The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates wells used for underground injection of carbon dioxide, known as Class VI wells. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), administered by EPA, prohibits underground injection of fluids without a permit, including underground injection of carbon dioxide for geologic sequestration. Under SDWA, EPA is authorized to delegate primary enforcement authority, or primacy, for underground injection control (UIC) programs to individual states that meet minimum UIC program requirements. As the number of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects using deep well injection has increased in the United States in recent years, Class VI permitting and state program primacy have been topics of interest to Congress. EPA has established minimum permitting requirements for Class VI injection wells and for state UIC programs. Requirements are specified for well siting and construction, operation and maintenance, monitoring and testing, reporting and recordkeeping, site closure, financial responsibility, and post-injection site care. The minimum contents of a permit are established in regulation, but each Class VI permit is developed and approved based on the site-specific characteristics of the injection well project and is designed to address potential leakage or endangerment of underground sources of drinking water. Currently, there are at least 8 federal EPA-permitted Class VI projects with at least 13 permitted wells operating in 5 U.S. states. According to EPA, 142 Class VI permit applications are currently pending review by the agency. Additional permits are under review by states with delegated authority for state Class VI UIC programs. Class VI permits are required to include information about the project and underground formations, demonstrate site suitability, and provide financial assurances. Permits must also include six required plans that provide detail on how the owner or operator will conduct injection well activities throughout the project lifecycle of the project. When reviewing permit applications, the permitting authority (either EPA or a state) typically conducts five stages of review: completion review, technical review, draft permit, public comment, and final permit. The technical review, which involves evaluation of information and plans in the application package, is the longest and most complex step in the permitting process. Once the permit is in place, the permitting authority is responsible for ensuring the permit requirements continue to be met. EPA has approved UIC Class VI program primacy for six states: Arizona, Louisiana, North Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. When granted primacy for a class of UIC wells, a state administers that UIC program through enforcement of state laws and regulations in lieu of EPA regulations. EPA retains oversight authority over all state UIC programs under federal law. EPA UIC regulations set out the specific requirements for state programs in permitting, compliance evaluation, enforcement, and information sharing. A state must demonstrate that it has the legal authorities and processes in place to administer the Class VI program. A memorandum of agreement between a state and EPA, which is submitted along with other required documents, typically serves as the foundation of a state’s specific responsibilities and commitments in administering the Class VI program. Congress has appropriated funding in recent years to EPA for implementation of federal and state Class VI programs. On top of regular annual appropriations in several fiscal years for Class VI activities, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) provided $50 million in supplemental appropriations to EPA for grants to states that have or are working toward Class VI primacy and $25 million to EPA for Class VI program administration. As Congress continues to debate policy on Class VI well permitting and state primacy, several issues may arise regarding Class VI wells, including EPA appropriations, legislation, and EPA oversight. These issues may include the levels of EPA resources needed to process and oversee Class VI permits and state primacy applications; state resources and capacity to administer UIC Class VI programs; whether EPA’s Class VI regulations should be amended; and whether Congress should address stakeholder concerns about public participation in the permit and primacy process, and concerns about the potential environmental and community impacts of carbon sequestration through Class VI wells.
Full content not yet available.