The Injection Connection: A Regulatory
Framework for Geologic Sequestration
of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide
 2010 Diane Perkins
All Rights Reserved
Geologic Sequestration of
Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide

The process of injecting CO2
captured from an emission source
(such as a power plant or industrial
facility) into deep subsurface rock
formations for long-term storage.
Reay, Dave and Michael Pidwirny (Lead Authors); Jay Gulledge and Sidney Draggan (Topic Editors). 2010. "Carbon
dioxide." In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information
Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published in the Encyclopedia of Earth
September 27, 2006; Last revised January 3, 2010; Retrieved March 22, 2010].
<http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_dioxide>
CO2/Temperature on the Rise
Kitchen, John, CO2 Research in the Institute for Advanced Energy Solutions,
6-24-10, www.cmu.edu/steinbrenner/.../co2-iaes-research-kitchinsteinbrenner-AM3.ppt
Sources of Anthropogenic Carbon
Dioxide
U.S. Department of Energy, 2008, Carbon Sequestration Atlas of
the United States and Canada, second edition; National Energy
Technology Laboratory, Office of Fossil Fuels, p.17.
Why Geologic Sequestration Now?




CO2 designation as pollutant
Greenhouse Gas Rule
Class Action Litigation
Pending Congressional legislation
CO2 Emission Reduction Solution that
Rocks:

Geologic Sequestration is one
solution to removing excess CO2
from the atmosphere.
 Technically
feasible
 CO2 stored/possibly recoverable for
re-use
 Geologic
storage safely used for
storage of natural gas
And the process begins…..

EPA initiated series of technical
workshops in 2005 through 2008







Reservoir Modeling and Simulation
Risk Assessment
Site Characterization for Storage
State Regulators Workshop
Well Construction and Mechanical
Integrity
Geologic Setting and AOR
Considerations
Measurement, Monitoring and
Verification
EPA also held:



Two stakeholder workshops
(2007 and 2008)
A series of public webinars on
financial responsibility
Two public hearings; one
concerning a Notice of Data
Availability (NODA) the other
concerning proposed
regulations.
EPA Proposed Rules
July 25, 2008
o
EPA proposed rules for geologic
carbon sequestration under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
Underground Injection Control
(UIC) Program.
EPA Working on Final Rule


Issued a Notice of Data
Availability (NODA), August 2009Key scientific research, pilot project
findings and technical issues not
addressed in 2008 proposed rule.
Final rule anticipated late
2010/early 2011.
Well Classed



Class I- Inject hazardous wastes or
industrial non-hazardous, municipal
wastewater beneath lowermost
USDW
Class II-Inject fluids in connection
with conventional oil or natural gas
production
Class III-Mineral extraction
EPA proposal creates new class of
injection well



Class IV-Inject hazardous or
radioactive waste into or above
USDW
Class V-All other wells that inject
non-hazardous fluids above or
below USDW, experimental
technology wells
Class VI-Geologic Sequestration
wells
UIC Program 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
UIC in Texas


Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has
primacy for Class I, III, IV and V
wells.
Texas Railroad Commission (RRC)
has primacy for Class II wells.
Texas Senate Bill 1387, 81st Legislature
(Regular Session 2009) 9-1-2009

Texas RRC delegated jurisdiction over over
the injection of anthropogenic carbon
dioxide into productive formations and
saline formations for the purpose of
geological storage;

Requires RRC to develop rules;

Requires coordination with TCEQ;

Requires RRC, TCEQ and UT-BEG to report
to legislature the appropriate agency to
regulate long-term storage of carbon dioxide
into non-oil, gas producing formations;
Texas Senate Bill 1387, 81st Legislature
(Regular Session 2009)



Requires GLO, RRC, TCEQ and BEG to
develop recommendations for managing
geologic storage on state-owned lands;
storage capacity, legal and regulatory
frameworks;
Directs that the storage owner owns the
anthropogenic CO2 in storage and authorizes
the RRC to regulate the withdrawal of CO2;
Directs that RRC rules be “consistent” with
USEPA and requires RRC to seek enforcement
primacy for the program.
Why RRC?

History

Experience
Why RRC?


Enhanced oil and gas recovery
operations will remain regulated
as Class II wells.
RRC has extensive knowledge of
oil and gas reservoirs in Texas
(contained oil/water/gas for
millions of years).
RRC proposed rules March 26, 2010


16 TAC Chapter 5
Comment period ended 4/26/2010
TCEQ Regulatory Role



TCEQ will review application; AoR,
corrective action plans, monitoring
requirements, post-injection site care
plans.
Provide “impact” letter to RRC.
No specified timeframe review of
application documents.
TCEQ Proposed Rules March 3, 2010


TCEQ created new Subchapter N in
Chapter 331 to implement SB 1387.
Rule adopted 8/20/2010.
Anticipated publication of final rule
September 10,2010.
Foundation for EPA Proposed Rules

To develop Class VI proposed
regulations, EPA used the Class I
UIC (Hazardous Waste) regulations
as a starting point.
But added rules that covered special
considerations of:




Large volumes of gas to be injected;
Buoyancy of fluid;
Viscosity (mobility) of gas;
Corrosivity of CO2.
EPA punted question of whether
anthropogenic CO2 is hazardous waste

: “EPA cannot make a categorical
determination as to whether
injected CO2 is hazardous under
RCRA. Owner or operators will
need to characterize their CO2
streams as part of their permit
application…”
But CERLA……


Federally permitted releases (including
SDWA-UIC) are exempted from CERCLA
liability.
Permits must be “structured” so they do
not “authorize” inappropriate hazardous
releases.
 CO2 may contain hazardous substances,
i.e. mercury;
 CO2 may react with groundwater or
formation to form sulfuric acid or release
heavy metals into solution.
EPA Proposed Rules

UIC Program Elements









Site Characterization
Area Of Review
Well Construction
Well Operation
Site Monitoring
Post-Injection Site Care
Public Participation
Financial Responsibility
Site Closure
Site Characterization

Basic requirements for Industrial UIC
Wells
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
EPA Proposed Rules
 Director has discretion to require
identification of additional confining
zones
 Additional zones may be used for:
 Pressure dissipation
 Monitoring


USDWs
Confining Zone
Injection Zone
Area of Review (AoR)- The region
surrounding the project that may be impacted by
injection activity.

Basic requirements for Industrial
UIC Wells




Delineate the AoR (2 mile
radius);
Identify and evaluate all
artificial penetrations and
other features that may allow
upward migration of fluids;
Plug and or remediate as
appropriate.
EPA Proposed Rules


Use computational modeling
to determine AoR radius;
AoR reevaluation at a
minimum of every 10 years.
Well Construction
Basic requirements for
Industrial UIC Wells

Well components
engineered to ensure
protection of USDWs
 Cased and cemented to
prevent movement of
fluids into an USDW;
 Surface casing and long
string casing ;
 Tubing and packer.
Wellhead
Tubing
Surface casing
Longstring
casing
Cement
Annulus
Packer
Well Construction (continued)
EPA Proposed Rules
 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
Well Testing and Operation

Basic requirements for Industrial UIC
Wells


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
EPA Proposed Rules


Continuous internal well mechanical
integrity tests (MIT) and annual external
MITs
Injection pressure should not exceed 90
percent of fracture pressure in the injection
system
Site Monitoring

EPA Proposed Rules


Tracking of the plume movement 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.
Post-Injection Site Care

EPA Proposed Rule



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
Public Participation

EPA Proposed Rule
 30-day comment
period for permits
following public
notice
 Preparation of a
responsiveness
summary for the
public record
Financial Responsibility

Basic Requirements for
Industrial UIC Wells


Show financial responsibility for well
plugging, corrective action, and for
nominal site closure care
EPA Proposed Rule

Demonstrate and maintain financial
responsibility for post-injection site
care, site closure, and emergency and
remedial response
RRC Proposed Rules (Synopsis)
16 TAC Chapter 5

RRC proposed rules are consistent
with EPA’s but contain some
elements that are more detailed
than EPA’s proposed rules.
16 TAC 5.203- Application and Well
Construction Specifics

AoR based on computational
modeling for three periods.



Five years after initiation of injection;
Initiation of injection to end of
injection;
Initiation of injection to 10 years after
injection.
16 TAC 5.203-Well Construction


Requires used of technology (i.e. radial
cement bond log) to verify radial integrity
and location of cement to prevent
endangerment of USDW.
Sampling plan for well construction
(logging, sampling, testing) required.
RRC performance requirements vs. EPA
specific tests (§146.87).
16 TAC 5.203 (h)- Mechanical Integrity
Section 5.203(h) requires:
 Injection well testing after any
workover that disturbs seal of
tubing packer and casing
 Well testing at least every five years
 Applicant must submit mechanical
integrity testing plan.
16 TAC 5.203(i)-Injection Pressure

“Maximum injection pressure is
determined based on formation
tensile failure and is set to avoid
initiation or propagation of fractures
in the confining zone.”
16 TAC 5.204- Public Notice


Requires use of website to post
complete application;
Notice required for surface owners,
groundwater conservation district,
mineral leaseholders and surface
leaseholders within ½ mile of
outermost boundary of AoR.
Summary




EPA Final Rules anticipated late
2010/early 2011;
In Texas, RRC primary agency
for permitting Class VI wells with
support from TCEQ;
RRC proposed rules similar to
EPA’s but more stringent for
certain rules;
RRC required to seek primacy for
program from EPA.
Questions?
Cirrus Associates, LLC
Dallas
Houston
1771 International Parkway
Suite 107
Richardson, Texas 75081
(972) 680-8555
dperkins@cirrusassociates.com
 2010 Diane Perkins
All Rights Reserved