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.
444 North Capitol Street, NW 

Suite 401 

Washington, DC 20001-1512 

Tel: 202.624.5460 

Fax: 202.624.5452 

Regional Office 

701 East 22nd Street 

Suite 110 

Lombard, Illinois 60148 

Tel: 630.925.1922 

Fax: 630.925.1930 

www.midwesterngovernors.org 

Chair 

M. Michael Rounds 

South Dakota 

Vice Chair 

Jennifer Granholm 

Michigan 

Past Chair, 2005 

Rod Blagojevich 

Illinois 

Matt Blunt 

Missouri 

Chester J. Culver 

Iowa 

Mitch Daniels 

Indiana 

Past Chair 2007 

Jim Doyle 

Wisconsin 

Dave Heineman 

Nebraska 

Past Chair, 2004 

John Hoeven 

North Dakota 

Past Chair, 2006 

Tim Pawlenty 

Minnesota 

Kathleen Sebelius 

Kansas 

Ted Strickland 

Ohio 

December 16, 2008 

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

The Honorable Stephen Johnson 

Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator Johnson: 

On behalf of the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA), we 

commend the Environmental Protection Agency on its effort to 

facilitate the injection of CO2 for long-term geologic sequestration 

(GS). Greater regulatory certainty will help advance the deployment of 

carbon capture and sequestration projects. Our comments are based on 

the role of geological sequestration within the context of established 

MGA regional goals and objectives. We offer comments below in the 

following areas: (1) the adaptive approach, (2) the implications of the 

rule on CO2-enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects, and (3) the role of 

states in implementation of the rule. 

The development of GS is an important strategy within a portfolio of 

options for the Midwestern region to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

In 2007, we endorsed the Energy Security and Climate Stewardship 

Platform (Platform) that includes a broad range of measurable goals, 

policies and initiatives to transition the Midwest to a lower carbon 

energy economy. Priorities include the development of energy 

efficiency, bio-based products and transportation, renewable electricity 

and advanced coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). 

The Midwestern region depends heavily on coal-fired generation and 

has significant coal and oil resources. These resources are also located 

in close proximity to formations that are likely suitable for geologic 

sequestration, specifically saline aquifers and depleted oil and gas 

fields. Thus, the Platform supports the development of a CO2

management infrastructure and demonstration and commercialization 

of large-scale geologic sequestration projects that take advantage of our 

region’s EOR potential. The Midwest has significant experience in 
both EOR and in the transport of CO2 through pipelines. These EOR projects would be part of a 

broader CO2 management strategy to capture CO2 from various sources and effectively leverage 

projects to build-out an infrastructure that could support long-term CO2 sequestration across the 

region. 

The MGA would like to address a few areas of the proposed rule within the context of the goals and 

objectives of the Platform. The MGA goals include: 

• A model regional regulatory framework for CCS by 2010; 

• A multi-jurisdictional pipeline sited and permitted to transport CO2 from a source to an 

appropriate reservoir for use in an EOR project by 2012; 

• At least 7 pre and post-combustion coal plants with CCS in operation by 2015; 

• All new coal gasification and coal combustion plants will capture and store CO2 emissions by 

2020; and 

• The region’s fleet of coal plants will have transitioned to CCS by 2050. 

Adaptive approach

We support the adaptive approach to regulatory development where relevant data based on 

demonstrations and commercial scale projects will be used to determine if the rule continues to 

appropriately meet the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) objectives and if not, that they will be 

revised (73 FR 43522). This language is included in the preamble, but it is not articulated in the 

language of the rule in terms of how the adaptive approach would be put into practice. As projects 

develop across different geologic formations and from various carbon sources, there will be 

increased knowledge and data on how to effectively manage these sites while meeting the 

objectives of the SDWA. It is not clear in the proposed rule by what method or mechanism the 

relevant knowledge and data would be collected by EPA and how the existing rule would be 

evaluated within the context of new information. 

Enhanced oil recovery projects 

Essential components of a comprehensive greenhouse reduction strategy for the Midwest include 

the opportunity for current and future properly managed CO2-EOR projects to make the transition 

to, and to be permitted as, long-term sequestration projects for anthropogenic CO2 under EPA’s 

proposed Class VI. Therefore, in order to fully utilize EOR sites as part of such a strategy, it will be 

important for EPA’s proposed rule to make certain that CO2-EOR will continue uninterrupted and 

to provide CO2-EOR operators a clear, workable path for Class II wells used for CO2-EOR to 

become Class VI wells. 

More generally, we urge that EPA take great care to avoid creating barriers to widespread 

commercial development of responsible CO2-EOR projects that make the transition to long-term

sequestration. EOR is a necessary element of our strategy to develop a regional infrastructure to 

support commercial-scale deployment of CCS in the Midwestern region. Indeed, in some MGA 

jurisdictions with significant sequestration potential in oil and gas formations, EOR represents a 

major long-term GHG reduction strategy in its own right, as well as a bridge to help finance the 

infrastructure needed for deep saline aquifer sequestration. The EOR industry has significant, long-
standing commercial experience in CO2 injection, and some MGA states have proven regulatory 

experience in managing CO2 injection EOR projects, including projects using captured CO2 that 

deliver net CO2 reduction benefits, even after accounting for oil recovered. The Midwest needs a 

supportive federal regulatory environment to be able to leverage this experience to develop projects 

and to build the infrastructure necessary for the transport and injection of CO2 into depleted oil and 

gas fields. 

Role of states in GS regulation

Several of our states in the MGA region have experience with the injection of carbon dioxide 

through Class II and Class V wells. Further, some of our jurisdictions have experience with legal 

and regulatory aspects of managing CO2 injection wells. We encourage the EPA to consider 

approval for states to obtain primacy for Class VI wells, independent of other well classes. The 

MGA agrees with the EPA in the preamble that this may encourage states to take a more 

comprehensive approach to managing each stage of a CCS project (e.g., capture, transportation, and 

sequestration) (73 FR 43523). Development of geologic sequestration projects will also require 

increased resources for implementation of the UIC program. Thus, we support increased 

federal support for state implementation of geologic sequestration regulation under the UIC 

program, and we urge EPA to recognize that need as well. 

Thank you for your efforts to facilitate geologic sequestration. We respectfully request your 

consideration of our comments. 

Sincerely, 

 

 

M. Michael Rounds Jennifer Granholm 

Governor of South Dakota and Chair, Governor of Michigan and Vice Chair, 

Midwestern Governors Association Midwestern Governors Association 

cc: Lee Whitehurst, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water 
Letter ID: 0159 

Commenter: M. Michael Rounds 

Organization: Midwestern Governors Association (MGA) 

Letter ID: 0159 Comment ID: 22222 Letter Lines: 28 to 36 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: On behalf of the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA), we commend the 

Environmental Protection Agency on its effort to facilitate the injection of CO2 

for long-term geologic sequestration (GS). Greater regulatory certainty will 

help advance the deployment of carbon capture and sequestration projects. Our 

comments are based on the role of geological sequestration within the context of 

established MGA regional goals and objectives. We offer comments below in the 

following areas: (1) the adaptive approach, (2) the implications of the rule on 

CO2-enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects, and (3) the role of states in 

implementation of the rule. 

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 acknowledges the need for regulatory certainty: 

the final GS requirements provide a level of certainty by setting forth unique requirements for 

GS. These requirements include: the tailored AoR delineation process (per §146.84), the types of 

monitoring appropriate to GS projects (per §146.90), and the post-injection site care process (per 

§146.93). 

While EPA agrees with commenters that a stable, predictable, nationally consistent, and 

workable regulatory framework is important, EPA stresses that the focus of the GS rule is to 

ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from 

endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0159 Comment ID: 22223 Letter Lines: 38 to 44 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: The development of GS is an important strategy within a portfolio of options for 

the Midwestern region to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In 2007, we endorsed 

the Energy Security and Climate Stewardship Platform (Platform) that includes a 

broad range of measurable goals, policies and initiatives to transition the 

Midwest to a lower carbon energy economy. Priorities include the development of 

energy efficiency, bio-based products and transportation, renewable electricity 

and advanced coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). 

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 

1
energy sources, that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. Please see the remainder of 

EPA’s responses to this comment for further details. For additional information on EPA’s final 

regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket. 

Letter ID: 0159 Comment ID: 22224 Letter Lines: 46 to 56 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: The Midwestern region depends heavily on coal-fired generation and has 

significant coal and oil resources. These resources are also located in close 

proximity to formations that are likely suitable for geologic sequestration, 

specifically saline aquifers and depleted oil and gas fields. Thus, the Platform 

supports the development of a CO2 management infrastructure and demonstration 

and commercialization of large-scale geologic sequestration projects that take 

advantage of our region’s EOR potential. The Midwest has significant experience 

in both EOR and in the transport of CO2 through pipelines. These EOR projects 

would be part of a broader CO2 management strategy to capture CO2 from various 

sources and effectively leverage projects to build-out an infrastructure that 

could support long-term CO2 sequestration across the region. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. 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, as long as any oil or gas production is occurring. The UIC GS requirements will apply 

to wells used for the purpose of long-term GS. 

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: 0159 Comment ID: 22225 Letter Lines: 58 to 71 

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments 

Comment: The MGA would like to address a few areas of the proposed rule within the 

context of the goals and objectives of the Platform. The MGA goals include: 

• A model regional regulatory framework for CCS by 2010; 

• A multi-jurisdictional pipeline sited and permitted to transport CO2 from a 

source to an appropriate reservoir for use in an EOR project by 2012; 

• At least 7 pre and post-combustion coal plants with CCS in operation by 2015; 

• All new coal gasification and coal combustion plants will capture and store 

CO2 emissions by 2020; and 

2
• The region’s fleet of coal plants will have transitioned to CCS by 2050. 

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. 

EPA clarifies that permitting of coal plans and pipelines is outside the scope of the GS 

rulemaking. Rather, the purpose of the 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. 

Letter ID: 0159 Comment ID: 22226 Letter Lines: 73 to 84 

Comment Code: 2400 1.8 Comments on EPA's adaptive rulemaking process 

Comment: Adaptive approach We support the adaptive approach to regulatory development 

where relevant data based on demonstrations and commercial scale projects will 

be used to determine if the rule continues to appropriately meet the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) objectives and if not, that they will be revised (73 

FR 43522). This language is included in the preamble, but it is not articulated 

in the language of the rule in terms of how the adaptive approach would be put 

into practice. As projects develop across different geologic formations and from 

various carbon sources, there will be increased knowledge and data on how to 

effectively manage these sites while meeting the objectives of the SDWA. It is 

not clear in the proposed rule by what method or mechanism the relevant 

knowledge and data would be collected by EPA and how the existing rule would be 

evaluated within the context of new information. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that an adaptive approach to the UIC GS rulemaking is 

appropriate. The Agency plans on using such an approach to ensure that USDWs are protected 

from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment. EPA believes that an 

adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and 

future demand for Class VI permits while recognizing the need to: continue to gather data from 

pilot projects and other research as it becomes available; and to enhance understanding of the 

technical and administrative aspects of GS deployment, operation, and technology developments. 

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: 0159 Comment ID: 22227 Letter Lines: 86 to 94 

3
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: Enhanced oil recovery projects Essential components of a comprehensive 

greenhouse reduction strategy for the Midwest include the opportunity for 

current and future properly managed CO2-EOR projects to make the transition to, 

and to be permitted as, long-term sequestration projects for anthropogenic CO2 

under EPA’s proposed Class VI. Therefore, in order to fully utilize EOR sites as 

part of such a strategy, it will be important for EPA’s proposed rule to make 

certain that CO2-EOR will continue uninterrupted and to provide CO2-EOR 

operators a clear, workable path for Class II wells used for CO2-EOR to become 

Class VI wells. 

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

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

EPA agrees that many Class II 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). 

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

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

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

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

available for the Director to evaulate changes in risk to USDWs from projects, and 

recommended approaches for how the Director may determine whether a project should be 

regulated within the Class II or Class VI UIC program. This guidance will be available on EPA’s 

website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. For more 

information, please see the discussion on transition of Class II wells in the preamble to the final 

GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0159 Comment ID: 22229 Letter Lines: 96 to 111 

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: More generally, we urge that EPA take great care to avoid creating barriers to 

widespread commercial development of responsible CO2-EOR projects that make the 

transition to long-term sequestration. EOR is a necessary element of our 

4
strategy to develop a regional infrastructure to support commercial-scale 

deployment of CCS in the Midwestern region. Indeed, in some MGA jurisdictions 

with significant sequestration potential in oil and gas formations, EOR 

represents a major long-term GHG reduction strategy in its own right, as well as 

a bridge to help finance the infrastructure needed for deep saline aquifer 

sequestration. The EOR industry has significant, longstanding commercial 

experience in CO2 injection, and some MGA states have proven regulatory 

experience in managing CO2 injection EOR projects, including projects using 

captured CO2 that deliver net CO2 reduction benefits, even after accounting for 

oil recovered. The Midwest needs a supportive federal regulatory environment to 

be able to leverage this experience to develop projects and to build the 

infrastructure necessary for the transport and injection of CO2 into depleted 

oil and gas fields. 

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

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

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

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

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

Class II 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. 

In response to the comment that establishing a new well class will create economic and 

operational barriers, EPA clarifies that the purpose of the GS rule is to ensure protection of 

USDWs from endangerment, not to encourage and incentivize deployment of GS. 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. 

Letter ID: 0159 Comment ID: 22230 Letter Lines: 113 to 120 

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

Comment: Role of states in GS regulation Several of our states in the MGA region have 

experience with the injection of carbon dioxide through Class II and Class V 

wells. Further, some of our jurisdictions have experience with legal and 

regulatory aspects of managing CO2 injection wells. We encourage the EPA to 

consider approval for states to obtain primacy for Class VI wells, independent 

of other well classes. The MGA agrees with the EPA in the preamble that this may 

encourage states to take a more comprehensive approach to managing each stage of 

a CCS project (e.g., capture, transportation, and sequestration) (73 FR 43523). 

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

5
primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter ID: 0159 Comment ID: 22231 Letter Lines: 121 to 124 

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

Comment: Development of geologic sequestration projects will also require increased 

resources for implementation of the UIC program. Thus, we support increased 

federal support for state implementation of geologic sequestration regulation 

under the UIC program, and we urge EPA to recognize that need as well. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative 

challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the States to assist them in 

6
resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the 

unique technical challenges associated with GS. 

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The 

States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement 

the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant 

allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent 

matching requirement. 

Letter ID: 0159 Comment ID: 22232 Letter Lines: 126 to 143 

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments 

Comment: Thank you for your efforts to facilitate geologic sequestration. We respectfully 

request your consideration of our comments. 

Sincerely, 

M. Michael Rounds, Governor of South Dakota and Chair, Midwestern Governors Association 

Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan and Vice Chair, Midwestern Governors Association 

cc: Lee Whitehurst, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water 

444 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 401 Washington, DC 20001-1512 

Tel:202.624.5460 Fax: 202.624.5452 

Regional Office 701 East 22nd Street Suite 110 

Lombard, Illinois 60148 Tel: 630.925.1922 Fax: 630.925.1930 

www.midwesterngovernors.org 

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