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.Ground Water Protection Council

13308 N. MacArthur Blvd.

Oklahoma City, OK 73142

Tel: (405) 516-4972

Fax: (405) 516-4973

www.gwpc.org Dedicated to protecting our nation’s ground water.

March 31, 2009

Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

USEPA

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Ms. Dougherty:

On December 23, 2008, the Ground Water Protecti on Council (GWPC) signed a letter submitted

by a Multi-Stakeholder Group (MSG) supporting th e concept of creating a new class of UIC

wells to manage the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. As part of that letter, the GWPC

also supported the development of new subclass of the Class II progra m for the purposes of

geologic sequestration of carbon diox ide in oil and gas reservoirs.

One of the topics discussed in the December 23 le tter was the need for a way to determine when

a well permitted under the Class II program w ould cross a “bright line” for purposes of

distinguishing between a well used primarily for enhanced recovery and one used primarily for

geosequestration. It is our understanding that members of the MSG are submitting language to

EPA suggesting the criteria unde r which wells would transitio n from Class II Enhanced

Recovery to a new class or subc lass of well for geosequestration.

Since much of the proposal being submitted by the MSG is based upon the concepts expressed

by the GWPC in its December 23, 2008 submissi on of recommendation to EPA concerning the

proposed Class VI rule, we expect to support some portion or portions of the MSG language.

Regardless, to insure the process of rule de velopment proceeds at an appropriate pace, we

recommend that EPA publish the la nguage proposed by the MSG as part of its Notice of Data

Availability (NODA). The GWPC will continue to work with the MSG on this issue and we

look forward to submitting more detailed co mments as the process moves forward.

Respectfully,

Mike Paque

GWPC Executive Director

cc: Robert F. Van Voorhees

Scott AndersonLetter ID: 0297

Commenter: Michel Paque

Organization: Ground Wate r Protection Council

Letter ID: 0297 Comment ID: 29316 Letter Lines: 16 to 57

Comment Code: 2044 1.5.2.2 Oppose Class VI/ Support Class II

Comment: March 31, 2009

Cynthia C. Doughe rty, Director

Office of Ground Water a nd Drinking Water

USEPA

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, DC 20460

Dear Ms. Dougherty:

On December 23, 2008, the Ground Water Protec tion Council (GWPC) signed a letter

submitted by a Multi-Stakeholder Group (MSG ) supporting the concept of creating

a new class of UIC wells to manage the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide.

As part of that letter, th e GWPC also supported the de velopment of new subclass

of the Class II program fo r the purposes of geologic sequestration of carbon

dioxide in oil and gas reservoirs.

One of the topics discussed in the December 23 letter was the need for a way to

determine when a well permitted under the Class II program would cross a "bright

line" for purposes of distinguishing betw een a well used primarily for enhanced

recovery and one used primarily for ge osequestration. It is our understanding

that members of the MSG are submitting la nguage to EPA suggesting the criteria

under which wells would transition from Cl ass II Enhanced Recovery to a new

class or subclass of well for geosequestration.

Since much of the proposal being submitted by the MSG is based upon the concepts

expressed by the GWPC in its December 23, 2008 submission of recommendation to

EPA concerning the proposed Class VI rule , we expect to suppor t some portion or

portions of the MSG language. Regardless, to insure the process of rule

development proceeds at an appropriate pace, we recommend that EPA publish the

language proposed by the MSG as part of it s Notice of Data Av ailability (NODA).

The GWPC will continue to work with the MSG on this issue and we look forward to

submitting more detailed comments as the process moves forward.

Respectfully,

12 Mike Paque

GWPC Executive Director

cc: Robert F. Van Voorhees

Scott Anderson

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that wells injecting CO2 for the primary purpose of long

term storage should be regulated under Class II requirements. The Agency believes that the

nature and risks of CO2 inject ion for the primary purpose of l ong term storage poses different

risks than injection for the primary purpose of ER, and therefore has de veloped new Class VI

regulations to address these unique risks. For example, the volu me of CO2 anticipated to be

injected for long term storage is significantly gr eater than for ER operatio ns. Reservoir pressure

conditions will also be different, with Class VI injection operations involving large volumes of

CO2 and likely having higher pressure s within their storage formations than Class II ER projects.

The final Class VI regulations re quire that any owner or operato r injecting CO2 for the primary

purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI pe rmit with some special consideration for the

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

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

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

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

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

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

while allowing for site-specific flexibility. For more information, please see the discussion on

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