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.
United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

MC 2843 

Washington, DC 20460 

November 24, 2008 

Re: Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic 

Sequestration Wells (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390) 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Federal Requirements for the 

Underground Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration 

Wells proposed July 25, 2008. 

WORC is a network of grassroots organizations from seven states – Dakota Resource 

Council (North Dakota), Dakota Rural Action (DRA), Idaho Rural Council, Northern 

Plains Resource Council (Montana), Powder River Basin Resource Council (Wyoming) 

and Western Colorado Congress. Together, WORC and its member groups have 10,000 

members, many of whom are family farmers and ranchers, townspeople, and rural 

residents concerned about their communities and environment. In the 30 years since 

WORC was founded, we have worked on a variety of issues including coal and energy 

development, hard rock mining, air and water quality. 

On behalf of our members, WORC urges EPA to establish as its highest priority the 

safety and effectiveness of the Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells program. 

We are very concerned that EPA is moving forward with a regulatory program for a 

technology that has yet to be demonstrated to be technologically and commercially viable 

on a large scale. It is possible that the first generation of geologic sequestration sites will 

experience a variety of problems, as demonstrated by the FutureGen project, in which 

unanticipated technological challenges and budget overruns caused the Department of 

Energy to abandon the project. 

Taking into account the potential challenges of this technology that is not yet proven at 

scale, especially the unique challenges that the western US faces, we propose instead of 

going forward with large-scale implementation of technology that is yet unproven and 

untested, that EPA focus intently on the research and design aspect at a limited number of 

pilot sites to ensure that carbon capture and storage of CO2 is appropriate. 

If EPA does go forward with its regulations, we urge you to use extreme caution and 

establish requirements that are as stringent as necessary, even though those requirements 

are likely to be more expensive than other parts of the UIC program. 
Our primary concerns are as follows: 1) protecting water supplies from contamination 2) 

ensuring that geologic sequestration projects are safely sited, 3) protecting the interests of 

landowners. 

1) Water: As you are aware, drinking water supplies are at potential risk of 

contamination from CO2 and any other hazardous materials that are injected 

during geologic sequestration. All areas where geologic sequestration will occur 

at important to the local people and economies as agricultural land, wildlife 

habitat, residential land, or for countless other reasons – all of which rely on clean 

water supplies. Thus, we urge EPA to take all steps necessary to protect this 

irreplaceable resource at all sites where geologic sequestration occurs. 

Water: 

One alternative under consideration is a provision for Director's 

discretion to allow injection above or between USDWs in specific 

geologic settings where the depth of the USDWs may preclude GS, 

make GS technically challenging, or significantly limit CO2

storage capacity. Such approval by the Director would allow 

injection between USDWs (and thereby allowing injection above the 

lowermost USDW) in circumstances in which it may be demonstrated 

that USDWs would not be endangered. An example where such 

injection may be appropriate presents itself in areas such as the 

Williston and Powder River Basins in Wyoming, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota, where receiving formations (formations with large 

CO2 storage capacity) for GS have been identified above the 

lowermost USDW and where there may be thousands of feet of rock 

strata between the injection zone and the overlying and 

underlying USDWs. In these cases, injection above or between 

USDWs may be appropriate, however, the Agency currently lacks 

data to demonstrate that such practices are or are not protective 

of USDWs. 

EPA is aware that the proposed requirement of injecting CO2 below the 

lowermost USDW may preclude injection into certain targeted geologic 

formations, which may be storage sites currently under consideration 

for GS. These formations may include unmineable coal seams (those not 

being used for Class II enhanced coal bed methane production), zones in 

between or above USDWs, and other formations also under consideration. 

In areas of the country with very deep USDWs, the need to construct GS 

wells beneath them may render GS technically impractical. As a result, 

the Agency is considering and requesting comment on alternative 

approaches that would allow injection between and/or above the 

lowermost USDW, and thus potentially allow for more areas to be 

available for GS while preventing USDW endangerment. 

USDWs are potentially affected by CO2 storage underground, particularly if there is 

leakage to the surface or cross-contamination through seepage of CO2 into an aquifer. 

Drinking water supplies cannot be easily cleaned up or replaced once contaminated. 

Geologic sequestration should occur only in places where injections would not 

compromise the safety of the Underground Sources of Drinking Water. Because 
preventing contamination and protecting water is of paramount importance, we oppose 

allowing any injections between and/or above the lowermost Underground Sources of 

Drinking Water. If EPA plans to grant such discretion, we urge you to develop detailed 

criteria in the regulations as to under what conditions such discretion could be exercised 

and release it for public comment ahead of time. 

2) Siting: Geologic sequestration will require a lot of wells, roads, support facilities 

and other development. We expect that there will be many proposals for geologic 

sequestration in areas that are already subject to heavy energy development. It 

may seem appropriate to concentrate development in areas, but we submit that the 

opposite may be true. Areas already impacted by oil, gas and coal development 

will have underground fractures and fissures that could make safe implementation 

of geologic sequestration a challenge. 

3) Landowners: Land ownership may change through the course of a CCS facility’s 

life. At some sites, the surface owner of a plot of land will not own the pore space 

underneath. Wyoming is the only state we are aware of that has clarified 

ownership rules, and clearly states that the surface owner owns the pore space for 

carbon storage, but Wyoming law allows ownership of the surface and pore space 

to be severed. Thus, it is likely that multiple property rights will be involved in 

any geologic sequestration site, particularly where geologic sequestration is 

proposed at sites where oil, gas and coal are already being developed. 

One of the aspects of having split estates is that the surface owner, who suffers 

most if a site is not appropriately closed and reclaimed, may not be the party who 

is doing the actual closure and reclamation work. In our experience, surface 

owners often have little ability to ensure that appropriate siting, operating, 

monitoring, closure and reclamation controls are in place. These landowners must 

rely on the regulatory agency to protect their interests. 

Financial assurance: 

a. EPA is assessing whether a financial ratings threshold for all 

companies using a self-guarantee, similar to those used by other 

Federal agencies, is appropriate. The Agency also is considering 

what constitutes an appropriate financial rating threshold, and 

whether a financial rating greater than BBB or Baa (i.e., the 

current rating threshold established under the UIC regulations) 

is appropriate for GS wells. 

We do not think a financial ratings threshold for all companies using a self-guarantee 

similar to those of other Federal agencies is appropriate, and urge EPA to require bonds. 

Wyoming and North Dakota are the only states that allow self-bonding for coal, and that 

standard is fairly high. Requiring bonds doesn’t stop development, and helps ensure that 

funds will be available for cleanup if the company fails to do the job for any reason. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 
Sincerely, 

Randy Joseph, WORC Board Chair 
Letter ID: 0240 

Commenter: Randy Joseph 

Organization: Western Organization of Resource Councils 

Letter ID: 0240 Comment ID: 23217 Letter Lines: 40 to 64 

Comment Code: 1260 1.1.1.5 More certainty/stringency is needed 

Comment: On behalf of our members, WORC urges EPA to establish as its highest priority 

the safety and effectiveness of the Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells 

program. We are very concerned that EPA is moving forward with a regulatory 

program for a technology that has yet to be demonstrated to be technologically 

and commercially viable on a large scale. It is possible that the first 

generation of geologic sequestration sites will experience a variety of 

problems, as demonstrated by the FutureGen project, in which unanticipated 

technological challenges and budget overruns caused the Department of Energy to 

abandon the project. 

Taking into account the potential challenges of this technology that is not yet 

proven at scale, especially the unique challenges that the western US faces, we 

propose instead of going forward with large-scale implementation of technology 

that is yet unproven and untested, that EPA focus intently on the research and 

design aspect at a limited number of pilot sites to ensure that carbon capture 

and storage of CO2 is appropriate. 

If EPA does go forward with its regulations, we urge you to use extreme caution 

and establish requirements that are as stringent as necessary, even though those 

requirements are likely to be more expensive than other parts of the UIC 

program. 

Our primary concerns are as follows: 1) protecting water supplies from 

contamination 2) ensuring that geologic sequestration projects are safely sited, 

3) protecting the interests of landowners. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the intent of the GS rule is not to set or control the pace 

at which GS is deployed. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to ensure that GS, where 

deployed, is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. The Class VI GS 

requirements are one way in which the Agency can achieve this goal. EPA does not intend to 

limit the scale of initial GS projects; each project will be evaluated based on site-specific 

information about the ability of the geologic formations to safely receive and confine injected 

CO2. However, the Agency agrees that a protective initial approach is appropriate and additional 

safeguards are necessary, given the uncertainty associated with the long-term effects of CO2 GS. 

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. 

1
Letter ID: 0240 Comment ID: 23218 Letter Lines: 66 to 72 

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs 

Comment: 1) Water: As you are aware, drinking water supplies are at potential risk of 

contamination from CO2 and any other hazardous materials that are injected 

during geologic sequestration. All areas where geologic sequestration will occur 

at important to the local people and economies as agricultural land, wildlife 

habitat, residential land, or for countless other reasons - all of which rely on 

clean water supplies. Thus, we urge EPA to take all steps necessary to protect 

this irreplaceable resource at all sites where geologic sequestration occurs. 

Individual Response: The Agency agrees that drinking water is an important resource to 

protect. The primary goal of the UIC Program under the SDWA is to protect USDWs from 

endangerment. Consistent with SDWA §1422, the UIC program provides that no injection shall 

be authorized if it results in the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into USDWs, if 

the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulation 

or may adversely affect the health of persons as specified in §144.12. 

The GS rule, as part of the UIC program regulations, continues the Program’s mandate under the 

SDWA of ensuring the protection of USDWs from endangerment. 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: 0240 Comment ID: 23219 Letter Lines: 74 to 112 

Comment Code: 4420 2.4.4.3.2 Comments opposing injection above/between USDWs in all 

cases 

Comment: Water: One alternative under consideration is a provision for Director's 

discretion to allow injection above or between USDWs in specific geologic 

settings where the depth of the USDWs may preclude GS, make GS technically 

challenging, or significantly limit CO2 storage capacity. Such approval by the 

Director would allow injection between USDWs (and thereby allowing injection 

above the lowermost USDW) in circumstances in which it may be demonstrated that 

USDWs would not be endangered. An example where such injection may be 

appropriate presents itself in areas such as the Williston and Powder River 

Basins in Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota, where receiving formations 

(formations with large CO2 storage capacity) for GS have been identified above 

the lowermost USDW and where there may be thousands of feet of rock strata 

between the injection zone and the overlying and underlying USDWs. In these 

cases, injection above or between USDWs may be appropriate, however, the Agency 

currently lacks data to demonstrate that such practices are or are not 

protective of USDWs. 

2
EPA is aware that the proposed requirement of injecting CO2 below the lowermost 

USDW may preclude injection into certain targeted geologic formations, which may 

be storage sites currently under consideration for GS. These formations may 

include unmineable coal seams (those not being used for Class II enhanced coal 

bed methane production), zones in between or above USDWs, and other formations 

also under consideration. In areas of the country with very deep USDWs, the need 

to construct GS wells beneath them may render GS technically impractical. As a 

result, the Agency is considering and requesting comment on alternative 

approaches that would allow injection between and/or above the lowermost USDW, 

and thus potentially allow for more areas to be available for GS while 

preventing USDW endangerment. 

USDWs are potentially affected by CO2 storage underground, particularly if there 

is leakage to the surface or cross-contamination through seepage of CO2 into an 

aquifer. Drinking water supplies cannot be easily cleaned up or replaced once 

contaminated. Geologic sequestration should occur only in places where 

injections would not compromise the safety of the Underground Sources of 

Drinking Water. Because preventing contamination and protecting water is of 

paramount importance, we oppose allowing any injections between and/or above the 

lowermost Underground Sources of Drinking Water. If EPA plans to grant such 

discretion, we urge you to develop detailed criteria in the regulations as to 

under what conditions such discretion could be exercised and release it for 

public comment ahead of time. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that protecting USDWs from endangerment must be a top 

priority. The Agency believes 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 nonUSDW 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. It establishes: 1) requirements specifying 

information that owners or operators must submit, and Directors must consider, in consultation 

with PWSS Directors; 2) procedures for public notice of a waiver application and for DirectorRegional Administrator communication; 3) the waiver issuance process; and, 4) additional 

requirements that apply to owners or operators of Class VI wells granted a waiver of the 

injection depth requirements to ensure USDW protection above and below the injection zone. 

The final rule also establishes limited circumstances under which expansions of the areal extent 

of aquifer exemptions may be granted for owners or operators of Class II EOR/EGR wells 

transitioning to Class VI injection for GS. Additionally, the rule does not categorically preclude 

or prohibit injection into any type of formation. 

EPA believes that the requirements at §146.95 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 

3
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. 

Letter ID: 0240 Comment ID: 23220 Letter Lines: 114 to 120 

Comment Code: 3110 2.1.1 Proposed siting requirements (i.e., injection/confining zones, 

trapping mechanism) 

Comment: 2) Siting: Geologic sequestration will require a lot of wells, roads, support 

facilities and other development. We expect that there will be many proposals 

for geologic sequestration in areas that are already subject to heavy energy 

development. It may seem appropriate to concentrate development in areas, but we 

submit that the opposite may be true. Areas already impacted by oil, gas and 

coal development will have underground fractures and fissures that could make 

safe implementation of geologic sequestration a challenge. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that it is not the intent of the GS rule to identify or set 

requirements for which areas may be or should be used for GS. Rather, the purpose of the rule is 

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

endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0240 Comment ID: 23221 Letter Lines: 122 to 137 

Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space 

ownership 

Comment: 3) Landowners: Land ownership may change through the course of a CCS facility’s 

life. At some sites, the surface owner of a plot of land will not own the pore 

space underneath. Wyoming is the only state we are aware of that has clarified 

ownership rules, and clearly states that the surface owner owns the pore space 

for carbon storage, but Wyoming law allows ownership of the surface and pore 

space to be severed. Thus, it is likely that multiple property rights will be 

involved in any geologic sequestration site, particularly where geologic 

sequestration is proposed at sites where oil, gas and coal are already being 

developed. 

One of the aspects of having split estates is that the surface owner, who 

4
suffers most if a site is not appropriately closed and reclaimed, may not be the 

party who is doing the actual closure and reclamation work. In our experience, 

surface owners often have little ability to ensure that appropriate siting, 

operating, monitoring, closure and reclamation controls are in place. These 

landowners must rely on the regulatory agency to protect their interests. 

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, which 

focuses on ensuring consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations 

across the United States and provides requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in 

anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. EPA clarifies that these issues 

are under the purview of states and any of these issues, as they relate to GS, will need to be 

addressed though state regulations. 

Letter ID: 0240 Comment ID: 23222 Letter Lines: 139 to 151 

Comment Code: 5434 2.9.1.2 Need for additional instruments (seeking comment) 

Comment: Financial assurance: a. EPA is assessing whether a financial ratings threshold 

for all companies using a self-guarantee, similar to those used by other Federal 

agencies, is appropriate. The Agency also is considering what constitutes an 

appropriate financial rating threshold, and whether a financial rating greater 

than BBB or Baa (i.e., the current rating threshold established under the UIC 

regulations) is appropriate for GS wells. 

We do not think a financial ratings threshold for all companies using a selfguarantee similar to those of other Federal agencies is appropriate, and urge 

EPA to require bonds. Wyoming and North Dakota are the only states that allow 

self-bonding for coal, and that standard is fairly high. Requiring bonds doesn’t 

stop development, and helps ensure that funds will be available for cleanup if 

the company fails to do the job for any reason. 

Individual Response: EPA will retain self-insurance as an option for financial responsibility for 

Class VI wells. EPA believes that if properly used, the financial test can be an appropriate option 

for some owners or operators. EPA recognizes that it is important for self-insurers to be creditworthy, otherwise USDWs may not be adequately protected. Owner or operators who choose to 

self-insure and use the financial test must be able to demonstrate profitability, with a margin 

sufficient to cover contingencies and unknown obligations, and stability. If the owner or operator 

meets corporate financial test criteria, this is an indication that the owner or operator can 

guarantee its ability to satisfy financial obligations based solely on the strength of the company’s 

financial condition. If an owner or operator is not able to meet the corporate financial test 

criteria, it may arrange a corporate guarantee by demonstrating that its corporate parent meets the 

financial requirements on its behalf. 

5