This comment letter response contains two parts:   

(1) The original submittal from the commenter.

(2) A data base printout of EPA’s response to each point raised by the commenter.

Notes about the response letters:

• The response letters were generated by a data base used to track the content of all public

comment submittals and ensure that the Agency responds to each. Each comment letter

was assigned a Letter ID that corresponds to the last four digits of the docket number of the

original comment (as posted on www.regulations.gov).

• Each response letter includes: comment text; an EPA‐assigned comment code; and an

individual response. These are described and explained below.  

• The data base contains Comment text from the letters submitted by commenters.  

Many hard copy letters were scanned into electronic format for inclusion in the data

base. As a result, there may be some typographical errors attributable to optical

character recognition issues.  However, all original submittals were reviewed in the

process of drafting responses to ensure that the comment content was understood and

appropriately addressed.

• The content of each comment letter was divided into topic areas and assigned a unique

Comment ID.  Additionally, one or more Comment Codes (i.e., unique topic area ID) was

assigned to each discrete point raised by a commenter. This information was added to

the data base. To inform final rulemaking decisions, all comments and information

received on a given topic were reviewed by technical experts in each rule area (e.g., on

construction requirements).  

• Following decisions on the final rule requirements, Individual responses were drafted

by topic area to ensure completeness and consistency of the responses with the final

rule and other responses to similar comments.  Each discrete point made by a

commenter was given a unique response.

• Upon completion of comment responses, all information was entered into the data base.

Each letter response is a compilation of each comment and its individual response,

compiled in the order of the original comment letter.  As a result of this process, there is

repetition in the response text.  The Agency believes this approach ensures completeness

and attention to each comment letter that was submitted.   

• All comments in a topic area were reviewed, evaluated, and responded to concurrently.  

Responses on each topic area are compiled and are also available in the rulemaking docket.
December 24, 2008 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Water Docket, Mail code: 2822T 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

Submitted on-line at: www.regulations.gov 

Subject: 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146 – Federal Requirements Under the 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 

Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells; Proposed Rule 

To Whom Concerns: 

On July 25, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the 

Federal Register, a proposed rule setting forth new requirements under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for the underground injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) 

for the purpose of long-term storage, or geologic sequestration (GS). The regulation 

is proposed under the authority of the SDWA to ensure protection of underground 

sources of drinking water from injection related activities. EPA views the capture 

and injection of CO2 produced by human activities for long-term storage as one of a 

portfolio of options that can reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere and help 

mitigate climate change. 

WEST Associates (Western Energy Supply and Transmission Associates, or 

“WEST”) respectfully submits its comments and recommendations, herein. 

WEST Associates is comprised of 16 investor and publicly owned electric utilities 

serving the rapidly growing 11 western states and North Dakota. In recent years, 

WEST Associates has worked with other stakeholders to advocate development of 

environmental laws and regulations that are based on sound science and achieve state 

and national environmental goals in a rational and cost effective manner. WEST 

Associates’ members own and operate coal and gas-fired electric generating facilities 

and are also involved in the planning and development of additional new electric 

generating facilities. 
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

December 24, 2008 

Page 2 

WEST Associates Policy Comments: 

WEST’s comments on this rulemaking address EPA’s proposed Alternative 3 which would 

create a new class of injection wells (Class VI) and proposes minimum technical criteria for 

geologic site characterization, fluid movement, area of review (AoR) and corrective action, well 

construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post injection 

site-care, and site closure for the purposes of protecting underground sources of drinking water 

(USDWs). The proposal is based on the existing Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

regulatory framework, with modifications to address the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS. 

WEST's comments set forth several policy level concerns and recommendations, followed by 

some comments and recommendations concerning the specific aspects of the proposed 

rulemaking. 

Among WEST Associates' membership, coal-fired generation constitutes a significant proportion 

of electrical generation resources for the western states, and the nation as a whole relies on more 

than 50% of its generation from coal-fired power plants. Demographic growth in the western 

states has been, and likely will continue to be, greater than the rest of the U.S.; as a result, coal 

generation and the potential need to abate it’s growing CO2 emissions will require effective 

options such as GS. Clearly, as the nation embarks on programs to reduce greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions to achieve it's climate change goals, the option of carbon sequestration through 

under-ground injection wells must be a significant part of the CO2 emissions abatement program 

for fossil fuel generation. In its preamble to this rulemaking, EPA notes that the UIC Program 

and GS are "one of a portfolio of options" for successful abatement of CO2 emissions to the 

atmosphere. 

WEST generally supports a well-designed and cost-effective national program for CO2 

abatement, and believes that some of the features of the Lieberman-Warner Bill (S.2191) present 

a fair start for negotiating a workable program in Congress. Indeed, EPA estimated in its review 

of S.2191 that Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technology could account for about 30% 

of CO2 emissions reductions sought by year 2050 under that bill. Notably, the 11 western states 

where WEST members reside and produce electricity, the regional geology, geography and its 

demographics in the vast spaces of the West may provide unique sequestration opportunities in 

general proximity to abundant coal supplies and coal powered generating plants. National 

legislation and regulatory developments such as this one on UIC of CO2 for GS, should remove 

legal and institutional barriers that prevent the development and use of carbon capture and 

storage/sequestration technologies. That is, the design of a UIC/GS regulatory program should 

promote efficient and simple regulation without redundancies with other regulations, yet 

maximize protection of underground sources of drinking water ("USDW"), and the public health 

and safety above ground. 

WEST Associates Comments on the Proposed Rule 

The following are WEST's comments on the Preamble and proposed rule, which we believe will 

clarify and strengthen the proposal: 
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

December 24, 2008 

Page 3 

♦ Under the proposed UIC regulation, siting UIC wells for GS in the west will likely involve a 

challenging set of national agencies, states, and tribal sets of regional and sub-regional 

regulation that will require streamlining in order to site UIC wells and pipelines to transfer 

super critical CO2 to GS sites located at some distances away from coal fired power plants. 

Such projects will cross over many jurisdictions and involve a patchwork of regulatory 

requirements. This will require coordination among federal and tribal jurisdictions since it is 

highly likely that most western projects will impact federal lands, including tribal lands. 

EPA should immediately start working towards building support and consensus among the 

federal land managers and BIA for the UIC regulatory program. 

♦ EPA needs to design the UIC program to facilitate GS sites that can be utilized by many 

individual power plants that may not have ready access to geologically suitable GS sites in 

proximity to such plants. What will be needed is state, tribal and federal cooperation to 

develop regional storage sites that could accommodate CO2 from sources in several states. 

Development of such regional storage sites would allow critically needed sharing pore space 

in states that have the most favorable geology. 

♦ EPA needs to build a practical realism into the site characterization UIC regulatory 

requirements under the SWDA. The current rule proposal is so "demanding" it may preclude 

many otherwise eligible geological storage sites. The site characterization and related 

requirements for permitting a UIC well present a very large list of extremely detailed 

potential impact issues that by themselves may be frightening to members of the public. This 

evaluative process needs to be pared down to those most critical few factors that assure the 

greatest degree of safety for each unique UIC for CO2 GS site. WEST members do not want 

to see development of a regulatory program that gets so bogged down that it goes no further 

than the nuclear waste storage siting fiasco in the US (e.g., the Nevada nuclear storage site is 

still not approved by the state and is caught up in unrealistic public fear and political 

concerns). If this happens to UIC for CO2 GS siting, it could stop the coal fired power plant 

industry if CCS becomes one of a very few limited options for CO2 emissions abatement 

required under a GHG legislative or regulatory program. 

♦ WEST urges EPA to avoid utilizing risk management approaches that discourage CCS 

development. WEST strongly believes that regulatory certainty is crucial, if meaningful 

investment is going to flow to CCS technologies and deployment. Certainty needs to be 

brought to long-term obligations, liabilities and risks associated with GS projects. To assist 

in this regard, EPA should set a limit of 50 years in the future for liabilities to GS project 

owners and operators. Extending this limit beyond 50 years may severely limit financial 

investments in CCS projects. Post injection monitoring and financial assurance requirements 

are important, but need to be tailored to comport with the potential risks, which decrease 

significantly after injection is complete. 

♦ Nevertheless, WEST believes an efficient and effective liability insurance program should be 

developed for UIC GS site developers and owners to avoid what otherwise will be a very 
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

December 24, 2008 

Page 4 

large disincentive for project developers to construct the significant amount of GS capacity 

that will be needed to meet the goals of a national GHG emissions abatement program such 

as what S.2191 portends. The utility electric power industry is familiar with the model 

offered by the nuclear power industry as regulated by the NRC. WEST believes that because 

of the very low probability of catastrophic release of stored CO2, but because of the 

extremely high potential risk of harm to the public in the unlikely event of a catastrophic 

release, a Liability Model patterned after the principles laid out in the "Price-Anderson 

Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act of 1957" may be workable in this instance. This Liability 

Model is comprised of three elements: 

1. Site-specific private insurance, 

2. Industry-wide pooled insurance, and 

3. Federal indemnity as the insurance of last resort. 

♦ WEST urges EPA to take appropriate care in characterizing the risks of CO2 geologic 

storage under the UIC program. As we commented above, a successful national CO2 

emissions abatement program will necessarily need to rely heavily upon development of and 

public support for CCS. By overly burdening the detail of site characterization and UIC of 

CO2 risks related to given sites under consideration, EPA could inadvertently and 

inappropriately stigmatize CCS, particularly if it heads off into an unwarranted categorization 

of CO2 as a pollutant or a hazardous waste. Such excessive focus on risk or inappropriate 

characterization would imply liability risk that would chill further development of critically 

needed CCS under a climate change program. WEST Associates believes EPA can develop 

site characterization regulations that minimize potential burdensome regulations based on 

known potential site characteristics as discussed in these comments immediately below. 

♦ EPA should apply a tiered set of site characterization requirements based on demonstrable 

and known site characteristics. For example, potential sites that are deep saline formations 

located more than one kilometer below the surface are generally recognized as among the 

most favorable and secure site options for assuring public safety.1

 If such sites do not have a 

USDW aquifer located between it and the ground surface above, a more streamlined 

regulatory site characterization and risk review may be appropriate. On the other hand, an 

example of a potential site that may require a more rigorous site characterization and risk 

assessment are "sole source aquifers" which are aquifers that are a sole supply of water for a 

region and are critically important to protect. Some stakeholders may assert that there should 

be no CO2 storage above or below a sole source, aquifer. However, such a restriction would 

essentially prohibit storage in many western areas. Rather, a better approach would allow 

EPA to permit UIC Class VI wells in areas where it can be shown that there are sufficient 

caps and protections to prevent the migration of CO2 in overlying aquifers, even in proximity 

of aquifers designated as sole source. An early detection-monitoring program could be 

established to provide sufficient opportunity to mitigate any unlikely release of CO2 from the 

 

1

 See EPA's VEF-Technical_Document_072408, pg. 6. 
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

December 24, 2008 

Page 5 

geologic storage unit. Approaches like this illustrate how EPA can streamline UIC 

regulations for site characterization and permit UIC Class VI wells that first and foremost 

protect public safety, yet reflect a workable balance in adapting site characterization and risk 

assessments based on criteria adaptable to unique candidate sites. 

♦ WEST is concerned about arguments made by some stakeholders that a whole suite of 

environmental laws should be applied to CCS projects, including the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") and the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"). These laws applied to CCS would impose 

significant obligations and potential liabilities not only on GS operators, but also potentially 

on other entities in the CO2 abatement chain, such as the power plant operators producing the 

CO2. This would likely chill technology advancement and commercialization of CCS. 

WEST urges EPA to design the UIC for CO2 GS program to limit CCS projects' liability 

under CERCLA and RCRA. 

♦ EPA's proposed regulation needs to focus on accurate site specific characterization of the 

potential risks posed by geologic sequestration of CO2 and the UIC program needs to be 

specifically tailored accordingly to address those identified risks. This will help EPA avoid 

over generalizing in its regulatory requirements. Too many general default provisions that 

presume universal application can be problematic. The geologic variability involved in 

different conceivable GS projects needs to be specifically addressed, site-by-site, on issues 

ranging from site characterization to area of review (AoR) to containment requirements. The 

regulations should encourage site-specific, performance-based determinations at the 

permitting stage to handle these specific issues. This approach will work toward practical 

problem resolution without unduly alarming the public with generalizations about potential, 

but unrealistic risks and problems. 

♦ EPA's proposed UIC for CO2 GS rule needs to fully respect states' expertise in administering 

the current SDWA programs. The UIC for CO2 GS program needs to provide a reasonable 

process whereby individual states can obtain permitting and compliance primacy over 

regulation of EPA's proposed Class VI (CCS) wells. Many states already administer SDWA 

programs and a number of states are moving ahead with developing their own initiatives and 

regulations to solve other issues associated with CCS. However, EPA will need to consider 

how to handle projects that span multiple states, tribal lands, and other agency jurisdictions 

as commented earlier. EPA could establish a primary state in such multiple jurisdiction 

affected projects, along with a permitting and coordination process for permitting purposes 

would engage other affected states in providing for notice and comment by all stakeholders. 

This same principle may be applied to multiple agency jurisdictions, such as the BLM, the 

NPS, and other agencies. 

♦ Finally, EPA needs to build into this regulation a "learning and adjustment" process that 

gains feedback from implementation of the UIC for CO2 GS rule, and establish a periodic 

review process to make adjustments and corrections to the rule based on experienced gained 

in permitting, operation, and closure of UIC/GS wells. A CCS program of the size 
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

December 24, 2008 

Page 6 

anticipated to meet national climate change CO2 abatement goals is going to create a very 

large endeavor that is bound to experience difficulties in its deployment and implementation. 

EPA needs a ready means to provide regulatory adjustments to reinforce the safety and 

success of this UIC / GS program as it proceeds in the future. 

________________________________ 

WEST Associates sincerely appreciates this opportunity to comment and provide 

recommendations on EPA’s proposed rule regarding UIC for CO2 Geological Sequestration. 

Should you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact 

David Steele at (520) 321-1111. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin Wanttaja, President 

Board of Directors 

/dss 
Letter ID: 0248 

Commenter: Kevin Wanttaja 

Organization: Western Energy Supply and Transmission Associates 

Letter ID: 0248 Comment ID: 22237 Letter Lines: 30 to 66 

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments 

Comment: To Whom Concerns: 

On July 25, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the 

Federal Register, a proposed rule setting forth new requirements under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for the underground injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) 

for the purpose of long-term storage, or geologic sequestration (GS). The 

regulation is proposed under the authority of the SDWA to ensure protection of 

underground sources of drinking water from injection related activities. EPA 

views the capture and injection of CO2 produced by human activities for longterm storage as one of a portfolio of options that can reduce CO2 emissions into 

the atmosphere and help mitigate climate change. 

WEST Associates (Western Energy Supply and Transmission Associates, or "WEST") 

respectfully submits its comments and recommendations, herein. 

WEST Associates is comprised of 16 investor and publicly owned electric 

utilities serving the rapidly growing 11 western states and North Dakota. In 

recent years, WEST Associates has worked with other stakeholders to advocate 

development of environmental laws and regulations that are based on sound 

science and achieve state and national environmental goals in a rational and 

cost effective manner. WEST Associates’ members own and operate coal and gasfired electric generating facilities and are also involved in the planning and 

development of additional new electric generating facilities. 

WEST Associates Policy Comments: 

WEST’s comments on this rulemaking address EPA’s proposed Alternative 3 which 

would create a new class of injection wells (Class VI) and proposes minimum 

technical criteria for geologic site characterization, fluid movement, area of 

review (AoR) and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical 

integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post injection site-care, and site 

closure for the purposes of protecting underground sources of drinking water 

(USDWs). The proposal is based on the existing Underground Injection Control 

(UIC) regulatory framework, with modifications to address the unique nature of 

CO2 injection for GS. WEST's comments set forth several policy level concerns 

and recommendations, followed by some comments and recommendations concerning 

the specific aspects of the proposed rulemaking. 

1
Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA's 

responses to this comment letter for further details. For additional information on EPA's final 

regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble, including sections on site 

characterization, AoR, construction, operation, testing and monitoring, and site closure, as well 

as the rulemaking docket. 

Letter ID: 0248 Comment ID: 22238 Letter Lines: 68 to 80 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: Among WEST Associates' membership, coal-fired generation constitutes a 

significant proportion of electrical generation resources for the western 

states, and the nation as a whole relies on more than 50% of its generation from 

coal-fired power plants. Demographic growth in the western states has been, and 

likely will continue to be, greater than the rest of the U.S.; as a result, coal 

generation and the potential need to abate it’s growing CO2 emissions will 

require effective options such as GS. Clearly, as the nation embarks on programs 

to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to achieve it's climate change goals, 

the option of carbon sequestration through under-ground injection wells must be 

a significant part of the CO2 emissions abatement program for fossil fuel 

generation. In its preamble to this rulemaking, EPA notes that the UIC Program 

and GS are "one of a portfolio of options" for successful abatement of CO2 

emissions to the atmosphere. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including 

energy conservation, efficiency improvements, and the use of alternative fuels and renewable 

energy sources, that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. Please see the remainder of 

EPA’s responses to this comment for further details. For additional information on EPA’s final 

regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket. 

Letter ID: 0248 Comment ID: 22239 Letter Lines: 82 to 98 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: WEST generally supports a well-designed and cost-effective national program for 

CO2 abatement, and believes that some of the features of the Lieberman-Warner 

Bill (S.2191) present a fair start for negotiating a workable program in 

Congress. Indeed, EPA estimated in its review of S.2191 that Carbon Capture and 

Sequestration (CCS) technology could account for about 30% of CO2 emissions 

reductions sought by year 2050 under that bill. Notably, the 11 western states 

where WEST members reside and produce electricity, the regional geology, 

geography and its demographics in the vast spaces of the West may provide unique 

sequestration opportunities in general proximity to abundant coal supplies and 

coal powered generating plants. National legislation and regulatory 

2
developments such as this one on UIC of CO2 for GS, should remove legal and 

institutional barriers that prevent the development and use of carbon capture 

and storage/sequestration technologies. That is, the design of a UIC/GS 

regulatory program should promote efficient and simple regulation without 

redundancies with other regulations, yet maximize protection of underground 

sources of drinking water ("USDW"), and the public health and safety above 

ground. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of 

CCS and acknowledges that regulatory clarity is essential for enabling GS to move forward in a 

manner that protects human health and the environment. The Agency is working to identify areas 

related to GS that could be addressed under other statutes to ensure that GS is conducted in a 

manner that is protective of human health and the environment. Additionally, the Agency is and 

will continue to coordinate internally and with other Federal agencies involved in GS and CCS, 

including the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Bureau of 

Land Management, and the United States Geological Survey, to promote consistency in existing 

and future GS initiatives. 

Please see the remainder of EPA’s responses to this comment for further details. For additional 

information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as 

the rulemaking docket. 

Letter ID: 0248 Comment ID: 22240 Letter Lines: 100 to 115 

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space 

ownership 

Comment: WEST Associates Comments on the Proposed Rule 

The following are WEST's comments on the Preamble and proposed rule, which we 

believe will clarify and strengthen the proposal: 

– Under the proposed UIC regulation, siting UIC wells for GS in the west will 

likely involve a challenging set of national agencies, states, and tribal sets 

of regional and sub-regional regulation that will require streamlining in order 

to site UIC wells and pipelines to transfer super critical CO2 to GS sites 

located at some distances away from coal fired power plants. Such projects will 

cross over many jurisdictions and involve a patchwork of regulatory 

requirements. This will require coordination among federal and tribal 

jurisdictions since it is highly likely that most western projects will impact 

federal lands, including tribal lands. EPA should immediately start working 

towards building support and consensus among the federal land managers and BIA 

for the UIC regulatory program. 

Individual Response: EPA understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross 

3
State, Tribal, Territorial, EPA Regional, or national boundaries. The final GS rule, at 

§146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial 

boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written 

notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application 

§146.82(b) and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of 

the emergency and remedial response plan (§146.94)). The Agency encourages transparency in 

the permitting process and anticipates that State-State/State-Tribal communication on GS 

permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects. 

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory 

clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, 

the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies 

(e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau 

of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other 

Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of 

GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize 

redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, 

please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal 

Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0248 Comment ID: 22241 Letter Lines: 117 to 123 

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment Code: 1530 1.2.3.1 State regulatory efforts on GS (seeking comment) 

Comment: – EPA needs to design the UIC program to facilitate GS sites that can be 

utilized by many individual power plants that may not have ready access to 

geologically suitable GS sites in proximity to such plants. What will be needed 

is state, tribal and federal cooperation to develop regional storage sites that 

could accommodate CO2 from sources in several states. Development of such 

regional storage sites would allow critically needed sharing pore space in 

states that have the most favorable geology. 

Individual Response: EPA encourages owners and operators and permitting authorities to 

coordinate where multiple injection operations are planned, but notes that the rule does not 

require such coordination. EPA notes that the impacts of multiple operators injecting into 

hydraulically connected formations must be accounted for in the AoR modeling required at 

§146.84, which must be based on detailed site-specific geologic data collected during the site 

characterization process including consideration of existing conditions (e.g., current injection 

activities). Please see the discussion of AoR and Corrective Action in the preamble to the final 

rule for additional information. 

EPA adds that regulation of pore space ownership is outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

4
Letter ID: 0248 Comment ID: 22242 Letter Lines: 125 to 139 

Comment Code: 3140 2.1.4 Comments that the proposed geologic data requirements are too 

stringent 

Comment: – EPA needs to build a practical realism into the site characterization UIC 

regulatory requirements under the SWDA. The current rule proposal is so 

"demanding" it may preclude many otherwise eligible geological storage sites. 

The site characterization and related requirements for permitting a UIC well 

present a very large list of extremely detailed potential impact issues that by 

themselves may be frightening to members of the public. This evaluative process 

needs to be pared down to those most critical few factors that assure the 

greatest degree of safety for each unique UIC for CO2 GS site. WEST members do 

not want to see development of a regulatory program that gets so bogged down 

that it goes no further than the nuclear waste storage siting fiasco in the US 

(e.g., the Nevada nuclear storage site is still not approved by the state and is 

caught up in unrealistic public fear and political concerns). If this happens to 

UIC for CO2 GS siting, it could stop the coal fired power plant industry if CCS 

becomes one of a very few limited options for CO2 emissions abatement required 

under a GHG legislative or regulatory program. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that a detailed geological site characterization (required 

under §146.82) is essential to evaluating the presence and adequacy of the various geologic 

features necessary to receive and confine injected CO2 for GS. The requirements for geologic 

site characterization are based on a long standing UIC regulatory framework developed to 

address specific risks to USDWs posed by injection. The Class VI GS requirements are tailored 

so that they are appropriate for the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 into a variety 

of geological formations for long-term storage. 

EPA adds that the GS rule does not address the use of coal-fired power plants; instead the 

mission of the UIC program and the goal of the GS regulation is to protect USDWs from 

endangerment, and every aspect of the GS rule is designed toward that end. Therefore, EPA 

disagrees that any of these protective requirements are unnecessary, and clarifies that waiving 

any of the requirements would not be acceptable. The GS regulation allows flexibility where 

appropriate. Certain requirements (e.g., the need to characterize additional confining layers) are 

at the Director's discretion (§146.83(b)), based on his or her understanding of a particular site. 

To the comment comparing the GS siting requirements to nuclear waste storage siting 

requirements, EPA clarifies that the two activities are very different, and while it is out of the 

scope of the GS rulemaking to comment on the stringency of nuclear waste siting requirements, 

EPA stresses that the site characterization requirements for GS wells are tailored so that they are 

appropriate for the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 into a variety of geological 

formations for long-term storage. 

5
Letter ID: 0248 Comment ID: 22243 Letter Lines: 141 to 150 

Comment Code: 5240 2.8.2.2 Post injection timeframe (seeking comment) 

Comment Code: 5430 2.9.1 Comments on proposed financial responsibility requirements (40 

CFR 146.85) 

Comment: – WEST urges EPA to avoid utilizing risk management approaches that discourage 

CCS development. WEST strongly believes that regulatory certainty is crucial, 

if meaningful investment is going to flow to CCS technologies and deployment. 

Certainty needs to be brought to long-term obligations, liabilities and risks 

associated with GS projects. To assist in this regard, EPA should set a limit 

of 50 years in the future for liabilities to GS project owners and operators. 

Extending this limit beyond 50 years may severely limit financial investments in 

CCS projects. Post injection monitoring and financial assurance requirements 

are important, but need to be tailored to comport with the potential risks, 

which decrease significantly after injection is complete. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that a post-injection site care timeframe of 50 years is 

excessive for most Class VI wells. However, EPA acknowledges that there will be circumstances 

where it can be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the plume and pressure front no longer 

pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs. For this reason, the GS rule offers owners or operators 

flexibility regarding the duration of the PISC timeframe by: (1) allowing the Director discretion 

to shorten or lengthen the PISC timeframe during the post-injection period based on site-specific 

data, pursuant to requirements at §146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a 

Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, during the permitting process based on 

substantial data, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensures nonendangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c). 

EPA believes that a default post-injection site care timeframe of 50 years, with flexibility to 

adjust the timeframe for a limited number of GS projects during the permitting process where 

substantial data exists to demonstrate that an alternative timeframe would be protective of 

USDWs, or based on data collected during the PISC period, is appropriate to address the range of 

sites where GS is anticipated to occur, to accommodate site-specific circumstances and various 

geologic conditions, and addresses commenters’ concerns, while ensuring USDW protection. 

Both approaches will utilize site-specific data, and be based on pressure monitoring and USDW 

impacts. 

EPA recognizes that there are challenges associated with ensuring funding for activities that will 

occur far in the future. However, the Agency believes that operators must demonstrate that 

financial resources are available to plug the injection well and provide post-injection care at the 

point in time that the first CO2 is injected. EPA also recognizes the concerns associated with 

ensuring financial responsibility for the long time frames over which post-injection site care will 

be conducted. EPA is developing guidance on financial responsibility to assist owners or 

operators in evaluating the requirements of §146.85 and to assist Directors in evaluating financial 

responsibility demonstrations. The guidance describes the types of financial mechanisms that 

operators may choose to use when evaluating the financial responsibility requirements for GS 

wells and it will also include a section on how to estimate costs to support accurate financial 

6
responsibility demonstrations. The guidance will be available at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

EPA adds that the purpose of the GS rule is not to incentivize the use of GS; rather, the purpose 

of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects 

USDWs from endangerment. 

EPA disagrees that the requirements for financial responsibility are overly stringent. The goal of 

financial responsibility for purposes of this rule is to ensure that financial resources are available 

to prevent the endangerment of USDWs from improper plugging, remediation, and management 

of wells in the event that the owner or operator experiences financial difficulties throughout the 

life of the project. 

EPA expects the cost of meeting the financial responsibility requirements to be proportionate to 

the expected costs of each GS activity. The minimum financial responsibility requirements 

provided are necessary to prevent endangerment of USDWs by holding well owners or operators 

accountable for the safe operation and closure of the well while avoiding expense and risk to the 

public. See the final rule and preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach to financial 

responsibility. EPA adds that the purpose of the GS rule is not to encourage the use of GS; 

rather, the purpose of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a 

manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0248 Comment ID: 22244 Letter Lines: 152 to 167 

Comment Code: 5460 2.9.2 Comments on transfer of liability for long-term care 

Comment: – Nevertheless, WEST believes an efficient and effective liability insurance 

program should be developed for UIC GS site developers and owners to avoid what 

otherwise will be a very large disincentive for project developers to construct 

the significant amount of GS capacity that will be needed to meet the goals of a 

national GHG emissions abatement program such as what S.2191 portends. The 

utility electric power industry is familiar with the model offered by the 

nuclear power industry as regulated by the NRC. WEST believes that because of 

the very low probability of catastrophic release of stored CO2, but because of 

the extremely high potential risk of harm to the public in the unlikely event of 

a catastrophic release, a Liability Model patterned after the principles laid 

out in the "Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act of 1957" may be 

workable in this instance. This Liability Model is comprised of three elements: 

1. Site-specific private insurance, 

2. Industry-wide pooled insurance, and 

3. Federal indemnity as the insurance of last resort. 

Individual Response: Owners or operators may choose from a variety of financial instruments 

to meet their financial responsibility obligations under the rule, including private insurance, 

provided the Director determines that the operator's proposed instrument is adequate to protect 

7
USDWs from endangerment. The ability of the owner or operator to pay for each activity must 

be demonstrated, including corrective action on wells in the AoR, injection well plugging, PISC 

and site closure, and emergency and remedial response throughout the life of the project. The 

final GS rule specifies at §146.85(a)(1) the permitted types of financial responsibility 

instruments. See the final rule and preamble for further discussion of EPA's approach to financial 

responsibility. 

Under SDWA, EPA has the general authority to set financial responsibility requirements for 

injection well owners or operators to ensure that adequate resources are available to protect 

USDWs throughout the life of the GS project. However, this authority does not extend to 

allowing the Agency to create a financial instrument with EPA as the trustee, due to the 

restrictions of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act (MRA). The MRA requires that EPA deposit the 

funds it receives for the use of the Government into the Treasury, therefore funds would not 

necessarily be available for GS financial responsibility. 

Additionally, EPA does not have authority under SDWA to establish a trust fund for purposes of 

financial responsibility for Class VI projects. The Agency clarifies that the trust funds that are 

addressed as financial responsibility instruments on the GS rule are set up by individual owners 

or operators and are different from a national-level trust described by the commenters that would 

cover large numbers of GS projects. 

EPA acknowledges the commenter’s concern regarding the applicability of multiple statutes to 

GS projects and the need for a single clear liability regime for owners or operators. EPA is 

working to create a nationally consistent financial responsibility regime within its authority to 

ensure that financial resources are available to protect USDWs throughout the life of the GS 

project. However, the authority under the SDWA does not extend to release owners or operators 

from long-term responsibility for the potential economic costs of impacts unrelated to USDWs. 

EPA does not have authority to transfer liability from one entity to another and SDWA does not 

provide for the creation of a third party financial instrument where EPA is the trustee. In the UIC 

program, liability under SDWA §1423 remains with the owner or operator for all well classes 

until all regulatory requirements have been met. EPA understands that Congress is considering 

legislation that may address the liability issue. EPA clarifies that the GS regulation does not 

promote or encourage the use of GS; rather it is designed to ensure consistency in permitting 

underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provide 

requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to 

reduce CO2 emissions. See the final rule preamble for further discussion of EPA's final 

approach. 

Letter ID: 0248 Comment ID: 22245 Letter Lines: 169 to 181 

Comment Code: 3100 2.1 Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements (40 CFR 146.83) 

Comment: – WEST urges EPA to take appropriate care in characterizing the risks of CO2 

geologic storage under the UIC program. As we commented above, a successful 

national CO2 emissions abatement program will necessarily need to rely heavily 

upon development of and public support for CCS. By overly burdening the detail 

8
of site characterization and UIC of CO2 risks related to given sites under 

consideration, EPA could inadvertently and inappropriately stigmatize CCS, 

particularly if it heads off into an unwarranted categorization of CO2 as a 

pollutant or a hazardous waste. Such excessive focus on risk or inappropriate 

characterization would imply liability risk that would chill further development 

of critically needed CCS under a climate change program. WEST Associates 

believes EPA can develop site characterization regulations that minimize 

potential burdensome regulations based on known potential site characteristics 

as discussed in these comments immediately below. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that a demonstration to the public that extensive data have 

been collected and evaluated would likely improve confidence in the project and help address 

public questions and concerns. 

EPA recognizes that many CO2 streams may be relatively pure, and research indicates that the 

estimated amounts of impurities in a CO2 stream are likely to be low. However, EPA believes 

that owners or operators of GS wells must characterize their CO2 stream as part of their permit 

application, as required at §146.82(a)(7). This information can help the Director determine the 

potential for geochemical reactions between the injectate (CO2) and the host geologic 

formations, which could result in the plugging of pore spaces or the dissolution of formation 

minerals. 

Since the GS rule, at §146.81(d), excludes CO2 streams that meet the definition of a hazardous 

waste under 40 CFR part 261, if the injectate is determined to meet the definition of a hazardous 

waste under RCRA, injection may only occur in a Class I hazardous waste injection well. 

Letter ID: 0248 Comment ID: 22246 Letter Lines: 183 to 205 

Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performance-based standards) 

Comment Code: 3100 2.1 Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements (40 CFR 146.83) 

Comment: – EPA should apply a tiered set of site characterization requirements based on 

demonstrable and known site characteristics. For example, potential sites that 

are deep saline formations located more than one kilometer below the surface are 

generally recognized as among the most favorable and secure site options for 

assuring public safety.[FN1] If such sites do not have a USDW aquifer located 

between it and the ground surface above, a more streamlined regulatory site 

characterization and risk review may be appropriate. On the other hand, an 

example of a potential site that may require a more rigorous site 

characterization and risk assessment are "sole source aquifers" which are 

aquifers that are a sole supply of water for a region and are critically 

important to protect. Some stakeholders may assert that there should be no CO2 

storage above or below a sole source, aquifer. However, such a restriction 

would essentially prohibit storage in many western areas. Rather, a better 

approach would allow EPA to permit UIC Class VI wells in areas where it can be 

shown that there are sufficient caps and protections to prevent the migration of 

9
CO2 in overlying aquifers, even in proximity of aquifers designated as sole 

source. An early detection-monitoring program could be established to provide 

sufficient opportunity to mitigate any unlikely release of CO2 from the geologic 

storage unit. Approaches like this illustrate how EPA can streamline UIC 

regulations for site characterization and permit UIC Class VI wells that first 

and foremost protect public safety, yet reflect a workable balance in adapting 

site characterization and risk assessments based on criteria adaptable to unique 

candidate sites. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that requiring appropriate, site-specific, site 

characterization by the owner or operator (under §146.82) and providing an appropriate degree 

of flexibility to the Director to evaluate site-specific geologic data will afford the greatest 

protection of USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes that it is important for the Director to 

have as much site-specific information as possible in order to make an informed decision to 

permit injection for GS at a specific site. This approach allows the permit writer to establish 

requirements considering varying site conditions eliminating the need for tiered requirements. 

GS in areas that may pose risks to USDWs, as assessed and identified by the owner or operator 

and the Director during the site selection process, would not be permitted. EPA disagrees that a 

tiering system for GS sites or formations is appropriate. Instead, the GS rule focuses on 

evaluating the suitability of each site based on site-specific geological and operational data. 

EPA adds that the final GS rule contains a provision (at §146.95) for owners or operators to 

apply for waivers from the requirement that injection be below the lowermost USDW. EPA 

believes this waiver provision will reduce potential limitations on the re-permitting of Class II 

wells as Class VI wells, provided they meet the requirements at §146.95 while still protecting 

USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0248 Comment ID: 22247 Letter Lines: 207 to 218 

Comment Code: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste issues (seeking comment) 

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment) 

Comment: [FN1: See EPA's VEF-Technical_Document_072408, pg. 6.] 

– WEST is concerned about arguments made by some stakeholders that a whole suite 

of environmental laws should be applied to CCS projects, including the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") 

and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"). These laws applied to 

CCS would impose significant obligations and potential liabilities not only on 

GS operators, but also potentially on other entities in the CO2 abatement chain, 

such as the power plant operators producing the CO2. This would likely chill 

technology advancement and commercialization of CCS. WEST urges EPA to design 

the UIC for CO2 GS program to limit CCS projects' liability under CERCLA and 

RCRA. 

Individual Response: First, EPA notes that the GS rule is not promulgated under either the 

10
RCRA or CERCLA statutes, and the applicability of those statutes will not be determined under 

the SDWA or the terms of the GS rule, but rather according to those statutes themselves and any 

implementing regulations that may apply. With respect to RCRA, EPA has decided to initiate a 

separate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine the issue of RCRA applicability to CO2 

streams being geologically sequestered, including the possible option of a conditional exemption 

from the RCRA requirements for CO2 GS in Class VI wells. EPA will consider these comments 

as part of its development of that proposal. The Agency will consider issues particular to RCRA 

in the context of that separate rulemaking, and recommends that the commenter read that 

proposed rule when it is published. The Agency notes that commenters who wish to submit 

comments on the RCRA proposal will need to do so during the comment period for that rule. 

CO2 itself is not listed as a hazardous substance under CERCLA; however, the CO2 stream may 

contain a listed hazardous substance (such as mercury) or may mobilize substances in the 

subsurface that could react with ground water to produce listed hazardous substances (such as 

sulfuric acid). Whether such substances may result in CERCLA liability from a sequestration 

facility depends entirely on the composition of the specific CO2 stream and the environmental 

media in which it is stored (e.g., soil or ground water). CERCLA exempts from liability, under 

CERCLA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, certain “federally permitted releases” (FPR) as defined in 

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(10). Class VI permits will need to be carefully structured to ensure 

that they prevent potential releases from the well which are outside the scope of the Class VI 

permit. 

EPA adds that promoting the use of GS is outside the scope of the GS rule. Rather, the purpose 

of the GS regulation is to ensure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects 

USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0248 Comment ID: 22248 Letter Lines: 220 to 232 

Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performance-based standards) 

Comment: – EPA's proposed regulation needs to focus on accurate site specific 

characterization of the potential risks posed by geologic sequestration of CO2 

and the UIC program needs to be specifically tailored accordingly to address 

those identified risks. This will help EPA avoid over generalizing in its 

regulatory requirements. Too many general default provisions that presume 

universal application can be problematic. The geologic variability involved in 

different conceivable GS projects needs to be specifically addressed, site-bysite, on issues ranging from site characterization to area of review (AoR) to 

containment requirements. The regulations should encourage site-specific, 

performance-based determinations at the permitting stage to handle these 

specific issues. This approach will work toward practical problem resolution 

without unduly alarming the public with generalizations about potential, but 

unrealistic risks and problems. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that permitting decisions for GS wells should be based on 

site-specific factors. The GS rule requires owners or operators to submit, and Directors to 

11
consider, extensive site-specific data, specified at §146.82, to demonstrate that a site is suitable 

for GS. Additionally, many of the permit requirements for GS wells are established through 

individualized site-specific plans for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, and 

injection well plugging and post-injection site care and site closure. EPA adds that the final GS 

rule includes a balance of specific criteria to be met by the owner or operator and areas of 

Directorial discretion and considerations for how that discretion would be exercised. The Agency 

believes this balance allows for GS projects to be designed and permitted to address the unique, 

site-specific aspects of each project, while providing consistency in permitting across the U.S. 

Rather than setting performance or technology-based standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting 

a flexible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement site-specific 

plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring the site, performing corrective action, and 

post-injection site care. EPA believes that the plans—which would be reviewed and approved by 

the Director and periodically updated throughout the life of the project—promote an ongoing 

dialogue between the operator and the Director that will encourage use of the most appropriate 

technologies for a particular project. 

Letter ID: 0248 Comment ID: 22249 Letter Lines: 234 to 246 

Comment Code: 1530 1.2.3.1 State regulatory efforts on GS (seeking comment) 

Comment Code: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells 

Comment: – EPA's proposed UIC for CO2 GS rule needs to fully respect states' expertise in 

administering the current SDWA programs. The UIC for CO2 GS program needs to 

provide a reasonable process whereby individual states can obtain permitting and 

compliance primacy over regulation of EPA's proposed Class VI (CCS) wells. Many 

states already administer SDWA programs and a number of states are moving ahead 

with developing their own initiatives and regulations to solve other issues 

associated with CCS. However, EPA will need to consider how to handle projects 

that span multiple states, tribal lands, and other agency jurisdictions as 

commented earlier. EPA could establish a primary state in such multiple 

jurisdiction affected projects, along with a permitting and coordination process 

for permitting purposes would engage other affected states in providing for 

notice and comment by all stakeholders. This same principle may be applied to 

multiple agency jurisdictions, such as the BLM, the NPS, and other agencies. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy 

for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes 

that State, Tribal, Territorial and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate 

the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI 

well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be 

site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for 

these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency. 

Given the potential for CCS (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) 

to be an important part of a national priority to address climate change, EPA believes that 

12
providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well 

classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent 

Class VI primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI 

regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by 

promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing 

CCS. The Agency will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final 

GS rule. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore 

space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other 

authorities that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to provide a more 

comprehensive CCS management approach. 

EPA clarifies that issuance and oversight of a GS permit, including any associated AoR 

boundary related coordination, is the responsibility of the primacy (State, Tribal, or Territorial) 

or regional DI program in the state where the injection well is located. EPA understands that the 

CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross State, Tribal, Territorial or EPA Regional 

boundaries. The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all 

State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director 

must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the 

permit application, as specified in §146.82(b), and ensure that they are involved in any necessary 

processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan, as specified in 

§146.94. The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and anticipates that 

State-State/State-Tribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and 

encourage safe, protective projects. 

Because some GS projects will require coordination across State, Tribal, and Territorial 

jurisdictions and plans, the Agency will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate 

communication among States, Tribes, and Territories interested in obtaining Primacy during the 

implementation phase of the GS regulation. Such communication may involve other 

organizations such as the Sierra Club, NDWAC, associations, and other experts. However, the 

responsibility for addressing such subjects ultimately rests with the States, Tribes, and Territories 

with primacy. In addition, EPA is developing guidances for states that describe the process of 

applying for and receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells 

under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing 

GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. The 

guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

Letter ID: 0248 Comment ID: 22250 Letter Lines: 248 to 256 

Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performance-based standards) 

Comment Code: 2400 1.8 Comments on EPA's adaptive rulemaking process 

Comment: – Finally, EPA needs to build into this regulation a "learning and adjustment" 

process that gains feedback from implementation of the UIC for CO2 GS rule, and 

establish a periodic review process to make adjustments and corrections to the 

rule based on experienced gained in permitting, operation, and closure of UIC/GS 

wells. A CCS program of the size anticipated to meet national climate change 

13
CO2 abatement goals is going to create a very large endeavor that is bound to 

experience difficulties in its deployment and implementation. EPA needs a ready 

means to provide regulatory adjustments to reinforce the safety and success of 

this UIC / GS program as it proceeds in the future. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that an adaptive approach to the UIC GS rulemaking is 

appropriate. The Agency plans to use such an approach to ensure that USDWs are protected from 

endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment. EPA believes that an 

adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and 

future demand for Class VI permits while recognizing the need to: continue to gather data from 

pilot projects and other research as it becomes available; and to enhance understanding of the 

technical and administrative aspects of GS deployment, operation, and technology developments. 

EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the 

appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, 

and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. 

Letter ID: 0248 Comment ID: 22251 Letter Lines: 258 to 263 

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments 

Comment: WEST Associates sincerely appreciates this opportunity to comment and provide 

recommendations on EPA’s proposed rule regarding UIC for CO2 Geological 

Sequestration. 

Should you have any questions or need further information, please do not 

hesitate to contact David Steele at (520) 321-1111. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA's 

responses to this comment letter for further details. For additional information on EPA's final 

regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket. 

14