Deliberative draft—do not cite, quote, or distribute Page 1

Notes of National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) Webinar on

EPA’s Proposed Geologic Sequestration (GS) Rule 

November 6, 2008

Veronica Blette welcomed the Council and explained that the Webcast was a follow-up to an

overview of the rulemaking presented at the June NDWAC meeting. Because the proposed GS 

rule was still being written at the time, EPA was not able to provide details, and committed to a 

more detailed presentation of the rule before the NDWAC meeting on November 19-21and the 

November 24 close of the public comment period for the proposed GS rule.

Ms. Blette explained that, following a presentation by Steve Heare on the proposed rule, 

members of the NDWAC would be given time to ask questions and comment. Following that, 

members of the public were invited to submit comments.

Presentation/Overview of Proposed Requirements

Steve Heare outlined the proposed requirements for siting, construction, operation, monitoring 

and testing, and plugging and post-injection site care for wells used to inject CO2 for the purpose 

of GS to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). (See attached presentation.) 

Mr. Heare also outlined the comments raised during two public hearings on the proposed rule 

(held on September 30, 2008 in Chicago, IL and on October 2, 2008 in Denver, CO). 

Commenters raised the following issues at the hearings:

• Grandfathering existing wells for GS.

• Conversion of Class II wells to Class VI wells, particularly where GS is conducted 

concurrently with enhanced oil recovery (EOR) to assure that GS does not negatively 

affect Class II activities.

• The proposed approach to defining the Area of Review (AoR) for GS projects.

• Whether to allow injection of CO2 above or between USDWs for GS.

• Pros and cons of prescriptive vs. site-specific monitoring requirements.

• The duration of the post-closure monitoring period, in particular that EPA’s selection 

of 50 years appears to be arbitrary.

• The importance of public participation and transparency in decisions related to GS.

• The source and sufficiency of funding for permitting activities.

• Allowing states to have primacy for Class VI wells only.

• EPA should adopt a holistic approach to addressing climate change, rather than 

adopting “piecemeal” requirements.

Following his presentation, Mr. Heare, Lee Whitehurst, and Ann Codrington of the rule 

development team fielded questions from Council members.

How many comments have been submitted? To date, EPA has received 37 submissions 

(including comments and attachments) from 17 unique commenters.
Deliberative draft—do not cite, quote, or distribute Page 2

Will post-injection site care include CO2 plume monitoring? EPA is proposing that operators 

monitor all aspects of the project until it can be demonstrated that there is no further threat to 

USDWs. This would include monitoring the CO2 plume.

As new models are developed, will operators be required to use them? There is no specific 

provision for this in the proposed rule (although the rule would not preclude the use of newly 

developed models). Any decision to re-model the site would be at the Director’s discretion and 

be addressed during the reevaluation of the AoR. 

Does the rule include provisions for involving local governments? There is no specific language 

for this at the moment.

Does the rule address future non-GS wells in the AoR? The permittee is required to demonstrate 

that they will have surface access to the whole AoR during the entire life of the project 

(including the post-closure monitoring period). Future wells in the AoR may not interfere with 

this requirement.

What would happen if other entities wanted to site injection wells in the AoR? There are no 

specific provisions for this in the proposed rule; however, anyone wanting to inject in the AoR of 

the GS project would likely work with the same permitting authority, so the GS project would be 

addressed during the AoR evaluation for the future project.

Has EPA received any new input regarding GS in shales and coal seams? EPA has not received 

any comments about these formation types so far. The proposed rule focuses on the process for 

safely siting, constructing, operating, and closing GS wells, regardless of the formation type. 

Well casing integrity is critical to protecting USDWs. How will GS wells withstand the high 

pressures and corrosivity associated with GS? Well construction and monitoring requirements 

are the cornerstone of UIC protections. The proposed GS rule provides additional protection to 

address CO2 injection for GS, including enhanced casing requirements and continuous internal 

mechanical integrity testing.

Do primacy state permit writers have the technical capacity to write permits for these very 

complex projects? Permit writing will require adequate staff, training, and funding. Since most 

GS is being conduced at DOE pilot projects now, this is not a concern yet. However, EPA 

recognizes that it is a significant concern for many people and implementation issues will be the 

focus of future work.

Is compliance with NEPA (or state equivalents) incorporated into the Class VI permitting 

process? If a project is federally funded, it is subject to NEPA requirements. This question will 

be addressed further.

Who is liable if an earthquake damages the well? Should modeling of the site account for 

seismicity? The proposed rule requires that the owner/operator provide information on the 

seismic history of a proposed injection site and demonstrate to the Director’s satisfaction that GS 

would not induce a seismic event. In the case of unrelated earthquakes, the owner/operator is 
Deliberative draft—do not cite, quote, or distribute Page 3

still liable if damage associated with the CO2 was to occur, but this is under consideration at the 

moment. 

Who is responsible for financing closure and post-closure activities? The UIC regulations 

require the owner/operator of a well to demonstrate financial ability for well closure and 

remediation activities. EPA proposes that the owner/operator of a Class VI well also 

demonstrate an ability to finance post-injection site care, site closure, and emergency response.

EPA solicited comments on financial responsibility issues in the proposed rule.

Public Comment Session

EPA invited non-Council participants on the call to provide comments on the proposed GS rule.

Steve Via, American Water Works Association (AWWA) said that AWWA believes that 

more research is needed before the proposed GS rule is finalized and implemented. AWWA’s 

specific concerns or suggestions include:

• Prohibiting injection of CO2 above the lowermost USDW.

• Protecting lower quality aquifers that may serve as drinking water sources in the 

future, even if they are not currently categorized as USDWs.

• Protecting beneficial uses by preventing impairment.

• Requiring subsurface monitoring to prevent and respond to USDW contamination.

• Requiring new, more precise site maps and geologic surveys.

• Integrating ongoing research into the final rule requirements. While current research 

indicates that proposed testing will be adequate, this may not remain the case as more 

is learned.

• Requiring a minimum of 50 years of post-injection site care.

Mr. Via added that, while action is needed to address climate change, AWWA urges caution so 

that drinking water sources are not negatively impacted by GS. AWWA asked the Council to 

tell EPA that a science-based and thorough approach is need for this proposal.

Scott Anderson, Environmental Defense Fund, said that the proposed rule is superior to 

current regulations; it seems rigorous and science-based without being burdensome. It is very 

close to adequately protecting USDWs. Mr. Anderson offered the following concerns and 

suggestions:

• Rewrite the closure standard to include a practical, clear, and objective test.

• Clearly differentiate between EOR and non-EOR injections; incorporate The World 

Resources Institute’s (WRI) recent guidelines.

• More complete geomechanical information about injection pressures and rates is 

needed. WRI could help with this as well.

• Change the definition of AoR to focus on the zone of elevated pressure.

• Specify that injection of CO2 is not a federally permitted release.

• Do not permit injection to coal seams, basalts, shales, or salt caverns as Class VI

wells. There is not enough information to regulate them under Class VI at the 

moment; they should continue to be permitted as Class V experimental technology

wells.

• Prohibit interference between injection projects.
Deliberative draft—do not cite, quote, or distribute Page 4

• The iterative approach to monitoring and permit revisions is a positive component of 

the proposed rule; there are still some missing elements, however.

Emily Fisher, Edison Electric Institute (EEI), stated that balancing climate change actions and 

water quality protection is not a zero-sum game, and that GS can be performed without risking 

drinking water. She added that site characterization and site-specific permitting are keys to 

successful GS. EEI has submitted additional comments to the proposed rulemaking docket.

Council Discussion

Council members discussed how to move forward to prepare for further discussion of the 

proposed rule during the November NDWAC meeting. They offered the following observations:

• Comments seem to address three themes: initial evaluation/site characterization, well 

integrity during injection activities, and closure surety. Perhaps the Council’s

comments to EPA on the proposed rule should follow this lead.

• The AWWA comments are on-point and should be considered. Is further research 

necessary to meet the primary goal of protecting drinking water?

• Local governments (and states without primacy) need to be notified and included 

early in the permitting process for GS wells.

• Technical and financial capacity to issue permits is a big concern. One option is a 

provision that the operator be required to pay for an independent assessment by a 

government-selected consultant.

• Given that CO2 injection wells can be approved in the absence of Class VI regulations

(i.e., as Class I wells), it is important to move forward with the Class VI regulations 

with an appropriate balance between quick action and striving for perfection.

• There should be a periodic review of the rule as new research results become

available.

A subgroup of NDWAC will talk before the November meeting to expedite the discussion at that 

meeting.

Perchlorate

The Committee spent a few final minutes discussing the perchlorate determination. Since the 

public comment period for the determination ends on November 10 (before the NDWAC 

meeting), it may be appropriate to request an extension of the comment period so the NDWAC 

could decide at the November meeting whether to submit a comment to EPA.

The Council decided unanimously to request an extension of the comment period. A letter will 

be sent to the Administrator, and another NDWAC subgroup will discuss this issue before the 

November meeting.
Deliberative draft—do not cite, quote, or distribute Page 1

Notes of National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) Webinar on

EPA’s Proposed Geologic Sequestration (GS) Rule 

November 6, 2008

Veronica Blette welcomed the Council and explained that the Webcast was a follow-up to an

overview of the rulemaking presented at the June NDWAC meeting. Because the proposed GS 

rule was still being written at the time, EPA was not able to provide details, and committed to a 

more detailed presentation of the rule before the NDWAC meeting on November 19-21and the 

November 24 close of the public comment period for the proposed GS rule.

Ms. Blette explained that, following a presentation by Steve Heare on the proposed rule, 

members of the NDWAC would be given time to ask questions and comment. Following that, 

members of the public were invited to submit comments.

Presentation/Overview of Proposed Requirements

Steve Heare outlined the proposed requirements for siting, construction, operation, monitoring 

and testing, and plugging and post-injection site care for wells used to inject CO2 for the purpose 

of GS to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). (See attached presentation.) 

Mr. Heare also outlined the comments raised during two public hearings on the proposed rule 

(held on September 30, 2008 in Chicago, IL and on October 2, 2008 in Denver, CO). 

Commenters raised the following issues at the hearings:

• Grandfathering existing wells for GS.

• Conversion of Class II wells to Class VI wells, particularly where GS is conducted 

concurrently with enhanced oil recovery (EOR) to assure that GS does not negatively 

affect Class II activities.

• The proposed approach to defining the Area of Review (AoR) for GS projects.

• Whether to allow injection of CO2 above or between USDWs for GS.

• Pros and cons of prescriptive vs. site-specific monitoring requirements.

• The duration of the post-closure monitoring period, in particular that EPA’s selection 

of 50 years appears to be arbitrary.

• The importance of public participation and transparency in decisions related to GS.

• The source and sufficiency of funding for permitting activities.

• Allowing states to have primacy for Class VI wells only.

• EPA should adopt a holistic approach to addressing climate change, rather than 

adopting “piecemeal” requirements.

Following his presentation, Mr. Heare, Lee Whitehurst, and Ann Codrington of the rule 

development team fielded questions from Council members.

How many comments have been submitted? To date, EPA has received 37 submissions 

(including comments and attachments) from 17 unique commenters.
Deliberative draft—do not cite, quote, or distribute Page 2

Will post-injection site care include CO2 plume monitoring? EPA is proposing that operators 

monitor all aspects of the project until it can be demonstrated that there is no further threat to 

USDWs. This would include monitoring the CO2 plume.

As new models are developed, will operators be required to use them? There is no specific 

provision for this in the proposed rule (although the rule would not preclude the use of newly 

developed models). Any decision to re-model the site would be at the Director’s discretion and 

be addressed during the reevaluation of the AoR. 

Does the rule include provisions for involving local governments? There is no specific language 

for this at the moment.

Does the rule address future non-GS wells in the AoR? The permittee is required to demonstrate 

that they will have surface access to the whole AoR during the entire life of the project 

(including the post-closure monitoring period). Future wells in the AoR may not interfere with 

this requirement.

What would happen if other entities wanted to site injection wells in the AoR? There are no 

specific provisions for this in the proposed rule; however, anyone wanting to inject in the AoR of 

the GS project would likely work with the same permitting authority, so the GS project would be 

addressed during the AoR evaluation for the future project.

Has EPA received any new input regarding GS in shales and coal seams? EPA has not received 

any comments about these formation types so far. The proposed rule focuses on the process for 

safely siting, constructing, operating, and closing GS wells, regardless of the formation type. 

Well casing integrity is critical to protecting USDWs. How will GS wells withstand the high 

pressures and corrosivity associated with GS? Well construction and monitoring requirements 

are the cornerstone of UIC protections. The proposed GS rule provides additional protection to 

address CO2 injection for GS, including enhanced casing requirements and continuous internal 

mechanical integrity testing.

Do primacy state permit writers have the technical capacity to write permits for these very 

complex projects? Permit writing will require adequate staff, training, and funding. Since most 

GS is being conduced at DOE pilot projects now, this is not a concern yet. However, EPA 

recognizes that it is a significant concern for many people and implementation issues will be the 

focus of future work.

Is compliance with NEPA (or state equivalents) incorporated into the Class VI permitting 

process? If a project is federally funded, it is subject to NEPA requirements. This question will 

be addressed further.

Who is liable if an earthquake damages the well? Should modeling of the site account for 

seismicity? The proposed rule requires that the owner/operator provide information on the 

seismic history of a proposed injection site and demonstrate to the Director’s satisfaction that GS 

would not induce a seismic event. In the case of unrelated earthquakes, the owner/operator is 
Deliberative draft—do not cite, quote, or distribute Page 3

still liable if damage associated with the CO2 was to occur, but this is under consideration at the 

moment. 

Who is responsible for financing closure and post-closure activities? The UIC regulations 

require the owner/operator of a well to demonstrate financial ability for well closure and 

remediation activities. EPA proposes that the owner/operator of a Class VI well also 

demonstrate an ability to finance post-injection site care, site closure, and emergency response.

EPA solicited comments on financial responsibility issues in the proposed rule.

Public Comment Session

EPA invited non-Council participants on the call to provide comments on the proposed GS rule.

Steve Via, American Water Works Association (AWWA) said that AWWA believes that 

more research is needed before the proposed GS rule is finalized and implemented. AWWA’s 

specific concerns or suggestions include:

• Prohibiting injection of CO2 above the lowermost USDW.

• Protecting lower quality aquifers that may serve as drinking water sources in the 

future, even if they are not currently categorized as USDWs.

• Protecting beneficial uses by preventing impairment.

• Requiring subsurface monitoring to prevent and respond to USDW contamination.

• Requiring new, more precise site maps and geologic surveys.

• Integrating ongoing research into the final rule requirements. While current research 

indicates that proposed testing will be adequate, this may not remain the case as more 

is learned.

• Requiring a minimum of 50 years of post-injection site care.

Mr. Via added that, while action is needed to address climate change, AWWA urges caution so 

that drinking water sources are not negatively impacted by GS. AWWA asked the Council to 

tell EPA that a science-based and thorough approach is need for this proposal.

Scott Anderson, Environmental Defense Fund, said that the proposed rule is superior to 

current regulations; it seems rigorous and science-based without being burdensome. It is very 

close to adequately protecting USDWs. Mr. Anderson offered the following concerns and 

suggestions:

• Rewrite the closure standard to include a practical, clear, and objective test.

• Clearly differentiate between EOR and non-EOR injections; incorporate The World 

Resources Institute’s (WRI) recent guidelines.

• More complete geomechanical information about injection pressures and rates is 

needed. WRI could help with this as well.

• Change the definition of AoR to focus on the zone of elevated pressure.

• Specify that injection of CO2 is not a federally permitted release.

• Do not permit injection to coal seams, basalts, shales, or salt caverns as Class VI

wells. There is not enough information to regulate them under Class VI at the 

moment; they should continue to be permitted as Class V experimental technology

wells.

• Prohibit interference between injection projects.
Deliberative draft—do not cite, quote, or distribute Page 4

• The iterative approach to monitoring and permit revisions is a positive component of 

the proposed rule; there are still some missing elements, however.

Emily Fisher, Edison Electric Institute (EEI), stated that balancing climate change actions and 

water quality protection is not a zero-sum game, and that GS can be performed without risking 

drinking water. She added that site characterization and site-specific permitting are keys to 

successful GS. EEI has submitted additional comments to the proposed rulemaking docket.

Council Discussion

Council members discussed how to move forward to prepare for further discussion of the 

proposed rule during the November NDWAC meeting. They offered the following observations:

• Comments seem to address three themes: initial evaluation/site characterization, well 

integrity during injection activities, and closure surety. Perhaps the Council’s

comments to EPA on the proposed rule should follow this lead.

• The AWWA comments are on-point and should be considered. Is further research 

necessary to meet the primary goal of protecting drinking water?

• Local governments (and states without primacy) need to be notified and included 

early in the permitting process for GS wells.

• Technical and financial capacity to issue permits is a big concern. One option is a 

provision that the operator be required to pay for an independent assessment by a 

government-selected consultant.

• Given that CO2 injection wells can be approved in the absence of Class VI regulations

(i.e., as Class I wells), it is important to move forward with the Class VI regulations 

with an appropriate balance between quick action and striving for perfection.

• There should be a periodic review of the rule as new research results become

available.

A subgroup of NDWAC will talk before the November meeting to expedite the discussion at that 

meeting.

Perchlorate

The Committee spent a few final minutes discussing the perchlorate determination. Since the 

public comment period for the determination ends on November 10 (before the NDWAC 

meeting), it may be appropriate to request an extension of the comment period so the NDWAC 

could decide at the November meeting whether to submit a comment to EPA.

The Council decided unanimously to request an extension of the comment period. A letter will 

be sent to the Administrator, and another NDWAC subgroup will discuss this issue before the 

November meeting.
1

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

November 6, 2008

Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide 

Post Proposal NDWAC Consultation
2

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule: 

Outline

 Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

Program Background

 Geologic Sequestration of CO2

 Proposal Development Process

 The Proposed Rule

 Schedule
3

UIC Program Background

 The 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA; Reauthorized in 

1996)

 Federal regulations for protection of Underground Sources of 

Drinking Water (USDWs)

 USDW defined: 

 Any aquifer or portion of an aquifer that contains water that is less than 

10,000 PPM total dissolved solids or contains a volume of water such 

that it is a present, or viable future source for a Public Water Supply 

System

 UIC Program regulates underground injection of all fluids –

liquid, gas, or slurry

 Designation as a commodity does not change SDWA applicability

 Some natural gas (hydrocarbon) storage, oil & gas production, and 

some hydraulic fracturing fluids exempted

 Existing UIC program provides a regulatory framework 

(baseline) for the Geologic Sequestration of CO2
4

UIC Program Background 

UIC Well Classes

Class I Class II Class III Class V
5

UIC Program Background

Primacy

 33 States have primary enforcement authority (primacy) for the UIC 

program; EPA and States share program implementation in 7 States; EPA 

directly implements the entire UIC Program in 10 states
6

Carbon Capture and Storage/Geologic 

Sequestration of CO2

 Important terms:

 CCS: Carbon Capture and Storage (includes capture, transport, and 

injection of carbon dioxide for long term storage)

 GS: Geologic Sequestration (the injection of carbon dioxide for long 

term storage)

 GS is one tool that can be used to reduce emissions of carbon 

dioxide to the atmosphere (there are others)

 CCS is key to meeting the Administration’s climate goals

 GS rule addresses potential endangerment to underground 

sources of drinking water from CO2 injection activities

 provides consistency across US

 provides transparency that will build public confidence
7

CO2 Storage Capacity

~3,500+ Gigatons (Gt) CO2 capacity within 230 

candidate geologic CO2 storage reservoirs

 Oil and gas reservoirs

 Deep saline formations

 Deep coal seams

 Basalt formations
8

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule:

Rule Development Process

 EPA has developed a Proposed Rule for 

Geologic Sequestration (GS) of CO2

 Announced October 2007

 Signed & published July 2008

 120 day comment period through November 24, 2008

 Proposed rule uses Safe Drinking Water Act 

authorities and revises Underground Injection 

Control Program requirements for GS

 Priority placed on avoiding endangerment of 

underground sources of drinking water
9

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule:

Collaboration

 Inter- and Intra- Agency Coordination

 Workgroup of ~48 members 

 State co-regulators

 Department of Energy and other Federal Agencies

 Stakeholder Outreach

 Federal Advisory Committees

 Non-governmental Organizations

 Industry Groups

 States and Tribes
10

 Develop proposed rules that would protect 

underground sources of drinking water under 

SDWA

 Tailor existing UIC program requirements to 

unique needs of GS of CO2 for long-term storage 

 Ensure adaptive approach to incorporate new data 

 Use existing experience with industrial and 

enhanced oil/gas recovery injection

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule: 

Goals of the Rulemaking Process
11

Special Considerations for GS

 Large Volumes

 Buoyancy

 Viscosity (Mobility)

 Corrosivity

I

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule: 

Approach to Rulemaking

UIC Program Elements

 Site Characterization 

 Area Of Review

 Well Construction

 Well Operation

 Site Monitoring

 Post-Injection Site Care

 Public Participation

 Financial Responsibility

 Site Closure

Develop new well class 

for GS – Class VI
12

Basic Requirements

 Injection zone that can accept 

fluids 

 Confining zone (system) above 

the injection zone, that 

contains all fluids 

 Owners and Operators submit 

information on the following: 

 Structure and stratigraphy 

 Seismicity

 Baseline geochemistry

I

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule: 

Site Characterization

Confining Zone

Injection Zone

USDWs
13

Proposed Approach

 Director has discretion to 

require identification of 

additional confining zones

 Additional zones may be used 

for:

 Pressure dissipation

 Monitoring

I

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule: 

Site Characterization

Confining Zone

Injection Zone

USDWs
14

AoR: The region 

surrounding the project 

that may be impacted by 

injection activity

Basic Requirements

 Delineate the AoR

 Identify and evaluate all 

artificial penetrations and 

other features that may allow 

upward migration of fluids

 Plug and/or remediate as 

appropriate

I

Workgroup Recommendations:

Area of Review

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule: 

Area of Review (AoR)

CO2 plume

GS Well
15

Proposed Approach

 Use computational 

modeling 

 AoR reevaluation at a 

minimum of every 10 

years

I

Workgroup Recommendations:

Area of Review

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule: 

Area of Review (AoR)

CO2 plume

GS Well
16

Basic Requirements

 Well components 

engineered to ensure 

protection of USDWs

 Cased and cemented to 

prevent movement of fluids 

into USDWs 

 Surface casing and long 

string casing 

 Tubing and packer

I

Workgroup Recommendations:

Area of Review Area of Review and Corrective Action EPA’s Proposed GS Rule: 

Well Construction

Annulus Packer

Tubing

Long-string 

casing

Cement

Wellhead

Surface casing
17

Proposed Approach

 Inject below the lowermost 

USDW

 Long-string casing cemented 

in place for entire length

 Surface casing installed and 

cemented through the base of 

the lowermost USDW 

 Well materials must be 

compatible with injectate and 

formation fluids 

I

Workgroup Recommendations:

Area of Review Area of Review and Corrective Action EPA’s Proposed GS Rule:

Well Construction

Annulus Packer

Tubing

Long-string 

casing

Cement

Wellhead

Surface casing
18

Basic Requirements

 Procedures to ensure 

integrity of the well 

before, during, and after 

injection

 Injection may not 

fracture injection zone

 Monitor injection 

pressure, flow rate and 

volumes, and the nature 

of the injected fluid

 Perform mechanical 

integrity tests 

I

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule: 

Well Testing and Operation
19

Proposed Approach

 Continuous internal well 

mechanical integrity tests 

(MIT) and annual 

external MITs

 Injection pressure should 

not exceed 90 percent of 

fracture pressure in the 

injection zone

I

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule: 

Well Testing and Operation
20

Proposed Approach

 Determine extent of CO2

movement and associated area 

of pressure (pressure front)

 Tracking of the plume and 

pressure front is required, but 

techniques, frequency, and 

spatial resolution are not 

specified

 Surface-air and soil-gas 

monitoring are at the Director’s 

discretion

I

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule: 

Site Monitoring

Seismic Monitoring Results, Sleipner
21

Proposed Approach

 Post-injection site care is set 

at 50 years; however, it may 

be modified with a 

demonstration that the plume 

has stabilized and the pressure 

has dissipated sufficiently 

 Well-plugging materials must 

be compatible with CO2

stream

 Liability stays with the 

owner/operator

I

Workgroup Recommendations:

Area of Review

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule:

Post-Injection Site Care
22

Basic Requirements

 Show financial responsibility for well plugging, 

corrective action, and site closure

Proposed Requirements

 Demonstrate and maintain financial responsibility 

for plugging and corrective action, injection well 

plugging, post-injection site care, site closure, 

and emergency and remedial response

I

Workgroup Recommendations:

Area of Review

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule: 

Financial Responsibility
23

Basic Requirements

 30-day comment period for 

permits following public 

notice

 Preparation of a 

responsiveness summary for 

the public record

Preamble seeks comment on

 Appropriate outreach 

techniques and technologies

 Engaging the public early in 

permitting process before 

I siting

Workgroup Recommendations:

Area of Review

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule: 

Public Participation
24

EPA’s Proposed GS Rule: 

Schedule

Activity Milestone

Technical Workshops, Data Collection & 

Analysis Ongoing

Stakeholder Meetings December 2007/February 2008

Interagency Review of Proposed Rule Late May - Early June 2008

Administrator’s Signature of Proposed Rule July 15, 2008

Public Comment Period/Two Public Hearings July 25 – November 24, 2008

Notice of Data Availability (if appropriate) 2009

Final UIC Rule for GS of CO2 Late 2010 / Early 2011
25

Public Comment Period

July 25 – November 24, 2008

Public Comments

 Inform future publications

 Include data and information

 Address merits of the proposal

 Identify alternatives to proposed 

approach/methodology
26

Thank you!

More information about the UIC Program

 EPA Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide Website –

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_sequestration.html

 Code of Federal Regulations: Underground Injection Control 

Regulations 40 CFR 144-148 –

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?sid=d6ee71a544eca89c533c825135913f13&c=ecfr&tpl=/ec

frbrowse/Title40/40cfrv22_02.tpl

 Written comments may be submitted at:

www.regulations.gov (docket i.d.: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390)