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.

1
Public Comments and EPA Responses to Comments Provided at

Chicago, IL Hearing on the Proposed Rule

EPA held a public hearing on the proposed rule on September 30, 2008 in Chicago, IL.

Eleven (11) people commented at the Chicago hearing, including:

• Bill Herz; Fertilizer Institute

• Karl R. Moor; Southern Company

• Brad Kallio

• Michele Schoepper; American Petroleum Institute

• Mark Singer; Green America Project, LLC

• Lee Sprague; Sierra Club

• Matt Toner; Hydrogen Energy International  

• Brian Williams; BP Alternative Energy

• Iain Wright; BP Alternative Energy

• Becki Clayborn; Sierra Club

• Scott Anderson; Environmental Defense Fund

Their comments are included in the hearing transcript in the first part of this file.  The

second part of this file contains EPA’s responses to the comments.

Use the bookmarks in the PDF to locate a specific comment or response.
 MR. HERTZ: Thank you. My name is Bill Hertz, and 

I'm Vice President of Scientific Programs for The Fertilizer 

Institute. TFI represents the nation's fertilizer industry, 

producers, manufacturers, retailers, trading firms, and equipment 

manufacturers, which comprises membership are served by a fulltime Washington, D.C. staff in various legislative, educational, 

and technical areas, as well as with information and public 

relations programs. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 TFI wishes to thank the U.S. EPA for publishing 

the proposed requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act for 

underground injection of carbon dioxide for the purpose of 

geologic sequestration, and for holding the public hearing on 

this subject, and in general for conducting this rule-making in a 

very open and transparent manner. 

 Although the rule is geared specifically toward 

well operators there are several components that may affect 

potential upstream industrial clients, and are of great interest 

to TFI members. In fact, EPA must carefully consider the 

applicability of this rule and ensure that it covers large 

industrial manufacturers such as nitrogen fertilizer producers. 

 Within the chemical process of producing nitrogen 

fertilizer, CO2 is generated as a by-product. This CO2 in many 

cases is sold into various product streams. All members are 

2
keenly interested in the enhanced oil recovery aspect of this. 

And in fact, the CO2 stream that we produce is among the cleanest 

that is out there, and is virtually impurity free in many cases. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 So in general, TFI is supportive of the proposed 

rules but would request additional regulatory clarity and/or 

guidance for potential upstream industrial clients. 

 Now, specific, aspects of the rule that TFI 

supports: we support the establishment of a new class of well, 

Class VI, for geologic sequestration and maintaining injection of 

carbon dioxide for the purposes of enhanced oil recovery under 

the Class II program. 

 We also support provisions allowing Class I, II, 

and V to be re-permitted as Class VI wells. We support proposed 

language that would grandfather construction requirements for 

Class I or II wells seeking re-permitting as a Class VI Well. We 

agree that other abandoned mines, including potentially potash 

mines are potential CO2 storage options and would be willing to 

assist the EPA in exploring this matter further. 

 Now, items that, that need additional regulatory 

clarity include the liability aspects. TFI understands the EPA's 

concern with the potential for impurities in the CO2 stream and 

the risks that contaminants, such as hydrogen sulfide and 

sulfuric and nitrous oxide in the CO2 stream could migrate into a 

3
1 USDW. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 TFI also agrees that because the types of 

impurities and their concentrations in the stream are likely to 

vary by facility, plant operating conditions, and pollution 

removal technologies, EPA can not make a categorical 

determination as to whether the injected CO2 is hazardous under 

RCRA. TFI would request greater guidance for potential upstream 

industrial clients in CO2 disposal wells. 

 And among the RCRA related questions we would like 

to discuss before regulations are promulgated include the 

implications of considering the long-term storage of CO2 as 

discard, as the EPA suggests, by stating that CO2 streams need to 

be non-hazardous, the consequences of CO2 storage prior to 

injection, and the potential implications for solid waste storage 

regulation, and potential state regulatory obligations on the 

injection of solid waste. Monitoring and/or reporting 

requirements for upstream industrial clients that could provide 

RCRA liability relief. 

 We would also raise the CERCLA issue and the 

CERCLA liability issue. We agree with the EPA's interpretation 

in the proposed rule that the release of CO2 constitutes a 

federally permitted release as defined in CERCLA 42 USC 9601. 

 However, we remain concerned about potential 

4
CERCLA liability for upstream industrial clients, especially for 

comingled injectate streams, and for injectate stream 

constituents that could react with ground water to produce listed 

hazardous substances. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 TFI would request EPA include regulatory language 

governing monitoring, reporting requirements for upstream 

industrial clients that would provide CERCLA liability relief for 

exclusion in the promulgated rule. We would request that EPA 

include regulatory language providing liability protection or 

exclusion in the, and a potential liability in the event of 

leaks, well failure, or the release of reaction products. 

 We agree with previous comments that in terms of 

paying or otherwise tagging CO2 leakage down the road could be a 

major disincentive for capital investment on these types of 

projects. Because the expectation that a ton of CO2 could be 10 

times or 40 times the current cost would, would really, again, be 

a disincentive for companies to move forward with this. 

 We would request, finally, clarification for 

upstream industrial clients as to the appropriate requirements 

for analyzing the CO2 stream at a frequency sufficient to yield 

representative data of its chemical and physical characteristics 

as cited in the Federal Register Notice. As well as appropriate 

requirements for upstream industrial clients in terms of 

5
1 monitoring and record-keeping. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

 To conclude, the EPA Science Advisory Board on 

Integrated Nitrogen has estimated that fertilizer is responsible 

for almost 50 percent of the world food production. There is 

over a billion people that are living essentially on a dollar a 

day or less globally. And this rule, if done correctly, has the 

potential to lower farmers' input cost and, and positively impact 

food security. 

 We would like to thank EPA for advancing this 

important tool for future carbon sequestration, and urge EPA to 

work closely with the nitrogen fertilizer industry and TFI on the 

issues that we have raised. And we would like to meet at a 

future convenient date to discuss these issues further. Thank 

you. 

6
 MR. MOOR: Good morning. My name is Karl Moor, 

I'm Vice President and Associate General Counsel of the Southern 

Company, one of the largest producers of electricity in the 

country, serving nearly 4.4 million customers in the Southeastern 

United States. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 I'm pleased to say that Southern Company has 

already begun to assess geological storage opportunities in the 

southeast, and will begin injecting carbon dioxide into deep 

saline filled geological formation at our Plant Daniel 

Mississippi site next week. 

 The demonstration project at Plant Daniel is the 

product of a collaborative effort between the Department of 

Energy, the Electric Power Research Institute and the Southern 

States Energy Board, and is under the auspices of the 

Southeastern Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership, which is 

a mouthful. 

 Southern Company supports, obviously, carbon 

capture and storage as a critical tool in addressing green house 

gas, and is proud of our own efforts to facilitate the 

development of that technology. I'm here today, however, 

representing the Edison Electric Institute. I'm also joined by 

Mr. Bill Fang of the Edison Electric Legal Staff. 

 EEI serves 95 percent of the customers in the 

7
shareholder segment of the industry and represents 70 percent of 

the total customers for electric in the United States. I am the 

Chairman of EEI's Carbon Capture Storage Workgroup, which is 

comprised of a number of companies who are committed to exploring 

CCS as an option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 And I'd like to thank the EPA for the opportunity 

to discuss the rule-making. I'd also like to the congratulate 

the EPA on the process, there's been much good comment in our 

industry and other industries. You're familiar with the way and 

the approach the EPA has taken for this regulation, you know, for 

this process with the thoroughness and professionalism. 

 And I would first like to put the importance of 

CCS in a context. Electricity generation produces 34 percent of 

the greenhouse gas emissions and 40 percent of carbon dioxide 

emissions in the United States. So this technology is critical 

to address that share of CO2 emissions in the United States. 

 As EPA noted in the preamble in its proposed 

regulations, the goal is to create a regulatory framework that 

supports, and I'm quoting the development of the key climate 

change mitigation technology. EPA's regulations for geological 

storage of carbon dioxide are an important first step in moving 

the country forward and for securing the reality being expressed 

in the preamble. 

8
 EEI and its member companies not only applaud you 

for the process, we also think that the, the goals that we are, 

have articulated in the technology are the right goals. And we 

are supportive in that regard as well. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 But we do have several key messages which, which 

may seem critical at some level, but we mean them as a source of 

constructive review of the regulations and hopefully a way of 

improving them. 

 The key, the two key points that we would leave 

you with today are this, first, these regulations can and should 

promote the development and deployment of carbon capture and 

storage while protecting underground sources of drinking water 

without, and this is key, without unduly stigmatizing carbon 

dioxide injection storage. 

 Carbon dioxide has been injected for years in 

enhanced oil recovery, and that's been done largely without 

incident. 

 And second, we believe that the regulation should 

be sufficiently flexible to take into consideration the sitespecific characteristics and performance based measures. It 

should be sufficiently adaptable to incorporate lessons learned 

from ongoing pilot and demonstration projects like that at our 

Plant Daniel. 

9
 To elaborate on these points I would say that EEI 

urges the agency to ensure that the regulations do not stigmatize 

storage, which, and the reason for that is we, it's a very fine 

line between appropriate regulatory guidance and sending this to 

the public that says that this technology is inherently 

dangerous, and that storage projects themselves are, make bad 

neighbors. As I've noted, EPA has stated these two goals 

themselves, that it simultaneously wants to protect drinking 

water and promote CCS. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 That in keeping, keeping these two goals from 

working against each other we believe that the emphasis should be 

placed in the regulations and all that follows, that CO2 is not a 

hazardous waste, a hazardous waste, and it's found in the ambient 

air. And as a result CO2, taking a regulatory approach to CO2, 

that in many ways is stricter than the underground injection of 

hazardous waste is, is in some small sense regulatory overkill. 

 Many of the construction, mechanical integrity, 

monitoring, and financial responsibility provisions for Class VI 

Wells are more comprehensive in this proposal than they are for 

Class I Wells. The increased regulatory burden that this will 

place on the industry and upon those who want to undertake CCS 

projects would be substantial. 

 Our industry knows firsthand, unfortunately, what, 

10
why it is so important that the public have an accurate 

perception of the risks and the rewards behind technologies, 

particular in their early stages of development. And in the 

preamble to this proposal EPA finds that the public should 

participate in the permitting process, in fact, have taken some 

innovative approaches to encouraging greater public 

participation. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 And we ask today that EPA help communicate to the 

public that it'd be very unlikely, and I would stress that, very 

unlikely that carbon geological storage would harm underground 

sources of water, or for that matter affect human health 

adversely. 

 EPA can, I think, help do that by retooling the 

proposed regulations and to tie the requirements to the actual 

risks more closely. In addition, the EPA should remove the 

elements that serve only to fan the claims of public 

misperception, but having increased the protection of underground 

sources of ground water. 

 For example, requiring a secondary containment 

field for this is, would create the wrong impression about the 

safety of carbon capture and storage, and it should not be a part 

of the final rule. Such a requirement is unprecedented in the 

UIC program. 

11
 Even for the storage of Class I sources secondary 

containment fields are also unprecedented internationally. 

Countries where carbon capture and storage projects are currently 

underway, besides the United States, including Norway, Canada, 

Australia, and Algeria did not require secondary containment 

zones. And in those, in most of these instances the countries 

are in fact using the existing petroleum walls without the 

benefit of an additional regulatory program. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 Singling out, as the regulations do, carbon 

capture and storage would just heighten the substantial level of 

scrutiny. It sends a message that carbon dioxide is more 

dangerous than the underground injection of other substances. 

And since EPA is the agency in charge with protecting the 

environment, the public could easily be swayed by EPA's apparent 

apprehension of carbon capture that's currently, that is 

currently embodied in the regulations. 

 In order to create a regulatory scheme that 

fosters carbon capture and storage the development and 

employment, the EPA should also consider how it has characterized 

carbon capture injection, both explicitly and implicitly in the 

regulation. 

 Moreover, EPA should consider the effect of these 

regulations on securing critical financial support for CCS 

12
projects. Misperceptions about the risks can skew opportunities 

for financing. No one needs to be reminded today that the recent 

turmoil in the financial markets makes very challenging the 

financing of new technologies. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 In a credit constrained world the heightened risk 

and overplaying risk and the conflicts that this regulation can 

impede the development of a critically important technology for 

reducing CO2 emissions. 

 Similarly, on a smaller scale we think as a 

specific example the EPA should not require the use of tracers or 

soil flux to monitor for possible carbon dioxide leaks. Not only 

are tracers relatively untested when it comes to their ability to 

monitor such leaks, they are also, they also will not transmit 

sufficiently early to provide any sort of real protection to 

underground sources of water. 

 I'm told that soil flux monitoring is also 

problematic because it can result in false positives based on 

natural variability in flux. 

 What these requirements do is, by way of example, 

is signal to the public that carbon capture and storage is unsafe 

because it could lead to a leak in CO2, despite the fact that 

this is very unlikely to happen. The United Nations 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that the 

13
amount of carbon dioxide retained in the appropriately sited 

storage site was very likely to exceed 99 percent of over one 

hundred years. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

 Our second message to the EPA today addresses the 

regulatory flexibility. We believe that the agency should be 

cautious in overly prescriptive regulation, one size fits all 

approaches to siting. No two geological formations are the same, 

no two CCS projects will be the same. And the geological 

formations in which CO2 is injected will be defined by a number 

of characteristics. We believe the many instances and the 

regulation has chosen to tie with the regulated entities to a -- 

whether it be -- of responsible, duration of responsibility 

award, financial assurance responsibility. 

 In all of these instances where EPA has said that 

there is one defining characteristic, it will tie the regulated 

entity's hands to an existing set, a new set of regulatory 

prescriptions with the EPA has not done good service to the 

18 industry or to the development of GS technology? 

19 

20 

 With that we conclude and thank you for the time. 

14
 MR. KALLIO: Good morning, or good afternoon, I'm 

not sure what it is at this point, close enough. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 Everybody's kind of heard of Murphy's Law, I tend 

to live by it being a -- various things that I repair in my 

world. But typically, anytime you do anything like this where 

you're putting yourself into a potential to, let's say something 

does go wrong, there is a crack or a movement, or something that 

happens geologically that stresses it, where does this gooey 

carbon dioxide go? And in my world it finds its way. 

 And you get it in the water, I don't know, what is 

it, 20 percent of the world's fresh water is in Michigan and 

around the, the lakes around here. That concerns me because it's 

a time bomb just waiting to go off. Instead, maybe a hundred 

years, so far they've got it where it looks like it might be all 

right. But, okay, that would be my grandkids that have to deal 

with the problem. 

 In my opinion, the best way to resolve is to 

attack it from a broad standpoint of changing the way you burn 

it, changing the way you do that type of process. I don't know 

how far they've gotten in the past five years, technology has 

changed so drastically in likely the way we attack different 

problems, with chemicals, with types of things that they can 

inject into the carbon to get different results, where you could 

15
actually isolate the carbon dioxide molecule, that kind of thing. 

But people have been working on that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

 Anyway, I'd like to see a little more money and 

focus put towards that rather than putting this crap in the 

ground. It's just, to me it's a bad idea, and it's not really a 

problem, and it gets us by for a while, sure. But in the long 

run our kids are going to pay for it. Thank you. 

16
 MR. KALLIO: My name is Brad Kallio. I have a 

little research company in Grand Rapids, Michigan. We try our 

best to solve different types of problems with energy and what 

have you. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 And the easiest way to say it would be, wind 

generation is something that's going be used for years and years 

and years. -- uses the old, big windmill. They don't move real 

fast, they don't chop a lot up, we don't have birds hitting them 

and getting cut in half, which they do have in -- they're moving 

very slow. 

 But what we do with wind, especially in these 

areas here, is that when you got a whole amount of wind, has 

anybody ever wound a cuckoo clock, pull the little chains up and 

the weight goes up, and it keeps the little pendulum going? Same 

principle, only instead of lifting a little metal weight you're 

lifting, like what he wants to do, his whole house. 

 But any mass is a lot of weight if you lift it up. 

And as soon as it gets to a certain height it clicks over to 

another gear system. And then the wind keeps blowing, picks up 

another one, and another one, and another one. You can do a 

whole sequence of these along the shoreline or anything like 

that. 

 Now, you're not storing your energy in batteries, 

17
you're storing your energy in gravity. And when you don't have 

wind you can also use solar to generate motors to do the same 

thing. It's just like a windmill kind of thinking, you pull it 

up and you store it. It goes into a fly wheel at the other end, 

with a generator on the other end of it now you've get a turbine 

generator just like you have in a coal mining plant with no 

emissions. You can build these anywhere. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

 And this is only one way of doing it. There's 

dozens of other ways, any difference in potential from one to the 

other you can harness and turn it into, drive into a system like 

that, and now you're not polluting at all. 

 So I believe in keeping it simple, the Romans did 

this kind of stuff that moves water from one point to another, 

it's old technology but we can apply it to what we have today. I 

mean, that's more efficient than ever having to burn coal or oil 

or any of this stuff. That's what I had to say. 

18
 MS. SCHOEPPER: Good morning, my name is Michele 

Schoepper, and I'm with the American Petroleum Institute, I am 

Senior Counsel. I want to thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today on the proposed rule. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 API represents nearly 400 companies involved in 

the, in all aspects the oil and natural gas industry, including 

exploration and production, refining, marketing, transportation, 

as well as the service companies that support our industry. 

 First, I'd like to provide some context for our 

comments. Oil and natural gas and coal provide approximately 85 

percent of the world's energy. The power plants, vehicles, 

homes, businesses and factories that use these fuels produce more 

than 25 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. While 

no single technology is sufficient to mitigate these emissions, 

capturing CO2 and storing it deep underground in formations could 

play an important role. 

 As an industry we have over 35 years of experience 

safely transporting and injecting CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, 

EOR, while constantly evolving new technology, operating 

experience, and regulatory requirements that had been developed 

EOR our extensive, mature, and generally appropriate for CCS. 

 In the U.S. alone the oil and gas industry 

operates over 13,000 CO2 EOR Wells, over 3,500 miles of high 

19
pressure CO2 pipelines, and has injected over 600 million tons of 

CO2 for EOR alone. All while maintaining an excellent health 

environment and safety record. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 Industry also has extensive experience in large 

scale separation and re-injection of natural gas streams. The 

largest operation of this kind is on the north slope of Alaska 

where 47 TCF and natural gas consisting of about 12 percent 

carbon dioxide has been cumulatively re-injected over the past 30 

plus years. The CO2 fraction corresponds to approximately 420 

million metric tons of CO2. 

 Regarding EPA's proposed rule, API is very 

supportive of the fact that EPA has recognized the integrity of 

the existing regulatory framework for CO2 based enhanced oil 

recovery, of the amount of flexibility in most parts of the 

proposed rule, and of the use of performance based approaches. 

 Specific examples include the proposed confining 

zone requirements and the proposed ground water monitoring 

requirements, although there are several aspects of the proposed 

rule that should be reconsidered for further inclusion. 

 The first being the restriction of injections to 

formations below the lowermost underground source of drinking 

water. This requirement is not necessary for the protection of 

the USDWs and would remove a vast number of viable formations 

20
1 from consideration. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 Industry has shown that it can operate CO2 

injection wells in the EOR context without endangering with USDWs 

that are located below the injection zone. An excellent example 

is the Salt Creek EOR Project in Wyoming, which has a USDW below 

the injection zone. 

 Moreover, under the proposed rule there are other 

measures that would provide real assurance of formation integrity 

and require operators to demonstrate that their project will not 

endanger USDWs, making the injection below the lowermost USDW 

restriction unnecessary. 

 EPA should also reconsider its proposed 50-year 

default period post injection site care. EPA offers no rationale 

for this arbitrarily selected period of 50 years. Establishing 

a fixed and unusually long time period may create a significant 

barrier for operators considering entry into CCS operations. 

 Criteria for determining the period for proposed 

injection site care should be performance based and a function of 

the site-specific characteristics of a project, such as the 

project's size, the geologic factors, and the relative risks of 

the project. 

 Clear guidelines also need to be established 

regarding when operators have met the performance standards that 

21
determine site closure. Specifically, the standard that the 

project no longer poses an endangerment to USDWs needs to be 

defined using reasonable site-specific criteria. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 Next, EPA should also reconsider its proposed well 

construction and operation requirements, which are much more 

prescriptive and rigorous than necessary, and do not reflect 

industry's 35 plus years of success in rejecting CO2 under the 

Class II UIC program. 

 The Class II EOR Wells constructed for these 

projects and operating practices have an excellent record of 

mechanical integrity testing to protect the USDW. Some of the 

proposed requirements such as cementing a long stream casing to 

the surface are not only unnecessarily burdensome, but might also 

interfere with operations and could introduce unintended risks. 

 Additionally, by unnecessarily creating a 

regulatory gap between Class II Wells and operations and Class VI 

Wells and operations the EPA is creating a potential economic or 

operational barrier to transitioning from EOR operations to 

storage operations. Thereby further reducing the number of 

target formations where CO2 could be stored. 

 In conclusion, API shares the same goal as EPA, to 

develop rules that facilitate the safe, secure, long-term storage 

of CO2. API is concerned though that by being overly 

22
prescriptive in designing the new well class the proposed rule 

hinder the deployment of CCS and could have the unanticipated 

consequence of hindering innovations that could improve both well 

security and performance. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

 CCS is one of the essential technologies that 

could help to ensure that we can continue to produce the clean 

energy society demands. 

 The points I've cited in my oral comments are 

examples that illustrate our areas of concern. API will be 

submitting more detailed written comments. Thank you very much. 

23
 MR. SINGER: Good morning. My name is Mark 

Singer, I am founder of Green America Project, LLC, which is an 

environmentally activist, an environmentally activist, socially 

responsible business. I'm an attorney trained as an economist, 

and pertinent here I have formally specialized in oil and gas 

law, and I'm a lifelong environmentalist. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 My perspective is this, I believe geologic 

sequestration is essential and urgently needed, especially 

because coal is a major contributor to global climate change both 

in the United States and all around the world. And if coal is to 

be used it must be used on the basis of sequestration of 100 

percent of the CO2. 

 This isn't about me, and it isn't about you, it's 

about global climate change. That's why we're here, that's why 

anybody's contemplating geological sequestration. 

 Just this week in the current issue of Science 

Magazine, Peter Cox and Chris Jones report research that gives 

more bad news. New data shows that, this is the, the current 

issue, new data shows that climates sensitivity of the carbon 

cycle is now constrained at the high end of the range of values 

consistent with contemporary records. 

 Previous studies gave a broad range of possible 

values from relatively minor to alarming. Cox and Jones now 

24
constrain it to the high end. If you read the article, it's 

written in a very dry, emotionless tone. But in a personal 

communication Peter Cox my question, which was, you know, is this 

good news or bad news, it is bad news for the world, but its bad 

news that we have to hear. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 This hearing is EPA's critical crucial role in the 

technical and legal framework for geologic sequestration. And 

this brings me to my first point, which is jurisdiction. 

 Basing EPA jurisdiction only on the Safe Drinking 

Water Act and not on the Clean Air Act is a critical mistake. 

The central issue in geologic sequestration is whether CO2 

sequestration will be permanent. But the Safe Drinking Water Act 

jurisdiction does not allow EPA to assert its full legal 

authority to ensure that sequestration will be permanent. 

 We all sat through the presentations this morning, 

and probably read the publication in the Federal Register. Every 

time the EPA discusses this they hammer away that this is just 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act and that's it. This is a 

mistake. 

 In the Federal Register they say that protecting 

underground sources of drinking water, USDWs, may be permanent, 

this sequestration may be permanent. May, that sounds like a, 

like permanence would be a happy accident rather than the primary 

25
objective. If geologic sequestration starts leaking it will be a 

major anthropocentric, anthropogenic source of greenhouse gas. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 Molly Bayer had a slide just now which talks about 

the special characteristics of CO2. Significantly it did not 

even mention that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It makes no sense 

not, for the EPA not to exercise jurisdiction under the Clean Air 

Act. 

 The science is clear, our planet is being 

degraded. This is an act of violence against future generations 

that will damn us to all posterity. The EPA must exercise Clean 

Air Act jurisdiction in this ruling. 

 I'd like to comment on the grandfathering issue in 

the proposal. The EPA proposes to give the director discretion 

to grandfather construction requirements for Class I, II, and V 

wells seeking to convert to geologic sequestration as Class VI. 

This makes no sense as well. 

 The construction requirements are there for a 

reason. The question must be whether the existing wells satisfy 

the structural criteria, that is the, the requirements for 

integrity of a Class VI well. So rather than grandfather, the 

rule should be that existing wells must show that they satisfy 

the functional requirements of Class VI construction. 

 There's a lot of discussion about modeling as a 

26
key to how they're going to analyze whether this is sufficient, 

and trying to predict injectate behavior based on modeling, 

getting data and then analyzing and trying to adapt. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 The proposal does not sufficiently address 

transparency. Importantly, as this data comes in it should be 

made available to the public so that scientific and technical 

experts can analyze that. 

 Now, it's obvious that bad things can happen if 

this goes wrong. CO2 can interact chemically with lime right at 

the injection site even without it, you know, moving around, even 

without it escaping through the well initially. This could 

create carbonic acid, reacting CO2 with water. This could 

dissolve limestone or other susceptible rock and underground, 

underground karst region could be created. This could cause a 

collapsed area due to reduced subjacent support. 

 The EPA was handling, was, I'm sorry. The EPA 

participated in the National Carbon Sequestration Atlas. And 

according to the National Atlas, there's a section there on 

engineering aspects of karsts. According to the National Atlas, 

karst lithology already poses problems in many areas of the 

United States. 

 Now, in the EPA's Federal Register publication 

they call carbonic acid a weak acid. This is a, this is a, when 

27
we say, weak acid, it's a technical term, it has to do with the 

acid's intrinsic reactivity as compared to other types of acids. 

But it does not take into the account the issue of concentration 

of the carbonic acid. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 The carbonic, the weathering that we see in 

underground caves is the result of atmospheric CO2 dissolving in 

water and then that attacks the rock and carves out all these 

wonderful caves and such, and also causes many areas where 

subsidence occurs because the subjacent support has been 

undermined. 

 But the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is way 

below one percent, and here we're talking about 100 percent CO2 

and putting that down by the water source. So even though it's 

in a technical sense a weak acid its concentration will be much 

higher. This concentrated carbonic acid would chemically attack 

susceptible rock, much more fiercely than naturally occurring 

processes, you'd have karsts on steroids. 

 Geologic sequestration operations must have 

capstone formations separating the injection site not just from 

the surface but also from soluble rock such as limestone. 

 Now, there's a couple places in the, in the 

Federal Register where they, where they discussed this. But none 

of them discussed the effect of CO2 on the rock, they just talk 

28
1 about, for example, plugging pore spaces. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

 Now, there are some, a couple other things. While 

the EPA is very careful about saying that this does not cover 

Clean Air Act there are other things that they should admit that 

it does not cover. The EPA's permitting process cannot affect 

landowners' property rights. And the proposed rule should point 

this out explicitly. 

 For example, there's an ADM sequestration test in 

the middle of Decatur, Illinois, it's in a sandstone formation. 

But if that were in limestone it would undermine the City of 

Decatur I think they'd be pretty upset that it was asserted that 

the EPA permit prevented them from recovering against ADM. 

 So in summary, the eyes of posterity are focused 

on us right here today, what we do here is critically important. 

Geologic sequestration is essential, it is urgently needed, but 

it must be done right. Thank you. 

29
 MR. SPRAGUE: -- my name is Lee Sprague, I am 

Sierra Club staff member, and I'm also a tribal member from these 

areas that are under consideration for the geologic sequestration 

of carbon dioxide. I have some additional comments I'd like to 

read into the record. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 It is clear that industry and people believe that 

CO2 sequestration is possible even though there are no long-term 

studies available -- for the storage over long periods of time. 

 I believe that attempts to limit public 

information and public awareness of the UIC technologies and the 

state of the monitoring activities -- out of consideration for 

them for unduly raised concerns or disingenuous. The public, if 

it is safe, then -- is safe, full public disclosure is essential 

for confidence. 

 Public notices to residents in the areas of review 

and residents adjacent to areas of review should include 

notifications of the initial wells and subsequent well injections 

for the lifetime of the emission source or the capacity of the 

AoR. Simply allowing the permit on a one-time basis is not 

adequate. The public has the right to know of the future plans, 

the right-of-ways, and the injection points that will be used 

over the entirety of the process. 

 Public hearings should be required and not be left 

30
to the discretion of the director. This makes an uneven 

application of the law, and it should be a mandatory requirement 

for all applications. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 The public should be notified early on in the 

process, during site evaluation and site selection processes. 

Again, public information and knowledge is essential to public 

confidence. Failure to disclose these elements while the process 

is undergoing will raise more concerns at the end of the day. 

 Any application for UIC permits for geologic 

sequestration of carbon dioxide should be required to estimate 

the number of injection sites from AoR, area of review. This is 

legal and clear at this point over the lifetime of emission of 

the power plant how many injection wells will be needed. In some 

states it depends on the geological substrata of, to what that 

capacity may be. 

 Well, to come into a community and just place one 

well for one permit and then all of a sudden more permits are 

being issued based on initial site review, there are a lot of 

issues that are raised with that eminent domain, right-of-way. 

The industry wants to put a straight line pipeline to its next 

injection well site, but that's going to cost public access, 

public right-of-way, private property that needs to be fully 

disclosed and mapped out prior, before utilization of that field 

31
1 for all of its injection well sites and capacities. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 This is critical because local communities have 

long range local zoning ordinances and planning process that will 

extend throughout the lifetime of a, of a well or an area to be 

used for well site. And so these kinds, this kind of 

notification and long-term notification of potential well types 

is essentially to local communities to adequately plan and 

provide health and safety for the welfare of their residents. 

 Property owners should be required to disclose UIC 

sites on or adjacent properties that are being sold in the AoR. 

Covenants for the land regarding UIC sites should be required. 

Public disclosure of UIC sites nearby, near, on, or adjacent to 

properties should be disclosed to sellers. If it's a safe 

process, again, this is part of the public notification. 

 Mapping a potential AoR well site leakage it 

should be disclosed and noticed as part of any public hearing 

process. For example, low- lying areas next to a well site 

should be mapped out to where the first one hundred thousand tons 

of CO2 could escape via well heads. Where does that settle at? 

It's heavier than air, it'll accumulate in low-lying areas, and I 

believe that the public, the public needs to be notified, and a 

worse case scenario, mapping out low-lying areas of the CO2. And 

again, this should be part of the public disclosure for any 

32
1 transfer of land, or selling of land in that community? 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 And as an example, I would say that a map that 

would be adequate for public health and welfare of a local 

community, if there was a leak at the wellheads, where the first 

hundred thousand tons of CO2, where would it funnel at, where 

would that be rolled or displace oxygen at, and map out those 

low-lying areas. 

 And then a concentric circle where the second one 

hundred thousand tons of CO2 that escape from a well, where would 

that settle in and apply, and map out where it will go. Because 

those people in those areas potentially could be impacted. And 

it's just not people, we're talking of other resources. 

 I think that a metric that is easily discernible 

to the public needs to be created and utilized in this process. 

In other words, once you have a well closure safe, or you can, 

during the monitoring process, that I want to know as a public 

citizen, what if a one inch penetration of a cap stone occurs 

during the injection process or during the closure process. How 

much CO2 per day, per annum can I expect? I would like to say 

not annum, but per day, per week, by month, can I expect from a 

one inch penetration of a cap stone in geologically sequestered 

area review. 

 How, and I want to know, well, what about a two 

33
inch penetration? How much CO2 is likely to escape? What about 

a three inch penetration? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 This is a metric that the public likely needs to 

understand the potential. There could be an accidental 

penetration of the cap stone. There are existing wells that I 

know, I'm personally aware of in Madison County, Michigan where I 

have resided and where my tribe is located, where there are 

simply pools of mud. And we already have sulfide gases that are 

turning, up to 40,000 parts per million, way above any standard 

by the EPA. But these are controlled by simply putting them in 

the mud. These are potential escape routes for CO2, again, they 

needed to be mapped out as the proposals indicate. 

 But, you know, I want to know what the failure, or 

the opening up of one of these penetrations means by 

communicating in terms of the rate of CO2 emissions that are 

becoming stagnant. And again, the mapping out of where the CO2 

will accumulate in low lying areas. 

 The public should be made aware of and have an 

opportunity to participate in any of the emergency or contingency 

planning based on catastrophic leaks of a well site. If this 

happens there needs to be clear steps taken, and coordination of 

the local community to outline a contingency plan or 

notification. 

34
 And while I agree there should be no standardized 

real-time monitoring of CO2, but local communities, however, and 

the EPA is clear that states can have additional requirements 

above the federal requirements for public and health and safety 

welfare. But I think you also need to be very explicit in 

telling the local planning authorities that issue the special use 

permits, or the permit, that they are allowed to take safeguards 

above the federal level, above the state level, that are more 

protective of human health and welfare in that specific location. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 The EPA, and regulations, do not take into account 

the entirety of the problems that local communities will face on 

a case by case basis. So, while you notice the states have an 

opportunity to have stricter regulations than the EPA, I think 

that you also need to notice, and the public notices to the local 

communities that local planning authorities also have the right 

to impose strict standards above and beyond EPA or state 

standards. 

 Oftentimes, we also acknowledge local communities 

sometimes just defer to EPA or state standard, which can probably 

be standard. And sometimes this is not adequate to protect the 

very specific circumstances of a local community, where economic 

activities may take place in low lying areas for these kind of 

concerns. It could have impact on long range planning 

35
communities, and physically alter the environment in ways that 

may not be fully known at this point in time. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 I don't think that any grandfathering of existing 

class, existing classes of wells should be allowed to, under the 

UIC for CO2 sequestration. They should be required to fulfill 

all of the requirements, including some of the public 

participation and review requirements that I've outlined 

initially. And I am still collecting more information, and I 

will provide that. 

 While it's clear that the current regulatory 

environment Clean Water Act, it is clear that the carbon 

sequestration process is a constituent element of the coal 

system, from the emission, and transportation, and to, to the 

source. And I understand the authority is simply to protect 

drinking water at this point. 

 However, the lead agency must be identified to 

regulate the entirety of the coal system process for the emission 

and transportation and storage of the monitoring, and contingency 

planning for UIC well failures. 

 The gaps within the regulatory framework is 

troublesome, and in my opinion is likely to be the topic of 

future hearings if not addressed at this point. 

 One minute? 

36
 As a tribal member and the individual rights of 

Necedah territory I got the following initial comments. As to 

what, the tribes reserve the right to protect, to prohibit UIC 

well sites that are on or adjacent to reservation boundaries, 

trust land, and ceded territories, or Indian countries that can 

have a material impact on the reserved rights of tribes and 

tribal members. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

 But a detailed government to government 

consultation process would clearly outline the tribes 

specifically to ensure a uniform process for the proposed UIC 

site or in areas of review adjacent to Indian country, and that 

the EPA must ensure that tribes have adequate financial resources 

and technical assistance for determining the suitability of UIC 

wells on or adjacent to Indian country as part of its trust 

responsibility to tribes, and take into consideration human 

health and reserve rights for access and utilization of lands 

that are held by international law or treaty with the United 

States. Thank you very much. 

37
 MR. SPRAUGE: The additional comment I'd like to 

make seriously around, again around local participation for the 

processes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 Oftentimes, proposals for electro- generation need 

to, or incorporate the low cost, the low cost of electricity. 

And I think it is critical that the full cost of carbon 

sequestration, along with all of the, the elements that are 

comprised be storage transportation monitoring, and bonding, 

that the full cost of carbon sequestration you include in the 

economic analysis when computing the cost of electricity. The 

local communities have a measurement to measure alternative 

renewables -- kinetic. They have a full way to analyze a 

complete cost of geo-sequestration associated with coal fire 

power facilities with other forms of electric generated unit. 

 I think that without this uniform analysis or way 

to cost out what the, how much it's going to actually cost over 

time for carbon sequestration, that -- out proper tools to make 

intelligent decisions as to whether the, the best or lowest price 

cost electricity when making determinations. Thank you very 

much. 

 My name is Lee Sprague, I work with Sierra Club, 

Clean Energy Campaign Manager in Michigan, I'm a member of the 

Little River Band of Ottawa Indians -- I'm saying, hello, my name 

38
is Mitigabwa, which means hickory or and I'd have to look at the, 

in my language it means wood that bends but doesn't break, so -- 

1 

2 

3 

39
 MR. TONER: Good morning. Thank you very much for 

the opportunity to speak here tonight. My name is Matt Toner and 

I work for Hydrogen Energy International where I'm the Carbon 

Storage Manager for North and South America. I have over 28 

years of oil and gas industry experience, including management of 

CO2, EOR operations in West Texas. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 Hydrogen Energy is a joint venture between BP and 

Rio Tinto, and our corporate objective is to develop low carbon 

hydrogen power. Currently we have two projects undergoing 

regulatory review in Bakersfield, California and the United Arab 

Emirates, as well as several other projects in various stages of 

evaluation. 

 To date we are the only company in the world to 

have secured a fully permitted industrial scale facility of this 

type. As such, we are deeply appreciative of EPA's efforts to 

create a regulatory process to facilitate the capture and storage 

of CO2 while protecting U.S. drinking waters and the health and 

safety of the public at large. 

 EPA has recognized this valuable role that oil and 

gas reservoirs can play in the geological storage of CO2. And 

Hydrogen Energy would like to encourage that EPA go significantly 

further in facilitating the use of these reservoirs. When CO2 is 

injected for enhanced oil and gas recovery it could at the same 

40
time be sequestered for long-term storage at the option of the 

operator. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 EPA should recognize this concurrent dual purpose, 

enhanced oil and gas recovery, and designed storage, and allow 

for this dual purpose under existing Class II UIC rules. 

Furthermore, EPA regulations should facilitate grandfathering 

from dual purpose production and storage, the storage only sites, 

when enhanced oil or gas operations are completed. 

 In the course of the typical enhanced oil recovery 

operation, even when there is no intent to sequester 30 to 50 

percent of the injected CO2 remains in the reservoir after 

production operations cease. The remainder is either miscibly 

dissolved within the produced oil or recycled for use in other 

reservoirs, it's not emitted to the atmosphere. 

 But today 90 percent of the CO2 used in enhanced 

recovery operations is produced from naturally occurring 

accumulations. Rather than using these naturally occurring 

accumulations society can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by 

substituting anthropogenic sources. In addition, injection can 

continue, upon the completion of production operations, to fully 

utilize all existing pore space, what we call EOR plus storage. 

 Oil and gas reservoirs have proven capable of 

containing water buoyant fluids and gases for millions of years. 

41
These reservoirs are well-studied, and they offer the best 

opportunity to kick start large scale geologic storage of CO2 

while building on 100 years of oil field operating experience. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 EPA recognition of anthropogenic EOR plus storage 

as a valid method of geologic sequestration subject, of course, 

to appropriate measurement, monitoring, and site closure, would 

provide much needed near term economic incentive to carbon 

capture and storage efforts while longer term cap and trade or 

taxation schemes can be developed. 

 The existing Class II regulations governing 

injection of CO2 in oil and gas reservoirs have proven successful 

at protecting underground sources of drinking waters. These 

regulations should allow for the dual purpose of sequestration if 

anthropogenic CO2 is used. 

 Hydrogen Energy also recommends that EPA expand 

grandfathering to facilitate transition from production and 

storage to storage only sites, which will incentive the use of 

these reservoirs for long-term CO2 storage. The proposed 

grandfathering of Class II Wells should go beyond just the 

construction requirements to include, at a minimum, operating and 

mechanical integrity requirements for existing, operationally 

compliant Class II EOR CO2 Injection Wells. The Class VI 

requirements would require technically unnecessary changes to 

42
1 equipment and monitoring procedures. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 Some authors have identified risks with using oil 

and gas reservoirs for CO2 sequestration due to the presence of 

inactive wells. Proper plugging and abandonment of inactive 

wells is a prudent method which can ensure this risk is 

effectively managed. In addition, the oil and gas industry has 

developed techniques to quickly isolate, effectively repair, and 

remediate these issues and their unlikely occurrence. 

 In closing, Hydrogen Energy would like to applaud 

EPA for their effort to create an effective regulatory framework 

for the injection and sequestration of carbon dioxide while 

protecting underground sources of drinking water. However, we 

believe that EPA should go significantly further than the 

proposed regulation by recognizing the potential for concurrent 

CO2 injection for enhanced oil and gas recovery and design 

storage in allowing for this dual purpose. 

 Furthermore, EPA should facilitate grandfathering 

from dual purpose production and storage to storage only sites 

when enhanced oil or gas recovery operations are completed. 

 Incentivizing the use of CO2 for enhanced oil and 

gas recovery would significantly reduce CO2 emissions. 

Currently, over 2 billion cubic feet of naturally occurring CO2 

is used for enhanced oil recovery in the U.S. every day, and 

43
1 volumes are growing. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

 Incentivizing anthropogenic CO2 would also 

increase U.S. energy security by facilitating additional EOR 

activity, and thereby reducing the need for foreign oil. 

Enhanced oil recovery has the potential to add 40 to 80 billion 

barrels of oil based on Department of Energy estimates. This 

volume is two to four times the current U.S. total crude 

reserves. 

 Incentivizing the use of the anthropogenic CO2 

would also effectively utilize proven well-studied and welltested geologic storage containers. It will likely cost tens of 

millions of dollars and take several years of study to permit one 

commercial scale saline storage reservoir. Effectively utilizing 

gas, oil and gas for fields could also utilize over 100 years of 

oil field operating experience while building new confidence for 

future saving and storage options. 

 Finally, this would also help kickstart the 

financially challenged carbon capture industry by improving 

economics and accelerating the uptake of this essential 

technology. Thank you very much. 

44
 MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning and thank you for the 

opportunity to speak here today. My name is Brian Williams and I 

work for BP's Alternative Energy Division of Houston. There I am 

the Global CO2 Storage Manager in our Carbon Capture and Storage 

Technology Organization. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 I work in a team that is currently developing the 

technological capabilities needed to deliver the ability for 

geological storage for EPA and its customers. One of the 

particular areas where we are developing technologies and where 

we are planning specific research and field analysis relates to 

well construction and operational expectations. These are the 

areas where I'd like to direct my comments today. 

 First, with regard to the recognition of the 

criticality of wells, our view that EPA has correctly recognized 

that wells are a fundamental component of geological storage 

systems to successfully ensure the containment of stored CO2. As 

such, we agree that having appropriate well design, construction, 

and operating expectations are critical to delivery of secure 

storage for CO2. 

 Oil and gas operators have decades of experience 

either past and existing operations in construction and operating 

DOR and actual recovery and EGR, that's gas recovery wells in a 

safe and secure way. 

45
 For existing EOR projects and wells Class II 

requirements have proven to be sufficient at ensuring the 

necessary protection of USDWs, and therefore, analysis of the 

experiences and performances of these Class II Wells, these Class 

II CO2 Wells should inform the specifications for a new Class VI 

Well. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 I would like to comment on certain of the 

incremental expectations in the draft rule including the preamble 

to it around the design, construction, operation of Class VI 

Wells that we are potentially excessive. 

 But first, with regard to well construction, and 

specifically around the points of corrosion resistant materials 

and cement. Based on industry experience and field studies, 

corrosion resistant materials should not be mandated for all 

projects, and the requirement, if there is any, should be made on 

a site-specific basis. Early field studies, in particular by the 

CO2 capture project, indicate that it is the appropriate 

placement of cement and not the type of cement that delivers 

isolation and prevents casing corrosion. 

 The choice of casing and cement materials should 

be selected based on planned well operating life, i.e. decades, 

and not on the ultimate duration of the storage program itself. 

The potential for longer term exposure of casing during storage, 

46
which might occur after injection has stopped, is mitigated by 

plugging the static well with corrosion resistant material. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 Then on the point of cements across long string 

casing. The EPA does not agree with the requirement for a long 

string from the injection interval to the surface, nor with 

cementing across the entire distance. Allowance should be made 

for a liner to be set across the injection interval and the 

previous string set above that zone. 

 The cement should cover the uppermost caprock in 

the area of review by a margin by about 500 feet, not to the 

surface. The ultimate decision for each project should rest with 

the director since each is unique and geological intervals and 

injection zone, and of the position relative to the USDW. 

 Any expectations of cement at the injection 

interval should permit the use of external casing packers in 

conjunction with the cementing requirements. 

 With regards to well operations for the next 

phase, comments about no CO2 injection above the lowermost USDW. 

The EPA does not subscribe to a blanket constraint that would 

limit injections only to reservoirs below the USDW. 

 More appropriate given the EPA's general 

performance based approach, which we applaud, would be to place 

containment requirements on the acceptable reservoirs. As long 

47
as CO2 can be injected and stored securely with minimal chance of 

breaching containment, either via the well bore or via geological 

features, proximity to USDW, whether shallow or deeper, should 

not matter. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 Secondly, a minimum injection depth versus a 

requirement to inject below the lowermost USDW, we could disagree 

that the universal mandate for establishing minimum depth for CO2 

injection as there should be site-specific ones again based on 

the containment and capacity parameters of the storage site 

itself. 

 And finally, the standard requirement for down 

hole shut-in devices. BP disagrees with the rules to include 

down hole shut-in devices as a standard requirement for injection 

wells. Overpressure protection is best achieved by ensuring 

compatibility of a casing, tubing, material strength design with 

the surface injection compression system. Down hole shut-in 

devices may be appropriate, however, for site-specific situations 

of unique potential impact, of impact, for example, Offshore or 

near airports, but they should not be mandated for all injection 

sites. 

 So, in conclusion, wells are indeed a fundamental 

component of a geologic storage system, having appropriate 

design, construction, and operating expectations for these wells 

48
1 is necessary to ensure delivery of a secure storage CO2. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

 Site-specific performance based guidelines, as per 

the well-related example that I note previously, do serve to, do 

serve the purpose of requiring application of appropriate 

technological solutions to protect USDWs. 

 Again, thank you very much for this opportunity 

to speak today. 

49
 MR. WRIGHT: I'll bravely stand here between you 

and your coffee break. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

My name is Iain Wright, I work for BP, and I manage the 

Industrial Scale Co2 Geo-Sequestration Project in In Salah in 

Algeria. BP appreciates the EPA's efforts to create a regulatory 

framework for industrial scale geo-sequestration in the U.S. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 Now in In Salah, BP and its partners Sonatrach and 

Statoil have, for the last four years, been sequestering around a 

million tons a year of CO2 in a deep saline formation which is 

down-dip of a producing gas field. 

 CO2 storage at In Salah is permitted under 

Algerian hydrocarbon regulations. And we have learned a number 

of lessons that could be beneficial to the development of geosequestration regulations in the U.S. My comments will address 

three issues, well design, monitoring, and the time frame for 

site closure. 

 So first, the well design. At In Salah a million 

tons a year of CO2 is being sequestered in the formation that's 

6,000 feet deep, it's 60 feet thick, and it has a permeability of 

only 10 milidarcies very similar to many deep saline formations 

right here in the U.S. Midwest. 

 To do this we need only three wells, but they have 

to be very long horizontal sections in the storage formation. In 

50
fact, they are about as long as they are deep. So we recommend 

that EPA's regulations permit geo-sequestration using horizontal 

wells. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 At In Salah a few miles up from the three CO2 

injectors we have four wells that produce natural gas from 

exactly the same geological formation. The design of the CO2 

injectors is identical to the design of natural gas producers, 

except that the gas producers have stainless steel tubing, 

whereas, the CO2 injectors have conventional mild steel or L80 

tubing. This is because the gas producers are actually in a more 

corrosive environment than the CO2 injectors. 

 So just to emphasize that point, the CO2 

sequestration wells permit the, in In Salah, are constructed to a 

lower specification than the natural gas wells in the same 

formation. 

 So we recommend that the design and construction 

of geo-sequestration wells should be site-specific and fit for 

the purpose of preventing endangerment to USDWs. 

 Moving on to my second point, monitoring. 

Monitoring is very important, because a common mis-perception 

that if you want secure storage you need to do lots of 

monitoring. Well, the U.N. says that a proportion of CO2 

obtained by appropriately selected and managed sites is likely to 

51
1 exceed 99 percent over a thousand years. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 So the key to secure storage is the appropriate 

selection and management of the site. If that's done properly 

the site will be very secure and the need for monitoring can be 

appropriately reduced. 

 Monitoring is kind of like the speedometer on your 

car. It does contribute to your safety, but more important is 

the design of the car, the road, and how you drive the car. 

Having said that, at In Salah we are doing a big research project 

into monitoring. And so the program is much more extensive than 

it would be appropriate for a commercial project. 

 We're trying out new technologies, such as 

satellite imagery, micro-seismic, so we can see how they perform 

against conventional oil fuel monitoring technology, such as 

tracers and conventional seismic. 

 But as you can probably hear from my accent I'm a 

Scotsman, and Scotsmen don't like to waste money. So every 

technology that we use at In Salah has been carefully chosen to 

represent great value for money. Before we started the injection 

at In Salah we did a site-specific assessment of the risk of 

leakage, and then we tailored the monitoring program to address 

all of those risks. 

 So mandating any specific monitoring technology 

52
would waste a lot of money and resources without contributing to 

the protection of USDWs. So we would caution against the 

universal mandate for any specific monitoring technology. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 Many of you will have heard of the other two 

monitored industrial scale CO2 injection projects in the world at 

Sleipner and Weyburn. If you compare the monitoring activities 

of these sites you'll see that something which works in one 

location may not work at all in another location. So we 

encourage the EPA to use risk-based performance criteria to 

determine the site-specific monitoring programs. 

 So moving to my third and final point concerns the 

appropriate time frame for site closure. There is no rational 

basis to mandate the universal 50-year minimum time frame for 

post-injection site care. Such a mandate would kill off 

commercial investment in geo-sequestration projects. Worse than 

that, it would preferentially kill off all the best sites. It is 

with proven seals and the lowest risk of leakage – oil and gas 

fields. 

 As the EPA proposal states the actual time for CO2 

-plume stabilization will be very site-specific. Well selected 

and managed sequestration sites, such as an oil or gas field that 

has met its performance objectives, including plume 

stabilization, would be much more secure and could be closed 

53
1 relatively quickly, say a couple of years. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

 However, as the EPA's cited examples show, CO2 

injection in a poorly confined saline formation could be run for 

a while, such that the closure period and have to wait on 

residual and solubility trapping. Hence, a closure period of 

several years would be more appropriate. 

 We recommend that EPA does not mandate any fixed 

time frame for site closure. Much better would be a sitespecific assessment that is risk and performance based. Thank 

you. 

54
 MS. CLAYBORN: Thank you very much. I'd like to 

thank EPA for having this hearing today, and you believe that 

public process is a very important part of any rule-making. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 My name is Becki Clayborn, I'm a Regional 

Representative with the Sierra Club. We are the largest and 

oldest national environmental organization in the United States. 

We have approximately 1.3 million members and supporters in the 

U.S. 

 Obviously, we work to protect local water, local 

air, and public lands. But in 2006, the Sierra Club did 

something new and different, they decided that global warming was 

so important that they had to move on from just protecting public 

local waters, local air quality, and public land to actually 

tackle the global warming issue and work on clean energy and 

creating a cleaner energy future. 

 One of the ways that we're doing that is by 

challenging coal fire power plants from being built in this day 

and age. We see this carbon sequestration, excuse me, I have a 

cold. We see this carbon sequestration as not a silver bullet to 

the carbon problem in our atmosphere. 

 Global warming has to be attacked on several 

different layers, clean energy should be first, energy efficiency 

should be first, using less, having renewable energies, wind and 

55
solar, and reducing the need for fossil fuels to be burned. We 

believe that is actually the way to keep carbon out of the 

atmosphere and not just figuring out how to put it in the ground 

and hoping it'll stay there. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 We have a joke within the Sierra Club that 

nature's version of carbon sequestration is called coal. We need 

to keep it in the ground, then you don't have to figure out how 

to put it back in the ground. 

 I see one major flaw with this permitting process. 

And again, I'd like to thank, I want to make a point again of 

thanking everybody who works on this permitting process, because 

I believe that they're doing their jobs very well. 

 However, this is only geological sequestration 

that's being addressed, it's not the entire life cycle of carbon 

capture and sequestration. It doesn't talk about the capture and 

transport of CO2, and it doesn't talk about leakage, and it 

doesn't regulate anything on air issues. 

 The entire purpose of this rule as stated on the 

handout that's available back there, why is the proposed G.S. 

Rule needed? The capture and injection of CO2 produced by human 

activities for long-term storage is one of a portfolio of options 

that can reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, and helps 

mitigate climate change. 

56
 The entire purpose of this rule is to keep CO2 out 

of the atmosphere, yet we're only allowed to talk about it in 

terms of how it affects drinking water. This does not make 

sense. This permit needs to be more comprehensive, it needs to 

take into consideration not just how it's going to affect 

drinking water, but how, how we're going to handle it if it does 

go back into the atmosphere. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 When we're challenging a coal fired power plant we 

talk to the utilities, and we talk to many utilities about how to 

mitigate and reduce their CO2 emissions. Many, many, many of 

them have come to us and said, we're planning on it, we're going 

to sequester, we're going to put it in the ground. 

 But it doesn't mean anything unless it's in a 

permit, if it's not written down, if it's not in a legally 

binding document it doesn't mean anything. This permit process 

doesn't mean anything in terms of global warming emissions 

reductions if we can't write it down and put it in the permit. 

 The fact that this has been a piecemeal process is 

typical in many of the processes we've seen in EPA, whether it's 

a coal mine, a coal fired power plant, there seems to be this 

spiraling effect of, let's talk about water over here, let's talk 

about air over here, let's talk about land use over here. 

 When many of these projects, especially a project 

57
of this magnitude, when we're talking about relying on this 

technology to reduce the global warming emissions in our, in our 

atmosphere we have a huge goal ahead of us. 80 percent reduction 

by 2050 is what the scientists are telling us we need to do. If 

we're going to reach that we need to make sure that we're going 

to do this well, and it needs to be comprehensive, does not need 

to be a piecemeal permitting process. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 So we respectfully urge the U.S. EPA to not look 

at this in a piecemeal way, but to really look at it in a 

holistic way. How are we going to keep this out of the 

atmosphere? How are we going to make sure that companies, the 

applicants that are getting into this project know that they have 

to keep it in the ground? How do we mitigate if it doesn't stay 

in the ground? 

 Obviously, we brought up some of our concerns on a 

local level for the Sierra Club, what happens in the local areas 

if it does contaminate wells, if it does leak out of an old well 

that's not been properly capped? 

 One of the other concerns that I have is we've 

seen states that have proposed legislation to pass the liability 

for any problems in such a, in such projects, to pass the 

liability on to the state government, which therefore means the 

taxpayers. 

58
 The taxpayers should not be responsible for the 

liability of these projects. And the companies need to take 

responsibility, either in the form of a long-term bond, or a 

trust, which the government can then help maintain. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

 The Sierra Club will be submitting comments, 

written comments to the EPA addressing more specifics about this 

type of permit. But in closing, we want to urge the EPA to look 

at this in a more holistic manner and not piecemeal this into 

just a drinking water issue. The entire purpose of this permit, 

according to U.S. EPA is to keep CO2 emissions out of the 

atmosphere. Thank you. 

59
 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. I am Scott Anderson, 

with the Environmental Defense Fund, I appreciate being here 

today. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 I'd like to start out by agreeing with a couple of 

comments made previously. First, agree with the Sierra Club, 

that CCS is not a silver bullet, we believe it's a critical 

technology in the fight against climate change, but it's not a 

silver bullet by any means. 

 I also want to agree with the American Petroleum 

Institute and Iain Wright, that the standard for site closure in 

the proposed rule needs to be improved. We agree that the 

standards should be site-specific and performance based. 

 We disagree, however, with API and differ with BP 

that, that the 50-year default period is being used in an 

arbitrary way. It's only being used as a default, one that can 

be shortened or lengthened depending on the circumstances of the 

particular case. 

 The problem that we see with the proposed closure 

standard, and the reason that we agree that it needs to be 

improved, is really two-fold, which is about, frankly, as many 

folds as we'd like to come up with since it's a two-fold 

standard. 

 The proposal, the bottom line says that you can 

60
either extend the 50-year period or decrease it upon a 

demonstration based on monitoring and other site-specific data, 

that the carbon dioxide plume and pressure front have stabilized. 

And, the second con, and that no additional monitoring is needed 

to assure that the geologic sequestration project does not pose 

an endangerment to USDWs. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 But the problem with the first part is that 

performance standard is that, as studies included in this docket, 

support documents that show there are circumstances where it 

could take centuries, or even in excess of a thousand years for 

the CO2 plume to completely stabilize. That part of the standard 

is not very realistic. 

 The second part of the standard, showing that, 

that no additional monitoring needed, is needed is really just a 

restatement of the question. The question that we all need 

answered, regulators, the public, industry, is what does it take 

in order to decide whether additional monitoring is necessary. 

 So that's why we agree with API and BP that this 

standard does need to work, and that what we need is a 

performance standard that really tells us when we can be sure 

that no additional monitoring is needed and it's time to -- that 

performance standards should be site-specific, which is really to 

say that it should depend on the circumstances and not the, 

61
something that's triggered by the simple passage time whether 

it's 50 years, or 150 years, or five years. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 And the remaining time, I wanted to now shift from 

that sort of slap on the wrist to some compliments. We have 

that, we think EPA deserves for the work on this rule. 

 Despite having to begin on kind of a negative note 

I want to stress that we think that adequate, effective 

sequestration regulations are definitely in sight, and there is 

much more about this rule that we like than we don't like. And 

we see the necessary changes in the rule as being in the nature 

of technical assessments rather than fixing fundamental flaws. 

 I want to especially note some strengths of the 

rule that relate to brine displacement. Protecting USDWs from 

displaced formation fluids, is just as important as protecting 

USDWs from injected CO2. And EPA clearly realizes this, and 

we're pleased. 

 I want to read these sections into the record or 

not, make a, maybe if I can do it quickly enough. We are pleased 

with Section 146.83, requires a confining zone that confines both 

CO2 and displaced formation fluids. 

 We're pleased that the definition of zone of 

elevated pressures, Section 146.81 focuses both on the pressure 

that would drive CO2 through a confining zone, and also on the 

62
1 pressures that would drive fluid to a confining zone. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 We're pleased that 146.84 requires modeling both 

of the CO2 plume and of the extent of formation fluid and 

movement. 

 And we're pleased that 146.90 requires periodic 

monitoring both the ground water quality and geo-chemical changes 

above the confining zone. That is really critical to making sure 

that there's no leaking of fluids or CO2 through the confining 

zone. 

 And we are, of course, pleased that 146.94 

requires remedial response and USDWs are endangered. 

 So a lot of careful thought has gone in this 

ruling and we recognize that. 

 I would like to close with a few more suggested 

improvements. Again, we offer these with the idea that for the 

most part they are technical adjustments. 

 First, although we're not necessarily in favor of 

doing it by excluding all formations beneath the lowest USDW, we 

are pleased that the agency has expressed some concern about 

coal, basalts, salt domes, and shales as formations that are 

suitable at this time for commercial sequestration. 

 We think that the agency should directly exclude 

those kind of formations from this rule, this rule was written 

63
and risks were analyzed with the brine formations and petroleum 

reservoirs in mind. And these other sorts of formations we 

believe are worthy of research, it should be kept under the 

classified status for now. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 We also think that further steps are needed in 

order to assure that monitoring includes all aspects of projects. 

But right now the rule in several places does require monitoring 

to be used to drive adjustments in the project, but we feel 

strongly that we need to go further, and we also think that this 

was contemplated by the IPCC when they said that in a properly 

selected and managed site that 99 percent of this to be expected 

to be retained over a thousand years. 

 Monitoring needs to be used in a reiterative 

process to improve site characterization, the definition, and the 

adjustment as necessary of the AoR. Adjustment in the risk 

analysis, adjustment in models, needs to be used to inform and 

create new input into the models. It needs to help determine, 

and revise, and improve the monitoring program itself. It needs 

to inform financial assurance requirements. And it needs to 

inform closure requirements. 

 In short, monitoring is essential to an adaptive 

well-managed sequestration site. And then the rule that makes a 

good start at requiring that and needs to finish the job. 

64
 We believe that, that there should be a provision 

that prohibits interference among projects. Eventually, if 

sequestration becomes a big enough industry we would foresee a 

need for basic scale of regional management. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 Between now and then we think it's important to 

nip problems in the bud, and we suggest that a new project not be 

allowed to interfere with an existing project in terms of the 

pressure fronts overlapping or other types of interference unless 

a finding is made that such a overlap doesn't degrade the 

effectiveness of either project. So then a rule like that would 

force people to space projects in a way that is proper. 

 We, three more things, we think the rule needs to 

assure that AoRs are calculated as intended and updated as 

necessary, we think a 10-year minimum is too short. 

 And we think that there's just an unintentional 

flaw in the definition of area of review, it doesn't seem to 

specifically require the consideration of the pressure front and 

would refer you to the second sentence of the definition of 

geologic sequestration project for the kind of language we think 

needs to be imported into the AoR definition. 

 One minute and two more comments. We think 

injection pressure limits need to expressly require the 

consideration of geo-mechanical information, not just the 90 

65
percent of fracture pressure. A rule that is expressed in terms 

of percentage of fracture pressure ignores things like induced 

seismicity and the re-opening of faults. We think -- 

sophisticated -- pressure than a requirement. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

 And my final point I've actually already made, 

which is that we suggest that you need to improve the standards 

for authorizing and site closure. Thank you. 

66
Letter ID: 0500 

Commenter: Bill Hertz 

Organization: Fertilizer Institute 

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21206 Letter Lines: 30 to 34 

Comment Code: 1380 1.1.3.6 Deployment of GS 

Comment: Although the rule is geared specifically toward well operators there are several 

components that may affect potential upstream industrial clients, and are of 

great interest to TFI members. In fact, EPA must carefully consider the 

applicability of this rule and ensure that it covers large industrial 

manufacturers such as nitrogen fertilizer producers. 

Individual Response: The purpose of the Class VI GS regulation is to ensure consistency in 

permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provide 

requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to 

reduce CO2 emissions. The UIC program’s authority under SDWA is focused on ensuring that 

GS projects are sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and closed in a manner that is protective 

of USDWs. EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS regulation applies to all injection of CO2 for the 

purpose of GS, regardless of the source of the CO2. Requiring or setting standards for upstream 

generators of CO2 is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. 

In a separate rulemaking under authority of the Clean Air Act, EPA is amending the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Program at 40 CFR Part 98 to add reporting requirements for CO2 injection and 

geologic sequestration. The greenhouse gas reporting requirements build on the requirements 

outlined in the Class VI GS rule with the additional goals of verifying the amount of CO2 

sequestered and collecting data on any CO2 emissions to the surface from GS facilities. 

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21207 Letter Lines: 36 to 40 

Comment Code: 1614 1.3.1.2 Impurities in captured CO2; purity standards for CO2 

Comment: Within the chemical process of producing nitrogen fertilizer, CO2 is generated 

as a by-product. This CO2 in many cases is sold into various product streams. 

All members are keenly interested in the enhanced oil recovery aspect of this. 

And in fact, the CO2 stream that we produce is among the cleanest that is out 

there, and is virtually impurity free in many cases. 

Individual Response: PA recognizes that many CO2 streams may be relatively pure, and 

research indicates that the estimated amounts of impurities in a CO2 stream are likely to be low. 

However, these estimates are based on limited information, and uncertainties remain about the 

expected concentrations of impurities from the various types of CO2 streams. The concentrations 

of minor and trace elements in CO2 streams for GS projects are likely to vary by facility, coal 

composition, plant operating conditions, and pollution removal technologies. Since the GS rule, 

1

67
at §146.81(d), prohibits CO2 streams that meet the definition of a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 

Part 261, owners or operators will need to characterize their CO2 stream as part of their permit 

application process to determine whether the injectate is a RCRA hazardous waste. If the CO2 

stream is determined to be a hazardous waste, injection may only occur in a Class I hazardous 

waste injection well. 

The GS rule also 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. 

EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not apply to capture technologies. 

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21208 Letter Lines: 42 to 49 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: So in general, TFI is supportive of the proposed rules but would request 

additional regulatory clarity and/or guidance for potential upstream industrial 

clients. 

Now, specific, aspects of the rule that TFI supports: we support the 

establishment of a new class of well, Class VI, for geologic sequestration and 

maintaining injection of carbon dioxide for the purposes of enhanced oil 

recovery under the Class II program. 

Individual Response: As described above, EPA agrees that the creation of a new injection well 

class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the deployment of GS as a 

climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

EPA is developing a series of guidance documents to support the GS rulemaking. These are 

available on EPA’s website at 

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

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21209 Letter Lines: 51 to 56 

Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment) 

Comment: We also support provisions allowing Class I, II, and V to be re-permitted as 

Class VI wells. We support proposed language that would grandfather construction 

requirements for Class I or II wells seeking re-permitting as a Class VI Well. 

We agree that other abandoned mines, including potentially potash mines are 

2

68
potential CO2 storage options and would be willing to assist the EPA in 

exploring this matter further. 

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

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

provides for the construction of these wells to 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). 

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21210 Letter Lines: 58 to 76 

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

Comment: Now, items that, that need additional regulatory clarity include the liability 

aspects. TFI understands the EPA's concern with the potential for impurities in 

the CO2 stream and the risks that contaminants, such as hydrogen sulfide and 

sulfuric and nitrous oxide in the CO2 stream could migrate into a USDW. 

TFI also agrees that because the types of impurities and their concentrations in 

the stream are likely to vary by facility, plant operating conditions, and 

pollution removal technologies, EPA can not make a categorical determination as 

to whether the injected CO2 is hazardous under RCRA. TFI would request greater 

guidance for potential upstream industrial clients in CO2 disposal wells. 

And among the RCRA related questions we would like to discuss before regulations 

are promulgated include the implications of considering the long-term storage of 

CO2 as discard, as the EPA suggests, by stating that CO2 streams need to be nonhazardous, the consequences of CO2 storage prior to injection, and the potential 

implications for solid waste storage regulation, and potential state regulatory 

obligations on the injection of solid waste. Monitoring and/or reporting 

requirements for upstream industrial clients that could provide RCRA liability 

relief. 

Individual Response: The Agency appreciates the concerns regarding the need for clarity when 

it comes to RCRA liability in GS. As a result of this comment and numerous others, 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 

3

69
VI wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is not making any changes to the RCRA 

regulations. 

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21211 Letter Lines: 78 to 92 

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment) 

Comment: We would also raise the CERCLA issue and the CERCLA liability issue. We agree 

with the EPA's interpretation in the proposed rule that the release of CO2 

constitutes a federally permitted release as defined in CERCLA 42 USC 9601. 

However, we remain concerned about potential CERCLA liability for upstream 

industrial clients, especially for comingled injectate streams, and for 

injectate stream constituents that could react with ground water to produce 

listed hazardous substances. 

TFI would request EPA include regulatory language governing monitoring, 

reporting requirements for upstream industrial clients that would provide CERCLA 

liability relief for exclusion in the promulgated rule. We would request that 

EPA include regulatory language providing liability protection or exclusion in 

the, and a potential liability in the event of leaks, well failure, or the 

release of reaction products. 

Individual Response: CO2 itself is not listed as a hazardous substance under CERCLA; 

however, the CO2 stream may contain a listed hazardous substance (such as mercury) or may 

mobilize substances in the subsurface that could react with ground water to produce listed 

hazardous substances (such as sulfuric acid). Whether such substances may result in CERCLA 

liability from a sequestration facility depends entirely on the composition of the specific CO2 

stream and the environmental media in which it is stored (e.g., soil or ground water). CERCLA 

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

releases” (FPR) as defined in CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(10). Class VI permits will need to be 

carefully structured to ensure that they 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 

4

70
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 

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. 

EPA adds that it is beyond the scope of the GS rule and the UIC Program’s authority to require 

or set standards for upstream generators of CO2 or purification facilities. 

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21212 Letter Lines: 94 to 105 

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

Comment: We agree with previous comments that in terms of paying or otherwise tagging CO2 

leakage down the road could be a major disincentive for capital investment on 

these types of projects. Because the expectation that a ton of CO2 could be 10 

times or 40 times the current cost would, would really, again, be a disincentive 

for companies to move forward with this. 

We would request, finally, clarification for upstream industrial clients as to 

the appropriate requirements for analyzing the CO2 stream at a frequency 

sufficient to yield representative data of its chemical and physical 

characteristics as cited in the Federal Register Notice. As well as appropriate 

requirements for upstream industrial clients in terms of monitoring and recordkeeping. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that promoting the use of GS is outside the scope of the GS 

5

71
rule. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to ensure that, where deployed, GS is conducted 

in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA adds that the GS rule does not apply 

to generators of CO2. 

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21213 Letter Lines: 107 to 111 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: To conclude, the EPA Science Advisory Board on Integrated Nitrogen has estimated 

that fertilizer is responsible for almost 50 percent of the world food 

production. There is over a billion people that are living essentially on a 

dollar a day or less globally. And this rule, if done correctly, has the 

potential to lower farmers' input cost and, and positively impact food security. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the impact of GS on food security is outside the scope 

of the GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21214 Letter Lines: 113 to 116 

Comment Code: 1940 1.4.4.3 Consultations with Industry; experience with other wells 

Comment: We would like to thank EPA for advancing this important tool for future carbon 

sequestration, and urge EPA to work closely with the nitrogen fertilizer 

industry and TFI on the issues that we have raised. And we would like to meet at 

a future convenient date to discuss these issues further. Thank you. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that input from stakeholders 

is a vital component of successful rulemaking, as discussed above. 

6

72
Letter ID: 0501 

Commenter: Karl R. Moor 

Organization: Southern Company 

Letter ID: 0501 Comment ID: 21157 Letter Lines: 44 to 73 

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking 

Comment: And I'd like to thank the EPA for the opportunity to discuss the rule-making. 

I'd also like to the congratulate the EPA on the process, there's been much good 

comment in our industry and other industries. You're familiar with the way and 

the approach the EPA has taken for this regulation, you know, for this process 

with the thoroughness and professionalism. 

And I would first like to put the importance of CCS in a context. Electricity 

generation produces 34 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions and 40 percent of 

carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. So this technology is critical to 

address that share of CO2 emissions in the United States. 

As EPA noted in the preamble in its proposed regulations, the goal is to create 

a regulatory framework that supports, and I'm quoting the development of the key 

climate change mitigation technology. EPA's regulations for geological storage 

of carbon dioxide are an important first step in moving the country forward and 

for securing the reality being expressed in the preamble. 

EEI and its member companies not only applaud you for the process, we also think 

that the, the goals that we are, have articulated in the technology are the 

right goals. And we are supportive in that regard as well. 

But we do have several key messages which, which may seem critical at some 

level, but we mean them as a source of constructive review of the regulations 

and hopefully a way of improving them. 

The key, the two key points that we would leave you with today are this, first, 

these regulations can and should promote the development and deployment of 

carbon capture and storage while protecting underground sources of drinking 

water without, and this is key, without unduly stigmatizing carbon dioxide 

injection storage. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the implementation of the GS rule in a manner that 

ensures protection of USDWs from endangerment is important to establishing a foundation for 

further advances in the field of CO2 GS. EPA believes the rule does not “stigmatize” injection of 

carbon dioxide. Rather, the requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique 

nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the volumes of CO2 being anticipated for long-term 

storage, the buoyant nature of the injectate, its mobility within subsurface geologic formations, 

1

73
and its corrosivity in the presence of water. EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to 

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

conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0501 Comment ID: 21158 Letter Lines: 75 to 119 

Comment Code: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize CO2 

Comment: Carbon dioxide has been injected for years in enhanced oil recovery, and that's 

been done largely without incident. 

And second, we believe that the regulation should be sufficiently flexible to 

take into consideration the site-specific characteristics and performance based 

measures. It should be sufficiently adaptable to incorporate lessons learned 

from ongoing pilot and demonstration projects like that at our Plant Daniel. 

To elaborate on these points I would say that EEI urges the agency to ensure 

that the regulations do not stigmatize storage, which, and the reason for that 

is we, it's a very fine line between appropriate regulatory guidance and sending 

this to the public that says that this technology is inherently dangerous, and 

that storage projects themselves are, make bad neighbors. As I've noted, EPA has 

stated these two goals themselves, that it simultaneously wants to protect 

drinking water and promote CCS. 

That in keeping, keeping these two goals from working against each other we 

believe that the emphasis should be placed in the regulations and all that 

follows, that CO2 is not a hazardous waste, a hazardous waste, and it's found in 

the ambient air. And as a result CO2, taking a regulatory approach to CO2, that 

in many ways is stricter than the underground injection of hazardous waste is, 

is in some small sense regulatory overkill. 

Many of the construction, mechanical integrity, monitoring, and financial 

responsibility provisions for Class VI Wells are more comprehensive in this 

proposal than they are for Class I Wells. The increased regulatory burden that 

this will place on the industry and upon those who want to undertake CCS 

projects would be substantial. 

Our industry knows firsthand, unfortunately, what, why it is so important that 

the public have an accurate perception of the risks and the rewards behind 

technologies, particular in their early stages of development. And in the 

preamble to this proposal EPA finds that the public should participate in the 

permitting process, in fact, have taken some innovative approaches to 

encouraging greater public participation. 

And we ask today that EPA help communicate to the public that it'd be very 

unlikely, and I would stress that, very unlikely that carbon geological storage 

2

74
would harm underground sources of water, or for that matter affect human health 

adversely. 

EPA can, I think, help do that by retooling the proposed regulations and to tie 

the requirements to the actual risks more closely. In addition, the EPA should 

remove the elements that serve only to fan the claims of public misperception, 

but having increased the protection of underground sources of ground water. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the GS regulation overstates the risk of CO2 injection. 

EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not 

properly managed, could endanger drinking water sources and have other adverse impacts. 

However, with proper site selection, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large 

volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and 

potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expects the tailored permitting, siting, 

construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule to 

prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs. 

While EPA recognizes that industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for ER, EPA 

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

Class II ER 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 ER projects. 

EPA has taken a regulatory approach that promotes USDW protection, incorporates flexibility or 

the discretion of the permitting authority when appropriate, seeks to limit burden on owners or 

operators and permitting agencies, and provides a foundation for national consistency in 

permitting of GS projects. For example, under the final rule, many Class VI permit requirements 

must be established through site-specific plans (e.g., AoR and corrective action plan, testing and 

monitoring plan, etc.) developed by the owner or operator and approved by the Director. 

Consequently EPA expects that owners or operators will consult with the Director as they 

develop, implement, and update these plans. Additionally, the Director has the discretion to 

approve alternatives to the requirements in some cases. For example, the Director may in certain 

situations modify the length of the post-injection site care period or approve an alternative postinjection site care timeframe as part of the permitting process under §146.93, allow the use of 

alternate methods for mechanical integrity testing (if approved by EPA) under §146.89, and 

waive the requirement that wells be designed to inject below the lowermost USDW under 

§146.95. 

EPA also disagrees that the tailored requirements will create a negative public perception of GS. 

The Agency believes that a demonstration to the public that GS projects are meeting the GS 

rule's tailored requirements would likely improve confidence in the project and help address 

public questions and concerns. 

3

75
Letter ID: 0501 Comment ID: 21159 Letter Lines: 121 to 154 

Comment Code: 3120 2.1.2 Need to identify additional confining and containment zones 

(seeking comment) 

Comment: For example, requiring a secondary containment field for this is, would create 

the wrong impression about the safety of carbon capture and storage, and it 

should not be a part of the final rule. Such a requirement is unprecedented in 

the UIC program. 

Even for the storage of Class I sources secondary containment fields are also 

unprecedented internationally. Countries where carbon capture and storage 

projects are currently underway, besides the United States, including Norway, 

Canada, Australia, and Algeria did not require secondary containment zones. And 

in those, in most of these instances the countries are in fact using the 

existing petroleum walls without the benefit of an additional regulatory 

program. 

Singling out, as the regulations do, carbon capture and storage would just 

heighten the substantial level of scrutiny. It sends a message that carbon 

dioxide is more dangerous than the underground injection of other substances. 

And since EPA is the agency in charge with protecting the environment, the 

public could easily be swayed by EPA's apparent apprehension of carbon capture 

that's currently, that is currently embodied in the regulations. 

In order to create a regulatory scheme that fosters carbon capture and storage 

the development and employment, the EPA should also consider how it has 

characterized carbon capture injection, both explicitly and implicitly in the 

regulation. 

Moreover, EPA should consider the effect of these regulations on securing 

critical financial support for CCS projects. Misperceptions about the risks can 

skew opportunities for financing. No one needs to be reminded today that the 

recent turmoil in the financial markets makes very challenging the financing of 

new technologies. 

In a credit constrained world the heightened risk and overplaying risk and the 

conflicts that this regulation can impede the development of a critically 

important technology for reducing CO2 emissions. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the Class VI requirements, including the level of site 

characterization required under §§146.82 and 146.83, appropriately address the unique 

challenges posed by large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of 

CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured 

CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. EPA retains the requirement to 

identify additional containment/confining zones, if required by the Director, as proposed (e.g., 

4

76
§146.83(b)). EPA acknowledges that such additional zones may not be needed in all 

circumstances, and clarifies that this requirement is at the Director's discretion, based on his or 

her understanding of a particular site. The Agency believes that in some geologic settings, the 

presence and identification of additional confining and containment zones above the primary 

(i.e., lowermost) confining zone can improve USDW protection. These formations could further 

impede vertical fluid movement, allow for pressure dissipation, and provide additional sites for 

monitoring, mitigation, and remediation, while also affording the greatest protection of USDWs 

from endangerment. While other countries may not require such additional protection, EPA 

believes that providing the Director this additional discretion is an important element of assuring 

that GS activities will not endanger USDWs. To the comment that the geologic siting 

requirements could create a negative public perception, EPA believes that a demonstration to the 

public that extensive data have been collected and evaluated would likely improve confidence in 

the project and help address public questions and concerns. 

Letter ID: 0501 Comment ID: 21160 Letter Lines: 156 to 160 

Comment Code: 4490 2.4.5 Use of tracers and potential impact on human health or ecosystems 

(seeking comment) 

Comment: Similarly, on a smaller scale we think as a specific example the EPA should not 

require the use of tracers or soil flux to monitor for possible carbon dioxide 

leaks. Not only are tracers relatively untested when it comes to their ability 

to monitor such leaks, they are also, they also will not transmit sufficiently 

early to provide any sort of real protection to underground sources of water. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that, in some circumstances, tracers can be an important 

component of a multifaceted approach to monitoring GS projects. However, the Agency 

recognizes that tracers may not be appropriate in all GS projects. For this reason, EPA does not 

require the use of tracers at all GS sites; however, the Director has discretion to require their use 

if he/she determines that the use of tracers could improve monitoring of the site and enhance 

USDW protection from endangerment. 

EPA continues to follow new and ongoing research on the safety and efficacy of tracers. For 

example, studies at the Frio Brine Pilot Experiment site (Dayton, TX) used various types of 

tracers, including perfluorocarbon tracers (PFTs), sulfur hexafluoride, and the noble gases 

krypton, neon, and xenon. These studies (e.g., Phelps and Cole, 2008; Hovorka et al., 2004; 

McCallum et al., 2005) found that tracers can provide useful CO2 monitoring information at 

injection wells at depth and at near-surface locations. At Frio, tracers enabled quantification of 

CO2 plume behavior and provided a technique for model validity testing (McCallum et al., 

2005). EPA will continue to track research related to tracer use. 

EPA has been following new and ongoing research on the safety and efficacy of tracers, 

including their efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The Agency plans to, every six years, 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. 

5

77
Letter ID: 0501 Comment ID: 21161 Letter Lines: 162 to 170 

Comment Code: 4670 2.6.7 Surface air monitoring and/or soil gas monitoring (seeking 

comment) 

Comment: I'm told that soil flux monitoring is also problematic because it can result in 

false positives based on natural variability in flux. 

What these requirements do is, by way of example, is signal to the public that 

carbon capture and storage is unsafe because it could lead to a leak in CO2, 

despite the fact that this is very unlikely to happen. The United Nations 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that the amount of carbon 

dioxide retained in the appropriately sited storage site was very likely to 

exceed 99 percent of over one hundred years. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that monitoring at a GS site is of critical importance to 

ensuring protection of USDWs from endangerment. Appropriately selected monitoring 

technologies, including surface air and soil-gas monitoring will also serve to increase public 

confidence in the safety of GS and to assure the public that GS projects are being appropriately 

operated and monitored. The information gained through such monitoring will also enable 

permitting authorities to take appropriate steps to address any indication that USDWs may be 

endangered. 

EPA clarifies that surface air and soil gas monitoring are not required at all GS sites. However, 

the GS rule at §146.90(h) gives the Director discretion to require surface air and/or soil gas 

monitoring as a means of identifying leaks that may pose a risk to USDWs and informing 

emergency notification of a Class VI owner or operator and UIC Director in the event of a 

USDW endangerment, pursuant to requirements at §146.91(c). 

Letter ID: 0501 Comment ID: 21162 Letter Lines: 172 to 184 

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

Comment: Our second message to the EPA today addresses the regulatory flexibility. We 

believe that the agency should be cautious in overly prescriptive regulation, 

one size fits all approaches to siting. No two geological formations are the 

same, no two CCS projects will be the same. And the geological formations in 

which CO2 is injected will be defined by a number of characteristics. We believe 

the many instances and the regulation has chosen to tie with the regulated 

entities to a -- whether it be -- of responsible, duration of responsibility 

award, financial assurance responsibility. 

In all of these instances where EPA has said that there is one defining 

characteristic, it will tie the regulated entity's hands to an existing set, a 

new set of regulatory prescriptions with the EPA has not done good service to 

6

78
7

the industry or to the development of GS technology? 

Individual Response: The Agency believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific 

flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based 

standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flexible approach, where operators of GS projects 

would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring 

the site, performing corrective action, and post-injection site care. EPA believes that the plans—

which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodically updated throughout the 

life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operator and the Director that will 

encourage use of the most appropriate technologies for a particular project. 

79
Letter ID: 0502 

Commenter: Brad Kallio 

 

Letter ID: 0502 Comment ID: 21231 Letter Lines: 20 to 31 

Comment Code: 1670 1.3.7 Other/miscellaneous risks 

Comment: Everybody's kind of heard of Murphy's Law, I tend to live by it being a -- 

various things that I repair in my world. But typically, anytime you do anything 

like this where you're putting yourself into a potential to, let's say something 

does go wrong, there is a crack or a movement, or something that happens 

geologically that stresses it, where does this gooey carbon dioxide go? And in 

my world it finds its way. 

And you get it in the water, I don't know, what is it, 20 percent of the world's 

fresh water is in Michigan and around the, the lakes around here. That concerns 

me because it's a time bomb just waiting to go off. Instead, maybe a hundred 

years, so far they've got it where it looks like it might be all right. But, 

okay, that would be my grandkids that have to deal with the problem. 

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique 

challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water sources and have other 

adverse impacts. However, with proper site selection, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements 

address the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of 

water, and potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expects the tailored 

permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements 

in the GS rule to prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs. 

EPA acknowledges the importance of protecting drinking water supplies and adds that all of the 

requirements in the GS rule are for the purposes of protecting underground sources of drinking 

water from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0502 Comment ID: 21232 Letter Lines: 33 to 44 

Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space 

ownership 

Comment: In my opinion, the best way to resolve is to attack it from a broad standpoint 

of changing the way you burn it, changing the way you do that type of process. I 

don't know how far they've gotten in the past five years, technology has changed 

so drastically in likely the way we attack different problems, with chemicals, 

with types of things that they can inject into the carbon to get different 

results, where you could actually isolate the carbon dioxide molecule, that kind 

of thing. But people have been working on that. 

1

80
Anyway, I'd like to see a little more money and focus put towards that rather 

than putting this crap in the ground. It's just, to me it's a bad idea, and it's 

not really a problem, and it gets us by for a while, sure. But in the long run 

our kids are going to pay for it. Thank you. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the UIC program’s authority under SDWA is focused 

on ensuring protection of USDWs from endangerment. The capture of CO2 is outside of the 

scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. 

EPA does not believe that a properly managed GS site is dangerous. The Class VI GS regulation 

builds upon the long-standing protective framework of the UIC program, which has been 

regulating the injection of billions of gallons of liquids for decades. The Class VI GS regulation 

enhances this existing framework with requirements for Class VI wells that are tailored to the 

unique nature of large scale GS of CO2. These additional protective requirements include more 

extensive geologic testing, detailed computational modeling of the AoR and periodic reevaluations, detailed requirements for monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure 

front, and extended post-injection monitoring and site care. 

Letter ID: 0502 Comment ID: 21233 Letter Lines: 46 to 80 

Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space 

ownership 

Comment: MR. KALLIO: My name is Brad Kallio. I have a little research company in Grand 

Rapids, Michigan. We try our best to solve different types of problems with 

energy and what have you. 

And the easiest way to say it would be, wind generation is something that's 

going be used for years and years and years. -- uses the old, big windmill. They 

don't move real fast, they don't chop a lot up, we don't have birds hitting them 

and getting cut in half, which they do have in -- they're moving very slow. 

But what we do with wind, especially in these areas here, is that when you got a 

whole amount of wind, has anybody ever wound a cuckoo clock, pull the little 

chains up and the weight goes up, and it keeps the little pendulum going? Same 

principle, only instead of lifting a little metal weight you're lifting, like 

what he wants to do, his whole house. 

But any mass is a lot of weight if you lift it up. And as soon as it gets to a 

certain height it clicks over to another gear system. And then the wind keeps 

blowing, picks up another one, and another one, and another one. You can do a 

whole sequence of these along the shoreline or anything like that. 

Now, you're not storing your energy in batteries, you're storing your energy in 

gravity. And when you don't have wind you can also use solar to generate motors 

2

81
3

to do the same thing. It's just like a windmill kind of thinking, you pull it up 

and you store it. It goes into a fly wheel at the other end, with a generator on 

the other end of it now you've get a turbine generator just like you have in a 

coal mining plant with no emissions. You can build these anywhere. 

And this is only one way of doing it. There's dozens of other ways, any 

difference in potential from one to the other you can harness and turn it into, 

drive into a system like that, and now you're not polluting at all. 

So I believe in keeping it simple, the Romans did this kind of stuff that moves 

water from one point to another, it's old technology but we can apply it to what 

we have today. I mean, that's more efficient than ever having to burn coal or 

oil or any of this stuff. That's what I had to say. 

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. However, the use of and 

investment in these technologies is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. The Class 

VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, 

sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

82
Letter ID: 0503 

Commenter: Michele Schoepper 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute 

Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21170 Letter Lines: 25 to 30 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: First, I'd like to provide some context for our comments. Oil and natural gas 

and coal provide approximately 85 percent of the world's energy. The power 

plants, vehicles, homes, businesses and factories that use these fuels produce 

more than 25 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. While no single 

technology is sufficient to mitigate these emissions, capturing CO2 and storing 

it deep underground in formations could play an important role. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. 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: 0503 Comment ID: 21171 Letter Lines: 32 to 47 

Comment Code: 1940 1.4.4.3 Consultations with Industry; experience with other wells 

Comment: As an industry we have over 35 years of experience safely transporting and 

injecting CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, EOR, while constantly evolving new 

technology, operating experience, and regulatory requirements that had been 

developed EOR our extensive, mature, and generally appropriate for CCS. 

In the U.S. alone the oil and gas industry operates over 13,000 CO2 EOR Wells, 

over 3,500 miles of high pressure CO2 pipelines, and has injected over 600 

million tons of CO2 for EOR alone. All while maintaining an excellent health 

environment and safety record. 

Industry also has extensive experience in large scale separation and reinjection of natural gas streams. The largest operation of this kind is on the 

north slope of Alaska where 47 TCF and natural gas consisting of about 12 

percent carbon dioxide has been cumulatively re-injected over the past 30 plus 

years. The CO2 fraction corresponds to approximately 420 million metric tons of 

CO2. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and recognizes that the oil and gas 

industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER, and that sites used for 

ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS sites. Some of the research that 

informs the final GS rule was conducted at ER sites. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of 

ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving formation. 

1

83
Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21172 Letter Lines: 49 to 56 

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking 

Comment: Regarding EPA's proposed rule, API is very supportive of the fact that EPA has 

recognized the integrity of the existing regulatory framework for CO2 based 

enhanced oil recovery, of the amount of flexibility in most parts of the 

proposed rule, and of the use of performance based approaches. 

Specific examples include the proposed confining zone requirements and the 

proposed ground water monitoring requirements, although there are several 

aspects of the proposed rule that should be reconsidered for further inclusion. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the 

existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the deployment of GS as a climate change 

mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that 

the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating 

injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address 

the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative 

buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in 

captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. 

Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21173 Letter Lines: 58 to 71 

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

USDW 

Comment: The first being the restriction of injections to formations below the lowermost 

underground source of drinking water. This requirement is not necessary for the 

protection of the USDWs and would remove a vast number of viable formations from 

consideration. 

Industry has shown that it can operate CO2 injection wells in the EOR context 

without endangering with USDWs that are located below the injection zone. An 

excellent example is the Salt Creek EOR Project in Wyoming, which has a USDW 

below the injection zone. 

Moreover, under the proposed rule there are other measures that would provide 

real assurance of formation integrity and require operators to demonstrate that 

their project will not endanger USDWs, making the injection below the lowermost 

USDW restriction unnecessary. 

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 

2

84
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. 

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. The 

Agency believes this approach: 1) responds to concerns about local and regional geologic storage 

capacity limitations imposed by the proposed injection depth requirements; 2) allows for a more 

site-specific assessment of injection depth for GS projects; 3) accommodates injection into 

different formation types; 4) allows for injection of CO2 for GS into non-USDWs above and/or 

between USDWs when appropriate and where it can be demonstrated that USDWs will be 

protected; and 5) responds to concerns about the use of aquifer exemptions for GS. Finally, 

EPA’s approach to addressing injection depth variability through a waiver process responds to 

concerns about future drinking water resource availability and the need to ensure that high 

quality water remains available in sufficient quantities to supply drinking water needs. For 

additional information on the waiver approach, 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. 

While the Agency acknowledges the experience gained by the oil and gas industry and other 

injection activities, EPA identified unique challenges posed by large-scale GS including large 

injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the 

potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic 

formations that warrant the tailored approach in the GS rule. Furthermore, the Agency believes 

that wells that inject into non-USDW formations above and between USDWs presents additional 

challenges that warrant additional requirements. 

Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21174 Letter Lines: 73 to 81 

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

Comment: EPA should also reconsider its proposed 50-year default period post injection 

site care. EPA offers no rationale for this arbitrarily selected period of 50 

years. Establishing a fixed and unusually long time period may create a 

significant barrier for operators considering entry into CCS operations. 

Criteria for determining the period for proposed injection site care should be 

performance based and a function of the site-specific characteristics of a 

project, such as the project's size, the geologic factors, and the relative 

risks of the project. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. In determining the post-injection site 

care-timeframe for the proposed regulation, EPA reviewed industry reports, existing 

environmental programs, and initial GS research studies. EPA provided a synthesis of pertinent 

results from GS modeling studies in the preamble to the proposed regulation. Further explanation 

of this analysis was included in an EPA-prepared background document that is available in the 

federal docket, titled "Computational Modeling of Underground Injection of Carbon Dioxide for 

Determination of Area-of-Review and Potential Risk to Underground Sources of Drinking 

3

85
Water." Based on review of these studies, modeling results indicate that the CO2 plume 

stabilization may occur on the timeframe of 10-100 years after the cessation of injection. EPA 

believes that a 50-year default post-injection site care timeframe is a reasonable midpoint for 

most GS projects and available data, including data submitted by commenters, do not support a 

different default timeframe, and has retained this in the final regulation. 

To address concerns that, in some situations, it can be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the 

plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs, the GS rule 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 post-injection 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, during the permitting 

process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it 

ensures non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c). 

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

for post-injection site care will be necessary in most cases. The default 50 year post-injection site 

care timeframe represents a reasonable and protective monitoring period based on a review of 

research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public 

comments. 

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. 

Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21175 Letter Lines: 83 to 86 

Comment Code: 5300 2.8.3 Site closure activities (40 CFR 146.93) 

Comment: Clear guidelines also need to be established regarding when operators have met 

the performance standards that determine site closure. Specifically, the 

standard that the project no longer poses an endangerment to USDWs needs to be 

defined using reasonable site- specific criteria. 

Individual Response: EPA is developing guidance to assist owners or operators in evaluating 

well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure requirements of 146.92 and 146.93. 

Additionally, the guidance will assist Directors in evaluating proposed well plugging plans and 

post-injection site care and site closure plans under 146.92 and 146.93. The guidance describes 

recommended approaches for how an owner or operator could plug injection and monitoring 

wells; demonstrate the appropriateness of an alternative post-injection site care time frame; 

perform post-injection monitoring; demonstrate non endangerment; and perform site closure 

4

86
activities. The guidance will be available at 

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

Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21176 Letter Lines: 88 to 91 

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

Comment: Next, EPA should also reconsider its proposed well construction and operation 

requirements, which are much more prescriptive and rigorous than necessary, and 

do not reflect industry's 35 plus years of success in rejecting CO2 under the 

Class II UIC program. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the Class VI requirements are overly stringent; 

instead, the GS requirements are tailored to the unique nature of GS, including the large volumes 

of CO2 injected, its buoyancy and potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and impurities 

in the CO2 stream. EPA believes these tailored requirements are more appropriate than Class I or 

Class II requirements. 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. 

The Agency believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific flexibility with USDW 

protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based standards for GS projects, EPA 

is adopting a flexible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement 

site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring the site, performing corrective 

action, and post-injection site care. EPA believes that the plans—which would be reviewed and 

approved by the Director and periodically updated throughout the life of the project—promote an 

ongoing dialogue between the operator and the Director that will encourage use of the most 

appropriate technologies for a particular project. 

Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21177 Letter Lines: 93 to 97 

Comment Code: 3824 2.3.1.2 Cementing of long-string casing (seeking comment) 

Comment: The Class II EOR Wells constructed for these projects and operating practices 

have an excellent record of mechanical integrity testing to protect the USDW. 

Some of the proposed requirements such as cementing a long stream casing to the 

surface are not only unnecessarily burdensome, but might also interfere with 

operations and could introduce unintended risks. 

Individual Response: EPA does not believe that the cementing requirements at §146.86 would 

prevent monitoring, operation and remediation of Class VI wells. Cementing of deep wells has 

been performed successfully in the past by owners or operators of Class I hazardous and Class I 

municipal waste disposal wells. Some of these wells, which must meet the same cementing and 

casing requirements as Class VI wells, are up to 12,000 feet deep and have been successfully 

cemented in a manner that maintains integrity and allows for all required well testing, operation, 

5

87
and remediation (EPA, 2001). 

EPA recognizes that the GS rule includes requirements (e.g., cementing the entire length of the 

long-string casing) that are not standard practice in the oil and natural gas industry, but believes 

that there are significant operational differences between ER and GS. 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 be different, with Class VI injection operations involving 

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

Class II ER projects. In addition, CO2 in the presence of water may be corrosive to well 

materials. For these reasons, EPA believes that GS is sufficiently different from Class II ER 

operations to warrant the tailored construction requirements for Class VI wells at §146.86. 

See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS 

rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the construction of 

Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at 

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

Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21178 Letter Lines: 99 to 103 

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: Additionally, by unnecessarily creating a regulatory gap between Class II Wells 

and operations and Class VI Wells and operations the EPA is creating a potential 

economic or operational barrier to transitioning from EOR operations to storage 

operations. Thereby further reducing the number of target formations where CO2 

could be stored. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the purpose of the GS rule is to ensure protection of 

USDWs from endangerment and not to promote or incentivize GS deployment. However, the 

Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and 

deployment of CCS technology may provide the regulatory and jurisdictional certainty needed to 

foster development and deployment of CCS while ensuring USDW protection. 

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 

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 

6

88
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 Clas II wells in thepreamble to the final GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21179 Letter Lines: 105 to 109 

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

Comment: In conclusion, API shares the same goal as EPA, to develop rules that facilitate 

the safe, secure, long-term storage of CO2. API is concerned though that by 

being overly prescriptive in designing the new well class the proposed rule 

hinder the deployment of CCS and could have the unanticipated consequence of 

hindering innovations that could improve both well security and performance. 

Individual Response: The Agency believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific 

flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based 

standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flexible approach, where operators of GS projects 

would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring 

the site, performing corrective action, and post-injection site care. EPA believes that the plans—

which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodically updated throughout the 

life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operator and the Director that will 

encourage use of the most appropriate technologies for a particular project. 

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: 0503 Comment ID: 21180 Letter Lines: 111 to 112 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: CCS is one of the essential technologies that could help to ensure that we can 

continue to produce the clean energy society demands. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. 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. 

7

89
Letter ID: 0504 

Commenter: Mark Singer 

Organization: Green America Project, LLC 

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21241 Letter Lines: 23 to 27 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: My perspective is this, I believe geologic sequestration is essential and 

urgently needed, especially because coal is a major contributor to global 

climate change both in the United States and all around the world. And if coal 

is to be used it must be used on the basis of sequestration of 100 percent of 

the CO2. 

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. However, the use of and 

investment in these technologies is outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. The Class VI 

GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, sited, 

constructed, operated, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. For 

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

as well as the rulemaking docket. 

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21242 Letter Lines: 29 to 43 

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming 

Comment: This isn't about me, and it isn't about you, it's about global climate change. 

That's why we're here, that's why anybody's contemplating geological 

sequestration. 

Just this week in the current issue of Science Magazine, Peter Cox and Chris 

Jones report research that gives more bad news. New data shows that, this is 

the, the current issue, new data shows that climates sensitivity of the carbon 

cycle is now constrained at the high end of the range of values consistent with 

contemporary records. 

Previous studies gave a broad range of possible values from relatively minor to 

alarming. Cox and Jones now constrain it to the high end. If you read the 

article, it's written in a very dry, emotionless tone. But in a personal 

communication Peter Cox my question, which was, you know, is this good news or 

bad news, it is bad news for the world, but its bad news that we have to hear. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that climate change mitigation is outside the scope of the 

GS rulemaking. Rather, the purpose of the Class VI GS rule is to ensure consistency in 

1

90
permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provide 

requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to 

reduce CO2 emissions. 

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21243 Letter Lines: 45 to 58 

Comment Code: 1520 1.2.3 Other authorities (e.g., CAA, MPRSA, London Convention) 

Comment: This hearing is EPA's critical crucial role in the technical and legal framework 

for geologic sequestration. And this brings me to my first point, which is 

jurisdiction. 

Basing EPA jurisdiction only on the Safe Drinking Water Act and not on the Clean 

Air Act is a critical mistake. The central issue in geologic sequestration is 

whether CO2 sequestration will be permanent. But the Safe Drinking Water Act 

jurisdiction does not allow EPA to assert its full legal authority to ensure 

that sequestration will be permanent. 

We all sat through the presentations this morning, and probably read the 

publication in the Federal Register. Every time the EPA discusses this they 

hammer away that this is just under the Safe Drinking Water Act and that's it. 

This is a mistake. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of 

CCS, but clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all 

requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from 

endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop 

regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. 

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. 

In a separate rulemaking under authority of the Clean Air Act, EPA is amending the Greenhouse 

Gas (GHG) Reporting Program at 40 CFR Part 98 to add reporting requirements for facilities 

that conduct GS (subpart RR) and all other facilities that inject CO2 underground (subpart UU). 

2

91
For additional information, see the section of the final GS rule preamble entitled, "How Does 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Relate to This Rulemaking?” and the GHG 

Reporting Program rulemaking and docket. 

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21244 Letter Lines: 60 to 64 

Comment Code: 1616 1.3.1.3 Fluid movement 

Comment: In the Federal Register they say that protecting underground sources of drinking 

water, USDWs, may be permanent, this sequestration may be permanent. May, that 

sounds like a, like permanence would be a happy accident rather than the primary 

objective. If geologic sequestration starts leaking it will be a major 

anthropocentric, anthropogenic source of greenhouse gas. 

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique 

challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water sources and have other 

adverse impacts. However, with proper site selection, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements 

address the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of 

water, and potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expects the tailored 

permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements 

in the GS rule to prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs. 

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21245 Letter Lines: 66 to 73 

Comment Code: 1520 1.2.3 Other authorities (e.g., CAA, MPRSA, London Convention) 

Comment: Molly Bayer had a slide just now which talks about the special characteristics 

of CO2. Significantly it did not even mention that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It 

makes no sense not, for the EPA not to exercise jurisdiction under the Clean Air 

Act. 

The science is clear, our planet is being degraded. This is an act of violence 

against future generations that will damn us to all posterity. The EPA must 

exercise Clean Air Act jurisdiction in this ruling. 

Individual Response: As described above, EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within 

the broader context of CCS, but clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to 

injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of 

protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the 

authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. 

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21246 Letter Lines: 75 to 84 

Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment) 

3

92
Comment: I'd like to comment on the grandfathering issue in the proposal. The EPA 

proposes to give the director discretion to grandfather construction 

requirements for Class I, II, and V wells seeking to convert to geologic 

sequestration as Class VI. This makes no sense as well. 

The construction requirements are there for a reason. The question must be 

whether the existing wells satisfy the structural criteria, that is the, the 

requirements for integrity of a Class VI well. So rather than grandfather, the 

rule should be that existing wells must show that they satisfy the functional 

requirements of Class VI construction. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that a cautious approach to grandfathering is appropriate, 

particularly given that the converted well will be used for a substantially different process, which 

involves increased reservoir pressures associated with large volumes of stored CO2 and the 

corrosivity of CO2 in the presence of water. The final GS rule provides for the construction of 

these wells to be grandfathered (per 146.81(c)). EPA has included a requirement in the final GS 

rule that owners or operators seeking to convert existing wells for long term storage must 

demonstrate to the Director that the grandfathered wells were engineered and constructed 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). 

EPA adds that conversion of the well will be at the Director's discretion following an evaluation 

of all other site-specific information about the well and the project, e.g., modeling, monitoring, 

and other data. EPA believes that this addresses the suggestion that the wells satisfy the 

functional requirements of Class VI construction. 

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21247 Letter Lines: 86 to 92 

Comment Code: 3350 2.2.1.5 Use of proprietary models for GS sites (seeking comment) 

Comment: There's a lot of discussion about modeling as a key to how they're going to 

analyze whether this is sufficient, and trying to predict injectate behavior 

based on modeling, getting data and then analyzing and trying to adapt. 

The proposal does not sufficiently address transparency. Importantly, as this 

data comes in it should be made available to the public so that scientific and 

technical experts can analyze that. 

Individual Response: In response to the comment that the proposal does not sufficiently address 

transparency, GS well operators are required to disclose, to the Director's satisfaction, the code 

assumptions, relevant equations, and scientific basis. EPA adds that its Confidential Business 

Information requirements at 40 CFR 144.5 will apply to the use of proprietary models. 

Information including model assumptions and equations are used by the Director to inform 

4

93
his/her decision to issue the permit and ensure that the requirements are met and the GS well will 

not endanger USDWs. 

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21248 Letter Lines: 94 to 123 

Comment Code: 1612 1.3.1.1 Leaching and mobilization of contaminants; reactions in injection 

zone 

Comment: Now, it's obvious that bad things can happen if this goes wrong. CO2 can 

interact chemically with lime right at the injection site even without it, you 

know, moving around, even without it escaping through the well initially. This 

could create carbonic acid, reacting CO2 with water. This could dissolve 

limestone or other susceptible rock and underground, underground karst region 

could be created. This could cause a collapsed area due to reduced subjacent 

support. 

The EPA was handling, was, I'm sorry. The EPA participated in the National 

Carbon Sequestration Atlas. And according to the National Atlas, there's a 

section there on engineering aspects of karsts. According to the National Atlas, 

karst lithology already poses problems in many areas of the United States. 

Now, in the EPA's Federal Register publication they call carbonic acid a weak 

acid. This is a, this is a, when we say, weak acid, it's a technical term, it 

has to do with the acid's intrinsic reactivity as compared to other types of 

acids. But it does not take into the account the issue of concentration of the 

carbonic acid. 

The carbonic, the weathering that we see in underground caves is the result of 

atmospheric CO2 dissolving in water and then that attacks the rock and carves 

out all these wonderful caves and such, and also causes many areas where 

subsidence occurs because the subjacent support has been undermined. 

But the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is way below one percent, and here 

we're talking about 100 percent CO2 and putting that down by the water source. 

So even though it's in a technical sense a weak acid its concentration will be 

much higher. This concentrated carbonic acid would chemically attack susceptible 

rock, much more fiercely than naturally occurring processes, you'd have karsts 

on steroids. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are potential risks associated with GS, 

including the potential that CO2 injection for GS may result in leaching of subsurface materials 

that could mobilize contaminants or compromise pore space, and therefore injectivity, which 

may result in USDW endangerment. The purpose of the Class VI requirements is to minimize 

and mitigate potential/identified risks through proper site characterization, well construction, 

operation, monitoring, post-injection site care, and site closure. To ensure USDW protection and 

mitigate risks, the GS regulation requires the owner or operator of a Class VI well to submit data 

5

94
about the site (during the site characterization process), including information on the porosity, 

permeability, mineralogy, and geochemistry of the injection and confining zones, along with 

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

in both the injection and confining zones as specified in §146.82. This data can help identify 

potential geochemical reactions that may occur between the injected CO2 and the host geologic 

formation. Identification of potential reactions prior to injection would address concerns that 

formation of carbonic acid could dissolve potential limestone creating karst features. 

During injection operations, operators must extensively monitor ground water quality to provide 

early detection of any unacceptable movement of fluids or impurities in the subsurface as 

specified in §146.90. Operators must develop and follow an emergency and remedial response 

plan to address any adverse effects associated with the GS operation, including contamination as 

specified in §146.94, and provide financial responsibility to address contamination as specified 

in §146.85. 

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21249 Letter Lines: 125 to 131 

Comment Code: 3110 2.1.1 Proposed siting requirements (i.e., injection/confining zones, 

trapping mechanism) 

Comment: Geologic sequestration operations must have capstone formations separating the 

injection site not just from the surface but also from soluble rock such as 

limestone. 

Now, there's a couple places in the, in the Federal Register where they, where 

they discussed this. But none of them discussed the effect of CO2 on the rock, 

they just talk about, for example, plugging pore spaces. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that §146.83(a) requires that any GS project must have at 

least one confining zone (i.e., impermeable layer) between the injection zone and the lowermost 

USDW. The owner or operator and the permit writer must take into account the possibility of 

permeable and/or soluble geology in the subsurface. The requirement focuses on isolation from 

the USDW in order to meet the UIC programmatic requirement to protect USDWs from 

endangerment. 

EPA believes that plugging of pore spaces is one aspect of the interactions between CO2 and the 

rock that need to be addressed. Additionally, the GS regulation requires the owner or operator to 

submit data about the site, including information on the porosity, permeability, mineralogy, and 

geochemistry of the targeted injection and confining zones. Operators must also present 

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), as determined through the formation testing 

program and on the compatibility of the CO2 with the materials used to construct the well 

(§146.82(c)(3)). The data 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. 

6

95
Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21250 Letter Lines: 133 to 142 

Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space 

ownership 

Comment: Now, there are some, a couple other things. While the EPA is very careful about 

saying that this does not cover Clean Air Act there are other things that they 

should admit that it does not cover. The EPA's permitting process cannot affect 

landowners' property rights. And the proposed rule should point this out 

explicitly. 

For example, there's an ADM sequestration test in the middle of Decatur, 

Illinois, it's in a sandstone formation. But if that were in limestone it would 

undermine the City of Decatur I think they'd be pretty upset that it was 

asserted that the EPA permit prevented them from recovering against ADM. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that pore space ownership and surface and subsurface 

property and mineral rights are outside of the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking; these are 

under the purview of states and any of these issues, as they relate to GS, will need to be 

addressed though state regulations. The Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, 

where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a 

manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

In a separate rulemaking under authority of the Clean Air Act, EPA is amending the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Program at 40 CFR Part 98 to add reporting requirements for CO2 injection and 

geologic sequestration. The greenhouse gas reporting requirements build on the requirements 

outlined in the Class VI GS rule with the additional goals of verifying the amount of CO2 

sequestered and collecting data on any CO2 emissions to the surface from GS facilities. 

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21251 Letter Lines: 144 to 146 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: So in summary, the eyes of posterity are focused on us right here today, what we 

do here is critically important. Geologic sequestration is essential, it is 

urgently needed, but it must be done right. Thank you. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the 

existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation 

technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC 

Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection 

of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the 

unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative 

buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in 

captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. 

7

96
8

97
Letter ID: 0505 

Commenter: Lee Sprague 

Organization: Sierra Club 

Letter ID: 0505 Comment ID: 21234 Letter Lines: 22 to 24 

Comment Code: 1320 1.1.3 General comments about GS 

Comment: It is clear that industry and people believe that CO2 sequestration is possible 

even though there are no long-term studies available -- for the storage over 

long periods of time. 

Individual Response: The UIC Program’s authority under the SDWA focuses on ensuring that 

GS projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and closed in a manner that is 

protective of USDWs. Ensuring storage capacity is outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. 

EPA clarifies that other federal agencies (e.g., DOE and the U.S. Geological Survey) have 

conducted research on available storage capacity and determinations of the feasibility of 

capturing and storing CO2 at the scales needed to address climate change. These agencies, along 

with private entities, have identified large areas for potential sequestration in capacity studies. 

For example, in 2008, USGS initiated development of a methodology for estimating the capacity 

to store CO2 in geologic formations of the US. In 2010, USGS finalized and published a riskbased methodology for GS capacity estimation. "A Probabilistic Assessment Methodology for 

the Evaluation of Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage" is available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1127/. 

Letter ID: 0505 Comment ID: 21235 Letter Lines: 26 to 123 

Comment Code: 5500 2.1 Comments on Involving the Public in Permitting Decisions 

Comment: I believe that attempts to limit public information and public awareness of the 

UIC technologies and the state of the monitoring activities -- out of 

consideration for them for unduly raised concerns or disingenuous. The public, 

if it is safe, then -- is safe, full public disclosure is essential for 

confidence. 

Public notices to residents in the areas of review and residents adjacent to 

areas of review should include notifications of the initial wells and subsequent 

well injections for the lifetime of the emission source or the capacity of the 

AoR. Simply allowing the permit on a one-time basis is not adequate. The public 

has the right to know of the future plans, the right-of-ways, and the injection 

points that will be used over the entirety of the process. 

Public hearings should be required and not be left to the discretion of the 

director. This makes an uneven application of the law, and it should be a 

1

98
mandatory requirement for all applications. 

The public should be notified early on in the process, during site evaluation 

and site selection processes. Again, public information and knowledge is 

essential to public confidence. Failure to disclose these elements while the 

process is undergoing will raise more concerns at the end of the day. 

Any application for UIC permits for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide 

should be required to estimate the number of injection sites from AoR, area of 

review. This is legal and clear at this point over the lifetime of emission of 

the power plant how many injection wells will be needed. In some states it 

depends on the geological substrata of, to what that capacity may be. 

Well, to come into a community and just place one well for one permit and then 

all of a sudden more permits are being issued based on initial site review, 

there are a lot of issues that are raised with that eminent domain, right-ofway. The industry wants to put a straight line pipeline to its next injection 

well site, but that's going to cost public access, public right-of-way, private 

property that needs to be fully disclosed and mapped out prior, before 

utilization of that field for all of its injection well sites and capacities. 

This is critical because local communities have long range local zoning 

ordinances and planning process that will extend throughout the lifetime of a, 

of a well or an area to be used for well site. And so these kinds, this kind of 

notification and long-term notification of potential well types is essentially 

to local communities to adequately plan and provide health and safety for the 

welfare of their residents. 

Property owners should be required to disclose UIC sites on or adjacent 

properties that are being sold in the AoR. Covenants for the land regarding UIC 

sites should be required. Public disclosure of UIC sites nearby, near, on, or 

adjacent to properties should be disclosed to sellers. If it's a safe process, 

again, this is part of the public notification. 

Mapping a potential AoR well site leakage it should be disclosed and noticed as 

part of any public hearing process. For example, low- lying areas next to a well 

site should be mapped out to where the first one hundred thousand tons of CO2 

could escape via well heads. Where does that settle at? It's heavier than air, 

it'll accumulate in low-lying areas, and I believe that the public, the public 

needs to be notified, and a worse case scenario, mapping out low-lying areas of 

the CO2. And again, this should be part of the public disclosure for any 

transfer of land, or selling of land in that community? 

And as an example, I would say that a map that would be adequate for public 

health and welfare of a local community, if there was a leak at the wellheads, 

where the first hundred thousand tons of CO2, where would it funnel at, where 

2

99
would that be rolled or displace oxygen at, and map out those low-lying areas. 

And then a concentric circle where the second one hundred thousand tons of CO2 

that escape from a well, where would that settle in and apply, and map out where 

it will go. Because those people in those areas potentially could be impacted. 

And it's just not people, we're talking of other resources. 

I think that a metric that is easily discernible to the public needs to be 

created and utilized in this process. In other words, once you have a well 

closure safe, or you can, during the monitoring process, that I want to know as 

a public citizen, what if a one inch penetration of a cap stone occurs during 

the injection process or during the closure process. How much CO2 per day, per 

annum can I expect? I would like to say not annum, but per day, per week, by 

month, can I expect from a one inch penetration of a cap stone in geologically 

sequestered area review. 

How, and I want to know, well, what about a two inch penetration? How much CO2 

is likely to escape? What about a three inch penetration? 

This is a metric that the public likely needs to understand the potential. There 

could be an accidental penetration of the cap stone. There are existing wells 

that I know, I'm personally aware of in Madison County, Michigan where I have 

resided and where my tribe is located, where there are simply pools of mud. And 

we already have sulfide gases that are turning, up to 40,000 parts per million, 

way above any standard by the EPA. But these are controlled by simply putting 

them in the mud. These are potential escape routes for CO2, again, they needed 

to be mapped out as the proposals indicate. 

But, you know, I want to know what the failure, or the opening up of one of 

these penetrations means by communicating in terms of the rate of CO2 emissions 

that are becoming stagnant. And again, the mapping out of where the CO2 will 

accumulate in low lying areas. 

The public should be made aware of and have an opportunity to participate in any 

of the emergency or contingency planning based on catastrophic leaks of a well 

site. If this happens there needs to be clear steps taken, and coordination of 

the local community to outline a contingency plan or notification. 

Individual Response: EPA encourages GS well owners or operators and permitting agencies to 

begin involving the public by providing information as early in the GS project development 

process as possible. Involving the public in the permitting process is an important aspect of both 

UIC Program requirements and EPA's overall mission. The public will also have the opportunity 

to submit written comments and, in many cases, attend hearings on proposed GS projects during 

formal public comment periods. Although permit application information will not be made 

available to the public as it is submitted to the Director, permitting authorities must follow the 

public participation requirements for UIC permits specified in 40 CFR Part 124, which require 

3

100
that owners or operators publish a public notice that includes information about where interested 

parties can obtain copies of the draft permit and application. 

Furthermore, the Agency recognizes that the initial phases of site evaluation and site selection 

may begin in advance of permit application submission. The public may become aware of these 

activities and begin to have questions or concerns about the pending project. For this reason, 

outreach and education—which are outside of, but complementary to, the public notification 

process—can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and 

safety of GS projects. This may also benefit the owner or operator by improving local acceptance 

of the project. 

In response to the comment that public notice should be required for every well, EPA notes that 

the final rule requires a permit application, and therefore public notice, for every Class VI well. 

Area permits are not an option for Class VI wells. 

EPA disagrees that public hearings should be mandatory for all GS permits, in order to account 

for the possibility that, if the public does not express an interest in a hearing, holding one would 

not be useful. 40 CFR 124.12 provides the Director with the discretion to hold public hearings if 

there is a significant degree of interest in a draft permit. EPA expects that public hearings will be 

requested and held for many GS projects, due to the expected level of public interest in GS 

projects. 

EPA notes that the final rule requires the owner or operator, upon site closure, to add a notation 

to the deed for the facility property noting that geologic sequestration took place. See 

§146.93(g). It does not require any notification to adjacent property owners, however. 

EPA notes that the owners or operators must develop an emergency and remedial response plan 

for responding to USDW endangerment under §146.94. However, EPA does not have authority 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act to require owners or operators to develop plans for carbon 

dioxide that leaks to the surface outside the protection of USDWs from endangerment. EPA also 

does not have authority to address eminent domain and rights-of-way, which may vary from state 

to state. 

Letter ID: 0505 Comment ID: 21236 Letter Lines: 125 to 147 

Comment Code: 1530 1.2.3.1 State regulatory efforts on GS (seeking comment) 

Comment: And while I agree there should be no standardized real-time monitoring of CO2, 

but local communities, however, and the EPA is clear that states can have 

additional requirements above the federal requirements for public and health and 

safety welfare. But I think you also need to be very explicit in telling the 

local planning authorities that issue the special use permits, or the permit, 

that they are allowed to take safeguards above the federal level, above the 

state level, that are more protective of human health and welfare in that 

specific location. 

The EPA, and regulations, do not take into account the entirety of the problems 

4

101
that local communities will face on a case by case basis. So, while you notice 

the states have an opportunity to have stricter regulations than the EPA, I 

think that you also need to notice, and the public notices to the local 

communities that local planning authorities also have the right to impose strict 

standards above and beyond EPA or state standards. 

Oftentimes, we also acknowledge local communities sometimes just defer to EPA or 

state standard, which can probably be standard. And sometimes this is not 

adequate to protect the very specific circumstances of a local community, where 

economic activities may take place in low lying areas for these kind of 

concerns. It could have impact on long range planning communities, and 

physically alter the environment in ways that may not be fully known at this 

point in time. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that Section 1422 of the SDWA provides that states, 

territories, and federally recognized tribes may apply to EPA for primary enforcement 

responsibility to administer the UIC program. States and tribes must meet EPA's minimum 

federal requirements for UIC programs by establishing permitting, geologic site characterization, 

AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, 

monitoring, financial responsibility, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and site 

closure of GS well owners or operators. EPA adds that states may adopt more stringent standards 

for Class VI wells than the Federal requirements and may act independently to manage 

development activities within their jurisdiction. EPA encourages local governments to become 

informed about and involved in all aspects of the public process associated with GS wells, but 

does not have the authority to authorize UIC program primacy for local governments. 

Letter ID: 0505 Comment ID: 21237 Letter Lines: 149 to 153 

Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment) 

Comment: I don't think that any grandfathering of existing class, existing classes of 

wells should be allowed to, under the UIC for CO2 sequestration. They should be 

required to fulfill all of the requirements, including some of the public 

participation and review requirements that I've outlined initially. And I am 

still collecting more information, and I will provide that. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that grandfathering of construction requirements should 

not be allowed in the final GS rule. However, EPA agrees that a cautious approach to 

grandfathering is appropriate, particularly given that the converted well will be used for a 

substantially different process, which involves increased reservoir pressures associated with 

large volumes of stored CO2 and the corrosivity of CO2 in the presence of water. The final GS 

rule provides for the construction of these wells to be grandfathered (per 146.81(c)). EPA has 

included a requirement in the final GS rule that owners or operators seeking to convert existing 

wells for long term storage must demonstrate to the Director that the grandfathered wells were 

engineered and constructed meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of 

USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a). 

5

102
EPA adds that, following re-permitting as Class VI wells, these projects would be subject to the 

operational, MIT, monitoring, reporting, plugging, and post-injection site care and site closure 

requirements in the final GS rule. Furthermore, all grandfathered wells that are converted to 

Class VI will be subject to the same public notice and comment procedures as a new Class VI 

well. 

See the discussion of EPA's final regulatory approach in the preamble to the GS rule for 

additional detail on these requirements. 

Letter ID: 0505 Comment ID: 21238 Letter Lines: 155 to 165 

Comment Code: 1520 1.2.3 Other authorities (e.g., CAA, MPRSA, London Convention) 

Comment: While it's clear that the current regulatory environment Clean Water Act, it is 

clear that the carbon sequestration process is a constituent element of the coal 

system, from the emission, and transportation, and to, to the source. And I 

understand the authority is simply to protect drinking water at this point. 

However, the lead agency must be identified to regulate the entirety of the coal 

system process for the emission and transportation and storage of the 

monitoring, and contingency planning for UIC well failures. 

The gaps within the regulatory framework is troublesome, and in my opinion is 

likely to be the topic of future hearings if not addressed at this point. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of 

CCS, but clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all 

requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from 

endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop 

regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. 

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. 

6

103
Regarding the need for a CCS agency to coordinate across agencies, EPA is coordinating with 

and will continue to facilitate communication among federal and state agencies during the 

implementation phase of the GS regulation. 

Letter ID: 0505 Comment ID: 21239 Letter Lines: 169 to 182 

Comment Code: 1520 1.2.3 Other authorities (e.g., CAA, MPRSA, London Convention) 

Comment: As a tribal member and the individual rights of Necedah territory I got the 

following initial comments. As to what, the tribes reserve the right to protect, 

to prohibit UIC well sites that are on or adjacent to reservation boundaries, 

trust land, and ceded territories, or Indian countries that can have a material 

impact on the reserved rights of tribes and tribal members. 

But a detailed government to government consultation process would clearly 

outline the tribes specifically to ensure a uniform process for the proposed UIC 

site or in areas of review adjacent to Indian country, and that the EPA must 

ensure that tribes have adequate financial resources and technical assistance 

for determining the suitability of UIC wells on or adjacent to Indian country as 

part of its trust responsibility to tribes, and take into consideration human 

health and reserve rights for access and utilization of lands that are held by 

international law or treaty with the United States. Thank you very much. 

Individual Response: The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to 

identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this information, 

the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them 

of the permit application §146.82(b) and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes 

(e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response plan (146.94)). The Agency 

encourages transparency in the permitting process and anticipates that State-State/State-Tribal 

communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, 

protective projects. 

Because some GS projects will require coordination across State and Tribal jurisdictions and 

plans, the Agency will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate communication among 

States and Tribes interested in obtaining Primacy during the implementation phase of the GS 

regulation. Such communication may involve other organizations such as the Sierra Club, 

NDWAC, associations, and other experts. However, the responsibility for addressing such 

subjects ultimately rests with the States and Tribes with primacy. 

In addition, as part of the UIC permit review process in 40 CFR 124, the UIC program Director 

is required to notify certain stakeholders of any public hearings and the availability of the draft 

permit. The existing public notice regulations require the Director to notify any unit of local 

government having jurisdiction over the area where the facility is proposed to be located 

(124.10(c)(x)(A)). EPA has also added a requirement at 124.10(c)(1)(xi) that state and local oil 

and gas regulatory agencies and state agencies regulating mineral exploration and recovery, the 

PWSS program director, and all agencies that oversee injection wells in the state must be notified 

7

104
as part of the public notice process for a Class VI permit. “State” agencies include tribes. Thus, 

where a tribe has primacy for UIC, it must notify the relevant tribal agencies or federal agencies 

that have primacy for the programs of concern. If a tribe does not have primacy, the EPA 

regional office with oversight must notify the appropriate tribal and federal agencies. 

Letter ID: 0505 Comment ID: 21240 Letter Lines: 184 to 200 

Comment Code: 6100 3.1 Comments on the cost estimates 

Comment: MR. SPRAUGE: The additional comment I'd like to make seriously around, again 

around local participation for the processes. 

Oftentimes, proposals for electro- generation need to, or incorporate the low 

cost, the low cost of electricity. And I think it is critical that the full cost 

of carbon sequestration, along with all of the, the elements that are comprised 

be storage transportation monitoring, and bonding, that the full cost of carbon 

sequestration you include in the economic analysis when computing the cost of 

electricity. The local communities have a measurement to measure alternative 

renewables -- kinetic. They have a full way to analyze a complete cost of geosequestration associated with coal fire power facilities with other forms of 

electric generated unit. 

I think that without this uniform analysis or way to cost out what the, how much 

it's going to actually cost over time for carbon sequestration, that -- out 

proper tools to make intelligent decisions as to whether the, the best or lowest 

price cost electricity when making determinations. Thank you very much. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule addresses sequestration only, i.e., not 

capture or transportation. Any impacts on the cost of electricity are likely to be influenced by all 

aspects of CCS, including capture, transport, and sequestration. EPA adds that it does not 

establish or attempt to influence electric costs –they are set by factors the Agency does not 

control. Sequestration costs are expected to be a small component of total CCS project costs; 

EPA estimates that the GS rule requirements amount to approximately 2 percent of the total CCS 

project costs. 

EPA acknowledges that the Class VI requirements have associated costs beyond baseline (Class 

I industrial wells) costs. The Agency clarifies that the purpose of the GS regulation, promulgated 

under authority of the SDWA, is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a 

manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

8

105
Letter ID: 0506 

Commenter: Matt Toner 

Organization: Hydrogen Energy International 

Letter ID: 0506 Comment ID: 21185 Letter Lines: 35 to 58 

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

Comment: EPA has recognized this valuable role that oil and gas reservoirs can play in 

the geological storage of CO2. And Hydrogen Energy would like to encourage that 

EPA go significantly further in facilitating the use of these reservoirs. When 

CO2 is injected for enhanced oil and gas recovery it could at the same time be 

sequestered for long-term storage at the option of the operator. 

EPA should recognize this concurrent dual purpose, enhanced oil and gas 

recovery, and designed storage, and allow for this dual purpose under existing 

Class II UIC rules. Furthermore, EPA regulations should facilitate 

grandfathering from dual purpose production and storage, the storage only sites, 

when enhanced oil or gas operations are completed. 

In the course of the typical enhanced oil recovery operation, even when there is 

no intent to sequester 30 to 50 percent of the injected CO2 remains in the 

reservoir after production operations cease. The remainder is either miscibly 

dissolved within the produced oil or recycled for use in other reservoirs, it's 

not emitted to the atmosphere. 

But today 90 percent of the CO2 used in enhanced recovery operations is produced 

from naturally occurring accumulations. Rather than using these naturally 

occurring accumulations society can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by 

substituting anthropogenic sources. In addition, injection can continue, upon 

the completion of production operations, to fully utilize all existing pore 

space, what we call EOR plus storage. 

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. However, the Agency disagrees 

that wells injecting CO2 for the primary purpose of long term storage should be regulated under 

Class II requirements. EPA 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. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of EOR activities is that 

a certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving formation. 

The Agency believes that the nature and risks of CO2 injection for the primary purpose of long 

term storage poses different risks than injection for the primary purpose of ER, and therefore has 

developed new Class VI regulations to address these unique risks. For example, the volume of 

CO2 anticipated to be injected for long term storage is significantly greater than for EOR 

1

106
operations. 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: 0506 Comment ID: 21186 Letter Lines: 60 to 65 

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

Comment: Oil and gas reservoirs have proven capable of containing water buoyant fluids 

and gases for millions of years. 

These reservoirs are well-studied, and they offer the best opportunity to kick 

start large scale geologic storage of CO2 while building on 100 years of oil 

field operating experience. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that depleted oil and gas fields are promising formations for 

GS, provided the Class VI siting, AoR and corrective action, well construction and operation, 

monitoring and testing, and post-injection site care and site closure requirements are met. The 

final GS rule does not preclude injection into oil and gas fields provided owners or operators can 

demonstrate that GS can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0506 Comment ID: 21187 Letter Lines: 67 to 71 

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking 

Comment: EPA recognition of anthropogenic EOR plus storage as a valid method of geologic 

sequestration subject, of course, to appropriate measurement, monitoring, and 

site closure, would provide much needed near term economic incentive to carbon 

capture and storage efforts while longer term cap and trade or taxation schemes 

can be developed. 

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience 

injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER, and that sites used for ER may be suitable for GS and may 

be among the first GS sites. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a 

certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving formation. 

EPA clarifies that injection of CO2 for the purposes of enhanced oil and gas recovery will 

continue to be permitted under the Class II program until the Director determines under §144.19 

that the primary purpose of CO2 injection project is long term storage wherein a Class VI permit 

is required. The requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of fullscale CO2 GS, including the volumes of CO2 being anticipated for long-term storage, the 

buoyant nature of the injectate, its mobility within subsurface geologic formations, and its 

corrosivity in the presence of water. EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote or 

2

107
incentivize GS. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is 

conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0506 Comment ID: 21188 Letter Lines: 73 to 92 

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

Comment: The existing Class II regulations governing injection of CO2 in oil and gas 

reservoirs have proven successful at protecting underground sources of drinking 

waters. These regulations should allow for the dual purpose of sequestration if 

anthropogenic CO2 is used. 

Hydrogen Energy also recommends that EPA expand grandfathering to facilitate 

transition from production and storage to storage only sites, which will 

incentive the use of these reservoirs for long-term CO2 storage. The proposed 

grandfathering of Class II Wells should go beyond just the construction 

requirements to include, at a minimum, operating and mechanical integrity 

requirements for existing, operationally compliant Class II EOR CO2 Injection 

Wells. The Class VI requirements would require technically unnecessary changes 

to equipment and monitoring procedures. 

Some authors have identified risks with using oil and gas reservoirs for CO2 

sequestration due to the presence of inactive wells. Proper plugging and 

abandonment of inactive wells is a prudent method which can ensure this risk is 

effectively managed. In addition, the oil and gas industry has developed 

techniques to quickly isolate, effectively repair, and remediate these issues 

and their unlikely occurrence. 

Individual Response: 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 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. 

EPA agrees that many Class I, Class II, and Class V experimental technology wells are designed 

and constructed to withstand exposure to CO2. The final GS rule allows the construction of these 

wells to 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). 

3

108
EPA disagrees that other requirements (e.g., MITs, siting, monitoring, operational, and AoR 

requirements) should also be grandfathered because they Class II requirements are not tailored to 

address the unique risks posed by long term CO2 storage to USDWs. Following re-permitting of 

the project as GS, many of the unique factors of GS sites (e.g., increased reservoir pressures 

associated with large volumes of stored CO2 and the corrosivity of CO2 in the presence of 

water) will result in an increased risk profile, warranting the specific requirements in the final GS 

rule. 

Letter ID: 0506 Comment ID: 21189 Letter Lines: 94 to 125 

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: In closing, Hydrogen Energy would like to applaud EPA for their effort to create 

an effective regulatory framework for the injection and sequestration of carbon 

dioxide while protecting underground sources of drinking water. However, we 

believe that EPA should go significantly further than the proposed regulation by 

recognizing the potential for concurrent CO2 injection for enhanced oil and gas 

recovery and design storage in allowing for this dual purpose. 

Furthermore, EPA should facilitate grandfathering from dual purpose production 

and storage to storage only sites when enhanced oil or gas recovery operations 

are completed. 

Incentivizing the use of CO2 for enhanced oil and gas recovery would 

significantly reduce CO2 emissions. Currently, over 2 billion cubic feet of 

naturally occurring CO2 is used for enhanced oil recovery in the U.S. every day, 

and volumes are growing. 

Incentivizing anthropogenic CO2 would also increase U.S. energy security by 

facilitating additional EOR activity, and thereby reducing the need for foreign 

oil. Enhanced oil recovery has the potential to add 40 to 80 billion barrels of 

oil based on Department of Energy estimates. This volume is two to four times 

the current U.S. total crude reserves. 

Incentivizing the use of the anthropogenic CO2 would also effectively utilize 

proven well-studied and well-tested geologic storage containers. It will likely 

cost tens of millions of dollars and take several years of study to permit one 

commercial scale saline storage reservoir. Effectively utilizing gas, oil and 

gas for fields could also utilize over 100 years of oil field operating 

experience while building new confidence for future saving and storage options. 

Finally, this would also help kickstart the financially challenged carbon 

capture industry by improving economics and accelerating the uptake of this 

essential technology. Thank you very much. 

4

109
5

Individual Response: 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 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. 

As described above, the final GS rule allows the construction of Class II wells to 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). Following 

re-permitting as Class VI wells, these projects would be subject to the operational, MIT, 

monitoring, reporting, plugging, and post-injection site care and site closure requirements in the 

final GS rule. See the discussion of EPA's final regulatory approach in the preamble to the GS 

rule for additional detail on these requirements. 

EPA clarifies that the purpose of the GS rule is not to incentivize the use of GS or address energy 

security. The purpose of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a 

manner that does not endanger USDWs. However, the Agency believes that establishing a 

regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology may 

provide the regulatory and jurisdictional certainty needed to foster development and deployment 

of CCS while ensuring USDW protection. 

110
Letter ID: 0507 

Commenter: Brian Williams 

Organization: BP Alternative Energy 

Letter ID: 0507 Comment ID: 21163 Letter Lines: 30 to 43 

Comment Code: 1940 1.4.4.3 Consultations with Industry; experience with other wells 

Comment: First, with regard to the recognition of the criticality of wells, our view that 

EPA has correctly recognized that wells are a fundamental component of 

geological storage systems to successfully ensure the containment of stored CO2. 

As such, we agree that having appropriate well design, construction, and 

operating expectations are critical to delivery of secure storage for CO2. 

Oil and gas operators have decades of experience either past and existing 

operations in construction and operating DOR and actual recovery and EGR, that's 

gas recovery wells in a safe and secure way. 

For existing EOR projects and wells Class II requirements have proven to be 

sufficient at ensuring the necessary protection of USDWs, and therefore, 

analysis of the experiences and performances of these Class II Wells, these 

Class II CO2 Wells should inform the specifications for a new Class VI Well. 

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience 

injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER, and that sites used for ER may be suitable for GS and may 

be among the first GS sites. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a 

certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving formation. 

EPA believes that GS is sufficiently distinct from Class II ER operations to warrant the tailored 

requirements in the GS regulation. 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 

be different, with Class VI injection operations involving large volumes of CO2 and likely 

having higher pressures within their storage formations than Class II ER projects. Therefore, 

Class VI GS reservoir pressures will increase more in comparison to Class II ER during the 

injection phase of the GS project. 

EPA continues to research and collect data on CO2 storage and containment. EPA is tracking 

operations at the DOE GS pilot projects and will review data on all aspects of those operations 

from well construction and injection to long-term plume fate and transport and monitoring of 

containment as the data become available. 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. 

1

111
EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS. The Agency plans to collect and review 

data every six years 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. 

Letter ID: 0507 Comment ID: 21164 Letter Lines: 49 to 61 

Comment Code: 3862 2.3.3.1 Use of corrosion-resistant construction materials (seeking 

comment) 

Comment Code: 3864 2.3.3.2 Use of corrosion-resistant cements (seeking comment) 

Comment: But first, with regard to well construction, and specifically around the points 

of corrosion resistant materials and cement. Based on industry experience and 

field studies, corrosion resistant materials should not be mandated for all 

projects, and the requirement, if there is any, should be made on a sitespecific basis. Early field studies, in particular by the CO2 capture project, 

indicate that it is the appropriate placement of cement and not the type of 

cement that delivers isolation and prevents casing corrosion. 

The choice of casing and cement materials should be selected based on planned 

well operating life, i.e. decades, and not on the ultimate duration of the 

storage program itself. The potential for longer term exposure of casing during 

storage, which might occur after injection has stopped, is mitigated by plugging 

the static well with corrosion resistant material. 

Individual Response: The rule does not specify cements to be used; rather, it provides owners 

or operators with the flexibility to choose, as long as the cements are compatible with the CO2 

stream and formation fluids and of sufficient quality and quantity to maintain integrity over the 

design life of the GS project, as specified at §146.86(b)(5). 

EPA recognizes that each GS project will be unique and, for this reason, the rule provides 

flexibility regarding the selection and use of cements for Class VI wells that are appropriate to 

the site-specific conditions of the project. With the permit application, the owner or operator 

must submit well construction procedures, as specified at §146.82 (a)(12), that demonstrate that 

the well as constructed will prevent unacceptable fluid movement; allow the use of appropriate 

testing devices and workover tools; and allow continuous monitoring of the annulus space 

between the injection tubing and long-string casing, as specified at §146.86(a). The Director will 

evaluate the procedures in the context of geological and proposed operating data about the site. 

EPA disagrees that the casing, cement or other materials should only be designed for the period 

of the injection process, rather than the life of the sequestration project. GS projects are 

anticipated to have long life spans in comparison to other types of deep injection wells. Not only 

must Class VI wells be able to function safely and properly over the lifespan of the GS project, 

but they must be constructed such that USDWs remain protected after well plugging. The 

requirements at §146.86 will ensure that the well can maintain integrity throughout the proposed 

2

112
life span of the project, including after the injection well is plugged and through post-injection 

site care period and beyond. While the risk profile of a GS site will decrease following cessation 

of injection, EPA believes that Class VI wells must be designed to protect USDW from 

endangerment for the life of the project. Furthermore, rigorous casing and cementing help ensure 

that the Class VI well will not serve as a conduit for movement of fluids associated with future 

injection operations. 

See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS 

rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the construction of 

Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at 

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

Letter ID: 0507 Comment ID: 21165 Letter Lines: 63 to 75 

Comment Code: 3824 2.3.1.2 Cementing of long-string casing (seeking comment) 

Comment: Then on the point of cements across long string casing. The EPA does not agree 

with the requirement for a long string from the injection interval to the 

surface, nor with cementing across the entire distance. Allowance should be made 

for a liner to be set across the injection interval and the previous string set 

above that zone. 

The cement should cover the uppermost caprock in the area of review by a margin 

by about 500 feet, not to the surface. The ultimate decision for each project 

should rest with the director since each is unique and geological intervals and 

injection zone, and of the position relative to the USDW. 

Any expectations of cement at the injection interval should permit the use of 

external casing packers in conjunction with the cementing requirements. 

Individual Response: The final GS rule at §146.86(b)(3) requires that the long-string casing 

extend to the injection zone and be cemented by circulating cement to the surface in one or more 

stages. It does not, however, specify how cementing would be accomplished, and gives 

flexibility to the owner or operator to propose alternate methods to provide a sufficient amount 

of cement to meet the standard that USDWs are protected from endangerment, subject to the 

approval of the Director. EPA adds that, under §146.86(b)(4), the Director may approve an 

alternative method of cementing in cases where the cement cannot be recirculated to the surface, 

provided the owner or operator can demonstrate by using logs that the cement does not allow 

fluid movement behind the wellbore. 

The construction requirements at §146.86 offer flexibility to the owner or operator to propose 

well construction procedures that are appropriate to the site-specific conditions of the project. 

With their permit applications, operators must submit well construction procedures, as specified 

at §146.82(a)(12), that demonstrate that the well as constructed will prevent unacceptable fluid 

movement; allow the use of appropriate testing devices and workover tools; and allow 

continuous monitoring of the annulus space between the injection tubing and long-string casing, 

3

113
as specified at §146.86(a). The Director will evaluate the proposed well construction procedures 

in the context of other data about the site. EPA has evaluated the cementing requirements for 

other well classes and believes that flexibility can be afforded while ensuring that USDWs are 

protected. 

See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS 

rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the construction of 

Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at 

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

Letter ID: 0507 Comment ID: 21166 Letter Lines: 77 to 85 

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

USDW 

Comment: With regards to well operations for the next phase, comments about no CO2 

injection above the lowermost USDW. The EPA does not subscribe to a blanket 

constraint that would limit injections only to reservoirs below the USDW. 

More appropriate given the EPA's general performance based approach, which we 

applaud, would be to place containment requirements on the acceptable 

reservoirs. As long as CO2 can be injected and stored securely with minimal 

chance of breaching containment, either via the well bore or via geological 

features, proximity to USDW, whether shallow or deeper, should not matter. 

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. 

Additionally, the final GS rule does not categorically preclude or prohibit injection into any type 

of formation. 

For additional information on the waiver approach, 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: 0507 Comment ID: 21167 Letter Lines: 87 to 90 

Comment Code: 4344 2.4.4.2.2 Comments opposed to setting a minimum injection depth 

Comment: Secondly, a minimum injection depth versus a requirement to inject below the 

lowermost USDW, we could disagree that the universal mandate for establishing 

minimum depth for CO2 injection as there should be site-specific ones again 

based on the containment and capacity parameters of the storage site itself. 

4

114
Individual Response: EPA agrees that it is not appropriate to set a minimum injection depth for 

GS projects and the Agency believes that a determination of site-suitability for GS (i.e., that 

subsurface formations will receive and confine injected CO2) should be made on a site-specific 

basis. The GS rule, at §146.82, requires the owner or operator to provide extensive site- and 

project-specific information to the Director to demonstrate that the site meets the minimum site 

criteria at §146.83, that the CO2 will be contained within the injection formation, and that 

USDWs will be protected from endangerment. 

EPA acknowledges that there are limited circumstances where injection above the lowermost 

USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs, 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 waiver approach requires the submission of 

extensive, site-specific information (in conjunction with the permit application submission) to 

demonstrate that injection of CO2 into a non-USDW that is above or between USDWs can be 

done in a manner that is protective of USDWs. The requirements are designed to ensure that the 

owner or operator, the Director, and the Regional Administrator consider, on a site specific basis, 

the implications, benefits, and challenges associated with GS and ensuring water availability and 

USDW protection. For additional information on the waiver approach, 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: 0507 Comment ID: 21168 Letter Lines: 92 to 99 

Comment Code: 4200 2.4.2 Down-hole shut-off valves in GS wells (seeking comment) 

Comment: And finally, the standard requirement for down hole shut-in devices. BP 

disagrees with the rules to include down hole shut-in devices as a standard 

requirement for injection wells. Overpressure protection is best achieved by 

ensuring compatibility of a casing, tubing, material strength design with the 

surface injection compression system. Down hole shut-in devices may be 

appropriate, however, for site-specific situations of unique potential impact, 

of impact, for example, Offshore or near airports, but they should not be 

mandated for all injection sites. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that proper design of the well, including appropriate 

materials and emplacement of casing and tubing, is essential to proper operation of the well. 

Such design, however, does not eliminate the possibility of failure, e.g., due to overpressurization as suggested by the commenter. EPA believes that a multiple-barrier approach, 

which includes appropriate well design as required at §146.86, suitable injection pressure limits 

as required at §146.88(a), and automatic shut-off systems, as required at §146.88(e), is necessary 

to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment from the risks associated with CO2 GS. 

After evaluating the risks and benefits of down-hole shut-off systems and considering additional 

research, EPA will not require automatic down-hole shut-off devices for onshore Class VI wells 

5

115
since it is not necessary in all cases to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment. Instead, 

the final rule, at §146.88(e)(2), requires that owners or operators of onshore Class VI wells 

install automatic surface shut-off devices. The rule affords Director's discretion to mandate 

automatic down-hole shut-off devices in onshore situations that may warrant their use. However, 

the Agency believes that offshore Class VI wells present unique construction and operational 

conditions, including isolation from shorelines and the need to construct wells through the water 

column and the subsurface, which may delay response time in the event of well difficulties. The 

rule requires, at §146.88(e)(3), that owners or operators of offshore wells within State territorial 

waters install automatic down-hole shut-off systems. EPA believes that these requirements at 

§146.88(e) ensure that proper precautions are taken to prevent subsurface fluid movement and 

ensure protection of USDWs. 

Letter ID: 0507 Comment ID: 21169 Letter Lines: 101 to 108 

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

Comment: So, in conclusion, wells are indeed a fundamental component of a geologic 

storage system, having appropriate design, construction, and operating 

expectations for these wells is necessary to ensure delivery of a secure storage 

CO2. 

Site-specific performance based guidelines, as per the well-related example that 

I note previously, do serve to, do serve the purpose of requiring application of 

appropriate technological solutions to protect USDWs. 

Individual Response: The Agency believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific 

flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based 

standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flexible approach, where operators of GS projects 

would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring 

the site, performing corrective action, and post-injection site care. EPA believes that the plans—

which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodically updated throughout the 

life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operator and the Director that will 

encourage use of the most appropriate technologies for a particular project. 

6

116
Letter ID: 0508 

Commenter: Iain Wright 

Organization: BP Alternative Energy 

Letter ID: 0508 Comment ID: 21181 Letter Lines: 31 to 39 

Comment Code: 3840 2.3.2 Horizontal well drilling techniques (seeking comment) 

Comment: So first, the well design. At In Salah a million tons a year of CO2 is being 

sequestered in the formation that's 6,000 feet deep, it's 60 feet thick, and it 

has a permeability of only 10 milidarcies very similar to many deep saline 

formations right here in the U.S. Midwest. 

To do this we need only three wells, but they have to be very long horizontal 

sections in the storage formation. In fact, they are about as long as they are 

deep. So we recommend that EPA's regulations permit geo-sequestration using 

horizontal wells. 

Individual Response: In this final rule, EPA allows the use of horizontal wells at GS projects. In 

the proposed rule, EPA sought comment on the appropriateness of horizontal drilling techniques 

for Class VI wells, and commenters representing energy companies, electric utilities, the oil and 

gas industry, CCS associations, states, and the public, unanimously supported the concept and 

provided many reasons why horizontal wells could be beneficial at GS sites. Based on an 

evaluation of these comments and additional research by EPA, the Agency has concluded that 

horizontal wells that are properly constructed, logged, and tested for mechanical integrity (i.e., to 

meet the requirements of the GS rule) can ensure the protection of USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0508 Comment ID: 21182 Letter Lines: 41 to 54 

Comment Code: 3860 2.3.3 Well component degradation 

Comment Code: 3862 2.3.3.1 Use of corrosion-resistant construction materials (seeking 

comment) 

Comment: At In Salah a few miles up from the three CO2 injectors we have four wells that 

produce natural gas from exactly the same geological formation. The design of 

the CO2 injectors is identical to the design of natural gas producers, except 

that the gas producers have stainless steel tubing, whereas, the CO2 injectors 

have conventional mild steel or L80 tubing. This is because the gas producers 

are actually in a more corrosive environment than the CO2 injectors. 

So just to emphasize that point, the CO2 sequestration wells permit the, in In 

Salah, are constructed to a lower specification than the natural gas wells in 

the same formation. 

So we recommend that the design and construction of geo-sequestration wells 

1

117
should be site-specific and fit for the purpose of preventing endangerment to 

USDWs. 

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that each GS project will be unique and, for this reason, 

the rule provides flexibility regarding appropriate materials for Class VI wells. The rule does not 

specify materials to be used; rather, it provides owners or operators with the flexibility to choose, 

as long as the materials used in Class VI wells are compatible with fluids with which they may 

come into contact and meet or exceed standards developed for such materials by API or ASTM 

International, or comparable standards approved by the Director, as provided at §146.86(b)(1). 

The Director will evaluate the owner or operator's proposed construction procedures, including 

materials to be used, in the context of information about the well, the CO2 stream, and the site, 

as specified in §146.86(b)(1). EPA is aware of GS efforts at In Salah and clarifies that the wells 

in question were not constructed in accordance with US regulations, so the comparison is not 

necessarily analogous. A paper summarizing EPA's review of In Salah and other large 

international GS projects is in the rulemaking docket. 

Letter ID: 0508 Comment ID: 21183 Letter Lines: 56 to 91 

Comment Code: 4600 2.6 Proposed Plume and Pressure Front Monitoring Requirements (40 

CFR 146.90) 

Comment: Moving on to my second point, monitoring. Monitoring is very important, because 

a common mis-perception that if you want secure storage you need to do lots of 

monitoring. Well, the U.N. says that a proportion of CO2 obtained by 

appropriately selected and managed sites is likely to exceed 99 percent over a 

thousand years. 

So the key to secure storage is the appropriate selection and management of the 

site. If that's done properly the site will be very secure and the need for 

monitoring can be appropriately reduced. 

Monitoring is kind of like the speedometer on your car. It does contribute to 

your safety, but more important is the design of the car, the road, and how you 

drive the car. Having said that, at In Salah we are doing a big research project 

into monitoring. And so the program is much more extensive than it would be 

appropriate for a commercial project. 

We're trying out new technologies, such as satellite imagery, micro-seismic, so 

we can see how they perform against conventional oil fuel monitoring technology, 

such as tracers and conventional seismic. 

But as you can probably hear from my accent I'm a Scotsman, and Scotsmen don't 

like to waste money. So every technology that we use at In Salah has been 

carefully chosen to represent great value for money. Before we started the 

injection at In Salah we did a site-specific assessment of the risk of leakage, 

and then we tailored the monitoring program to address all of those risks. 

2

118
So mandating any specific monitoring technology would waste a lot of money and 

resources without contributing to the protection of USDWs. So we would caution 

against the universal mandate for any specific monitoring technology. 

Many of you will have heard of the other two monitored industrial scale CO2 

injection projects in the world at Sleipner and Weyburn. If you compare the 

monitoring activities of these sites you'll see that something which works in 

one location may not work at all in another location. So we encourage the EPA to 

use risk-based performance criteria to determine the site-specific monitoring 

programs. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters and believes that flexibility is important in 

developing and implementing a monitoring plan that is appropriately tailored for a specific GS 

site. The purpose of the requirement at §146.90 to develop site-specific testing and monitoring 

plans is to ensure that the monitoring performed at a site is appropriate for site operational 

conditions and the geologic setting. EPA believes that this is the best approach for addressing 

potential risks at GS sites. These flexible provisions in the monitoring requirements for Class VI 

wells enable the owner or operator to tailor monitoring programs to the specific needs of each 

project in consultation with the Director. 

The final regulation provides for flexibility in: 1) methodologies used to collect these data, 2) the 

spatial resolution at which the data should be collected, and 3) how often the data should be 

collected. The number and placement of monitoring wells will be based on site-specific 

information such as the calculated AoR, injection rate and volume, site geology, baseline data, 

and the presence of artificial penetrations within the AoR. In some instances, there may be a 

limited number of options for complying with EPA's minimum requirements. For example, 

monitoring for geochemical changes will require use of monitoring wells and collection of 

groundwater samples for chemical analysis. Many options currently exist for complying with 

other requirements, such as tracking the position of the plume and pressure front within the 

injection zone. 

Flexibility is also provided regarding how to monitor for the specific data required by the final 

rule. The testing and monitoring plan is developed by the owner or operator in consultation with 

the Director and is designed to ensure that a detailed, Director-approved document describing 

how monitoring will be conducted during the lifetime of the project exists. EPA is developing 

guidance on testing and monitoring to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating 

requirements under §146.90, including proposed monitoring plans. The guidance describes 

available technologies and recommended approaches for implementing a testing and monitoring 

plan, including pre-operational geophysical logging and testing of injection wells, MITs, 

injection well testing during operation, groundwater quality monitoring, tracking the CO2 plume 

and pressure front, and soil gas and surface air monitoring which may be required by the UIC 

Director for specific GS projects. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. In addition, in January 2009, 

DOE published a best practices manual entitled "Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting of 

3

119
CO2 Stored in Deep Geologic Formations" (DOE/NETL-311/081508); this manual is included in 

the docket for the final GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0508 Comment ID: 21184 Letter Lines: 93 to 113 

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

Comment: So moving to my third and final point concerns the appropriate time frame for 

site closure. There is no rational basis to mandate the universal 50-year 

minimum time frame for post-injection site care. Such a mandate would kill off 

commercial investment in geo-sequestration projects. Worse than that, it would 

preferentially kill off all the best sites. It is with proven seals and the 

lowest risk of leakage - oil and gas fields. 

As the EPA proposal states the actual time for CO2 -plume stabilization will be 

very site-specific. Well selected and managed sequestration sites, such as an 

oil or gas field that has met its performance objectives, including plume 

stabilization, would be much more secure and could be closed relatively quickly, 

say a couple of years. 

However, as the EPA's cited examples show, CO2 injection in a poorly confined 

saline formation could be run for a while, such that the closure period and have 

to wait on residual and solubility trapping. Hence, a closure period of several 

years would be more appropriate. 

We recommend that EPA does not mandate any fixed time frame for site closure. 

Much better would be a site-specific assessment that is risk and performance 

based. Thank you. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. In determining the post-injection site 

care-timeframe for the proposed regulation, EPA reviewed industry reports, existing 

environmental programs, and initial GS research studies. EPA provided a synthesis of pertinent 

results from GS modeling studies in the preamble to the proposed regulation. Further explanation 

of this analysis was included in an EPA-prepared background document that is available in the 

federal docket, titled "Computational Modeling of Underground Injection of Carbon Dioxide for 

Determination of Area-of-Review and Potential Risk to Underground Sources of Drinking 

Water." Based on review of these studies, modeling results indicate that the CO2 plume 

stabilization may occur on the timeframe of 10-100 years after the cessation of injection. EPA 

believes that a 50-year default post-injection site care timeframe is a reasonable midpoint for 

most GS projects and available data, including data submitted by commenters, do not support a 

different default timeframe, and has retained this in the final regulation. 

However, EPA recognizes that there may be sites where the 50 year post injection site care 

timeframe may be either not appropriate or more burdensome than necessary based on sitespecific conditions. For this reason, the GS rule offers owners or operators flexibility regarding 

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

4

120
5

lengthen the PISC timeframe during the post-injection 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, during the permitting process based on substantial 

data, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensures non-endangerment of 

USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c). 

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

for post-injection site care will be necessary in most cases. The default 50 year post-injection site 

care timeframe represents a reasonable and protective monitoring period based on a review of 

research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public 

comments. 

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. 

121
Letter ID: 0509 

Commenter: Becki Clayborn 

Organization: Sierra Club 

Letter ID: 0509 Comment ID: 21200 Letter Lines: 32 to 35 

Comment Code: 1350 1.1.3.3 Comments on the need for GS technology 

Comment: One of the ways that we're doing that is by challenging coal fire power plants 

from being built in this day and age. We see this carbon sequestration, excuse 

me, I have a cold. We see this carbon sequestration as not a silver bullet to 

the carbon problem in our atmosphere. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the regulation of coal power plants is outside the scope 

of the UIC GS rulemaking. Rather, the purpose of the UIC GS regulation is to ensure that GS is 

conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. For additional information on 

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

docket. 

Letter ID: 0509 Comment ID: 21201 Letter Lines: 37 to 41 

Comment Code: 1380 1.1.3.6 Deployment of GS 

Comment: Global warming has to be attacked on several different layers, clean energy 

should be first, energy efficiency should be first, using less, having renewable 

energies, wind and solar, and reducing the need for fossil fuels to be burned. 

We believe that is actually the way to keep carbon out of the atmosphere and not 

just figuring out how to put it in the ground and hoping it'll stay there. 

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. However, the use of and 

investment in these technologies is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. The Class 

VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, 

sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0509 Comment ID: 21202 Letter Lines: 43 to 88 

Comment Code: 1350 1.1.3.3 Comments on the need for GS technology 

Comment: We have a joke within the Sierra Club that nature's version of carbon 

sequestration is called coal. We need to keep it in the ground, then you don't 

have to figure out how to put it back in the ground. 

1

122
I see one major flaw with this permitting process. And again, I'd like to thank, 

I want to make a point again of thanking everybody who works on this permitting 

process, because I believe that they're doing their jobs very well. 

However, this is only geological sequestration that's being addressed, it's not 

the entire life cycle of carbon capture and sequestration. It doesn't talk about 

the capture and transport of CO2, and it doesn't talk about leakage, and it 

doesn't regulate anything on air issues. 

The entire purpose of this rule as stated on the handout that's available back 

there, why is the proposed G.S. Rule needed? The capture and injection of CO2 

produced by human activities for long-term storage is one of a portfolio of 

options that can reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, and helps mitigate 

climate change. 

The entire purpose of this rule is to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere, yet we're 

only allowed to talk about it in terms of how it affects drinking water. This 

does not make sense. This permit needs to be more comprehensive, it needs to 

take into consideration not just how it's going to affect drinking water, but 

how, how we're going to handle it if it does go back into the atmosphere. 

When we're challenging a coal fired power plant we talk to the utilities, and we 

talk to many utilities about how to mitigate and reduce their CO2 emissions. 

Many, many, many of them have come to us and said, we're planning on it, we're 

going to sequester, we're going to put it in the ground. 

But it doesn't mean anything unless it's in a permit, if it's not written down, 

if it's not in a legally binding document it doesn't mean anything. This permit 

process doesn't mean anything in terms of global warming emissions reductions if 

we can't write it down and put it in the permit. 

The fact that this has been a piecemeal process is typical in many of the 

processes we've seen in EPA, whether it's a coal mine, a coal fired power plant, 

there seems to be this spiraling effect of, let's talk about water over here, 

let's talk about air over here, let's talk about land use over here. 

When many of these projects, especially a project of this magnitude, when we're 

talking about relying on this technology to reduce the global warming emissions 

in our, in our atmosphere we have a huge goal ahead of us. 80 percent reduction 

by 2050 is what the scientists are telling us we need to do. If we're going to 

reach that we need to make sure that we're going to do this well, and it needs 

to be comprehensive, does not need to be a piecemeal permitting process. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the regulation of coal plants or the use of coal is outside 

the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. Rather, the purpose of the UIC GS regulation is to ensure 

that GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

2

123
EPA clarifies that climate change and CO2 emissions reductions are outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. The purpose of the Class VI GS rule is to ensure that where GS technologies are 

deployed, GS is performed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. The 

requirements apply to owners or operators of injection wells used to inject CO2 for long-term 

storage. 

For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and 

preamble as well as the rulemaking docket. 

Letter ID: 0509 Comment ID: 21203 Letter Lines: 90 to 98 

Comment Code: 1600 1.3 Risk Associated with CO2 GS 

Comment: So we respectfully urge the U.S. EPA to not look at this in a piecemeal way, but 

to really look at it in a holistic way. How are we going to keep this out of the 

atmosphere? How are we going to make sure that companies, the applicants that 

are getting into this project know that they have to keep it in the ground? How 

do we mitigate if it doesn't stay in the ground? 

Obviously, we brought up some of our concerns on a local level for the Sierra 

Club, what happens in the local areas if it does contaminate wells, if it does 

leak out of an old well that's not been properly capped? 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and 

acknowledges that regulatory clarity is essential for enabling GS to move forward in a manner 

that protects human health and the environment. The Agency is working to identify areas related 

to GS that could be addressed under other statutes to ensure that GS is conducted in a manner 

that is protective of human health and the environment. Additionally, the Agency is and will 

continue to coordinate internally and with other Federal agencies involved in GS and CCS, 

including the Minerals Management Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the United 

States Geological Survey, to promote consistency in existing and future GS initiatives. 

EPA acknowledges that there are potential risks associated with GS including the potential that 

CO2 injection for GS could cause fluid movement, which can endanger USDWs. The purpose of 

the Class VI requirements is to minimize and mitigate potential/identified risks through proper 

site characterization, well construction, operation, monitoring, post-injection site care, and site 

closure. Suitable GS sites must have confining zones that are free of transmissive faults or 

fractures and are of sufficient areal extent and integrity to contain the injected CO2 stream and 

displaced formation fluids. The formations must allow injection at proposed maximum pressures 

and volumes without initiating or propagating fractures in the confining zone(s), as required at 

§146.83(a)(2). 

The GS rule requires owners or operators to submit extensive data about a proposed GS site to 

identify (and eliminate) sites with a potential for unacceptable fluid movement. Information to be 

submitted and evaluated at §146.82 includes data on the porosity, permeability, and other 

3

124
information regarding the suitability of the confining zone; the location of any known or 

suspected faults; subsurface geochemistry; and the location of, depth of, and other information 

regarding any perforations that may extend into the confining zone. EPA believes that this 

information, in conjunction with AoR modeling required at §146.84, will help identify the 

potential for brine migration as a result of pressure displacement. Based on this information, the 

Director and the owner or operator can identify ways to mitigate this risk prior to injection, or, if 

necessary, the Director can deny the permit application. During injection operations, operators 

must extensively monitor ground water quality and pressure changes to provide early detection 

of any unacceptable movement of fluids or impurities in the subsurface as specified in §146.90. 

EPA clarifies that owners or operators must also develop and follow an emergency and remedial 

response plan 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 as 

specified in §146.94 and maintain financial responsibility to address contamination as specified 

in §146.85. 

EPA adds that mitigation of CO2 emissions is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. 

Letter ID: 0509 Comment ID: 21204 Letter Lines: 100 to 107 

Comment Code: 5460 2.9.2 Comments on transfer of liability for long-term care 

Comment: One of the other concerns that I have is we've seen states that have proposed 

legislation to pass the liability for any problems in such a, in such projects, 

to pass the liability on to the state government, which therefore means the 

taxpayers. 

The taxpayers should not be responsible for the liability of these projects. And 

the companies need to take responsibility, either in the form of a long-term 

bond, or a trust, which the government can then help maintain. 

Individual Response: Under the final GS rule, 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 

4

125
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 

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: 0509 Comment ID: 21205 Letter Lines: 109 to 113 

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment: The Sierra Club will be submitting comments, written comments to the EPA 

addressing more specifics about this type of permit. But in closing, we want to 

urge the EPA to look at this in a more holistic manner and not piecemeal this 

into just a drinking water issue. The entire purpose of this permit, according 

to U.S. EPA is to keep CO2 emissions out of the atmosphere. Thank you. 

Individual Response: 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. 

Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment and to Sierra Club's written 

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. 

5

126
Letter ID: 0510 

Commenter: Scott Anderson 

Organization: Environmental Defense Fund 

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21215 Letter Lines: 19 to 22 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: I'd like to start out by agreeing with a couple of comments made previously. 

First, agree with the Sierra Club, that CCS is not a silver bullet, we believe 

it's a critical technology in the fight against climate change, but it's not a 

silver bullet by any means. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. 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: 0510 Comment ID: 21216 Letter Lines: 24 to 26 

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

Comment: I also want to agree with the American Petroleum Institute and Iain Wright, that 

the standard for site closure in the proposed rule needs to be improved. We 

agree that the standards should be site-specific and performance based. 

Individual Response: The Agency believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific 

flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based 

standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flexible approach, where operators of GS projects 

would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring 

the site, performing corrective action, and post-injection site care. EPA believes that the plans—

which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodically updated throughout the 

life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operator and the Director that will 

encourage use of the most appropriate technologies for a particular project. 

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21217 Letter Lines: 28 to 60 

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

Comment: We disagree, however, with API and differ with BP that, that the 50-year default 

period is being used in an arbitrary way. It's only being used as a default, 

one that can be shortened or lengthened depending on the circumstances of the 

particular case. 

The problem that we see with the proposed closure standard, and the reason that 

1

127
we agree that it needs to be improved, is really two-fold, which is about, 

frankly, as many folds as we'd like to come up with since it's a two-fold 

standard. 

The proposal, the bottom line says that you can either extend the 50-year period 

or decrease it upon a demonstration based on monitoring and other site-specific 

data, that the carbon dioxide plume and pressure front have stabilized. And, 

the second con, and that no additional monitoring is needed to assure that the 

geologic sequestration project does not pose an endangerment to USDWs. 

But the problem with the first part is that performance standard is that, as 

studies included in this docket, support documents that show there are 

circumstances where it could take centuries, or even in excess of a thousand 

years for the CO2 plume to completely stabilize. That part of the standard is 

not very realistic. 

The second part of the standard, showing that, that no additional monitoring 

needed, is needed is really just a restatement of the question. The question 

that we all need answered, regulators, the public, industry, is what does it 

take in order to decide whether additional monitoring is necessary. 

So that's why we agree with API and BP that this standard does need to work, and 

that what we need is a performance standard that really tells us when we can be 

sure that no additional monitoring is needed and it's time to -- that 

performance standards should be site-specific, which is really to say that it 

should depend on the circumstances and not the, something that's triggered by 

the simple passage time whether it's 50 years, or 150 years, or five years. 

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 GS rule 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 post-injection 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, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC 

timeframe may be appropriate if it ensures non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to 

requirements at §146.93(c). 

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

for post-injection site care will be necessary in most cases. The default 50 year post-injection site 

care timeframe represents a reasonable and protective monitoring period based on a review of 

research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public 

comments. 

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 

2

128
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 agrees that a determination of when the post-injection site care timeframe ends will be sitespecific. EPA is developing guidance to assist owners or operators in evaluating well plugging, 

post-injection site care, and site closure requirements of 146.92 and 146.93. Additionally, the 

guidance will assist Directors in evaluating proposed well plugging plans and post-injection site 

care and site closure plans under 146.92 and 146.93. The guidance describes recommended 

approaches for how an owner or operator could plug injection and monitoring wells; perform 

post-injection monitoring; demonstrate the appropriateness of an alternative post-injection site 

care time frame; demonstrate non endangerment; and perform site closure activities. The 

guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21218 Letter Lines: 62 to 70 

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking 

Comment: And the remaining time, I wanted to now shift from that sort of slap on the 

wrist to some compliments. We have that, we think EPA deserves for the work on 

this rule. 

Despite having to begin on kind of a negative note I want to stress that we 

think that adequate, effective sequestration regulations are definitely in 

sight, and there is much more about this rule that we like than we don't like. 

And we see the necessary changes in the rule as being in the nature of technical 

assessments rather than fixing fundamental flaws. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new 

injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as 

a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong 

framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the 

UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large 

injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the 

potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic 

formations. 

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21219 Letter Lines: 72 to 79 

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

3

129
Comment: I want to especially note some strengths of the rule that relate to brine 

displacement. Protecting USDWs from displaced formation fluids, is just as 

important as protecting USDWs from injected CO2. And EPA clearly realizes this, 

and we're pleased. 

I want to read these sections into the record or not, make a, maybe if I can do 

it quickly enough. We are pleased with Section 146.83, requires a confining 

zone that confines both CO2 and displaced formation fluids. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. EPA's goal is developing standards for 

GS wells in order to ensure the protection of USDWs from endangerment. The final rule requires 

that any GS project must have at least one confining zone (i.e., impermeable layer) between the 

injection zone and the lowermost USDW (§146.83(a)). 

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21220 Letter Lines: 81 to 83 

Comment Code: 1220 1.1.1.1 Terminology and definitions 

Comment: We're pleased that the definition of zone of elevated pressures, Section 146.81 

focuses both on the pressure that would drive CO2 through a confining zone, and 

also on the pressures that would drive fluid to a confining zone. 

Individual Response: The Agency acknowledges the comment. The final definition of pressure 

front at §146.81(d) is unchanged, and reads as follows: “[T]he zone of elevated pressure that is 

created by the injection of carbon dioxide into the subsurface. For the purposes of this subpart, 

the pressure front of a carbon dioxide plume refers to a zone where there is a pressure differential 

sufficient to cause the movement of injected fluids or formation fluids into a USDW.” 

Based on its evaluation of all public comments and input on the proposed rule and the NODA 

and Request for Comment, EPA has made many revisions to the Class VI GS rule. Please see the 

final rule and preamble for additional information. 

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21221 Letter Lines: 85 to 86 

Comment Code: 3200 2.2 Proposed Area of Review and Corrective Action Requirements (40 

CFR 146.84) 

Comment: We're pleased that 146.84 requires modeling both of the CO2 plume and of the 

extent of formation fluid and movement. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment; the final rule retains this provision. 

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21222 Letter Lines: 88 to 91 

4

130
Comment Code: 4660 2.6.6 Geochemical monitoring 

Comment: And we're pleased that 146.90 requires periodic monitoring both the ground water 

quality and geo-chemical changes above the confining zone. That is really 

critical to making sure that there's no leaking of fluids or CO2 through the 

confining zone. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment; the final rule retains this approach. 

EPA believes that the ground water geochemical monitoring outlined in §146.90(d) will 

maximize protection of USDWs from endangerment at GS sites. Direct geochemical sampling is 

an important part of a monitoring program. EPA agrees that direct monitoring for ground water 

quality above the confining zone is important, and the GS rule requires this at §146.90(d). 

Monitoring in additional formations, e.g., the injection zone, may also be necessary, and if the 

Director believes such monitoring is warranted he/she has the authority to require that it be 

included in the testing and monitoring plan. 

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21223 Letter Lines: 93 to 94 

Comment Code: 5800 2.13 Comments on emergency and remedial response (40 CFR 146.94) 

Comment: And we are, of course, pleased that 146.94 requires remedial response and USDWs 

are endangered. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that an emergency and remedial response plan is an important 

part of assuring protection of USDWs from endangerment at GS sites. The requirements for an 

emergency and remedial response plan at 146.94(a) are designed to ensure that owners or 

operators, as part of their permit applications, comprehensively plan what actions would be 

necessary in the unlikely event of an emergency. The plan will ensure that operators know what 

entities and individuals must be notified and what actions must be taken to expeditiously mitigate 

any emergency situations. 

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21224 Letter Lines: 96 to 96 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: So a lot of careful thought has gone in this ruling and we recognize that. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the 

existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation 

technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC 

Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection 

of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the 

unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative 

buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in 

captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. 

5

131
Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21225 Letter Lines: 98 to 110 

Comment Code: 2166 1.6.3.2 Comments opposing injection into unmineable coal seams 

Comment: I would like to close with a few more suggested improvements. Again, we offer 

these with the idea that for the most part they are technical adjustments. 

First, although we're not necessarily in favor of doing it by excluding all 

formations beneath the lowest USDW, we are pleased that the agency has expressed 

some concern about coal, basalts, salt domes, and shales as formations that are 

suitable at this time for commercial sequestration. 

We think that the agency should directly exclude those kind of formations from 

this rule, this rule was written and risks were analyzed with the brine 

formations and petroleum reservoirs in mind. And these other sorts of 

formations we believe are worthy of research, it should be kept under the 

classified status for now. 

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

formation type provided owners or operators can demonstrate that GS can be performed in a 

manner that protects USDWs from endangerment as required under today’s rulemaking. EPA 

acknowledges that there may be risks associated with GS into coal, basalts, salt domes, and 

shales, which have been the subject of limited experimental projects in the past. EPA will 

continue to review data on early GS projects, including those in such formations, to determine 

whether the appropriate amount and types of information and documentation are required and 

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. 

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21226 Letter Lines: 112 to 128 

Comment Code: 4610 2.6.1 Testing and monitoring plan requirement (seeking comment) 

Comment: We also think that further steps are needed in order to assure that monitoring 

includes all aspects of projects. But right now the rule in several places does 

require monitoring to be used to drive adjustments in the project, but we feel 

strongly that we need to go further, and we also think that this was 

contemplated by the IPCC when they said that in a properly selected and managed 

site that 99 percent of this to be expected to be retained over a thousand 

years. 

Monitoring needs to be used in a reiterative process to improve site 

characterization, the definition, and the adjustment as necessary of the AoR. 

Adjustment in the risk analysis, adjustment in models, needs to be used to 

6

132
inform and create new input into the models. It needs to help determine, and 

revise, and improve the monitoring program itself. It needs to inform financial 

assurance requirements. And it needs to inform closure requirements. In short, 

monitoring is essential to an adaptive well-managed sequestration site. And 

then the rule that makes a good start at requiring that and needs to finish the 

job. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of monitoring at GS sites 

and emphasizes that monitoring of injection activities will be an important component of every 

GS project. Monitoring associated with injection wells and the movement of the CO2 plume is 

necessary to verify that the injectate is confined in the target formations and does not endanger 

USDWs. 

EPA agrees with commenters that developing and following testing and monitoring plans is an 

important part of assuring that a GS project is operating properly and is crucial for the early 

detection of potential endangerment to USDWs. EPA also agrees that periodic updates to the 

plan are appropriate. EPA clarifies that the final GS regulation includes a requirement that the 

AoR be reevaluated at least every 5 years, and it specifies at §146.90(j) that the operator revise 

the testing and monitoring plan to incorporate the results of the most recent AoR reevaluation 

and recent operational and monitoring data. 

EPA agrees that monitoring data should be used to review model assumptions, verify 

computational model projections, and, when necessary, provide input for model refinements. As 

data are collected at an injection site, model parameters can be adjusted to match observations 

(i.e., for model calibration or), which in turn improves the predictive capability of the model. As 

a GS project proceeds, both monitoring and modeling will evolve, with monitoring results 

supporting effective AoR reevaluations and leading to improved model predictions. 

EPA agrees that monitoring is a key element of ensuring that USDWs are protected from 

endangerment. Tracking the plume and the position of the pressure front during injection 

operations and the post-injection site care period will provide important data for determining that 

the injectate is confined within the target formation, as well as for evaluating any risks within the 

AoR and ensuring protection of USDWs from endangerment. EPA also agrees with the 

commenter that data collected during site characterization (such as baseline geochemistry, preinjection reservoir pressure, etc.) are appropriate to ensure that baseline information is available 

to form the basis for comparison during GS operation and post-injection. For example, the 

baseline geochemical information will allow the owner or operator and permitting authority to 

evaluate monitoring data and identify any changes in subsurface geochemistry that may indicate 

fluid movement. 

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21227 Letter Lines: 130 to 139 

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

Comment: We believe that, that there should be a provision that prohibits interference 

among projects. Eventually, if sequestration becomes a big enough industry we 

7

133
would foresee a need for basic scale of regional management. 

Between now and then we think it's important to nip problems in the bud, and we 

suggest that a new project not be allowed to interfere with an existing project 

in terms of the pressure fronts overlapping or other types of interference 

unless a finding is made that such a overlap doesn't degrade the effectiveness 

of either project. So then a rule like that would force people to space 

projects in a way that is proper. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the extensive requirements for geologic site 

characterization (at §146.82), AoR evaluation (§146.84), and testing of the well during drilling 

(§146.87) are appropriate to ensure that permitting authorities have the necessary information to 

evaluate whether a specific site will allow safe injection of CO2. EPA adds that submittal and 

review of monitoring data (as required at §146.90) and the AoR reevaluation process 

(§146.84(e)) will provide an opportunity for an ongoing review of the site and a dialogue 

between the Director and the owner or operator to ensure that the project is being operated in a 

manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes that any natural gas storage 

operations would be found in site characterization as would any faults or fractures. 

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21228 Letter Lines: 141 to 149 

Comment Code: 3200 2.2 Proposed Area of Review and Corrective Action Requirements (40 

CFR 146.84) 

Comment: We, three more things, we think the rule needs to assure that AoRs are 

calculated as intended and updated as necessary, we think a 10-year minimum is 

too short. 

And we think that there's just an unintentional flaw in the definition of area 

of review, it doesn't seem to specifically require the consideration of the 

pressure front and would refer you to the second sentence of the definition of 

geologic sequestration project for the kind of language we think needs to be 

imported into the AoR definition. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the AoR definition should account for the impact of the 

CO2 plume on USDWs. The Agency has carefully considered all comments on the AoR 

definition at 146.84(a) and modified it to read as follows: The region surrounding the geologic 

sequestration project where USDWs may be endangered by the injection activity. The area of 

review is delineated using computational modeling that accounts for the physical and chemical 

properties of all phases of the injected CO2 stream and is based on available site 

characterization, monitoring, and operational data. The computational models used for this 

purpose are required to predict the fate of injected CO2 and changes in formation pressure. EPA 

believes that the requirements at 146.84(c)(1) to delineate the AoR using computational 

modeling are appropriate and encompass the significant processes that could affect the location 

of the CO2 plume and associated pressure front. 

8

134
EPA agrees with commenters that reevaluations of the AoR every ten years may not be sufficient 

to appropriately model plume and pressure front movement, establish conditions for corrective 

action, and ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment. For these reasons, the Agency 

changed the minimum frequency for the AoR reevaluation at 146.84(e) from 10 years to 5 years 

in the final GS rule. EPA believes that this revised frequency addresses commenters' concerns 

about the inherent uncertainties in modeling CO2 movement, the emerging nature of GS 

technology, risk-based targeting of monitoring activities, and the unique nature of CO2 GS. 

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21229 Letter Lines: 151 to 155 

Comment Code: 4110 2.4.1.1 Injection pressure limitations 

Comment: One minute and two more comments. We think injection pressure limits need to 

expressly require the consideration of geo-mechanical information, not just the 

90 percent of fracture pressure. A rule that is expressed in terms of 

percentage of fracture pressure ignores things like induced seismicity and the 

re-opening of faults. We think -- sophisticated -- pressure than a requirement. 

Individual Response: EPA notes that because determination of the injection pressure limit is 

based on the fracture pressure of the injection zone, the limit is site-specific and not arbitrary. 

EPA emphasizes that injection pressure limits are important to protect against fracturing of the 

confining zone, and that the requirement at §146.88(a) that the pressure in the injection zone not 

exceed 90 percent of the fracture pressure provides a margin of safety in the well operation and 

protects USDWs from endangerment. If the Director determines, based on a review of the 

information collected as part of site characterization, that a lower injection pressure limitation is 

appropriate, the Director has the authority to set a lower limit in the operating permit than the 

limit established in the rule. 

EPA notes that during the site characterization process, owners or operators must submit data 

about the geology of the site, as specified at §146.82(a), including data on known or suspected 

faults and fractures and geomechanical information on fractures, stress, ductility, rock strength, 

and in situ fluid pressures within the confining zone. The Director will use these data to 

determine appropriate limits on injection. 

In response to the concern about reopening of faults at lower pressures than 90 percent of 

fracture pressure, EPA believes that the requirement for the owner or operator to submit data on 

known or suspected faults and fractures and information on the seismic history of the site will 

inform the determination of an appropriate pressure limitation in the permit. Any sites with the 

potential for reopening or reactivation of faults or unacceptable seismic risk that could otherwise 

interfere with containment will not be permitted as GS sites. 

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

in meeting the requirements of §146.82 and to assist directors in evaluating permit applications. 

The guidance will describe recommended approaches for characterizing the regional geology and 

hydrogeology of a proposed site and performing the necessary geochemical, geomechanical, and 

9

135
geophysical analyses of the injection and confining zone. EPA is also developing guidance for 

primacy agencies that will include recommended approaches for evaluating owner or operatorsubmitted data in setting permit conditions. The guidance will be available on EPA's web site, at 

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

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21230 Letter Lines: 157 to 160 

Comment Code: 5300 2.8.3 Site closure activities (40 CFR 146.93) 

Comment: And my final point I've actually already made, which is that we suggest that you 

need to improve the standards for authorizing and site closure. 

Thank you. 

Individual Response: As described above, EPA disagrees that the rule should set specific 

criteria. EPA believes that many site-specific factors will influence the determination of when 

the CO2 plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs. It is for this 

reason that EPA believes that individual UIC Directors, in consultation with operators, will be in 

the best position to determine whether additional post-injection site care is needed. EPA expects 

this decision to be made based on relevant site data and in consultation with all potentially 

impacted parties. 

EPA is developing guidance to assist owners or operators in evaluating well plugging, postinjection site care, and site closure requirements of 146.92 and 146.93. Additionally, the 

guidance will assist Directors in evaluating proposed well plugging plans and post-injection site 

care and site closure plans under 146.92 and 146.93. The guidance describes recommended 

approaches for how an owner or operator could plug injection and monitoring wells; demonstrate 

the appropriateness of an alternative post-injection site care time frame; perform post-injection 

monitoring; demonstrate non endangerment; and perform site closure activities. The guidance 

will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

10

136