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.
Clean Air Task Force – Environmental Defense Fund – Natural Resources Defense Council 

Lisa P. Jackson 

Administrator 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. 

Washington, DC 20460 

June 26, 2009

By electronic and First Class mail 

Proposed Rule on Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide 

Dear Administrator Jackson, 

We are writing in relation to EPA’s ongoing efforts to regulate the geologic sequestration 

of carbon dioxide (GS). We believe that a truly sustainable energy system will utilize 

opportunities to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy first and foremost. 

However, the vast majority of our energy in the U.S. and worldwide is still produced 

from fossil fuels, and this is likely to continue for some time. Faced with a rapidly 

changing climate, we believe that carbon capture and geologic sequestration (CCGS) can 

and should play an important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the near term. 

We firmly believe that the two main barriers to implementing CCGS are economic and 

regulatory – not technological.1

 Ongoing efforts in Congress to pass Federal cap-andtrade legislation with targeted incentives for early adopters of the technology will, if 

adopted, address the economic barrier. EPA already has a key role to play in providing a 

regulatory framework for geologic sequestration that will continue after climate 

legislation is enacted. 

EPA is currently undertaking a rulemaking2

 to enable the permitting of a new class of 

carbon dioxide (CO2) injection wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act’s (SDWA) 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. We believe that the proposed rule 

constitutes a significant step forward for the geologic sequestration side of CCGS, and we 

thank EPA for its efforts. Our groups have now submitted several sets of individual and 

joint comments containing technical recommendations to improve the rule and ensure 

that geologic sequestration is performed safely and effectively. However, the UIC 

rulemaking leaves significant gaps that the Agency must address in an expeditious 

manner. 

 

1 See, e.g,. Congressional testimonies by Scott Anderson and David Hawkins, available at: 

http://energycommerce.house.gov/images/stories/Documents/Hearings/PDF/Testimony/EHM/110-ehmhrg.072408.Anderson-testimony.pdf and 

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090423/testimony_hawkins.pdf; and Armond Cohen, et.al

(on behalf of the Clean Air Task Force), "NowGen: Getting Real about Coal Carbon Capture and 

Sequestration", 22 The Electricity Journal, 25-42 ( May 2009)(describing current ready availability of 

GCS technologies). 

2

 73 Fed. Reg. 43492 (July 25, 2008). 

1 
First, the Safe Drinking Water Act does not address airside leakage concerns, as the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) does. The proposed UIC rule defines and regulates geologic 

sequestration solely for the purposes of protecting underground sources of drinking water 

(USDWs). This is largely due to the previous Administration’s policy of not engaging in 

issues that relate to atmospheric CO2 emissions. However, basing a geologic 

sequestration rule solely on SDWA authority is incomplete. The primary, if not the only, 

objective of CCGS is to reduce emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere, and the need for an 

appropriate regulatory framework to ensure secure sequestration is evident. If CCGS is to 

gain further acceptability, regulatory measures aimed at preventing atmospheric 

emissions are also needed in addition to safeguards for USDWs, even though a rigorous 

approach to the latter should serve to reduce the risk of CO2 leakage to the atmosphere. 

Moreover, both the climate legislation now being debated in Congress and EPA’s own 

initiatives on regulating CO2 emissions from large, stationary sources are certain to call 

for or rely on regulations related to atmospheric emissions. EPA has authority under the 

CAA3 to develop such a framework. If EPA acts expeditiously, it may well be able to 

implement both its CAA and SDWA authority without missing its stated goal to have an 

underground injection rule finalized by 2010-2011. Legal challenges resulting from a 

failure to implement both statutes might cause delays in the permitting of CCS projects, 

which would be a highly undesirable outcome at a time when CO2 reductions are badly 

needed. 

Second, EPA has so far failed to address another urgent need: regulating geologic 

sequestration in hydrocarbon (oil & gas) reservoirs. Instead, the proposed UIC rule 

concentrates on saline formations and addresses hydrocarbon reservoirs only in the event 

that production has entirely ceased. An oilfield, however, can continue producing small 

volumes in perpetuity, making cessation of production a meaningless concept as a 

threshold to entry into the regulatory scheme for CCGS. We consider this to be a serious 

shortcoming of the rule as currently proposed. Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is a 

practice that has been taking place for several decades in the U.S., and is likely to play a 

pivotal part in the early years of geologic sequestration deployment. Reservoirs where 

EOR is occurring, or can occur, are generally better characterized than their saline 

counterparts, often have some of the needed infrastructure in place, and offer an 

additional economic incentive for the operation as a result of oil production revenues. 

Many regions in the U.S. possess significant EOR potential that remains untapped due 

the scarcity of acceptably priced CO2. Under climate legislation, or a CAA regulatory 

regime, this situation will change as large point sources capture their emissions. We 

therefore expect EOR to be utilized early during geologic sequestration deployment, for 

economic and practical reasons. Accordingly, EPA should prioritize development of 

 

3

The Supreme Court has held that CO2 is an “air pollutant” within EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction. 

Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). EPA is currently in the process of considering comments on 

a proposed rulemaking related to CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and reporting (74 

Fed. Reg. 16,448 (April 10, 2009), comment period closed June 9, 2009), as well as a proposed 

endangerment finding prerequisite to setting certain regulatory standards (74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (April 24, 

2009), comment period closed June 23, 2009). 

2 
airside regulations, including monitoring and verification protocols for situations where 

operators desire to simultaneously pursue EOR and geologic sequestration. Airside 

regulations should also be developed for sequestration taking place in oilfields where 

only minor amounts of oil production occur and the operation can no longer be 

considered EOR. 

As EPA correctly recognizes in the preamble to the proposed Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule, EOR business as usual and geologic sequestration are not the same. The former 

injects CO2 for the purposes of maximizing oil production, whereas the latter seeks to 

sequester the CO2 permanently in the subsurface. While EOR operations are quite likely 

to result in sequestration, operators now have no regulatory means to verify, measure, and 

certify its permanence. This shortcoming increasingly is being brought to our attention by 

EOR operators who have no recognized way of assuring owners of large CO2 point 

sources that injection operations result in permanent sequestration. These power plant or 

industrial facility owners already have two reasons to seek a certification of EOR as 

geologic sequestration: the carbon dioxide sequestration tax credit under Section 45Q of 

the tax code and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Federal Loan Guarantee Program. 

Neither Treasury nor DOE currently has any environmental regulatory basis on which to 

rest a judgment about the degree of CO2 sequestration provided by EOR operations. 

A third reason to develop standards is likely to be added to the list soon if Congress 

passes climate legislation. EPA’s current position that, as long as any amount of oil is 

produced, all oilfield sequestration operations can only be regulated under UIC Class II 

requirements, is damaging not only to the entities seeking to sequester the CO2 but to the 

Administration’s stated objectives on climate change.4

We therefore urge EPA to: 

• Address the question of atmospheric emissions of CO2 as well as protection of 

underground sources of drinking water related to underground CO2 injection5

without delaying promulgation of the pending rule; and 

• Create a regulatory framework for geologic sequestration, governing not only 

geologic sequestration in saline reservoirs, but also in oil & gas reservoirs. This 

framework should allow for hydrocarbon production as well as certification of 

secure sequestration. It should recognize the difference between sequestration that 

occurs in conjunction with traditional EOR operations and sequestration that may 

take place in hydrocarbon reservoirs in circumstances where production will tend 

to be low and storage pressures will tend to be high. Operators who do not wish to 

perform geologic sequestration can and should continue to be regulated under 

UIC Class II. 

 

4

 We do not seek to change the rules for business-as-usual EOR operations where there is no objective to 

sequester CO2. 5

 EPA should add a clear statement of Clean Air Act authority when it finalizes the UIC rule, as we have 

noted in earlier comments on the UIC rule. 

3 
4 

• EPA should expeditiously develop airside accounting, monitoring and reporting 

provisions for injected CO2 under the proposed Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and 

Reporting Rule.6

We urge EPA to consider carefully the points above before proceeding with a Notice of 

Data Availability on the proposed UIC rule, and we stress again that it is not our desire to 

delay EPA’s stated 2010-2011 objective for promulgation of final rules. Indeed, we are 

optimistic that the Agency can incorporate the above suggestions within that timeframe. 

We thank you for your ongoing efforts as Administrator to protect our environment. 

Sincerely, 

Scott Anderson, Environmental Defense Fund 

44 East Ave, Suite 304, Austin, TX 78701, 512-691-3410, sanderson@edf.org 

Ann Brewster Weeks, Clean Air Task Force 

18 Tremont St, Suite 530, Boston, MA 02108, 617-624-0234, aweeks@catf.us 

George Peridas, Natural Resources Defense Council 

111 Sutter St, 20th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, 415-875-6181, gperidas@nrdc.org 

Cc (EPA): Lisa Heinzerling, Gina McCarthy, Brian McLean, Michael Shapiro, Cynthia 

Dougherty, Stephen Heare, Bruce Kobelski, Lee Whitehurst, Dina Kruger, Anhar 

Karimjee, Barbora Jemelkova. 

Cc (Treasury): Jennifer Bernardini, Jaime Park. 

 

6

 74 Fed. Reg, 16,448 (April 10, 2009). Please see also the joint comments of our organizations, and 

others, dated June 8, 2009, available here: 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064809cf9e9 
Letter ID: 0295 

Commenter: Scott Anderson 

Organization: Environmental Defense Fund 

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26136 Letter Lines: 48 to 56 

Comment Code: 1320 1.1.3 General comments about GS 

Comment: We are writing in relation to EPA’s ongoing efforts to regulate the geologic 

sequestration of carbon dioxide (GS). We believe that a truly sustainable energy 

system will utilize opportunities to increase energy efficiency and renewable 

energy first and foremost. However, the vast majority of our energy in the U.S. 

and worldwide is still produced from fossil fuels, and this is likely to 

continue for some time. Faced with a rapidly changing climate, we believe that 

carbon capture and geologic sequestration (CCGS) can and should play an 

important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the near term. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. EPA clarifies that the purpose of the 

UIC GS regulation is to ensure that GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from 

endangerment. EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including energy 

conservation, efficiency improvements, and the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy 

sources, that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. However, the use of and investment in 

these technologies is outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. The Class VI GS 

requirements are designed to ensure that, where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, sited, 

constructed, operated, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

Please see the remainder of EPA’s responses to this comment for further details. For additional 

information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as 

the rulemaking docket. 

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26137 Letter Lines: 57 to 73 

Comment Code: 1540 1.2.3.2 Climate change legislation 

Comment: We firmly believe that the two main barriers to implementing CCGS are economic 

and regulatory – not technological.[FN 1] Ongoing efforts in Congress to pass 

Federal cap-and- trade legislation with targeted incentives for early adopters 

of the technology will, if adopted, address the economic barrier. EPA already 

has a key role to play in providing a regulatory framework for geologic 

sequestration that will continue after climate legislation is enacted. 

FN 1. See, e.g,. Congressional testimonies by Scott Anderson and David Hawkins, 

available at: 

http://energycommerce.house.gov/images/stories/Documents/Hearings/PDF/Testimony/ 

1
EHM/110-ehm- hrg.072408.Anderson-testimony.pdf and 

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090423/testimony_hawkins.pdf; and 

Armond Cohen, et.al (on behalf of the Clean Air Task Force), "NowGen: Getting 

Real about Coal Carbon Capture and Sequestration", 22 The Electricity Journal, 

25-42 ( May 2009)(describing current ready availability of GCS technologies). 

Individual Response: "Cap and trade" legislation is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. The 

UIC requirements are designed to ensure that, where GS is employed, it is done in a manner that 

protects USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26138 Letter Lines: 75 to 86 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: EPA is currently undertaking a rulemaking [FN 2] to enable the permitting of a 

new class of carbon dioxide (CO2) injection wells under the Safe Drinking Water 

Act’s (SDWA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. We believe that the 

proposed rule constitutes a significant step forward for the geologic 

sequestration side of CCGS, and we thank EPA for its efforts. Our groups have 

now submitted several sets of individual and joint comments containing technical 

recommendations to improve the rule and ensure that geologic sequestration is 

performed safely and effectively. However, the UIC rulemaking leaves significant 

gaps that the Agency must address in an expeditious manner. 

FN 2. 73 Fed. Reg. 43492 (July 25, 2008). 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the 

existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation 

technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC 

Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection 

of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the 

unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative 

buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in 

captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. 

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26139 Letter Lines: 88 to 120 

Comment Code: 1430 1.2.1.2 Support EPA's authority to regulate CO2 injection 

Comment: First, the Safe Drinking Water Act does not address airside leakage concerns, as 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) does. The proposed UIC rule defines and regulates 

geologic sequestration solely for the purposes of protecting underground sources 

2
of drinking water (USDWs). This is largely due to the previous Administration’s 

policy of not engaging in issues that relate to atmospheric CO2 emissions. 

However, basing a geologic sequestration rule solely on SDWA authority is 

incomplete. The primary, if not the only, objective of CCGS is to reduce 

emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere, and the need for an appropriate regulatory 

framework to ensure secure sequestration is evident. If CCGS is to gain further 

acceptability, regulatory measures aimed at preventing atmospheric emissions are 

also needed in addition to safeguards for USDWs, even though a rigorous approach 

to the latter should serve to reduce the risk of CO2 leakage to the atmosphere. 

Moreover, both the climate legislation now being debated in Congress and EPA’s 

own initiatives on regulating CO2 emissions from large, stationary sources are 

certain to call for or rely on regulations related to atmospheric emissions. EPA 

has authority under the CAA [FN 3] to develop such a framework. If EPA acts 

expeditiously, it may well be able to implement both its CAA and SDWA authority 

without missing its stated goal to have an underground injection rule finalized 

by 2010-2011. Legal challenges resulting from a failure to implement both 

statutes might cause delays in the permitting of CCS projects, which would be a 

highly undesirable outcome at a time when CO2 reductions are badly needed. 

FN 3. The Supreme Court has held that CO2 is an “air pollutant” within EPA’s 

regulatory jurisdiction. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). EPA is 

currently in the process of considering comments on a proposed rulemaking 

related to CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and reporting (74 

Fed. Reg. 16,448 (April 10, 2009), comment period closed June 9, 2009), as well 

as a proposed endangerment finding prerequisite to setting certain regulatory 

standards (74 Fed. Reg. 18,886 (April 24, 2009), comment period closed June 23, 

2009). 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and 

the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In 

developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices 

and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological 

Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the 

Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate 

areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited 

to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research 

and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate 

on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or 

operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This 

Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to 

the final GS rule. Please note all comments related to EPA’s authority outside the SDWA are 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

3
Regarding the need for a CCS agency to coordinate across agencies, EPA is coordinating with 

and will continue to facilitate communication among federal and state agencies during the 

implementation phase of the GS regulation. 

In response to the comment suggesting that EPA harmonize with international rules and best 

practices, EPA clarifies that it is monitoring the progress of international research and legislative 

developments; a paper summarizing EPA's research on international GS projects and legislation 

is in the rulemaking docket. The Agency's authority as it relates to GS is limited to protection of 

USDWs within the United States. 

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after 

finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on 

GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and 

appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the 

requirements are appropriate or necessary. 

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26140 Letter Lines: 122 to 146 

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: 2140 1.6.2 Depleted oil and gas reservoirs 

Comment: Second, EPA has so far failed to address another urgent need: regulating 

geologic sequestration in hydrocarbon (oil & gas) reservoirs. Instead, the 

proposed UIC rule concentrates on saline formations and addresses hydrocarbon 

reservoirs only in the event that production has entirely ceased. An oilfield, 

however, can continue producing small volumes in perpetuity, making cessation of 

production a meaningless concept as a threshold to entry into the regulatory 

scheme for CCGS. We consider this to be a serious shortcoming of the rule as 

currently proposed. Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is a practice that has been 

taking place for several decades in the U.S., and is likely to play a pivotal 

part in the early years of geologic sequestration deployment. Reservoirs where 

EOR is occurring, or can occur, are generally better characterized than their 

saline counterparts, often have some of the needed infrastructure in place, and 

offer an additional economic incentive for the operation as a result of oil 

production revenues. Many regions in the U.S. possess significant EOR potential 

that remains untapped due the scarcity of acceptably priced CO2. Under climate 

legislation, or a CAA regulatory regime, this situation will change as large 

point sources capture their emissions. We therefore expect EOR to be utilized 

early during geologic sequestration deployment, for economic and practical 

reasons. Accordingly, EPA should prioritize development of airside regulations, 

including monitoring and verification protocols for situations where operators 

desire to simultaneously pursue EOR and geologic sequestration. Airside 

regulations should also be developed for sequestration taking place in oilfields 

where only minor amounts of oil production occur and the operation can no longer 

4
be considered EOR. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and 

the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In 

developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices 

and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological 

Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the 

Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate 

areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited 

to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research 

and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate 

on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or 

operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This 

Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to 

the final GS rule. 

EPA notes that comments related to the development of “air side” regulations for EOR are 

outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. However, in a separate rulemaking under authority of 

the Clean Air Act, EPA is amending the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program at 40 CFR 

Part 98 to add reporting requirements for facilities that conduct GS (subpart RR) and all other 

facilities that inject CO2 underground (subpart UU). 

In response to comments on depleted oil and gas reservoirs, EPA believes that injection of CO2 

for the primary purpose of enhancing oil and gas recovery should remain under the Class II 

Program, and 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. EPA therefore has 

developed new Class VI regulations to address these unique risks. For more information, please 

see the discussion on transition of Class II wells in the preamble to the final GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26141 Letter Lines: 148 to 174 

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: As EPA correctly recognizes in the preamble to the proposed Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule, EOR business as usual and geologic sequestration are not the 

same. The former injects CO2 for the purposes of maximizing oil production, 

whereas the latter seeks to sequester the CO2 permanently in the subsurface. 

While EOR operations are quite likely to result in sequestration, operators now 

have no regulatory means to verify, measure, and certify its permanence. This 

shortcoming increasingly is being brought to our attention by EOR operators who 

have no recognized way of assuring owners of large CO2 point sources that 

injection operations result in permanent sequestration. These power plant or 

industrial facility owners already have two reasons to seek a certification of 

5
EOR as geologic sequestration: the carbon dioxide sequestration tax credit under 

Section 45Q of the tax code and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Federal Loan 

Guarantee Program. Neither Treasury nor DOE currently has any environmental 

regulatory basis on which to rest a judgment about the degree of CO2 

sequestration provided by EOR operations. 

A third reason to develop standards is likely to be added to the list soon if 

Congress passes climate legislation. EPA’s current position that, as long as any 

amount of oil is produced, all oilfield sequestration operations can only be 

regulated under UIC Class II requirements, is damaging not only to the entities 

seeking to sequester the CO2 but to the Administration’s stated objectives on 

climate change. [FN 4] 

FN 4. We do not seek to change the rules for business-as-usual EOR operations 

where there is no objective to sequester CO2. 

Individual Response: As described above, EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS rule is designed to 

ensure the protection of USDWs from endangerment. Carbon crediting and green house gas 

accounting are outside the scope of the GS rulemaking and outside of EPA’s authority under the 

SDWA. 

The final Class VI regulations require that any owner or operator injecting CO2 for the primary 

purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI permit with some special consideration for the 

fact that they are transitioning from a well not originally designed to meet Class VI requirements. 

The Director has the authority to determine at what point a Class VI permit is required for those 

projects that are transitioning from the primary purpose of EOR to long term storage of CO2. 

The final regulation provides a set of technical factors for the Director to evaluate in making this 

determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that this approach provides sufficient protection of 

USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditional Class II operations 

while allowing for site-specific flexibility. For more information, please see the discussion on 

transition of Class II wells in the preamble to the final GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26142 Letter Lines: 176 to 184 

Comment Code: 1520 1.2.3 Other authorities (e.g., CAA, MPRSA, London Convention) 

Comment: We therefore urge EPA to: 

• Address the question of atmospheric emissions of CO2 as well as protection of 

underground sources of drinking water related to underground CO2 injection [FN 

5] without delaying promulgation of the pending rule; and 

FN 5. EPA should add a clear statement of Clean Air Act authority when it 

finalizes the UIC rule, as we have noted in earlier comments on the UIC rule. 

6
Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of 

CCS, but clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all 

requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from 

endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop 

regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. 

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory 

clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, 

the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies 

(e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau 

of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other 

Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of 

GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize 

redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, 

please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal 

Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule. 

In a separate rulemaking under authority of the Clean Air Act, EPA is amending the Greenhouse 

Gas (GHG) Reporting Program at 40 CFR Part 98 to add reporting requirements for facilities 

that conduct GS (subpart RR) and all other facilities that inject CO2 underground (subpart UU). 

For additional information, see the section of the final GS rule preamble entitled, "How Does 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Relate to This Rulemaking?” and the GHG 

Reporting Program rulemaking and docket. 

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26143 Letter Lines: 185 to 194 

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: • Create a regulatory framework for geologic sequestration, governing not only 

geologic sequestration in saline reservoirs, but also in oil & gas reservoirs. 

This framework should allow for hydrocarbon production as well as certification 

of secure sequestration. It should recognize the difference between 

sequestration that occurs in conjunction with traditional EOR operations and 

sequestration that may take place in hydrocarbon reservoirs in circumstances 

where production will tend to be low and storage pressures will tend to be high. 

Operators who do not wish to perform geologic sequestration can and should 

continue to be regulated under UIC Class II. 

Individual Response: As described above, EPA agrees that injection of CO2 for the primary 

7
purpose of enhancing oil and gas recovery should remain under the Class II Program, and 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. EPA therefore has developed new Class VI 

regulations to address these unique risks. For more information, please see the discussion on 

transition of Class II wells in the preamble to the final GS rule. 

The final Class VI regulations require that any owner or operator injecting CO2 for the primary 

purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI permit with some special consideration for the 

fact that they are transitioning from a well not originally designed to meet Class VI requirements. 

The Director has the authority to determine at what point a Class VI permit is required for those 

projects that are transitioning from the primary purpose of EOR to long term storage of CO2. 

The final regulation provides a set of technical factors for the Director to evaluate in making this 

determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that this approach provides sufficient protection of 

USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditional Class II operations 

while allowing for site-specific flexibility. 

Letter ID: 0295 Comment ID: 26144 Letter Lines: 195 to 202 

Comment Code: 1520 1.2.3 Other authorities (e.g., CAA, MPRSA, London Convention) 

Comment: • EPA should expeditiously develop airside accounting, monitoring and reporting 

provisions for injected CO2 under the proposed Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and 

Reporting Rule. [FN 6] 

FN 6. 74 Fed. Reg, 16,448 (April 10, 2009). Please see also the joint comments 

of our organizations, and others, dated June 8, 2009, available here: 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o= 

09000064809cf9e9 

Individual Response: Comments related to the need to develop regulations under the Clean Air 

Act are outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, in a separate rulemaking under authority 

of the Clean Air Act, EPA is amending the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program at 40 

CFR Part 98 to add reporting requirements for facilities that conduct GS (subpart RR) and all 

other facilities that inject CO2 underground (subpart UU). For additional information, see the 

section of the final GS rule preamble entitled, "How Does Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases (GHGs) Relate to This Rulemaking?” and the GHG Reporting Program rulemaking and 

docket. EPA clarifies that accounting for injected carbon dioxide is outside the scope of the GS 

rulemaking. 

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory 

clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, 

the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies 

(e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau 

of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other 

Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource 

8
9

Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of 

GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize 

redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, 

please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal 

Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.