OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Public Liaison Report
Complete Assessment Needed to
Ensure Rural Texas Community
Has Safe Drinking Water
Report No. 2007-P-00034
September 11, 2007

-------
Report Contributors:
Johnny D. Ross
Larry Dare
Abbreviations
EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
MCL	Maximum contaminant level
MTBE	Methyl tertiary butyl ether
OIG	Office of Inspector General
TCEQ	Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Cover photo: Contaminated soil around the Mitchell Facility saltwater disposal tank farm
(photo taken in April 2004 by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality).

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	2007-P-00034
Office of Inspector General	September 11,2007

At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this review in
response to a hotline complaint
alleging that a small
community's only source of
drinking water had been
contaminated by adjacent
saltwater disposal operations.
The complaint also alleged that
Federal and State officials had
not provided assistance
obtaining safe drinking water.
Background
In 1996, residents in a small
community in Panola County,
Texas, complained of drinking
water discoloration, stained
kitchen and bath fixtures, and
gastrointestinal problems after
consuming water. Most
residents had begun buying
bottled water or obtaining
water from relatives. Between
1996 and 2003, residents said
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and Texas
representatives took no action
to help identify a permanent
source of safe drinking water.
In 2003, Texas found the
groundwater was contaminated
and advised residents to not use
the water for domestic
purposes.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2007/
20070911 -2007-P-00034.pdf
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Complete Assessment Needed to Ensure
Rural Texas Community Has Safe Drinking Water
What We Found
A Panola County resident first alleged in 1996 that drinking water for residents in
a small community in the county was contaminated. However, State officials did
not confirm the problem until 2003, when they told the residents to not use their
water for domestic purposes. In September 2005, EPA began providing, and
continues to provide, bottled water to the affected residents. EPA and the State
have taken additional steps to assess the source, severity, and extent of
contamination.
In March 2005 the State requested that Basic Energy Services, the site operator,
assess groundwater, and in October 2005 the State requested that Basic Energy
Services install additional monitoring wells. In March 2006, because Basic
Energy Services" performance was inadequate, the State indicated it would take
enforcement action. However, we found no evidence that the State took
enforcement action. Although the State has installed additional groundwater
monitoring wells in the area, the full extent and source of contamination is still not
known. Region 6 is confident that the contamination does not originate from
injected waste. Even so, the State has initiated additional assessment action under
State programs.
Responding to a petition filed by Panola County residents in November 2006,
EPA is conducting an assessment to determine if the site qualifies for cleanup
under EPA's Superfund program. Further, in its June 29, 2007, response to our
draft report, EPA said that it intends to use removal action funds to pay for
constructing a water line that will provide the residents with access to the Panola
Bethany Water Supply Corporation. EPA decided to evaluate and fully assess
the contaminated groundwater under its Superfund program, as well as to have
the residents connected to the water system. In response to our suggestion that
more frequent communication with the community would be beneficial, in 2007,
the Region acted to keep the community informed. Region 6 stated they have
held community meetings and Superfund staff have met with the citizens
individually in preparation for additional site investigations. We commend the
Region for these communication activities and encourage their continuance.

-------
m
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
September 11, 2007
MEMORANDUM
Complete Assessment Needed to Ensure Rural Texas Community
Has Safe Drinking Water
Report No. 2007-P-00034
Eileen McMahon ' ' ' ^
Assistant Inspector General for Congressional and Public Liaison
TO:	Richard Greene
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6
This is our final report on the subject review conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report represents the opinion of the
OIG and the findings in this report do not necessarily represent the final EPA position. Final
determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with
established resolution procedures.
The findings in this report are not binding in any enforcement proceeding brought by EPA or the
Department of Justice under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act to recover costs incurred not inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan.
The estimated cost of this report - calculated by multiplying the project's staff day by the
applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time - is $375,251.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide this office with a written
response within 90 days of the date of this report. We have no objection to the further release of
this report to the public. This report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
SUBJECT:
FROM:
If you or your staff has any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 202-566-2391 or
mcmahon.eileen@epa.gov. or Paul McKechnie at 617-918-1471 or mckechnie.paul@epa.gov.

-------
Complete Assessment Needed to Ensure Rural Texas Community
Has Safe Drinking Water
Table of C
Chapters
1	Introduction		1
Purpose		1
Background		1
Noteworthy Achievements		4
Scope and Methodology		4
2	Complete Assessment Needed to Ensure Community Has
Safe Drinking Water 		6
Data Collected to Date Do Not Definitively Identify
Source and Extent of Contamination		6
A Short-Term Solution Continues; EPA Conducts an Assessment 		9
EPA Has Begun to Assert Its Oversight Authority		10
Conclusion		10
Region 6 Response to Draft Report and OIG Comment		10
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 		13
Appendices
A Details on Scope and Methodology	 14
B Region 6 Response to Draft Report	 15
C Distribution	 18

-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
We conducted this review in response to a hotline complaint that alleged a small
residential community's only source of drinking water had been contaminated by
adjacent saltwater waste disposal well operations. The complainant also alleged
that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Texas had
not provided assistance to obtain safe drinking water. Our specific objectives
were to answer the following questions:
•	Are the existing testing and sampling sufficient to provide an accurate
assessment of contaminants in the soil and groundwater, the actual levels
of contamination, and the potential effects on human health and the
environment?
•	What are EPA's and the State's short- and long-term plans for providing
safe drinking water to Panola County residents, and are there plans for
fully assessing and, if necessary, remediating the saltwater disposal site?
•	Has EPA Region 6 provided enough oversight of the Texas Underground
Injection Control program, the State's responsiveness to the threats posed
by known groundwater contamination, and the State's assessment and
remedial actions at the saltwater disposal site?
Background
Safe Drinking Water Act and Underground Injection Control Program
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, establishes statutory
requirements for protecting underground sources of drinking water. Part C
establishes a Federal/State system to regulate underground injection activities.
EPA implements the statutory requirements of the Act through regulations and
guidance.
The underground injection activity in Panola County was classified as a Class II
commercial saltwater disposal facility (Class II involves oilfield operations).
During oil production, a large amount of saltwater waste is recovered and
transported to saltwater disposal facilities to be injected back into the earth. At
these facilities, a small amount of oil is recovered from the saltwater waste. The
1

-------
remaining waste (brine) is disposed of by being injected into a Class II injection
well.
States can apply for primary responsibility for the Underground Injection Control
program, including enforcement authority (primacy), under Section 1422 or 1425
of the Safe Drinking Water Act; Title 42, U.S. Code, Sections 300h-l and 300h-4,
respectively. Texas has been granted primacy for its program under section 1425,
or 300h-4 of the Code. EPA Region 6 still remains responsible for overseeing
Texas' program. Under section 1425, a State is required to demonstrate that the
Class II portion of its Underground Injection Control program meets the
requirements at section 1421(b)(1)(A) through (D), (A) through (D) of section
300h(b)(l) of the Code, and represents an effective program to prevent
underground injection operations that could endanger drinking water sources.
EPA Region 6's Source Water Protection Branch provides oversight of the Texas
Underground Injection Control program. The Region 6 Superfund Division's
Emergency Response unit helps States respond to, assess, and remediate soil and
groundwater contamination at hazardous sites.
Panola County Complaint
The complaint concerned a small community, consisting of seven families and a
church, in the rural town of De Berry, Panola County, Texas. Residents stated
that they first told Texas officials in 1996 that their drinking water was
contaminated. They also stated that they discussed drinking water concerns in
1996 with an EPA Region 6 employee, but the Region had no record of that
employee nor could we locate that employee. They complained of water
discoloration, stained kitchen and bath fixtures, and gastrointestinal problems.
Most residents elected not to use the water and began obtaining water from other
sources. Some bought bottled water from a discount chain store approximately
23 miles away. Others, using personal containers such as milk jugs, obtained
water from relatives in adjacent areas.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Railroad
Commission of Texas were aware of the Panola County residents' concerns.
TCEQ is responsible for addressing groundwater contamination from refined
petroleum products and organic matter. The Railroad Commission of Texas is the
State's regulatory agency for oil and gas production, as well as underground
injection activities. Sampling and testing conducted in 2002 by Basic Energy
Services, the site operator, showed the presence of some contaminants above
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) used by EPA and States as health
protection standards for drinking water. The Railroad Commission of Texas took
no action at that time because an oilfield contamination source had not been
definitively established.
After conducting additional tests in 2003, the commission advised the residents
not to use the water for domestic purposes and continued to assess water
2

-------
conditions. The 2003 testing data showed the presence of several contaminants in
the soil and groundwater. This confirmed the resident's allegation that the
groundwater was contaminated. Contaminants included barium, chlorides, total
petroleum hydrocarbons, fecal coliform, benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and
xylene. Based on these test results, the
State advised residents to not use their
water for domestic purposes. Until a
full assessment is completed, the
source of these contaminants cannot
be definitively known and
contamination from the injection site
cannot be ruled out. Residents' wells
are also susceptible to pollution from
surface runoff and bacterial
contaminants, such as animal waste.
Saltwater Injection Site
The Mitchell saltwater disposal facility
(top photo) was located approximately
1/8-mile northeast of the affected
community. It began operations in
1987 as a commercial saltwater
disposal facility. The disposal site
consisted of a tank farm with eight
large storage and processing tanks, a
truck loading and unloading rack, a
truck washout pit, a fresh-water well
with storage tank and pump house, and
an injection well (Mitchell #2). This
injection well (center photo) had a
permit to inject waste saltwater into
the earth at an interval between 1,080
and 1,110 feet. The well's permit also
established the base of the
groundwater to be protected at
250 feet. The Mitchell #2 well ceased
operations sometime between October
1999 and February 2000.
Top: Tank Farm at Waste Disposal Site -
Mitchell Facility. Center: Mitchell #2 Injection
Well. Bottom: AF Hall Injection Weill
(photos courtesy TCEQ)
After the Mitchell #2 well closed, Basic Energy Services continued to use the
Mitchell facility (tank farm, washout pit, etc.) for all disposal operations except
the actual injection of saltwater. After being processed at the Mitchell facility, the
saltwater was pumped approximately 1/4-mile offsite to the AF Hall injection
well (bottom photo). The AF Hall well was a stand-alone well permitted to inject
waste saltwater into the earth between 3,474 and 3,578 feet. As a result of an
3

-------
administrative permit violation, the saltwater disposal operation - which included
the Mitchell Facility, Mitchell #2 injection well, and AF Hall injection well - was
shut down in November 2004. At that time, Basic Energy Services started
cleanup activities at both wells.
When we visited the site in May 2005, all equipment had been removed. The
wells had been closed and plugged. The contaminated topsoil had been removed
and transported to another saltwater disposal site. Basic Energy Services had
spread new soil and gravel over the site and installed three groundwater
monitoring wells.
Noteworthy Achievements
EPA and the State of Texas have made progress toward fully assessing the
severity, extent, and source of contaminants affecting the Panola County
community and keeping residents informed. For example, the State has drilled
additional monitoring wells to further assess the extent of contamination at and
around the underground injection site. Since September 2005, EPA Region 6 has
provided, and continues to
provide, residents with bottled
drinking water. In addition, the
Region is conducting an
assessment under its Superfund
authority to determine if the site
qualifies for federally funded
remediation. Continued joint
efforts by the State and EPA are
a positive sign that, working
together, they will be able to
conclusively determine the
source of harmful pollutants and
help the affected residents
establish a permanent source of
safe drinking water.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our review between May 2005 and July 2007. We visited the
Panola County community and Federal, State, and local agencies to conduct
interviews, obtain official records, and review files and electronic databases.
We focused on allegations in the complaint received from the Panola County
residents. We found no prior reviews pertinent to the complaint. We conducted
this review in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards,
issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Because our review was
TCEQ staff taking samples from sludge and standing
liquid during an inspection (photo courtesy TCEQ)
4

-------
of a specific complaint, we did not evaluate overall management controls for EPA
programs. Further details on our scope and methodology are in Appendix A.
We did not pursue other issues that we became aware of during the course of our
review. These included community residents' legal action against the potential
responsible party and an environmental justice complaint the community filed
with EPA. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) does not normally comment on
issues brought before the legal system or other complaints that have not yet been
resolved by the Agency.
5

-------
Chapter 2
Complete Assessment Needed to Ensure
Community Has Safe Drinking Water
Since 1996, when a Panola County resident first complained to the State of Texas
about drinking water contamination, EPA and Texas representatives have not
fully characterized the extent of contamination or cleaned up the contamination.
According to EPA representatives, they did not become aware of the resident's
complaint until 2002. In 2003, the State recognized the presence of harmful
contaminants in the residents' drinking water supply. However, despite
considerable effort by the State and EPA, they still have not identified the source
or extent of the contamination or cleaned up the contamination. We received the
complaint in 2004 and began our review in May 2005. In September 2005,
Region 6 began providing bottled water to the residents. Since 2005, State and
EPA representatives have also increased their efforts to fully assess the source,
severity, and extent of contaminants. Responding to a petition filed by a Panola
County resident in November 2006, EPA is conducting an assessment to
determine if the site qualifies for cleanup under EPA's Superfund program. In its
June 29, 2007, response to our draft report, Region 6 said it intends to use
removal action funds to pay for constructing a water line that will provide the
residents with access to the Panola Bethany Water Supply Corporation. To date,
however, the residents do not have a permanent source of safe drinking water and
the contamination has not been fully assessed or remediated.
Data Collected to Date Do Not Definitively Identify
Source and Extent of Contamination
None of the analyses conducted as of February 2007 has definitively determined
the source or extent of contamination in the Panola County community. The
Railroad Commission of Texas, TCEQ, Basic Energy Services, and complainant
have all conducted water quality analysis at the Panola County site. Region 6
personnel told us they believe evidence shows the contamination did not originate
from the injection well. The Regional Administrator further stated that recent
sampling data confirms that groundwater contamination did not result from
Underground Injection Control activities. Although we have not confirmed the
Regional Administrator's assertion, we agree that recent steps to provide a
permanent source of safe drinking water and continued monitoring will
effectively protect the health of Panola County residents.
6

-------
Test Results Identify Contaminants
Testing data, compiled from water samples taken between 2002 and 2005,
identified some contaminants above MCLs in the groundwater at and around the
Panola County injection site. From October 2002 until August 2005, at least six
sampling events have been conducted by the Railroad Commission of Texas,
TCEQ, Basic Energy Services, and the complainant. Data have shown various
contaminants in the groundwater aquifer 35 feet below the surface, fresh water
springs, and monitoring wells that exceed primary and/or secondary MCLs.
Exceeding primary MCLs presents a health risk to residents. Secondaiy MCLs
are established only as guidelines to assist public water systems in managing their
drinking water for aesthetic considerations and are not enforced by EPA. Neither
the State nor EPA has conclusively determined the source of the contamination.
Samples taken in October 2003 showed high levels of chlorides, arsenic, barium,
and benzene. Test data also found fecal coliform and MTBE (methyl tertiary
butyl ether), which do not have MCLs but pose health concerns. Based on these
test results, the State advised the community to not use the water for domestic
purposes.
The Region stated that, in 2005, TCEQ detected lead and dichloromethane - both
designated as hazardous substances under Federal Superfund laws. At the State's
request, EPA provided bottled drinking water to the affected residents under its
Superfund authority. Although EPA officials told us that they believe the
dichloromethane detection was due to a laboratory error, they have continued to
provide bottled water. In response to a petition filed by Panola County residents
in November 2006, EPA is conducting an assessment to determine if the site
qualifies for cleanup under EPA's Superfund program.
Site Assessment/Remediation Efforts Not Yet Complete
Although groundwater testing showed
some contamination in 2002, the State
did not issue an official notification until
2003 that the groundwater was
contaminated and should not be used for
domestic purposes. Basic Energy
Services began investigative and
remedial activities immediately after the
saltwater disposal facility closed in
2004. After more than 3 years, the site
investigation has not conclusively
determined the source of the
contamination. Flowever, Region 6 is
confident that, based on current
sampling data, the contamination does
not originate from injected waste. The
Resident's backyard well July 2005; water surface
has oily sheen (EPA OIG photo)
7

-------
full extent of the contamination, its lateral limits, its depth, and its migration
patterns or movement along the groundwater plume is not known.
The three monitoring wells installed by Basic Energy Services were not sufficient
to characterize the extent and source of contamination. One of the wells was not
properly sited, and collectively the three wells did not provide conclusive data to
fully characterize the pollution at the site. One well was at the northeast portion
of the site up-gradient to the general flow of the shallow groundwater. Any
contaminated groundwater would flow away from that well and would likely not
be detected. A second well was at the southwest site boundary near the
residential community. A third well was further south of the second well along
the southwest boundary and also nearer to the residential community. All three
wells were located on the disposal site property.
Between July 2005 and November 2005, the State installed five additional
monitoring wells at the Mitchell site that will help better characterize the site.
The State should continually assess the adequacy of data produced from these
additional monitoring wells and ensure information received from them is
adequate to categorize the site contaminants.
*
Northeast corner of Mitchell Facility after
closure (EPA OIG photo)
State and EPA Determined Enforcement Action Was Not Appropriate
Since the site's closure in 2004, Basic Energy Services has not fully complied
with State requests. The State has, on several occasions, directed it to install
additional monitoring wells, conduct additional sampling and testing of the deeper
groundwater, and provide a plan for the full remediation of the site. However,
Basic Energy Services has not done so.
For example, in March 2005, the State requested Basic Energy Services to assess
the contamination at the Mitchell site, to include testing the deeper groundwater
(about 180 feet) via the site's previously operated freshwater well. Basic Energy
Monitoring Well #1 (right bottom) with resident
home in background (EPA OIG photo)
8

-------
Services informed the State that it did not believe the contamination was its
responsibility, and since the freshwater well had been plugged, deeper
groundwater testing could not be conducted. In October 2005, the State directed
Basic Energy Services to install two additional monitoring wells to delineate
elevated barium and chlorides. Again, Basic Energy Services responded that it
did not believe the barium and chlorides were related to its saltwater disposal
operation and asked the State to reconsider its request for additional monitoring
wells. In March 2006, the State indicated that Basic Energy Services'
performance was inadequate and it would take enforcement action. However, we
found no evidence that the State had taken enforcement action. The State is now
assessing and remediating the site under its State-managed Oilfield Cleanup and
Site Remediation Program.
EPA has also determined that it will not take enforcement action against Basic
Energy Services. The Safe Drinking Water Act (Title 42, U.S. Code, Section
300h-2) provides enforcement authority for the Underground Injection Control
program. EPA has broad discretion about using its authority to take enforcement
actions. EPA told us there is not sufficient evidence that subsurface injection
contributed to the groundwater contamination. Therefore, EPA indicated no
enforcement action can be pursued under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Region 6
attorneys stated that the Region had not invoked its authority because (1) the
groundwater data do not consistently show violation of a drinking water standard,
(2) data do not exist to prove that contamination originated from a specific known
source, and (3) there is no feasible respondent (responsible party) to whom an
enforcement order could be sent.
A Short-Term Solution Continues; EPA Conducts an Assessment
EPA began providing bottled water for Panola County residents in September
2005. In response to a request by TCEQ, EPA Region 6 established a contract
with a drinking water distributor to provide bottled drinking water and dispensers
to the affected residents. The Region indicated that bottled water would be
provided to the affected residents until a permanent source of safe drinking water
is obtained. The EPA On-Scene Coordinator reported that there is the potential
that the contamination will spread to other families in the area. Therefore, the
Agency would monitor the site for other residents with contaminated wells. The
Region's efforts are the first to provide any means of clean water for the Panola
County residents since this situation began in 1996.
EPA Region 6 has taken further action to assess the contamination. According to
a Panola County resident, the Region had initiated action to assess the site under
EPA's Superfund program. In March 2007, residents told us that EPA had
conducted what appeared to them to be a thorough investigation.
9

-------
EPA Has Begun to Assert Its Oversight Authority
Since December 2002, EPA has been working with the residents of Panola
County. Prior to December 2002, EPA did not have significant contact with the
Panola County residents. According to the Region 6 Regional Administrator, the
Region did not initially become involved in the Panola County issue because it
had no reason to believe the underground injection operation was responsible for
residential well contamination.
Since contamination was confirmed at the site in 2003, EPA has become more
involved. During 2003 and 2004, Region 6 staff visited Texas State offices to
review files, analyze lab results, and discuss ongoing efforts with State officials.
The Regional Administrator noted that since 2005 Region 6 staff made multiple
field trips to the site, conducted citizen interviews, reviewed additional site
records, and analyzed site data. Region 6 staff added that because the
Underground Injection Control program is delegated to Texas, it becomes
involved in program issues only when necessary. However, although it has been
3 years since official notification that the community's groundwater was
contaminated, the affected residents are still without a permanent source of safe
drinking water.
Conclusion
EPA and the State of Texas have agreed to provide a permanent source of safe
drinking water for the affected community. Specifically, in its June 29, 2007,
response to our draft report, Region 6 said it intends to use removal action funds
to pay for constructing a water line that will provide the residents with access to
the Panola Bethany Water Supply Corporation. Further, the State and EPA are
continuing to assess the source, extent, and severity of contamination. Region 6's
increased involvement since December 2002 is a positive step in identifying an
affordable, permanent source of safe drinking water. Because of these positive
actions, we are not making recommendations. The Region should continue the
level of recent communication with the community until the project is completed.
Region 6 Response to Draft Report and OIG Comment
EPA is planning to take appropriate action to correct the problems noted in the
affected Panola County community. Specifically, Region 6 indicated it intends to
use removal action funds to pay for connecting the affected community to a water
system. Region 6's full response to our draft report is in Appendix B. Where we
agreed with the Region's position, we made appropriate changes to the report.
Below, we provide information on issues for which we maintain our position and
did not change the report.
10

-------
Region 6 Response
1.	The Region stated that the report should state that "No groundwater
contamination has occurred from injected waste." It states that the draft report
inaccurately suggests that injected waste from the Mitchell #2 well may have
contaminated groundwater. The reply goes on to say both the Railroad
Commission of Texas and EPA's Underground Injection Control Oversight
Program years ago determined that the Mitchell #2 injection well or AF Hall well
were not the source of ground water contamination.
O/G Comment
While OIG cannot definitively determine where the contamination
originated, we do agree with the Region that it is unlikely contamination
originated from injected waste.
Region 6 Response
2.	The Region took issue with the statement, "Region 6 personnel told us they
believe evidence suggests the contamination does not originate from the injection
site."
O/G Comment
We changed the statement to read "Region 6 personnel told us they
believe evidence shows the contamination does not originate from the
injection well." In fact, the Region concluded that contamination came
from surface spills at the site.
Region 6 Response
3.	The Region said that it believes the April 3, 2007, preliminary assessment
report falsely concludes that contamination came from the injection well.
O/G Comment
OIG has not received a copy of, nor have we evaluated the conclusions
reached in, the April 3, 2007, preliminary assessment report. Because we
have not reviewed the report we are unable to evaluate the Region's
position.
Region 6 Response
4.	The Region recognizes the difficulty in keeping various roles and
responsibilities of its divisions and programs clear, and suggests this may have led
us to incorrect conclusions about the Region's oversight role. The Region also
11

-------
takes issues with our characterization of its Underground Injection Control
program. It added that, in fact, surface spills are not under the jurisdiction of the
Underground Injection Control program.
OIG Comment
The OIG understands the Region's organizational structure and each
organization's respective responsibilities. We believe that a more
coordinated regional response may have led the Region to provide
assistance to Panola County residents sooner than it did. We also believe
it would be beneficial for Region 6's various divisions and programs to
reassess their relationships with each other to better and more timely
identify when issues such as this should be referred to other divisions or
programs that could effectively deal with the problem.
Region 6 Response
5. The Region recommended that the OIG add a "current status" to the draft
report highlighting the Region's most recent accomplishments.
OIG Comment
We have added throughout the report comments describing the current
situation and actions taken by Region 6. Preliminarily, Region 6 has
determined that it will use removal action funds to provide
uncontaminated water to the community by constructing a waterline from
the Panola Bethany Water Supply Corporation to residents. Until
completion of this project, Region 6 will continue to supply bottled water.
Region 6 also indicated that it is now in regular communication with
community residents. Contacts include frequent phone calls, emails, and
two community meetings since December 2006. Superfund
representatives have met individually with community residents in
preparing for the Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation and to
explain test results.
12

-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
Planned
Completion
Date
No recommendations
Claimed
Amount
Agreed To
Amount
1 0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending;
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed;
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
13

-------
Appendix A
Details on Scope and Methodology
Our review focused on allegations raised by the complainant. We conducted preliminary
research to validate the allegations in the complaint, and used the preliminary research results to
develop our objectives for field work.
We visited the Panola County community in De Berry, Texas (to include the saltwater disposal
well sites) and met with the residents of the community, including the complainant. We
interviewed State headquarters and field office representatives at the Railroad Commission of
Texas and TCEQ, including staff responsible for underground injection well operations and
environmental protection. We interviewed EPA Region 6 staff members in the Source Water
Protection Branch and the Superfund Division's Emergency Response unit. We also met with an
EPA Underground Injection Control specialist.
To determine EPA's and the State's short- and long-term plans for providing safe drinking water
to Panola County residents, we interviewed EPA and State staff members and sought to obtain
documentation related to planning.
To determine whether existing testing and sampling results were sufficient, we analyzed a
compilation of all testing data from six testing episodes over a 3-year period. We used the most
recent testing and sampling results (as of August 2005) as the basis for determining the presence
and level of contaminants because these data are being accepted and used as reliable data by
EPA Region 6 and State staff members.
To determine whether EPA Region 6 provided adequate oversight of the Texas efforts at the site,
we reviewed the specific requirements pertinent to EPA in the Safe Drinking Water Act. We
interviewed EPA Region 6 and State representatives regarding EPA actions. Further, we
reviewed EPA Region 6 Underground Injection Control program manager files and the Railroad
Commission of Texas database for any documentation about EPA involvement with the site.
14

-------
Appendix B
Region 6 Response to Draft Report
June 29, 2007
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Comments on Second Draft Public Liaison Report "A Complete Assessment
Needed to Ensure Rural Texas Community Has Safe Drinking Water"
Assignment No. 2005-1161
FROM: Richard E. Greene
Regional Administrator (6RA)
TO:	Paul D. McKechnie
Office of Inspector General (OIG)
This memo provides our comments on the second draft report dated June 8, 2007.
Generally, this draft is much improved over the first draft of September 26, 2006. We are
particularly pleased that the first draft's recommendations, which were based on questionable
interpretations of the Safe Drinking Water Act, are not included in the second draft. We
commend the thoughtful professionalism your legal staff exhibited in its discussions with
Agency attorneys from the Regional and General Counsel Offices. The second draft still
contains a few factual and technical errors, however:
No ground water contamination has occurred from injected waste. The last
paragraph on page seven and the first two paragraphs on page eight of the second draft report
inaccurately suggest that waste injected in RB Mitchell #2 may have contaminated ground water.
The second draft report then concludes that "[t]he State and EPA agree that further assessment
[of potential contamination by injected waste] is necessary."
In fact, both the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRCT) and EPA's Underground
Injection Control (UIC) oversight program years ago determined that waste injection via RB
Mitchell #2 or AF Hall #1B was not the source of ground water contamination, but have
continued to review new data as it becomes available. The Region's December 1, 2006 response
(Response) to the first draft report addressed that issue on pages 9-11, explaining in detail why
the Region concludes no such contamination has occurred. See Also Exhibit 1 to the Response,
pp. 1, 13, 25 - 25, 29 - 30, 33, 34 - 35, 38 - 40, 43 - 45.1 Sampling data obtain since Region 6
1 On page six, the second draft report inaccurately states, "Region 6 personnel told us they
believe evidence suggests the contamination does not originate from the injection." In fact,
the Region's first response instead indicated that surface spills at the site had contaminated
ground water, but that such surface spills were not within UIC program oversight authority or
responsibility. See, e.g., Response, pp. 3, 14.
15

-------
2
submitted its Response to the first draft further confirms that injected waste has not contaminated
the ground water at issue. We suggest references to potential contamination by injected waste be
deleted from the final report.
The preliminary assessment was released on April 3, 2007. That report, which was
prepared by an EPA contractor, preliminarily concluded that the site's ground water
contamination stemmed from underground injection. The assessment did not receive a thorough
EPA technical review before it was distributed. A review has now been conducted and shows
that the contractor apparently failed to consider significant information and analysis
independently generated by EPA Region 6 and RRCT. Although it noted other potential sources
of contamination in the area, e.g., pipeline brine spills, the contractor apparently limited its
consideration to the former R.B. Mitchell #2 Facility. Observing that the former surface site of
the facility well had been remediated, the Contractor concluded that injected waste was the
source of continuing ground water contamination without further analysis. Region 6 has
informed Basic Energy Services of this error and plans to issue an accurate site investigation
report in the near future.
Region 6 is not now asserting "oversight authority." The last paragraph on page ten of
the second draft report suggests Region 6 has tardily asserted its "oversight authority,"
essentially implying that the UIC oversight program failed to provide bottled water or conduct a
preliminary site assessment until 2005 and 2006, respectively. We realize that keeping the
respective authority and responsibilities of the three separate organizational units (Superfund
Division, Water Quality Division, and Enforcement Division) that have been involved with this
situation since early 2003 is difficult. Providing bottled water to the Panola residents and
preparing a preliminary site assessment are not, however, UIC or any other program "oversight"
actions. They are instead direct and independent actions of the Superfund program, which has
no UIC program oversight responsibilities whatsoever over Texas state agencies.
The Response described the UIC program's oversight responsibilities on pp. 4-5 and the
manner in which it carried them out on pp. 5-8, 15-16. See also Exhibit 1, pp. 5, 9, 11-13, 22-23,
31, 47-49, 53-54. As pointed out in the Response, the UIC oversight program quickly reacted to
its first notice (in December 20022) of alleged Panola County ground water contamination by
injected waste. Even though there was, and is, persuasive evidence that no such contamination
by injected waste occurred, the UIC oversight program continued to monitor the situation.
2 The second draft report continues to reference a hearsay report that a 1996 complaint
was submittedto^^^^^^^^^l an alleged EPA employee. Region 6 continues to believe
Mr./Ms.	was not an EPA employee because its personnel records contain
no mention of such a person and staff working in the Region in 1996 have no recollection of
meeting him or her. See Response, Exhibit I, pp. 3.
16

-------
3
The Second Draft Report should be updated to reflect the currently status of
Superfund program efforts. The Region's submission of the December 1, 2006, Response was
its last substantive communication with Office of Inspector General technical staff. The
Superfund program has preliminarily determined it appropriate to provide uncontaminated
drinking water to the community and intends to use removal action funds to construct a waterline
from the Panola Bethany Water Supply Corporation to transport such water to the community.
Region 6 understands the community hs received funds from a settlement with Basic Energy
Services and a grant that may be used to defray the costs of constructing hookups from the line
EPA will construct to individual residences and structures. Until completion of this project, the
Region will continue to provide bottled water to the community. The Superfund program is now
preparing a comprehensive site investigation document that will provide a technical basis for
those actions and plans to release that document in several weeks.
The IG report indicated (page 11, "Conclusion") that "More frequent communication
between EPA and the community may also be beneficial." Region 6 is in regular communication
with the community via our program office contacts, as well as via the Office of Environmental
Justice and Tribal Affairs. Contacts include frequent phone calls (several calls and or emails
each week) and two community meetings since December 2006. In addition, Superfund program
has met with the community members individually in preparation for the Preliminary
Assessment and Site Investigation (PA/SI), to explain test results.
17

-------
Appendix C
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Regional Administrator, Region 6
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Agency Followup Official (the CFO)
Agency Followup Coordinator
General Counsel
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Water
Chief, Community Involvement and Outreach Branch, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Director, Office of Regional Operations
Regional Audit Followup Coordinator, Region 6
Regional Public Affairs Office, Region 6
Assistant Regional Administrator, Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6
Assistant Regional Administrator, Superfund Division, Region 6
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Acting Inspector General
18

-------