01 Class VI Implementation Manual For UIC Program Directors (2018)
01 Class VI Implementation Manual For UIC Program Directors (2018)
01 Class VI Implementation Manual For UIC Program Directors (2018)
Dioxide
The Class VI injection well classification was established by the Federal Requirements Under
the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic
Sequestration (GS) Wells (75 FR 77230, December 10, 2010), referred to as the Class VI Rule,
which establishes a new class of injection well (Class VI).
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) provisions and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) regulations cited in this document contain legally-binding
requirements. While the document recommends basic steps for reviewing project information, it
acknowledges and is designed to accommodate potential site-specific considerations and
regulatory flexibility inherent in the Class VI Rule. In several sections, this guidance document
makes suggestions and offers alternatives that go beyond the minimum requirements indicated
by the Class VI Rule. This is intended to provide information and suggestions that may be
helpful for implementation efforts. Such suggestions are prefaced by “may” or “should” and are
to be considered advisory. They are not required elements of the Rule. Therefore, this document
does not substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself, so it does not
impose legally-binding requirements on the EPA, states, or the regulated community. The
recommendations herein may not be applicable to each and every situation.
The EPA and state decision makers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case
basis that differ from this guidance where appropriate. Any decisions regarding a particular
facility will be made based on the applicable statutes and regulations. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This guidance
may change in the future without a formal notice and comment period.
While the EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in this document,
the obligations of the regulated community are determined by statutes, regulations, or other
legally-binding requirements. In the event of a conflict between the discussion in this document
and any statute or regulation, this document would not be controlling.
Note that this document only addresses issues covered by the EPA’s authorities under SDWA.
Other EPA authorities, such as Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements to report carbon dioxide
injection activities under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), are not within the
scope of this document.
Figure 1-1: Overview of the Federal Class VI Rule Requirements ............................................. 1-2
Figure 1-2: The Phases of a Class VI Project .............................................................................. 1-5
Figure 2-1: Data Evaluations and Decision-Making ................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2-2: Class VI Project Communications ............................................................................ 2-5
Figure 3-1: Reviewing Class VI Permit Applications and Injection Depth Waiver
Applications ................................................................................................................................. 3-7
Figure 4-1: Site Characterization Review .................................................................................... 4-5
Figure 4-2: Examples of Class VI Groundwater Monitoring and Plume and Pressure Front
Tracking Activities..................................................................................................................... 4-42
Figure 4-3: Geologic Scenarios for Injection Depth Waivers ................................................... 4-54
Figure 6-1: Reviewing Testing and Monitoring Results ............................................................. 6-2
Figure 6-2: AoR Reevaluations ................................................................................................. 6-14
Figure 7-1: Reviewing Non-Endangerment Demonstrations .................................................... 7-13
Table 1-1: Templates to Facilitate Compliance with Federal Class VI Rule Requirements ....... 1-6
Table 4-1: Examples of Cross-Submittal Checks for Conducting Technical Evaluations of
Class VI Permit Applications....................................................................................................... 4-2
Table 4-2: Financial Instruments Recommended in the UIC Program Class VI Financial
Responsibility Guidance ............................................................................................................ 4-26
Table 5-1: Examples of how Pre-Operational Submittals can Inform Considerations for
Issuing Authorization to Inject at a Class VI Well ...................................................................... 5-3
1: 40 CFR 144.3.
2: 40 CFR 146.81(d).
3: 40 CFR 144.6(f) and 144.80(f).
4: This definition was developed for the purposes of this document.
5: Class VI Rule Preamble (75 FR 77230).
Administrator means the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
or an authorized representative.1
Area of Review (AoR) means the region surrounding the geologic sequestration project where
USDWs may be endangered by the injection activity. The area of review is delineated using
computational modeling that accounts for the physical and chemical properties of all phases of
the injected carbon dioxide stream and displaced fluids, and is based on available site
characterization, monitoring, and operational data as set forth in 40 CFR 146.84.2
Carbon dioxide plume means the extent underground, in three dimensions, of an injected
carbon dioxide stream.2
Carbon dioxide stream means 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 [subpart H of 40 CFR 146] does not apply to any carbon dioxide stream
that meets the definition of a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.2
Class VI wells means wells that are not experimental in nature that are used for geologic
sequestration of carbon dioxide beneath the lowermost formation containing a USDW; or, wells
used for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide that have been granted a waiver of the
injection depth requirements pursuant to requirements at 40 CFR 146.95; or, wells used for
geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide that have received an expansion to the areal extent of an
existing Class II enhanced oil recovery or enhanced gas recovery aquifer exemption pursuant to
40 CFR 146.4 and 144.7(d).3
Confining zone means a geologic formation, group of formations, or part of a formation
stratigraphically overlying the injection zone(s) that acts as barrier to fluid movement. For Class
VI wells operating under an injection depth waiver, confining zone means a geologic formation,
group of formations, or part of a formation stratigraphically overlying and underlying the
injection zone(s).2
Corrective action means the use of Director-approved methods to ensure that wells within the
area of review do not serve as conduits for the movement of fluids into underground sources of
drinking water (USDW).2
Geologic sequestration (GS) means the long-term containment of a gaseous, liquid, or
supercritical carbon dioxide stream in subsurface geologic formations. This term does not apply
to carbon dioxide capture or transport.2
Introduction
This page is intentionally blank.
Introduction
1 Introduction
The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Federal Requirements Under the
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration
(GS) Wells, found at 75 FR 77230, December 10, 2010, and codified in the U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations [40 CFR 146.81 et seq.], are referred to as the Class VI Rule. The Class VI Rule,
promulgated under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, 42 U.S.C. §300h et
al.), outlines federal requirements for the permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring,
and site closure of Class VI injection wells, which are used to inject carbon dioxide for GS.
The UIC Program Director is responsible for ensuring that owners or operators of Class VI wells
properly site, operate, monitor, and close their wells in a manner that protects underground
sources of drinking water (USDWs) from endangerment. Throughout the duration of a Class VI
project, permitting authorities are responsible for ensuring that:
• Class VI wells are sited and constructed such that USDWs are protected, considering site-
and project-specific information collected in the pre-permitting, pre-construction and pre-
operation phases;
• Class VI wells operate as planned and in compliance with the regulations as verified by
testing and monitoring, in a manner that is protective of USDWs during the injection
phase; and
• Post-injection monitoring is conducted until a USDW non-endangerment demonstration
is made and approved by the UIC Program Director, the injection well and all monitoring
wells are plugged, and the site is closed.
To achieve these goals, UIC Program Directors’ activities include: reviewing Class VI permit
applications; writing and issuing permits; authorizing injection; documenting decision-making;
reviewing testing and monitoring data, the results of Area of Review (AoR) reevaluations, and
other reports; responding to emergency situations or violations; addressing compliance issues;
authorizing and approving site closure; and providing information about their oversight
responsibilities to the EPA.
1.1 Document Purpose
This Implementation Manual provides guidance and procedural support to assist UIC Programs
in implementing the Class VI Rule and overseeing the activities of owners or operators during
the various phases of a Class VI project. Note that, given the complexity and multidisciplinary
nature of Class VI projects (i.e., encompassing geology, engineering, modeling, etc.), permitting
of Class VI projects will likely necessitate a team approach. In recognition that the activities and
recommendations discussed in this Implementation Manual may be undertaken by UIC Program
staff, through a team approach, this document refers to the “UIC Program” rather than the “UIC
Program Director” unless directly referencing the regulations or specific activities for which a
UIC Program Director is uniquely and individually responsible. Section 2 describes the roles of
the UIC Program throughout the duration of a Class VI Project. Section 3 provides
recommendations for forming a team with the necessary expertise, and Sections 4 through 7
describe the activities the UIC Program (i.e., the UIC Program Director and any team members)
should perform during the various phases of a Class VI project.
Introduction 1-1
The EPA encourages readers to review the Executive Summary and Sections 1 and 2 prior to
receipt of a Class VI permit application. Sections 3 through 7 can be used as a reference
throughout the duration of a Class VI project.
This Implementation Manual is not intended to provide an exhaustive explanation of the
technical attributes of Class VI wells or how owners or operators can meet the Class VI
requirements, nor does it address every situation that the UIC Program may encounter. Rather, it
offers UIC Programs examples of considerations for reviewing Class VI owner or operator
submittals, including where the Class VI Rule affords flexibility. In addition, references are
made to other technical guidance documents that contain more specific, detailed guidance on
these topics. These documents and other tools that support Class VI permitting are described in
Section 1.4.
1.2 UIC Class VI Program Background
The Class VI Rule requirements at 40 CFR 146 Subpart H are tailored to the unique nature of
carbon dioxide injection for GS, including the large volumes of carbon dioxide injected, the
relative buoyancy of carbon dioxide, its mobility within subsurface geologic formations, and its
corrosivity in the presence of water to ensure the protection of USDWs. Figure 1-1 summarizes
the requirements for Class VI wells. For additional, specific information on the Class VI Rule,
see the Class VI Rule and Preamble at 75 FR 77230.
Introduction 1-2
The testing and monitoring requirements define the elements that must be included in the required Testing
and Monitoring Plan submitted with a Class VI permit application and implemented throughout the project to
demonstrate the safe operation of the injection well and track the position of the carbon dioxide plume and
pressure front [40 CFR 146.90].
The reporting requirements establish the periodic timeframes and circumstances for the electronic reporting of
Class VI well testing, monitoring, and operating results and requirements for keeping records [40 CFR 146.91].
The injection well plugging requirements specify that a Class VI injection well must be properly plugged to
ensure that the well does not become a conduit for fluid movement into USDWs in the future [40 CFR 146.92].
The post-injection site care (PISC) and site closure requirements address activities that occur following
cessation of injection. The owner or operator must continue to monitor the site for 50 years following the
cessation of injection, or for an approved alternative timeframe, until it can be demonstrated that no additional
monitoring is needed to ensure that the project does not pose an endangerment to USDWs; following this, they
must plug the injection and monitoring wells and close the site [40 CFR 146.93].
The emergency and remedial response requirements specify that owners or operators of Class VI wells must
develop and maintain an approved Emergency and Remedial Response Plan that describes the actions to be
taken to address events that may cause endangerment to a USDW or other resources [40 CFR 146.94].
The Class VI injection depth waiver requirements provide a process under which Class VI well owners or
operators can seek a waiver from the injection depth requirements in order to inject carbon dioxide into non-
USDWs that are located above or between USDWs. Including injection depth waiver provisions in a state’s
regulation is optional [40 CFR 146.95].
Introduction 1-3
identified during the course of the permit application review have been addressed, verify
site-suitability, confirm that the well was constructed or converted appropriately, and
ultimately make a determination regarding authorization to inject. See Section 5.
• The injection phase, when Class VI well owners or operators conduct injection
activities, perform testing and monitoring, and reevaluate the AoR as described in the
Class VI permit and project plans. This Implementation Manual provides
recommendations for reviewing this information to confirm that the well and the project
are operating in compliance with the permit, the carbon dioxide plume and pressure front
are behaving as predicted, and USDWs are not endangered. See Section 6.
• The post-injection phase, when the Class VI well owner or operator will plug the
injection well, monitor the plume and pressure front, and, after demonstrating USDW
non-endangerment, close the site. This Implementation Manual provides
recommendations for reviewing the information submitted to verify that the project
continues to be protective of USDWs and that, following site closure, the injection and
monitoring wells at the site will not endanger USDWs. See Section 7.
1.4 Available Resources to Support Class VI Permitting
The EPA has developed a series of electronic tools and other resources to support permitting
authorities and Class VI well permit applicants/owners or operators in understanding and
implementing the requirements of the Class VI Rule.
The Geologic Sequestration Data Tool and Associated Resources
The Geologic Sequestration Data Tool (GSDT) can assist the UIC Program in organizing and
retaining the large volume of material related to permit application reviews and subsequent
project oversight activities. The EPA developed the GSDT to:
• Facilitate compliance with the electronic reporting requirement of the Class VI Rule at 40
CFR 146.91(e), providing reporting modules by which permit applicants/owners or
operators can submit required information in an approved electronic format; and
• Support permitting authorities in tracking and managing submissions associated with
Class VI reporting, including support for evaluation and oversight activities over the
duration of a Class VI project.
Permitting authorities have full access to the GSDT, which allows them to access all submitted
materials. They can also use the GSDT to support technical evaluations (including AoR
delineation modeling), manage communications with owners or operators, and store all
information related to a project. The GSDT allows permitting authorities to review and
manipulate information while preserving the integrity of the original submitted data. Permitting
authority users are limited to read-only access unless they are assigned to a particular project;
however, no users can modify the original, time-stamped files submitted by owners or operators.
See Appendix A for a description of how the GSDT manages information and supports the needs
of both permitting authorities and Class VI well permit applicants/owners or operators. See
Section 3.1 for additional information on supporting permit applicants with accessing the GSDT.
Introduction 1-4
Figure 1-2: The Phases of a Class VI Project
Introduction 1-5
The UIC Program Class VI Well Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Data Management Guidance
for Owners and Operators provides recommendations for complying with the reporting and
recordkeeping requirements of the Class VI Rule. It covers electronic reporting in the context of
the Class VI Program, the key components and capabilities of the GSDT’s reporting modules,
and how permit applicants can register to use and access the GSDT. While the primary audience
for that guidance is Class VI permit applicants/owners or operators, it may also serve as a useful
resource for permitting authorities. For example, it can help facilitate communicating with
owners or operators who are using the GSDT or understanding the types of information that
owners or operators might submit. The GSDT user guides provide additional support, with step-
by-step instructions tailored to each component of the tool. The GSDT also has a resource library
that contains available electronic tools, templates, and guidance (see below).
To register for a GSDT account as a permitting authority user, send an email to
[email protected] or request an account at https://epa.velo.pnnl.gov/gs3/.
Templates to Support Class VI Permitting
The EPA developed a series of templates to support the development of various documents
associated with Class VI permitting and project oversight. These templates, for materials to be
developed by both permit applicants/owners or operators and the UIC Program, can facilitate
compliance with the Class VI Rule and promote consistency in Class VI permits issued
nationwide. Table 1-1 presents these templates, which are available in the resource library of the
GSDT.
Table 1-1: Templates to Facilitate Compliance with Federal Class VI Rule Requirements
Templates Citation
Templates to support the submittal and evaluation of the Class VI permit application
Narratives for permit application and associated submittals 40 CFR 146.82(a); 146.82(c)
Requests for additional information from the applicant/owner or operator and a 40 CFR 144; 146
spreadsheet to support the development of a testing and monitoring strategy
Templates of Class VI permit package elements
Permit conditions 40 CFR 144; 146
Summary of Requirements 40 CFR 146.82(a)(10); 146.88;
146.91
AoR and Corrective Action Plan 40 CFR 146.82(a)(13); 146.84(b)
Testing and Monitoring Plan 40 CFR 146.82(a)(15); 146.90
Injection Well Plugging Plan 40 CFR 146.82(a)(16); 146.92(b)
PISC and Site Closure Plan 40 CFR 146.82(a)(17); 146.93(a)
Emergency and Remedial Response Plan 40 CFR 146.82(a)(19); 146.94(a)
Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for testing and monitoring activities 40 CFR 146.90(k)
Well Construction Details 40 CFR 146.82(a)(11),(12)
Financial Assurance Demonstration 40 CFR 146.82(a)(14); 146.85(a)
Stimulation Program 40 CFR 146.82(a)(9)
Introduction 1-6
Templates Citation
Templates to support the issuance of a Class VI permit and required notifications
Statement of Basis 40 CFR 124.7
Fact sheet 40 CFR 124.8
Letter for public notice of the Class VI permit application 40 CFR 124.10
Interstate coordination letter about an AoR that crosses jurisdictional boundaries 40 CFR 146.82(b)
Notification to Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Directors about an injection 40 CFR 146.95(b)(2)
depth waiver
Templates to support required reporting and notifications during the injection and post-injection phases
Semi-annual testing and monitoring reports 40 CFR 146.91(a)
Notice of intent to plug a well and injection well plugging report 40 CFR 146.92(c),(d)
Non-endangerment demonstration narrative 40 CFR 146.93(b)(3)
Notice of intent for site closure and site closure report 40 CFR 146.93(d),(f)
Introduction 1-7
• The UIC Program Class VI Well Area of Review Evaluation and Corrective Action
Guidance describes recommended approaches to apply computational modeling to
delineate the AoR, perform corrective action at GS sites, and reevaluate the AoR.
• The UIC Program Class VI Financial Responsibility Guidance provides
recommendations regarding demonstrating and maintaining financial responsibility for a
Class VI well.
• The UIC Program Class VI Well Construction Guidance describes recommended
procedures and materials for designing and constructing injection wells that address the
unique nature of carbon dioxide injection for GS.
• The UIC Program Class VI Well Testing and Monitoring Guidance provides
recommended approaches for meeting the testing and monitoring requirements of the
Class VI Rule, including well testing, groundwater quality monitoring, and carbon
dioxide plume and pressure front tracking.
• The UIC Program Class VI Well Project Plan Development Guidance describes the
elements of the five required Class VI project plans and provides recommendations
regarding how an owner or operator might consider the site-specific elements of a Class
VI project in developing the plans.
• The UIC Program Class VI Well Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Data Management
Guidance provides recommendations to owners or operators for complying with the
reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the Class VI Rule and using the GSDT.
• The UIC Program Class VI Well Plugging, Post-Injection Site Care, and Site
Closure Guidance presents recommendations related to plugging the injection and
monitoring wells, performing post-injection testing and monitoring, petitioning for an
alternate PISC timeframe, making a non-endangerment demonstration, and closing a
Class VI site.
• The UIC Program Class VI Primacy Manual for State Directors provides procedural
support to UIC Program Directors preparing the required UIC primacy application
materials to submit to the EPA for review and approval.
The EPA also developed a set of fact sheets and quick reference guides to support the UIC
Program on several aspects of Class VI permitting:
• Additional Tools for UIC Program Directors on Incorporating Environmental
Justice (EJ) Considerations into the Class VI Injection Well Permitting Process.
This quick reference guide describes available tools and considerations for incorporating
EJ into the Class VI permit application review and approval process.
• Additional Considerations for UIC Program Directors on Interstate Coordination
Requirements for the Class VI Injection Well Permitting Process. This quick
reference guide provides considerations for notifying other state, tribal, and territorial
agencies if a Class VI AoR crosses (or comes close to) jurisdictional boundaries.
• Additional Considerations for UIC Program Directors on the Public Participation
Requirements for Class VI Injection Wells. This quick reference guide presents a
series of steps for meeting the public participation requirements of the Class VI Rule.
Introduction 1-8
• Public Participation Considerations for Geologic Sequestration Projects. This fact
sheet is designed to assist UIC Program Directors and Class VI well permit
applicants/owners or operators in developing a plan to educate and engage the public on
Class VI projects.
Useful Websites
The EPA compiled a list of websites that may support the UIC Program in reviewing Class VI
permit applicant and/or owner or operator submittals or performing activities associated with
evaluating permit applications or Class VI project data. Some of the websites may also support
owners or operators as they prepare permit applications and perform activities required under the
Class VI Rule. This list of EPA and other federal agency websites is presented in Appendix B.
Introduction 1-9
This page is intentionally blank.
Introduction 1-10
Section 2: UIC Program Responsibilities
Pre-Permitting Considerations
This page is intentionally blank.
Pre-Permitting Considerations
3 Pre-Permitting Considerations
Coordination between the UIC Program and the permit applicant prior to submittal of the permit
application is an important step for efficient and effective permitting. Early discussions will
ensure that the applicant is aware of the permit application requirements at 40 CFR 146.82(a)
and is able to electronically submit the permit application and other required information. These
discussions may also benefit the applicant as they plan how to invest time and resources in site
characterization, modeling, and other activities necessary to develop a comprehensive Class VI
permit application. Such coordination may also help the UIC Program anticipate the information
they will receive and review and assist the applicant in submitting all required information in the
appropriate format and level of detail.
The EPA encourages prospective Class VI permit applicants to notify their Class VI permitting
authority of their intent to apply for a permit. However, if the UIC Program becomes aware of a
potential new project, e.g., in the course of conversations with industry representatives, through
the media, or at meetings, permitting authority staff should reach out to the prospective Class VI
permit applicant.
This section describes actions that the EPA recommends that the UIC Program take in advance
of a formal submittal of a Class VI permit application. This section addresses: assembling the
permit review team, specific topics on which pre-application discussions should be focused,
recommendations for outreach and communication, and other considerations.
3.1 Class VI Permitting Preparations
Internal planning within the permitting agency can ensure an expedient response as soon as the
Class VI permit application is formally submitted. This section presents recommendations for
this planning step.
Assemble a permit application review team. Class VI projects are complex, and a holistic
permit application review process that considers each element of the multi-faceted permit
application will support the development of a protective Class VI permit and associated project
plans. Assemble a team that collectively has the skills and expertise in the technical areas needed
to evaluate the information in a Class VI permit application, including areas such as:
• Site characterization, e.g., geologists, hydrogeologists, geochemists, and log
analysts/experts to review geologic data submitted with the permit application;
• Modeling, e.g., hydrogeologists and environmental/reservoir modelers to evaluate the
models that will be used to delineate the AoR;
• Well construction and testing, e.g., well engineers, log analysts/experts, and geologists to
review well construction information and the results of well testing that will be
performed during construction of the injection well;
• Finance to review the financial responsibility demonstration, including cost estimates and
the proposed financial instruments, e.g., UIC personnel who are familiar with financial
responsibility as well as accountants and economists;
• Risk analysis to evaluate emergency and remedial response scenario probabilities and
remediation cost estimates submitted with the Emergency and Remedial Response Plan;
and
• Policy, legal, and regulatory expertise related to the UIC Program and the Class VI Rule
to evaluate compliance with Class VI Rule requirements.
Figure 3-1: Reviewing Class VI Permit Applications and Injection Depth Waiver Applications
Aquifer Exemptions
The Class VI Rule and aquifer exemption requirements at 40 CFR 144.7(d) and 146.4(d) enable
the use of aquifer exemptions for Class VI projects only in limited circumstances. Aquifer
exemptions are not available for new Class VI wells or projects that are re-permitted from well
classes other than Class II EOR/EGR. The Class VI Rule establishes the criteria under which
Table 4-1: Examples of Cross-Submittal Checks for Conducting Technical Evaluations of Class VI Permit
Applications
Required Submittals Recommended Cross-Submittal Checks for Evaluating the Permit Application
Site characterization • Geologic and hydrogeologic data collected during site characterization serves as, and
data [40 CFR should be consistent with, the AoR delineation modeling inputs.
146.82(a)(2),(3),(5),(6); • Identified uncertainties should inform data collection during pre-operational testing.
146.83] • Well construction should be suitable to, and compatible with, geologic data; the
appropriate well depth should be informed by information on the depth to the
lowermost USDW (unless an injection depth waiver is requested).
• Proposed operating procedures (e.g., injection rates and volumes) should be
appropriate to the storage capacity of the injection zone and the fracture pressure of the
confining zone.
• The AoR delineation modeling can be used to verify the storage capacity of the injection
zone.
• Monitoring locations and depths in the Testing and Monitoring Plan and PISC and Site
Closure Plan should consider fluid geochemistry/mobilization of contaminants and the
presence of fluid migration pathways (e.g., faults or fractures) identified via site
characterization.
AoR and Corrective • The AoR delineation model inputs should be consistent with and incorporate site
Action [40 CFR characterization data and proposed operating data; data gaps should be addressed
146.82(a)(4),(13); during pre-operational testing.
146.84] • Monitoring locations in the Testing and Monitoring Plan and the PISC and Site Closure
Plan should encompass the entire delineated AoR and be informed by the AoR
delineation modeling; they should also account for all wells identified via the corrective
action review.
• Financial responsibility instruments should be adequately funded to address all needed
corrective action.
• AoR delineation modeling can inform the site characterization review, including storage
capacity evaluation and an evaluation of the potential for induced seismicity.
• The review of an alternative PISC timeframe demonstration should consider the AoR
delineation modeling.
Financial responsibility • Sufficient funds must be available to cover all needed corrective action and well
[40 CFR 146.82(a)(14); plugging, based on the proposed construction of the well and the Injection Well
146.85] Plugging Plan.
• Financial instruments should be adequately funded to address vulnerabilities and/or
endangerment to USDWs identified during site characterization, including the potential
for induced seismic events.
• The financial resources must also cover all activities identified in the PISC and Site
Closure and Emergency and Remedial Response plans.
Proposed well • The well materials should be compatible with all fluids with which they may come into
construction [40 CFR contact and the design should consider the depth of all porous formations, as identified
146.82(a)(11)(12); during site characterization.
146.86] • The well’s design and materials should be appropriate to the proposed operating
parameters.
• The Injection Well Plugging Plan should be appropriate to the well as designed and built
(e.g., depth).
Proposed pre- • The planned formation testing should be sufficient to fill any gaps in available site
operational testing [40 characterization data and address key uncertainties in AoR delineation modeling.
CFR 146.82(a)(8); • The planned well testing should inform and confirm the well construction specifications
146.87] and schematics.
Proposed operating • The operating parameters should be suitable to the site’s geology, i.e., to demonstrate
data [40 CFR that the injection zone has sufficient capacity to store the proposed carbon dioxide
146.82(a)(7),(9),(10); volumes.
146.83(a)(1); 146.88] • The AoR delineation results should incorporate and support the proposed operating
parameters.
• The well’s construction should be adequate to the proposed operating conditions.
Testing and • The Testing and Monitoring Plan should describe a monitoring strategy that is suitable to
Monitoring [40 CFR the site’s geology and proposed operating conditions and addresses the entire AoR.
146.82(a)(15); 146.89; • Appropriate well testing procedures are informed by well construction, operating
146.90] conditions, and carbon dioxide composition as informed by site characterization.
• Monitoring locations should consider the locations of any wells identified during the
corrective action review.
• The Testing and Monitoring Plan should collect the data needed to support a non-
endangerment demonstration.
Injection Well Plugging • The Injection Well Plugging Plan should be suitable to the proposed well construction
[40 CFR 146.82(a)(16); and the site geology, including predicted composition of carbon dioxide-water mixtures.
146.85; 146.92] • Plugging procedures should be considered in developing financial responsibility cost
estimates.
PISC and Site Closure • The PISC and Site Closure Plan should include predictions of post-injection plume
[40 CFR 146.82(a)(17); movement based on the modeled AoR.
146.93] • Post-injection phase groundwater and carbon dioxide monitoring should be an extension
of activities in the Testing and Monitoring Plan.
• The alternative PISC timeframe and criteria for the non-endangerment demonstration
should be based on AoR delineation modeling and site-specific geologic information.
• Post-injection monitoring and site closure activities should be considered in developing
the financial responsibility cost estimates.
Emergency and • The Emergency and Remedial Response Plan should address the risk characteristics of
Remedial Response the site as informed by the site characterization (e.g., of induced seismicity) throughout
[40 CFR 146.82(a)(19); the extent of the modeled AoR.
146.94] • The Testing and Monitoring Plan and PISC and Site Closure Plan should collect sufficient
data to detect all identified emergency scenarios.
• Financial responsibility instruments should be adequately funded to address all risks and
response actions identified in the Emergency and Remedial Response Plan.
The following sub-sections describe the evaluation of discrete types of program element
information and the suggested outcomes of each review for the pre-construction phase
evaluation. Each section describes: the types of information applicants are likely to submit and
how the UIC Program can evaluate their completeness; the activities that the EPA recommends
that permit writers take to evaluate the information submitted including, where necessary,
discussing the information with the applicant or requesting additional or clarifying information;
and the suggested outcomes or products of the review.
Because each permit application will be unique and the appropriate activities will be specific to
the application being reviewed, the activities described below outline a recommended course of
action to accomplish the goal of writing a protective, defensible permit. Therefore, this section
also explains where the Class VI Rule affords flexibility to address site-specific circumstances
and where exercising authority to request additional information per 40 CFR 146.82(a)(21) or
otherwise exercising Director's discretion may be appropriate.
4.1.1 Site Characterization
Class VI permit applicants must provide extensive information about the local and regional
geology and hydrogeology of the proposed site [40 CFR 146.82(a)(2),(3),(5),(6)].
The purpose of the UIC Program’s evaluation of this information is to inform a determination
that the Class VI well will be sited in an area with a suitable geologic system, consisting of an
injection zone with sufficient capacity to receive the carbon dioxide to be injected and a
confining zone that is free of transmissive faults or fractures per 40 CFR 146.83. The EPA
recommends a two-phase approach to reviewing site characterization information (i.e., a review
of the geologic information submitted per 40 CFR 146.82(a) and a comprehensive evaluation of
that geologic information to confirm site-suitability, per 40 CFR 146.83), as described in the UIC
Program Class VI Well Site Characterization Guidance and outlined below. The purpose of the
UIC Program’s review of the geologic information is to verify that the information submitted is
accurate and that it provides appropriate and accurate inputs and considerations for AoR
delineation modeling, well construction, and planned operation. Figure 4-1 provides an overview
of the site characterization review process.
Completeness Review
Class VI permit applicants will likely submit geologic information about the site in a narrative
document that describes: regional geology and hydrogeology; the thickness, mineralogy,
porosity, and permeability of the proposed injection zone and overlying formations; suspected
faults and fractures; geomechanical properties; seismic history; and the locations and baseline
geochemistry of USDWs. This site characterization should be supported by maps, logs, cross
Note that the above lists are not exhaustive of all options available for each GS activity or of all
considerations for evaluating the adequacy of the financial instruments. If the applicant proposes
instruments that are not included in the list of qualifying instruments at 40 CFR 146.85(a)(1),
determine whether these alternative instruments adequately demonstrate financial responsibility
and minimize the risk of costs being passed to the public, or what assurances of solvency the
applicant can provide.
Confirm that the instruments the applicant proposes to use are secure and meet the requirements
for qualifying instruments at 40 CFR 146.85(a) to facilitate enforceability and prevent gaps in
coverage over the duration of the project. For example:
• For trust funds, confirm that the third-party administrator has a proven track record of
effective management and is financially stable, and that the agreements include a
description of the acceptable ways in which the trustee can invest the fund. Verify that
the conditions under which payments can be authorized are identified.
• For surety bonds, confirm that the applicant has established a standby trust to receive any
funding necessary to address the cost of covered activities. Also, verify that the applicant
has demonstrated the financial stability of the surety, i.e., that the surety company is
tested and approved under the U.S. Department of Treasury Circular 570.
• For payment bonds, confirm that the agreement specifies that the surety company will
pay the bond’s face value if the applicant does not provide a substitute demonstration of
financial responsibility. For performance bonds, ensure that the agreement specifies that
the surety company will pay a qualified third party to complete the activities covered by
the bond.
• For a letter of credit, confirm that the letter is issued by a bank or other regulated
financially stable institution, requires the issuing institution to provide notice if it does
not plan to reissue the letter of credit, and includes a provision for automatic renewal.
Confirm that the applicant has established a standby trust to receive any funding
necessary to address the cost of covered activities.
• For independent third-party insurance, confirm that the policy has a face value that is at
least equal to the estimated cost of the covered GS activities. If necessary, require the
applicant to provide a certificate of insurance identifying general policy information and
Other Related
Passive seismic
Monitoring Multiple
monitoring
[40 CFR 146.90(i)]
Completeness Review
Class VI permit applicants seeking an injection depth waiver will likely submit a narrative report
that addresses each element at 40 CFR 146.95. The report should include information on the
upper and lower confining zones; the storage capacity of the injection zone; information on
drinking water resources and water supply needs and plans for securing alternative water
resources or treating USDWs; and hydrocarbon or mineral resource exploitation. The waiver
application should be supported by maps, logs, model outputs, and other relevant data.
The injection depth wavier application is a separate submittal from the Class VI permit
application. Because the permit application and the waiver application report serve different
purposes, the applicant must, per 40 CFR 146.95(a), include a demonstration in the injection
depth waiver application that is complete and provides the appropriate context (i.e., describes
confinement above and below the injection zone). However, the waiver application report may
Outcomes
Most of the products of the aquifer exemption review at the pre-construction stage will likely be
documentation associated with the primacy revision process required for aquifer exemption
approvals. Information the state will produce will likely include:
• A report documenting the review of the aquifer exemption, including the evaluation that
the expanded areal extent of the aquifer exemption is at least as large as the Class VI
AoR and that the aquifer exemption meets the criteria at 40 CFR 146.4(d); and
• Documentation associated with the aquifer exemption review, including:
o The completeness review;
o Correspondence with the EPA Regional Administrator; and
o Information related to public notice of the aquifer exemption and any public
comments received.
The final AoR and the • A larger AoR may affect: the need for additional corrective action, the areal scope of
status of corrective injection and post-injection phase testing and monitoring, resources to be addressed in
action on wells in the the Emergency and Remedial Response Plan, and financial responsibility needs.
AoR [40 CFR • Revised estimates of the time for plume and pressure front movement to slow/cease
146.82(c)(1),(6)] may necessitate revisions to the alternative PISC timeframe and the PISC and Site
Closure Plan; financial responsibility needs for PISC may also be affected.
• Changes in the estimated speed or direction of plume and pressure front movement
may affect the placement of monitoring wells and plume and pressure front tracking
activities.
• If any planned corrective action is not complete, financial responsibility cost estimates
may need to be adjusted.
Updated geologic • The presence of additional fluid-containing or porous formations or geologic features
information about the that could allow fluid movement to USDWs should be addressed in injection and
site [40 CFR monitoring well construction and plugging.
146.82(c)(2)] • Additional faults/fractures or other geologic features that could be pathways for fluid
movement or carbon dioxide leakage should be addressed in the injection and post-
injection testing and monitoring plans.
• The presence of additional USDWs in the AoR should be addressed in the injection and
post-injection phase testing and monitoring programs, the construction and plugging of
injection and monitoring wells, and the Emergency and Remedial Response Plan;
additional financial resources may be needed to cover associated activities.
• New geologic information may affect AoR delineation modeling inputs and, therefore,
the size/shape of the AoR.
• Increased seismic activity should be addressed in the Testing and Monitoring Plan and
Emergency and Remedial Response Plan.
Carbon dioxide • Updated information about carbon dioxide-formation fluid compatibility may impact
compatibility carbon dioxide trapping mechanisms, estimates of plume and pressure front behavior, or
information [40 CFR storage capacity estimates (and the injection volume limits).
146.82(c)(3)] • Any anticipated geochemical changes that could affect the compatibility of the injectate
with well materials should be addressed in the construction/conversion and plugging of
injection and monitoring wells.
Formation testing • Logging and testing data should confirm the assumptions on which AoR delineation
results [40 CFR modeling, site-suitability, and storage capacity estimates (and permitted injection
146.82(c)(4)] volumes) are based.
• Updated fracture pressure calculations based on formation testing results may
necessitate modified injection pressure limits.
• Updated information about formation fluid properties may affect storage capacity
estimates (and volume limits), AoR delineation modeling inputs, and predictions of
plume and pressure front migration.
• New information about subsurface geochemical reactions may necessitate inclusion of
additional geochemical parameters in the Testing and Monitoring and PISC and Site
Closure plans.
Final well construction • The as-built well specifications should be reviewed before approving well
procedures; logging construction/conversion; they may inform approval of monitoring well construction.
and testing data and • Any divergences from the approved well construction procedures should be addressed in
MIT results [40 CFR the Injection Well Plugging Plan; these may also affect financial responsibility needs.
146.82(c)(5),(7),(8)] • Logging and testing results and the results of MITs should be reviewed to confirm that
the well was constructed or converted properly.
Plan amendments or • Amendments to the AoR and Corrective Action, PISC and Site Closure, or Emergency and
alternative PISC Remedial Response plans may affect financial responsibility needs.
timeframe updates • All amended plans should be checked for needed consistency changes in other plans.
[40 CFR 146.82(c)(9)] • A change to the alternative PISC timeframe may affect financial responsibility needs for
PISC and emergency and remedial response.
The primary activities occurring during the • Whether any packers will need to be replaced or if
post-injection phase will be associated with additional packers will be needed to isolate the zones
testing and monitoring to track the carbon to be monitored.
dioxide plume and pressure front and • The monitoring equipment to be installed should be
demonstrate that the project is in compliance capable of providing accurate measurements and
with the permit and the Class VI Rule. During collecting the data that are needed throughout the
this phase, the UIC Program will likely receive post-injection monitoring period.
the following information: • Proper procedures should be in place to confine fluids
to the injection zone during the conversion process.
• An amended PISC and Site Closure Plan
or a demonstration that no amendment
to the plan is needed, per 40 CFR 146.93(a)(3); and
• The results of testing and monitoring performed pursuant to the approved PISC and Site
Closure Plan and 40 CFR 146.93(a),(b).
Section 3 of the UIC Program Class VI Well Plugging, Post-Injection Site Care, and Site
Closure Guidance provides detailed information on post-injection site care.
Useful Websites