This comment letter response contains two parts:   

(1) The original submittal from the commenter.

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

Notes about the response letters:

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

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

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

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

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

individual response. These are described and explained below.  

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

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

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

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

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

appropriately addressed.

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

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

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

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

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

construction requirements).  

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

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

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

commenter was given a unique response.

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

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

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

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

and attention to each comment letter that was submitted.   

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

Responses on each topic area are compiled and are also available in the rulemaking docket.


Letter ID: 0184 

Commenter: Adam P. Haynes 

Organization: Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO) 

Letter ID: 0184 Comment ID: 22784 Letter Lines: 41 to 53 ; 104 to 109 

Comment Code: 1450 1.2.2.1 Oppose the GS rulemaking 

Comment: TIPRO is concerned about the overall structure of the carbon capture and storage 

(CCS) regulation within the EPA. While TIPRO applauds the initial effort of this 

rule making, especially the effort not to categorize carbon dioxide (CO2) as a 

waste product, we urge caution on proceeding to a final rule. TIPRO believes a 

comprehensive effort by the EPA is warranted, including input by all offices 

with oversight for the control of CO2. However, this action should not be 

undertaken until Congress has passed specific legislation that addresses the 

control and capture of CO2, To proceed otherwise will likely lead to a patchwork 

of regulations and laws that will ultimately lead to confusion in the regulated 

community and in the different offices of the EPA. The capture and storage of 

CO2 will be a complicated effort, at best, and a regulatory nightmare at worst. 

The regulated industry must have comprehensive regulations governing CCS, not a 

patchwork of individual regulations from separate offices within the EPA. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule for the UIC 

program for the capture and storage of CO2 , TIPRO does not support proceeding 

to a final rulemaking with this effort. Rather, TIPRO urges the EPA to begin a 

holistic review of CO2 regulations once Congressional action on CO2 is final. 

Until then, action by separate offices within the EPA will lead to confusion and 

a patchwork of regulations that are confusing to the regulated community. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the intent of the GS rule is not to address climate 

change. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is 

conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA is aware that broader 

climate change legislation is under consideration by Congress. The Agency is monitoring the 

progress of this legislation, and if any Congressional action were to require EPA to regulate GS 

in the broader context, the Agency would address this requirement accordingly, including 

working with the appropriate stakeholders and federal agencies. 

EPA believes that there is a potential that GS may be deployed at a fast pace (e.g., if climate 

change legislation provides an incentive for sequestering CO2 or if other climate policies or 

regulations limit CO2 emissions), and that it is necessary to prepare for such an event. EPA's 

adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS will allow regulatory development to 

proceed in time to meet the current and future demand for Class VI permits while recognizing 

the need to continue to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available 

and enhance understanding of the technical and administrative aspects of GS deployment, 

operation, and technology developments. 

1
EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter ID: 0184 Comment ID: 22785 Letter Lines: 55 to 64 

Comment Code: 1480 1.2.2.2.2 CO2 is not a pollutant 

Comment: Regarding this rulemaking effort, TIPRO suggests the following comments for 

consideration. First, CO2 is a valuable commodity that has been used by the 

exploration and production sector for more than 30 years. It is not a waste 

product. While we applaud the initial efforts not to label CO2 as a waste, 

tracking the regulatory requirements for Class I wells so closely while 

considering the development of the new Class VI wells is concerning. Without 

further clarification, CO2 regulations could develop more in line with waste 

classifications associated with RCRA and CERCLA. That would signal a failure of 

sound CCS practices that have developed with proper regulatory oversight at the 

state level for the last 30 years. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as either 

a pollutant or a commodity. In addition, whether or not a fluid could be sold on the market as a 

commodity does not override EPA's authority under the SDWA to protect USDWs from 

endangerment. 

Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. 

"Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, 

whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and it includes liquids, gases, 

and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface. 

Under §146.82(a)(7), owners or operators of GS wells must characterize their CO2 stream as part 

of their permit application. If the injectate is determined to meet the definition of a hazardous 

waste under RCRA, and as defined in 40 CFR Part 261, the stringent UIC Class I hazardous 

waste requirements for injection of hazardous waste apply. Thus, injection of corrosive CO2 into 

Class VI wells is prohibited. In addition, owners or operators must periodically monitor their 

injectate throughout injection operations under §146.90(a). 

2
EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted 

in a manner that protects USDWs. 

Letter ID: 0184 Comment ID: 22786 Letter Lines: 66 to 90 

Comment Code: 2046 1.5.2.3 Continuing to classify CO2 injection for EOR/EGR as Class II/ 

dividing line between Class II and Class VI (seeking comment) 

Comment: Related to that point, enhanced oil and gas recovery (EOR & EGR) must be a 

component of any successful carbon capture and storage (CCS) regulatory system. 

While the proposed rule does not preclude enhanced recovery of hydrocarbons, the 

lack of attention to this process is troubling. As mentioned, the exploration 

and production sector has been successfully using geologic storage of CO2 for 

more than 30 years. The EPA should promote EOR and EGR as a proven mechanism for 

CCS and allow for it through the use of properly permitted Class II wells 

located throughout the country. Rather than developing a new category of 

injection wells as the new Class VI wells are contemplated in the rules, EPA 

should allow Class II wells to continue to be the standard for CCS projects 

going forward. If there is a need to differentiate between commercial storage 

projects and enhanced recovery projects - and TIPRO does not believe such a need 

exists - then the EPA needs to create two separate categories for Class II 

wells. One category can be used in non-hydrocarbon injection zones when storage 

is for commercial purposes only. The other category of Class II wells can be 

used by the exploration and production sector during EOR and EGR projects. Of 

course, the rule changes also need to address the transition of well bores in 

between the two categories. Once an enhanced recovery process is complete, the 

existing formation presents a beneficial target formation for the commercial 

storage of CO2, The transition from one category of Class II well to the other 

should not involve any downhole modifications or retrofits. Rather, the process 

of transitioning between classifications should be contingent on the applicant 

completing a mechanical integrity test that demonstrates protection of the USDW 

and other applicable surface controls necessary to ensure storage and capture 

rates. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that injection of CO2 for the primary purpose of enhancing 

oil and gas recovery should remain under the Class II Program. EPA disagrees that the risks 

posed by long term storage of CO2 for GS can be addressed under existing UIC requirements in 

order to protect USDWs from endangerment, such as those for Class II wells. EPA believes that 

there are significant differences between how projects are operated, as well as the risks posed by 

these different injection activities. The new tailored approach of the GS rule was designed to 

address the general risks deep injection may pose to USDWs and was tailored specifically to 

address the risks posed by long term storage of CO2 (i.e., very large volumes, very long timeperiods, and reservoir pressure conditions). 

The final Class VI regulations require that any owner or operator injecting CO2 for the primary 

3
purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI permit with some special consideration for the 

fact that they are transitioning from a well not originally designed to meet Class VI requirements. 

The Director has the authority to determine at what point a Class VI permit is required for those 

projects that are transitioning from the primary purpose of EOR to long term storage of CO2. 

The final regulation provides a set of technical factors for the Director to evaluate in making this 

determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that this approach provides sufficient protection of 

USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditional Class II operations 

while allowing for site-specific flexibility. 

EPA is developing guidance on transitioning permits from Class II to Class VI. The guidance 

will assist Directors in determining whether an injection project should be transitioned from 

Class II where the primary purpose is oil and gas production to Class VI where the primary 

purpose is long-term storage of large volumes of CO2. The guidance describes recommended 

methods the Director may use to evaluate changes in risk to USDWs from projects, and how the 

Director may determine whether a project should be regulated within the Class II or Class VI 

UIC program. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. For more information, please 

see the discussion on transition of Class II wells in the preamble to the final GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0184 Comment ID: 22787 Letter Lines: 92 to 102 

Comment Code: 2143 1.6.2.1 Comments in favor of injection into depleted reservoirs 

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

Comment: An additional point of concern in the rules is the limited view of applicable 

storage sites. While brine aquifers may indeed be good candidates for geologic 

storage, the same is true of oil and gas reservoirs, both productive and nonproductive. The EPA should develop a site rating system that allows for the 

geologic storage of CO2 in stable subsurface formations. This type of rating 

system will ensure that sites which are best suited to handle large CO2 storage 

projects are utilized and any CCS regulatory system will have early successes. 

Of course, the most likely sites to score well in any ranking system would be 

formations containing or having contained hydrocarbon reserves and properly 

permitted Class II wells existing in these formations should be acceptable 

conduits for CCS. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that a rating system is appropriate. Instead, the GS rule 

focuses on evaluating the suitability of a site based on site-specific geological and operational 

data. EPA believes that a detailed geological site characterization (required under §146.82) is 

essential to evaluating the presence and adequacy of the various geologic features necessary to 

receive and confine injected CO2 for GS. The requirements for geologic site characterization are 

based on a long standing UIC regulatory framework developed to address specific risks to 

USDWs posed by injection. The Class VI GS requirements are tailored so that they are 

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

formations for long-term storage. 

4
5

EPA agrees that depleted oil and gas fields are promising formations for GS, provided the Class 

VI siting, well construction and operation, monitoring and testing, and post-injection site care 

and site closure requirements are met. EPA adds that injection of carbon dioxide for the purposes 

of enhanced oil recovery is classified as Class II injection, not Class VI, and will require a Class 

II permit. Wells for which the primary purpose is long term sequestration are considered Class 

VI wells. 

EPA adds that the GS rule does not include criteria for rating particular sites for GS. EPA is 

developing guidance on site characterization for GS projects to assist owners or operators and 

Directors in evaluating permit requirements and applications under §146.82. The guidance 

provides recommendations to owners or operators regarding characterizing the regional geology 

and hydrogeology of a proposed GS site as well as performing the necessary geochemical, 

geomechanical, and geophysical analyses of the injection and confining zone. The guidance can 

be found on EPA’s website at 

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