Response to Comments for 

Draft Class VI Permit Issued to Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Region V 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, Illinois 60604
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. i 

SECTION 1. GENERAL AND OUT OF SCOPE COMMENTS............................................................................... 1 

SECTION 2. GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................................ 5 

SECTION 3. AREA OF REVIEW (AOR) AND CORRECTIVE ACTION COMMENTS............................................16

SECTION 4. CONSTRUCTION AND PRE-INJECTION TESTING COMMENTS ..................................................26

SECTION 5. OPERATIONS COMMENTS ........................................................................................................35

SECTION 6. TESTING AND MONITORING COMMENTS ...............................................................................46

SECTION 7. PLUGGING AND POST-INJECTION SITE CARE COMMENTS ......................................................64

SECTION 8. EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE COMMENTS ............................................................76
i 

INTRODUCTION 

On April 16, 2014, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a draft Class VI 

permit to inject carbon dioxide for the purpose of geologic sequestration (permit no. IL-115-6A-0001) to 

Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) for its proposed CCS#2 injection well and invited public comment. 

Fourteen (14) parties submitted comments to EPA, either in writing or during a public hearing held on 

May 21, 2014 (or both). These commenters are presented in Table 1. This document categorizes the 

public comments submitted on the draft Class VI permit and includes EPA’s responses to those 

comments, although there is some overlap between the categories and the responses. 

This document is organized as follows. 

 Section 1: General and Out of Scope Comments: comments including general introductory 

statements and comments that are “out of scope” for this permitting action. 

 Section 2: General Comments: comments generally supporting or opposing the draft permit 

action or about the permitting process; geologic sequestration; the geology of the ADM site; and 

general permit conditions. 

 Section 3: Area of Review (AoR) and Corrective Action Comments: comments on the modeling 

approach used to delineate the AoR; AoR reevaluations; wells in AoR; Part G of the draft permit; 

and Attachment B. 

 Section 4: Construction and Pre-Injection Testing Comments: comments on the injection well 

components (e.g., casing/cement and tubing/packer); pre-injection logs and tests to be 

performed; Parts I and J of the draft permit; and Attachment G. 

 Section 5: Operations Comments: comments on Part K of the draft permit (e.g., injection 

pressure limitations and approaches to cessation of injection) and Attachment A. 

 Section 6: Testing and Monitoring Comments: comments on the testing and monitoring 

activities (e.g., corrosion and continuous monitoring, mechanical integrity testing (MIT), ground 

water monitoring, and plume and pressure front tracking) in Part M of the draft permit; 

Attachment C; and the quality assurance and surveillance plan for testing and monitoring 

activities. 

 Section 7: Plugging and Post-Injection Site Care Comments: comments on post-injection 

monitoring; the post-injection site care timeframe; the non-endangerment demonstration; site 

closure activities; Part O of the draft permit; and Attachments D and E. 

 Section 8: Emergency and Remedial Response Comments: comments on Part P of the draft 

permit; Attachment F; and induced seismicity. 
ii

Table 1: Commenters on ADM’s draft Class VI permit

Anthony Samsel

Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM)

Carbon Sequestration Council (CSC)

Clean Air Task Force (CATF)

Evelyn Carter

FutureGen Alliance

Gary Overby

Gestalt Engineering, LLC

Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity’s Office of Coal 

Development (IOCD)

Illinois Manufacturers' Association (IMA)

Jeffrey Sprague

Micheal Muczynski 

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

US Fish and Wildlife Service
1 

SECTION 1. GENERAL AND OUT OF SCOPE COMMENTS 

EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Parts 144 and 146 state the requirements and standards that a permit applicant must meet to have an Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) permit application approved. Those regulations define the general scope of EPA’s authority and review process. Federal 

regulations require EPA to briefly describe and respond to significant comments received on UIC permits. 

EPA received numerous general comments and comments directed at matters outside the scope of the UIC Program’s purview. EPA 

acknowledges the submittal of these comments and clarifies that because they raise matters that are not addressed by the UIC regulations and 

are outside the scope of the UIC permit process, EPA does not respond to them specifically in this document. 

The comments falling into the “out of scope” category focus on topics including: climate change; economic benefits of the project; general 

support for or non-specific opposition to the project; neutral statements of fact; background information on the commenters or the project; 

pore space ownership; and general introductory statements to specific concerns. These general comments are listed below without response. 

Specific comments that address topics that are relevant to this permitting decision, with responses, follow in subsequent sections. 

Although EPA is not responding to general statements of support and opposition to the permit individually, it did consider them in making the 

decision to issue a final permit. 
2 

# Commenter Comment Text

1 US Fish and 

Wildlife 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has not comments on the Draft

2 CATF Clean Air Task Force (“CATF”) is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on Archer Daniels Midland’s (“ADM’s”) 

draft Underground Injection Control (“UIC”) Class VI permit. Draft Permit IL-115-6A-0001 is issued pursuant to the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) and the UIC regulations codified at 40 CFR parts 124, 144, 146, 147. Founded in 1996, 

CATF is a nonprofit organization dedicated to restoring clean air and healthy environments through scientific research, 

public education and legal advocacy.

The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that our climate is changing due to manmade carbon dioxide 

(“CO2”) emissions. [FN: John Cook, et al., Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific 

literature, 8 Environ. Res. Lett. 024024 (May 13, 2013), available at: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-

9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf]

For the foreseeable future, carbon capture and storage technologies will be critical to meeting global greenhouse gas 

reduction goals. Carbon capture and storage is highly likely to be the only technology proven and available for 

isolation from atmospheric release of the large amounts of CO2 emitted from these sources. 

4 FutureGen I am writing to express my strong support to the ADM Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class VI permit. The 

implementation of the new class of wells, class VI, developed under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act's UIC, 

is specially designed to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDW). My analysis of the UIC draft permit 

indicates that the ADM project fully addresses the requirements to insure safe storage over short and long periods of 

time. 

5 FutureGen The project is part of the Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium, one of the seven Regional Carbon 

Sequestration Partnerships created by the Department of Energy (DOE) and its partners have an internationally 

recognized technical expertise in the carbon capture and storage field. In summary, I fully encourage U.S. EPA to issue 

the final UIC permit approval to ADM. I do believe that the injection and the state-of-the-art-monitoring activities 

implemented on the sequestration site will guarantee a safe storage over time and will be protective of the USDW. 

The success of this first-of-its-kind project will also be a milepost in the Carbon Sequestration history and will 

contribute to limit climate change concerns.

6 Gestalt The stated goal of the project is "to demonstrate the ability of the Mt. Simon geologic formation to accept and retain 

industrial scale volumes of CO2 for permanent geologic sequestration". Is this in anticipation of ADM being regulated 

in the production of green house gases? There should be transparency here. Overall, I support this project in utilizing 

techniques for reducing atmospheric emissions of green house gases.

7 IMA Carbon capture and sequestration is an exciting new technology and ADMs permits will provide commercial 

demonstration of an integrated system to capture CO2 from an ethanol plant with geologic storage in a saline 

reservoir. If approved, this project will significantly reduce carbon emissions that equate to removing 200,000 
3 

# Commenter Comment Text

automobiles from the roads for one year. ADM’s project will have significant positive short-term and long-term 

economic impact both locally and across the United States. The private sector is investing $66 million of the total $205 

million project resulting in the creation of more than 900 new good-paying jobs including 350 in the local community. 

Area businesses will see $30 million in increased economic activity. Moving forward, this technology could be used in a 

CO2 pipeline and enhanced oil recovery project in Southern Illinois with an initial project cost of $300 million. This new 

pipeline could help with production of more than 700 million barrels of oil. Approving these permits will have both a 

positive environmental and economic impact and the IMA encourages your quick approval. 

8 IOCD ADM CCS projects help support carbon emitting projects meet the next level of emission reductions by capturing 

carbon dioxide and permanently storing it underground. Projects like the ADM CO2 storage projects and the 

FutureGen project in Morgan County will help make the great strides needed to achieve an “all of the above” 

domestic energy portfolio strategy while meeting increasingly more stringent environmental regulations. 

9 Micheal 

Muczynski 

Voting in favor of permitting ADM to proceed with CO2 injection wells. Science and technology needs to try new 

things, and learn from them and improve "next time".

10 NRDC General comments

This permit application is significant, in that it represents one of the first efforts to permit a CO2 sequestration project 

using EPA’s December 2010 Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection Control Program (“UIC”) Class VI rules. 

Precedents may be set, with respect to what applicants look to in submitting in future applications. And through this 

review, EPA sends an important message about how it intends to implement the UIC Class VI regulations.

At the outset, we commend Archer Daniels Midland (hereinafter “the Applicant”, or “Applicant”) for compiling an 

application that is clear and that attempts to address most of the requirements of Class VI in a considered manner. 

While we may have questions or suggestions with respect to specific parts of the application, overall we are 

encouraged by the approach taken in evaluating and operating the site, as well as the conciseness with which 

information is presented.

We do list a number of technical points below for EPA’s consideration and resolution, and we can see a clear pathway 

forward for the issuance of the injection permits under consideration here, as we believe that our comments can be 

readily addressed by the Applicant and EPA. We support this effort, and hope that it can be the precursor to more 

opportunities to permanently remove carbon pollution from the atmosphere and sequester it safely in the deep 

subsurface.

11 Anthony 

Samsel

Underground sequestration of CO2 is a bad idea. 
4 

# Commenter Comment Text

12 Evelyn Carter And looking at those concerns that I voiced earlier of trying to get the information which was very, very good at 

explaining things to me and I understand this is to try to keep the carbon dioxide out of the air, which I think is a good 

thing but I still want it to be known that these concern still exists. Thank you.

13 Gary Overby I don't support the experiment of carbon sequestration as an answer to pollution. I believe we can answer the 

problem by conserving, using green energy, and growing our local power. Ethanol is not anything more than a 

temporary bridge to the goal of renewable energy security. Stop the subsidies for energy dinosaurs.

14 CATF Once this permit is approved, there will be two injection wells at the Project site: CCS #1 (the currently operating Class 

I well) and CCS #2. The Draft Permit is for CCS #2, a new injection well, which has a projected operational period of five 

years, and an expected total injection volume of 5.5 Mt of CO2. EPA also has received and is reviewing for adequacy 

an application to transition the initial CCS #1 well to a Class VI UIC permit. ADM has long awaited final permits -- both 

the application to transition CCS #1 to Class VI, and the application for the CCS #2 Class VI permit were submitted in 

2011. 

15 CSC We commend EPA on the issuance of this draft permit and the draft permits for the FutureGen Project for public 

comment and on the work that has been undertaken to process these first of a kind permit drafts. 

16 Jeffrey 

Sprague

The following additional comments are offered in response to information in the draft permit and on the USEPA 

Region 5 website (www.epa.gov/Region5/water/uic/adm):

 1.) The geographical depiction provided by USEPA of the extent of the subsurface CO2 plume and pressure front (see

Fact Sheet) indicates that over time the plume will extend to areas for which ADM does not have surface land 

ownership rights. USEPA has not addressed in the draft permit the fundamental legal question of whether ADM has 

the mineral rights ("pore rights") that would allow them to conduct subsurface injection when the CO2 plume and 

pressure front extends to areas directly below the ground surface where ADM doesn't have surface land ownership. In 

the absence of mineral rights, a permit cannot be issued.

 2.) No air quality impact analysis was provided evaluating criteria pollutant (NOx, PM2.5, PM10, SO2, CO, and Ozone) 

and toxic air contaminant emissions associated with wellsite equipment usage and increased vehicular traffic 

associated with well construction, well completion, and CO2 injection activities. Such an analysis must include 

dispersion modeling (photochemical modeling for ozone)results for both ambient air concentrations and depositional 

loading with regard to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, impacts to threatened and endangered species, 

soil acidification, and additional cancer and non-cancer human health risk.
5 

SECTION 2. GENERAL COMMENTS 

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

1 CATF The ADM project has already, and will continue to advance 

geologic storage technologies. This project therefore is critical 

to advancing commercial scale geologic carbon storage.

The Draft Permit is associated with the Illinois Basin Decatur 

CCS Project (“the Project”), which involves the compression 

and dehydration of CO2 separated at ADM’s corn-to- ethanol 

plant, and its storage in a deep saline aquifer adjacent to the 

producing plant. To date, 700,000 metric tons of CO2 

captured from the plant already have been successfully 

injected in the first onsite 7,000-foot deep saline injection 

well, previously permitted under UIC Class I. A vigorous 

monitoring program to track CO2 in the subsurface and 

ensure its security in the subsurface has accompanied 

injection. As a result, the Draft Permit enjoys the advantage 

of a track record that demonstrates its ongoing success. More 

specifically, the Project illustrates the safe and successful use 

of the Mount Simon Formation for geologic carbon storage in 

the Illinois basin. During the 3-year injection program, 1.1 Mt 

of CO2 are being captured at ADM’s ethanol plant using 

Alstom’s amine capture process and will be injected into the 

Cambrian Mt. Simon Formation.2 [FN: U.S. EPA, “Public 

Comment Sought on Carbon Storage Draft Permit,” (Apr. 

2014), available 

at:http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/uic/adm/pdfs/admfact-sheet-201404.pdf.] Monitoring tools utilized at the site 

include four shallow groundwater wells and soil gas 

measurements including soil fluxes, 3-D seismic profiling, 

ground deformation by satellite inferometry, open and casedhole logging, a dedicated monitoring well with embedded 

geophones for walk-away vertical seismic profiling and a 

The Mt. Simon formation, which will receive the CO2, is thousands 

of feet below the ground surface (between 5,545 and 7,051 feet) 

at the ADM site, and contains porous spaces to accept and store 

the CO2. Based on local and regional geologic study and testing, 

EPA has determined that the Mt. Simon is sufficiently laterally 

extensive and porous to allow it to safely receive the volume of 

CO2 ADM plans to inject. While the performance of CCS#1 does 

provide site-specific evidence to support EPA’s determination 

about the suitability of the CCS#2 well, EPA based its 

determination to issue the draft permit on site-specific 

information that ADM submitted about the CCS#2 well site. 
6 

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

dedicated in-zone monitoring well and including 

Schlumberger’s Westbay system.3 [FN: U.S. EPA, “ADM 

Permit Application for CCS#1,” (Dec. 2011), available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/uic/adm/pdfs/adm-ccs1-

permit-application-201112.pdf; U.S. EPA, “ADM Permit 

Application for CCS#2,” (July, 2011), available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/uic/adm/pdfs/adm-ccs2-

permit-application-201107.pdf]

Monitoring began in 2009 and will conclude in 2017 after a 

three-year post-injection monitoring period.4 [FN: MIT, 

“Decatur Fact Sheet,” 

https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/decatur.html] 

After two years of pre-injection data, and one year of 

injection, no effects of injection have been detected outside 

the reservoir.5 [FN: See generally, Ozgur Senel, Nikita 

Chugunov, CO2 Injection in a Saline Formation: Pre-Injection 

Reservoir Modeling and Uncertainty Analysis for Illinois Basin 

– Decatur Project, 37 Energy Procedia 4598-4611 (2013), 

available at: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1876610213006115/1-

s2.0-S1876610213006115-main.pdf?_tid=68b117a2- ca31-

11e3-ae0a00000aacb35f&acdnat=1398180111_0cd7142f4524b3afb688

484473f29a5a]

2 CATF We have reviewed the ADM’s Class VI Draft Permit for CCS 

#2, against the technical criteria of the UIC Class VI rules, 

which are intended to ensure that geologic sequestration is 

conducted in a manner that protects underground sources of 

drinking water (“USDWs”) from endangerment. CATF’s review 

finds the Draft Permit’s methodologies to be robust and in 

keeping with the requirements of the rules, including the 

Area of Review and Corrective Action plan, a comprehensive 

Testing and Monitoring Plan (including advanced monitoring 

and testing techniques in the USDWs and the zone above the 

ADM’s permit complies with the tailored requirements in the Class 

VI Rule that specifically address the unique nature of CO2 GS and 

focus on ensuring protection of USDWs and human health where 

geologic sequestration (GS) is occurring.

To protect USDWs from endangerment, the permit includes an 

Emergency and Remedial Response Plan (Attachment F) that 

outlines the actions ADM must take if an unexpected 

circumstance, such as induced seismic event, were to occur.
7 

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

confining zone) an Injection Well Plugging Plan, and a Post 

Injection Site Care Plan. While we anticipate that it is unlikely 

that this aspect of the Draft Permit will be needed, it is 

nevertheless consistent with the regulations and wise for the 

applicant to include with the Draft Permit an Emergency and 

Remedial Response Plan that anticipates induced seismicity 

and includes provisions for monitoring, response and shut 

down.

CATF urges EPA to grant the final permit as expeditiously as 

possible.

EPA issued a final permit decision according to the regulations for 

Class VI permits. 

3 FutureGen Finally, before the issuance of this permit, ADM already 

demonstrated that the proposed site was able to successfully 

and safely store about 800,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, 

which otherwise would have been released in the 

atmosphere. 

The Mt. Simon formation, which will receive the CO2, is thousands 

of feet below the ground surface (between 5,545 and 7,051 feet) 

at the ADM site, and contains porous spaces to accept and store 

the CO2. Based on local and regional geologic study and testing, 

EPA has determined that the Mt. Simon is sufficiently laterally 

extensive and porous to allow it to safely receive the volume of 

CO2 ADM plans to inject. While the performance of CCS#1 does 

provide site-specific evidence to support EPA’s determination 

about the suitability of the CCS#2 well, EPA based its 

determination to issue the draft permit based on site-specific 

information that ADM submitted about the CCS#2 well site. 

4 IOCD Illinois offers some of the best sequestration geology 

anywhere. The Mt. Simon Sandstone, in this case, is a thick 

large-capacity porous rock layer... filled with briny water. 

The Mt. Simon formation, which will receive the CO2, is thousands 

of feet below the ground surface (between 5,545 and 7,051 feet) 

at the ADM site, and contains porous spaces to accept and store 

the CO2. Based on local and regional geologic study and testing, 

EPA has determined that the Mt. Simon is sufficiently laterally 

extensive and porous to allow it to safely receive the volume of 

CO2 ADM plans to inject. 

Suitability is based on evaluation of extensive information about 

the proposed site, including the geological, geomechanical, 

hydrogeological, and geochemical properties of the injection and 
8 

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

confining zones; local hydrogeology; geochemistry; and seismic 

history in the context of the planned injection operation. 

5 CATF While it is understandable that the Agency is careful with 

these first Class VI permit reviews, it also is critical that EPA 

move expeditiously to permit projects that allow companies, 

scientists and EPA to gain experience in commercial-scale 

saline geologic storage and thus carbon capture and 

sequestration technology.

EPA and contract geologists, geochemists, hydrogeologists, 

modelers, and well engineers who are familiar with the geology of 

Illinois and the UIC requirements performed an extensive review 

of the detailed geologic and operational information in ADM’s 

permit application. Throughout this review, EPA requested and 

ADM provided additional information as needed to ensure that 

the permit determination was based on appropriate information 

and that the permit conditions will ensure protection of USDWs 

from endangerment. EPA issued a final permit decision according 

to the regulations for Class VI permits. 

6 CSC Our interest, and our reason for commenting on this draft 

permit, is directed at the potential precedents being 

established for these draft permits and all future Class VI 

permits that may be issued by EPA Region 5, other EPA 

regions and state primacy programs. We want to make sure 

that the permits, the conditions contained therein, and the 

plans approved as part of permits are consistent with the 

regulatory requirements and designed to assist with full 

understanding of the requirements and safeguards of Class VI 

permits. Our comments are designed to improve the clarity 

and accuracy of these Class VI permits.

To begin, we commend EPA for the very important and 

fundamental recognition in Section A of the draft permit that 

“[f]or purposes of enforcement, compliance with this permit 

during its term constitutes compliance with Part C of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA)”. This is a fundamental tenant of 

virtually every EPA permitting program. Permit applicants are 

called upon to submit their plans and proposals for complying 

with the regulatory permit requirements that have been 

EPA did not make the suggested changes. ADM must comply with 

both the permit requirement and the regulatory requirement 

upon which it is based.

Some of the specific permit references identified by the 

commenter are discussed and responded to in more detail 

elsewhere in the response to comments document. However, as a 

general matter, the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. In 

some cases, the relevant regulatory provisions for operational 

details can be relatively lengthy and technical, so that the permit 

language may summarize those requirements and provide 

reference to the regulatory details rather than copying them in 

their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly and 

easy to follow. Incorporating the additional details by reference 

does not create any conflict or confusion between the terms of the 

permit and the regulations. 

By issuing a final permit containing the language as presented in 

the draft permit, EPA approves the plans as presented. However, 
9 

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

promulgated by EPA based on the underlying legislative 

mandates enacted by the U.S. Congress to achieve specific 

statutory objectives. In this case, the permit applications 

provide for compliance with the UIC program requirements 

promulgated by EPA pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA) to protect underground sources of drinking water 

(USDWs) from endangerment consistent with the mandate of 

that statute. As EPA has recognized in numerous provisions of 

the draft permit, the approved application, the required 

plans, and the individualized permit conditions provide for 

compliance with the promulgated regulatory requirements of 

the Class VI UIC program. That is why compliance with the 

final permit “constitutes compliance with Part C of the 

SDWA”.

For example, Section M(3) of the draft permit states: 

“This monitoring shall be performed as described in the 

Testing and Monitoring Plan to meet the requirements of 40 

CFR 146.90(b).” This is an excellent recognition of the process 

whereby, the applicant has submitted a Testing and 

Monitoring Plan that provides for satisfying the requirements 

of the UIC Class VI regulations in section 40 CFR 146.90(b) and 

EPA has approved the plan and the permit because it meets 

those requirements. Accordingly, compliance with the Testing 

and monitoring Plan of this permit during its term will 

constitute compliance with the section 146.90(b) 

requirements as noted by the permit condition in sections 

M(3) of the draft permits.

Unfortunately, other conditions in the draft permit that 

also reference regulatory provisions are too loosely worded 

and give the inappropriate impression that the permittee 

must take some further steps—beyond complying with the 

permit and the approved incorporated plans—to meet the 

regulatory requirements. For example, Section G(1) of the 

EPA also recognizes that site-specific conditions encountered 

during drilling, operating and monitoring may present the need to 

alter any of the project plans, at which time ADM may propose to 

the Director changes in the plan. Any such changes would result in 

a permit modification –which, depending on the nature of any 

changes, could warrant an additional public notice and comment 

period. EPA anticipates that the plans will be regularly reviewed 

and revised as required by the Class VI regulations. Reference to 

the relevant regulatory provisions provides clarity on the 

standards against which any revisions will be judged. 
10

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

draft permits states: “The permittee shall maintain and 

comply with the approved Area of Review and Corrective 

Action Plan (Attachment B of this permit) which is an 

enforceable condition of this permit and shall meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 146.84.” This wording is 

inappropriate because maintaining and complying with “the 

approved Area of Review and Corrective Action Plan 

(Attachment B of this permit) which is an enforceable 

condition of this permit” will be entirely sufficient to meet 

the requirements of 40 CFR 146.84. EPA makes that 

determination when it issues the permit and approves the 

plan as part of that permit. No further action is necessary; 

therefore the inclusion of the words “and shall meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR

146.84” is both unnecessary and inappropriately 

confusing. It would be acceptable to use wording similar 

to that in Section M(3) and say “to meet” rather than “and 

shall meet”, but given the reference to the plan being an 

enforceable condition of the permit, that is unnecessary and 

may potentially be confusing. There are a number of other 

places in the draft permits where loose—and potentially 

contradictory language (that is, language that would 

contradict section A)—is used. The attached detailed 

comments identify these provisions and provide specific 

recommendations of alternative language.

The problem identified with the potential conflict created by 

referencing both permit conditions and regulatory provisions 

is exacerbated by the frequent repetition of regulatory 

requirements throughout the draft permits. This is an unusual 

departure from past approaches in UIC permits. For example, 

Class IH permits issued by EPA Region 5 have included 

conditions for post-closure plans that say:

“The permittee has submitted a plan for post-closure 
11

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

maintenance and monitoring, which is included in Part III(B) 

of this permit. This plan includes the information required by 

Section 146.72(a) and demonstrates how each of the 

applicable requirements of Section 146.72(a) will be met. The 

obligation to implement the post-closure plan survives the 

termination of this permit or the cessation of injection 

activities.”

This excellent language provides a very straightforward 

explanation of how the submitted plan, which has been 

reviewed and approved by EPA, provides for compliance with 

the regulatory requirements and becomes an enforceable 

part of the permit. A similar approach could easily be used for 

each of the required plans included in the Class VI permits 

and would provide a clearer understanding of how the plans 

function in providing for compliance with the regulatory 

requirements as part of the Class VI permit.

7 CSC Provision: A

Text of Draft Permit:

For purposes of enforcement, compliance with this permit 

during its term constitutes compliance with Part C of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

References:

Proposed Revision:

Comment:

We commend EPA for including this very important and 

fundamental provision. This is a fundamental tenant of 

virtually every EPA permitting program. Unfortunately, some 

of the language in other conditions appears inconsistent with 

this provision.

ADM’s permit complies with the tailored requirements in the Class 

VI Rule that specifically address the unique nature of CO2 GS and 

focus on ensuring protection of USDWs and human health where 

GS is occurring.

This comment did not request, and does not require, a change to 

the draft permit.

8 IOCD The first ADM Carbon Capture and Storage Project is fast 

approaching the 1 Million Metric Ton milestone as one of the 

nation’s first large scale CCS projects. It has accomplished a 

lot in a very short time. As only the second Class VI well 

The Mt. Simon formation, which will receive the CO2, is thousands 

of feet below the ground surface (between 5,545 and 7,051 feet) 

at the ADM site, and contains porous spaces to accept and store 

the CO2. Based on local and regional geologic study and testing, 
12

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

application the US EPA has taken to a hearing, I am aware of 

the scrutiny that the permitting process, testimony and US 

EPA’s responses will receive. After reviewing the criteria used 

by the US EPA to evaluate the technical and project specific 

information, I am confident that the US EPA’s efforts to 

evaluate all available information to reach the decision to 

issue this draft permit was comprehensive and accountable 

to the citizens of Decatur and Macon County and the people 

of the State of Illinois. 

EPA has determined that the Mt. Simon is sufficiently laterally 

extensive and porous to allow it to safely receive the volume of 

CO2 ADM plans to inject. While the performance of CCS#1 does 

provide site-specific evidence to support EPA’s determination 

about the suitability of the CCS#2 well, EPA based its 

determination to issue the draft permit based on site-specific 

information that ADM submitted about the CCS#2 well site. 

EPA and contract geologists, geochemists, hydrogeologists, 

modelers, and well engineers who are familiar with the geology of 

Illinois and the UIC requirements performed an extensive review 

of the detailed geologic and operational information in ADM’s 

permit application. Throughout this review, EPA requested and 

ADM provided additional information as needed to ensure that 

the permit determination was based on appropriate information 

and that the permit conditions will ensure protection of USDWs 

from endangerment.

9 Jeffrey 

Sprague

Please regard this request as an initial "comment" on the 

ADM Carbon Sequestration Draft Permit for the proposed 

CCS #2 Well in Macon County, Illinois. Specifically, I'm 

requesting a 45 day extension of the comment period to 

allow USEPA time to make available the full administrative 

record of the proposed permitting action and to give the local 

citizenry the necessary time and opportunity to review and 

respond to that record. USEPA Region 5 has indicated that 

the current draft permit and fact sheet are available at the 

Decatur Public Library (Decatur, Illinois), and it would seem 

reasonable for the remaining documentation in the record to 

be made available at this repository as well. It is certainly 

unreasonable to expect that Macon County citizens should 

have to travel to USEPA's Region 5 office in Chicago in order 

to view the complete administrative record. I have personally 

made a FOIA request (Tracking Number EPA-R5-2014-006074) 

The regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 124.10 “Public Notice of Permit 

Actions and Public Comment Period” require EPA to public notice a 

permit action for at least 30 days. EPA extended this comment 

period to 45 days to accommodate public review of this complex 

draft Class VI permit. The 45 day comment period is in compliance 

with the regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 124.10. 

EPA made the Administrative Record for its draft permit decision 

available to the public at its Region 5 office located in Chicago. 

Many of the estimated 4,000 hard copy documents and electronic 

files stored on 7 CDs that comprise the administrative record were 

also made available on the EPA web site for this permit action. A 

copy of the draft permit was also made available at the Decatur 

public library for public viewing. 

The commenter’s reference to the Freedom of Information Act 

(FOIA) request goes beyond the scope of the Class VI regulations. 
13

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

to obtain this information, but the estimated completion and 

delivery date by USEPA would leave essentially no time for 

review and comment within the current comment period. 

Your consideration of a 45 day extension to the comment 

period is greatly appreciated.

EPA has kept a complete record of this FOIA request, all 

correspondence with the requestor, and EPA’s response to the 

FOIA request at the Region 5 office. The records for this FOIA 

request indicate that EPA responded in a timely manner. EPA 

received and acted on the commenter’s FOIA request for the 

entire administrative record for this permit action in accordance 

with all FOIA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 2. Under the FOIA 

regulations at 40 C.F.R. 2.104, a requestor who is dissatisfied with 

an initial response may appeal that determination. 

10 Jeffrey 

Sprague

The following series of comments are intended to modify and 

supplement an initial comment I submitted on May 6, 2014 

on the Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) Draft Permit 

for the proposed CCS #2 Well in Macon County, Illinois. That 

initial comment requested a "45 day extension of the 

comment period to allow USEPA time to make available the 

full administrative record of the proposed permitting action 

and to give the local citizenry the necessary time and 

opportunity to review and respond to that record". In the 

interest of making the administrative record readily available 

to the public, it was requested that the record be made 

available at the Decatur Public Library (Decatur, IL), the 

designated repository for the draft permit and accompanying 

fact sheet. I wish to modify my comment period extension 

request from 45 days to 120 days. This is for the following 

reasons: 1.) The response received from USEPA to a Freedom 

of Information Act (FOIA) request (dated April 29, 2014) I 

made for a complete copy of the administrative record 

strongly indicated that providing the complete record could 

take more than 30 days. Clearly, such a slow response would 

not allow adequate time for review of the documents by the 

close of the comment period (May 30, 2014). Despite my 

efforts to get a response from USEPA (e-mail to Allan Batka 

dated May 10, 2014) regarding the cost and contents of the 

EPA believes that it is unreasonable to set the duration of a public 

comment period such that a member of the public can first 

become proficient in and then run a complex geomechanical, 

geochemical and hydrogeologic simulation model. 

In compliance with 40 CFR 146.84, ADM and its consultants 

selected and applied ECLIPSE 300 to the geology and planned 

injection at the site. EPA independently evaluated ADM’s 

approach using the STOMP-CO2 simulator including an evaluation 

of the project’s hydrogeologic setting and the site conceptual 

model in comparison to the site characterization information 

submitted by the permit applicant. EPA staff and contractors that 

performed the evaluation have degrees and experience in geology, 

engineering, and computational and multi-phase fate and 

transport modeling. 

Through EPA’s independent evaluation, EPA concluded that ADM 

appropriately developed and implemented their modeling 

approach and that ADM’s AoR delineation based on the maximum 

extent of the plume and pressure front was found to be 

reasonable. Detailed documentation of EPA’s independent 

evaluation can be found in the Administrative Record for this 
14

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

"CD's containing electronic files" (e-mail from Allan Batka 

dated May 7, 2014), and thereby facilitate the receipt of at 

least some information, my communication did not receive a 

response, giving the appearance of USEPA just ignoring the 

request. 2.) Though the full administrative record is available 

for viewing at USEPA's offices in Chicago, a one-way travel 

distance of approximately 170 miles from the Decatur area to 

Chicago, represents an unreasonable travel burden. 3.) The 

time needed to familiarize oneself with the ECLIPSE 300 

reservoir simulator model and then to evaluate USEPA's 

model inputs and to conduct independent simulations 

auditing USEPA's results will take at least several months.

permitting action in a document titled “Evaluation of Area of 

Review (AoR) Delineation Modeling: Archer Daniels Midland 

(ADM) Class VI Injection Project”. 

11 FutureGen Extensive geological, geophysical and petrophysical 

characterization data were collected at the ADM site to build 

robust three-dimensional (3D) geological and numerical 

models. The 3D VSP and surface seismic survey do not show 

evidence of presence of faults in either the injection or the 

confining zone. The fracture gradients determined both in the 

injection and confining zones suggest that it is extremely 

unlikely that any fractures initiated in the injection zone could 

extend through the seal. Technical presentations on the 

reservoir and seal quality are publically available 

http://www.seguestratiou.org/resources/reports.btml. This 

transparency of the existing IBDP project has built 

enthusiastic sequestration-community technical support of 

the current and proposed sequestration projects at the ADM 

Decatur site. Because large volumes of CO2 (1000 metric 

tons/day average) have been injected in the Mount Simon 

sandstone at the Decatur site since November 2011 without 

significantly raising reservoir pressure, the applicant has an 

excellent understanding of the in-situ conditions and has 

been able to evaluate and calibrate the original 3D-geologic 

and numerical models. The quantity of available 

The Mt. Simon formation, which will receive the CO2, is thousands 

of feet below the ground surface (between 5,545 and 7,051 feet) 

at the ADM site, and contains porous spaces to accept and store 

the CO2. Based on local and regional geologic study and testing, 

EPA has determined that the Mt. Simon is sufficiently laterally 

extensive and porous to allow it to safely receive the volume of 

CO2 ADM plans to inject. While the performance of CCS#1 does 

provide site-specific evidence to support EPA’s determination 

about the suitability of the CCS#2 well, EPA based its 

determination to issue the draft permit on site-specific 

information that ADM submitted about the CCS#2 well site. 
15

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

characterization data, the current comprehension of in-situ 

conditions and the feedback from the on-going injection 

process, as presented in a transparent manner to the global 

sequestration community, support that the reservoir quality 

and seals are excellent and that the site is safe in regard to 

the protection of underground sources of drinking water. 

12 FutureGen The ADM site is located in a central position within the Illinois 

basin, and exhibits excellent geological conditions for CO2 

storage. The Cambrian Mt Simon sandstone at the ADM site 

is greater than 1,500 ft. thick, with a large, proven storage 

capacity, and the well-developed Eau Claire regional seal 

(>700ft.) has well-documented low permeability values. 

The Mt. Simon formation, which will receive the CO2, is thousands 

of feet below the ground surface (between 5,545 and 7,051 feet) 

at the ADM site, and contains porous spaces to accept and store 

the CO2. Based on local and regional geologic study and testing, 

EPA has determined that the Mt. Simon is sufficiently laterally 

extensive and porous to allow it to safely receive the volume of 

CO2 ADM plans to inject. 

Suitability is based on evaluation of extensive information about 

the proposed site, including the geological, geomechanical, 

hydrogeological, and geochemical properties of the injection and 

confining zones; local hydrogeology; geochemistry; and seismic 

history in the context of the planned injection operation.
16

SECTION 3. AREA OF REVIEW (AOR) AND CORRECTIVE ACTION COMMENTS 

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

1 ADM Provision: G(1) 

Text of Draft Permit: 

The permittee shall maintain and comply with the approved 

Area of Review and Corrective Action Plan (Attachment B of 

this permit) which is an enforceable condition of this permit 

and shall meet the requirements of 40 CFR 146.84.

Proposed Revision: The permittee shall maintain and comply 

with the approved Area of Review and Corrective Action Plan 

(Attachment B of this permit) which is an enforceable 

condition of this permit. and shall meets the requirements of 

40 CFR 146.84. 

Comment: Complying with the approved Area of Review and 

Corrective Action Plan does ipso facto meet the requirements 

of 40 CFR 146.84. There is not a requirement to comply with 

the approved plan and –in addition—comply with some other 

interpretation of the requirements of 146.84. By issuing this 

permit, EPA has determined that compliance with the Area of 

Review and Corrective Action Plan during the term of the 

permit constitutes compliance with 146.84.

As a general matter the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions for delineating the AoR are 

relatively lengthy and technical, so that the permit language may 

summarize those requirements and provide reference to the 

regulatory details rather than copying them in their entirety. This 

makes the permit more reader-friendly and easy to follow. 

Incorporating the additional details by reference does not create 

any conflict or confusion between the terms of the permit and the 

regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.84(b) makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. For Class VI wells, EPA 

anticipates that the AoR must be reevaluated periodically during 

the lifetime of the GS project [40 §146.84(b) and (e) and Section G 

of the permit]. Reference to the relevant regulatory provisions 

provides clarity on the standards against which any revisions will 

be judged. 

By issuing a final permit containing the language as presented in 

the draft permit, EPA approves the AoR and Corrective Action Plan

as presented. However, EPA also recognizes that site-specific 

conditions encountered during drilling, or monitoring and 

operational conditions, may present the need to alter the AoR and 

Corrective Action Plan, at which time ADM may propose to the 

Director changes in the plan. Any such changes would result in a 

permit modification—which, depending on the nature of any 

changes, could warrant an additional public notice and comment 
17

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

period, as provided in 40 C.F.R. Part 144. Therefore, EPA did not 

make the suggested changes to the permit.

2 CSC Provision: G(1) 

Text of Draft Permit: The permittee shall maintain and 

comply with the approved Area of Review and Corrective 

Action Plan (Attachment B of this permit) which is an 

enforceable condition of this permit and shall meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 146.84.

Proposed Revision: The permittee shall maintain and comply 

with the approved Area of Review and Corrective Action Plan 

(Attachment B of this permit) which is an enforceable 

condition of this permit. and shall meets the requirements of 

40 CFR 146.84. 

--OR—

The permittee has submitted an Area of Review and 

Corrective Action Plan, which is included in Attachment B of 

this permit. This plan includes the information required by 

Section 146.84 and demonstrates how each of the applicable 

requirements of Section 146.84 will be met.

Comment: Complying with the approved Area of Review and 

Corrective Action Plan does ipso facto meet the requirements 

of 40 CFR 146.84. There is not a requirement to comply with 

the approved plan and –in addition—comply with some other 

interpretation of the requirements of 146.84. By issuing this 

permit, EPA has determined that compliance with the Area of 

Review and Corrective Action Plan during the term of the 

permit constitutes compliance with 146.84.

As a general matter the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions for delineating the AoR are 

relatively lengthy and technical, so that the permit language may 

summarize those requirements and provide reference to the 

regulatory details rather than copying them in their entirety. This 

makes the permit more reader-friendly and easy to follow. 

Incorporating the additional details by reference does not create 

any conflict or confusion between the terms of the permit and the 

regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.84(b) makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. For Class VI wells, EPA 

anticipates that the AoR must be reevaluated periodically during 

the lifetime of the GS project [40 C.F.R. § 146.84(b) and (e) and 

Section G of the Permit]. Reference to the relevant regulatory 

provisions provides clarity on the standards against which any 

revisions will be judged. 

By issuing a final permit containing the language as presented in 

the draft permit, EPA approves the AoR and Corrective Action Plan

as presented. However, EPA also recognizes that site-specific 

conditions encountered during drilling, or monitoring and 

operational conditions, may present the need to alter the AoR and 

Corrective Action Plan, at which time ADM may propose to the 

Director changes in the plan. Any such changes would result in a 

permit modification—which, depending on the nature of any 

changes, could warrant an additional public notice and comment 
18

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

period, as provided in 40 C.F.R. Part 144. Therefore, EPA did not 

make the suggested changes to the permit.

3 ADM Provision: G(2) 

Text of Draft Permit: 2. At the fixed frequency specified in 

the Area of Review and Corrective Action Plan, or more 

frequently when monitoring and operational conditions 

warrant, the permittee must reevaluate the area of review 

and perform corrective action in the manner specified in 40 

CFR 146.84 and update the Area of Review and Corrective 

Action Plan or demonstrate to the Director that no update is 

needed.

References: 146.84(b) The owner or operator of a Class VI 

well must prepare, maintain, and comply with a plan to 

delineate the area of review for a proposed geologic 

sequestration project, periodically reevaluate the delineation, 

and perform corrective action that meets the requirements of 

this section and is acceptable to the Director. The 

requirement to maintain and implement an approved plan is 

directly enforceable regardless of whether the requirement is 

a condition of the permit. As a part of the permit application 

for approval by the Director, the owner or operator must 

submit an area of review and corrective action plan that 

includes the following information: 

(2) A description of: 

(i) The minimum fixed frequency, not to exceed five years, at 

which the owneror operator proposes to reevaluate the area 

of review; 

(ii) The monitoring and operational conditions that would 

warrant a reevaluation of the area of review prior to the next 

scheduled reevaluation as determined by the minimum fixed 

frequency established paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.

As a general matter the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions are lengthier and more detailed so 

that the permit language may summarize those requirements and 

provide reference to the regulatory details rather than copying 

them in their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly 

and easy to follow. EPA believes that incorporating additional 

details by reference does not create any conflict or confusion 

between the terms of the permit and the regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.84(b) makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. 

EPA has not made any change to the permit based on this 

comment.
19

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

Proposed Revision: 

2. The permittee has submitted an Area of Review and 

Corrective Action Plan, which is included in Attachment B of 

this permit. This plan describes how the permittee must 

reevaluate the area of review and perform corrective action 

in the manner specified in 40 CFR 146.84, demonstrates how 

each of the applicable requirements of Section 146.84 will be 

met, and is an enforceable condition of the permit.

Comment: The permittee has submitted the Area of Review 

and Corrective Action Plan. Complying with the approved 

Area of Review and Corrective Action Plan does ipso facto 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 146.84.

4 CSC Provision: G(2) 

Text of Draft Permit: 2. At the fixed frequency specified in 

the Area of Review and Corrective Action Plan, or more 

frequently when monitoring and operational conditions 

warrant, the permittee must reevaluate the area of review 

and perform corrective action in the manner specified in 40 

CFR 146.84 and update the Area of Review and Corrective 

Action Plan or demonstrate to the Director that no update is 

needed.

References: 146.84(b) The owner or operator of a Class VI 

well must prepare, maintain, and comply with a plan to 

delineate the area of review for a proposed geologic 

sequestration project, periodically reevaluate the delineation, 

and perform corrective action that meets the requirements of 

this section and is acceptable to the Director. The 

requirement to maintain and implement an approved plan is 

directly enforceable regardless of whether the requirement is 

a condition of the permit. As a part of the permit application 

for approval by the Director, the owner or operator must 

submit an area of review and corrective action plan that 

As a general matter the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions are lengthier and more detailed so 

that the permit language may summarize those requirements and 

provide reference to the regulatory details rather than copying 

them in their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly 

and easy to follow. EPA believes that incorporating additional 

details by reference does not create any conflict or confusion 

between the terms of the permit and the regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.84(b) makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. 

EPA has not made any change to the permit based on this 

comment.
20

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

includes the following information: 

* * * * 

(2) A description of: 

(i) The minimum fixed frequency, not to exceed five years, at 

which the owneror operator proposes to reevaluate the area 

of review; 

(ii) The monitoring and operational conditions that would 

warrant a reevaluation of the area of review prior to the next 

scheduled reevaluation as determined by the minimum fixed 

frequency

Proposed Revision: 

2. At the fixed frequency specified in the approved Area of 

Review and Corrective Action Plan (Attachment B of this 

permit), or more frequently when monitoring and operational 

conditions warrant as described in that plan, the permittee 

must reevaluate the area of review and perform corrective 

action in the manner specified in 40 CFR 146.84 and update 

the Area of Review and Corrective Action Plan or 

demonstrate to the Director that no update is needed. 

Comment: The plan itself is intended to spell out the 

frequency of review and the conditions that will trigger an 

earlier review. It is better to specify the fixed frequency or to 

use the same formula of “approved Area of Review and 

Corrective Action Plan (Attachment B of this permit)”.

5 ADM Provision: G(3) 

Text of Draft Permit: 

3. Following each AoR reevaluation or a demonstration that 

no evaluation is needed, the permittee shall submit the 

resultant information in an electronic format to the Director 

for review and approval of the AoR results.

References: 146.84(e)(4) Submit an amended area of review 

and corrective action plan or demonstrate to the Director 

As a general matter the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions are lengthier and more detailed so 

that the permit language may summarize those requirements and 

provide reference to the regulatory details rather than copying 

them in their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly 

and easy to follow. EPA believes that incorporating additional 
21

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

through monitoring data and modeling results that no 

amendment to the area of review and corrective action plan 

is needed. Any amendments to the area of review and 

corrective action plan must be approved by the Director, 

must be incorporated into the permit, and are subject to the 

permit modification requirements at §§ 144.39 or 144.41 of 

this chapter, as appropriate.

Proposed Revision: G.3. Following each AoR reevaluation or a

demonstration that no evaluation is needed, the permittee 

shall submit either the resultant information updated area of 

review and corrective action plan in an electronic format to 

the Director for review and approval of the AoR results, or a 

demonstration that no update is needed.

Comment: The language in the draft permit is awkwardly 

worded and the reference to “resultant information” is 

potentially open-ended. The regulation requires the 

permittee to submit either an amended plan or a 

demonstration that amendment is unnecessary.

details by reference does not create any conflict or confusion 

between the terms of the permit and the regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.84(b) makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. 

EPA has not made any change to the permit based on this 

comment.

6 CSC Provision: G(3) 

Text of Draft Permit: 3. Following each AoR reevaluation or a 

demonstration that no evaluation is needed, the permittee 

shall submit the resultant information in an electronic format 

to the Director for review and approval of the AoR results.

References: 146.84(e)(4) Submit an amended area of review 

and corrective action plan or demonstrate to the Director 

through monitoring data and modeling results that no 

amendment to the area of review and corrective action plan 

is needed. Any amendments to the area of review and 

corrective action plan must be approved by the Director, 

must be incorporated into the permit, and are subject to the 

permit modification requirements at §§ 144.39 or 144.41 of 

this chapter, as appropriate.

As a general matter the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions are lengthier and more detailed so 

that the permit language may summarize those requirements and 

provide reference to the regulatory details rather than copying 

them in their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly 

and easy to follow. EPA believes that incorporating additional 

details by reference does not create any conflict or confusion 

between the terms of the permit and the regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.84(b) makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. 
22

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

Proposed Revision: G.3. Following each AoR reevaluation or 

a demonstration that no evaluation is needed, the permittee 

shall submit either the resultant information updated area of 

review and corrective action plan in an electronic format to 

the Director for review and approval of the AoR results, or a 

demonstration that no update is needed. 

Comment: The language in the draft permit is awkwardly 

worded and the reference to “resultant information” is 

potentially open-ended. The regulation requires the 

permittee to submit either an amended plan or a 

demonstration that amendment is unnecessary.

EPA has not made any change to the permit based on this 

comment.

7 ADM Provision: Appendix B, Boundary Conditions

Text of Draft Permit: Boundary Conditions 

No-flow boundary conditions were applied to the upper and 

lower boundaries of the model, with the assumption that the 

reservoir and the caprock are continuous throughout the 

region. A pore volume multiplier of 1,000 was applied to each 

cell in the horizontal boundaries of the ECLIPSE model in 

order to simulate an extensive reservoir. The horizontal 

boundaries were selected as: hydrostatic initial conditions for 

the aqueous phase, no-flow conditions for the gas phase, and 

initial conditions for salt.

Proposed Revision: Boundary Conditions 

No-flow boundary conditions were applied to the upper and 

lower boundaries of the model, with the assumption that the 

reservoir and the caprock are continuous throughout the 

region. A pore volume multiplier of 10,000 was applied to 

each cell in the horizontal boundaries of the ECLIPSE model in 

order to simulate an extensive reservoir. The horizontal 

boundaries were selected as: hydrostatic initial conditions for 

the aqueous phase, no-flow conditions for the gas phase, and 

initial conditions for salt.

It appears that the value of 1,000 was a typographical error in 

ADM’s submittal via the Input Advisor. EPA has evaluated the 

proposed change. EPA performed an independent evaluation of 

ADM’s modeling using STOMP, a multi-fluid subsurface flow and 

transport simulator developed by the Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL). STOMP does not rely on the pore volume 

multiplier, therefore EPA has determined that accepting this 

change would not affect the results of EPA’s independent 

evaluation of the modeling used to delineate the AoR or alter the 

determination that the project, as proposed, is protective and 

meets the requirements of 40 C.F.R. §146.84.

Therefore, EPA has made the change as suggested in Attachment 

B.
23

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

Comment: Boundary condition multiplier = 1,000. Should be 

10,000

8 Jeffrey 

Sprague

3.) The ECLIPSE 300 (v2011.2) reservoir simulator model with 

CO2STORE module is proprietary software available to the 

public only at considerable cost. It is unreasonable to expect 

the general public to incur such cost in order to evaluate 

model assumptions, model implementation, and modeling 

results generated by USEPA. Moreover, USEPA has not made 

available the raw inputs and output for public review and 

comment. USEPA should make available a temporary license 

for the software, as well as all model input files, in order to 

provide opportunity for conducting model simulations for 

evaluating reservoir behavior and plume development.

EPA conducted an independent evaluation of the AoR modeling 

effort using STOMP, a multi-fluid subsurface flow and transport 

simulator developed by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

(PNNL). The STOMP-CO2 and STOMP-CO2e simulators were 

designed specifically to investigate GS of CO2 in deep saline 

reservoirs such as the Mt. Simon.

In its evaluation, EPA assessed ADM’s conceptual model, inputs, 

model domain, etc. to ensure that the modeling effort meets the 

requirements of the Class VI Rule and that the model accurately 

reflects the available site characterization data. The report 

“Evaluation of Area of Review (AoR) Delineation Modeling: Archer 

Daniels Midland (ADM) Class VI Injection Project” documents this 

evaluation, including the model inputs and the results of EPA’s 

independent modeling. The report is part of the administrative 

record for the permitting decision and is available upon request. 

EPA adds that it is not required to provide a temporary license for 

the software or the input files or provide members of the public an 

opportunity to conduct their own simulations.

9 ADM Provision: Appendix B, Triggers

Text of Draft Permit: 

• Pressure: Changes in pressure that are unexpected and 

outside three (3) standard deviations from the average will 

trigger a new evaluation of the AoR.

• Temperature: Changes in temperature that are unexpected 

and outside three (3) standard deviations from the average 

will trigger a new evaluation of the AoR.

Proposed Revision: • Pressure: Changes in pressure during 

normal operations that are unexpected and outside three (3) 

standard deviations from the average will trigger a new 

The phrasing of Attachment B specifies that excursions that are 

unexpected and outside three standard deviations will trigger an 

AoR revision. Pressure and temperature changes during shutdown 

and startup of injection operations are not unexpected, and 

therefore would not trigger an AoR reevaluation. 

Therefore the suggested revision is unnecessary and was not 

made. 
24

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

evaluation of the AoR.

• Temperature: Changes in temperature during normal 

operation that are unexpected and outside three (3) standard 

deviations from the average will trigger a new evaluation of 

the AoR.

Comment: During periods of start up and shutdown the 

temperature and pressure may fluctuate outside three (3) 

standard deviations and should not trigger an AoR revision.

10 NRDC 2. Given that injection will only occur for five years, and an 

alternate Post-Injection Site Care (PISC) timeframe of ten 

years is proposed, the requirement to re-evaluate the AOR 

every five years may not be sufficient. EPA should consider 

requiring a more frequent re-evaluation of the AOR, given the 

short timeframe of the project.

In addition to the formal 5-year AoR reevaluation cycle, ADM will 

periodically review monitoring and operational data during the 

injection and post-injection phases, e.g., on an annual basis, as 

stated in the AoR and Corrective Action Plan (Attachment B to the

permit). In addition, if at any time data suggest that a significant 

change in the size or shape of the actual CO2 plume as compared 

to the predicted CO2 plume is occurring, or that there are 

deviations from modeled predictions such that the actual plume 

may extend vertically or horizontally beyond the modeled plume, 

ADM will initiate an AoR reevaluation according to the procedures 

in the AoR and Corrective Action Plan. Based on this, EPA believes 

that the 5-year AoR reevaluation timeframe is sufficient to protect 

USDWs. Therefore, the permit language has not been modified 

based upon this comment.

11 FutureGen In regard to potential CO2 leakage paths in the Area of 

Review, only three wells penetrate the confining zone and all 

of them were drilled and used for the needs of the Illinois 

Basin- Decatur Project (IBDP). There is a clear knowledge of 

the state of construction of these wells and none requires 

corrective action prior the initiation of injection. It is also 

important to note that the existing domestic water wells have 

a depth of less than 200 ft. 

EPA agrees that only three wells penetrate the confining zone 

within the AoR and that no wells within the AoR require corrective 

action at this time. In addition to evaluating ADM’s review of the 

area wells, EPA completed its own independent review of well 

records at the Illinois State Geological Survey and the Illinois State 

Water Survey. EPA did not find any improperly constructed 

artificial penetrations that reach the confining zone.

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment.
25

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

12 NRDC Area of Review (“AOR") and Corrective Action

1. It appears that the Applicant relied on well records 

reviews to identify possible penetrations of the confining 

zone. The Applicant should provide additional details as to 

the exact methods that were used to identify existing wells, 

including a more extensive discussion of the history of the 

site and any past uses to aid in determining whether other 

undocumented wells are likely to exist in the AOR. The 

Applicant must justify a decision to not deploy more 

advanced methods of locating undocumented wells, such as 

aeromagnetic surveys. Improperly constructed, maintained, 

and/or abandoned wells are one of the most likely pathways 

by which injected fluids may reach USDWs, as has been 

evidenced by surface leakage of CO2 at oil fields such 

as Salt Creek in Wyoming. EPA must require the use of such 

methods prior to injection if the current sources of 

information are not sufficiently trustworthy.

In addition to evaluating ADM’s review of the area wells, EPA 

completed its own independent review of well records at the 

Illinois State Geological Survey and the Illinois State Water Survey, 

including evaluating the locations and depths of each well. EPA 

reviewed the Illinois well records to identify wells penetrating the 

confining zone within the AoR, and did not find any wells or 

artificial penetrations that reach the confining zone, and therefore 

did not need to evaluate the conditions of the wells in the data 

base, as all wells in the area are approximately 5,000 feet 

shallower than the top of the confining zone.

In addition, the permit includes a regular monitoring program 

designed to identify any unknown or unanticipated pathways. See 

Part M of the permit and Attachment C.

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment.
26

SECTION 4. CONSTRUCTION AND PRE-INJECTION TESTING COMMENTS 

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

1 ADM Provision: I(2)

Text of Draft Permit: 

2. Casing and Cementing – Casing and cement or other 

materials used in the construction of the well must have 

sufficient structural strength for the life of the geologic 

sequestration project. All well materials must be compatible 

with all fluids with which the materials may be expected to 

come into contact and must meet or exceed standards 

developed for such materials by the American Petroleum 

Institute, ASTM International, or comparable standards 

acceptable to the Director. The casing and cementing 

program must prevent the movement of fluids into or 

between USDWs for the expected life of the well in 

accordance with 40 CFR 146.86. The casing and cement used 

in the construction of this well are shown in Attachment G of 

this permit and in the administrative record for this permit. 

Any change must be submitted in an electronic format for 

approval by the Director before installation.

Proposed Revision: 2. Casing and Cementing – The permittee 

has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director that the 

casing and cement or and other materials to be used in the 

construction of the well must have sufficient structural 

strength for the life of the geologic sequestration project, . All 

well materials must be are compatible with all fluids with 

which the materials may be expected to come into contact, 

and must meet or exceed standards developed for such 

materials by the American Petroleum Institute, ASTM 

International, or comparable standards acceptable to the 

Director,. The casing and cementing program must prevent 

the movement of fluids into or between USDWs for the 

By issuing a final permit with the same language used in the draft 

permit, EPA approves the casing and cementing plans submitted 

by ADM. However, EPA also recognizes that site-specific 

conditions or new information may present the need to alter the 

casing and cementing plan. To the extent new information 

indicates that the casing and/or cementing plans need to be 

revised, the permit language emphasizes the need to assure 

compliance with 40 C.F.R. § 146.86 and makes clear the standards 

against which any necessary revisions would be judged. At that 

time, ADM may propose to the Director changes in the casing and 

cementing plan. If any changes to the casing and cementing plans 

are required, those changes can be made through the permit 

modification process. Further, as stated in the response to 

General Comments above, ADM must comply with both its permit 

and the applicable regulations. Therefore, the permit language 

has not been modified based upon this comment.
27

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

expected life of the well in accordance with 40 CFR 146.86. 

The casing and cement used in the construction of this well 

are shown in Attachment G of this permit and in 

administrative record for this permit. Any change must be 

submitted in an electronic format for approval by the Director 

before installation.

Comment: Condition is written in a way that suggests that 

compliance requires something beyond following the 

approved construction plan.

2 CSC Provision: I(2)

Text of Draft Permit: 2. Casing and Cementing – Casing and 

cement or other materials used in the construction of the 

well must have sufficient structural strength for the life of the 

geologic sequestration project. All well materials must be 

compatible with all fluids with which the materials may be 

expected to come into contact and must meet or exceed 

standards developed for such materials by the American 

Petroleum Institute, ASTM International, or comparable 

standards acceptable to the Director. The casing and 

cementing program must prevent the movement of fluids 

into or between USDWs for the expected life of the well in 

accordance with 40 CFR 146.86. The casing and cement used 

in the construction of this well are shown in Attachment G of 

this permit and in the administrative record for this permit. 

Any change must be submitted in an electronic format for 

approval by the Director before installation.

Proposed Revision: 2. Casing and Cementing – The permittee 

has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director that the 

casing and cement or and other materials to be used in the 

construction of the well must have sufficient structural 

strength for the life of the geologic sequestration project, . All 

well materials must be are compatible with all fluids with 

By issuing a final permit with the same language used in the draft 

permit, EPA approves the casing and cementing plans submitted 

by ADM. However, EPA also recognizes that site-specific 

conditions or new information may present the need to alter the 

casing and cementing plan. To the extent new information 

indicates that the casing and/or cementing plans need to be 

revised, the permit language emphasizes the need to assure 

compliance with 40 C.F.R. § 146.86 and makes clear the standards 

against which any necessary revisions would be judged. At that 

time, ADM may propose to the Director changes in the casing and 

cementing plan. If any changes to the casing and cementing plans 

are required, those changes can be made through the permit 

modification process. Further, as stated in the response to 

General Comments above, ADM must comply with both its permit 

and the applicable regulations. Therefore, the permit language 

has not been modified based upon this comment.
28

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

which the materials may be expected to come into contact, 

and must meet or exceed standards developed for such 

materials by the American Petroleum Institute, ASTM 

International, or comparable standards acceptable to the 

Director,. The casing and cementing program must prevent 

the movement of fluids into or between USDWs for the 

expected life of the well in accordance with 40 CFR 146.86. 

The casing and cement used in the construction of this well

are shown in Attachment G of this permit 

Comment: Once again, this condition is written in a way that 

suggests that compliance requires something beyond 

following the approved construction plan. That is not the 

case. It is sufficient for the permittee to follow the 

construction plan submitted with the permit application and 

approved in the permit.

3 CSC Provision: I(3) 

Text of Draft Permit: 3. Tubing and Packer Specifications –

Tubing and packer materials used in the construction of the 

well must be compatible with fluids with which the materials 

may be expected to come into contact and must meet or 

exceed standards developed for such materials by the 

American Petroleum Institute, ASTM International, or 

comparable standards acceptable to the Director. The 

permittee shall inject only through tubing with a packer set 

within the long string casing at a point within or below the 

confining zone immediately above the injection zone. The 

tubing and packer used in the well are represented in 

engineering drawings contained in Attachment G of this 

permit. Any change must be submitted in an electronic 

format for approval by the Director before installation.

Proposed Revision: 3. Tubing and Packer Specifications –

Tubing and packer materials used in the construction of the 

By issuing a final permit containing the language as presented in 

the draft permit, EPA approves the tubing and packer plans 

submitted by ADM. However, EPA also recognizes that sitespecific conditions or new information may present the need to 

alter the tubing and packer plan. To the extent new information 

indicates that the Well Construction Plan needs to be revised, 

ADM will propose to the Director a new plan that complies with 40 

C.F.R. § 146.86, and makes clear the standards against which any 

necessary revisions would be judged. If any changes to the casing 

and cementing plans are required, those changes can be made 

through the permit modification process. Further, ADM must 

comply with both its permit and the regulations. Therefore, the 

permit language has not been modified based upon this comment.
29

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

well must be compatible with fluids with which the materials 

may be expected to come into contact and must meet or 

exceed standards developed for such materials by the 

American Petroleum Institute, ASTM International, or 

comparable standards acceptable to the Director. The 

permittee shall inject only through tubing with a packer set 

within the long string casing at a point within or below the 

confining zone immediately above the injection zone. The 

tubing and packer used in the well are as represented in 

engineering drawings contained in Attachment G of this 

permit. Any change must be submitted in an electronic 

format for approval by the Director before installation.

Comment: Once again, this condition is written in a way that 

suggests that compliance requires something beyond 

following the approved engineering drawings, which is not 

the case. It is sufficient for the permittee to follow the 

engineering drawings submitted with the permit application 

and approved in the permit.

4 ADM Provision: Appendix G, Tubing Specification

Text of Draft Permit: Outside Diameter (inches) 4 1/2 

References: Proposed Revision: Outside Diameter (inches) 5 

1/2 Comment: Tubing size is incorrectly stated as 4 1⁄2’’. 

Tubing size is 5 1⁄2 ‘’ 17#.

EPA has reviewed the proposed change and determined that the 

well, as proposed and with 5 1/2-inch tubing, will be constructed 

in a manner that meets the goals of 40 C.F.R. § 146.86. Therefore, 

EPA has revised Attachment G to correct the typographical error. 

5 CSC Section J(1)(d) of the draft permits appears to require that 

“tests” be conducted to determine “fracture pressure and the 

physical and chemical characteristics of the injection and 

confining zones”. Yet, the applicable provision of section 

146.87(d) only requires that “the owner or operator must 

determine or calculate” these items. As we understand the 

situation, in the case of this particular permit, testing has 

already been conducted in well CCS #1 that should be 

sufficient. Accordingly, further testing should be completely 

Fracture pressures and physical and chemical characteristics can 

vary between geologic formations, even when they are of 

comparable depths and/or rock types. Therefore, determining 

fracture pressures and other formation characteristics accurately 

requires some testing as part of an analysis. Information collected 

from tests of nearby wells may be confidently used without the 

need to collect data from the well being drilled. In those cases, 

the required test may collect the necessary information in a 

nearby well and be applied to the subject well via a corresponding 
30

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

optional if sufficient information is already available. Our 

attached detailed comments provide alternative language to 

achieve this result.

calculation. In the case of ADM, actual testing of the formation is 

necessary to accurately determine fracture pressures, physical and 

chemical characterization and hence safe operating limits. Since 

this information may be applicable to the immediate area, this 

testing is not required at every well but still needs to be gathered. 

To the extent this provision goes beyond the specific language of 

the regulation, EPA may add permit requirements beyond those 

laid out specifically in the UIC regulations on a case-by-case basis 

under 40 C.F.R. § 144.52(a)(9) (case-by-case conditions as 

necessary to prevent migration) and § 144.52(b) (case-by-case 

conditions as required to provide for and assure compliance with 

all applicable requirements of the SDWA and regulations). This 

provision is a rational extension of the regulatory language, and is 

in place to assure protection of the well, the USDWs, and ADM. 

Protective language is especially important here, as this is one of

the first Class VI wells operated at this scale in the United States 

and accurate characterization of the injection and confining zones 

is a central part of the Class VI regulatory provisions. 

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment.

6 ADM Provision: J(1)(b) & J(1)(d) 

Text of Draft Permit: Whole cores or sidewall cores of the 

injection zone and confining system and formation fluid 

samples from the injection zone that meet the requirements 

of 40 CFR 146.87(b);

References: 40 CFR 146.87(b) The owner or operator must 

take whole cores or sidewall cores of the injection zone and 

confining system and formation fluid samples from the 

injection zone(s), 40 CFR 146.87(d) At a minimum, the owner 

or operator must determine or calculate the following 

EPA agrees that the fluid samples need not be taken at the 

injection well if information from nearby wells will provide 

representative information that can validate the assumptions on 

which the permit conditions are based and serve as a baseline 

against which future monitoring results can be compared. 

However, EPA understands, as documented in Table 9 of the 

Testing and Monitoring Plan, that baseline fluid sampling of the 

Mt. Simon will be done at VW#1, not VW#2. Therefore, the permit 

language has not been modified based upon this comment. 
31

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

information concerning the injection and confining zone(s): 

(3) Physical and chemical characteristics of the formation 

fluids in the injection zone(s).

Proposed Revision: Clarification Only 

Comment: The regulations state that fluid samples must be 

taken from the injection zone but do not require that these 

samples be taken from the injection well itself. The draft 

condition uses essentially similar language, meaning that the 

fluid samples need not be taken directly from the injection 

zone. The permittee plans to collect the requisite injection 

zone fluid samples from VW#2.

7 ADM Provision: J(1)(d) 

Text of Draft Permit: (d) Tests to provide information about 

the injection and confining zones, including calculated 

fracture pressure and the physical and chemical 

characteristics of the injection and confining zones and the 

formation fluids in the injection zone that meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 146.87(d); and

References: 146.87(d) At a minimum, the owner or operator 

must determine or calculate the following information 

concerning the injection and confining zone(s): (1) Fracture 

pressure; (2) Other physical and chemical characteristics of 

the injection and confining zone(s); and (3) Physical and 

chemical characteristics of the formation fluids in the 

injection zone(s).

Proposed Revision: (d) Tests as necessary to provide

information about the injection and confining zones, 

including to allow determination or calculation of fracture

pressure and the physical and chemical characteristics of the

injection and confining zones and the formation fluids in the

injection zone that meet the requirements of 40 CFR

146.87(d); and

Information collected from tests of nearby wells may be 

confidently used without the need to collect data from the well 

being drilled. In those cases, the required test may collect the 

necessary information in a nearby well and be applied to the 

subject well via a corresponding calculation. In the case of ADM, 

actual testing of the formation is necessary to accurately 

determine fracture pressures, physical and chemical 

characterization and hence safe operating limits. Since this 

information may be applicable to the immediate area, this testing 

is not required at every well but still needs to be gathered. The 

proposed change follows the regulatory requirements, which point 

out that collection of some data may be unnecessary when data 

collected nearby meets that need. The suggested change is 

incorporated into the final permit.
32

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

Comment: The applicable provision here is to make a 

determination or calculation. This may not require any 

additional testing.

8 CSC Provision: J(1)(d) 

Text of Draft Permit: (d) Tests to provide information about 

the injection and confining zones, including calculated 

fracture pressure and the physical and chemical 

characteristics of the injection and confining zones and the 

formation fluids in the injection zone that meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 146.87(d); and

References: 146.87(d) At a minimum, the owner or operator 

must determine or calculate the following information 

concerning the injection and confining zone(s): (1) Fracture 

pressure; (2) Other physical and chemical characteristics of 

the injection and confining zone(s); and (3) Physical and 

chemical characteristics of the formation fluids in the 

injection zone(s).

Proposed Revision: (d) Tests as necessary to provide 

information about the injection and confining zones, 

including to allow determination or calculationed of 

characteristics of the injection and confining zones and the 

formation fluids in the injection zone that meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 146.87(d); and fracture pressure and 

the physical and chemical 

Comment: The applicable provision here is to make a 

determination or calculation. It may not be necessary to 

conduct any additional testing if the information already 

available is sufficient to support the determination or 

calculation.

Information collected from tests of nearby wells may be 

confidently used without the need to collect data from the well 

being drilled. In those cases, the required test may collect the 

necessary information in a nearby well and be applied to the 

subject well via a corresponding calculation. In the case of ADM, 

actual testing of the formation is necessary to accurately 

determine fracture pressures, physical and chemical 

characterization and hence safe operating limits. Since this 

information may be applicable to the immediate area, this testing 

is not required at every well but still needs to be gathered. The 

proposed change follows the regulatory requirements, which point 

out that collection of some data may be unnecessary when data 

collected nearby meets that need. The suggested change is 

incorporated into the final permit.

9 Jeffrey 

Sprague

4.) The need for a more thorough understanding of the 

lithologic properties and lithofacies characteristics of the Mt. 

EPA notes that ADM is required to submit core samples of the 

injection zone, per Part J(1)(b) of the permit, which is consistent 
33

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

Simon reservoir, for improved predictive capabilities 

regarding CO2 plume development and migration, 

necessitates the acquisition of a complete cored sequence 

through the injection zone and stratigraphically higher (or 

lower) intervals into which plume migration is anticipated. 

Only from the direct analysis of intact injection zone rock can 

the public have high confidence of USEPA's modeling results 

and expected plume behavior. The permit should contain a 

requirement for recovery of a complete section of continuous 

core for the CO2 injection zone and adjacent intervals.

with the requirements of the Class VI rule. These additional data 

will be evaluated before injection may begin, under Part Q of the 

permit. Therefore, the permit language has not been modified 

based upon this comment.

EPA believes that the information that ADM will collect as part of 

the pre-injection testing required at 40 C.F.R. § 146.87, combined 

with information on the confining zone submitted with ADM’s 

permit application and reviewed by EPA, provide sufficient 

information on which to validate the modeling inputs and support 

its determination that the CO2 injection will not endanger USDWs. 

10 NRDC Logging, Sampling, & Testing

1. The logging, sampling, and testing provisions at 40 CFR 

146.87 require owners or operators of Class VI wells to collect 

various data during and after drilling of the injection well. The 

permit application does not appear to include provisions to 

perform some of these tests and/or obtain samples as 

required by the following sections:

a. 40 CFR 146.87(c): The owner or operator must record 

the fluid temperature, pH, conductivity, reservoir pressure, 

and static fluid level of the injection zone(s).

b. 40 CFR 146.87(d)(1)-(3): At a minimum, the owner or 

operator must determine or calculate the following 

information concerning the injection and confining zone(s): 

Fracture pressure; Other physical and chemical characteristics 

of the injection and confining zone(s); and Physical and 

chemical characteristics of the formation fluids in the 

injection zone(s).

Such site-specific data is necessary to accurately calculate the 

AOR and determine appropriate operating conditions such as 

the maximum allowable injection pressure. EPA must require 

EPA notes that the requirements at 40 C.F.R. § 146.87(c) are 

incorporated in the permit in Part J(1)(c). The requirements in 40 

C.F.R. § 146.87(d)(1)-(3) are incorporated into the permit at Part 

J(1)(d). Therefore, the permit language has not been modified 

based upon this comment.

The results of these tests will be evaluated before injection may 

begin, under Part Q of the permit. 
34

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

the Applicant to perform these tests and/or obtain samples 

as required by Class VI rules.
35

SECTION 5. OPERATIONS COMMENTS 

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

1 ADM Provision: K(1)

Text of Draft Permit: 1. Injection Pressure Limitation –

Except during stimulation, the permittee must ensure that 

injection pressure does not exceed 90 percent of the fracture 

pressure of the injection zone(s) so as to ensure that the 

injection does not initiate new fractures or propagate existing 

fractures in the injection zone(s). In no case shall injection 

pressure initiate fractures or propagate existing fractures in 

the confining zone or cause the movement of injection or 

formation fluids into a USDW. The maximum injection 

pressure limit is listed in Attachment A.

Proposed Revision: 1. Injection Pressure Limitation – Except 

during stimulation, the permittee must ensure that injection 

pressure does not exceed 90 percent of the fracture pressure 

of the injection zone(s) so as to ensure that the injection does 

not initiate new fractures or propagate existing fractures in 

the injection zone(s). In no case shall injection pressure 

initiate fractures or propagate existing fractures in the 

confining zone or cause the movement of injection or 

formation fluids into a USDW. the maximum injection 

pressure limit is listed in Attachment A. 

Comment: The applicable requirement is to comply with the 

maximum pressure limitation in the permit. The rest of what 

is specified in this condition has already been accomplished 

as a basis for setting that limit.

Although the maximum injection pressure listed in Attachment A is 

calculated to set a limit at 90 percent of the fracture pressure of 

the injection zone(s) based on the information currently available, 

as additional information becomes available, that calculated value 

may change. To the extent new information indicates that the 

current value in Attachment A exceeds 90 percent of the fracture 

pressure of the injection zone(s), the maximum injection pressure 

should be reduced even before any conforming change is made to 

the permit. This ensures compliance with the regulatory standard 

in 40 C.F.R. § 146.88(a) and protection of USDWs. Similarly, 

although it is very unlikely, it may be possible for ADM to initiate 

new fractures or propagate existing fractures in the injection or 

confining zones, or cause the movement of injection or formation 

fluid into a USDW, even if they comply with the maximum 

injection pressure limitation. In that case, injection pressure 

would also need to be reduced to protect USDWs and to comply 

with 40 C.F.R. § 146.88(a). 

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment.
36

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

2 CSC Provision: K(1)

Text of Draft Permit: 1. Injection Pressure Limitation –

Except during stimulation, the permittee must ensure that 

injection pressure does not exceed 90 percent of the fracture 

pressure of the injection zone(s) so as to ensure that the 

injection does not initiate new fractures or propagate existing 

fractures in the injection zone(s). In no case shall injection 

pressure initiate fractures or propagate existing fractures in 

the confining zone or cause the movement of injection or 

formation fluids into a USDW. The maximum injection 

pressure limit is listed in Attachment A.

References: Attachment A states: 

The maximum injection pressure, which serves to prevent 

confining-formation fracturing, was determined using the 

following formula/methodology: 

· For maximum injection pressure using a downhole pressure 

gauge, the maximum pressure is calculated as follows: 90% of 

fracture pressure of the injection zone. Therefore, the 

maximum injection pressure using downhole pressure gauge 

is 2,252 psia or 2,252-14.7 = 2,237 psig. 

· For surface maximum wellhead injection pressure, this 

limitation was calculated using the following formula: [{90% 

of fracture gradient-(0.433psi/ft)(specific gravity)} X upper 

depth of perforated interval ] - atmospheric pressure. The 

maximum wellhead injection pressure is: [{0.585-(0.433)(0.64 

)}3850] -14.7 = 1,171psig.

Proposed Revision: 1. Injection Pressure Limitation – Except 

during stimulation, the permittee must ensure that injection 

pressure does not exceed 90 percent of the fracture pressure 

of the injection zone(s) so as to ensure that the injection does 

not initiate new fractures or propagate existing fractures in 

the injection zone(s). In no case shall injection pressure 

Although the maximum injection pressure listed in Attachment A is 

calculated to set a limit at 90 percent of the fracture pressure of 

the injection zone(s) based on the information currently available, 

as additional information becomes available, that calculated value 

may change. To the extent new information indicates that the 

current value in Attachment A exceeds 90 percent of the fracture 

pressure of the injection zone(s), the maximum injection pressure 

should be reduced even before any conforming change is made to 

the permit. This ensures compliance with the regulatory standard 

in 40 C.F.R. § 146.88(a) and protection of USDWs. Similarly, 

although it is very unlikely, it may be possible for ADM to initiate 

new fractures or propagate existing fractures in the injection or 

confining zones, or cause the movement of injection or formation 

fluid into a USDW, even if they comply with the maximum 

injection pressure limitation. In that case, injection pressure 

would also need to be reduced to protect USDWs and to comply 

with 40 C.F.R. § 146.88(a). 

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment.
37

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

initiate fractures or propagate existing fractures in the 

confining zone or cause the movement of injection or 

formation fluids into a USDW. the maximum injection 

pressure limit is listed in Attachment A. 

Comment: The applicable requirement is to comply with the 

maximum pressure limitation in the permit. The rest of what 

is specified in this condition has already been accomplished 

as a basis for setting that limit.

3 CSC Section K(1) of the draft permits inappropriately recites the 

regulatory requirements for determining the maximum 

injection pressure as if those requirements constitute 

additional permit conditions and, only after doing so, then 

states that “[t]he maximum injection pressure limit is listed in 

Attachment A”. Referring to Attachment A confirms that the 

stated maximum injection pressure has been approved as 

properly calculated in accordance with the regulatory 

provisions. It can only be confusing to state this permit 

condition as if it constitutes a number of different 

requirements that must also be met. Compliance with the 

maximum injection pressures in Attachment A constitutes 

compliance with the regulatory requirement, which does not 

need to be restated in the condition in addition to being fully 

stated and explained in Attachment A.

Although the maximum injection pressure listed in Attachment A is 

calculated to set a limit at 90 percent of the fracture pressure of 

the injection zone(s) based on the information currently available, 

as additional information becomes available, that calculated value 

may change. To the extent new information indicates that the 

current value in Attachment A exceeds 90 percent of the fracture 

pressure of the injection zone(s), the maximum injection pressure 

should be reduced even before any conforming change is made to 

the permit. This ensures compliance with the regulatory standard 

in 40 C.F.R. § 146.88(a) and protection of USDWs. Similarly, 

although it is very unlikely, it may be possible for ADM to initiate 

new fractures or propagate existing fractures in the injection or 

confining zones, or cause the movement of injection or formation 

fluid into a USDW, even if they comply with the maximum 

injection pressure limitation. In that case, injection pressure 

would also need to be reduced to protect USDWs and to comply 

with 40 C.F.R. § 146.88(a). 

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment.
38

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

4 ADM Provision: K(8)

Text of Draft Permit: 8. Circumstances Under Which 

Injection Must Cease – Injection shall cease when any of the 

following circumstances arises: 

(a) Failure of the well to pass a mechanical integrity test; 

(b) A loss of mechanical integrity during operation; 

(c) The automatic alarm or automatic shut-off system is 

triggered; 

(d) A significant unexpected change in the annulus or 

injection pressure; 

(e) The Director determines that the well lacks mechanical 

integrity; or 

(f) The permittee is unable to maintain compliance with any 

permit condition or regulatory requirement and the Director 

determines that injection should cease.

References: 146.88(f) If a shutdown (i.e., down-hole or at the 

surface) is triggered or a loss of mechanical integrity is 

discovered, the owner or operator must immediately 

investigate and identify as expeditiously as possible the cause 

of the shutoff. If, upon such investigation, the well appears to 

be lacking mechanical integrity, or if monitoring required 

under paragraph (e) of this section otherwise indicates that 

the well may be lacking mechanical integrity, the owner or 

operator must: (1) Immediately cease injection; (2) Take all 

steps reasonably necessary to determine whether there may 

have been a release of the injected carbon dioxide stream or 

formation fluids into any unauthorized zone; (3) Notify the 

Director within 24 hours; (4) Restore and demonstrate 

mechanical integrity to the satisfaction of the Director prior 

to resuming injection; and (5) Notify the Director when 

injection can be expected to resume. 

146.94(b) If the owner or operator obtains evidence that the 

Some level of variation in annulus or injection pressure is typical of 

well operation, and some planned events (such as well start up or 

tests) will create more substantial variations by design. However, 

unanticipated variations may be indicators of a potential loss of 

mechanical integrity and/or fracturing of the injection and/or 

confining formations. It is difficult to define the precise levels that 

may trigger these requirements, especially when the wells are not 

yet operational. As ADM and EPA gain more actual experience, it 

may be feasible to lay out more specific ground rules through 

modifications to the permit and/or incorporated plans. In the 

meantime, however, this provision requires ADM to make 

reasonable judgments on when it views an unanticipated variation 

as significant. If that creates an incentive for ADM to be cautious 

about this decision in the absence of more precise standards, that 

incentive is appropriate given the potential risks associated with 

injection into a well without mechanical or geological integrity. To 

the extent this provision goes beyond the specific language of the 

regulation, EPA may add permit requirements beyond those laid 

out specifically in the UIC regulations on a case-by-case basis 

under 40 C.F.R. § 144.52(a)(9) (case-by-case conditions as 

necessary to prevent migration) and § 144.52(b) (case-by-case 

conditions as required to provide for and ensure compliance with 

all applicable requirements of the SDWA and regulations).

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment.
39

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

injected carbon dioxide stream and associated pressure front 

may cause an endangerment to a USDW, the owner or 

operator must: 

(1) Immediately cease injection; 

(2) Take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and 

characterize any release; 

(3) Notify the Director within 24 hours; and (4) Implement the 

emergency and remedial response plan approved by the 

Director.

Proposed Revision: 

8. Circumstances Under Which Injection Must Cease –

Injection shall cease when any of the following circumstances 

arises: 

(a) Failure of the well to pass a mechanical integrity test; 

(b) A confirmed loss of mechanical integrity during operation; 

(c) If, upon investigation, the well appears to be lacking 

mechanical integrity after

(1) the automatic alarm or automatic shut-off system is 

triggered or ; 

(d2) A significant unexpected change in the annulus or 

injection pressure; 

(ed) The Director determines that the well lacks mechanical 

integrity; or 

(fe) The permittee is unable to maintain compliance with any 

permit condition or regulatory requirement and the Director 

determines that injection should cease. 

Comment: The permit condition is not consistent with the 

regulatory requirement, and the requirement to cease 

injection when there is “a significant unexpected change in 

the annulus or injection pressure” is ambiguous.
40

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

5 CSC Section K(8) of the draft permits incorrectly states that 

injection must cease if “[t]he automatic alarm or automatic 

shut-off system is triggered” or if “[a] significant unexpected 

change in the annulus or injection pressure” occurs. Cessation 

of injection is required in such circumstances only if, “upon 

investigation, the well appears to be lacking mechanical 

integrity” after the event occurs. Our detailed comments 

provide an appropriate revision to make this condition 

consistent with the regulatory requirements of sections 

146.88(f) and 146.94(b).

While 40 C.F.R. § 146.88(f) might permit a well to resume 

operating while the “owner or operator ... immediately 

investigate[s] and identif[ies] as expeditiously as possible the 

cause of the shutoff,” EPA believes it is a reasonable and 

appropriate precaution to cease operations while that immediate 

investigation proceeds. The same is true with respect to any 

significant unexpected change in annulus or injection pressure. All 

of these occurrences are indicators of a potential loss of 

mechanical integrity and/or fracturing of the injection and/or 

confining formations. If the facility were to resume injection 

before completing an investigation, its investigation may confirm 

that the well lacked integrity or that injection damaged the 

formation and that its interim injection activities caused significant 

violations of the permit and threats to USDWs. Shutting a well in 

when a loss of mechanical integrity is suspected limits the 

potential for endangering USDWs as well as limiting ADM’s 

exposure to potentially serious violations. By ceasing injection, 

ADM will limit CO2 volumes associated with the event, isolate the 

injectate, and minimize the risk of subsurface fluid movement and 

associated problems that may endanger USDWs. 

To the extent this provision goes beyond the specific language of 

the regulation, EPA may add permit requirements beyond those 

laid out specifically in the UIC regulations on a case-by-case basis 

under 40 C.F.R. § 144.52(a)(9) (case-by-case conditions as 

necessary to prevent migration) and § 144.52(b) (case-by-case 

conditions as required to provide for and ensure compliance with 

all applicable requirements of the SDWA and regulations). This 

provision is a rational extension of the regulatory language, and is 

in place to ensure protection of the well, the USDWs, and ADM. 

Protective language is especially important here, as this is one of 

the first Class VI wells operated at this scale in the United States. 
41

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment.

6 CSC Provision: K(8)

Text of Draft Permit: 8. Circumstances Under Which 

Injection Must Cease – Injection shall cease when any of the 

following circumstances arises: 

(a) Failure of the well to pass a mechanical integrity test; 

(b) A loss of mechanical integrity during operation; 

(c) The automatic alarm or automatic shut-off system is 

triggered; 

(d) A significant unexpected change in the annulus or 

injection pressure; 

(e) The Director determines that the well lacks mechanical 

integrity; or 

(f) The permittee is unable to maintain compliance with any 

permit condition or regulatory requirement and the Director 

determines that injection should cease.

References: 146.88(f) If a shutdown (i.e., down-hole or at the 

surface) is triggered or a loss of mechanical integrity is 

discovered, the owner or operator must immediately 

investigate and identify as expeditiously as possible the cause 

of the shutoff. If, upon such investigation, the well appears to 

be lacking mechanical integrity, or if monitoring required 

under paragraph (e) of this section otherwise indicates that 

the well may be lacking mechanical integrity, the owner or 

operator must: (1) Immediately cease injection; (2) Take all 

steps reasonably necessary to determine whether there may 

have been a release of the injected carbon dioxide stream or 

formation fluids into any unauthorized zone; (3) Notify the 

Director within 24 hours; (4) Restore and demonstrate 

mechanical integrity to the satisfaction of the Director prior 

Some level of variation in annulus or injection pressure is typical of 

well operation, and some planned events (such as well start up or 

tests) will create more substantial variations by design. However, 

as noted above, significant, unanticipated variations may be 

indicators of a potential loss of mechanical integrity and/or 

fracturing of the injection and/or confining formations. It is 

difficult to define the precise levels that may trigger these 

requirements, especially when the wells are not yet operational. 

As ADM and EPA gain more actual experience, it may be feasible 

to lay out more specific ground rules through modifications to the 

permit and/or incorporated plans. In the meantime, however, this 

provision requires ADM to make reasonable judgments on when it 

views an unanticipated variation as significant. If that creates an 

incentive for ADM to be cautious about this decision in the 

absence of more precise standards, that incentive is appropriate 

given the potential risks associated with injection into a well 

without mechanical or geological integrity. To the extent this 

provision goes beyond the specific language of the regulation, EPA 

may add permit requirements beyond those laid out specifically in 

the UIC regulations on a case-by-case basis under 40 C.F.R. § 

144.52(a)(9) (case-by-case conditions as necessary to prevent 

migration) and § 144.52(b) (case-by-case conditions as required to 

provide for and ensure compliance with all applicable 

requirements of the SDWA and regulations).

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment.
42

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

to resuming injection; and (5) Notify the Director when 

injection can be expected to resume. 

146.94(b) If the owner or operator obtains evidence that the 

injected carbon dioxide stream and associated pressure front 

may cause an endangerment to a USDW, the owner or 

operator must: 

(1) Immediately cease injection; 

(2) Take all steps reasonably necessary to identify and 

characterize any release; 

(3) Notify the Director within 24 hours; and (4) Implement the 

emergency and remedial response plan approved by the 

Director.

Proposed Revision: 

8. Circumstances Under Which Injection Must Cease –

Injection shall cease when any of the following circumstances 

arises: 

(a) Failure of the well to pass a mechanical integrity test; 

(b) A confirmed loss of mechanical integrity during operation; 

(c) If, upon investigation, the well appears to be lacking 

mechanical integrity after

(1) the automatic alarm or automatic shut-off system is 

triggered or ; (d2) A significant unexpected change in the annulus or 

injection pressure; (ed) The Director determines that the well lacks mechanical 

integrity; or (fe) The permittee is unable to maintain compliance with any 

permit condition or regulatory requirement and the Director 

determines that injection should cease. 

Comment: The permit condition is not consistent with the 

regulatory requirement, and the requirement to cease 

injection when there is “a significant unexpected change in 
43

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

the annulus or injection pressure” is very ambiguous and 

potentially troublesome. The recommendations for revised 

language will modify the permit conditions to be consistent 

with the applicable regulatory provisions which trigger 

investigations rather than automatic shutdowns. Cessation of 

injection must occur only when there is a reason to believe 

that a loss of mechanical integrity may have occurred. The 

“significant unexpected change” language remains 

ambiguous, and there should be some better understanding 

of how large these unexpected changes should be. For 

example, any change in annular pressure should be larger by 

more than double the magnitude of normal diurnal and 

temperature related fluctuations. The significance levels for 

these triggers should be established by written agreement 

once operating experience provides a basis for doing that.

7 ADM Provision: K(9)(a)

Text of Draft Permit: (a) The permittee must shut-in the well 

by gradual reduction in the injection pressure as outlined in 

Attachment C of this permit; or

Proposed Revision: (a) The permittee must shut-in the well in 

a manner to ensure protection of health, safety, and the 

environment as outlined in Attachments A & C of this permit; 

or 

Comment: Permittee will have a standard shutdown 

procedure that ensures protection of health, safety, and the 

environment. The regulations do not require this procedure 

(outside of the ERRP) be detailed as a permit condition. The 

permitee must have the freedom to exercise judgement as to 

the type of shutdown to employ under various nonemergency conditions.

EPA revised the permit to read: (a) The permittee must shut-in the 

well by gradual reduction in the injection pressure as outlined in 

Attachment A of this permit. 

EPA did not make the other suggested changes, as the reference 

to protection of health and safety is already included in 

Attachment A to which the permit refers.
44

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

8 ADM Provision: Appendix A, Injection Well Operating Conditions 

Text of Draft Permit: PARAMETER/CONDITION

Annulus Pressure = 100 minimum psig Annulus 

Pressure/Tubing Differential = 100 psig above surface 

injection pressure 

Proposed Revision: PARAMETER/CONDITION

Annulus Pressure = 400 psig minimum

Annulus - Tubing Pressure Differential at Tubing Packer = 100 

psig minimum 

Comment: The table is not correct and needs to accurately 

reflect what is detailed in the Testing and Monitoring Plan.

From the Testing and Monitoring Plan page C5 the permittee 

will: 

2. The surface annulus pressure will be kept at a minimum of 

400 pounds per square inch (psi) during injection, 

4. The pressure within the annular space, over the interval 

above the packer to the confining layer, will be greater than 

the pressure of the injection zone formation at all times, and 

5. The pressure in the annular space directly above the 

packer will be maintained at least 100 psi higher than the 

adjacent tubing pressure during injection.

EPA changed the table in Attachment A as suggested by the 

commenter. This revision matches the requirements in the Testing 

and Monitoring Plan and has been determined by EPA to retain 

the protectiveness of the operating conditions of the permit. 

9 ADM Provision: Appendix A, Summary Requirements

Text of Draft Permit: Under routine conditions (e.g., for well 

workovers), the permittee will reduce CO2 injection at a rate 

of 500 tons per day over a 6 day period to ensure protection 

of health, safety, and the environment. (Procedures that 

address immediately shutting in the well are in Attachment F 

(Emergency and Remedial Response Plan) of this permit).

Proposed Revision: Under routine conditions (e.g., for well 

workovers), the permittee will reduce CO2 injection at a rate 

of 500 tons per day over a 6 day period to ensure protection 

of health, safety, and the environment. (Procedures that 

EPA believes that specific procedures, i.e., related to the rate at 

which gradual cessation of injection that are in Attachment A (and 

provided by ADM) are appropriate to ensure that injection rates 

are reduced gradually in a manner that will not impose 

unacceptable stress on the injection well where it is necessary to 

cease injection, but immediate cessation (e.g., due to an 

emergency event), is not needed. However, EPA acknowledges 

that, based on the specific circumstances of the workover or other 

event that necessitates a gradual shutdown, a different reduction 

in the injection rate may be appropriate. Therefore, EPA has 

revised the text in Attachment A to read as follows:
45

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

address immediately shutting in the well are in Attachment F 

(Emergency and Remedial Response Plan) of this permit).

Comment: Permittee will have a standard shutdown 

procedure that ensures protection of health, safety, and the 

environment. The regulations do not require this procedure 

(outside of the ERRP) be detailed as a permit condition. The 

permitee must have the freedom to exercise judgement as to 

the type of shutdown to employ under various nonemergency conditions

“Under routine conditions (e.g., for well workovers), the permittee 

will reduce CO2 injection at a rate of 500 tons per day over a 6 day 

period (or at a rate specified by the permittee and approved by 

the Director prior to the workover or other activity that 

necessitates cessation of injection), to ensure protection of health, 

safety, and the environment.” EPA expects that any changes in the 

specific procedures from what is contained in Attachment A would 

be included in advance notification of a workover or other event

submitted by ADM. 

To the extent this provision goes beyond the specific language of 

the regulation, EPA may add permit requirements beyond those 

laid out specifically in the UIC regulations on a case-by-case basis 

under 40 C.F.R. § 144.52(a)(9) (case-by-case conditions as 

necessary to prevent migration) and § 144.52(b) (case-by-case 

conditions as required to provide for and ensure compliance with 

all applicable requirements of the SDWA and regulations). This 

provision is a rational extension of the regulatory language, and is 

in place to ensure protection of the well, the USDWs, and ADM. 

Protective language is especially important here, as this is one of 

the first Class VI wells operated at this scale in the United States. 
46

SECTION 6. TESTING AND MONITORING COMMENTS 

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

1 FutureGen The monitoring efforts, methods of measurements, and the 

verification and accounting protocols implemented on the 

site to ensure safe and effective sequestration operations 

appear to be extremely protective of both the USDW and the 

shallow drinking water aquifers. 

Thank you for your comment. This comment does not request or 

require any change to the permit.

2 ADM Provision: QASP, Table 1

Text of Draft Permit: Table 1 on Page 6.

Proposed Revision: Delete Table 1 from Page 6 but include 

the notes at the bottom of the table.

Comment: Duplication of previous page, last 2 lines can be 

removed or combined. Line 1 should be "direct geochemical 

measurement" rather than "groundwater monitoring"

EPA has reviewed the comment and determined that the 

proposed change will provide clarity and not impact the 

protectiveness of the Testing and Monitoring Plan.

Therefore, EPA has revised the QASP to incorporate the suggested 

revision.

3 ADM Provision: QASP, Table 4

Quaternary Strata

Fluid Sampling 

Text of Draft Permit:

Parameters Analytical Methods

Water Density(field) Oscillating body method 

Proposed Revision: Parameters Analytical 

Methods

Water Density(field) Oscillating body method

Comment: Permittee does not plan to measure the shallow 

groundwater density. Delete reference to Water Density in 

this table.

EPA has reviewed the proposed change and determined that not 

measuring the shallow groundwater density will not impact the 

protectiveness of the Testing and Monitoring Plan.

Therefore, EPA has revised the QASP to incorporate the suggested 

revision.
47

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

4 ADM Provision: QASP, Table 10

Westbay Pressures (MOSDAX)

Text of Draft Permit:

Detection Limit Precision

+/0 0.001 psi +/- 0.01 psi

References:

Proposed Revision:

Detection Limit Precision

+/- 0.01 psi +/- 0.1 psi

Comment: Revise detection limit and precision for WB 

MOSDAX probes. 

EPA has reviewed the comment and determined that the 

proposed change will not impact the protectiveness of the Testing 

and Monitoring Plan.

Therefore, EPA has revised the QASP to incorporate the suggested 

revision.

5 ADM Provision: QASP, A.4.b. Precision

Text of Draft Permit: For groundwater sampling, data 

accuracy will be assessed by the collection and analysis of 

field blanks to test sampling procedures and matrix spikes to 

test lab procedures. Field blanks will be taken no less than 

one per sampling day to spot check for sample bottle 

contamination. Laboratory assessment of analytical precision 

will be the responsibility of the individual laboratories per 

their standard operating procedures.

Proposed Revision: For groundwater sampling, data 

accuracy will be assessed by the collection and analysis of 

field blanks to test sampling procedures and matrix spikes to 

test lab procedures. Field blanks will be taken no less than 

one per sampling day event to spot check for sample bottle 

contamination. Laboratory assessment of analytical precision 

will be the responsibility of the individual laboratories per 

their standard operating procedures.

Comment: Permittee will take field blanks no less than one 

per sampling event.

EPA has reviewed the comment and determined that the 

proposed change will not impact the protectiveness of the Testing 

and Monitoring Plan. Since sampling will be conducted quarterly at 

most, there should be no difference between a “sampling day” 

and a “sampling event.”

Therefore, EPA has revised the QASP to incorporate the suggested 

revision.

6 ADM Provision: QASP, A.4.g. Method Sensitivity

Text of Draft Permit: Table 14–Table 19 provide additional 

details on gauge specifications and sensitivities.

EPA agrees that this typographical error should be corrected. The 

requested change has been made.
48

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

Proposed Revision: Tables 14–19 provide additional details 

on gauge specifications and sensitivities.

Comment: There is a typo there shouldn't be a carriage 

return between "Table 14-" and "Table 19 - ..."

7 ADM Provision: QASP, B.1.f. Critical/Informational Data

Text of Draft Permit: During both groundwater sampling and 

analytical efforts, detailed field and laboratory 

documentation will be taken. Documentation will be 

recorded in field and laboratory forms and notebooks. Critical 

information will include time and date of activity, person/s 

performing activity, location of activity (wellfield sampling) or 

instrument (lab analysis), field or laboratory instrument 

calibration data, purge volume, field parameter values. For 

laboratory analyses, much of the critical data are generated 

during the analysis and provided to end users in digital and 

printed formats. Noncritical data may include appearance 

and odor of the sample, problems with well or sampling 

equipment, and weather conditions.

Proposed Revision: During both groundwater sampling and 

analytical efforts, detailed field and laboratory 

documentation will be taken. Documentation will be 

recorded in field and laboratory forms and notebooks. Critical 

information will include time and date of activity, person/s 

performing activity, location of activity (wellfield sampling) or 

instrument (lab analysis), field or laboratory instrument 

calibration data, purge volume, field parameter values. For 

laboratory analyses, much of the critical data are generated 

during the analysis and provided to end users in digital and 

printed formats. Noncritical data may include appearance 

and odor of the sample, problems with well or sampling 

equipment, and weather conditions.

Comment: Permittee does not plan to record groundwater 

EPA has reviewed the comment and determined that the 

proposed change will not impact the protectiveness of the Testing 

and Monitoring Plan.

Therefore, EPA has revised the QASP to incorporate the suggested 

revision.
49

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

sample purge volumes. This would be difficult or impossible 

to measure or calculate.

8 ADM Provision: QASP, B.1.g. Sources of Variability

Text of Draft Permit: (7) conducting laboratory quality 

assurance checks using third party reference materials, blind 

and replicate sample checks, and

Proposed Revision: (7) conducting laboratory quality 

assurance checks using third party reference materials, 

and/or blind, and/or replicate sample checks, and

Comment: On page 25, under Sources of Variability, it 

mentions conducting lab quality checks using third party 

reference materials, and blind and replicate sample checks. 

This should have an "or" instead of "and" we do not do all of 

these.

EPA has reviewed the comment and determined that the 

proposed change will not impact the protectiveness of the Testing 

and Monitoring Plan.

Therefore, EPA has revised the QASP to incorporate the suggested 

revision.

9 ADM Provision: QASP, B.3. Sample Handling and Custody

Text of Draft Permit: Sample holding times (Table 22) will be 

consistent with those described in US EPA (1974), American 

Public Health Association (APHA, 2005), Wood (1976), and 

ASTM Method D6517-00 (2005). After collection, samples will 

be placed in ice chests in the field and maintained thereafter 

at approximately 4°C until analysis. The samples will be 

maintained at their preservation temperature and sent to the 

designated laboratory within 24 hours. Analysis of the 

samples will be completed within the holding time listed in 

Table 22.

Proposed Revision: Sample holding times (Table 22) will be 

consistent with those described in US EPA (1974), American 

Public Health Association (APHA, 2005), Wood (1976), and 

ASTM Method D6517-00 (2005). After collection, samples will 

be placed in ice chests in the field and maintained thereafter 

at approximately 4°C until analysis. The samples will be 

maintained at their preservation temperature and sent to the 

designated laboratory within 24 hours. Analysis of the 

EPA has reviewed the comment and determined that the 

proposed change will not impact the protectiveness of the Testing 

and Monitoring Plan.

Therefore, EPA has revised the referenced language in the QASP as 

follows, to reflect a slight revision from the suggested change: “As 

appropriate, alternative sample containers and preservation 

techniques approved by the UIC Program Director will be used to 

meet analytical requirements.”
50

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

samples will be completed within the holding time listed in 

Table 22. As appropriate, alternative sample containers and 

preservation techniques will be used to meet analytical 

requirements.

Comment: Permittee may need to modify sample containers 

and preservation techniques but these techniques will be 

used to meet analytical requirements.

10 ADM Provision: QASP, Table of Contents

Text of Draft Permit: ASTM, 2005, Method D6452-99 

(reapproved 2005), Standard Guide for Purging Methods for 

Wells Used for Ground-Water Quality Investigations, ASTM 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, 

PA.

Proposed Revision: ASTM, 2005, Method D6452-99

(reapproved 2005), Standard Guide for Purging Methods for 

Wells Used for Ground-Water Quality Investigations, ASTM 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, 

PA.

Comment: Error in the table of contents. An actual reference 

is listed in the table of contents and should be deleted from 

this table.

EPA agrees that this typographical error should be corrected. The 

requested change has been made.

11 ADM Provision: Table 2 Sampling/Monitoring Locations

Text of Draft Permit:

Injection Pressure Monitoring Reservoir - Below Packer

Temperature Monitoring Reservoir - Below Packer

Temperature Monitoring Along wellbore using 

distributed temperature sensor (DTS) 

Proposed Revision: Injection Pressure Monitoring 

Reservoir - Proximate to Packer

Temperature Monitoring Reservoir - Proximate to 

Packer

Temperature Monitoring Along wellbore to packer 

using distributed temperature sensor (DTS) 

EPA has reviewed the comment and determined that the 

proposed change will not impact the protectiveness of the Testing 

and Monitoring Plan.

Therefore, EPA has revised Attachment C to incorporate the 

suggested revision.
51

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

Comment: The pressure and temperature gauges are 

proximate to the packer. The DTS will terminate at the tubing 

packer.

12 ADM Provision: M(1)(a)

Text of Draft Permit: (a) The permittee shall maintain and 

comply with the approved Testing and Monitoring Plan 

(Attachment C of this permit) and with the requirements at 

40 CFR 144.51(j), 146.88(e), and 146.90. The Testing and 

Monitoring Plan is an enforceable condition of this permit. 

Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of 

monitoring shall be representative of the monitored activity. 

Procedures for all testing and monitoring under this permit 

must be submitted to the Director in an electronic format for 

approval at least 30 days prior to the test. In performing all 

testing and monitoring under this permit, the permittee must 

follow the procedures approved by the Director. If the 

permittee is unable to follow the EPA approved procedures, 

then, the permittee must contact the Director at least 30 

days prior to testing to discuss options, if any are feasible. 

When the test report is submitted, a full explanation must be 

provided as to why any approved procedures were not 

followed. If the approved procedures were not followed, EPA 

may take an appropriate action, including but not limited to, 

requiring the permittee to re-run the test.

Proposed Revision: (a) The permittee shall maintain and 

comply with the approved Testing and Monitoring Plan 

(Attachment C of this permit) and with to meet the 

requirements at 40 CFR 144.51(j), 146.88(e), and 146.90. The 

Testing and Monitoring Plan is an enforceable condition of 

this permit. Samples and measurements taken for the 

purpose of monitoring shall be representative of the

monitored activity. Procedures for all testing and monitoring 

under this permit must be submitted to the Director in an 

As a general matter, the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions are lengthier and more detailed, so 

that the permit language may summarize those requirements and 

provide reference to the regulatory details rather than copying 

them in their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly 

and easy to follow. Incorporating the additional details by 

reference does not create any conflict or confusion between the 

terms of the permit and the regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.90 makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. For Class VI wells, EPA 

anticipates that the testing and monitoring plan will be regularly 

reviewed and revised as required by 40 C.F.R. §146.90(j) and 

Section M of the Permit. Reference to the relevant regulatory 

provisions provides clarity on the standards against which any 

revisions will be judged. 40 C.F.R. § 144.51(j)(i) applies to all UIC 

permits. It requires all samples and measurements taken for the 

purpose of monitoring to be representative of the monitored 

activity. Part N(6)(c) of the permit requires reports of 

noncompliance including, but not limited to, noncompliance due 

to the failure to follow approved testing and monitoring 

provisions, to include the information identified in Part N(3)(b). 

The information required by Part M(1)(a) is consistent with that 

required by Part N(6)(c). In addition, 40 C.F.R. § 144.54(b) 

provides that permits shall specify monitoring requirements, and 

40 C.F.R. § 144.51(a) provides that permits shall establish a duty to 
52

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

electronic format for approval at least 30 days prior to the 

test. In performing all testing and monitoring under this

permit, the permittee must follow the procedures approved 

by the Director. If the permittee is unable to follow the EPA 

approved procedures, then, the permittee must contact the 

Director at least 30 days prior to testing to discuss options, if 

any are feasible. When the test report is submitted, a full 

explanation must be provided as to why any approved 

procedures were not followed. If the approved procedures 

were not followed, EPA may take an appropriate action,

including but not limited to, requiring the permittee to re-run 

the test.

Comment: By issuing the permit, EPA has determined that 

implementing the Testing and Monitoring Plan does meet the 

requirements of40 CFR 144.51(j), 146.88(e), and 146.90. The 

procedures are detailed in this plan making them an 

enforceable condition of the permit.

comply with all permit conditions, including monitoring 

requirements. 

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment.

13 CSC Provision: M(1)(a)

Text of Draft Permit: 

(a) The permittee shall maintain and comply with the 

approved Testing and Monitoring Plan (Attachment C of this 

permit) and with the requirements at 40 CFR 144.51(j), 

146.88(e), and 146.90. The Testing and Monitoring Plan is an 

enforceable condition of this permit. Samples and 

measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be 

representative of the monitored activity. Procedures for all 

testing and monitoring under this permit must be submitted 

to the Director in an electronic format for approval at least 30 

days prior to the test. In performing all testing and 

monitoring under this permit, the permittee must follow the 

procedures approved by the Director. If the permittee is 

unable to follow the EPA approved procedures, then, the 

permittee must contact the Director at least 30 days prior to 

As a general matter, the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions are lengthier and more detailed, so 

that the permit language may summarize those requirements and 

provide reference to the regulatory details rather than copying 

them in their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly 

and easy to follow. Incorporating the additional details by 

reference does not create any conflict or confusion between the 

terms of the permit and the regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.90 makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. For Class VI wells, EPA 

anticipates that the testing and monitoring plan will be regularly 

reviewed and revised as required by 40 C.F.R. §146.90(j) and 
53

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

testing to discuss options, if any are feasible. When the test 

report is submitted, a full explanation must be provided as to 

why any approved procedures were not followed. If the 

approved procedures were not followed, EPA may take an 

appropriate action, including but not limited to, requiring the 

permittee to re-run the test.

Proposed Revision: 

(a) The permittee shall maintain and comply with the 

approved Testing and Monitoring Plan (Attachment C of this 

permit) and with to meet the requirements at 40 CFR 

144.51(j), 146.88(e), and 146.90. The Testing and Monitoring 

Plan is an enforceable condition of this permit. Samples and 

measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be 

representative of the monitored activity. Procedures for all 

testing and monitoring under this permit must be submitted

to the Director in an electronic format for approval at least 30 

days prior to the test. In performing all testing and 

monitoring under this permit, the permittee must follow the 

procedures approved by the Director. If the permittee is

unable to follow the EPA approved procedures, then, the 

permittee must contact the Director at least 30 days prior to 

testing to discuss options, if any are feasible. When the test 

report is submitted, a full explanation must be provided as to 

why any approved procedures were not followed. If the 

approved procedures were not followed, EPA may take an 

appropriate action, including but not limited to, requiring the

permittee to re-run the test.

--OR—

The permittee has submitted the approved Testing and 

Monitoring Plan, which is included in Attachment C of this 

permit. This plan includes the information required by 

Sections 144.51(j), 146.88(e), and 146.90 and demonstrates 

how each of the applicable requirements will be met. The 

Section M of the Permit. Reference to the relevant regulatory 

provisions provides clarity on the standards against which any 

revisions will be judged. 40 C.F.R. § 144.51(j)(i) applies to all UIC 

permits. It requires all samples and measurements taken for the 

purpose of monitoring to be representative of the monitored 

activity. Part N(6)(c) of the permit requires reports of 

noncompliance including, but not limited to, noncompliance due 

to the failure to follow approved testing and monitoring 

provisions, to include the information identified in Part N(3)(b). 

The information required by Part M(1)(a) is consistent with that 

required by Part N(6)(c). In addition, 40 C.F.R. § 144.54(b) 

provides that permits shall specify monitoring requirements, and 

40 C.F.R. § 144.51(a) provides that permits shall establish a duty to 

comply with all permit conditions, including monitoring 

requirements. 

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based 

upon this comment.
54

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

Testing and Monitoring Plan is an enforceable condition of 

this permit.

Comment: The procedures are all spelled out in the plan.

14 ADM Provision: M(2)

Text of Draft Permit: 2. Carbon Dioxide Stream Analysis –

The permittee shall analyze the carbon dioxide stream with 

sufficient frequency to yield data representative of its 

chemical and physical characteristics, as described in the 

Testing and Monitoring Plan and to meet the requirements of 

40 CFR 146.90(a).

Proposed Revision: 2. Carbon Dioxide Stream Analysis – The 

permittee shall analyze the carbon dioxide stream with 

sufficient frequency to yield data representative of its 

chemical and physical characteristics, as described in the 

Testing and Monitoring Plan and to meet the requirements of 

40 CFR 146.90(a). 

Comment: By issuing the permit, EPA has determined that 

implementing the Testing and Monitoring Plan does meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 146.90(a).

As a general matter, the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions are lengthier and more detailed, so 

that the permit language may summarize those requirements and 

provide reference to the regulatory details rather than copying 

them in their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly 

and easy to follow. Incorporating the additional details by 

reference does not create any conflict or confusion between the 

terms of the permit and the regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.90 makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. For Class VI wells, EPA 

anticipates that the testing and monitoring plan will be regularly 

reviewed and revised as required by 40 C.F.R. §146.90(j) and 

Section M of the permit. Reference to the relevant regulatory 

provisions provides clarity on the standards against which any 

revisions will be judged. 

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment.

15 CSC Provision: M(2)

Text of Draft Permit: 

2. Carbon Dioxide Stream Analysis – The permittee shall 

analyze the carbon dioxide stream with sufficient frequency 

to yield data representative of its chemical and physical 

characteristics, as described in the Testing and Monitoring 

Plan and to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 146.90(a).

Proposed Revision: 2. Carbon Dioxide Stream Analysis – The 

permittee shall analyze the carbon dioxide stream with 

As a general matter, the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions are lengthier and more detailed, so 

that the permit language may summarize those requirements and 

provide reference to the regulatory details rather than copying 

them in their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly 

and easy to follow. Incorporating the additional details by 

reference does not create any conflict or confusion between the 

terms of the permit and the regulations.
55

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

sufficient frequency to yield data representative of its 

chemical and physical characteristics, as described in the 

Testing and Monitoring Plan and to meet the requirements of 

40 CFR 146.90(a). 

Comment: By issuing the permit, EPA has determined that 

implementing the Testing and Monitoring Plan does meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 146.90(a).

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.90 makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. For Class VI wells, EPA 

anticipates that the testing and monitoring plan will be regularly 

reviewed and revised as required by 40 C.F.R. §146.90(j) and 

Section M of the permit. Reference to the relevant regulatory 

provisions provides clarity on the standards against which any 

revisions will be judged. 

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment.

16 ADM Provision: Appendix C, Instrument Calibration

Text of Draft Permit: Pressure and temperature instruments 

shall be calibrated over the full operational range at least 

annually using ANSI or other recognized standards. Pressure 

transducers shall have a drift stability of less than 1 psi over 

the operational period of the instrument and an accuracy of + 

5 psi. Sampling rates will be at least once per 5 seconds. 

Temperature sensors will be accurate to within one degree 

Celsius.

Proposed Revision: Above ground pressure and temperature 

instruments shall be calibrated over the full operational range 

at least annually using ANSI or other recognized standards. 

Pressure transducers shall have a drift stability of less than 1 

psi over the operational period of the instrument and an 

accuracy of + 5 psi. Sampling rates will be at least once per 5 

seconds. Temperature sensors will be accurate to within one 

degree Celsius.

Comment: The permittee will be not be able to calibrate the 

permanently installed subsurface gauges.

Monitoring data collected from subsurface gauges may develop 

significant errors during the life of the project. If the monitors 

cannot be removed for calibration, other methods of checking 

calibration, developing calibration curves, and checking for 

monitor drift should be used to satisfy this requirement. 

However, EPA acknowledges the comment that ADM will not be 

able to calibrate the permanently installed subsurface gauges, and 

has revised the text as follows: 

Above ground pressure and temperature instruments shall be 

calibrated over the full operational range at least annually using 

ANSI or other recognized standards. Downhole gauges, in lieu of

removing the injection tubing, will demonstrate accuracy by using

a second pressure gauge, with current certified calibration, that 

will be lowered into the well to the same depth as the permanent

downhole gauge. Pressure transducers shall have a drift stability 

of less than 1 psi over the operational period of the instrument 

and an accuracy of + 5 psi. Sampling rates will be at least once per 

5 seconds. Temperature sensors will be accurate to within one 

degree Celsius. 
56

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

17 ADM Provision: Appendix C, Continuous Monitoring of Annular 

Pressure

Text of Draft Permit: 1. The annulus between the tubing and 

the long string of casing will be filled with brine. The brine will 

have a specific gravity of 1.25 and a density of 10.5 lbs/gal. 

The hydrostatic gradient is 0.546 psi/ft. The brine will contain 

a corrosion inhibitor.

Proposed Revision: 1. The annulus between the tubing and 

the long string of casing will be filled with brine. The brine will 

have a specific gravity of 1.25 1.26 and a density of 10.5 

lbs/gal. The hydrostatic gradient is 0.546 psi/ft. The brine will 

contain a corrosion inhibitor.

Comment: The specific gravity of the 10.5 lbs/gal brine will be 

1.26.

EPA has reviewed the comment and determined that the

proposed change will not impact the protectiveness of the Testing 

and Monitoring Plan.

Therefore, EPA has revised Attachment C to incorporate the 

suggested revision.

18 ADM Provision: Appendix C, Testing and Monitoring Plan

Text of Draft Permit: During periods of well shut down, the 

surface annulus pressure will be kept at a minimum pressure 

to maintain a pressure differential of at least 100 psi between 

the annular fluid directly above (higher pressure) and below 

(lower pressure) the injection tubing packer set at 6,320 ft 

KB.

Proposed Revision: During periods of well shut down, the 

surface annulus pressure will be kept at a minimum pressure 

to maintain a pressure differential of at least 100 psi between 

the annular fluid directly above (higher pressure) and below 

(lower pressure) the injection tubing packer set at 

approximately 6,320 ft KB.

Comment: The packer depth has not been set and will not be 

known until well completion.

The depths of the well components reflect where the well is 

intended to be placed. Because the permit has numerous citations 

of depths and locations, noting that these are anticipated depths 

and are therefore subject to change would overly complicate the 

permit and be potentially confusing. Small deviations identified 

after construction is completed can be corrected through the 

minor modification process identified in 40 C.F.R. § 144.41. 

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

these comments.

19 CSC Provision: M(3)

Text of Draft Permit: 3. Continuous Monitoring – The 

permittee shall maintain continuous monitoring devices and 

use them to monitor injection pressure, flow rate, volume, 

Thank you for your comment. The permit language has not been 

modified based upon this comment.
57

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

the pressure on the annulus between the tubing and the long 

string of casing, annulus fluid level, and temperature. This 

monitoring shall be performed as described in the Testing 

and Monitoring Plan to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

146.90(b).

Comment: This is excellent because it properly recognizes 

that performing in accordance with the Testing and 

Monitoring Plan meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

146.90(b).

20 ADM Provision: M(4)

Text of Draft Permit: 4. Corrosion Monitoring – The 

permittee shall perform corrosion monitoring of the well 

materials for loss of mass, thickness, cracking, pitting, and 

other signs of corrosion on a quarterly basis using the 

procedures described in the Testing and Monitoring Plan and 

in accordance with 40 CFR 146.90(c) to ensure that the well 

components meet the minimum standards for material 

strength and performance set forth in 40 CFR 146.86(b).

Proposed Revision: 4. Corrosion Monitoring – The permittee 

shall perform corrosion monitoring of the well materials for 

loss of mass, thickness, cracking, pitting, and other signs of 

corrosion on a quarterly basis using the procedures described 

in the Testing and Monitoring Plan and in accordance with 40 

CFR 146.90(c) to ensure that the well components meet the 

minimum standards for material strength and performance 

set forth in 40 CFR 146.86(b). 

Comment: By issuing the permit, EPA has determined that 

implementing the Testing and Monitoring Plan does meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 146.86(b) & 40 CFR 146.90(c).

As a general matter, the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions are lengthier and more detailed, so 

that the permit language may summarize those requirements and 

provide reference to the regulatory details rather than copying 

them in their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly 

and easy to follow. Incorporating the additional details by 

reference does not create any conflict or confusion between the 

terms of the permit and the regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.90 makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. For Class VI wells, EPA 

anticipates that the testing and monitoring plan will be regularly 

reviewed and revised as required by 40 C.F.R. §146.90(j) and 

Section M of the permit. Reference to the relevant regulatory 

provisions provides clarity on the standards against which any 

revisions will be judged. 

Therefore, EPA did not make any changes to the permit based on 

this comment.

21 CSC Provision: M(4)

Text of Draft Permit: 

As a general matter, the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 
58

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

4. Corrosion Monitoring – The permittee shall perform 

corrosion monitoring of the well materials for loss of mass, 

thickness, cracking, pitting, and other signs of corrosion on a 

quarterly basis using the procedures described in the Testing 

and Monitoring Plan and in accordance with 40 CFR 146.90(c) 

to ensure that the well components meet the minimum 

standards for material strength and performance set forth in 

40 CFR 146.86(b).

Proposed Revision: 4. Corrosion Monitoring – The permittee 

shall perform corrosion monitoring of the well materials for 

loss of mass, thickness, cracking, pitting, and other signs of 

corrosion on a quarterly basis using the procedures described 

in the Testing and Monitoring Plan and in accordance with 40 

CFR 146.90(c) to ensure that the well components meet the 

minimum standards for material strength and performance 

set forth in 40 CFR 146.86(b). 

Comment: Once again, this condition is written in a way that 

suggests that compliance requires something beyond 

following the approved corrosion monitoring process, which 

is not the case.

relevant regulatory provisions are lengthier and more detailed, so 

that the permit language may summarize those requirements and 

provide reference to the regulatory details rather than copying 

them in their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly 

and easy to follow. Incorporating the additional details by 

reference does not create any conflict or confusion between the 

terms of the permit and the regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.90 makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. For Class VI wells, EPA 

anticipates that the testing and monitoring plan will be regularly 

reviewed and revised as required by 40 C.F.R. §146.90(j) and 

Section M of the permit. Reference to the relevant regulatory 

provisions provides clarity on the standards against which any 

revisions will be judged. 

Therefore, EPA did not make any changes to the permit based on 

this comment.

22 ADM Provision: Appendix C, Table 5 

St. Peter 

Fluid Sampling

Text of Draft Permit: Spatial Coverage GM#2// 1 point 

location, 1 interval: 3300 KB/2606 MSL

Proposed Revision: Spatial Coverage GM#2// 1 point 

location, 1 interval: 3450 KB/2756 MSL

Comment: Permittee has determined that the St. Peter has 

greater permeability at the proposed depth and this will 

facilitate collecting fluid samples.

EPA has reviewed the proposed change and determined that the 

revised sampling depth of 3450 KB/2756 MSL will not impact the 

protectiveness of the Testing and Monitoring Plan.

Therefore, EPA has revised Attachment C to incorporate the 

suggested revision.

23 ADM Provision: Appendix C, Table 5

Quaternary Strata

Fluid Sampling 

EPA has reviewed the proposed change and determined that the 

revised sampling depths will not impact the protectiveness of the 

Testing and Monitoring Plan.
59

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

Text of Draft Permit: Spatial Coverage

MVA11LG - 135 ft

MVA13LG - 140 ft 

Proposed Revision: 

Spatial Coverage

MVA11LG - 107 ft

MVA13LG - 80 ft 

Comment: MVA11LG should be at a depth of 107' and 

MVA13LG should be at a depth of 80'.

Therefore, EPA has revised Attachment C to incorporate the 

suggested revision.

24 ADM Provision: Appendix C, Table 7

Quaternary Strata

Fluid Sampling 

Text of Draft Permit:

Parameters Analytical Methods

Water Density(field) Oscillating body method

Proposed Revision: 

Parameters Analytical Methods

Water Density(field) Oscillating body method 

Comment: Permittee does not plan to measure the shallow 

groundwater density. Delete reference to Water Density in 

this table.

EPA has reviewed the proposed change and determined that not 

measuring the shallow groundwater density will not impact the 

protectiveness of the Testing and Monitoring Plan.

Therefore, EPA has revised Attachment C to incorporate the 

suggested revision.

25 Anthony 

Samsel

Someone didn't think this through. This technology will 

inadvertently cause aquifer contamination, which will lower 

the acidity of the water and cause massive mineral leaching, 

similar to techniques used in uranium fluid extraction mining 

operations. 

Expect increases in radionuclide contamination of the aquifer 

by Uranium, thorium, radium and radon among other 

elemental contaminates. 

EPA disagrees that the project will endanger USDWs. The permit 

complies with the tailored requirements in the Class VI Rule that 

specifically address the unique nature of CO2 GS and focus on 

ensuring protection of USDWs, human health and the 

environment where GS is occurring. Geochemical modeling was 

conducted to assess the compatibility of the injection zone with 

the injected CO2 stream and, based on the results, EPA has 

determined that there is no risk to USDWs due to the mobilization 

of any contaminants, including those cited in the comment. ADM 

will also conduct formation testing to gather data demonstrating 

the compatibility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection 

zone and minerals in both the injection and the confining zone, 
60

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

pursuant to 40 CFR 146.87 and Part Q of the permit. If the results 

of this testing indicate that there is a concern for mobilization of 

these or any other parameters, the permit and the Testing and 

Monitoring Plan will be modified as appropriate.

The permit language has not been modified based upon this 

comment. 

26 CSC Provision: M(5)

Text of Draft Permit: 5. Ground Water Quality Monitoring–

The permittee shall monitor ground water quality and 

geochemical changes above the confining zone(s) that may be 

a result of carbon dioxide movement through the confining 

zone(s) or additional identified zones. This monitoring shall 

be performed for the parameters identified in the Testing and 

Monitoring Plan at the locations and depths, and at 

frequencies described in the Testing and Monitoring Plan to 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR146.90(d).

Comment: The language in these conditions succeeds better 

than other formulations in indicating that compliance with 

the Testing and Monitoring Plan will “meet the 

requirements” of the respective regulatory provisions. The 

approach reflected in the Class IH permit provisions used by 

EPA Region 5 is still preferable to this formulation, but this 

approach is acceptable.

Thank you for your comment. The permit language has not been 

modified based upon this comment.

27 CSC Provision: M(6)

Text of Draft Permit: 6. External Mechanical Integrity 

Testing – The permittee shall demonstrate external 

mechanical integrity as described in the Testing and 

Monitoring Plan and Section L of this permit to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 146.90(e). 

Comment: The language in these conditions succeeds better 

than other formulations in indicating that compliance with 

the Testing and Monitoring Plan will “meet the 

Thank you for your comment. The permit language has not been 

modified based upon this comment.
61

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

requirements” of the respective regulatory provisions. The 

approach reflected in the Class IH permit provisions used by 

EPA Region 5 is still preferable to this formulation, but this 

approach is acceptable.

28 ADM Provision: M(8)

Text of Draft Permit: (a) The permittee shall use direct 

methods to track the position of the carbon dioxide plume 

and the pressure front in the injection zone as described in 

the Testing and Monitoring Plan and to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 146.90(g)(1). 

(b) The permittee shall use indirect methods to track the 

position of the carbon dioxide plume and pressure front as 

described in the Testing and Monitoring Plan and to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 146.90(g)(2).

Proposed Revision: (a) The permittee shall use direct 

methods to track the position of the carbon dioxide plume 

and the pressure front in the injection zone as described in 

the Testing and Monitoring Plan and to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 146.90(g)(1). (b) The permittee shall 

use indirect methods to track the position of the carbon 

dioxide plume and pressure front as described in the Testing 

and Monitoring Plan and to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

146.90(g)(2). 

Comment: By issuing the permit, EPA has determined that 

implementing the Testing and Monitoring Plan does meet the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR 146.90(g)(1) & 40 CFR 

146.90(g)(2).

As a general matter, the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The

relevant regulatory provisions are lengthier and more detailed, so 

that the permit language may summarize those requirements and 

provide reference to the regulatory details rather than copying 

them in their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly 

and easy to follow. Incorporating the additional details by 

reference does not create any conflict or confusion between the 

terms of the permit and the regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.90 makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. For Class VI wells, EPA 

anticipates that the testing and monitoring plan will be regularly 

reviewed and revised as required by 40 C.F.R. §146.90(j) and 

Section M of the permit. Reference to the relevant regulatory 

provisions provides clarity on the standards against which any 

revisions will be judged. 

Therefore, EPA did not make any changes to the permit based on 

this comment.

29 CSC Provision: M(8)

Text of Draft Permit: 

(a) The permittee shall use direct methods to track the 

position of the carbon dioxide plume and the pressure front 

in the injection zone as described in the Testing and 

Monitoring Plan and to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

As a general matter, the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions are lengthier and more detailed, so 

that the permit language may summarize those requirements and 

provide reference to the regulatory details rather than copying 

them in their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly 
62

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

146.90(g)(1). 

(b) The permittee shall use indirect methods to track the 

position of the carbon dioxide plume and pressure front as 

described in the Testing and Monitoring Plan and to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 146.90(g)(2).

Proposed Revision: 

(a) The permittee shall use direct methods to track the 

position of the carbon dioxide plume and the pressure front 

in the injection zone as described in the Testing and 

Monitoring Plan and to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

146.90(g)(1). (b) The permittee shall use indirect methods to 

track the position of the carbon dioxide plume and pressure 

front as described in the Testing and Monitoring Plan and to 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 146.90(g)(2). 

Comment: By issuing the permit, EPA has determined that 

implementing the Testing and Monitoring Plan does meet the 

applicable requirements.

and easy to follow. Incorporating the additional details by 

reference does not create any conflict or confusion between the 

terms of the permit and the regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.90 makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. For Class VI wells, EPA 

anticipates that the testing and monitoring plan will be regularly 

reviewed and revised as required by 40 C.F.R. §146.90(j) and 

Section M of the permit. Reference to the relevant regulatory 

provisions provides clarity on the standards against which any 

revisions will be judged. 

Therefore, EPA did not make any changes to the permit based on 

this comment.

30 NRDC Table 9 in the Testing and Monitoring Plan indicates that a 

repeat 3D surface seismic survey will be performed in Year 2 

of injection, but planned activities are not described in the 

permit. The Applicant should provide additional details about 

the planned repeat seismic survey, including a discussion of 

why only one repeat survey will be performed, and conditions 

that could potentially affect this decision and trigger 

additional repeat surveys.

As documented in the Post-Injection Site Care (PISC) and Site 

Closure Plan (Attachment E to the permit), two additional 3D 

seismic surveys will take place during the PISC period. Vertical 

seismic profile (VSP) measurements will also be collected one time 

during the injection phase. Based on the results of the site-specific 

modeling conducted for this project, and in combination with the 

other techniques included in the planned testing and monitoring 

program, EPA believes that one 3D seismic survey conducted 

during the second year of the project’s 5-year injection phase is 

sufficient to demonstrate the location of the CO2 plume. If data 

suggest that a significant change in the size or shape of the actual 

CO2 plume as compared to the predicted CO2 plume is occurring, 

or that there are deviations from modeled predictions such that 

the actual plume may extend vertically or horizontally beyond the 

modeled plume, ADM will initiate an AoR reevaluation according 
63

# Commenter Comment EPA Response

to the procedures in the AoR and Corrective Action Plan 

(Attachment B to the permit).

Therefore, EPA did not make any changes to the permit based on

this comment.
64

SECTION 7. PLUGGING AND POST-INJECTION SITE CARE COMMENTS 

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response 

1 ADM Provision: O(1)

Text of Draft Permit: 1. Well Plugging Plan – The permittee 

shall maintain and comply with the approved Well Plugging 

Plan (Attachment D of this permit) which is an enforceable 

condition of this permit and shall meet the requirements of 

40 CFR 146.92.

Proposed Revision: 1. Well Plugging Plan – The permittee 

shall maintain and comply with the approved Well Plugging 

Plan (Attachment D of this permit) which is an enforceable 

condition of this permit and shall meets the requirements of 

40 CFR 146.92. 

Comment: By issuing the permit, EPA has determined that 

implementing the Well Plugging Plan does meet the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR 146.92.

As a general matter, the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions for plugging the injection well are 

relatively lengthy and technical, so that the permit language may 

summarize those requirements and provide reference to the 

regulatory details rather than copying them in their entirety. This 

makes the permit more reader-friendly and easy to follow. 

Incorporating the additional details by reference does not create 

any conflict or confusion between the terms of the permit and the 

regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.92 makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based.

Therefore, EPA did not make the suggested changes to the permit.

2 CSC Provision: O(1)

Text of Draft Permit: 1. Well Plugging Plan – The permittee 

shall maintain and comply with the approved Well Plugging 

Plan (Attachment D of this permit) which is an enforceable 

condition of this permit and shall meet the requirements of 

40 CFR 146.92.

Proposed Revision: 1. Well Plugging Plan – The permittee 

shall maintain and comply with the approved Well Plugging 

Plan (Attachment D of this permit) which is an enforceable 

condition of this permit and shall meets the requirements of 

40 CFR 146.92. 

Comment: By issuing the permit, EPA has determined that 

implementing the Well Plugging Plan does meet the 

applicable requirements.

As a general matter, the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions for plugging the injection well are 

relatively lengthy and technical, so that the permit language may 

summarize those requirements and provide reference to the 

regulatory details rather than copying them in their entirety. This 

makes the permit more reader-friendly and easy to follow. 

Incorporating the additional details by reference does not create 

any conflict or confusion between the terms of the permit and the 

regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.92 makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based.
65

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response 

Therefore, EPA did not make the suggested changes to the permit.

3 ADM Provision: O(6)(b)

Text of Draft Permit: (b) The permittee shall monitor the site 

following the cessation of injection to show the position of 

the carbon dioxide plume and pressure front and 

demonstrate that USDWs are not being endangered, as 

specified in the Post-Injection Site Care and Site Closure Plan 

and in 40 CFR 146.90, and 40 CFR 146.93, including:

Proposed Revision: (b) The permittee shall monitor the site 

following the cessation of injection to show the position of 

the carbon dioxide plume and pressure front and 

demonstrate that USDWs are not being endangered, as 

specified in the Post-Injection Site Care and Site Closure Plan 

and in to meet the requirements of 

40 CFR 146.90, and 40 CFR 146.93, including: 

Comment: By issuing the permit, EPA has determined that 

implementing the Post-Injection Site Care and Site Closure 

Plan does meet the applicable requirements of 

40 CFR 146.90, and 40 CFR 146.93.

As a general matter the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions for testing and monitoring, and for 

the PISC, are relatively lengthy and technical, so that the permit 

language may summarize those requirements and provide 

reference to the regulatory details rather than copying them in 

their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly and 

easy to follow. Incorporating the additional details by reference 

does not create any conflict or confusion between the terms of the 

permit and the regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.93(a) makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. For Class VI wells, EPA 

anticipates that the PISC Plan may require revisions. See 75 Fed. 

Reg. 77266 (Dec. 10, 2010) and Section H of the permit. Reference 

to the relevant regulatory provisions provides clarity on the 

standards against which any revisions will be judged. 

Therefore, EPA did not make the suggested changes to the permit.

4 CSC Provision: O(6)(b)

Text of Draft Permit: (b) The permittee shall monitor the site 

following the cessation of injection to show the position of 

the carbon dioxide plume and pressure front and 

demonstrate that USDWs are not being endangered, as 

specified in the Post-Injection Site Care and Site Closure Plan 

and in 40 CFR 146.90, and 40 CFR 146.93, including:

Proposed Revision: (b) The permittee shall monitor the site 

following the cessation of injection to show the position of 

the carbon dioxide plume and pressure front and 

demonstrate that USDWs are not being endangered, as 

As a general matter the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions for testing and monitoring, and for 

the PISC, are relatively lengthy and technical, so that the permit 

language may summarize those requirements and provide 

reference to the regulatory details rather than copying them in 

their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly and 

easy to follow. Incorporating the additional details by reference 

does not create any conflict or confusion between the terms of the 

permit and the regulations.
66

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response 

specified in the Post-Injection Site Care and Site Closure Plan 

and in 40 CFR 146.90, and 40 CFR 146.93, including: 

Comment: By issuing the permit, EPA has determined that 

implementing the Post-Injection Site Care and Site Closure 

Plan does meet the applicable requirements.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.93(a) makes it clear that ADM must 

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. For Class VI wells, EPA 

anticipates that the PISC Plan may require revisions. See 75 Fed. 

Reg. 77266 (Dec. 10, 2010) and Section H of the permit. Reference 

to the relevant regulatory provisions provides clarity on the 

standards against which any revisions will be judged. 

Therefore, EPA did not make the suggested changes to the permit.

5 ADM Provision: O(6)(b)(v)

Text of Draft Permit: (v) The permittee shall continue to 

conduct post-injection site monitoring for at least 50 years or 

for the duration of any alternative timeframe approved 

pursuant to 40 CFR 146.93(c) and the Post-Injection Site Care 

and Site Closure Plan.

References: 146.93(b) (2) If the owner or operator can 

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director before 50 

years or prior to the end of the approved alternative 

timeframe based on monitoring and other site-specific data, 

that the geologic sequestration project no longer poses an 

endangerment to USDWs, the Director may approve an 

amendment to the post-injection site care and site closure 

plan to reduce the frequency of monitoring or may authorize 

site closure before the end of the 50-year period or prior to 

the end of the approved alternative timeframe, where he or 

she has substantial evidence that the geologic sequestration 

project no longer poses a risk of endangerment to USDWs.

Proposed Revision: (v) The permittee shall continue to 

conduct post- injection site monitoring until the Director has 

authorized site closure. for at least 50 years or for the 

duration of any alternative timeframe approved pursuant to 

40 CFR 146.93(c) and the Post-Injection Site Care and Site 

Closure Plan .

Per 40 C.F.R. § 146.93(a), the owner or operator must submit the 

post-injection site care and site closure plan as a part of the permit 

application to be approved by the Director. Among other 

requirements cited at 40 C.F.R. § 146.93(a)(2), the post-injection 

site care and site closure plan must include the duration of the 

post-injection site care timeframe and, if approved by the 

Director, the demonstration of the alternative post-injection site 

care timeframe that ensures non-endangerment of USDWs.

ADM submitted, and EPA approved, a request for an alternative 

PISC timeframe, which was incorporated into the Post-Injection 

Site Care and Site Closure Plan. As the approved Plan, and 40 C.F.R. 

§ 146.93 require, ADM must continue post-injection monitoring 

and site care until EPA approves ADM’s non-endangerment 

demonstration and authorizes site closure, even if this results in 

more than 10 years of post-injection monitoring, as described in 

the currently approved plan. 

At any time during the life of the GS project, ADM may modify and 

resubmit the post-injection site care and site closure plan for the 

Director's approval. The language cited by the commenter 

provides information on the process and standards that would 

apply if ADM seeks a change.
67

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response 

Comment: There are a number of different scenarios that 

would allow the permittee to cease post-injection monitoring 

before 50 years, but all involve obtaining authorization for 

site closure. 

The post injection site care plan for ADM’s permit meets the 

federal UIC regulations in 40 C.F.R. § 146.93, and there is no basis 

or need to amend the language of this attachment to the permit. 

However, the permit language at O(6)(b)(v) has been modified as 

follows: The permittee shall continue to conduct post-injection 

site monitoring for the duration of the alternative timeframe 

approved pursuant to 40 CFR 146.93(c) and the Post-Injection Site 

Care and Site Closure Plan and until the Director has authorized 

site closure as described in Section O(6)(c) and O(6)(d) of this 

permit.

6 CSC Provision: O(6)(b)(v)

Text of Draft Permit: (v) The permittee shall continue to 

conduct post-injection site monitoring for at least 50 years or 

for the duration of any alternative timeframe approved 

pursuant to 40 CFR 146.93(c) and the Post-Injection Site Care 

and Site Closure Plan.

References: 146.93(b) (2) If the owner or operator can 

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director before 50 

years or prior to the end of the approved alternative 

timeframe based on monitoring and other site-specific data, 

that the geologic sequestration project no longer poses an 

endangerment to USDWs, the Director may approve an 

amendment to the post-injection site care and site closure 

plan to reduce the frequency of monitoring or may authorize 

site closure before the end of the 50-year period or prior to 

the end of the approved alternative timeframe, where he or 

she has substantial evidence that the geologic sequestration 

project no longer poses a risk of endangerment to USDWs.

Per 40 C.F.R. § 146.93(a), the owner or operator must submit the 

post-injection site care and site closure plan as a part of the permit 

application to be approved by the Director. Among other 

requirements cited at 40 C.F.R. § 146.93(a)(2), the post-injection 

site care and site closure plan must include the duration of the 

post-injection site care timeframe and, if approved by the 

Director, the demonstration of the alternative post-injection site 

care timeframe that ensures non-endangerment of USDWs.

ADM submitted, and EPA approved, a request for an alternative 

PISC timeframe, which was incorporated into the Post-Injection 

Site Care and Site Closure Plan. As the approved Plan and 40 C.F.R. 

§ 146.93 require, ADM must continue post-injection monitoring 

and site care until EPA approves ADM’s non-endangerment 

demonstration and authorizes site closure, even if this results in 

more than 10 years of post-injection monitoring, as described in 

the currently approved plan. 
68

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response 

Proposed Revision: (v) The permittee shall continue to 

conduct post- injection site monitoring until the Director has 

authorized site closure. for at least 50 years or for the 

duration of any alternative timeframe approved pursuant to 

40 CFR 146.93(c) and the Post-Injection Site Care and Site 

Closure Plan .

Comment: There are a number of different scenarios that 

would allow the permittee to cease post-injection monitoring 

before 50 years, but all involve obtaining authorization for 

site closure. Therefore, this wording is sufficient to cover all 

of those contingencies.

At any time during the life of the GS project, ADM may modify and 

resubmit the post-injection site care and site closure plan for the 

Director's approval. The language cited by the commenter 

provides information on the process and standards that would 

apply if ADM seeks a change.

The post injection site care plan for ADM’s permit meets the 

federal UIC regulations in 40 C.F.R. § 146.93, and there is no basis 

or need to amend the language of this attachment to the permit.

However, the permit language at O(6)(b)(v) has been modified as 

follows: The permittee shall continue to conduct post-injection 

site monitoring for the duration of the alternative timeframe 

approved pursuant to 40 CFR 146.93(c) and the Post-Injection Site 

Care and Site Closure Plan and until the Director has authorized 

site closure as described in Section O(6)(c) and O(6)(d) of this 

permit. 

7 CSC Section O(6)(b)(v) incorrectly states that “[t]he permittee 

shall continue to conduct post- injection site monitoring for 

at least 50 years or for the duration of any alternative 

timeframe approved pursuant to 40 CFR 146.93(c) and the 

Post-Injection Site Care and Site Closure Plan.” The permittee 

may discontinue post-injection site monitoring earlier than 

either of those dates if, pursuant to section 146.93(b)(2) the 

Director “authorize[s] site closure before the end of the 50-

year period or prior to the end of the approved alternative 

Per 40 C.F.R. § 146.93(a), the owner or operator must submit the 

post-injection site care and site closure plan as a part of the permit 

application to be approved by the Director. Among other 

requirements cited at 40 C.F.R. § 146.93(a)(2), the post-injection 

site care and site closure plan must include the duration of the 

post-injection site care timeframe and, if approved by the 

Director, the demonstration of the alternative post-injection site 

care timeframe that ensures non-endangerment of USDWs.
69

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response 

timeframe”. A permittee is never subject to an absolute 

requirement to continue monitoring for at least 50 years, and 

the permit should not suggest otherwise. Given the potential 

alternative scenarios for discontinuation of monitoring, it 

would be more accurate to simply state: “The permittee shall 

continue to conduct post-injection site monitoring until the 

Director has authorized site closure.”

ADM submitted, and EPA approved, a request for an alternative 

PISC timeframe, which was incorporated into the Post-Injection 

Site Care and Site Closure Plan. As the approved Plan and 40 C.F.R. 

§ 146.93 require, ADM must continue post-injection monitoring 

and site care until EPA approves ADM’s non-endangerment 

demonstration and authorizes site closure, even if this results in 

more than 10 years of post-injection monitoring, as described in 

the currently approved plan. 

At any time during the life of the GS project, ADM may modify and 

resubmit the post-injection site care and site closure plan for the 

Director's approval. The language cited by the commenter 

provides information on the process and standards that would 

apply if ADM seeks a change.

The post injection site care plan for ADM’s permit meets the 

federal UIC regulations in 40 C.F.R. § 146.93, and there is no basis 

or need to amend the language of this section of the permit.

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment. See response to comments 5 and 6 for related 

permit language change. 

8 ADM Provision: O(6)(d)

Text of Draft Permit: (d) Prior to authorization for site 

closure, the permittee shall submit to the Director for review 

and approval, in an electronic format, a demonstration, based 

on information collected pursuant to Section O(5)(b) of this 

permit, that the carbon dioxide plume and the associated 

pressure front do not pose an endangerment to USDWs and 

that no additional monitoring is needed to ensure that the 

project does not pose an endangerment to USDWs, as 

required under 40 CFR 146.93(b)(3). The Director reserves the 

As EPA’s “Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide: Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) Program Class VI Well Project Plan 

Development Guidance” (Aug. 2012) states at p. 50, [t]he purpose 

of reviewing the PISC and Site Closure Plan is to consider:

• Whether post-injection site care is adequate to ensure that 

USDWs are protected from endangerment from carbon dioxide 

injection activities (or provide early warning of potential 

endangerment); 
70

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response 

right to amend the post-injection site monitoring 

requirements (including extend the monitoring period) if the 

carbon dioxide plume and the associated pressure front have 

not stabilized or there is a concern that USDWs are being 

endangered.

References: 146.93(b) (3) Prior to authorization for site 

closure, the owner or operator must submit to the Director 

for review and approval a demonstration, based on 

monitoring and other site-specific data, that no additional 

monitoring is needed to ensure that the geologic 

sequestration project does not pose an endangerment to 

USDWs.

Proposed Revision: (d) Prior to authorization for site closure, 

the permittee shall submit to the Director for review and 

approval, in an electronic format, a demonstration, based on 

information collected pursuant to Section O(5)(b) of this 

permit, that the carbon dioxide plume and the associated 

pressure front do not pose an endangerment to USDWs and 

that no additional monitoring is needed to ensure that the 

project does not pose an endangerment to USDWs, as 

required under 40 CFR 146.93(b)(3). The Director reserves the 

right to amend the post-injection site monitoring 

requirements (including extend the monitoring period) if the 

carbon dioxide plume and the associated pressure front have 

not stabilized or there is a concern that USDWs are being 

endangered. 

Comment: There is no requirement for the carbon dioxide 

plume and the associated pressure front to “stabilize”, 

whatever that means. Indeed, the word stabilize does not 

appear in any form in the final Class VI regulations and is 

unnecessary here. 

If the term is retained in this condition, it must be clear that 

the use of the word “stabilized” in this context is not 

• Whether changes to monitoring are needed, e.g., if the types of 

monitoring can be reduced as data indicate post-injection 

stabilization of the carbon dioxide plume and pressure front; and 

• Whether appropriate amounts and types of data are being 

collected to support an eventual non-endangerment 

demonstration, and whether making this demonstration before 

the required fifty (50) year PISC timeframe is appropriate. The UIC 

Program Director may determine whether a shorter or longer PISC 

timeframe is necessary. 

Since the concern about the “stabilization” of the CO2 plume 

and/or injection pressure front in the guidance is based upon the 

protection of USDWs, EPA did make the change suggested by the 

commenter to reflect the regulatory language more precisely. It 

should be clear, however, that plume and pressure front stability 

will be factors EPA considers in evaluating whether there is a risk 

to USDWs. 
71

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response 

intended to imply that a complete cessation in the movement 

of injected or formation fluids in the injection zone is 

necessary to meet the closure requirement. It should be 

sufficient to demonstrate that current monitoring and 

model(s) show that the injected CO2 stream is not expected 

to migrate in the future in a manner likely to result in 

endangerment of a USDW.

9 CSC Provision: O(6)(d)

Text of Draft Permit: 

(d) Prior to authorization for site closure, the permittee shall 

submit to the Director for review and approval, in an 

electronic format, a demonstration, based on information 

collected pursuant to Section O(5)(b) of this permit, that the 

carbon dioxide plume and the associated pressure front do 

not pose an endangerment to USDWs and that no additional 

monitoring is needed to ensure that the project does not 

pose an endangerment to USDWs, as required under 40 CFR 

146.93(b)(3). The Director reserves the right to amend the 

post-injection site monitoring requirements (including extend 

the monitoring period) if the carbon dioxide plume and the 

associated pressure front have not stabilized or there is a 

concern that USDWs are being endangered.

References: 146.93(b) (3) Prior to authorization for site 

closure, the owner or operator must submit to the Director 

for review and approval a demonstration, based on 

monitoring and other site-specific data, that no additional 

monitoring is needed to ensure that the geologic 

sequestration project does not pose an endangerment to 

USDWs.

Proposed Revision: (d) Prior to authorization for site closure, 

the permittee shall submit to the Director for review and 

approval, in an electronic format, a demonstration, based on 

information collected pursuant to Section O(5)(b) of this 

As EPA’s “Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide: Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) Program Class VI Well Project Plan 

Development Guidance” (Aug. 2012) states at p. 50, [t]he purpose 

of reviewing the PISC and Site Closure Plan is to consider:

• Whether post-injection site care is adequate to ensure that 

USDWs are protected from endangerment from carbon dioxide 

injection activities (or provide early warning of potential 

endangerment); 

• Whether changes to monitoring are needed, e.g., if the types of 

monitoring can be reduced as data indicate post-injection 

stabilization of the carbon dioxide plume and pressure front; and 

• Whether appropriate amounts and types of data are being 

collected to support an eventual non-endangerment 

demonstration, and whether making this demonstration before 

the required fifty (50) year PISC timeframe is appropriate. The UIC 

Program Director may determine whether a shorter or longer PISC 

timeframe is necessary. 

Since the concern about the “stabilization” of the CO2 plume 

and/or injection pressure front in the guidance is based upon the 

protection of USDWs, EPA made the change suggested by the 

commenter to reflect the regulatory language more precisely. It 

should be clear, however, that plume and pressure front stability 

will be factors EPA considers in evaluating whether there is a risk 

to USDWs. 
72

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response 

permit, that the carbon dioxide plume and the associated 

pressure front do not pose an endangerment to USDWs and 

that no additional monitoring is needed to ensure that the 

project does not pose an endangerment to USDWs, as 

required under 40 CFR 146.93(b)(3). The Director reserves the 

right to amend the post-injection site monitoring 

requirements (including extend the monitoring period) if the 

carbon dioxide plume and the associated pressure front have 

not stabilized or there is a concern that USDWs are being 

endangered. 

Comment: There is no requirement for the carbon dioxide 

plume and the associated pressure front to “stabilize”, 

whatever that means. Indeed, the word stabilize does not 

appear in any form in the final Class VI regulations and is 

unnecessary here.

10 ADM Provision: O(6)(f)

Text of Draft Permit: (f) After the Director has authorized site 

closure, the permittee shall plug all monitoring wells as 

specified in Attachment E of this permit – the Post-Injection 

Site Care and Site Closure Plan – in a manner which will not 

allow movement of injection or formation fluids that 

endangers a USDW. The permittee shall also restore the site 

to its pre- injection condition.

Proposed Revision: (f) After the Director has authorized site 

closure, the permittee shall plug all monitoring wells as 

specified in Attachment E of this permit – the Post-Injection 

Site Care and Site Closure Plan – in a manner which will not 

allow movement of injection or formation fluids that 

endangers a USDW. The permittee shall also restore the site

to its pre-injection condition.

Comment: There is no regulatory requirement for site 

restoration. To restore the site to its pre-injection condition 

following site closure, the permittee will be guided by the 

Good stewardship of the facility at the time of closure is a logical 

extension of the closure process. As EPA’s “Geologic Sequestration 

of Carbon Dioxide: Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 

Class VI Well Project Plan Development Guidance” (Aug. 2012) 

states at p. 47: “EPA recommends that owners or operators also 

describe in their PISC and Site Closure Plan how they plan to close 

the site following the conclusion of the PISC period. Site closure 

activities may include: plugging all monitoring wells, removing all 

surface equipment, and restoring the site to its prior condition 

(e.g., planting vegetation).” The guidance also states on p. D-6 that 

the template for a PISC and Site Closure Plan, “Describe plans for 

removing all surface equipment and restoring vegetation.” 

In EPA’s April 2013, “Draft Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

Program Guidance on Class VI Well Plugging, Post-Injection Site 

Care, and Site Closure, this same concepts are reiterated at p. 47, 

p. D-4 and at p. G-2 that a template for a site closure report 

“Include a description of completed site restoration activities such 
73

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response 

state rules for plugging and abandonment of wells located on 

leased property under The Illinois Oil and Gas Act: Title 62: 

Mining Chapter I: Department of Natural Resources - Part 

240, Section 240.1170 - Plugging Fluid Waste Disposal and 

Well Site Restoration.

as removing all surface equipment and restoring vegetation (or 

status, as appropriate).” 

On page 27 of its Post-Injection Site Care (PISC) plan, ADM states

that the site will be restored to its pre-injection condition and 

identifies the steps ADM will take to restore the site. The PISC 

plan is part of the final permit and is therefore enforceable. 

Retaining the language in Part (O)(6)(f) is consistent with the 

permit condition in the PISC Plan.

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment.

11 CSC Provision: O(6)(f)

Text of Draft Permit: (f) After the Director has authorized site 

closure, the permittee shall plug all monitoring wells as 

specified in Attachment E of this permit – the Post-Injection 

Site Care and Site Closure Plan – in a manner which will not 

allow movement of injection or formation fluids that 

endangers a USDW. The permittee shall also restore the site 

to its pre- injection condition.

Proposed Revision: (f) After the Director has authorized site 

closure, the permittee shall plug all monitoring wells as 

specified in Attachment E of this permit – the Post-Injection 

Site Care and Site Closure Plan – in a manner which will not 

allow movement of injection or formation fluids that 

endangers a USDW. The permittee shall also restore the site

to its pre-injection condition.

Comment: The UIC regulations do not include a requirement 

for site restoration.

Good stewardship of the facility at the time of closure is a logical 

extension of the closure process. As EPA’s “Geologic Sequestration 

of Carbon Dioxide: Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 

Class VI Well Project Plan Development Guidance” (Aug. 2012) 

states at p. 47: “EPA recommends that owners or operators also 

describe in their PISC and Site Closure Plan how they plan to close 

the site following the conclusion of the PISC period. Site closure 

activities may include: plugging all monitoring wells, removing all 

surface equipment, and restoring the site to its prior condition 

(e.g., planting vegetation).” The guidance also states on p. D-6 that 

the template for a PISC and Site Closure Plan, “Describe plans for 

removing all surface equipment and restoring vegetation.” 

In EPA’s April 2013, “Draft Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

Program Guidance on Class VI Well Plugging, Post-Injection Site 

Care, and Site Closure, this same concepts are reiterated at p. 47, 

p. D-4 and at p. G-2 that a template for a site closure report 

“Include a description of completed site restoration activities such 

as removing all surface equipment and restoring vegetation (or 

status, as appropriate).” 
74

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response 

On page 27 of its Post-Injection Site Care (PISC) plan, ADM states

that the site will be restored to its pre-injection condition and 

identifies the steps ADM will take to restore the site. The PISC 

plan is part of the final permit and is therefore enforceable. 

Retaining the language in Part (O)(6)(f) is consistent with the 

permit condition in the PISC Plan.

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment.

12 NRDC Post Injection Site Care

1. We note that contact of CO2 with the confining zone (Eau 

Claire) is not projected to occur during the injection period or 

within the 10-year PISC timeframe, meaning that the ability 

of the Eau Claire to serve as an appropriate confining zone 

will not have been tested in practice when the PISC period 

ends. Although available data indicates that the geologic and 

geomechanical properties of the Eau Claire are excellent for a 

confining zone, the position of the CO2 plume should be 

given further consideration in the alternate PISC timeframe 

approval. The Applicant should discuss the projected time 

when the CO2 plume is projected to contact the Eau Claire, 

the possibility of faults or fractures compromise is theoretical 

and projected properties as a confining zone and any testing 

or monitoring during the injection period that will be used to 

identify those. Although we do not necessarily question the 

proposed 10-year PISC as inappropriate, EPA should consider 

the reliability of existing information at this point when 

setting the PISC duration to 10 years and also when 

evaluating whether the appropriate criteria for closure have 

been met when the Applicant applies for closure.

The results of the site-specific AoR delineation modeling 

conducted by ADM indicate that the CO2 plume is not projected to 

come into contact with the Eau Claire by the end of the 50-year 

simulation period. At the end of this period, the projected top of 

the plume is approximately 900 ft below the base of the Eau 

Claire. The independent modeling assessment conducted by EPA 

agrees with this result. EPA acknowledges that this initial 

assessment is based on initial site characterization data; however, 

additional data on the characteristics of the confining zone 

collected by ADM pursuant to 40 CFR 146.87 will be used to 

update the AoR delineation modeling or demonstrate that no 

update is needed and be considered prior to EPA’s authorizing 

injection (as specified in Part Q of the permit). 

In addition, if, during the life of the project, data suggest that a 

significant change in the size or shape of the actual CO2 plume as 

compared to the predicted CO2 plume is occurring, or that there 

are deviations from modeled predictions such that the actual 

plume may extend beyond the modeled plume, ADM must initiate 

an AoR reevaluation according to the procedures in the AoR and 

Corrective Action Plan (Attachment B to the permit). 
75

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response 

Although the current modeling and site characterization data 

supports a determination that an alternative PISC timeframe may 

be applicable for this project, the authorization of site closure will 

be contingent upon a demonstration of non-endangerment that 

will be supported by both modeling and testing and monitoring 

data, per 40 CFR 146.93(b)(3). 

Therefore, the permit language has not been modified based upon 

this comment.

13 ADM Provision: Appendix E, Table 3

Quaternary Strata

Fluid Sampling 

Text of Draft Permit: 

Parameters Analytical Methods

Water Density(field) Oscillating body method 

Proposed Revision: Parameters Analytical 

Methods

Water Density(field) Oscillating body method 

Comment: Permittee does not plan to measure the shallow 

groundwater density. Delete reference to Water Density in 

this table.

EPA has reviewed the proposed change and determined that not 

measuring the shallow groundwater density will not impact the 

protectiveness of the post-injection testing and monitoring plan.

Therefore, EPA has revised Attachment E to incorporate the 

suggested revision. 

14 ADM Provision: Appendix E, Evaluation of CO2 Plume

Text of Draft Permit: Also, limited 2D and 3D seismic surveys 

may be employed to determine the plume location at specific 

times. 

Proposed Revision: Also, limited 2D and 3D seismic surveys 

may be employed to determine the plume location at specific 

times. Figure 5 presents an example of how the data from a 

time lapse 3D seismic surveys may be correlated against the 

model prediction. 

Comment: No reference to Figure 5 in the text. Added text 

for clarity.

EPA agrees that this clarification is appropriate, and has 

incorporated the requested change into Attachment E of the final 

permit. 
76

SECTION 8. EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE COMMENTS 

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

1 ADM Provision: P(1)

Text of Draft Permit: 1. The Emergency and Remedial 

Response Plan describes actions the permittee must take to 

address movement of the injection or formation fluids that 

may cause an endangerment to a USDW during construction, 

operation, and post-injection site care periods. The permittee 

shall maintain and comply with the approved Emergency and 

Remedial Response Plan (Attachment F of this permit), which 

is an enforceable condition of this permit, and with 40 CFR 

146.94.

Proposed Revision: 1. The Emergency and Remedial 

Response Plan describes actions the permittee must take to 

address movement of the injection or formation fluids that 

may cause an endangerment to a USDW during construction, 

operation, and post- injection site care periods. The 

permittee shall maintain and comply with the approved 

Emergency and Remedial Response Plan (Attachment F of this 

permit), which is an enforceable condition of this 

permit, and with meets the requirements of 40 CFR 146.94.

Comment: By issuing the permit, the EPA has determined 

that implementing the Emergency and Remedial Response 

Plan does meet the applicable requirements of 

40 CFR 146.94.

As a general matter the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions are lengthier and more detailed so 

that the permit language may summarize those requirements and 

provide reference to the regulatory details rather than copying 

them in their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly 

and easy to follow. EPA has determined that incorporating 

additional details by reference does not create any conflict or 

confusion between the terms of the permit and the regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.94(a) makes it clear that ADM must

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. For Class VI wells, EPA 

anticipates that the Emergency and Remedial Response Plan will 

be regularly reviewed and revised as required by 40 C.F.R. 

§146.94(d) and Section P of the Permit. Reference to the relevant 

regulatory provisions provides clarity on the standards against 

which any revisions will be judged.

EPA did not change the permit based on this comment.
77

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

2 CSC Provision: P(1)

Text of Draft Permit: 1. The Emergency and Remedial 

Response Plan describes actions the permittee must take to 

address movement of the injection or formation fluids that 

may cause an endangerment to a USDW during construction, 

operation, and post-injection site care periods. The permittee 

shall maintain and comply with the approved Emergency and 

Remedial Response Plan (Attachment F of this permit), which 

is an enforceable condition of this permit, and with 40 CFR 

146.94.

Proposed Revision: 1. The Emergency and Remedial 

Response Plan describes actions the permittee must take to 

address movement of the injection or formation fluids that 

may cause an endangerment to a USDW during construction, 

operation, and post- injection site care periods. The 

permittee shall maintain and comply with the approved 

Emergency and Remedial Response Plan (Attachment F of this 

permit), which is an enforceable condition of this permit, and 

with 40 CFR 146.94. 

Comment: Once again, this condition is written in a way that 

suggests that compliance requires something beyond 

following the approved Emergency and Remedial Response 

Plan, which is not the case. The revision recommended here 

should be adopted and incorporated in the final permit.

As a general matter the UIC permit is intended as a roadmap to 

identify the relevant requirements and obligations of ADM. The 

relevant regulatory provisions are lengthier and more detailed so 

that the permit language may summarize those requirements and 

provide reference to the regulatory details rather than copying 

them in their entirety. This makes the permit more reader-friendly 

and easy to follow. EPA has determined that incorporating 

additional details by reference does not create any conflict or 

confusion between the terms of the permit and the regulations.

In addition, 40 C.F.R. §146.94(a) makes it clear that ADM must

comply with both the permit requirement and the regulatory 

requirement upon which it is based. For Class VI wells, EPA 

anticipates that the Emergency and Remedial Response Plan will 

be regularly reviewed and revised as required by 40 C.F.R. 

§146.94(d) and Section P of the Permit. Reference to the relevant 

regulatory provisions provides clarity on the standards against 

which any revisions will be judged.

EPA has not made any change to the permit based on this 

comment.

3 Evelyn Carter I'll say this as succinctly as I can. My concern is, of course, 

with this new idea of this well being established here in the 

township of Decatur -- or city of Decatur, I guess, the concern 

is to the safety of the well and how ADM will be responsive to 

the community if it's necessary. 

Site suitability is based on an evaluation of extensive site-specific 

information, including the geology of the site, seismic history of 

the area, the location of faults and fractures, operating data 

(including the volume of CO2 to be injected) and computational 

modeling analyses of plume and pressure front behavior over the 

duration of the project. Based on this review, EPA determined that 
78

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

the project can be safely managed in a manner to ensure 

protection of USDWs.

Additionally, the Emergency and Remedial Response Plan

(Attachment F), which is an enforceable condition of ADM’s 

permit, includes procedures ADM must implement if any adverse

event, such as a seismic event or CO2 leakage, were to occur. It 

includes the actions ADM must take to identify the extent of 

contamination (if any), implement appropriate remedial actions, 

and communicate with the public.

4 Anthony 

Samsel

This also presents the potential for a disaster with mass 

casualties in the event of an earthquake which could disrupt 

and release volumes of stored CO2. This would kill both 

human and animal populations in the vicinity of the release.

Site suitability is based on an evaluation of extensive site-specific 

information, including the geology of the site, seismic history of 

the area, the location of faults and fractures, operating data 

(including the volume of CO2 to be injected) and computational 

modeling analyses of plume and pressure front behavior over the 

duration of the project. Based on this review, EPA determined that 

the project can be safely managed in a manner to ensure 

protection of USDWs.

Additionally, ADM’s permit limits the injection pressure to 90% of 

the fracture pressure in the injection zone; this pressure limitation 

is designed to reduce the potential for inducing any seismic 

events. Also, throughout the life of the project, ADM will monitor 

for induced and naturally occurring seismic events using five 

passive seismic monitoring stations.

In the unlikely event of a large magnitude seismic event or CO2

leakage from the injection zone formation, remedial response 

procedures will need to be tailored to the specific circumstances, 

the extent of the contamination, and the risk factors involved. The 

Emergency and Remedial Response Plan (Attachment F of the 

permit) outlines the protocol to be implemented (based on a 
79

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

range of Magnitudes and attributes of the event), including the 

process and actions to be implemented to shut in the injection 

well(s), mitigate risks, and communicate with EPA, other relevant 

authorities, and the public. 

5 NRDC Testing and Monitoring

1. We support Applicant’s proposal to perform passive 

microseismic monitoring to help identify induced seismicity 

that may be caused by injection operations. However, we 

suggest that EPA require additional information and 

planning to address the risk of induced seismicity. 

Documented incidences of induced seismicity caused by UIC 

Class II injection operations have 

often occurred on previously unknown and/or subseismic faults.1 [FN: Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 

(2012). Preliminary Report on the Northstar 1 Class II 

Injection Well and the Seismic Events in the Youngstown, 

Ohio, Area.]

According to the comprehensive report on induced 

seismicity and energy technologies produced by the National 

Academy of Sciences, “The factor that appears to have the 

most direct consequence in regard to induced seismicity is 

the net fluid balance (total balance of fluid introduced into or 

removed from the subsurface)...”2 [FN: Clarke, D., Detournay, 

E., Diederich, J., Dillon, D., Green, S., Habiger, R., ... & Smith, J. 

(2012). Induced seismicity potential in energy technologies. 

National Academies Press.] Projects that do not balance 

injection and withdrawal, like carbon capture and 

sequestration or storage (“CCS”), may have a greater 

potential to cause induced seismicity, although more 

research is needed. Induced earthquakes caused by Class II 

injection operations have been large enough to cause 

EPA’s review of the potential for induced seismicity included 

evaluation of extensive site-specific information, including the 

seismic history of the area, the location of faults and fractures, 

operating data (including the volume of CO2 to be injected) and 

computational modeling analyses of plume and pressure front 

behavior over the duration of the project. This evaluation was 

much more extensive than the evaluations typically performed for 

Class II permits such as those associated with the events in Ohio 

and Oklahoma to which the commenter refers, and supports a 

conclusion that the wells pose a low risk of inducing felt seismic 

events. See “Induced Seismicity Evaluation Using the EPADeveloped Decision Model” (April 2014) in the Administrative 

Record for this permit.

Although the components suggested by Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory and the National Academy of Sciences are not 

required by the UIC regulations, EPA agrees with the need to 

monitor for and potentially address induced seismicity. The 

Emergency and Remedial Response Plan, which is an enforceable 

condition of ADM’s permit, includes protocols for natural and 

induced seismic events that include many of the same things as 

are recommended in the National Academy of Sciences

publication the commenter cited. (The Emergency and Remedial 

Response Plan does not address criteria for ground vibration and 

noise, as these are outside the scope of the Class VI Rule.) The Plan 

includes response protocols that correspond to the site’s potential 

risk and the level of seismic activity and an emergency 

communications plan.
80

# Commenter Comment Text EPA Response

property damage and injury.3 [FN: Keranen, K. M., Savage, H. 

M., Abers, G. A., & Cochran, E. S. (2013). Potentially induced 

earthquakes in Oklahoma, USA: Links between wastewater 

injection and the 2011 Mw 5.7 earthquake sequence. 

Geology, 41(6), 699-702.] Even in the absence of actual 

damage, induced seismicity is a nuisance and source of 

anxiety for nearby communities, and may undermine public 

trust and support for CCS projects. Researchers at Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory4 [FN: See, e.g. Majer, E., 

Nelson, J., Robertson-Tait, A., Savy, J., & Wong, I. (2012). 

Protocol for addressing induced seismicity associated with 

enhanced geothermal systems. US Department of Energy.; 

Majer, E., Nelson, J., Robertson-Tait, A., Savy, J., & Wong, I. 

(2013). Best Practices for Addressing Induced Seismicity 

Associated With Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). US 

Department of Energy.] and the National Academy of 

Sciences5 [FN: Id. fn 3.] have published detailed information 

on the elements that should be considered for inclusion in a 

protocol for addressing induced seismicity, including but not 

limited to 1) a stakeholder communications and outreach 

plan; 2) criteria for ground vibration and noise; 3) a hazard 

assessment; 4) a risk assessment; 5) seismic monitoring, and; 

6) mitigation plans. Using these guidelines we request that 

EPA require Applicant to develop a protocol to address 

induced seismicity.

Required passive seismic monitoring (described in the enforceable 

Testing and Monitoring Plan) will inform ADM and EPA when any 

natural or induced events occur; any such event will require 

implementation of the Emergency and Remedial Response Plan.
81

In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a), any person who filed comments on the draft permit or participated in the public hearing may petition 

the EAB to review any condition of the final permit decision. Additionally, any person who failed to file comments or failed to participate in the 

public hearing on the draft permit may petition the EAB for administrative review of any permit conditions set forth in the final permit decision, 

but only to the extent that those final permit conditions reflect changes from the proposed draft permit. Any petition shall identify the 

contested permit condition or other specific challenge to the permit decision and clearly set forth, with legal and factual support, petitioner’s 

contentions for why the permit decision should be reviewed, as well as a demonstration that any issue raised in the petition was raised 

previously during the public comment period (to the extent required), if the permit issuer has responded to an issue previously raised, and an 

explanation of why the permit issuer’s response to comments was inadequate as required by 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a)(4). 

If you wish to request an administrative review, documents in EAB proceedings may be filed by mail (either through the U.S. Postal Service 

(“USPS”) or a non-USPS carrier), hand-delivery, or electronically. The EAB does not accept notices of appeal, petitions for review, or briefs 

submitted by facsimile. All submissions in proceedings before the EAB may be filed electronically, subject to any appropriate conditions and 

limitations imposed by the EAB. To view the Board’s Standing Orders concerning electronic filing, click on the “Standing Orders” link on the 

Board’s website at

www.epa.gov/eab. All documents that are sent through the USPS, except by USPS Express Mail, must be addressed to the EAB’s mailing 

address, which is: Clerk of the Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Appeals Board, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 

Mail Code 1103M, Washington, D.C. 20460-0001. Documents that are hand-carried in person or that are delivered via courier or a non-USPS 

carrier such as UPS or Federal Express must be delivered to: Clerk of the Board, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental 

Appeals Board, 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW, WJC East Building, Room 3334, Washington, D.C. 20004. 

A petition for review of any condition of a UIC permit decision must be filed with the EAB within 30 days after EPA serves notice of the issuance 

of the final permit decision. 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a)(3). When EPA serves the notice by mail, service is deemed to be completed when the notice is 

placed in the mail, not when it is received. However, to compensate for the delay caused by mailing, the 30-day deadline for filing a petition is 

extended by three days if the final permit decision being appealed was served on the petitioner by mail. 40 C.F.R. § 124.20(d). Petitions are 

deemed filed when they are received by the Clerk of the Board at the address specified for the appropriate method of delivery. 40 C.F.R. 

§ 124.19(a)(3) and 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(i). The request will be timely if received within the time period described above. For this request to be 

valid, it must conform to the requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 124.19. A copy of these requirements is enclosed. The regulations are also available 

electronically at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title40-vol23/pdf/CFR-2013-title40-vol23-sec124-19.pdf This request for review must 

be made prior to seeking judicial review of any permit decision. Additional information regarding petitions for review may be found in the 

Environmental Appeals Board Practice Manual (August 2013) and A Citizen’s Guide to EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board, both of which are