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.December 2 3 , 2008

Water Docket Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode: 2822T 1200 Pennsy lvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

Re: Association of State Drinking W ater Administrators Comments on the Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injecti on Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells; Proposed Rule ( Docket ID No. EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2008

- 0390

)

To Whom it May Concern:

On behalf of the state drinking water programs for the 50 states, the territories, the Distric t of Columbia, and the Navajo Nation, the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) would like to thank the Agency for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Carbon Sequestration Rule as published in the Federal Register on July 25, 20 08 (40 CFR Parts 144 and 146). Our overall comments, as well as more specific points are provided below.

Overall Comment s

ASDWA and its members appreciate EPA’s efforts to develop this rule under very limited time constraints and agree with EPA’s plan t o create a new class of well s for carbon dioxide geologic sequestration sites. States believe that all appropriate steps need to be taken to ensure the effectiveness of Carbon Capture and Sequestration as a tool to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, as we ll as avoid potential unintended consequences that could have a negative impact

on Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDW)

. Additional research and data are needed to ensure that this rule is fully protective of all potential drinking water sources.

Specific Comments

Geologic Siting Requirements and Area of Review (AOR)

· Additional Research and Data Needed: More research and data are needed , than are

ty picall y av ailable now, to make scientific determinations as well as implement proven

methods to ensure the integrity of the proposed geologic sit es, without displacement of2

existing USDW

. Such research and data will be particularl y i mportant with regard to characterizing the thickness of the confining zone and permeability

.

· Potential USDW Above 1 0,000 TDS: Since states and water utilities in many areas of the

U.S. are currentl y a ddress ing drought and water rights and availability issues, t he proposed

rule should provide for states to include protections for well sites with potentially viable

sour ces of drinking water, such as saline aquifers and aquifers above 10,000 (mg/L) total dissolved solids ( TDS ) level that might serve as a viable drinking water source

. ASDWA

recommends that states be allowed regulatory flexibility to consider these aquifer s as

p otential drinking water sourc es

. Please note that there is some variance among states with regard to this issue. While some states would like Congress to consider changing the current Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) language to preclude these aquife rs as potential sequestration sites

, oth er states are activel y l ooking for additional sequestration sites and would prefer that the proposed regulation and the current Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) language keep the current 10,000 TDS (mg/L) definition fo r a USDW

. Thus, we recommend

state

- specific flexibility on this matter.

· Research on Fluid Movement: EPA should promote and support research and data collection to determine the risk associated with geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide and

to demonst rate that there is no fluid movement into a USDW. Some state laws regarding aquifer storage and recovery do not allow for an y displacement of water.

· Drill Holes and Abandoned Wells: EPA should consider options to ensure that miner al exploration drill ho les and abandoned wells are accounted for on the AOR map s . States h ave serious concerns about the ability to account for all of these potential holes and open shear

zones or fault s that may allow migration from the injection zo ne to the fresh water aquife rs, as well as leakage out of the geo

- sequestration site and back into the atmosphere. T he AOR

should also be periodically reevaluated, pa rticularly as improved predictive models and new

data become available.

Monitoring, Corrective Action, Record Keepin g, and Long

- Term Liability

· Guidelines Needed: It would be helpfu l if additional guidelines were include d in the rule to provide state regulatory authorities with the ability to determine requirements for monitoring, corrective action, record keeping, and liability of carbon sequestration injection well sites

. G uidelines are needed to help states consider baseline geochemical anal ys is and monitoring

data

, a s well as corrective action plans

, in the event that a USDW become s affected b y an injection well si te

. Guidelines are also needed to ensure that the long

- term financial responsibility of owners/operators of injection wells adequatel y cover the potential costs of site closure and stewardship. W hile the rule should provide some minimum requirements for record keeping and the frequency of reporting, the rule should also be flexible enough to

allow states to address site

- specific conditions in determining these requirements. Common assumptions will need to be tested under the unique conditions of individu al sites in order to avoid unintended consequences.3

State Standards, Regulations , Funding, and Primacy Requirements

· State Flexibility Needed: The flexible regulatory approach that is built into the proposed

rule appears to adequately provide for stat e implementation efforts to address site specific

circumstances and assure that the rule is implemented toward the highest degree of protection for USDWs. However, t he rule should also allow for s tate flexibility with regard to existing

state standards an d regulatio ns, if they are more stringent (i.e., regarding well construction requirements) than the Federal rule

.

· State Resources Needed: The financial and resource burden on EPA and state primacy agencies to assess the geologic sequestration permit su bmission s, evaluate the technical models, and make permitting determinations will be greatl y i ncreased by this rule. Financial

resource co nsiderations should accompan y eventual promulgation of the rule in order to

ensure adequate state funding for these v arious tasks.

· State Primacy Considerations: EPA should investigate options for state primacy considerations under SDWA 1425 to regulate the new class VI wells for carbon sequestration independentl y of other well classes . As the proposed rule is current ly written, it precludes states that only have primacy on Class II wells.

Thank you for considering these various comments. Please let me know if we can provide an y further information related to these comments.

Sincerel y,

James D. Taft

Executive DirectorLetter ID: 0172

Commenter: James Taft Organization: Association of State Drinking Water Ad ministrators (ASDWA)

Letter ID: 0172 Comment ID: 23449 Letter Lines: 38 to 48

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment Code: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: Overall Comments

ASDWA and its members appreciate EPA’s effo rts to develop this rule under very limited time constraints and agree with EP A’s plan to create a new class of wells for carbon dioxide geol ogic sequestration sites. St ates believe that all appropriate steps need to be taken to en sure the effectivenes s of Carbon Capture and Sequestration as a tool to mitigat e greenhouse gas emissions, as well as avoid potential unintended consequences that could have a negative impact on Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USD W). Additional research and data are

needed to ensure that this rule is fu lly protective of all potential drinking

water sources.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells are necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that USDWs are protected from e ndangerment. The Class VI requirements are appropriate because of the unique nature and ri sks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., large injection volumes, long proj ect duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule contains tailored requirements for the perm itting, geologic site ch aracterization, AoR and corrective action, well construc tion, operation, mechanical integr ity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, an d site closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for GS.

EPA agrees that continued research in all GS asso ciated fields will be integral to development of GS technology. EPA is aware of research by ot her federal agencies, industry, international parties, and academia related to GS, including proj ects that address many of the topics suggested by commenters. EPA published a Notice of Da ta Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in whic h the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Es catawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site , New Mexico). In the NODA and Request for Comment, EPA also described two studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential effects of CO2 injection on ground wate r and surrounding formations to determine the potential for impacts on USDWs and human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated, or managed.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment,

1EPA is using an adaptive approach to regula ting CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropria te documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requiremen ts are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to pr oceed in time to meet the current and future demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other

research as it becomes available.

Letter ID: 0172 Comment ID: 23450 Letter Lines: 50 to 60

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study

Comment Code: 3100 2.1 Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements (40 CFR 146.83)

Comment: Specific Comments

Geologic Siting Requirements a nd Area of Review (AOR)

Additional Research and Data Needed:

More research and data are needed, than are typically available now, to make scientific determinations as well as implement proven methods to ensure the integrity of the proposed geologic sites, without displacement of existing USDW. Such research and data will be particularly important with regard to characterizing the thickness of the confining zone and permeability.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that continued research w ill be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency is unable to ensure the integrity of the proposed geologic sites.

EPA agrees that continued research in all GS asso ciated fields will be integral to development of GS technology. EPA is aware of research by ot her federal agencies, industry, international parties, and academia related to GS, including proj ects that address many of the topics suggested by commenters. EPA published a Notice of Da ta Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in whic h the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Es catawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site , New Mexico). In the NODA and Request for Comment, EPA also described two studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential effects of CO2 injection on ground wate r and surrounding formations to determine the potential for impacts on USDWs and human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated, or managed.

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, EPA is using an adaptive approach to regula ting CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to dete rmine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and documentati on are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are necessar y. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory

2development to proceed in time to meet the cu rrent and future demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from p ilot projects and other re search as it becomes

available.

Letter ID: 0172 Comment ID: 23451 Letter Lines: 62 to 78

Comment Code: 1220 1.1.1.1 Terminology and definitions

Comment Code: 4400 2.4.4.3 Allowing injection above or between USDWs (seeking comment)

Comment: Potential USDW Above 10,000 TDS:

Since states and water utilities in ma ny areas of the U.S. are currently addressing drought and water rights and av ailability issues, the proposed rule should provide for states to include prot ections for well sites with potentially viable sources of drinking water, such as saline aquifers and aquifers above 10,000 (mg/L) total dissolved solids (TDS) level that might serve as a viable drinking water source. ASDWA recommends that states be allowed regulatory flexibility to consider these aquifers as potential drinki ng water sources.
Please note that there is some variance am ong states with regard to this issue. While some states would like Congress to consider changing the current Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) language to pr eclude these aquifers as potential sequestration sites, other states are actively looking for additional sequestration sites and would prefer that the proposed regulation and the current Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) language keep the current 10,000 TDS (mg/L) definition for a USDW. Thus, we recommend state-specific flexibility on

this matter.

Individual Response: EPA is not changing the USDW definition; changing the definition of a USDW is outside the scope of the GS rulemaki ng. The GS rule focuses on ensuring protection of USDWs, as required under the SDWA, by establishing regulations to ensure the safe injection of CO2 for long-term storage.

EPA recognizes that there is increasing demand for water re sources and that technology improvements may make high TDS aquifers viable drinking water sources. EPA believes these potential resources should be c onsidered when injection depth wa ivers are sought. Therefore, the final GS rule at §146.95(b) requires the Director to consider thes e issues in determining whether an injection depth waiver is appropriate. Spec ifically, the Director must consider whether alternative injection si tes are available; community needs, demands, and supply from drinking water resources; planned needs, potential and/or future use of USDWs and non-USDWs in the area; and a plan for securing alternative resour ces or treating USDW formation waters in the

event of contamination related to the Class VI injection activity. For additional information on the waiver approach, please see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to

comments on the Notice of Data Availa bility and Request for Comment.

3Letter ID: 0172 Comment ID: 23452 Letter Lines: 80 to 85

Comment Code: 1810 1.4.1 Research on identify ing risks to USDWs

Comment: Research on Fluid Movement:

EPA should promote and support research a nd data collection to determine the risk associated with geologic sequestrati on of carbon dioxide and to demonstrate

that there is no fluid movement into a US DW. Some state laws regarding aquifer storage and recovery do not allow fo r any displacement of water.

Individual Response: EPA is working with DOE, national laboratories (such as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories), USGS, and intern al Agency Offices (e.g., Office of Research and Development) on research on various aspect s of GS, including potential risks to USDWs. EPA published a NODA and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described two studies by the LBNL on the potential effects of CO2 injection on USDWs and human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated, or managed. These studies are in the rulema king docket and on LB NL's website at http://esd.lbl.gov/GCS/project s/CO2/index_CO2.html.

EPA is also funding a project at LBNL to integrate experime ntal and modeling efforts to evaluate the potential conse quences of CO2 leaks from GS operations into ground water

resources.

EPA is tracking other recent research on GS and USDW prot ection including the following studies (which are available in the docket for the rulemaking):

• Smyth et al. (2008) reviewed modeling and laboratory experi ments and field results from groundwater studies conducted at SA CROC, an ER site in west Te xas where tens of millions of tons of CO2 have been injected for over 30 years. • Zheng et al. (2008) used more than 38,000 groundwater quality analyses from aquifers throughout the US to perform reactive transpor t modeling of groundwater quality after the

intrusion of CO2. The model simu lations indicate that aquifers containing more carbonate and clay minerals are less vulnerable to CO2 intr usion, and that, while under certain conditions CO2 can potentially mobilize metals pr esent in the aquifer, mobilized amounts of the metals are always below health-based limits. • Kharaka et al. (2009) conducted CO2 injectio n field tests in Montana and reported that shallowly injected CO2 can aff ect the chemistry of shallow gr oundwater by decreasing pH and mobilizing rock and soil ions. • Nicot (2008) modeled an injection roughly equiva lent to 50 Mt CO2/year for 50 years in an area that is hydrologically similar to the Gulf Coast Basin. Model results indicate an average water table rise of approximately 1 meter with a minor increase in stream baseflow and a larger increase in ground water evapotranspiration.

ORD's National Center for Environmental Resear ch (NCER) awarded six Science To Achieve Results (STAR) grants in the Fall of 2009 to re cipients from major universities and institutions

4within the scope of the "Integrated Design, Modeling and Mon itoring of Geologic Sequestration of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide to Safeguard S ources of Drinking Water" research area. These projects, which started in late 2009, include thes e lead institutions with specific topics of investigation: Clemson Universi ty will study potential impacts to drinking water aquifers of CO2-rich dissolved brines; the University of Illinois-Urbana will conduc t research related to reducing hydrologic and geochemical uncertainties associated with CO2 sequestration in deep, saline reservoirs; the University of Texas at Austin will assess appropriate monitoring approaches at geologic sequestration sites; the University of Utah will integrate design, monitoring, and modeling of GS to assist in developing a practical methodology for characterizing risks to USDWs; Columbia University will conduct laboratory experiments on shallow aquifer systems to improve understanding of geochemical and micr obiological reactions under low pH/high CO2 stress; and Princeton Univ ersity will develop a set of computational

tools to model CO2 and brine movement associated with GS.

In response to the comment that some state a quifer storage laws do not allow for any water displacement, EPA clarifies that the purpose of the Class VI requirements is to ensure the appropriate siting of a Class VI well and prevent fluid moveme nt that endangers a USDW. EPA notes that the Director has the authority to deny a permit to any project that would violate state

laws.

Letter ID: 0172 Comment ID: 23453 Letter Lines: 87 to 94

Comment Code: 3420 2.2.2.1 Scope of the inventory pr ocess (e.g., reliance on publicly available information, depth of wells)

Comment: Drill Holes and Abandoned Wells:

EPA should consider options to ensure th at mineral exploration drill holes and

abandoned wells are accounted for on the AOR maps. States have serious concerns about the ability to account for all of these po tential holes and open shear zones or faults that may allow migration from the injection zone to the fresh water aquifers, as well as leakage out of the geo- sequestration site and back into the atmosphere. The AOR should also be periodical ly reevaluated,

Individual Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that many factors about a GS site— including mineral exploration drilling, abandoned wells, and open shear zones or faults—can

affect containment. EPA believes that the requirement that the Ao R and corrective action plan at §146.84(b) be based on detailed ge ologic data collected at the site (including the types of information cited by the commenter) will ensure th at all potential risks are considered in GS permitting decisions.

EPA adds that the Director has the discretion to require the owner or operator to supplement a data records search, including re quiring ground or airborne surveys for wells if there is reason to believe, based on knowledge of the site or of av ailable databases, that the incompleteness of available information could compromise USDW pr otection. EPA adds that all corrective action

5must be performed pursuant to the approved Ao R and corrective action plan, which affords the Director the discretion to require any additional information needed to ensure that all necessary corrective action is performed.

Letter ID: 0172 Comment ID: 23454 Letter Lines: 94 to 95

Comment Code: 3500 2.2.3 Area of Review Reevaluation (seeking comment)

Comment: into the atmosphere. The AOR should also be periodically reevaluated, particularly as improved predictive mode ls and new data become available.

Individual Response: EPA agrees with the commenter th at periodic AoR reevaluations are appropriate. This final rule retains this provision.

Letter ID: 0172 Comment ID: 23455 Letter Lines: 97 to 114

Comment Code: 1210 1.1.1 Comments about the proposed rule

Comment: Monitoring, Corrective Action, Record K eeping, and Long-Term Liability

Guidelines Needed:

It would be helpful if additional guide lines were included in the rule to provide state regulatory aut horities with the ability to determine requirements for monitoring, corrective action, record keeping, and liability of carbon sequestration injection well sites. Guid elines are needed to help states consider baseline geochemical analysis and monitoring data, as well as corrective action plans, in the event th at a USDW becomes affected by an injection well site. Guidelines are also needed to ensure that the long-term financial responsibility of ow ners/operators of injecti on wells adequately cover the potential costs of site closure and stewardship. While the rule should provide some minimum requirements for r ecord keeping and the frequency of reporting, the rule should also be flexib le enough to allow states to address site-specific conditions in determining these requirements. Common assumptions will need to be tested under the unique conditions of individual sites in order to avoid unintended consequences.

Individual Response: EPA believes that the Class VI re quirements balance site-specific flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flex ible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring the site, performing corrective actio n, and post-injection site care . EPA believes that the plans— which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodical ly updated throughout the life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operato r and the Director that will

6encourage use of the most appropriate t echnologies for a particular project.

EPA is developing guidances for States that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement authority (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA,

as well as the technical and administrative issu es on developing GS regul ations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. The gui dance will describe areas of

Directorial discretion and consid erations for how that discre tion would be exercised. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0172 Comment ID: 23456 Letter Lines: 116 to 126

Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (p erformance-based standards)

Comment: State Standards, Regulations, F unding, and Primacy Requirements

State Flexibility Needed:

The flexible regulatory approach that is built into the proposed rule appears to adequately provide for state implementa tion efforts to address site specific

circumstances and assure that the rule is implemented toward the highest degree of protection for USDWs. However, the rule should also allow for state flexibility with regard to existing state standards and regulati ons, if they are more stringent (i.e., regarding well cons truction requirements) than the Federal

rule.

Individual Response: The Agency believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flex ible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring the site, performing corrective actio n, and post-injection site care . EPA believes that the plans— which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodical ly updated throughout the life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operato r and the Director that will encourage use of the most appropriate t echnologies for a particular project.

In response to the comment that States with primacy be able to develop “performance-based standards,” the Agency clarifies that States, Trib es, and Territories can develop requirements for Class VI and submit primacy applications (unde r Section 1422 of the SDWA) for review and approval by EPA as long as the requirements are as stringent as or more stringent than the Federal minimum requirements.

Letter ID: 0172 Comment ID: 23457 Letter Lines: 128 to 134

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

7Comment: State Resources Needed:

The financial and resource burden on EPA and state primacy agencies to assess the geologic sequestration permit submi ssions, evaluate the technical models, and make permitting determinations will be greatly increased by this rule.

Financial resource considerations should accompany eventual promulgation of the rule in order to ensure adequate st ate funding for these various tasks.

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 acquiri ng 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 th at 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 ar e required to meet a minimum of 25 percent matching requirement.

Letter ID: 0172 Comment ID: 23458 Letter Lines: 136 to 141

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

Comment Code: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells (seeking comment)

Comment: State Primacy Considerations:

EPA should investigate options for state primacy consideratio ns under SDWA 1425 to regulate the new class VI wells fo r carbon sequestration independently of other well classes. As the proposed rule is currently wri tten, it precludes states that only have primacy on Class II wells.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that Sec tion 1425 of SDWA allows an alternative primacy demonstration only for programs regulating injecti on wells associated with oil and gas recovery or natural gas storage. Therefore, wells used for the purpose of GS cannot be covered under Section 1425. While EPA acknowledges that states that have not obtained primacy under SDWA Section 1422 for other well classes may be le ss familiar with implementing the UIC program under that section of the Act, the Agency does not believe this would pr eclude their ability to effectively obtain and implement primacy fo r Class VI wells. EPA does not intend to limit primacy of Class VI wells to only states wi th primacy for Class II wells—any state that can demonstrate in its primacy application that it ha s developed regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requir ements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requi rements) in the final GS rule will be granted primacy for

Class VI wells.

EPA also plans to support states as needed to help them develop and implement their Class VI programs. EPA will allow states to apply for prim acy for Class VI independently of other well

89 classes regardless of whether or not they have primacy for other well classes. EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for States, Tribes, and Territories to describe the process of a pplying 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 requirement s. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_se questration.cfm.