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: 0162 

Commenter: Sandi Tabor 

Organization: Lignite Energy Council (LEC) 

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21293 Letter Lines: 64 to 68 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: The LEC's, along with our major members', participation in PCOR signals the 

importance of CCS technology and the need for the development of clear, flexible 

and appropriately tailored regulations that will facilitate the development of 

and spur investment in CCS technology. To achieve this goal several general 

principles should be considered by EPA as it refines the proposed regulations. 

Individual Response: EPA recognizes the importance of providing clear, flexible, scalable, and 

appropriate regulations. EPA believes that the GS regulation will provide certainty to industry 

and the public by providing consistency in requirements across the U.S. and transparency about 

what requirements apply to owners or operators. EPA clarifies that the intent of the Class VI 

regulation is not to promote or encourage the use of GS, but, instead to ensure protection of 

USDWs where GS technologies are deployed. 

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: 0162 Comment ID: 21294 Letter Lines: 69 to 76 

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

Comment: First, EPA's regulations must reflect a balanced approach between the need to 

protect underground drinking water supplies and the need to avoid regulations 

that ultimately discourage CCS. While the proposed rule attempts to provide 

flexibility in the form of director discretion, in several areas the proposed 

rule establishes default provisions that would apply to all GS sites. EPA must 

be careful to recognize that each storage site will present unique 

characteristics. Rather than imposing default provisions on all sites, EPA 

should utilize performance-based standards in the regulatory program. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1
Directorial discretion and considerations for how that discretion would be exercised. The Agency 

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

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

EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where deployed, GS 

is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. Encouraging investment in 

CCS projects and facilitating deployment are outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. 

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21295 Letter Lines: 78 to 83 

Comment Code: 1480 1.2.2.2.2 CO2 is not a pollutant 

Comment: Second, EPA must be careful to avoid labeling C02 as a waste, pollutant or 

contaminant. Regulations should require storage operators to properly 

characterize the C02 they intend to store and protocols for storage should be 

based on that characterization. Broad sweeping characterizations of CO2 as 

hazardous waste, however, should be avoided due to the potential deterrent such 

characterizations will have on entities attempting to develop CCS projects. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that owners or operators should characterize the injectate. 

Among the information owners or operators are required to submit with their permit applications 

(at §146.82 (a)(7)) is an analysis of the chemical and physical characteristics of the CO2 stream 

and information on the compatibility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and 

minerals in both the injection and the confining zone(s). The Director will evaluate this 

information when setting permit conditions. 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. In addition, owners or 

operators must periodically monitor their injectate throughout injection operations under 

§146.90(a). 

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21296 Letter Lines: 85 to 90 

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

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Responsibility and Long-Term Care 

Requirements 

Comment: Third, EPA must develop financial assurance and risk management regulations that 

clarify the long-term obligations and risk associated with a GS project. One way 

to meet the EPA's dual goal of protecting the environment while facilitating the 

development of CCS is to focus regulations on proper site characterization. 

Proper site selection and characterization will help minimize potential future 

risks and lessen the need for default provisions that apply to all sites. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that proper site characterization is important to minimizing 

risks associated with GS, but also believes that assuring financial responsibility for corrective 

2
action on Class VI wells in the AoR, injection well plugging, PISC and site closure, and 

emergency and remedial response at GS sites is an important component of ensuring that 

USDWs are protected. The goal of the financial responsibility requirements at §146.85 are to 

ensure that financial resources are available to prevent endangerment of USDWs from improper 

plugging, remediation, and management of wells in the event that the owner or operator 

experiences financial difficulties. See the final rule and preamble for further discussion of EPA's 

final approach to financial responsibility. 

EPA expects that the cost of financial responsibility will depend heavily on the estimated cost of 

covered activities as well as certain site-specific factors and their project phases. Under the final 

rule, the cost estimate must be performed for each phase of the GS project separately and must 

be based on the costs to the owner or operator of hiring a third party to perform the required 

activities. Additionally, during the active life of the GS project, the owner or operator must 

adjust the cost estimate for inflation within 60 days prior to the anniversary date of the 

establishment of the financial instrument(s) to demonstrate financial responsibility. In order to 

assist owners or operators and financial institutions in achieving accurate cost estimates, EPA 

plans to include a guidance that includes discussion of how best to estimate costs, including how 

to adjust cost estimates for inflation, in its guidance on meeting financial responsibility 

requirements for GS wells. 

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21297 Letter Lines: 116 to 120 

Comment Code: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation 

Comment: 1.Establishment of the new Class VI injection well/Class II permit for EOR 

continued/Grandfathering the construction requirements of existing Class I and 

II wells -The LEC supports the establishment of a new injection well class for 

those wells not associated with EOR provided that EPA recognizes the need for 

flexibility within the regulation of the new class. We agree that where there is 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that tailored requirements for 

Class VI wells are necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and 

to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. The Class VI requirements are 

appropriate because of the unique nature and risks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., 

large injection volumes, long project duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule 

contains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and 

corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well 

plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique 

to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for GS. 

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

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 

3
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. For more information, please see the discussion on 

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

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21298 Letter Lines: 120 to 122 

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: flexibility within the regulation of the new class. We agree that where there is 

an EOR component in a project, the project should continue to be permitted and 

regulated under the Class II program. For that matter, we also support granting 

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

oil and gas recovery should remain under the Class II Program. EPA also recognizes that the oil 

and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of EOR, and that sites 

used for EOR may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS sites. However, EPA 

believes that injection for the primary purpose of long term storage is sufficiently different from 

Class II EOR operations and warrants tailored requirements. For example, the volume of CO2 

anticipated to be injected in Class VI wells is significantly greater than for Class II wells. 

Reservoir pressure conditions will also be different, with Class VI injection operations involving 

large volumes of CO2 and likely having higher pressures within their storage formations than 

Class II EOR projects. 

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21299 Letter Lines: 122 to 124 

Comment Code: 2064 1.5.3.2 Grandfathering construction of Class II wells (seeking comment) 

Comment Code: 2066 1.5.3.3 Grandfathering construction of Class V wells (seeking comment) 

Comment: regulated under the Class II program. For that matter, we also support granting 

state UIC directors the authority to grandfather the construction requirements 

for Class II and V wells when they are converted to full scale Class VI wells. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that many Class II and Class V experimental technology 

wells are designed and constructed to withstand exposure to CO2. The final GS rule provides 

that the construction of these wells be grandfathered per §146.81(c), provided the owner or 

operator can demonstrate to the Director that the wells were engineered and constructed to meet 

the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at 

§146.86(b) and §146.87(a). EPA clarifies that only the construction requirements are 

grandfathered and that all other Class VI requirements (reporting, monitoring, mechnical 

integrity testing, etc.) must be met following a determination under §146.81(c). 

4
Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21300 Letter Lines: 126 to 138 

Comment Code: 2163 1.6.3.1 Comments in favor of injection into unmineable coal seams 

Comment: 2.Target Geologic Formations for GS of CO2 •• Unmineable coal seams -EPA 

should 

not arbitrarily preclude injection of C02 into certain formations; rather EPA 

should conduct a site-specific review of the appropriateness of the geology to 

determine suitability for GS. More specifically, the storage of C02 in 

unmineable (as opposed to mined out) coal seams is an area of very active 

research in our region. PCOR is currently conducting a pilot test of this 

concept in Burke County, North Dakota. Other DOE Partnerships are conducting 

similar (non-lignite) coal seam sequestration field tests. PCOR conservatively 

estimates more than 10 billion tons of potential storage in regional coal seams 

that if utilized could result in the incremental production of more than 17 Tef 

of coal bed methane, which would provide positive economic feedback to a CCS 

project. We urge EPA to develop regulations in this area in consultation with 

the DOE Partnerships and based on the outcome of their research. 

Individual Response: The final GS rule does not preclude injection into any non-USDW 

formation type, including coal seams, provided owners or operators can demonstrate that GS can 

be performed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA recognizes that 

research on the feasibility of various types of geologic formations is underway, and it continues 

to track the progress of this research. For example, while developing the GS regulation, EPA 

evaluated projects conducted by the seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships funded by 

the U.S. Department of Energy and coordinated through the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory (NETL), as well as several international projects. In addition, DOE's RCSPs are 

conducting numerous pilot projects that inject CO2 into a variety of formation types, including 

saline, basalt, coal seams, and oil and gas reservoirs. 

EPA acknowledges that there may be risks associated with GS into certain formation types. For 

this reason, the Agency is using an adaptive approach to regulate GS injection. EPA will collect 

and review project data on early GS projects, including those that inject into various formation 

types, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and documentation 

are being collected. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to 

determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate 

documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are 

appropriate or necessary. 

EPA further clarifies that the GS rule is not intended to promote a preference for GS in any 

particular formation type, to address use of resources, or to reduce costs associated with GS into 

various formations. The focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is 

conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

Additionally, EPA coordinated with Federal, including DOE, and non- Federal entities on GS 

and CCS to determine how best to tailor existing injection requirements to CO2 for GS. 

5
Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21301 Letter Lines: 140 to 145 

Comment Code: 4324 2.4.4.1.2 Comments opposed to requiring injection below the lowermost 

USDW 

Comment: In the final analysis, the state UIC directors should have the discretion to 

allow injection into coal seams, oil and gas formations, and other formations 

located above the lowermost USDW, where site-specific characteristics indicate 

that those formations are good candidates. Proper site characterization and 

engineering are more important in determining a suitable site than a blanket 

prohibition. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are limited circumstances where injection 

above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs from 

endangerment, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The final GS rule at §146.95 

establishes a process by which owners or operators can seek a waiver of the Class VI injection 

depth requirements for injection into non-USDW formations above and/or between USDWs. The 

final GS rule does not categorically preclude or prohibit injection into any type of formation. 

EPA believes that these requirements will ensure USDW protection while providing flexibility to 

UIC program Directors and owners or operators who undertake CO2 injection for GS. For 

additional information on the waiver approach and aquifer exemptions for Class VI wells, please 

see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to comments on the Notice of Data 

Availability and Request for Comment. 

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21302 Letter Lines: 147 to 172 

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

Comment: 3. Categorization of Injected C02 Considered a Hazardous Waste under RCRA -

Under 

the proposal EPA states that it cannot make a categorical determination as to 

whether injected C02 is hazardous under RCRA. It suggests the burden should be 

on the operators to characterize their C02 stream as part of the permit 

application to determine if the injectate is considered hazardous as defined in 

40 CFR Part 261. RCRA regulates the production, management and disposal of 

wastes and RCRA's potential application in the case of C02 injectate is 

dependent upon the existence of a solid waste. If the material is a solid waste, 

the law requires further analysis to determine if it is also a hazardous waste. 

Injected CO2 should be considered a product or a commodity and not a solid 

waste. Leaving the question to be resolved when operators characterize their C02 

streams with the potential that RCRA liability may attach will be a deterrent to 

C02 storage projects. The LEC urges the EPA to make a determination under its 

RCRA authority that CCS activities meeting Class VI permit requirements do not 

6
equate to DISCARDING the C02. By so doing, Class VI CO2 injection operations 

would not be considered waste management activities and would not be subject to 

RCRA. 

As further justification for this position, simply consider the success of 

existing acid gas injection operations into depleted oil and gas reservoirs 

conducted under the existing UIC regulations. Low level impurities, such as H2S 

or mercaptans should not trigger a classification under RCRA. The proposed rule 

has adequate protection for drinking water aquifers and addresses corrective 

action, financial assurance requirements, and long-term monitoring after 

closure. These requirements negate the need for any RCRA regulation. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule itself does not change the status of CO2 as 

a solid waste or hazardous waste under RCRA. 

EPA received many comments regarding the applicability of the RCRA regulations and statute to 

CO2 streams that are geologically sequestered under the final Class VI UIC well requirements. 

As a result, EPA has decided to initiate a separate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine 

the issue of RCRA applicability to CO2 streams being geologically sequestered, including the 

possible option of a conditional exemption from the RCRA requirements for CO2 GS in Class 

VI wells. EPA will consider these comments as part of its development of that proposal. The 

Agency will consider issues particular to RCRA in the context of that separate rulemaking, and 

recommends that the commenter read that proposed rule when it is published. The Agency notes 

that commenters who wish to submit comments on the RCRA proposal will need to do so during 

the comment period for that rule. Finally, EPA also notes that the final GS rule, which adds new 

regulations for Class VI wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is not making any 

changes to the RCRA regulations. 

The GS rule requires the owner or operator to submit data about the site, including an analysis of 

the chemical and physical characteristics of the CO2 stream, as required at §146.82(a)(7)(iv), and 

information on the compatibility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals 

in both the injection and the confining zones and the materials used to construct the well, per 

§146.82(c)(3). This information can help the Director determine the potential for geochemical 

reactions between the injectate (CO2) and the host geologic formations, which could result in the 

plugging of pore spaces or the dissolution of formation minerals. 

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21303 Letter Lines: 174 to 186 

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment) 

Comment: 4. Categorization of injected C02 as a hazardous substance under CERCLA EPA 

seeks comment on whether Class VI permittees could be exempted from CERCLA under 

its "federally permitted release" provision. First, liability under CERCLA 

depends on whether there has been a disposal of hazardous substances. While CO2 

is not a CERCLA hazardous substance, EPA suggests in the preamble that the 

makeup of a particular injected C02 stream may trigger a CERCLA analysis. 

7
However, the preamble also states that CERCLA's federally permitted releases 

provision exempts releases in compliance with a UIC permit under SDWA from 

CERCLA liability. This exemption in and of itself should put the issue to rest. 

We urge the EPA to fully address the longterm liability for stored C02 under 

UIC Class VI Well permit. EPA should avoid creating unnecessary hurdles for the 

successful deployment of CCS by preempting the applicability of CERCLA to Class 

VI activities. 

Individual Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for their detailed comments regarding 

the scope and possible impacts of CERCLA liability on CCS activities, and in particular 

comments related to the CERCLA exemption for federally-permitted releases. EPA notes that 

the GS rule is not promulgated under CERCLA, therefore the applicability of that statute will not 

be determined under the SDWA or the terms of the GS rule, but rather according to the 

CERCLA statute itself and any implementing regulations that may apply. 

CERCLA exempts from liability, under CERCLA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, certain 

“federally permitted releases” as defined in CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(10). Therefore, Class VI 

requirements and permits will need to be carefully structured to ensure that they do not 

“authorize” inappropriate releases, and would need to prevent potential releases from the well 

which are outside the scope of the Class VI permit. 

The UIC program Director has authority under SDWA §1423 to address potential compliance 

issues (e.g., potential releases that may endanger USDWs) resulting from injection violations in 

the unlikely event that a remedial response is necessary. Although EPA anticipates that the need 

for emergency or remedial actions at GS sites will be rare, the GS rule requires, at §146.94, that 

emergency and remedial response plans be developed and updated to address such events and 

that owners or operators demonstrate that financial resources are set aside to implement the plans 

if necessary, per §146.85. 

Regarding long term liability, once an owner or operator has met all regulatory requirements 

under Part 146 for Class VI wells and the Director has approved site closure pursuant to 

requirements at §146.93, the owner or operator will generally no longer be subject to 

enforcement for regulatory noncompliance. Furthermore, their financial instrument as required 

under §146.85 will be released if it was not used. However, even if a site closure is approved 

under §146.93, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance (including 

violation of 40 CFR 144.12) in certain circumstances. For example, an owner or operator may be 

held liable for regulatory noncompliance even after site closure was approved if the Director 

relied on erroneous information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provided by the owner or 

operator when approving site closure. 

Separate from EPA’s authority to enforce regulatory compliance, an owner or operator may be 

subject to a §1431 response order even after proper site closure is approved under §146.93. 

Under §1431 the Administrator may require an owner or operator to take necessary response 

measures if he or she receives information that a contaminant is present or is likely to enter a 

public water system or an USDW, which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment 

to the health of persons, and the appropriate State and local authorities have not acted to protect 

8
the health of such persons. The action may include issuing administrative orders or commencing 

a civil action for appropriate relief against the owner or operator of a Class VI well. If the owner 

or operator fails to comply with the order, they may be subject to a civil penalty for each day in 

which such violation occurs or failure to comply continues. 

Furthermore, after site closure an owner or operator may remain liable under tort and other 

remedies, or under other federal statutes including, but not limited to, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§§7401-7671; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9601-9675; and RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6901-6992. EPA does 

not have authority to transfer SDWA or other legal liability for Class VI wells to the State or 

federal government or a third-party fund. See the final rule preamble for further discussion of 

EPA's final approach. 

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21304 Letter Lines: 188 to 194 

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

Comment Code: 5260 2.8.2.3 Adjusting the post-injection timeframe (seeking comment) 

Comment: 5. Combination of Fixed Timeframe and Performance Standard -EPA is seeking 

comments on the imposition of a 50-year post-injection site care (PISC) standard 

as a default timeframe with state UIC directors having discretion to adjust the 

default time period. We urge EPA to remove all reference to default PISC periods 

and instead require directors to base post-injection site care on site and 

project specific characteristics. By so doing the goal of supporting the 

commercialization of CCS technology is better served. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that there will be circumstances where it can be demonstrated 

in less than 50 years that the plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerment to 

USDWs. For this reason, the final GS regulation offers owners or operators flexibility regarding 

the duration of the PISC timeframe by: (1) allowing the Director discretion to shorten or 

lengthen the PISC timeframe during the PISC period based on site-specific data, pursuant to 

requirements at §146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well 

owner or operator to demonstrate, based on substantial data during the permitting process, that an 

alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensures non-endangerment of USDWs 

pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

impacts. 

EPA believes however, that to ensure USDW protection from endangerment, a default timeframe 

for post-injection site care is necessary in most cases. A 50 year post-injection site care 

timeframe represents a reasonable and protective monitoring period for most GS projects based 

on a review of research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and 

9
evaluation of public comments. 

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21305 Letter Lines: 196 to 202 

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Responsibility and Long-Term Care 

Requirements 

Comment: 6. Financial Assurance -The proposed rules require permittees to demonstrate at 

the time of project permitting financial assurance for a number of activities 

throughout the PISC period. The requirements for PISC of GS of C02 exceed the 

rules in place for existing wells injecting hazardous wastes. There is nothing 

to indicate that stored CO2 warrants a financial assurance program more 

stringent than that required for the Class I hazardous waste injection well 

program. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the requirements on financial responsibility are overly 

stringent. The goal of financial responsibility is to ensure that financial resources are available to 

prevent and remediate the endangerment of USDWs from improper plugging, remediation, and 

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

EPA disagrees that the requirements for GS wells are more stringent than Class I hazardous 

waste wells; rather, the financial responsibility requirements for GS wells are tailored to the 

unique nature of the long term GS of CO2. 

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21306 Letter Lines: 204 to 209 

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Responsibility and Long-Term Care 

Requirements 

Comment: In order to develop more meaningful parameters for the Class VI financial 

assurance program, EPA should take note of the work of the DOE regional 

partnerships. For instance, as mentioned earlier in these comments, the PCOR 

partnership is conducting field validation tests and long-term demonstration 

testing of GS. Information derived from these studies will help EPA develop more 

practical financial assurance requirements. 

Individual Response: EPA continues to collaborate with DOE and others to obtain information 

about pilot projects and other research as soon as it becomes available. EPA believes that the GS 

rule provides an adaptive and flexible approach that will be best for purposes of site specific 

circumstances. 

EPA has specified acceptable financial responsibility instruments and requirements in the final 

regulation. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance (available on EPA's website at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm) that describes the types of 

10
financial instruments that owners or operators can use to meet financial responsibility 

requirements for GS wells. 

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21307 Letter Lines: 211 to 218 

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

Comment: 7. State Class VI Well primacy -Presently, North Dakota has primacy for the UIC 

program. The state is in the process of developing the statutory framework for 

regulating the long-term GS of CO2. If passed by the 2009 ND Legislative 

Assembly, regulations for GS will be promulgated in 2009. As such, North Dakota 

will have a program in place that can be modified as needed to implement a 

future EPA program. We encourage EPA to allow state primacy to regulate Class VI 

UIC wells regardless of whether or not the state has primacy for other UIC 

programs. 

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 also believes that allowing states to apply only for Class VI primacy will shorten the 

primacy approval process for states. EPA's willingness to accept independent primacy 

applications for Class VI wells represents a shift in its longstanding policy of discouraging 

"partial primacy." It is very important to note that this shift in policy allowing for Class VI 

primacy does not apply to any other well Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to 

discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422. 

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other 

well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum 

Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping 

11
requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their 

expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy 

application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs 

integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment. 

EPA recognizes that some states have already begun legislative efforts that are wider in scope 

than the federal GS rule and believes that allowing Class VI primacy (independent of other well 

classes) may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of a more comprehensive 

approach to managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration). 

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21308 Letter Lines: 236 to 256 

Comment Code: 1852 1.4.2.1 DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships 

Comment: 2 Plains CO2 Reduction (PCOR) Partnership is a mUltiyear collaboration of over 

80 U.S. and Canadian stakehoiders that is laying the groundwork for practical 

and enVironmentally sound carbon dioxide (C02) sequestration projects in the 

heartland of North America, inclUding all or part of nine U.S. states and four 

Canadian provinces within the centrai interior of North America. [On line 

Available] http://www.undeerc.org/pcor/default.asp, Sept. 12,2008 

3 Id. From the fall of 2005 to the fall of 2009, the PCOR Partnership will be 

developing and carrying out four field validation projects in the PCOR 

Partnership region. These four field validation projects are designed to 

demonstrate the effectiveness of C02 sequestration in different settings and 

under different conditions. The PCOR Partnership field validation projects are 

among three dozen field validation projects that will occur in North America as 

part of Phase II of the U.S. Department of Energy Regional Carbon Sequestration 

Partnership Program. In the fail of 2007, the Partnership began developing two 

commercial- scale, long-term field demonstration projects for geologic C02 

sequestration. The PCOR Partnership commercial-scale sequestration field 

demonstrations are scheduled to run until 2017 and are among the several largescale geologic demonstration projects that will occur in North America as part 

of Phase ill of the U.S. Department of Energy. The region is also the site of 

the Weyburn geoiogic sequestration project since 2002. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the value of the DOE pilot projects and resultant data 

and information generated by such projects. EPA has evaluated permits and reviewed operational 

data and information associated with the seven RCSPs funded by the U.S. Department of Energy 

and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). In addition to the 

information cited in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data 

Availability and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency 

described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites: the Escatawpa, Mississippi 

project; the Aneth Field project in Paradox Basin, Southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, 

New Mexico. The Agency will continue to track GS project developments and evaluate new and 

ongoing research and information to ensure USDW protection. 

12
13

Even after finalizing the rule, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS 

projects, including data generated by the partnerships, to determine whether the appropriate 

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

determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.