Class I hazardous well owners and operators must meet certain  requirements to construct a well. To obtain final approval to operate a deep injection well, owners and  operators are required to, among other things    properly design the well to ensure that the waste will not migrate into an  underground source of drinking water;    assure that injection pressure does not cause fractures in the injection  zone or migration of fluids;    provide plans for closing the well and post-closure care;    demonstrate and maintain financial assurance (trust fund, bond, or other  approved forms) to ensure that the well can be properly plugged and  abandoned;    establish monitoring and reporting requirements; and    demonstrate that the injected waste will not migrate beyond the injection  zone for 10,000 years, if otherwise prohibited hazardous waste will be  injected into the well. Community Concerns Could Be More Comprehensively Addressed Before Draft Permits Are Completed

Under EPA regulations, communities can raise concerns during the  required public comment process for deep injection well permits after a  draft permit is issued. When states are the permitting authority,  they provide more and earlier opportunities for obtaining community  concerns. All three states have also enacted additional requirements to address  community concerns. Environmental Justice Concerns Are Addressed during the Permitting Process and in Response to Civil Rights Complaints

EPA addresses environmental justice issues during the process for  deciding on a construction permit and when civil rights complaints are  filed with the agency after permits are issued. Individuals Can Raise Environmental Justice Concerns through Civil Rights Complaints Filed with EPA

Individuals or communities with environmental justice concerns may file  petitions with EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) to review  permit decisions or file complaints under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act  with EPA’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR). Members  of only one community—Romulus, Michigan—have challenged permit  decisions for a commercial Class I deep injection well on environmental  justice grounds. Recent court decisions have limited the basis for filing Title VI complaints,  making the process an unlikely avenue for challenging permit decisions. While only four sites have ceased operation since the UIC  program began in 1980, two did not have adequate financial resources to  plug and abandon the wells, resulting in additional costs to taxpayers. EPA  has questioned the adequacy of similar aspects of financial assurance  requirements in other programs. In 2001, EPA’s Office of Inspector  General stated that financial assurance requirements for RCRA facilities,  on which financial assurance requirements for deep injection wells were  based, needed improvement, and EPA is currently requesting public  comments on the Inspector General’s conclusions and recommendations. EPA has also initiated an internal review of financial assurance  requirements for Class II oil and gas deep injection wells because of  concerns that aspects of current requirements, similar to aspects of the  Class I deep injection well requirements, may not be adequate. In two cases, the adequacy of the  financial assurance was not tested because other companies purchased  and continued operating the wells. EPA and state officials responsible for overseeing the 13 commercial  Class I wells currently in operation believe that the owners’ or operators’  financial assurances provide enough funds to close their wells in the event  of bankruptcy. Both the potential burden to the  taxpayer if adequate financial resources are not available and the potential  problems pointed out by the OIG and by EPA’s own working group call for  action to review and improve these requirements to determine if  improvements are necessary. The report clearly  sets forth the public comment process that EPA follows and explains that  the agency cannot deny a permit on the basis of community concerns if  the permit applicant meet all regulatory requirements. In May, EDS applied to EPA for  construction permits for two injection wells. However, we believe that earlier  public involvement would allow communities a greater opportunity  to contact appropriate state and local officials regarding those  concerns not within EPA’s authority.
Why GAO Did This Study

Billions of gallons of hazardous liquid waste are injected into underground wells each year. These Class I hazardous deep injection wells are designed to inject waste into an area below the lowermost underground source of drinking water. EPA and the states grant permits to commercial operators to construct and operate these wells and must obtain public comments on the permits. Communities often raise concerns about well safety and other matters. GAO examined the extent to which EPA and the states (1) address these community concerns, (2) consider environmental justice issues, and (3) ensure that financial assurances adequately protect the taxpayer if bankruptcy occurs. GAO, among other things, examined the permit process in the four states that have commercial Class I wells.

What GAO Found

Although EPA provides opportunities for public comment on proposed commercial Class I deep injection wells as required by regulations, these opportunities come late in the process, after a draft permit has been prepared and this timing may limit the extent to which concerns are addressed. EPA responds to all public comments, but it cannot deny a permit on the basis of community concerns if all regulatory requirements for protecting drinking water are met. However, earlier involvement could give communities more time to contact appropriate state or local officials to address concerns that are not within the scope of EPA's authority. In Michigan, where EPA issues injection well permits, communities believe that their concerns are often not fully resolved; in some instances, communities have filed legal actions and complaints to prevent well construction. In contrast, the three states to which EPA has authorized responsibility for issuing permits have enacted requirements for earlier and more public involvement. Overall, they believe that early involvement better addresses community concerns, mitigates controversial issues, and avoids litigation. EPA addresses environmental justice issues in two basic ways--first, as part of its process for deciding whether to issue a permit for well construction, and second, in response to specific civil rights complaints filed with the agency after permits are issued. EPA encourages its regional offices issuing construction permits to determine if minority and low-income populations are disproportionately affected by a proposed well's location. Individuals and communities may appeal EPA permit decisions with EPA's Environmental Appeals Board or, for other permit decisions, file complaints under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act with EPA's Office of Civil Rights. Only one community has filed complaints related to deep injection wells; these complaints did not result in changes to the permit decisions. Court decisions have recently limited the basis for filing Title VI complaints, making the process an unlikely avenue for changing permit decisions. Current financial assurance requirements may not ensure that adequate resources are available to close a commercial deep injection well in the event of bankruptcy or ceased operations. While only four sites have gone into bankruptcy or ceased operating since the program began in 1980; two did not have adequate financial resources to plug and abandon wells and for the other two, financial assurance was not tested because other companies purchased and continued operating the wells. EPA has questioned the adequacy of some financial assurance requirements in other programs that are similar to those for Class I deep injection wells. EPA's Office of Inspector General has reported that financial assurance requirements for another waste management program, which the requirements for deep injection wells mirror, may not be adequate to close facilities; an EPA working group is also reviewing similar aspects of financial assurance requirements for a different type of injection well for possible changes.