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.
KCC Staff comments for EPA public hearing of proposed CO2 storage rules,

October 2, 2008

I am Doug Louis, Director of the Oil and Gas Division of the Kansas Corporation

Commission. I am here today to offer KCC staff’s comments about the EPA’s proposed

rules for the underground injection of carbon dioxide for the purpose of geologic

sequestration.

Introduction

In the 2007 Kansas Legislative session, HB 2419 was passed and signed by Governor

Sebelius that directed the Kansas Corporation Commission to write regulations regarding

the subsurface injection of CO2 for sequestration. Kansas is one of only a few states that

have written, or are in the process of writing, regulations regarding carbon sequestration.

After careful examination of EPA’s proposed rules, and the rules that Kansas has written,

I would like to offer these brief comments and pose a few questions.

Existing CO2 projects

For states that will have existing CO2 rules. What will happen to projects that are

permitted as Class V- experimental wells after the EPA passes its rule but before the

states adopt EPA’s rules? Another concept that needs to be fully discussed is full-scale

(not experimental) injection facilities that are applied for before the proposed EPA rules

are adopted. How will they be permitted (i.e. what class) and who will permit them? The

proposed rules should address these specific scenarios.

Grandfathering Class II wells to Class VI wells.

It is believed a great deal of potential storage of CO2 exists in EOR-CO2 floods after oil

production ceases. It is my concern that EPA’s stringent standards for well cementing,

monitoring and financial assurance will discourage oil operators using this additional

pore space for sequestration, thus causing waste. If a CO2-EOR operation has

successfully operated for many years, why should the standards be raised simply because

it undergoes a well classification change?

Rules that apply to impurities of the CO2 injectate should be further discussed,

determined and defined for permitting certainty.

The rule should be more specific as to what geochemical data needs to collected (i.e.

from the injection formation, the confining layer or from the USDW?)

KCC staff finds the concept of additional containment zones above the confining zones to

be confusing and unnecessary. If the injection zone and confining zone are competent,

well understood and monitored, there is no need to have a costly and unneeded system of
redundant containment zones above the two. Futhermore, the term “containment zone” is

not found in the definitions section nor fully explained.

KCC Staff agrees the most accurate and realistic method of determining AOR uses

computational models, which are updated regularly in conjunction with monitoring of

physical parameters. A prescribed fixed radius surrounding individual wells would not

be an appropriate determination of AOR for a complex dynamic CO2 storage facility.

Phased corrective action for GS wells that lie in front of the path of a CO2 plume would

allow companies to concentrate current capital expenditures on wells that represent the

highest risk. Wells that might be affected in the distant future would be deemed a lower

risk thus given a lower priority.

Proposed Injection Well Construction Requirements

The proposed rule requires the long-string casing to be cemented in place along its entire

length. In a significant area of Kansas, cement cannot be circulated to surface in the

borehole-casing annulus on the primary cementing job. To accomplish a continuous

cemented interval would involve numerous pipe perforations and cement squeezing

operations. This additional “remedial” work sacrifices mechanical integrity of the pipe

for a marginal possibility of additional isolation of the injection zone. Considering these

unique conditions and associated risk, Kansas’ regulations prescribe an interval of 500

feet of cemented interval above the injection zone.

KCC staff believes an exotic blend of CO2 resistant cement is not warranted considering

the proven record of CO2-EOR well-construction history.

Proposed Injection Well Operating Requirements

In the proposed rule, EPA is seeking comment on the use of tracer material for detection

of fugitive CO2. KCC staff’s opinion is the comparison of baseline CO2 levels to

monitored levels would provide the same information, as would costly and potentially

harmful tracer material.

In our opinion, external mechanical testing at a one-year frequency is excessive and not

warranted. The frequency which Kansas requires in their regulations is once every four

years.

Proposed Well Plugging, Post-Injection Site Care, and Site Closure Requirements

The proposed rule sets the post-injection site care period at a default period of 50 years.

KCC staff agrees the UIC program Director should have the authority to shorten or

lengthen the post-injection site care period if the owner/operator demonstrates a different

time period is appropriate.
Proposed Financial Responsibility and Long-term Care Requirements

The proposed rule states EPA will provide guidance, to be developed at a later date,

which describes recommended types of owner/operator financial responsibility. On such

an important concept, shouldn’t it be addressed in the proposed rule rather than clarified

through guidance?

Conclusion

It is our hope the EPA will fully fund the Class VI program if it desires states to

administer the program. The 1425 program we administer is not fully funded and has

seen cuts each year for the past three fiscal years. It has also become increasingly

difficult for states to manage primacy programs that demand increasing budgets but

undergo annual funding decreases. Thank you for this opportunity to share our concerns

and questions.
Letter ID: 0121 

Commenter: Doug Louis 

Organization: Kansas Corporation Commission 

Letter ID: 0121 Comment ID: 22073 Letter Lines: 35 to 48 

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

Comment: For states that will have existing CO2 rules. What will happen to projects that 

are permitted as Class V-experimental wells after the EPA passes its rule but 

before the states adopt EPA’s rules? Another concept that needs to be fully 

discussed is full-scale (not experimental) injection facilities that are applied 

for before the proposed EPA rules are adopted. How will they be permitted (i.e. 

what class) and who will permit them? The proposed rules should address these 

specific scenarios. 

Grandfathering Class II wells to Class VI wells. 

It is believed a great deal of potential storage of CO2 exists in EOR-CO2 floods 

after oil production ceases. It is my concern that EPA’s stringent standards for 

well cementing, monitoring and financial assurance will discourage oil operators 

using this additional pore space for sequestration, thus causing waste. If a 

Individual Response: Experimental GS research projects will continue to be regulated as Class 

V experimental technology wells as long as they remain of an experimental nature. EPA clarifies 

that existing experimental GS projects may be permitted as described in UIC Program Guidance 

#83: Using the Class V Experimental Technology Well Classification for Pilot Carbon Geologic 

Sequestration Projects, which provided information for permitting authorities to consider when 

permitting experimental GS projects (i.e., those projects that are designed to test new, unproven 

technologies, per the definition of a Class V experimental technology well). EPA adds that, 

following finalization of the GS rule, all GS projects that are not for experimental purposes must 

be re-permitted as Class VI wells and be subject to the final GS requirements. EPA expects that, 

after promulgation of the final rule, a limited number of experimental injection projects to test 

GS technology will continue, e.g., to inform the technology associated with GS into basalts, coal 

seams, and salt domes. 

The Agency also clarifies that it does not consider it appropriate to permit CO2 injection wells 

that are testing the injectivity or appropriateness of an individual formation (e.g., as a prelude to 

a commercial-scale operation) as Class V experimental technology wells. Such wells must be 

permitted as Class VI wells. 

EPA is preparing an addendum to UICPG #83 that describes the use of the Class V experimental 

technology well classification to clarify permitting for Class V wells. This addendum will 

address shifting of Class V experimental projects to full-scale GS projects and the future use of 

the Class V experimental technology well subclass for research and testing of new GS 

1
technologies. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at 

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

EPA clarifies that projects that are to become commercial immediately can be permitted as Class 

I industrial well until the GS rule becomes effective. 

In response to the comment that ER operators will be discouraged from pursuing GS or using 

additional pore space for storage is outside the scope of the rulemaking. EPA clarifies that the 

purpose of the GS rule is not to incentivize the use of GS or to address the use of pore space but 

to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that does not endanger 

USDWs. Furthermore, based on evaluation of available project data, EPA believes that the Class 

VI requirements are not overly stringent and reflect the operation, monitoring, and modeling 

currently conducted at several existing GS sites. 

Letter ID: 0121 Comment ID: 22074 Letter Lines: 43 to 50 

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: Grandfathering Class II wells to Class VI wells. 

It is believed a great deal of potential storage of CO2 exists in EOR-CO2 floods 

after oil production ceases. It is my concern that EPA’s stringent standards for 

well cementing, monitoring and financial assurance will discourage oil operators 

using this additional pore space for sequestration, thus causing waste. If a 

CO2-EOR operation has successfully operated for many years, why should the 

standards be raised simply because it undergoes a well classification change? 

Individual Response: Underground injection for the primary purpose of long term storage is 

sufficiently different from Class II ER operations and warrants tailored requirements provided in 

the GS rulemaking. 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 ER operators will be discouraged from pursuing GS or using 

additional pore space for storage, EPA clarifies that the purpose of the GS rule is not to 

incentivize or encourage the use of GS or to address the use of pore space. 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. Furthermore, based on the administrative record, which includes the 

evaluation of available project data, EPA believes that the Class VI requirements are not overly 

stringent and reflect the operation, monitoring, and modeling currently conducted at several 

existing GS sites 

2
Letter ID: 0121 Comment ID: 22075 Letter Lines: 52 to 53 

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

Comment: Rules that apply to impurities of the CO2 injectate should be further discussed, 

determined and defined for permitting certainty. 

Individual Response: EPA 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. 

The GS rule does not set generic purity standards for CO2 injectate streams (e.g., a percent 

CO2). Instead, the GS rule addresses the quality and quantity of impurities by requiring owners 

or operators to submit information on the source of the CO2 and its physical and chemical 

properties. Specifically, the GS rule requires the owner or operator to submit data about the site, 

including an analysis of the chemical and physical characteristics of the CO2 stream, as required 

at §146.82(a)(7)(iv), and information on the compatibility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the 

injection zone and minerals in both the injection and the confining zones and the materials used 

to construct the well, per §146.82(c)(3). This information can help the Director determine the 

potential for geochemical reactions between the injectate (CO2) and the host geologic 

formations, which could result in the plugging of pore spaces or the dissolution of formation 

minerals. 

Since the GS rule, at §146.81(d), prohibits the injection of CO2 streams that meet the definition 

of a hazardous waste under 40 CFR part 261, injection of a CO2 stream that is determined to be a 

hazardous waste may only occur in a Class I hazardous waste injection well. 

Letter ID: 0121 Comment ID: 22076 Letter Lines: 55 to 56 

Comment Code: 4660 2.6.6 Geochemical monitoring 

Comment: The rule should be more specific as to what geochemical data needs to collected 

(i.e. from the injection formation, the confining layer or from the USDW?) 

Individual Response: Section §146.90(d) requires periodic monitoring of the ground water 

quality and geochemical changes above the confining zone(s). Monitoring above the confining 

layer will provide an indication of upward movement of CO2 that might endanger a USDW. The 

exact number of formations to be tested will, however, be based on site-specific characteristics 

and vulnerabilities and described in the Director-approved testing and monitoring plan. 

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 

3
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. 

Letter ID: 0121 Comment ID: 22077 Letter Lines: 58 to 63 

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

(seeking comment) 

Comment: KCC staff finds the concept of additional containment zones above the confining 

zones to be confusing and unnecessary. If the injection zone and confining zone 

are competent, well understood and monitored, there is no need to have a costly 

and unneeded system of redundant containment zones above the two. Futhermore, 

the term "containment zone" is not found in the definitions section nor fully 

explained. 

Individual Response: EPA retains the requirement to identify additional containment/confining 

zones, if required by the Director, as proposed (§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. EPA believes that, 

in some situations, the presence of additional confining and containment zones above the 

primary (i.e., lowermost) confining zone can improve USDW protection. These layers could 

further impede vertical fluid movement and allow for pressure dissipation, and also provide 

additional sites for monitoring, mitigation, and remediation. The Agency's decision is supported 

by commenters representing states, water associations, and an electric utility who assert that 

these requirements promote a flexible, risk-based, site-specific approach to characterizing and 

permitting a site for GS projects, and are intended to improve understanding of the project as a 

whole and promote better modeling of the site. 

EPA clarifies that the GS rule defines confining zone as "a geologic formation, group of 

formations, or part of a formation stratigraphically overlying the injection zone that acts as 

barrier to fluid movement." (§146.81(d)). 

EPA is developing guidance on site characterization for GS projects to assist owners or operators 

and Directors in evaluating permit requirements and applications under §146.82. The guidance 

provides recommendations regarding characterizing the regional geology and hydrogeology of a 

proposed GS site as well as performing the necessary geochemical, geomechanical, and 

geophysical analyses of the injection and confining zone. EPA expects that this guidance will 

assist permit writers in making an objective decision about requiring additional confining layers. 

The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at 

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

4
Letter ID: 0121 Comment ID: 22078 Letter Lines: 65 to 69 

Comment Code: 3310 2.2.1.1 Comments in favor of requiring computational models to 

delineate the AoR (seeking comment) 

Comment: KCC Staff agrees the most accurate and realistic method of determining AOR uses 

computational models, which are updated regularly in conjunction with monitoring 

of physical parameters. A prescribed fixed radius surrounding individual wells 

would not be an appropriate determination of AOR for a complex dynamic CO2 

storage facility. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that predicting the complex multiphase, buoyant flow of the 

CO2, co-injectates, and compounds that may be mobilized due to injection requires the 

sophistication of computational models, as required at §146.84(c)(1). Models can predict CO2 

fate and transport, as well as changes in formation pressure, in three dimensions, as a function of 

time in order to delineate the subsurface storage site and the AoR. Models can account for sitespecific and predicted operating conditions as well as geologic heterogeneities and potential 

migration through faults, fractures, and artificial penetrations. 

Letter ID: 0121 Comment ID: 22079 Letter Lines: 71 to 74 

Comment Code: 3630 2.2.4.1 Comments in favor of allowing phased corrective action 

Comment: Phased corrective action for GS wells that lie in front of the path of a CO2 

plume would allow companies to concentrate current capital expenditures on wells 

that represent the highest risk. Wells that might be affected in the distant 

future would be deemed a lower risk thus given a lower priority. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support of phased corrective action 

and agrees that phased corrective action may provide many benefits to a project including, but 

not limited to, spreading the burden of cost, avoiding delays in project start-up, allowing for use 

of future, improved corrective action techniques and addressing unanticipated changes in the 

movement of the CO2 plume or pressure front. EPA believes that the phased corrective action 

approach is appropriate for GS projects, and retained it at §146.84(b)(2)(iv) in the final GS 

regulation. EPA clarifies that wells that might not be affected for some time are not necessarily 

considered to pose a lower risk; rather they are considered to not pose a risk for the first several 

years of injection. 

Letter ID: 0121 Comment ID: 22080 Letter Lines: 78 to 86 

Comment Code: 3824 2.3.1.2 Cementing of long-string casing (seeking comment) 

Comment: The proposed rule requires the long-string casing to be cemented in place along 

its entire length. In a significant area of Kansas, cement cannot be circulated 

to surface in the borehole-casing annulus on the primary cementing job. To 

5
accomplish a continuous cemented interval would involve numerous pipe 

perforations and cement squeezing operations. This additional "remedial" work 

sacrifices mechanical integrity of the pipe for a marginal possibility of 

additional isolation of the injection zone. Considering these unique conditions 

and associated risk, Kansas’ regulations prescribe an interval of 500 feet of 

cemented interval above the injection zone. KCC staff believes an exotic blend 

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, 

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: 0121 Comment ID: 22081 Letter Lines: 86 to 88 

Comment Code: 3864 2.3.3.2 Use of corrosion-resistant cements (seeking comment) 

Comment: cemented interval above the injection zone. KCC staff believes an exotic blend 

of CO2 resistant cement is not warranted considering the proven record of CO2- 

EOR well-construction history. 

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience 

injecting CO2 for the purpose of enhanced recovery, and that this practice has led to the 

development of many corrosion mitigation measures that would be appropriate for the design of 

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 

6
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). 

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: 0121 Comment ID: 22082 Letter Lines: 90 to 95 

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

(seeking comment) 

Comment: Proposed Injection Well Operating Requirements 

In the proposed rule, EPA is seeking comment on the use of tracer material for 

detection of fugitive CO2. KCC staff’s opinion is the comparison of baseline CO2 

levels to monitored levels would provide the same information, as would costly 

and potentially harmful tracer material. 

Individual Response: In the final rule, 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. 

If an owner or operator proposes the use of tracers at a GS site, EPA anticipates that the specific 

tracers to be used would be described in the testing and monitoring plan, which the Director 

would evaluate in the context of other information about the GS site. The Director would assess 

the use of tracers in the context of site-specific information, including risks to USDWs. 

Letter ID: 0121 Comment ID: 22083 Letter Lines: 97 to 99 

Comment Code: 4546 2.5.2.2 MIT frequency (seeking comment) 

Comment: In our opinion, external mechanical testing at a one-year frequency is excessive 

and not warranted. The frequency which Kansas requires in their regulations is 

once every four years. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the annual mechanical integrity testing is excessive. 

EPA retains the requirement that owners or operators of Class VI wells must demonstrate 

injection well external mechanical integrity at least once annually under §146.89(c). EPA 

believes this is justifiable for the protection of USDWs from endangerment given the unique 

nature of CO2 GS relative to other injection operations, including the potential corrosive impact 

of CO2 in the presence of water and impurities on well materials, the potential geomechanical 

impacts to well integrity due to CO2 phase changes, the temperature and pressure effects 

7
associated with injecting supercritical CO2, and the buoyant nature of the injected CO2. Because 

of the unknown long-term effects of CO2 GS, EPA chose a more conservative initial approach in 

the early stages of deployment for GS. 

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS. The Agency plans to collect and review 

data every six years on GS projects, including MIT data, 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: 0121 Comment ID: 22084 Letter Lines: 103 to 108 

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

Comment: The proposed rule sets the post-injection site care period at a default period 

of 50 years. 

KCC staff agrees the UIC program Director should have the authority to shorten 

or lengthen the post-injection site care period if the owner/operator 

demonstrates a different time period is appropriate. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support; the final GS regulation 

retains this provision at §146.93(b)(2). Such a demonstration will be site-specific, and based on 

pressure monitoring and USDW impacts. 

Letter ID: 0121 Comment ID: 22085 Letter Lines: 110 to 115 

Comment Code: 5430 2.9.1 Comments on proposed financial responsibility requirements (40 

CFR 146.85) 

Comment: Proposed Financial Responsibility and Long-term Care Requirements 

The proposed rule states EPA will provide guidance, to be developed at a later 

date, which describes recommended types of owner/operator financial 

responsibility. On such an important concept, shouldn’t it be addressed in the 

proposed rule rather than clarified through guidance? 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the final rule now specifies at §146.85(a)(1) the types 

of financial responsibility instruments permitted for Class VI wells. EPA believes it is 

appropriate to allow a flexible approach for financial responsibility. Under the final GS rule 

owners or operators may choose from a variety of financial instruments to meet their obligations 

under financial responsibility provisions, provided the Director determines that the owner or 

operator's proposed financial responsibility demonstration is adequate to ensure protection of 

USDWs which includes paying for corrective action on wells in the AoR, injection well 

plugging, PISC and site closure, and emergency and remedial response. See the final rule and 

preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach to financial responsibility. 

8
Owners or operators have the flexibility to choose from a variety of financial instruments to meet 

their financial responsibility obligations. Owners or operators may use one or multiple financial 

responsibility instruments for well plugging and PISC (§146.85(a)(6)). However EPA will not 

allow for a separate financial responsibility demonstration for well plugging and PISC (i.e., a 

demonstration submitted prior to well plugging and the beginning of the post-injection site care 

period rather than with the permit application). A demonstration of financial responsibility for all 

phases of the GS project will be required prior to the issuance of a Class VI permit 

(§146.85(a)(5)(i)). 

EPA is developing guidance to help owners or operators, permitting authorities, and third parties 

choose and evaluate appropriate financial methods, and states may set more specific financial 

responsibility requirements if they so choose. The guidance will be available on EPA's website at 

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

Letter ID: 0121 Comment ID: 22086 Letter Lines: 117 to 124 

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

Comment: Conclusion 

It is our hope the EPA will fully fund the Class VI program if it desires states 

to administer the program. The 1425 program we administer is not fully funded 

and has seen cuts each year for the past three fiscal years. It has also become 

increasingly difficult for states to manage primacy programs that demand 

increasing budgets but undergo annual funding decreases. Thank you for this 

opportunity to share our concerns and questions. 

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 

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. 

9