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.
 MR. CROOKSHANK: Steve Crookshank, C-r-o-o-k-s-h-a-n-k. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on EPA's Notice of 

Data Availability. I'm Steve Crookshank, Senior Economist for 

API National Trade Association of the US Oil and Natural Gas 

Industry. 

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 

all aspects of the oil and natural gas industry including 

exploration and production, refining, marketing and 

transportation, as well as the service companies that support our 

industry. As an industry, we have over 35 years of experience 

safely transporting and injecting CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. 

While constantly evolving, the technology, operating practices, 

and regulatory requirements that have been developed for enhanced 

oil recovery are extensive, mature and generally appropriate for 

carbon capture and storage or CCS. In the US 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. 

 Since I spoke at last year's public hearing, there 

have been several papers that demonstrated this excellent record 

of producing, transporting and injecting CO2. The first study by 

Duncan et al examines the safety risks associated with large 
scale CO2 sequestration by taking a systematic review of all 

accident and blowout data associated with CO2 pipeline, transport 

and injection. It finds that, "the CO2 EOR industry has an 

excellent safety record," and, "the rarity of corrosion related 

incidents reflects the industry's success in implementing anticorrosion measures." 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 The second study by Smith et al demonstrates the 

industry's protection of the environment, examines the 

groundwater in the SACROC CO2 EOR field, and finds that, "no 

widespread degradation of water quality exists inside the SACROC 

oilfield as a result of CO2 injection." A third study on the 

mechanical integrity of CO2 injection wells is in progress and 

should be completed by the filing deadline. 

 Regarding EPA's Notice of Data Availability, API 

is supportive of EPA's effort to introduce flexibility on the 

depth of injection relative to location of USDWs by proposing a 

waiver process. API holds that CO2 can be injected above a USDW 

while protecting the USDW and maintaining access to the USDW for 

future use. As noted in last year's testimony, the Salt Creek 

EOR project in Wyoming which has a USDW below the injection zone 

is an excellent example of how industry can operate CO2 injection 

wells in an EOR context without endangering or limiting access to 

USDWs that are located below the injection zone. 
 Accessing USDWs below a CCS site, while not 

trivial, does not present significant technological hurdles. 

Industry has the technology to drill through over-pressured gas 

reservoirs which are analogous to CCS sites. There are some 

excellent offshore technologies for drilling through salt 

formations and shallow gas pockets that involve the same type of 

pressure issues that would be encountered in drilling through a 

CCS site. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 API would encourage EPA to clarify the scope and 

applicability of the proposed waiver process. First, EPA's intent 

appears to be to issue waivers only in situations where a more 

saline reservoir is overlying a USDW. These conditions are 

relatively uncommon and would not address the problem faced in 

large portions of the western US where USDWs may extend from the 

surface to very great depths. To allow CCS in these regions, the 

waivers would necessarily have to authorize injection into USDWs 

above the lowermost USDW. 

 Second, for the waiver system to work effectively, 

the final decision-making authority for waiver should be with the 

agency holding primacy for the proposed Class VI UIC Program. 

EPA should integrate the waiver process into the normal permit 

approval process as much as possible. For example, combining the 

public hearing for the waiver along with the public hearing for 
1 the permit, if one is held. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 EPA has noted that, in the NODA, that the SECARB 

Project "employs, demonstrates and validates the EPA's proposed 

Class VI well construction operational and monitoring 

requirements." However, API notes that the well involved in this 

project is permitted as a Class V well and largely meets Class I 

design standards which were applied in an abundance of caution. 

API continues to urge EPA to reconsider its proposed well 

construction and operation requirements which, while protective, 

are much more prescriptive and rigorous than necessary for 

commercial scale implementation of CCS and do not reflect the 

industry's 35 years of success in injecting CO2 under the Class 

II UIC Program. 

 The Class II EOR wells constructed for these 

projects and their operating practices have an excellent record 

of mechanical integrity and of protecting USDWs. Some of the 

proposed requirements such as cementing the long string casing to 

surface are not only unnecessarily burdensome, but might also 

interfere with operations including introducing unintended risks. 

The results of the SECARB project do not imply that less 

burdensome regulations would not have worked equally well. 

 Lastly, API contends that states and tribes should 

play a key role in managing CCS projects going forward. 
Accordingly, states should be able to gain primacy as long as 

they show that their regulations are at least as stringent as the 

proposed minimum federal requirements. Additionally, states 

should be permitted to seek primacy for the Class VI program even 

in the absence of primacy for other well classes. The geologic 

variation across the country justifies partial primacy. Numerous 

states have decades of experience regulating CO2 injection to 

Class II programs, and those states in particular have much to 

offer in the context of Class VI wells. A critical component of 

the primacy delegation process is for EPA to ensure that states 

will be adequately funded to deal with the increased burdens 

associated with managing the Class VI program. Conversely, some 

states will not have formations with the necessary geologic 

characteristics to allow geologic sequestration and so may want 

to decline on obtaining primacy for this program. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 In conclusion, API is supportive of the waiver 

approach for dealing with injection above the lowermost USDW. 

API is still concerned, though, that by being overly prescriptive 

in designing the new well class that the proposed rule will 

hinder the deployment of CCS and could have the unanticipated 

consequence of hindering the innovations that could improve both 

well security and performance. CCS is one of the essential 

technologies that could help to ensure that we can continue to 
produce the clean energy society demands. API will be submitting 

more detailed written comments in response to the NODA. Thank 

you for your attention. 

1 

2 

3 

4 
Letter ID: 0541  

Commenter: Steve Crookshank  

Organization: API National Trade Association of the US Oil and Natural Gas Industry  

Letter ID: 0541 Comment ID: 28320 Letter Lines: 35 to 49  

Comment Code: 2400 2.4. Other Research Offered by Commenters (seeking comment)  

Comment: Since I spoke at last year's public hearing, there have been several papers that  

demonstrated this excellent record of producing, transporting and injecting CO2.  

The first study by Duncan et al examines the safety risks associated with large  

scale CO2 sequestration by taking a systematic review of all accident and  

blowout data associated with CO2 pipeline, transport and injection. It finds  

that, "the CO2 EOR industry has an excellent safety record," and, "the rarity of  

corrosion related incidents reflects the industry's success in implementing  

anti‐corrosion measures."  

The second study by Smith et al demonstrates the industry's protection of the  

environment, examines the groundwater in the SACROC CO2 EOR field, and finds  

that, "no widespread degradation of water quality exists inside the SACROC  

oilfield as a result of CO2 injection." A third study on the mechanical  

integrity of CO2 injection wells is in progress and should be completed by the  

filing deadline.  

Individual Response: EPA has reviewed the papers referenced by the commenter. EPA acknowledges

the submittals and will continue to review studies related to evaluation of actual field results and CO2

effects on ground water. EPA adds that is has been monitoring the progress at SACROC. EPA intends to

continue to collect data on GS and to incorporate such data and information as it implements its

adaptive approach to the GS rulemaking to incorporate new research, data, and information about GS.

For more information on the adaptive approach, see the responses to comments on the proposed rule

in the rulemaking docket.

EPA adds that CO2 transport is out of the scope of the GS rulemaking.  

Letter ID: 0541 Comment ID: 28321 Letter Lines: 51 to 65  

Comment Code: 3210 3.2.1. Comments Generally in Support of the Approach  
Comment: Regarding EPA's Notice of Data Availability, API is supportive of EPA's effort  

to introduce flexibility on the depth of injection relative to location of USDWs  

by proposing a waiver process. API holds that CO2 can be injected above a USDW  

while protecting the USDW and maintaining access to the USDW for future use. As  

noted in last year's testimony, the Salt Creek EOR project in Wyoming which has  

a USDW below the injection zone is an excellent example of how industry can  

operate CO2 injection wells in an EOR context without endangering or limiting  

access to USDWs that are located below the injection zone.  

Accessing USDWs below a CCS site, while not trivial, does not present  

significant technological hurdles. Industry has the technology to drill through  

over‐pressured gas reservoirs which are analogous to CCS sites. There are some  

excellent offshore technologies for drilling through salt formations and shallow  

gas pockets that involve the same type of pressure issues that would be  

encountered in drilling through a CCS site.  

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's support of the waiver approach and site‐

specific flexibility in regulatory development and permitting as described in the NODA and Request for

Comment. The Agency acknowledges that there are some situations where injection into non‐USDW

formations above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs. The final

GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owners and operators can seek a waiver of the Class

VI injection depth requirements. The Agency believes the waiver 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.  

EPA agrees with the commenter that technologies exist to address the challenges associated with GS

and injection that will be conducted under the waiver approach, e.g., to inject through over‐pressurized

reservoirs. However, EPA also believes that additional considerations are necessary when permitting

such wells to ensure protection of all USDWs and that the additional requirements that apply to owners

or operators of Class VI wells granted a waiver of the injection depth requirements at §146.95 will

provide this protection.  

Letter ID: 0541 Comment ID: 28322 Letter Lines: 67 to 73  
Comment Code: 3200 3.2. Comments on Alternative Injection Depth Waiver Approach  

Comment: API would encourage EPA to clarify the scope and applicability of the proposed  

waiver process. First, EPA's intent appears to be to issue waivers only in  

situations where a more saline reservoir is overlying a USDW. These conditions  

are relatively uncommon and would not address the problem faced in large  

portions of the western US where USDWs may extend from the surface to very great  

depths. To allow CCS in these regions, the waivers would necessarily have to  

authorize injection into USDWs above the lowermost USDW.  

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that injection depth waivers are necessary whenever owners or

operators seek to inject CO2 for GS into non‐USDWs that are above the lowermost formation containing

a USDW or in between formations containing USDWs. Commenters on the proposed GS rule indicated

that there are many circumstances, particularly in the western U.S., where there are deep USDWs and

that the proposed injection depth requirements could preclude GS in certain regions of the country.

These commenters also indicated that injection depth flexibility for GS is important to ensure that no

parts of the country are excluded from GS activities and that CCS deployment is not restricted. The

waiver process will allow injection into formations above the lowermost USDW if it can be

demonstrated that the site is equally as protective of USDWs as injecting beneath the lowermost USDW.  

Regarding decisions on granting of injection depth waivers, EPA clarifies that the final determination

regarding waiver issuance will be made by the Director, following evaluation of all site‐specific

information, public notice, and receipt of written concurrence or non‐concurrence from the Regional

Administrator. However, prior to a final decision, the Director must provide the Regional Administrator

with the information collected during the waiver application and the public notice processes. Based on

this information and pursuant to requirements at §146.95(d), the Regional Administrator will provide

written concurrence or non‐concurrence regarding waiver issuance. EPA believes Agency input is

necessary in making injection depth waiver decisions and agrees with commenters who expressed

interest in ensuring that multi‐state boundary and water resource issues are addressed. The Agency also

believes that Agency involvement in the waiver decision process will contribute to national consistency

in waiver issuance.  

Letter ID: 0541 Comment ID: 28323 Letter Lines: 75 to 77  

Comment Code: 3390 3.3.9. Comments Regarding State Discretion to Adopt the Waiver Approach  

Comment: Second, for the waiver system to work effectively, the final decision‐making  

authority for waiver should be with the agency holding primacy for the proposed  

Class VI UIC Program. EPA should integrate the waiver process into the normal  
Individual Response: EPA clarifies that adoption of the waiver process remains at the discretion of

individual UIC programs. Therefore, States, Territories, and Tribes seeking primacy for Class VI wells are

not required to provide for injection depth waivers in their UIC regulations and may choose not to make

this process available to Class VI wells under their jurisdiction. Although some commenters asked EPA to

require that waivers be applied nationally, the Agency believes that the decision about whether a waiver

program is appropriate in a specific State, Tribe, or Territory should be made by each program. This

approach allows flexibility for individual program Directors to determine the appropriateness of allowing

for waivers based on regional or state‐specific conditions, such as the predominant geologic settings

anticipated to be used for GS or other land uses in the state while ensuring maximum protection of

USDWs. The final approach for injection depth waivers represents minimum Federal requirements. UIC

program Directors may adopt GS requirements that do not allow injection above or between USDWs if

they determine this to be appropriate (for conditions in their State, territory, Tribe, or Region) and

protective.

EPA clarifies that, pursuant to §146.95(d), the Regional Administrator will make the final determination

whether to issue an injection depth waiver. However, prior to a final decision, the Director must provide

the Regional Administrator with the information collected during the waiver application and the public

notice processes. Based on this information and pursuant to requirements at §146.95(d), the Regional

Administrator will provide written concurrence or non‐concurrence regarding waiver issuance. The

Agency clarifies that these requirements are within the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act.  

Letter ID: 0541 Comment ID: 28324 Letter Lines: 77 to 80  

Comment Code: 3360 3.3.6. Requirement to Apply for Waiver Separately from UIC Permit Application

(seeking comment)  

Comment: Class VI UIC Program. EPA should integrate the waiver process into the normal  

permit approval process as much as possible. For example, combining the public  

hearing for the waiver along with the public hearing for the permit, if one is  

held.  

Individual Response: EPA agrees that it is appropriate to consider and evaluate the waiver application in

concert with the UIC permit application, and not under a separate process. For this reason, the final

requirements at §146.95 create an application and review process for GS injection depth waivers that is

integrated with the UIC permit application process while ensuring that the proposed project is

considered in the context of the presence of USDWs above and below the injection zone and potential

impacts on water systems.

For example, rather than submit a separate waiver application, owners or operators seeking waivers

must provide a supplemental report (the GS Class VI injection depth waiver application report)
referenced at §146.82(d) and outlined at §146.95(a) with additional, site‐specific information relevant to

operation under an injection depth waiver. This report, suggested by commenters, is designed to ensure

that all waiver information is discrete (from the permit application) and can be made available to the

Director, PWSS Directors, and the public when the waiver is publicly noticed. The UIC permit application

and waiver application would be reviewed together. If the permitting authority receives comments on

the injection depth waiver during the public comment period for both the waiver and the permit

application, the Director in consultation with the Regional Administrator, must evaluate comments prior

to providing a recommendation to the Regional Administrator regarding a waiver and issuing the Class

VI permit. The Agency believes that this report and requirements at §146.95 are complementary and not

redundant of the Class VI permit application requirements. Furthermore, to eliminate concerns about

duplication or redundancy, the requirements at §146.82(d) clarify that the supplemental report is not

part of the permit application.

In addition, the public notification process for the waiver must occur concurrently with the UIC permit

notification to ensure that all necessary information is disclosed to the public for notice and comment

and that the public understands that the site, if permitted, would be operating under a waiver from the

injection depth requirements as specified in §146.95(c). EPA believes these requirements balance USDW

protection and disclosure of PWSS information with the GS permit application process requirements.  

Letter ID: 0541 Comment ID: 28325 Letter Lines: 82 to 98  

Comment Code: 2110 2.1.1. SECARB (Escatawpa, MS)  

Comment: EPA has noted that, in the NODA, that the SECARB Project "employs, demonstrates  

and validates the EPA's proposed Class VI well construction operational and  

monitoring requirements." However, API notes that the well involved in this  

project is permitted as a Class V well and largely meets Class I design  

standards which were applied in an abundance of caution. API continues to urge  

EPA to reconsider its proposed well construction and operation requirements  

which, while protective, are much more prescriptive and rigorous than necessary  

for commercial scale implementation of CCS and do not reflect the industry's 35  

years of success in injecting CO2 under the Class II UIC Program.  

The Class II EOR wells constructed for these projects and their operating  

practices have an excellent record of mechanical integrity and of protecting  

USDWs. Some of the proposed requirements such as cementing the long string  

casing to surface are not only unnecessarily burdensome, but might also  

interfere with operations including introducing unintended risks. The results of  

the SECARB project do not imply that less burdensome regulations would not have  

worked equally well.  
Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that a single project does not prove that a given design is

effective in all cases or is the only design that would be effective, and disagrees that the proposed rule

requirements are more prescriptive than necessary. The results of the SECARB project, however, do

show that the proposed requirements are effective in the studied case and can provide for safe injection

of carbon dioxide that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA encourages the use of the most

protective technologies available, and encourages owners or operators of GS wells to adopt more

stringent approaches to ensure USDW protection.  

EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has experience injecting CO2 and that many of the wells

used for ER may be suitable for GS; however, GS is sufficiently different from Class II ER operations to

warrant the tailored construction requirements for GS wells at §146.86. 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. The Class VI

regulations also address the unique physical characteristics of CO2 including its buoyancy and potential

corrosivity. Refer to the response to comments document on the proposed rule for additional

information on EPA’s final approach to construction of GS wells.

For more information on the construction requirements for GS wells, see the responses to comments on

the proposed rule in the rulemaking docket.  

Letter ID: 0541 Comment ID: 28326 Letter Lines: 100 to 114  

Comment Code: 5700 5.14. Comments on Other Aspects of the Proposed Rule  

Comment: Lastly, API contends that states and tribes should play a key role in managing  

CCS projects going forward.  

Accordingly, states should be able to gain primacy as long as they show that  

their regulations are at least as stringent as the proposed minimum federal  

requirements. Additionally, states should be permitted to seek primacy for the  

Class VI program even in the absence of primacy for other well classes. The  

geologic variation across the country justifies partial primacy. Numerous states  

have decades of experience regulating CO2 injection to Class II programs, and  

those states in particular have much to offer in the context of Class VI wells.  

A critical component of the primacy delegation process is for EPA to ensure that  

states will be adequately funded to deal with the increased burdens associated  

with managing the Class VI program. Conversely, some states will not have  

formations with the necessary geologic characteristics to allow geologic  
sequestration and so may want to decline on obtaining primacy for this program.  

Individual Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that states should be allowed to obtain primacy

for Class VI wells independently of other well classes. 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. For additional information on

primacy, please see the preamble to the final rule and responses to comments on the proposed GS rule.  

Letter ID: 0541 Comment ID: 28327 Letter Lines: 116 to 117  

Comment Code: 3210 3.2.1. Comments Generally in Support of the Approach  

Comment: In conclusion, API is supportive of the waiver approach for dealing with  

injection above the lowermost USDW. API is still concerned, though, that by  

Individual Response: As described above, EPA acknowledges the commenter's support of the waiver

approach and site‐specific flexibility in regulatory development and permitting as described in the NODA

and Request for Comment. The Agency acknowledges that there are some situations where injection

into non‐USDW formations above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects

USDWs.  

Letter ID: 0541 Comment ID: 28328 Letter Lines: 117 to 122  

Comment Code: 5000 5. Comments on the Proposed Rule (out of NODA Scope)  

Comment: injection above the lowermost USDW. API is still concerned, though, that by  

being overly prescriptive in designing the new well class that the proposed rule  

will hinder the deployment of CCS and could have the unanticipated consequence  

of hindering the innovations that could improve both well security and  

performance. CCS is one of the essential technologies that could help to ensure  

that we can continue to produce the clean energy society demands. API will be  

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.