44802 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(h) * * * 

(2) Registration. Active Duty sponsors 

must register potential ECHO-eligible 

beneficiaries through the Director, 

TRICARE Management Activity, or 

designee prior to receiving ECHO 

benefits. The Director, TRICARE 

Management Activity, or designee will 

determine ECHO eligibility and update 

the Defense Enrollment Eligibility 

Reporting System (DEERS) accordingly. 

Unless waived by the Director, 

TRICARE Management Activity or 

designee, sponsors must provide 

evidence of enrollment in the 

Exceptional Family Member Program 

provided by their branch of Service at 

the time they register their family 

member(s) for the ECHO. 

(3) * * * 

(v) Public facility use. (A) An ECHO 

beneficiary residing within a state must 

demonstrate that a public facility is not 

available and adequate to meet the 

needs of their qualifying condition. 

Such requirements shall apply to 

beneficiaries who request authorization 

for training, rehabilitation, special 

education, assistive technology, and 

institutional care in private nonprofit, 

public, and state institutions and 

facilities, and if appropriate for 

beneficiaries receiving institutional 

care, transportation to and from such 

institutions and facilities. The 

maximum Government cost-share for 

services that require demonstration of 

public facility non-availability or 

inadequacy is limited to $36,000 per 

fiscal year per beneficiary. Stateadministered plans for medical 

assistance under Title XIX of the Social 

Security Act (Medicaid) are not 

considered available and adequate 

facilities for the purpose of this section. 

* * * * * 

(j) Effective date. All changes to this 

section are effective as of October 14, 

2008, and claims for ECHO benefits 

provided on or after that date will be 

reprocessed retroactively to that date as 

necessary. 

* * * * * 

Dated: August 21, 2009. 

Patricia Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. E9–20685 Filed 8–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 146 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0390; FRL–8951–3] 

RIN 2040–AE98 

Federal Requirements Under the 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 

Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells; 

Notice of Data Availability and Request 

for Comment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Data availability; request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: Today’s Notice supplements 

the proposed ‘‘Federal Requirements 

Under the Underground Injection 

Control (UIC) Program for Carbon 

Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration 

(GS) Wells’’ of July 25, 2008, presents 

new data and information, and requests 

public comment on related issues that 

have evolved in response to comments 

on the original proposal. This Notice 

contains preliminary field data from the 

Department of Energy-sponsored 

Regional Carbon Sequestration 

Partnership projects, the results of GSrelated studies conducted by the 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 

and additional GS-related research. 

Today’s Notice also discusses comments 

and presents an alternative the Agency 

is considering related to the proposed 

injection depth requirements for Class 

VI wells. 

DATES: Comments on the contents of 

this NODA must be received on or 

before October 15, 2009. EPA does not 

plan to extend the comment period for 

this Notice. EPA will hold a public 

hearing from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 

p.m. to 4 p.m., CDT, September 17, 2009 

in Chicago, IL. 

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be 

held at the Ralph H. Metcalfe Federal 

Building, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, IL 60604. Due to capacity 

limitations, we encourage you to 

indicate your intent to participate 

through pre-registration. To pre-register, 

for directions, and for site specific 

information, please visit the following 

Web site: http:// 

gshearing.cadmusweb.com/. 

Submit your comments, identified by 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2008– 

0390, by one of the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Water Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), Public Reading 

Room, Room 3334, EPA West, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation which are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., and special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2008– 

0390. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Contact 

EPA directly (see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section) prior to 

submitting CBI. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44803 

the Water Docket, EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC), Public Reading Room, Room 

3334, EPA West, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–2426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Rose Bayer, Underground 

Injection Control Program, Drinking 

Water Protection Division, Office of 

Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC– 

4606M), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 564–1981; e-mail 

address: bayer.maryrose@epa.gov. For 

general information, contact the Safe 

Drinking Water Hotline, telephone 

number: (800) 426–4791. The Safe 

Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern 

time. For general information about the 

public hearing, please contact Sean 

Porse by phone (202) 564–5990, by 

e-mail at porse.sean@epa.gov, or by mail 

at: US Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail Code 4606M, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

This Notice of Data Availability 

(NODA) presents new information and 

data related to geologic sequestration 

(GS) of CO2 obtained after publication of 

the July 25, 2008, proposed rule, 

‘‘Federal Requirements Under the 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 

Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells’’ (73 

FR 43492). The proposal is available 

online at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ 

EPA-WATER/2008/July/Day-25/ 

w16626.htm. Availability of this new 

information could change EPA’s 

approach to the final rulemaking. 

The purpose of this NODA is to 

request public comment on new data 

and on related issues that have evolved 

in response to comments on the original 

proposal. This Notice provides 

additional information and data on the 

topic of injection depth as described in 

the July 25, 2008, proposal (73 FR 

43492) and presents an alternative that 

responds to comments received on this 

issue. Therefore, EPA is providing the 

opportunity for notice and comment on 

the information provided in this Notice 

as a supplement to the proposed rule. 

The Agency seeks further public 

comment on any and all aspects of the 

specific data and alternatives it has 

identified in this Notice. EPA continues 

to review the comments received on the 

proposed rule and will address those 

comments and the comments submitted 

in response to this Notice in the final 

action. 

Persons interested in recent research 

related to GS and proposed injection 

depth requirements are encouraged to 

read and respond to this NODA. 

Additionally, owners and operators, 

States, Tribes, and State co-regulators 

involved in GS activities may wish to 

comment on this publication. 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

AL: Action Level 

AoR: Area of Review 

CBI: Confidential Business Information 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations 

CCS: Carbon Capture and Storage 

CO2: Carbon Dioxide 

DOE: Department of Energy 

EGR: Enhanced Gas Recovery 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency 

EOR: Enhanced Oil Recovery 

GS: Geologic Sequestration 

GHG: Greenhouse Gas 

IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

km: kilometer 

LBNL: Lawrence Berkeley National Lab 

m: meter 

mg/l: milligrams per liter 

Mt: Megaton 

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level 

NETL: National Energy Technology 

Laboratory 

NWIS: National Water Information System 

NODA: Notice of Data Availability 

ORD: Office of Research and Development 

PWS: Public Water System 

PWSS: Public Water Supply Supervision 

RCSPs: Regional Carbon Sequestration 

Partnerships 

SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act 

SECARB: Southeast Regional Carbon 

Sequestration Partnership 

STAR: Science to Achieve Results 

SWP: Southwest Regional Partnership on 

Carbon Sequestration 

TDS: Total Dissolved Solids 

UIC: Underground Injection Control 

US: United States 

USDW: Underground Source of Drinking 

Water 

USGS: United States Geological Survey 

Definitions 

Action Level (AL): The concentration 

of lead or copper in water specified in 

40 CFR 141.80(c) which determines, in 

some cases, the treatment requirements 

contained in subpart I of this part that 

a water system is required to complete. 

Area of review (AoR): The region 

surrounding the geologic sequestration 

project that may be impacted by the 

injection activity. The area of review is 

based on computational modeling that 

accounts for the physical and chemical 

properties of all phases of the injected 

carbon dioxide stream. 

Buoyancy: Upward force on one phase 

(e.g., a fluid) produced by the 

surrounding fluid (e.g., a liquid or a gas) 

in which it is fully or partially 

immersed, caused by differences in 

pressure or density. 

Capillary force: Adhesive force that 

holds a fluid in a capillary or a pore 

space. Capillary force is a function of 

the properties of the fluid, and surface 

and dimensions of the space. If the 

attraction between the fluid and surface 

is greater than the interaction of fluid 

molecules, the fluid will be held in 

place. 

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): 

The process of capturing CO2 from an 

emission source, (typically) converting 

it to a supercritical state, transporting it 

to an injection site, and injecting it into 

deep subsurface rock formations for 

long-term storage. 

Carbon dioxide plume: The extent 

underground, in three dimensions, of an 

injected carbon dioxide stream. 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) stream: Carbon 

dioxide that has been captured from an 

emission source (e.g., a power plant), 

plus incidental associated substances 

derived from the source materials and 

the capture process, and any substances 

added to the stream to enable or 

improve the injection process. This 

subpart does not apply to any carbon 

dioxide stream that meets the definition 

of a hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 

261. 

Class VI wells: Wells used for geologic 

sequestration of carbon dioxide beneath 

the lowermost formation containing a 

USDW. 

Confining zone: A geologic formation, 

group of formations, or part of a 

formation stratigraphically overlying the 

injection zone that acts as a barrier to 

fluid movement. 

Corrective action: The use of Director 

approved methods to assure that wells 

within the area of review do not serve 

as conduits for the movement of fluids 

into underground sources of drinking 

water (USDWs). 

Director: The person responsible for 

permitting, implementation, and 

compliance of the UIC program. For UIC 

programs administered by EPA, the 

Director is the EPA Regional 

Administrator; for UIC programs in 

Primacy States, the Director is the 

person responsible for permitting, 

implementation, and compliance of the 

State, Territorial, or Tribal UIC program. 

Enhanced Oil or Gas Recovery (EOR/ 

EGR): Typically, the process of injecting 

a fluid (e.g., water, brine, or CO2) into 

an oil or gas bearing formation to 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
44804 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

recover residual oil or natural gas. The 

injected fluid thins (decreases the 

viscosity) or displaces small amounts of 

extractable oil and gas, which is then 

available for recovery. This is also 

known as secondary or tertiary recovery. 

Formation or geological formation: A 

layer of rock that is made up of a certain 

type of rock or a combination of types. 

Geologic sequestration (GS): The longterm containment of a gaseous, liquid or 

supercritical carbon dioxide stream in 

subsurface geologic formations. This 

term does not apply to its capture or 

transport. 

Geologic sequestration project: An 

injection well or wells used to emplace 

a CO2 stream beneath the lowermost 

formation containing a USDW. It 

includes the subsurface threedimensional extent of the carbon 

dioxide plume, associated pressure 

front, and displaced brine, as well as the 

surface area above that delineated 

region. 

Injectate: The fluids injected. For the 

purposes of this rule, this is also known 

as the CO2 stream. 

Injection zone: A geologic formation, 

group of formations, or part of a 

formation that is of sufficient areal 

extent, thickness, porosity, and 

permeability to receive carbon dioxide 

through a well or wells associated with 

a geologic sequestration project. 

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): 

The maximum permissible level of a 

contaminant in water which is delivered 

to any user of a public water system. 

Model: A representation or simulation 

of a phenomenon or process that is 

difficult to observe directly or that 

occurs over long time frames. Models 

that support GS can predict the flow of 

CO2 within the subsurface, accounting 

for the properties and fluid content of 

the subsurface formations and the 

effects of injection parameters. 

Pore space: Open spaces in rock or 

soil. These are filled with water or other 

fluids such as brine (i.e., salty fluid). 

CO2 injected into the subsurface can 

displace pre-existing fluids to occupy 

some of the pore spaces of the rocks in 

the injection zone. 

Public Water System (PWS): A system 

for the provision to the public of water 

for human consumption through pipes 

or, after August 5, 1998, other 

constructed conveyances, if such system 

has at least fifteen service connections 

or regularly serves an average of at least 

twenty-five individuals daily at least 60 

days out of the year. Such term 

includes: any collection, treatment, 

storage, and distribution facilities under 

control of the operator of such system 

and used primarily in connection with 

such system; and any collection or 

pretreatment storage facilities not under 

such control which are used primarily 

in connection with such system. Such 

term does not include any ‘‘special 

irrigation district.’’ A public water 

system is either a ‘‘community water 

system’’ or a ‘‘noncommunity water 

system.’’ 

Pressure front: The zone of elevated 

pressure that is created by the injection 

of carbon dioxide into the subsurface. 

For GS projects, the pressure front of a 

CO2 plume refers to the zone where 

there is a pressure differential sufficient 

to cause the movement of injected fluids 

or formation fluids into a USDW. 

Saline formations: Deep and 

geographically extensive sedimentary 

rock layers saturated with waters or 

brines that have a high total dissolved 

solids (TDS) content (i.e., over 10,000 

mg/l TDS). Saline formations offer great 

potential for CO2 storage capacity. 

Stratigraphic zone (unit): A layer of 

rock (or stratum) that is recognized as a 

unit based on lithology, fossil content, 

age or other properties. 

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): The 

measurement, usually in mg/l, for the 

amount of all inorganic and organic 

substances suspended in liquid as 

molecules, ions, or granules. For 

injection operations, TDS typically 

refers to the saline (i.e., salt) content of 

water-saturated underground 

formations. 

Transmissive fault or fracture: A fault 

or fracture that has sufficient 

permeability and vertical extent to allow 

fluids to move between formations. 

Trapping: The physical and 

geochemical processes by which 

injected CO2 is sequestered in the 

subsurface. Physical trapping occurs 

when buoyant CO2 rises in the 

formation until it reaches a layer that 

inhibits further upward migration or is 

immobilized in pore spaces due to 

capillary forces. Geochemical trapping 

occurs when chemical reactions 

between dissolved CO2 and minerals in 

the formation lead to the precipitation 

of solid carbonate minerals. 

Underground Source of Drinking 

Water (USDW): as defined under 40 CFR 

part 144.3, an aquifer or portion of an 

aquifer that supplies any public water 

system or that contains a sufficient 

quantity of ground water to supply a 

public water system, and currently 

supplies drinking water for human 

consumption, or that contains fewer 

than 10,000 mg/l total dissolved solids 

and is not an exempted aquifer. 

Special Accommodations: For 

information on access or 

accommodations for individuals with 

disabilities, please contact Sean Porse at 

(202) 564–5990 or by e-mail at 

porse.sean@epa.gov. Please allow at 

least 10 days prior to the meeting, to 

give EPA time to process your request. 

II. What Did EPA Propose? 

On July 25, 2008, EPA published the 

proposed ‘‘Federal Requirements Under 

the Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 

Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells.’’ (73 

FR 43492) The Agency proposed a new 

class of injection well (Class VI) along 

with technical criteria for permitting GS 

wells, including criteria for geologic site 

characterization, area of review (AoR) 

and corrective action, well construction, 

operation, mechanical integrity testing, 

monitoring, well plugging, postinjection site care, and site closure. 

These standards, if finalized, would 

protect underground sources of drinking 

water (USDWs) under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA). The technical 

criteria in the proposed rule are based 

on the existing UIC regulatory 

framework under the SDWA for deep 

injection wells, with modifications to 

address the unique nature of CO2

injection for GS. 

Existing GS project experience, 

natural and industrial analogs, research, 

and current regulatory experience with 

underground injection were considered 

in the development of the proposed 

rule. Ongoing research builds upon the 

existing foundation of substantial 

literature on CO2 injection and storage, 

some of which is available in the docket 

for this rulemaking. While CO2 injection 

to extract oil and gas has taken place for 

many years, the use of UIC wells to 

inject large quantities of CO2 for longterm storage is a relatively new practice. 

There are current projects and research 

underway that examine and 

demonstrate the effectiveness of 

underground injection as a tool for 

sequestering CO2.

For example, there are four 

commercial projects in operation today: 

• Sleipner (Norwegian North Sea)—1 

Mt CO2/yr injected since 1996; 

• Weyburn (Canada)—1 Mt CO2/yr 

injected since 2000; 

• In Salah (Algeria)—1.2 Mt CO2/yr 

injected since 2004; 

• Snohvit (Norway)—0.7 Mt CO2/yr 

injected since 2008. 

Many additional large-scale projects 

are funded and under development 

worldwide. 

The purpose of this NODA is to 

provide an update on newly available 

information and data related to research 

focused specifically on GS for long-term 

storage—with particular emphasis on 

data, research, and information that has 

become available since the July proposal 

publication. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44805 

In addition, the proposed rule 

contains a discussion of injection depth. 

In the July 2008 FR Notice, EPA 

proposed that the injection of CO2 be 

confined to areas below the lowermost 

USDW (in the absence of an aquifer 

exemption). This approach is consistent 

with the approach used for other deep 

UIC wells; however, circumstances in a 

few States may warrant an alternative 

approach. Today’s Notice provides 

additional discussion on an alternative 

the Agency is considering related to 

injection depth for GS wells. 

EPA received a number of comments 

indicating that the Agency should 

further explore environmental and 

regulatory issues beyond the scope of 

the proposed SDWA requirements for 

underground injection of CO2 for GS. 

EPA recognizes that a more 

comprehensive framework may be 

needed and that some stakeholders 

remain uncertain with respect to the 

potential applicability of other Federal 

environmental statutes such as the 

Clean Air Act, the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, and the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act to various aspects of geologic 

sequestration of CO2. The Agency is 

currently evaluating the need for a more 

comprehensive regulatory framework to 

provide legal guidance regarding this 

emerging technology. If the Agency 

chooses to pursue a more 

comprehensive regulatory approach to 

this subject, it will seek public comment 

on any proposal it develops for this 

framework and will also endeavor to 

issue a more comprehensive rule in the 

same time frame as it has planned for 

the stand-alone UIC GS rulemaking. 

III. Research, Data Analysis, and 

Findings 

A. Content of NODA and Summary of 

Comments 

In this Notice, EPA is providing a 

short summary of several ongoing GS 

studies and interim information on 

current GS projects relevant to topics 

within the proposed GS regulation. This 

information and data were provided or 

made available after publication of the 

proposal in July 2008. More detailed 

information on the GS research and 

projects discussed below is available for 

review online as part of the docket for 

this rulemaking. EPA is providing this 

data and associated project summaries 

because the Agency expects that there 

may be additional studies and data on 

other GS projects, the use of existing 

technologies, and GS-related research 

that may inform the Agency’s regulatory 

development process for GS. Such data 

could contribute to the Agency’s 

understanding of site characterization, 

well construction, operation, and 

monitoring requirements. The Agency 

requests comment on data and research 

discussed in today’s Notice and how the 

Agency might use this data and research 

in developing the final rule. The Agency 

also requests submission of additional 

GS studies related to the data and 

research discussed in this Notice to 

inform the GS rulemaking. 

In the preamble of the proposed rule, 

EPA described an adaptive approach to 

developing regulations for GS. This 

approach would allow the Agency to 

establish regulations to protect USDWs 

and enable the Agency to make changes 

to regulations over time as information 

from demonstration projects and other 

studies becomes available. EPA received 

comments from stakeholders requesting 

that additional data be made available to 

the public before a final rulemaking 

(particularly related to specific areas of 

GS) and indicating that more research is 

needed to support GS in general. Many 

commenters suggested that 

supplementary research on GS is 

necessary prior to rule promulgation 

and that EPA should wait until the 

Department of Energy (DOE)-sponsored 

Phase II and Phase III pilot projects are 

complete before finalizing the GS rule. 

Others believed that a final rulemaking 

should proceed and that new 

information and data from ongoing GS 

research should be considered and 

incorporated over time as part of an 

adaptive rulemaking process. Comments 

on the proposal encouraged additional 

research and investigations on areas 

including (but not limited to): Confining 

zone characterization; modeling; CO2

plume movement; geochemistry; 

impacts of GS on saline formations; 

leakage from abandoned wells caused 

by material and cement degradation; 

potential pathways for contamination of 

USDWs; leak mitigation and 

remediation; and criteria for 

determining that the CO2 plume has 

stabilized. 

The Agency is actively tracking the 

progress of the Regional Carbon 

Sequestration Partnership (RCSP) GS 

and carbon capture and storage projects. 

The RCSPs have been compiling 

information related to their pilot and 

demonstration projects and have been 

developing research projects related to 

these efforts. A summary of several of 

these projects is available in today’s 

Notice. 

In addition, EPA’s Office of Research 

and Development is conducting 

intramural and extramural research 

activities to develop modeling and 

monitoring tools for protecting 

underground sources of drinking water. 

Laboratory, modeling, and field 

investigations are focusing on a variety 

of injection and storage scenarios and 

candidate injection sites. Analytic and 

semi-analytic models are being 

developed and evaluated for 

determining the area of review based on 

geologic and hydrologic conditions. 

Comprehensive laboratory tests are 

being applied to the development and 

field-testing of monitoring strategies that 

can detect migration of fluids into 

shallow aquifers and assess potential 

geochemical impacts. The ultimate goal 

of these research activities is to provide 

more robust tools for permitting, 

monitoring, and evaluating GS sites 

from injection through post-injection 

site care and site closure to prevent 

endangerment of USDWs. EPA is also 

funding six projects for the study of 

ground water and human health impacts 

of GS through the Science To Achieve 

Results (STAR) grant program. The 

awards will be announced this fall on 

EPA’s Web site (http://es.epa.gov/ncer/). 

Furthermore, EPA and DOE have 

jointly supported GS-related studies at 

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab 

(LBNL), described in Section II.B. These 

studies use modeling to predict the 

potential impacts on ground water from 

GS activities. 

B. DOE-Sponsored Regional Carbon 

Sequestration Partnership Projects 

Currently, DOE’s National Energy 

Technology Laboratory (NETL) is 

developing and/or operating 

approximately 30 GS projects, a number 

of which have either completed 

injection or are in the process of 

injecting CO2. The purpose of these 

projects is to ‘‘help determine the best 

approaches for capturing and 

permanently storing gases that can 

contribute to global climate change’’ and 

to determine ‘‘the most suitable 

technologies, regulations, and 

infrastructure needs for carbon capture, 

storage, and sequestration in different 

parts of the country’’ (http:// 

www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/ 

carbon_seq/partnerships/ 

partnerships.html). Through 

cooperation with DOE, EPA has 

obtained pilot project data from several 

of these GS projects. RCSPs are 

conducting pilot and demonstration 

projects to study: site characterization 

(including injection and confining 

formation information, core data and 

site selection information); well 

construction (well depth, construction 

materials, and proximity to USDWs); 

frequency and types of tests and 

monitoring conducted (on the well and 

on the project site); modeling and 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
44806 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

monitoring results; and injection 

operation (injection rates, pressures, and 

volumes, CO2 source and co-injectates). 

In addition to information available in 

the docket for this NODA, information 

on some of these projects is available at 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/ 

proceedings/08/rcsp/. The following is a 

short summary of select project 

activities and data generated. 

Escatawpa, Mississippi (MS); Southeast 

Regional Carbon Sequestration 

Partnership (SECARB) 

SECARB is conducting a CO2

injection test in Jackson County, MS 

into a deep saline reservoir along the 

Gulf Coast that had not previously been 

characterized for oil and gas 

exploration. The injection zone, 9,500 

feet (2,896 meters) deep in the Lower 

Tuscaloosa Massive Sand Unit, is 

overlain by two confining layers. The 

site is near the Victor J. Daniel Power 

Plant, the source of the CO2, which was 

delivered to the injection site via truck. 

Characterization of the site is based 

on a wealth of geophysical and corederived information, including well 

core samples, open-hole and cased-hole 

well logging, baseline vertical seismic 

profiling, and pressure transient testing. 

Baseline sampling and analysis of 

formation fluids and soil flux sampling 

were also performed. The SECARB team 

performed a 3-dimensional simulation 

to estimate injectivity, storage capacity, 

and long-term fate of the injected CO2. 

The model estimated that the plume 

would extend up to 350 feet (106.7 

meters) at the end of the injection test. 

An injection well and a monitoring 

well were drilled at the site. The 

injection well is permitted by the 

Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality as a UIC Class V 

experimental well. Both the injection 

and monitoring well were constructed 

with surface and long-string casing that 

was cemented from the injection zone to 

the surface. Pre-injection mechanical 

integrity tests of the injection and 

monitoring well (annulus pressure test, 

radioactive tracer survey, differential 

temperature survey, and pressure fall-off 

tests) met UIC Class I requirements. 

In October of 2008, 3,027 tons (2,746 

tonnes) of CO2 were injected into the 

well; injection rates averaged 170 to 180 

tons/day (154 to 163 tonnes/day). 

Continuous monitoring devices were 

used to record (at 30 second intervals): 

Injection pressure, annular pressure, 

temperature, and rate. The injection was 

complete on October 28, 2008. 

SECARB is continuing to monitor 

activities at the site through surface or 

near-surface monitoring for upward CO2

seepage via groundwater sampling, soil 

flux sampling and tracer detection. The 

purpose of this monitoring and 

sampling is to determine whether CO2 is 

migrating upward from the injection 

zone. To date, there has been no 

indication of the return of the injected 

CO2 in the shallow subsurface. SECARB 

also plans to employ time-lapse seismic 

and geophysical tools to determine the 

deep subsurface fate of the injectate. 

This SECARB project employs, 

demonstrates, and validates the EPA’s 

proposed Class VI well construction, 

operational, and monitoring 

requirements. The use of surface and 

near-surface monitoring techniques 

provides the EPA with preliminary 

information regarding the efficacy and 

appropriateness of these technologies at 

certain sites; and supports the need for 

a site-specific monitoring plan that will 

allow use of a range of monitoring 

technologies suitable for each unique 

GS site. This information and public 

comments on this research will be used 

to inform the Agency’s final rulemaking. 

For additional information about the 

Escatawpa Project, see the full report in 

the docket for today’s publication. 

Aneth Field, Paradox Basin, Southeast 

Utah (UT); Southwest Regional 

Partnership on Carbon Sequestration 

(SWP) 

The Aneth Field is the site of an 

experimental combined EOR–GS test by 

the Southwest Partnership. The primary 

CO2 injection target is the carbonate 

Paradox Formation, which is 

approximately 5,600 to 5,800 feet (1,707 

to 1,768 meters) deep, and is overlain by 

the low-permeability Gothic Shale. 

Petrographic, geochemical and 

mechanical analyses of the Gothic Shale 

are underway or planned. 

CO2 injection began in August 2007, 

and approximately 150,000 tons 

(136,077 tonnes) of CO2 have been 

injected to date. Extensive monitoring of 

the site is complete or underway. 

Monitoring activities at the site include 

time-lapse vertical seismic profiling, 

microseismic monitoring, geochemical 

and tracer tests, CO2 soil flux 

measurements, a surface fracture and 

banding study, and self-potential 

monitoring. 

Monitoring data are being used to 

establish parameters for state-of-the-art 

mathematical reservoir models, which 

include coupling of multiphase CO2- 

ground water flow, rock deformation, 

and chemical reactions to evaluate 

residence times, migration patterns and 

rates, and effects of CO2 injection on 

fluid pressures and rock strain. 

The Aneth Field project confirms the 

need for a project design with a robust 

monitoring plan, and tests the 

importance of monitoring and modeling 

agreement in GS projects. In addition, 

the project demonstrates the utility of 

various monitoring technologies that 

may be used by owners and operators of 

Class VI wells. This information and 

public comments on this research will 

be used to inform the Agency’s final 

rulemaking. 

Pump Canyon Site, Near Archuleta, 

New Mexico (NM); Southwest Regional 

Partnership on Carbon Sequestration 

(SWP) 

The SWP is conducting a Phase II 

project of CO2 injection into deep, 

unmineable coal seams at the Pump 

Canyon Site near Archuleta, NM. To 

support characterization of the site, the 

SWP is performing a ‘‘seal analysis’’ of 

the ability of the Kirtland Formation to 

act as a barrier to the movement of CO2

or other reservoir fluids. The Kirtland 

Formation is a major, regional aquitard 

and reservoir seal that directly overlies 

the geologic formation containing the 

coal seams. 

To characterize the Kirtland 

Formation, detailed studies of geological 

core samples, downhole geophysical 

logs, and outcrop studies were 

conducted. Complete and in-progress 

laboratory analyses include electron 

microscopic studies of petrographic and 

petrophysical properties; capillary 

pressure measurements; multiscale 

fracture characterization using well logs 

and core analysis; descriptions of 

stratigraphic columns and sedimentary 

structures based on cores; pore size 

distributions analysis using BET 

(Brunauer-Emmett-Teller), and 

geomechanical analyses of the caprock 

and overlying aquifer. 

Operators are actively monitoring 

potential surface deformation from 

injection through the use of tilt meters 

and radar-based Interferrometric 

Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) in 

addition to monitoring the site’s 

injection pressure. They are also 

tracking the CO2 plume through 

continuous sampling of immediate 

offset production wells and through 

perfluorocarbon gas tracers (PFT) and 

naphthalene sulfonate water tracers 

(NST) introduced into the CO2 injection 

stream. These tracers are used for 

identification in the unlikely event of 

reservoir leakage. 

The Agency sought comment on using 

unmineable coal seams for GS in the 

proposed rule. The investigation at 

Pump Canyon will inform a 

determination on whether CO2 can be 

effectively and safely sequestered in 

coal seams. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44807 

For further information on aspects of 

the Pump Canyon project, please refer to 

data available in the NODA docket. 

C. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory (LBNL) Studies 

An improperly managed GS project 

has the potential to endanger USDWs. 

The factors that increase the risk of 

USDW contamination are complex and 

can include improper siting, 

construction, operation and monitoring 

of GS projects. The proposed GS 

requirements address endangerment to 

USDWs by establishing new Federal 

requirements for the proper 

management of CO2 injection and 

storage. Risks to USDWs from 

improperly managed GS projects can 

include CO2 migration into USDWs, 

causing the leaching and mobilization of 

contaminants (e.g., arsenic, lead, and 

organic compounds), changes in 

regional groundwater flow, and the 

movement of greater salinity formation 

fluids into USDWs, causing degradation 

of water quality. As mentioned in 

Section II of this Notice and in the 

proposal, CO2 has been injected on large 

scales at four sites: at Sleipner in the 

North Sea, at In Salah in Algeria, at 

Snohvit in Norway, and in the Weyburn 

Field in Alberta, Canada. There have 

been no documented cases of leakage 

from these projects. Additionally, for 

decades, the oil and gas industry has 

been safely injecting CO2 for the 

purpose of enhanced oil and gas 

recovery. 

LBNL is studying the potential effects 

of CO2 injection on ground water and 

surrounding formations to determine 

the potential for impacts on USDWs and 

human health in the event that a GS 

project is not properly sited, operated, 

or managed. Specifically, LBNL is 

evaluating the potential for GS to cause 

changes in ground water quality as a 

result of CO2 leakage and subsequent 

mobilization of trace elements such as 

arsenic, barium, cadmium, mercury, 

lead, antimony, selenium, zinc, and 

uranium. In addition, LBNL is 

evaluating basin-scale hydrological 

impacts of large-volume injection of CO2

on groundwater aquifers and in 

particular, the pressure front impacts 

caused by GS. Summaries of the interim 

results for these research areas are 

discussed below. The full publications 

are available in the docket and on 

LBNL’s Web site at http://esd.lbl.gov/ 

GCS/projects/CO2/index_CO2.html. 

1. Ground Water Quality Changes 

Related to the Mobilization of Trace 

Elements 

Summary 

LBNL used a comprehensive 

computational model to evaluate the 

potential impact of CO2 leaking from 

deep geologic sequestration sites on the 

concentrations of trace elements in 

potable ground waters (Birkholzer et al., 

2008a). LBNL estimated the amount of 

trace elements from native mineral 

species that could potentially be 

mobilized by the intrusion of CO2, and 

the potential ground water 

concentrations that could result. LBNL 

then compared these estimates to EPA’s 

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) 

and Action Levels (ALs) for drinking 

water to determine the potential for 

drinking water standards to be 

exceeded. It is important to note that 

model results were dependent on 

several assumptions and parameter 

values with a large degree of 

uncertainty, such as dissolution and 

dissociation constants. LBNL 

recommended that further studies 

should be conducted, including 

laboratory or field experiments and 

evaluation of natural analogues. 

LBNL conducted multiple model runs 

to assess a variety of scenarios and 

aquifer conditions and, as discussed 

below, found that if injected CO2 comes 

into contact with shallow USDWs, some 

trace element concentrations such as 

arsenic could increase. 

Identification of Trace Elements of 

Concern 

An important step in developing the 

model used to assess the different 

scenarios was the identification of 

naturally occurring minerals that could 

act as a source of trace elements in 

ground water if they were to come into 

contact with CO2. This identification 

was accomplished through an extensive 

review of the scientific literature, 

through which potential minerals of 

concern were identified. The presence 

of these minerals in aquifer rocks was 

indirectly substantiated through an 

evaluation of more than 38,000 waterquality analyses from potable aquifers 

reported in the United States Geological 

Survey’s (USGS) National Water 

Information System (NWIS). While the 

abundances of these host minerals are 

typically very small, all trace elements 

targeted for study occur frequently in 

soils, sediments, and aquifer rocks. 

A preliminary assessment of CO2- 

related water quality changes, including 

pH, was conducted by calculating the 

expected equilibrium concentrations of 

trace elements as a function of the 

amount of CO2 in a representative 

potable groundwater. Results of this 

modeling obtained for typical aquifers 

under reducing conditions indicate that 

arsenic could potentially exceed Federal 

drinking water standards at elevated 

CO2 concentrations (40 CFR 141.62 

(b)(16)). Other trace elements, such as 

barium, cadmium, lead, antimony, and 

zinc, may also be mobilized in certain 

circumstances, but the majority of 

results did not show mobilization at 

levels exceeding the MCL or AL. 

LBNL used reactive-transport 

modeling to further study the fate and 

transport of arsenic and lead in a 

representative potable aquifer as 

influenced by leakage of CO2. This 

study is described as follows: 

Prediction of the Fate and Transport of 

Trace Elements 

LBNL used the reactive-transport 

model TOUGHREACT to 1) study and 

predict the transport of CO2 within a 

shallow aquifer, 2) estimate potential 

geochemical changes caused by the 

presence of CO2, and 3) estimate the fate 

and transport of mobilized trace 

elements. LBNL conducted sensitivity 

studies to account for a range of 

conditions found in potable aquifers 

throughout the US and to evaluate the 

uncertainty associated with geochemical 

processes and model parameters. 

Starting with a representative ground 

water under equilibrium conditions, the 

model was used to estimate the impact 

of CO2 leakage into the aquifer for 100 

years. For this analysis, the investigators 

assumed a hypothetical release scenario 

based on CO2 escape from a deep 

geologic sequestration site via a 

preferential pathway, such as a fault 

zone, entering the shallow aquifer at a 

constant rate. 

Results from this model simulation 

suggest that if CO2 were to leak into a 

shallow aquifer, the potential for 

mobilization of lead and arsenic could 

be enhanced, causing increases in the 

concentration of these trace elements in 

ground water. While LBNL studies did 

suggest that CO2 interaction could cause 

significant concentration increases 

compared to the initial water 

composition, the MCL for arsenic was 

exceeded in only a few simulation 

scenarios, while the lead concentrations 

remained below the AL under all 

scenarios. It is important to emphasize 

that these studies looked at potential 

consequences of CO2 leakage into the 

USDW, not the likelihood of such 

leakage occurring. The goal of the UIC 

program and these regulations is to 

ensure that injectate does not 

contaminate USDWs in the first place. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
44808 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

The Agency will use these 

preliminary results and public 

comments on this research as well as 

potential site-specific analyses, to refine 

and inform site characterization, 

monitoring, and remediation 

requirements and guidance, if 

necessary, in the Agency’s final 

rulemaking. The Agency seeks comment 

on this research and any additional 

studies related to a) mobilization of 

constituents and b) the likelihood or 

frequency of such leakage/risks. 

2. Basin-Scale Hydrologic Impacts of 

CO2 Storage 

Summary 

Pressure build-up from large volume 

CO2 sequestration has been researched 

since the early 1990s. Recent studies 

have focused on better understanding 

large-scale pressure responses for future 

geologic sequestration projects (Zhou et 

al., 2008; Van der Meer and Yavuz, 

2008; Nicot, 2008; Birkholzer et al., 

2009). LBNL studied a hypothetical, 

future scenario of GS in a sedimentary 

basin as an illustrative example to 

demonstrate the potential for basin-scale 

hydrologic impacts of CO2 storage 

(Birkholzer et al., 2008b). 

Sedimentary Basin Case Study 

The example basin considered in this 

case study contains deep saline 

formations that are potential targets for 

large-scale CO2 storage projects because 

they are geologically favorable for 

permanent CO2 storage and the region 

has many large stationary sources of 

CO2. The basin contains a thick, 

extensive, high porosity, high 

permeability sandstone that is the 

primary target for CO2 storage. A 

superior confining shale layer is also 

present, making it an ideal site for 

geologic sequestration projects. 

LBNL used a preliminary 

computational hydrogeologic model of 

the basin to simulate regional ground 

water flow patterns as influenced by 

large-scale deployment of GS in the 

region. The model assumed a scenario 

where 20 independent GS projects 

spaced throughout the center of a 570 

kilometers (km) by 550 km (354 miles 

by 342 miles) model domain each 

injected 5 million tonnes (5.51 million 

tons) of CO2 per year over 50 years. (The 

largest injection today is on the order of 

a million/tons/per year). Modeling 

results for this simulation indicated that 

the maximum size of each CO2 plume 

was 6–8 km (3.7–5 miles) with lateral 

separation between each GS project of 

about 30 km (18.6 miles). These model 

results suggest that the basin is 

favorable for effective trapping of CO2. 

In addition, simulation runs indicated 

that injection pressures did not exceed 

fracture pressure or the maximum value 

used in the model for this basin. 

However, results also indicated that farfield pressure changes could propagate 

as far away as 200 km (124 miles) from 

the core injection area where the 

geologic sequestration projects are 

located. After CO2 injection ended in 

the simulation, pressure buildup in the 

injection zone began to dissipate while 

the far-field pressure response 

continued to increase and expand. For 

this simulation example, a pressure 

increase of 0.5 bar existed at an areal 

extent of nearly 400 km by 400 km (249 

miles by 249 miles) after 50 years. These 

model results indicate that basin-wide 

pressure influences can be large and 

may have intersecting pressure 

perturbations in a multiple-site 

scenario. While simulated changes in 

salinity within the storage formation 

were relatively small, the predicted 

pressure changes could push saline 

water upward into overlying aquifers if 

localized pathways such as conductive 

faults existed. As these large scale 

simulations indicated, limitations on 

injection volumes related to basin-scale 

pressure build-up should be considered 

during CO2 capacity estimation. 

EPA believes that the example studied 

by LBNL illustrates the importance of 

basin-scale evaluation of reservoir 

pressures and far-field pressures 

resulting from CO2 injection. EPA 

requests comment on this study and 

welcomes additional studies that 

provide information on the need for 

basin-scale evaluations for GS injection. 

D. Additional GS Research 

There are international, consensusbased and peer-reviewed reports on 

CCS, including the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special 

Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and 

Storage (IPCC, 2005), which specifically 

includes a chapter on GS drawn from 

published literature and research 

studies. Comprehensive reviews of the 

results from GS research are also 

available (e.g., Holloway, 2001; 

Friedman, 2007; Tsang et al., 2008). 

EPA will continue to track research 

project development and literature 

published by DOE and international 

governments and organizations 

including the International Energy 

Agency (IEA), IEA Greenhouse Gas 

Programme, and other major 

international CCS initiatives. 

With respect to geologic and reservoir 

modeling, EPA has conducted one such 

synthesis and analysis of GS research to 

inform the rulemaking efforts. Schnaar 

and Digiulio (2009) present a research 

review of over forty GS modeling 

studies spanning from 1993–2008. This 

review found that GS models are based 

on pre-existing codes that have been 

developed for predicting the movement 

of water and solutes in soil, the behavior 

of groundwater contaminants at 

hazardous waste sites, and the recovery 

of oil and gas from petroleum-bearing 

formations. However, modeling the 

injection and sequestration of CO2 poses 

unique challenges, such as the need to 

properly characterize CO2 transport 

properties across a large range of 

temperatures and pressures, and the 

need to couple multiphase flow, 

reactive transport, and geomechanical 

processes. The authors reviewed studies 

that demonstrated the use of modeling 

in project design, site characterization, 

assessments of leakage, and site 

monitoring. 

The complete modeling review is 

available in the online public docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov. A list of 

recent publications addressing potential 

environmental risks and risk 

management approaches for GS sites is 

also available in the docket. The Agency 

may use information generated from 

these studies to identify implementation 

guidance needs and refine the proposed 

requirements. EPA seeks comment on 

these studies and requests other 

research on geologic and reservoir 

modeling as well as research associated 

with potential environmental risks and 

risk management approaches for GS. 

IV. Injection Depth for GS Projects 

A. What did EPA propose for Class VI 

well injection depth relative to the 

location of USDWs? 

In the proposed rule, EPA defined 

Class VI injection wells as wells used 

for GS (injection) of CO2 beneath the 

lowermost formation containing a 

USDW. In Section III.A.4 of the 

preamble, EPA discussed Injection 

Depth in Relation to USDWs to further 

clarify the Agency’s expectations 

regarding injection depth for Class VI 

wells. The proposed requirements 

would preclude injection of CO2 into 

zones in between and above USDWs. 

EPA is aware that confining Class VI 

CO2 injection to below the lowermost 

USDW may restrict the use of 

sequestration in areas of the country 

with deep USDWs where well 

construction would be technically 

impractical or infeasible. As proposed, 

the definition would also preclude 

injection of CO2 into shallow formations 

such as coal seams and basalts. The 

Agency requested comment on 

alternative approaches that would allow 

injection between and/or above the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44809 

lowermost USDW and thus potentially 

allow for more areas to be available for 

GS while continuing to prevent 

endangerment of USDWs. 

Approaches on which the Agency 

sought comment in the preamble, as 

alternatives to the proposed injection 

depth requirements included: 

• Allowing Class VI CO2 injection 

above the lowermost USDW when the 

Director determines that geologic 

conditions exist that will prevent fluid 

movement into adjacent USDWs; 

• Allowing the use of an aquifer 

exemption process for Class VI 

injection; and, 

• Establishing, by regulation, a 

minimum injection depth for GS of CO2. 

B. Why did EPA propose that Class VI 

wells inject below the lowermost USDW? 

EPA initiated the regulatory 

development process for GS and 

proposed new, tailored Federal 

requirements appropriate for the unique 

nature of injecting large volumes of CO2

for long-term storage to ensure that 

USDWs are not endangered. The 

proposed injection depth requirements 

for Class VI wells are consistent with 

the siting and operational requirements 

for deep, technically sophisticated Class 

I wells and are an important component 

of the UIC program. 

The basis of these requirements is the 

principle that placing distance between 

the injection formation and USDWs 

decreases risks to USDWs. In these 

deep-well injection scenarios, the added 

depth and distance between the 

injection zone and overlying formations 

serve both as a buffer allowing for 

pressure dissipation and as a zone for 

monitoring that may detect any 

excursions (of the injectate) out of the 

injection zone. Additional distance also 

allows trapping mechanisms, including 

dissolution of CO2 in native fluids and 

mineralization, to occur over time— 

thereby reducing risks that CO2 may 

migrate from the injection zone and 

endanger USDWs. Additionally, the 

depth and distance below the lowermost 

USDW allow the potential for the 

presence of additional confining layers 

(between the injection zone and 

overlying formations/USDWs). 

C. Injection Depth Comments, Data, and 

Research 

EPA received a range of comments 

both in support of, and opposed to, the 

proposed injection depth requirements 

for Class VI wells. 

Comments Supporting the Proposed 

Injection Depth Requirements 

Comments that supported the 

proposed requirements indicated that 

injection should be constrained to 

below the lowermost USDW (should not 

be allowed above and/or between 

USDWs) because: 

• SDWA requires the UIC program to 

promulgate regulations (including 

injection depth requirements) that 

maximize USDW protection; 

• Injection below the lowermost 

USDW is a long-standing principle of 

UIC deep well injection; 

• In many cases, injection below the 

lowermost USDW ensures a greater 

distance between the injection zone and 

USDWs; 

• GS is a new/unproven technology 

(at large scale) and, in the early years of 

deployment, injection depth limitations 

are prudent. These requirements could 

be relaxed in the future as information 

is learned about GS injection; 

• Keeping injection below the 

lowermost USDW will reduce the 

likelihood of wells (e.g., water, mineral, 

and/or hydrocarbon production) being 

drilled through a CO2 plume in the 

future. 

These comments and concerns about 

injection depth are further supported by 

ongoing research, data, and activities 

related to water use, availability, and 

planning; some of this research and data 

were submitted to the proposed rule 

docket (e.g., EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0390– 

0181.1). Water availability research in 

the United States indicates that water 

treatment of higher salinity waters (in 

excess of the USDW protectiveness 

threshold of 10,000 ppm TDS) may be 

more cost effective than the cost of 

obtaining water rights or surface water 

elsewhere in the area (Sengebush, 2008). 

Additionally, as technologies advance, 

treatment of increasingly deeper and/or 

higher salinity waters may become a 

common practice employed in many 

communities throughout the US. Other 

studies support the need to consider 

long-term drinking water protection and 

the confluence of population growth 

and constrained water resources in parts 

of the US when developing injection 

depth requirements (US Government 

Accountability Office, 2003; Davidson, 

et al., 2008). 

Comments Opposed to the Proposed 

Injection Depth Requirements 

Those opposed to the proposed 

requirements supported allowing 

injection above and between USDWs. 

These commenters indicated that such 

injection should be allowed under the 

following conditions and based on the 

following arguments: 

• At any depth without limitations; 

• Based on site-specific information 

and in certain geologic settings, where 

there are adequate confining systems 

above and below the injection zone; 

• Where formations have been 

exempted (for other injection purposes) 

and/or where the formations are greater 

than 10,000 ppm TDS; 

• Based on geographically delineated 

exemptions (e.g., specifically delineated 

formations, basins, or regions where 

injection could occur at depths above/ 

between USDW); 

• Because many parts of the country 

will be excluded from GS activities and 

as a result CCS deployment may be 

restricted (if this requirement is 

maintained as written); 

• Because Class II, Class III, and Class 

V operations are already injecting above 

the lowermost USDW without any 

potential for threats to underlying (or 

overlying) USDWs; and, 

• Because there should not be a 

blanket prohibition for Class VI GS 

wells. 

Research, information, and comments 

that support allowing injection above 

and between USDWs have focused on 

climate change mitigation, CO2 geologic 

storage capacity assessments, and 

current UIC injection practices. 

Commenters interested in climate 

change mitigation emphasized the role 

that GS will play in reducing 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while 

national GS capacity estimates focus on 

formations irrespective of depth (above/ 

below the lowermost USDW). 

Furthermore, some specific research on 

CO2 injection for GS into various 

formations including shallow, volcanic 

rocks such as flood basalts (McGrail, et 

al., 2006) and coal seam injection 

(Dooley, et al., 2006; IPCC, 2005; MIT 

2007; White et al., 2005) illustrates the 

potential for GS in these formations, but 

only if there is depth requirement 

flexibility. Certain States have indicated 

that where USDWs are very deep (e.g., 

15,000 ft/4,572 meters and deeper) and 

layered (stratified) these regions would 

become unavailable for large-scale GS 

projects because injectors would not be 

able to comply with the current 

injection depth (and well construction) 

requirements. These States suggest that 

GS should be allowed in certain areas if 

a site-specific demonstration can be 

made that USDWs will be protected. 

Some comments support the 

suggestion that current Class II, Class III, 

and Class V injection activities 

occurring above and between USDWs 

may serve as a viable analogue for GS 

injection depth requirements. Class II 

and Class III owners and operators of 

sites where injection is taking place 

above and between USDWs must 

identify and demonstrate upper and 

lower impermeable confining units. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
44810 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

These confining units serve as barriers 

to fluid movement and pressure and 

must ensure continuous injectate 

isolation, confinement, and USDW 

protection. Identification of such units 

is conducted through analysis of sonic 

and resistivity logs, drill stem tests, and 

wire line tests. 

D. Evaluation of Concerns About 

Injection Depth for Class VI GS Wells 

Discussion 

Under Section 1421 of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA), UIC 

regulations must prevent underground 

injection that endangers USDWs. While 

EPA has met this statutory requirement 

in the past by requiring injection below 

the lowermost USDW, for some of the 

injection activities that may pose 

increased risks, the Act allows other 

approaches as well (Kobelski, et al., 

2005). 

In today’s NODA, EPA is providing 

additional information on an alternative 

for addressing injection depth in limited 

circumstances where there are deep 

USDWs. EPA believes that a waiver 

process may respond to the range of 

comments, both for and against the 

proposed requirement that Class VI 

wells inject below the lowermost 

USDW. The goals of this approach are 

to: (1) Provide flexibility to UIC Program 

Directors and owner/operators that will 

undertake CO2 injection for GS; (2) 

respond to concerns about local and 

regional geologic storage capacity 

limitations imposed by the proposed 

injection depth requirements; (3) allow 

for a more site-specific assessment; (4) 

accommodate injection into different 

formation types; and, (5) consider the 

concept that CO2 injection for GS above 

and/or between USDWs could be as safe 

and effective as injection below the 

lowermost USDW as evidenced by past 

experiences with some Class II, III and 

V injection wells. EPA believes this 

approach may additionally 

accommodate requests for geographic 

flexibility while placing such 

determinations at the State or Regional 

level. Lastly, the approach is designed 

to acknowledge and accommodate 

comments and concerns about drinking 

water resource availability and the 

potential/known future needs, and to 

afford such water resources protection. 

EPA is considering a number of topics 

and the implications of the various 

commenters’ concerns related to this 

potential alternative as follows: 

There have been a number of national 

GS capacity estimates developed (e.g., 

by DOE’s National laboratories, USGS, 

etc.). Some of these assessments have 

broadly identified porous, permeable 

formations that may receive and store 

CO2 at a range of depths beneath the 

ground surface (Burruss, R.C., et al, 

2009; DOE, 2007; Davidson et al., 2008; 

MIT, 2007; Dooley, 2006). In developing 

injection depth requirements, EPA 

acknowledges that these capacity 

estimates do not directly address 

specific site suitability attributes that 

would be identified through the UIC 

permitting site-characterization process. 

Additionally, these formations 

(identified through capacity estimates) 

may be stratified, stacked, or layered 

and in combination, their cumulative 

capacity could be limited (i.e., less than 

assessed). In the absence of such sitespecific information, it is currently 

difficult to identify what percentage of 

assessed national capacity is actually 

suitable for GS. In addition, very small 

geologic storage sites, even when 

aggregated within a given area, may not 

be conducive to/appropriate for largescale, commercial GS projects. However, 

the approach described in this Notice 

allows for such a determination to be 

made on a site-specific basis. 

Second, the alternative under 

consideration does not prohibit 

injection into any specific formation 

types (e.g., basalts and/or coal seams). It 

affords all formations equal treatment 

and allows specific regions of the 

country the regulatory flexibility to 

determine if any injection at a particular 

site and depth is the appropriate 

approach. It will also help to manage 

injection in areas where there may be 

multiple, stratified formations with 

significant assessed cumulative 

capacity. 

Third, because the Agency believes 

that it is necessary to address the 

specific, unique characteristics of Class 

VI injection (e.g., large injection 

volumes, viscosity, and buoyancy) and 

the Agency does not have information 

or data indicating that Class II 

operations are entirely analogous to 

Class VI, large-scale injection, this 

alternative allows Class VI injection 

depth considerations to be tailored for 

GS. A number of dominant differences 

between Class II and Class VI operations 

indicate that these well classes warrant 

different treatment. EPA received 

comment during the public comment 

period supporting the need for such a 

distinction. These differences include: 

the risk profiles for these operations; the 

greater total injection volumes (of CO2) 

for Class VI GS; and, differences in 

formation pressures (potentially higher 

for GS), greater opportunities for 

mobilization of constituents, and 

injection rates and operating conditions. 

The alternative EPA is considering 

relies on the principle of site-suitability 

for GS: injection zones/formations that 

have suitable upper and lower confining 

units, appropriate lateral and vertical 

extent to receive and contain the 

injected CO2, and an appropriate 

management scheme to ensure that the 

water and other resources contained 

within the injection zone will not be 

needed in the future. The management 

scheme will also ensure that there is a 

strategy developed to address future 

needs to access formations below the 

injection zone. 

This approach would allow regulators 

and communities (e.g., States, etc.) to 

assess the most appropriate injection 

depth for a given project, in a given 

geographic or geologic area. It may also 

allow communities, local, and State 

authorities to plan resource use 

appropriately and, if necessary, 

circumvent the need to drill through a 

CO2 filled zone/formation/plume to 

exploit resources (both water and 

hydrocarbon) in or below the injection 

zone. 

Conversely, EPA is weighing the fact 

that this alternative would be a 

divergence from the existing UIC deepwell injection requirements for 

industrial and hazardous waste 

injection. It will result in greater 

injection depth variability throughout 

the United States and may result in 

emplacement of fluids by injection in 

closer proximity to USDWs than would 

occur under the proposed requirements. 

Additionally, adoption of this 

alternative could potentially add a new 

administrative burden to UIC programs 

pursuing the waiver approach. 

Consideration of New Approach 

Based on new information and data 

from comments received on the 

proposed rule, the Agency is 

considering a waiver process to allow 

GS injection above and between USDWs 

under specific conditions in lieu of a 

blanket prohibition on injection above 

and between USDWs. The proposed 

Class VI GS injection depth 

requirements would remain unchanged 

but would allow an owner or operator 

seeking to inject above and/or between 

USDWs to apply for a waiver from the 

proposed injection depth requirements. 

The owner or operator would be 

required to demonstrate to regulatory 

authorities that such injection can be 

undertaken and completed in a manner 

that prevents fluid movement into 

overlying (and underlying) USDWs, 

thereby preventing the endangerment of 

public health from USDW 

contamination. This process would be 

separate from aquifer exemptions and 

has no effect on 40 CFR parts 144.7 and 

146.4. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44811 

Under this alternative, an owner or 

operator applying for an injection depth 

waiver would need to consider and 

submit additional, specific information 

to the UIC Program Director and the 

Public Water Supply Supervision 

(PWSS) Program Director for review 

prior to completing a Class VI permit 

application. EPA is considering that 

such information would likely include: 

• Site characterization: Site 

characterization data will be critical in 

determining appropriateness of a given 

formation and depth for GS injection. 

The waiver application would need to 

demonstrate: (1) Laterally continuous, 

impermeable confining units above and 

below the injection zone adequate to 

prevent fluid movement and pressure 

buildup; (2) A laterally continuous 

injection zone/formation with adequate 

injectability, including sufficient 

porosity and permeability, and 

appropriate soil-rock chemistry (so as to 

ensure that the injection matrix is not 

dissolved as a result of injection); (3) An 

injection zone and confining formations 

free of transmissive fractures and faults; 

and, (4) A characterization of regional 

fracture properties and a demonstration 

that such fractures will not interfere 

with injection, serve as conduits, or 

endanger USDWs. 

• AoR and corrective action: Due to 

the potential risk that artificial 

penetrations pose as fluid/injectate 

conduits, the owner/operator would 

need to map and identify all artificial 

penetrations in the AoR that penetrate 

the injection zone, the upper and lower 

confining zones, and all USDWs in the 

area. The purpose of this demonstration 

would be to ensure that public water 

supplies, private wells, and potential 

future water resources are identified and 

the location of artificial penetrations 

into such formations are known and 

these artificial penetrations can be 

appropriately plugged during the 

permitting phase. 

• Emergency and remedial response 

and financial responsibility: The owner 

or operator would need to supplement 

the emergency and remedial response 

plan (submitted as part of the waiver 

application process and as part of the 

UIC Class VI permit) to ensure 

protection of USDWs above and below 

the injection zone. The purpose of this 

plan would be to explain that the owner 

or operator has considered regional 

water resource issues and has explored 

alternative water supplies or water 

treatment options to address 

unanticipated movement of the injectate 

or formation fluids (e.g., CO2, brine, or 

other fluids) into any overlying or 

underlying USDWs. The owner/operator 

would also demonstrate sufficient, 

additional financial responsibility to 

address any potential contamination of 

USDWs above or below the injection 

zone. 

Upon compliance with the waiver 

process requirements, the owner/ 

operator would need to submit the 

information jointly to the UIC Program 

Director and the PWSS Program 

Director. These Directors would 

consider factors such as: 

• The integrity of the upper and 

lower confining units (certified by a 

Professional Geologist or a Professional 

Engineer); 

• The suitability of the injection zone 

(e.g., lateral continuity; lack of 

transmissive faults and fractures; 

knowledge of current or planned 

artificial penetrations into it or 

formations below the injection zone); 

• The potential capacity of the 

geologic formation to sequester CO2, 

accounting for the availability of 

alternative injection sites; 

• All other site characterization data, 

the proposed emergency and remedial 

response plan, and a demonstration of 

financial responsibility; 

• Community needs, demands, and 

supply from drinking water resources; 

• Planned needs, potential and/or 

future use of USDWs and non-USDWs 

in the area; 

• Planned (or permitted) water, 

hydrocarbon, or mineral resource 

exploitation potential of the proposed 

injection formation and other 

formations both above and below the 

injection zone—to determine if there are 

any plans to drill through the formation 

to access resources in or beneath the 

proposed injection zone/formation; 

• The proposed plan for securing 

alternative resources or treating USDW 

formation waters in the event of 

contamination related to the Class VI 

injection activity; and, 

• Any other locally applicable 

considerations. 

The waiver may also be subject to 

local notice and public hearing. 

Following a public hearing and waiver 

approval by both Program Directors, the 

owner/operator may complete and 

submit the Class VI permit application. 

The owner/operator may be required to 

comply with additional requirements 

that apply as a result of receipt of the 

waiver, designed to ensure the 

protection of USDWs both above and 

below the injection zone. These 

requirements could include: more 

specific construction and preoperational testing requirements to 

reduce the chances of upward fluid 

movement or inter-formational flow; 

enhanced operating requirements such 

as more stringent injection pressure 

limitations; a site-specific monitoring 

regime that includes increased 

formation fluid and ground water 

sampling and monitoring above and 

below the injection zone in concert with 

local water suppliers; seismic plume 

tracking and monitoring of pressure 

changes above and below the injection 

zone; supplemented financial 

responsibility and emergency and 

remedial response requirements 

(consistent with those in the waiver); 

and identification of the location of 

PWS and private drinking water wells 

in developing and executing the postinjection site care and site closure plan 

at the GS site. 

Adoption of the Waiver Requirements 

Due to the range of concerns and 

comments related to the injection depth 

requirements and the nature of the 

suggested waiver approval procedure, 

EPA believes that adoption of any such 

injection depth waiver process, as 

previously described, should be at the 

discretion of the UIC Program Director. 

Because deep USDWs do not exist in 

every State, EPA expects that not all 

States would choose to adopt the waiver 

process. UIC Programs in such States 

may instead adopt and enforce the 

proposed requirement that injection for 

GS be below the lowermost USDW. 

EPA also recognizes that States and 

UIC Directors have the discretion to be 

more stringent in writing regulations for 

GS and/or adopting Federal UIC 

requirements. As a result, States could 

include a minimum injection depth 

requirement in their regulations or a 

Director may impose such requirements 

on a site-specific basis. 

The Agency is requesting comment on 

the merits and possible disadvantages of 

the injection depth waiver process. 

Specifically, should an approach such 

as the one described in this Notice be 

considered and if so, should there be 

additional, fewer, or different elements? 

Some stakeholders are concerned about 

the risks associated with the use of 

formations other than deep saline and 

depleted reservoirs (e.g., coal seams, 

basalts, etc.). EPA is seeking comment 

on whether the waiver process should 

apply to formations other than these. 

Additionally, the Agency is interested 

in: 

(1) Information on specific areas of 

the United States where injection depth 

and USDW depth are of concern 

(including formation depth, location, 

and assessed capacity; demonstrated 

confinement and GS suitability; and, 

formation salinity/TDS) as determined 

by well-log analyses, cross sections, and 

formation fluid analyses; 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
44812 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Data, information, and evidence 

from owners and operators constructing 

and operating injection wells through 

existing CO2 plumes to access resources 

(e.g., water, hydrocarbon, etc.) below the 

injection zone and whether or not such 

operations are safe and do not endanger 

USDWs; and, 

(3) Strategies that States, Tribes, and 

regions are considering to manage 

competing GS and resource issues. 

V. State Statutes, Regulations, and 

Activities Related to Geologic 

Sequestration 

Throughout the regulatory 

development process for the Class VI 

proposal, EPA has made it a priority to 

engage States and State organizations. 

The EPA has honored a commitment to 

working with State co-regulators to 

address regulatory issues related to GS 

through a series of stakeholder and 

technical workshops, public hearings, 

and EPA participation with national 

organizations including the Ground 

Water Protection Council, the Interstate 

Oil and Gas Compact Commission, and 

the American Association of State 

Geologists. EPA values coordination 

with States and State co-regulators and 

will continue an open dialogue as the 

Agency moves forward in the regulatory 

development process. 

EPA recognizes the complexity and 

importance of the States’ approaches to 

managing GS and does not want to 

unduly hinder State activities as 

indicated in an April 2008 EPA letter to 

the States (available in the docket for 

this regulatory action). The Agency is 

aware that States are currently in 

various stages of developing statutory 

frameworks, regulations, workgroups, 

technical guidance, and strategies for 

addressing CCS and GS. Much of the 

expertise and infrastructure currently 

exists within State UIC Programs. These 

programs will form the foundation for 

managing GS wells. Additionally, States 

can use multiple authorities beyond 

those afforded under the SDWA and 

UIC regulations including surface access 

and land rights, unitization of fields, 

pore space ownership, mineral rights, 

worker safety and emergency 

preparedness, and maximization of 

State oil and gas resource exploitation. 

At present, several States have 

published GS regulations, while a 

number of other States are investigating 

and developing strategies to address 

dual purpose injection wells (EOR/EGR 

and GS simultaneously). Some States 

are using natural gas storage regulations 

as a platform for developing these 

regulations. Additionally, as States 

develop regulations and statutes, they 

are examining which State Agency can 

most appropriately manage 

implementation for GS wells. EPA is 

continuing to collaborate with States 

and will consider this information as 

EPA develops guidance on the primacy 

application and approval process for 

Class VI wells. Information about these 

State activities may be found in the 

Docket for today’s publication. EPA also 

seeks comment on current State 

activities addressing GS. This 

information will assist EPA in 

developing guidance for UIC program 

implementers. 

VI. Conclusions 

In conclusion, today’s Notice 

supplements the proposed ‘‘Federal 

Requirements Under the Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) Program for 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic 

Sequestration (GS) Wells’’ of July 25, 

2008 (73 FR 43492), presents new data 

and information, and requests public 

comment on related issues that have 

evolved in response to comments on the 

original proposal. This Notice contains 

preliminary field data from Department 

of Energy-sponsored Regional Carbon 

Sequestration Partnership projects, the 

results of GS-related studies conducted 

by the Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, and additional GS related 

research. Today’s Notice also discusses 

comments and presents an alternative 

the Agency is considering related to the 

proposed injection depth requirements. 

VII. References 

Birkholzer, J.T., Q. Zhou, and C.F. Tsang. 

2009. Large-Scale Impact of CO2 Storage 

in Deep Saline Aquifers: A Sensitivity 

Study on the Pressure Response in 

Stratified Systems. International Journal 

of Greenhouse Gas Control, 3(2), 181– 

194. 

Birkholzer, J., J. Apps, L. Zheng, Y. Zhang, 

T. Xu, and C.-F. Tsang. 2008a. Research 

Project on CO2 Geological Storage and 

Groundwater Resources: Water Quality 

Effects Caused by CO2 Intrusion into 

Shallow Groundwater. Technical Report, 

LBNL–1251E, October 2008. 

Birkholzer, J., Q. Zhou, K. Zhang, P. Jordan, 

J. Rutqvist, and C.-F. Tsang. 2008b. 

Research Project on CO2 Geological 

Storage and Groundwater Resources: 

Large-Scale Hydrological Evaluation and 

Modeling of the Impact on Groundwater 

Systems. NETL Project Annual Report, 

October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008. 

Burruss, R.C., Brennan, S.T., Freeman, P.A., 

Merrill, M.D., Ruppert, L.F., Becker, 

M.F., Herkelrath, W.N., Kharaka, Y.K., 

Neuzil, C.E., Swanson, S.M., Cook, T.A., 

Klett, T.R., Nelson, P.H., and C.J. Schenk. 

2009. Development of a Probabilistic 

Assessment Methodology for Evaluation 

of Carbon Dioxide Storage: US 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 

2009–1035, 81 p. http://pubs.usgs.gov/ 

of/2009/1035/. 

Davidson, C.L., J.J. Dooley, and R.T. 

Dahowski. 2008. Assessing the Impacts 

of Future Demand for Saline 

Groundwater on Commercial 

Deployment of CCS in the United States. 

9th International Conference on 

Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 

(November 2008). Washington, DC. 

Dooley, J.J., R.T. Dahowski, C.L. Davidson, 

M.A. Wise, N. Gupta, S.H. Kim, and E.L. 

Malone. 2006. Carbon Dioxide Capture 

and Geologic Storage: A Core Element of 

a Global Energy Technology Strategy to 

Address Climate Change. A Technology 

Report from the Second Phase of the 

Global Energy Technology Strategy 

Program. April, 2006. 

Friedman, S. J. 2007. Geological Carbon 

Dioxide Sequestration. Elements, 3, 179– 

184. 

Holloway, S. 2001. Storage of Fossil FuelDerived Carbon Dioxide Beneath the 

Surface of the Earth. Annual Review of 

Energy and the Environment, 26, 145–66. 

IPCC. 2005. IPCC Special Report on Carbon 

Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared 

by Working Group III of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Metz, B., O. Davidson, H. C. de 

Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meyer 

(eds.). New York: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Kobelski, B.J., R.E. Smith, and A.L. 

Whitehurst. 2005. An Interpretation of 

the Safe Drinking Water Act’s ‘‘NonEndangerment’’ Standard for the 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

Program. In Developments in Water 

Science: Underground Injection Science 

and Technology, 52, 39–43. 

McGrail, B.P., H.T. Schaef, A.M. Ho, Y. 

Chien, J.J. Dooley, and C.L. Davidson. 

2006. Potential for Carbon Dioxide 

Sequestration in Flood Basalts. Journal of 

Geophysical Research, III B12201. 

MIT. 2007. Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology. The Future of Coal— 

Options for a Carbon Constrained World. 

Nicot, J.P. 2008. Evaluation of Large-Scale 

Carbon Storage on Fresh-Water Section 

of Aquifers: A Texas Study. International 

Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 2(4), 

582–593. 

Schnaar, G. and D. Digiulio. 2009. 

Computational Modeling of the Geologic 

Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide. Vadose 

Zone Journal, 8(2), 389–403. 

Sengebush, R.M. 2008. Deep Brackish Water 

Considered for New Mexico 

Development. Southwest Hydrology, 

March/April 2008, 8. 

Tsang, C.-F., J. Birkholzer and J. Rutqvist. 

2008. A Comparative Review of 

Hydrologic Issues Involved in Geologic 

Storage of CO2 and Injection Disposal of 

Liquid Waste. Environmental Geology, 

54, 1723–1737. 

U.S. DOE. 2007 Carbon Sequestration Atlas 

of the United States and Canada. US 

Department of Energy, Office of Fossil 

Energy, national Energy Technology 

Laboratory. March, 2007. http:// 

www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/ 

carbon_seq/refshelf/atlas/. 

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 

2003. Freshwater Supply: States’ Views 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 167 / Monday, August 31, 2009 / Proposed Rules 44813 

of House Federal Agencies Could Help 

Them Meet the Challenges of Expected 

Shortages (GAO–03–514). July, 2003. 

van der Meer, L.G.H. and F. Yavuz. 2008. 

CO2 Storage Capacity Calculations for 

the Dutch Subsurface. 9th International 

Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control 

Technologies, (November 2008). 

Washington, DC. 

White, C.M., D.H. Smith, K.L. Jones, A.L. 

Goodman, S.A. Jikich, R.B. LaCount, S.B. 

DuBose, E. Ozdemir, B.I. Morsi, and k.T. 

Schroeder. 2005. Sequestration of Carbon 

Dioxide In Coal With Enhanced Coalbed 

Methane Recovery—A Review. Energy 

Fuels, 19(3), 659–724. 

Zhou, Q., J.T. Birkholzer, C.F. Tsang, and J. 

Rutqvist. 2008. A Method for Quick 

Assessment of CO2 Storage Capacity in 

Closed and Semi-Closed Saline 

Formations. International Journal of 

Greenhouse Gas Control, 2(4), 626–639. 

Dated: August 21, 2009. 

Peter S. Silva, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water. 

[FR Doc. E9–20920 Filed 8–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS