Outreach Material- Office Wastewater Management EPA's 2003 Strategic Plan on the proposed goal of "Water Safe to Drink."

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program follows EPA's financial management guidelines for committing, obligating, reprogramming, and reconciling appropriated funds. Agency officials have a system of controls and accountability, based on GAO and other principles, to ensure that improper payments are not made. At each step in the process, the propriety of the payment is reviewed. EPA trains individuals to ensure that they understand their roles and responsibilities for invoice review and for carrying out the financial aspects of program objectives. EPA received an unqualified audit opinion on its FY02 financial statements and had no material weaknesses associated with the audit. The UIC Grant program has no material weaknesses as reported by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and has procedures in place to minimize erroneous payments. In future, the program will need to demonstrate the capability to monitor improper payments at the sub-recipient level to receive a "YES" score.

Evidence: Annual Congressional Justification. Budget Automation System (BAS) reports. Unqualified audit opinion on EPA FY02 financial statements. Fiscal Year 2002 Advice of Allowance Letter. 2002 Integrity Act Report.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: EPA is developing an action plan to address data quality issues in SDWIS/FED.EPA has taken a number of steps to strengthen the management and oversight of its assistance agreements, focusing on improving competition in the awarding of grants and enhancing compliance review and monitoring of grants. To build upon these efforts, EPA has developed a Grants Management Plan, which brings ongoing planning efforts into one comprehensive document, establishing a clear and strong direction for the Agency.EPA Region 6 has been reviewing all State UIC agencies in the past two years, looking for programmatic shortcomings. Other regions conduct yearly meetings with all State programs through the grant application process, and sometimes separately on the UIC program, and work through issues that may be common to their state programs.

Evidence: EPA, March 2004. Drinking Water Data Reliability Analysis and Action Plan (2003).Agency's Grants Management Plan www.epa.gov/ogd/EO/finalreport.pdfGrant Specialist Training Summary; Managers training; List of GWPC's Peer Reviews.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The UIC Program, under the authority of Section 1422 of SDWA and codified at 40 CFR part 144.8, requires grantees to submit information on the various activities they have undertaken over that year. In addition, Regions collect and review annual reports and conduct annual performance reviews of primacy state programs.

Evidence: Examples of Regional Reviews.Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs).7520 Federal Report form.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The annual performance information for the UIC program is available to the public through the GPRA reporting process, Envirofacts and Agency enforcement compliance reporting.

Evidence: GPRA reports; Envirofacts (www.epa.gov/enviro); Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) Compliance Reports; EPA Regional Office Web-sites.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program is implementing an outcome efficiency measure and is committed to a strategy and workplan. The UIC program is progressing toward its long-term performance target although data quality issues suggest the numbers may under-report actual performance.

Evidence: Summarized in measures tab.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program does not have an annual outcome performance measure and results have not been reported for the new output measures.

Evidence:  

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The program does not yet have a program-specific efficiency measure. Compliance rates have improved slightly during the recent period when grant funds have been effectively level, even while State program demands have increased. However, there is no evidence to link this observation to improved program efficiencies. The program does not appear to have incentives and measures for cost efficiency or effectiveness. However, the program is able to demonstrate cost savings for selected process efficiencies that have been implemented recently.

Evidence: The annual costs for well inventory and inspection activities have decreased in Regional Offices using an automated system that replaces manual data compilation with a PDA/web-based system. The program is plans to expand the system to other Regions and primacy States in 2005/2006.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are no other federal agencies or nongovernmental programs engaged in the protection of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). The State programs are supported in part from the grants issued by this program, so a comparison of State and federal programs would not be meaningful.

Evidence:  

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: No evidence that the program has been comprehensively assessed by an independent entity using methodology that meets the criteria for quality.

Evidence: