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.
3555 N.W. 58th Street, Suite 400, Oklahoma City, OK 73112 

Telephone 405-942-2334 Fax 405-942-4636 Toll Free 1-800-838-6472 

OKLAHOMA INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION 

December 24, 2008 

Water Docket 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Mailcode: 2822T 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Re: Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control Program for Carbon 

Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

The Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA) is submitting comments on the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) proposed rule regulating the underground 

injection and geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) that was published in the 

Federal Register on July 25, 2008. 

The OIPA represents approximately 2,000 large and small independent crude oil and natural 

gas producers in Oklahoma. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input into the 

rulemaking process, and we submit the following comments and recommendations for your 

consideration. 

Carbon dioxide has been used by the oil and gas industry in enhanced oil recovery (EOR) 

projects in a safe and effective manner for over 35 years which has contributed to increased 

American oil production. EPA should ensure its proposed rule does not negatively impact or 

impede the use of CO2 in Class II EOR projects or the disposal of CO2 and other fluids that 

are generated in the production of oil and gas into Class II wells that are currently regulated. 

Under Part II, item G of the proposed rule, EPA states that if finalized, the proposed 

requirements “...would not specifically (emphasis added) apply to Class II injection wells...” 

We think EPA needs to clearly state that these activities are exempt from EPA’s proposed rule 

so that our industry can continue to effectively produce American oil resources. 

EPA has proposed to regulate CO2 as a waste and has proposed regulations that are as 

stringent as or more stringent than EPA’s requirements for Class I hazardous waste wells. We 

think treating CO2 as a waste is the wrong approach as it will unnecessarily open up 

unwarranted concerns, increased burdens and costs, and liability issues associated with the 

use of CO2 in EOR projects. In addition, it will prevent or discourage entities from 

proceeding with projects to store CO2 in underground formations or convert depleted Class II 

EOR wells to Class VI CO2 storage wells. We encourage EPA to not consider CO2 as a waste 

product. 

In Oklahoma, oil and gas reservoirs provide a great capacity to store CO2. The State’s oil and 

gas agency has a long history of effectively regulating Class II wells since the early 1980s. 

EPA should allow a process for states like Oklahoma to easily obtain primacy for Class VI 
 2

wells. In addition, states should have flexibility in determining which agency should regulate 

CO2 storage wells. For example, in Oklahoma, it would be more efficient and cost effective if 

the state oil and gas agency retained authority for all Class II EOR projects converted to Class 

VI CO2 storage projects and CO2 storage projects using depleted oil and gas reservoirs since 

this agency has the most knowledge and experience with those underground formations. 

Finally, we think EPA’s proposed grandfathering requirements are too restrictive and will 

prevent or discourage entities from converting Class II EOR wells to Class VI wells. EPA has 

proposed to only allow the construction requirements to be “grandfathered” based on the UIC 

program director’s discretion while all other requirements would apply. There is no reason to 

limit the grandfathering of requirements for existing CO2 EOR wells that have proven to pose 

no endangerment to underground sources of drinking water. We think EPA should expand 

the scope of grandfathering requirements for these types of wells and limit additional Class VI 

requirements. 

 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to provide input on EPA’s proposed CO2 rule. Thank 

you in advance for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Angie Burckhalter 

V.P., Regulatory Affairs 
Letter ID: 0239 

Commenter: Angie Burckhalter 

Organization: Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association 

Letter ID: 0239 Comment ID: 23213 Letter Lines: 39 to 49 

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: Carbon dioxide has been used by the oil and gas industry in enhanced oil 

recovery (EOR) projects in a safe and effective manner for over 35 years which 

has contributed to increased American oil production. EPA should ensure its 

proposed rule does not negatively impact or impede the use of CO2 in Class II 

EOR projects or the disposal of CO2 and other fluids that are generated in the 

production of oil and gas into Class II wells that are currently regulated. 

Under Part II, item G of the proposed rule, EPA states that if finalized, the 

proposed requirements "...would not specifically (emphasis added) apply to Class 

II injection wells..." We think EPA needs to clearly state that these activities 

are exempt from EPA’s proposed rule so that our industry can continue to 

effectively produce American oil resources. 

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. However, the Agency disagrees 

that wells injecting CO2 for the primary purpose of long term storage should be regulated under 

Class II requirements because Class II requirements are not adequate to address the unique risks 

associated with long term storage of CO2 while ensuring the protection of USDWs from 

endangerment. 

EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the 

purpose of ER, and that sites used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS 

sites. Furthermore, EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a certain 

percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving formation. However, the Agency believes that 

the nature and risks of CO2 injection for the primary purpose of long term storage poses different 

risks than injection for the primary purpose of ER, and therefore has developed new Class VI 

regulations to address these unique risks. For example, the volume of CO2 anticipated to be 

injected for long term storage is significantly greater than for EOR operations. Reservoir 

pressure conditions will also be different, with Class VI injection operations involving large 

volumes of CO2 and likely having higher pressures within their storage formations than Class II 

EOR projects, which may lead to fluid movement that endangers a USDW. 

Letter ID: 0239 Comment ID: 23214 Letter Lines: 51 to 59 

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

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

1
Comment: EPA has proposed to regulate CO2 as a waste and has proposed regulations that 

are as stringent as or more stringent than EPA’s requirements for Class I 

hazardous waste wells. We think treating CO2 as a waste is the wrong approach as 

it will unnecessarily open up unwarranted concerns, increased burdens and costs, 

and liability issues associated with the use of CO2 in EOR projects. In 

addition, it will prevent or discourage entities from proceeding with projects 

to store CO2 in underground formations or convert depleted Class II EOR wells to 

Class VI CO2 storage wells. We encourage EPA to not consider CO2 as a waste 

product. 

Individual Response: First, EPA notes that the GS rule is not promulgated under either the 

RCRA or CERCLA statutes, and the applicability of those statutes will not be determined under 

the SDWA or the terms of the GS rule, but rather according to those statutes themselves and any 

implementing regulations that may apply. Secondly, EPA disagrees that the Class VI 

requirements themselves, or EPA’s consideration of the Class I requirements, necessarily have 

any implications for whether a particular material is a RCRA “solid waste” or implicates 

CERCLA liability, as EPA understands the comment to suggest. EPA received many comments 

regarding the applicability of the RCRA regulations and statute to CO2 streams that are 

geologically sequestered under the final Class VI UIC well requirements. As a result, EPA has 

decided to initiate a separate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine the issue of RCRA 

applicability to CO2 streams being geologically sequestered, including the possible option of a 

conditional exemption from the RCRA requirements for CO2 GS in Class VI wells. EPA will 

consider these comments as part of its development of that proposal. The Agency will consider 

issues particular to RCRA in the context of that separate rulemaking, and recommends that the 

commenter read that proposed rule when it is published. The Agency notes that commenters who 

wish to submit comments on the RCRA proposal will need to do so during the comment period 

for that rule. 

EPA adds that encouraging the use of GS is outside the scope of the GS rule. Rather, the purpose 

of the GS regulation is to ensure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects 

USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0239 Comment ID: 23215 Letter Lines: 61 to 70 

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

Comment: In Oklahoma, oil and gas reservoirs provide a great capacity to store CO2. The 

State’s oil and gas agency has a long history of effectively regulating Class II 

wells since the early 1980s. EPA should allow a process for states like 

Oklahoma to easily obtain primacy for Class VI wells. In addition, states should 

have flexibility in determining which agency should regulate CO2 storage wells. 

For example, in Oklahoma, it would be more efficient and cost effective if the 

state oil and gas agency retained authority for all Class II EOR projects 

converted to Class VI CO2 storage projects and CO2 storage projects using 

depleted oil and gas reservoirs since this agency has the most knowledge and 

experience with those underground formations. 

2
Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the expertise of existing State, Tribal, and Territorial 

programs that implement the UIC requirements under Section 1422 of the SDWA (Class I, III, 

IV, and V wells) and state oil and gas agencies that have been regulating Class II UIC wells for 

decades under section 1425 of SDWA. These agencies already understand the technical and 

administrative issues involved in construction, operation, injection and permitting as well as, in 

the case of Class II operators issues related to CO2 injection, subsurface operations, and pipeline 

transport. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt this 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. 

Many of the tools, resources, expertise, and infrastructure currently exist within States to 

effectively and efficiently manage GS projects. Additionally, States can use multiple authorities 

beyond those afforded under the SDWA including surface access and land rights, unitization of 

fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights, site safety and emergency preparedness, and 

maximization of State oil and gas resource exploitation. 

In addition, EPA is developing guidances for states that describe the process of applying for and 

receiving primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 

1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues on developing GS regulations 

that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be 

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

EPA also clarifies that primacy is granted to a state, not to any agency within that state, and 

states are free to choose which agency will implement the Class VI program—for instance, an 

environmental quality protection agency (non-Class II) or the state's traditional oil and gas 

regulatory agency (Class II)—as long as the program meets the minimum federal requirements 

for Class VI wells as required under section 1422 of SDWA. Some states administer their 

program for all injection well classes through a single agency, whereas other States elect to 

divide the program between agencies. EPA believes that retaining this flexibility for States to 

identify the appropriate agency to oversee Class VI wells will address commenters’ concerns that 

States should be afforded the opportunity to determine which agency should oversee Class VI 

wells, and recognizes the existing expertise of both State oil and gas agencies and environmental 

agencies. 

Letter ID: 0239 Comment ID: 23216 Letter Lines: 72 to 80 

Comment Code: 2064 1.5.3.2 Grandfathering construction of Class II wells (seeking comment) 

Comment: Finally, we think EPA’s proposed grandfathering requirements are too restrictive 

and will prevent or discourage entities from converting Class II EOR wells to 

Class VI wells. EPA has proposed to only allow the construction requirements to 

be "grandfathered" based on the UIC program director’s discretion while all 

other requirements would apply. There is no reason to limit the grandfathering 

of requirements for existing CO2 EOR wells that have proven to pose no 

endangerment to underground sources of drinking water. We think EPA should 

3
4

expand the scope of grandfathering requirements for these types of wells and 

limit additional Class VI requirements. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that many Class II wells are designed and constructed to 

withstand exposure to CO2. The final GS rule provides for the construction of these wells to be 

grandfathered per §146.81(c), provided the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Director 

that the wells were engineered and constructed to meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and 

ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a). 

EPA disagrees that other requirements (e.g., MITs, siting, monitoring, operational, and AoR 

requirements) should also be grandfathered. Following re-permitting of the well as Class VI, 

many of the unique factors of GS sites (e.g., increased reservoir pressures associated with large 

volumes of stored CO2 and the corrosivity of CO2 in the presence of water) will result in an 

increased risk profile, warranting the specific requirements in the final GS rule. Therefore, 

following re-permitting as Class VI wells, these projects must be subject to the operational, MIT, 

monitoring, reporting, plugging, and post-injection site care and site closure requirements in the 

final GS rule. See the discussion of EPA's final regulatory approach in the preamble to the GS 

rule for additional detail on these requirements.