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.
Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390-0182 

Last Name: Brannon 

First Name: Ginny 

Title: 

Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

City: 

State: CO 

Zip Code: 

Phone Number: 

Fax Number: 

Country Code: 

Email Address: 

Current Category Code: 250 

Comment: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule setting forth 

federal requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act for the underground 

injection of carbon dioxide. 

Geologic sequestration holds promise as a key component in the promotion of 

cleaner coal technologies. As a coal producing state, we are especially interested 

in technologies that will secure the industry’s future in the face of the challenges 

associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, thereby mitigating the 

impacts from global warming. 

Our commitment to greenhouse gas reductions is reflected in Colorado’s Climate 

Action Plan which calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 2005 

levels by 2020. We cannot fully realize this goal without cleaner coal 

technologies. But emerging solutions, such as geologic sequestration, must be 

technologically and environmentally sound and supported by a viable and efficient 

regulatory framework. 

The SDWA provides that States may apply to EPA for primary enforcement 

responsibility to administer the underground injection control program. These 

states, referred to as Primacy States, must meet the minimum federal 

requirements for UIC programs, including construction, operating, monitoring, 

testing, reporting, and closure requirements for well owners or operators. 

Additionally, the SDWA allows states to apply for such primacy in part, such as 

for well Classes I, III, IV, and V under Section 1422, or for Class II wells only under 

Section 1425. Colorado falls in this latter camp, with primacy for Class II wells 

only. 

The proposed rule calls for another class of wells, Class VI, for the injection of 

carbon dioxide. It is our contention that states should be able to seek primacy for 

Class VI wells as a ‘stand alone’ class, just as they do for Class II wells now. 
Because Class II wells are for oil and gas injection, Class II wells and the 

proposed Class VI wells are similar in purpose and particularly suited as ‘stand 

alone’ classes of wells. 

Also, in addition to our own staff, Colorado is home to a premier university and 

scientific community, such that we have the expertise in the event we were to 

assume primacy for Class VI wells. 

Finally, geologic sequestration is only one component in a broader carbon capture 

and sequestration context. Colorado agrees with EPA that allowing states to 

acquire primacy for Class VI wells may encourage them to assume the 

responsibility of implementation and provide for a more comprehensive approach 

to managing CCS projects. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. 
Letter ID: 0182 

Commenter: Ginny Brannon 

Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

Letter ID: 0182 Comment ID: 23752 Letter Lines: 20 to 31 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: Geologic sequestration holds promise as a key component in the promotion of 

cleaner coal technologies. As a coal producing state, we are especially interested 

in technologies that will secure the industry’s future in the face of the challenges 

associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, thereby mitigating the 

impacts from global warming. 

Our commitment to greenhouse gas reductions is reflected in Colorado’s Climate 

Action Plan which calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 2005 

levels by 2020. We cannot fully realize this goal without cleaner coal 

technologies. But emerging solutions, such as geologic sequestration, must be 

technologically and environmentally sound and supported by a viable and efficient 

regulatory framework. 

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

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

energy sources, that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. 

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

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

the rulemaking docket. 

Letter ID: 0182 Comment ID: 23753 Letter Lines: 33 to 59 

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

Comment Code: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells (seeking comment) 

Comment: The SDWA provides that States may apply to EPA for primary enforcement 

responsibility to administer the underground injection control program. These 

states, referred to as Primacy States, must meet the minimum federal 

requirements for UIC programs, including construction, operating, monitoring, 

testing, reporting, and closure requirements for well owners or operators. 

Additionally, the SDWA allows states to apply for such primacy in part, such as 

for well Classes I, III, IV, and V under Section 1422, or for Class II wells only under 

Section 1425. Colorado falls in this latter camp, with primacy for Class II wells 

only. 

1
2

The proposed rule calls for another class of wells, Class VI, for the injection of 

carbon dioxide. It is our contention that states should be able to seek primacy for 

Class VI wells as a ‘stand alone’ class, just as they do for Class II wells now. 

Because Class II wells are for oil and gas injection, Class II wells and the 

proposed Class VI wells are similar in purpose and particularly suited as ‘stand 

alone’ classes of wells. 

Also, in addition to our own staff, Colorado is home to a premier university and 

scientific community, such that we have the expertise in the event we were to 

assume primacy for Class VI wells. 

Finally, geologic sequestration is only one component in a broader carbon capture 

and sequestration context. Colorado agrees with EPA that allowing states to 

acquire primacy for Class VI wells may encourage them to assume the 

responsibility of implementation and provide for a more comprehensive approach 

to managing CCS projects. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain 

primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent 

primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. Given the potential for CCS 

(encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a 

national priority to address climate change, EPA believes that providing states the flexibility to 

obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective 

management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage 

states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more 

comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities 

under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve 

ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface 

access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level (but outside 

UIC authority) to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach. 

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote 

adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected 

from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the 

importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States 

should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only. 

EPA agrees that having skilled personnel in various technical areas relevant to GS of CO2 is 

critically important for effective implementation of the Class VI regulation. EPA acknowledges 

that such expertise may be present among staff in state UIC programs or through university 

systems, such as in state universities or the scientific community. EPA believes such expertise 

will benefit implementation of the Class VI program nation-wide.