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.
DNRIndiana Department of Natural Resources

Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode: 2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

Washington, DC 20460

Docket 10 #: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Governor

Robert E. Carter, Jr., Director

Docket Title: Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program: Federal Requirements for

Class VI Injection Wells for the Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide - Proposed

Rule

To Whom It May Concern:

Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) is pleased to have, the opportunity to offer

comment regarding the above referenced proposed rule to develop an environmentally

protective program for the safe storage of C02 through carbon sequestration

Although final details of a comprehensive carbon management and reduction program are

yet to be finalized by Congress, it is a virtual certainty that such a program is inevitable. One

of the most significant components of a long-term strategy to reduce carbon emissions will of

necessity involve carbon capture and storage (CCS). We agree with those who believe that

the geologic storage (GS) of C02 in underground formations is a key CCS technology that

must be developed and deployed in a timely manner if we are to achieve any significant

reduction of carbon emissions.

Accompanying the promotion of this new technology must be the development of a

comprehensive and predictable regulatory program. The regulatory program must provide

not only for the protection of environmental, health, and safety concerns arising from the use

of such methods but also establish·a consistent, transparent, and reliable regulatory

framework to support and encourage the responsible development of this new technology.

By doing so, industry, the investment community, and the public can have confidence in the

technology and support its use thereby allowing our economies to grow by providing a more

secure energy future.

The proposed rules published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are an

important step in the development of a comprehensive program to regulate the GS of CO2.

While other options may have been available to both the stat~~s and to the federal

government to effectively establish a sound, reliable regulatory framework, we believe that

EPA's decision to propose rules to regulate GS of C02 under the Underground Injection

Control (UIC) Program will help to ensure that consistent reqUirements are applied

throughout the United States. The UIC Program also provides states desiring to fully

An Equal Opportunity Employer

Printed on Recycled Paper
regulate the GS of CO2 with a clearly defined path for obtaining primacy under section 1422

of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Indiana intends to seek primacy for the regulation of Class VI wells as proposed under this

rulemaking by EPA. Obtaining primacy will be an important component of our broader

commitment to promote newer and cleaner markets for Indiana coal, oil, and natural gas

while at the same time contributing to our nation's energy independence and to a cleaner

environment.

Indiana is blessed with an abundance of natural resources making it a prime location for the

use of GS methods. Among these resources are the following: oil and gas reservoirs

suitable for both enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and long-term storage; unmineable coal

seams for long-term storage and the potential for the production of coal bed methane (CH4)

displaced by the injection of CO2 into these coals; deep saline reservoirs (Ordovician St.

Peter Sandstone and Cambrian Mt. Simon Sandstone) suitable for long-term storage; and

organic-rich shales (primarily Devonian New Albany) for long-term storage and the potential

for enhanced production of CH4.

Our state also has a long history of the regulation of oil and gas production since

development of oil and gas first began in 1886 with the discovery of the Trenton Field.

Indiana also has primacy under the UIC Program for Class II wells and the (IDNR), Division

of Oil and Gas has been effectively administering that program since 1991. Our regulatory

experience also includes the permitting and oversight of underground natural gas storage

facilities as well as facilities for the underground storage of liquefied petroleum gases.

Much of the technology and methodologies to be employed with the siting, drilling,

construction, operation, testing, and eventually with the plugging and abandonment of Class

VI wells, have been derived from the oil and gas industry. Whilt9 there are differences

between many aspects of Class VI injection wells when compared to Class II injection wells

or underground natural gas and petroleum liquid storage wells, we bHlieve there are far more

similarities, including such aspects as reservoir selection, inj'

9ction and withdrawal

parameters, unauthorized releases, and pressure limitations. Accordingly, we believe that

Indiana is well prepared to effectively administer a regulatory program for the long-term

storage of CO2 in underground formations once the appropriate state statutes and

regulations are established.

Beyond establishing regUlations to govern the actual process for managing the injection of

CO2 into underground formations, there are other important maUers that must also be

addressed before carbon capture and geologic storage (CCGS) operations can be

developed. These matters are clearly beyond the scope of the regulations proposed by EPA.

Included are:

1. The creation of a legal framework for a storage facility operator to obtain control of

the reservoir and associated pore space to be used for C02 storage. The right to use

reservoirs and associated pore space is a private property right that must be acquired

from the owner of the property. Included With this framework must be a method for

amalgamating or consolidating the rights in order to provide for the orderly
development of a long-term storage project. Given that these actions pertain to the

acquisition or control of private property rights, they are functions to be established

by state law.

2. The establishment of a viable framework for managing long-term property rights,

monitoring, and liability issues that may arise after the closure period specified in the

Class VI proposed rules. Consideration may be given to a process for the transfer of

ownership of the storage facility from the operator to the state or another third-party

entity who assume the role of "caretaker" for the management of long-term liabilities.

Included also should be the creation of a state-administered trust fund or other sound

long-term funding mechanism that would ensure that sufficient resources are

available to remedy any adverse conditions that might arise' after the release of the

facility operator from further liability.

We believe that these issues are most appropriately managed by individual states who, like

Indiana, are interested in promoting the development of CCGS operations.

Indiana is a member of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). In

2002, the IOGCC established a Geological C02 Sequestration Task Force chaired by

Lawrence Bengal, Director of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. Its membership

initially included representatives from IOGCC member states and intE~rnational affiliate

provinces, state and provincial oil and gas agencies, DOE, DOE-sponsored Regional

Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, the Association of American State Geologists

(AASG), and the oil and natural gas industry. Later on the Task Force added

representatives from EPA, and the U.S. Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) attended as observers. This Task Force engaged in a

thorough examination of the technical, policy, and regulatory issues related to the safe

and effective storage of C02 in subsurface geological media (oil and natural gas fields,

coal seams, and deep saline formations) for both enhanced hydrocarbon recovery and

long-term C02 storage.

The products of the Task Force efforts were the following two reports:

1. "Final Report" for DOE Aware No. DE-FC26-03NT41994, Amendment No.

AOOO, dated January 24, 2005. This report contained an assessment of the

current regulatory framework applicable to carbon capture and geologic storage

and recommended regulatory gUidelines and guidance documents for the states

and provinces.

2. "Storage of Carbon Dioxide in Geologic Structures - A Legal and Regulatory

Guide for States and Provinces" dated September 25,2007. A thorough

assessment of property rights issues relating to the underground space used for

CCGS, and an overview of model general rules and regulations for CCGS along

with a Model Statute and a Model General Rules and Regulations for CCGS

were included in this report.

We believe these two reports present the most practical and workable models for the

regulation of CCGS and we encourage EPA to strongly consider them as it continues its

process of finalizing the Class VI CCGS rule. We have not included them as attachments to

our comments as we know they have already been submitted to EPA.
Additionally, we also know that detailed comments on the above refmenced rules have been

prepared and submitted to EPA on behalf of the 10GCC. IDNF~ supports the 10GCC

comments and strongly encourages EPA to take them into considE!ration as the final rules

are being considered. Except for a few specific comments on topics that we believe do

warrant extra emphasis, we do not think it necessary to restate every issue already

addressed through the 10GCC comments.

These following comments respond to just a few of the broader policy and regulatory issues

for which EPA specifically requested comments. Our comments 'follow the same outline

used in the preamble to the proposed rule published on July 25, 2008\.

Section II- What Is EPA Proposing?

Subsection I -Is Injected CO2 Considered a Hazardous Waste Under RCRA ?

Comment: EPA has attempted to address this very important consideration by

defining "carbon dioxide stream" in the proposed rule in such a way that those CO2

streams which exhibit hazardous characteristics would not be permitted under the

proposed Class VI well classification but rather must be permitted and regulated as

Class I wells instead. We are in agreement with those who believe that although

captured C02 will contain some impurities, in those rare instances where

concentrations could potentially be viewed as exhibiting RCRA hazardous

characteristics, such impurities should be able to be removed by appropriate treatment

methods prior to their storage in underground formations. While it is not possible to

ignore the obligations and liabilities of waste generators under RCRA, any perception

that CO2 streams could exhibit these characteristics and therefore require their

management as hazardous wastes would have a very chilling effect on the

widespread deployment of CCS and GS operations. We would prefer that instead of

referring to CO2 streams as "waste", they should be viewed as an important resource

to be managed accordingly.

Section III - Proposed Regulatory Alternatives

Subsection A - Proposed Alternative

Comment: Of the four alternatives considered by EPA, we appreciate the fact that

the highly specific requirements approach of Alternative 4 was not chosen. However,

even with the selected Alternative 3, we believe that EPA still must provide some of

the flexibility that was to be considered under Alternative 2. We are somewhat

troubled by EPA's statement that it "did not select this alternative (Alternative 2)

because it is not tailored to meet the unique challenges of long-term C02 storage.

While this option includes flexibility for permit authorities to add reqUirements, EPA

cannot be certain that the necessary adjustments would be made."
States like Indiana with a proven track record of effectively managing similar programs

have indeed demonstrated an ability to adapt to evolving technologies and we believe

do possess the capability to effectively address long-term storage issues. In fact, as

indicated earlier in our comments, many of the long-term issues associated with

CCGS operations will be outside the purview of the UIC Program and will need to be

addressed by states as they enact appropriate CCGS legislation. EPA should

consider implementing rules which afford states with the grE~atest flexibility to select

regulatory options that are best suited to their specific needs and conditions. Specific

examples of requirements that may be too prescriptive includEl:

1. Well casing and cementing standards.

2. Prescriptive requirements for degradation-resistant well construction materials,

such as acid-resistant cements and corrosion resistant casing.

3. Any requirement that down-hole shut off valves be installed in GS wells.

4. Blanket prohibition of GS in zones above the lowermost USDW.

5. Any requirement to establish minimum injection depth requirements.

6. Any provision requiring the use of down-hole tracer systems.

7. Fixed 50-year post-injection time period.

Section V - How Will States, Territories, and Tribes Obtain ule Program Primacy for

Class VI Wells?

Comment: Indiana strongly encourages EPA to allow states to seek primacy for the

Class VI program independent of other UIC well classes.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr.

Herschel McDivitt, Director Division of Oil and Gas IDNR, at (317) 232-4058 or

hmcvivitt@dnr.in.gov. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

;;;;?«r ...............

Robert E.

Director

Indiana Department of Natural

Resources

cc: Tom Easterly Commissioner -IDEM

Herschel McDivitt, Director Division of Oil & Gas
Letter ID: 0236 

Commenter: Robert E. Carter Jr. 

Organization: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) 

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 23199 Letter Lines: 36 to 64 

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking 

Comment: Although final details of a comprehensive carbon management and reduction 

program are yet to be finalized by Congress, it is a virtual certainty that such 

a program is inevitable. One of the most significant components of a long-term 

strategy to reduce carbon emissions will of necessity involve carbon capture and 

storage (CCS). We agree with those who believe that the geologic storage (GS) of 

C02 in underground formations is a key CCS technology that must be developed and 

deployed in a timely manner if we are to achieve any significant reduction of 

carbon emissions. 

Accompanying the promotion of this new technology must be the development of a 

comprehensive and predictable regulatory program. The regulatory program must 

provide not only for the protection of environmental, health, and safety 

concerns arising from the use of such methods but also establish a consistent, 

transparent, and reliable regulatory framework to support and encourage the 

responsible development of this new technology. By doing so, industry, the 

investment community, and the public can have confidence in the technology and 

support its use thereby allowing our economies to grow by providing a more 

secure energy future. 

The proposed rules published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are an 

important step in the development of a comprehensive program to regulate the GS 

of CO2. While other options may have been available to both the states and to 

the federal government to effectively establish a sound, reliable regulatory 

framework, we believe that EPA's decision to propose rules to regulate GS of C02 

under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program will help to ensure that 

consistent requirements are applied throughout the United States. The UIC 

Program also provides states desiring to fully regulate the GS of CO2 with a 

clearly defined path for obtaining primacy under section 1422 of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act. Indiana intends to seek primacy for the regulation of Class 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the implementation of the GS rule in a manner that 

ensures protection of USDWs from endangerment is important to establishing a foundation for 

further advances in the field of CO2 GS. EPA acknowledges the need for regulatory certainty: 

the final GS requirements provide a level of certainty by setting forth unique requirements for 

GS. These requirements include: the tailored AoR delineation process at §146.84), the types of 

monitoring appropriate to GS projects at §146.90), and the post-injection site care process at 

1
§146.93). For additional information on these requirements, please also see the discussion of 

EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 23200 Letter Lines: 64 to 98 

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

Comment: Drinking Water Act. Indiana intends to seek primacy for the regulation of Class 

VI wells as proposed under this rulemaking by EPA. Obtaining primacy will be an 

important component of our broader commitment to promote newer and cleaner 

markets for Indiana coal, oil, and natural gas while at the same time 

contributing to our nation's energy independence and to a cleaner environment. 

Indiana is blessed with an abundance of natural resources making it a prime 

location for the use of GS methods. Among these resources are the following: oil 

and gas reservoirs suitable for both enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and long-term 

storage; unmineable coal seams for long-term storage and the potential for the 

production of coal bed methane (CH4) displaced by the injection of CO2 into 

these coals; deep saline reservoirs (Ordovician St. Peter Sandstone and Cambrian 

Mt. Simon Sandstone) suitable for long-term storage; and organic-rich shales 

(primarily Devonian New Albany) for long-term storage and the potential for 

enhanced production of CH4. 

Our state also has a long history of the regulation of oil and gas production 

since development of oil and gas first began in 1886 with the discovery of the 

Trenton Field. Indiana also has primacy under the UIC Program for Class II wells 

and the (IDNR), Division of Oil and Gas has been effectively administering that 

program since 1991. Our regulatory experience also includes the permitting and 

oversight of underground natural gas storage facilities as well as facilities 

for the underground storage of liquefied petroleum gases. 

Much of the technology and methodologies to be employed with the siting, 

drilling, construction, operation, testing, and eventually with the plugging and 

abandonment of Class VI wells, have been derived from the oil and gas industry. 

While there are differences between many aspects of Class VI injection wells 

when compared to Class II injection wells or underground natural gas and 

petroleum liquid storage wells, we believe there are far more similarities, 

including such aspects as reservoir selection, injection and withdrawal 

parameters, unauthorized releases, and pressure limitations. Accordingly, we 

believe that Indiana is well prepared to effectively administer a regulatory 

program for the long-term storage of CO2 in underground formations once the 

appropriate state statutes and regulations are established. 

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 

2
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 and UIC regulations 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. 

Throughout the GS regulatory development process, EPA has made it a priority to engage States 

and State organizations. EPA works with State co-regulators on regulatory issues related to GS –

including state representation on the GS regulatory development workgroup. The Agency has 

also conducted a series of stakeholder and technical workshops, and public hearings, and EPA 

met with national organizations including the Ground Water Protection Council, the Interstate 

Oil and Gas Compact Commission, and the American Association of State Geologists. EPA 

values coordination with States and will continue an open dialogue as the Agency moves forward 

in the regulatory development process. 

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 23201 Letter Lines: 100 to 113 

Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space 

ownership 

Comment: Beyond establishing regulations to govern the actual process for managing the 

injection of CO2 into underground formations, there are other important matters 

that must also be addressed before carbon capture and geologic storage (CCGS) 

operations can be developed. These matters are clearly beyond the scope of the 

regulations proposed by EPA. Included are: 

1. The creation of a legal framework for a storage facility operator to obtain 

control of the reservoir and associated pore space to be used for C02 storage. 

The right to use reservoirs and associated pore space is a private property 

right that must be acquired from the owner of the property. Included with this 

framework must be a method for amalgamating or consolidating the rights in order 

to provide for the orderly development of a long-term storage project. Given 

that these actions pertain to the acquisition or control of private property 

rights, they are functions to be established by state law. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that pore space ownership and surface and subsurface 

property and mineral rights are outside of the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking, which 

focuses on ensuring consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations 

3
across the United States and provide requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in 

anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. EPA clarifies that these issues 

are under the purview of states and any of these issues, as they relate to GS, will need to be 

addressed though state regulations. 

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 23202 Letter Lines: 115 to 128 

Comment Code: 5460 2.9.2 Comments on transfer of liability for long-term care 

Comment: 2. The establishment of a viable framework for managing long-term property 

rights, monitoring, and liability issues that may arise after the closure period 

specified in the Class VI proposed rules. Consideration may be given to a 

process for the transfer of ownership of the storage facility from the operator 

to the state or another third-party entity who assume the role of "caretaker" 

for the management of long-term liabilities. Included also should be the 

creation of a state-administered trust fund or other sound long-term funding 

mechanism that would ensure that sufficient resources are available to remedy 

any adverse conditions that might arise after the release of the facility 

operator from further liability. 

We believe that these issues are most appropriately managed by individual states 

who, like Indiana, are interested in promoting the development of CCGS 

operations. 

Individual Response: Under the final GS rule, once an owner or operator has met all regulatory 

requirements under Part 146 for Class VI wells and the Director has approved site closure 

pursuant to requirements at §146.93, the owner or operator will generally no longer be subject to 

enforcement for regulatory noncompliance. Furthermore, their financial instrument as required 

under §146.85 will be released if it was not used. However, even if a site closure is approved 

under §146.93, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance (including 

violation of 40 CFR 144.12) in certain circumstances. For example, an owner or operator may be 

held liable for regulatory noncompliance even after site closure was approved if the Director 

relied on erroneous information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provided by the owner or 

operator when approving site closure. 

Separate from EPA’s authority to enforce regulatory compliance, an owner or operator may be 

subject to a §1431 response order even after proper site closure is approved under §146.93. 

Under §1431 the Administrator may require an owner or operator to take necessary response 

measures if he or she receives information that a contaminant is present or is likely to enter a 

public water system or an USDW, which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment 

to the health of persons, and the appropriate State and local authorities have not acted to protect 

the health of such persons. The action may include issuing administrative orders or commencing 

a civil action for appropriate relief against the owner or operator of a Class VI well. If the owner 

or operator fails to comply with the order, they may be subject to a civil penalty for each day in 

which such violation occurs or failure to comply continues. 

4
Furthermore, after site closure an owner or operator may remain liable under tort and other 

remedies, or under other federal statutes including, but not limited to, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 7401-7671; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601-9675; and RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901-6992. EPA 

does not have authority to transfer SDWA or other legal liability for Class VI wells to the State 

or federal government or a third-party fund. Furthermore, EPA does not have the authority under 

the SDWA to create a financial mechanism for Class VI wells. See the final rule preamble for 

further discussion of EPA's final approach. 

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 23203 Letter Lines: 130 to 169 

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment: Indiana is a member of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). 

In 

2002, the IOGCC established a Geological C02 Sequestration Task Force chaired by 

Lawrence Bengal, Director of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. Its membership 

initially included representatives from IOGCC member states and international 

affiliate provinces, state and provincial oil and gas agencies, DOE, DOEsponsored Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, the Association of 

American State Geologists (AASG), and the oil and natural gas industry. Later on 

the Task Force added representatives from EPA, and the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) attended as observers. This Task Force engaged in a thorough 

examination of the technical, policy, and regulatory issues related to the safe 

and effective storage of C02 in subsurface geological media (oil and natural gas 

fields, coal seams, and deep saline formations) for both enhanced hydrocarbon 

recovery and long-term C02 storage. 

The products of the Task Force efforts were the following two reports: 

1. "Final Report" for DOE Aware No. DE-FC26-03NT41994, Amendment No. AOOO, dated 

January 24, 2005. This report contained an assessment of the current regulatory 

framework applicable to carbon capture and geologic storage and recommended 

regulatory guidelines and guidance documents for the states and provinces. 

2. "Storage of Carbon Dioxide in Geologic Structures - A Legal and Regulatory 

Guide for States and Provinces" dated September 25,2007. A thorough assessment 

of property rights issues relating to the underground space used for CCGS, and 

an overview of model general rules and regulations for CCGS along with a Model 

Statute and a Model General Rules and Regulations for CCGS were included in this 

report. 

We believe these two reports present the most practical and workable models for 

the regulation of CCGS and we encourage EPA to strongly consider them as it 

continues its process of finalizing the Class VI CCGS rule. We have not included 

them as attachments to our comments as we know they have already been submitted 

to EPA. 

5
Additionally, we also know that detailed comments on the above referenced rules 

have been prepared and submitted to EPA on behalf of the IOGCC. IDNR supports 

the IOGCC comments and strongly encourages EPA to take them into consideration 

as the final rules are being considered. Except for a few specific comments on 

topics that we believe do warrant extra emphasis, we do not think it necessary 

to restate every issue already addressed through the IOGCC comments. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. EPA adds that it has reviewed the 

IOGCC's reports and that information provided by IOGCC throughout the rulemaking process 

has informed many technical aspects of the rule. EPA appreciates the input and effort that 

IOGCC has provided, as well as those from other state and private stakeholder consortia. 

Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment and IOGCC’s 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: 0236 Comment ID: 23204 Letter Lines: 176 to 193 

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 

Comment: Section II-What Is EPA Proposing? 

Subsection I -Is Injected CO2 Considered a Hazardous Waste Under RCRA ? 

Comment: EPA has attempted to address this very important consideration by 

defining "carbon dioxide stream" in the proposed rule in such a way that those 

CO2 streams which exhibit hazardous characteristics would not be permitted under 

the proposed Class VI well classification but rather must be permitted and 

regulated as Class I wells instead. We are in agreement with those who believe 

that although captured C02 will contain some impurities, in those rare instances 

where concentrations could potentially be viewed as exhibiting RCRA hazardous 

characteristics, such impurities should be able to be removed by appropriate 

treatment methods prior to their storage in underground formations. While it is 

not possible to ignore the obligations and liabilities of waste generators under 

RCRA, any perception that CO2 streams could exhibit these characteristics and 

therefore require their management as hazardous wastes would have a very 

chilling effect on the widespread deployment of CCS and GS operations. We would 

prefer that instead of referring to CO2 streams as "waste", they should be 

viewed as an important resource to be managed accordingly. 

Individual Response: The final GS rule retains the definition of a CO2 stream as proposed. The 

GS regulation applies to injection of CO2 for the purpose of GS, regardless of the source of the 

CO2. It is beyond the scope of the GS rule and the UIC Program’s authority to require or set 

standards for upstream generators of CO2 or purification facilities. 

6
With respect to RCRA, 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. Finally, EPA also notes that 

the final GS rule, which adds new regulations for Class VI wells under the Safe Drinking Water 

Act (SDWA), is not making any changes to the RCRA regulations. 

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 23205 Letter Lines: 195 to 206 

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

Comment Code: 2300 1.7 Comments on the Alternatives Considered 

Comment: Section III -Proposed Regulatory Alternatives 

Subsection A -Proposed Alternative 

Comment: Of the four alternatives considered by EPA, we appreciate the fact that 

the highly specific requirements approach of Alternative 4 was not chosen. 

However, even with the selected Alternative 3, we believe that EPA still must 

provide some of the flexibility that was to be considered under Alternative 2. 

We are somewhat troubled by EPA's statement that it "did not select this 

alternative (Alternative 2) because it is not tailored to meet the unique 

challenges of long-term C02 storage. While this option includes flexibility for 

permit authorities to add requirements, EPA cannot be certain that the necessary 

adjustments would be made." 

Individual Response: Even though the Agency did not choose Alternative 2, EPA agrees that 

flexibility is important to accommodate the varied conditions that may be encountered at GS 

sites while ensuring the protection of USDWs. 

The technical requirements in Alternative 3 (and the final GS rule) build upon the long-standing 

UIC regulatory framework for deep wells and are appropriately tailored to address the unique 

nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the volumes of CO2 to be injected, the buoyant and 

mobile nature of the injectate, and its corrosivity in the presence of water. 

The regulation provides flexibility for selection of appropriate sites and target formations (under 

§146.82), well construction specifics (under §146.86), and testing and monitoring regimes (under 

§146.90), provided the owner or operator can demonstrate that the injection and storage will not 

endanger USDWs and that minimum requirements for the site are met. 

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 23207 Letter Lines: 234 to 238 

7
Comment Code: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells 

Comment: Section V - How Will States, Territories, and Tribes Obtain UIC Program Primacy 

for Class VI Wells? 

Comment: Indiana strongly encourages EPA to allow states to seek primacy for the 

Class VI program independent of other UIC well classes. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI 

wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells 

under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications 

for individual well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted 

primacy for Class I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and 

V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s 

and was intended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid 

duplication of efforts, and provide for administrative efficiencies. 

However, given the potential for CCS (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic 

sequestration) to be an important part of a national priority to address climate change, EPA 

believes that providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently 

of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. 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. 

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote 

adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected 

from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believes that, due to the 

importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States 

should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only. 

EPA also believes that allowing states to apply only for Class VI primacy will shorten the 

primacy approval process for states. EPA's willingness to accept independent primacy 

applications for Class VI wells represents a shift in its longstanding policy of discouraging 

"partial primacy." It is very important to note that this shift in policy allowing for Class VI 

primacy does not apply to any other well Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to 

discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422. 

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other 

well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum 

Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping 

requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their 

8
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 and ensure that their GS programs 

integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 29216 Letter Lines: 208 to 219 

Comment Code: 3820 2.3.1 Well construction procedures 

Comment: States like Indiana with a proven track record of effectively managing similar 

programs have indeed demonstrated an ability to adapt to evolving technologies 

and we believe do possess the capability to effectively address long-term 

storage issues. In fact, as indicated earlier in our comments, many of the longterm issues associated with CCGS operations will be outside the purview of the 

UIC Program and will need to be addressed by states as they enact appropriate 

CCGS legislation. EPA should consider implementing rules which afford states 

with the greatest flexibility to select regulatory options that are best suited 

to their specific needs and conditions. Specific examples of requirements that 

may be too prescriptive include: 

1. Well casing and cementing standards. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the well construction standards for Class VI wells are 

too stringent. Instead, the construction requirements at §146.86 provide an appropriate level of 

protection from endangerment to USDWs that is based upon the existing UIC framework for 

deep wells. The new tailored approach was designed to address the general risks deep injection 

may pose to USDWs and was tailored specifically to address the unique nature of CO2 GS (i.e., 

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). 

EPA also believes that the regulations allow appropriate flexibility to the Director to evaluate the 

appropriateness of the owner or operator's proposed well construction procedures based on sitespecific information about the injection project, including injection pressures, injection and 

confining zone lithology, and information about the carbon dioxide stream as provided in 

§146.86(b)(1). See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to 

the final GS rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the 

construction of Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at 

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

EPA believes that, given the continuing evolution of material design and the numerous variables 

possible in a long-term GS project, listing specific requirements for casing and cement would not 

be appropriate. Rather, requiring that materials have sufficient structural strength and be 

compatible with fluids with which they may come in contact, in §146.86(b)(1), allows the owner 

or operator to determine the best casing and cementing design for each project based on 

9
information about the site and the planned injection and allows the Director to approve that 

design. 

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 29217 Letter Lines: 208 to 217 ; 221 to 222 

Comment Code: 3860 2.3.3 Well component degradation 

Comment: States like Indiana with a proven track record of effectively managing similar 

programs have indeed demonstrated an ability to adapt to evolving technologies 

and we believe do possess the capability to effectively address long-term 

storage issues. In fact, as indicated earlier in our comments, many of the longterm issues associated with CCGS operations will be outside the purview of the 

UIC Program and will need to be addressed by states as they enact appropriate 

CCGS legislation. EPA should consider implementing rules which afford states 

with the greatest flexibility to select regulatory options that are best suited 

to their specific needs and conditions. Specific examples of requirements that 

may be too prescriptive include: 

2. Prescriptive requirements for degradation-resistant well construction 

materials, such as acid-resistant cements and corrosion resistant casing. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the well construction standards for Class VI wells are 

too stringent. Instead, the construction requirements at §146.86 provide an appropriate level of 

protection from endangerment to USDWs that is based upon the existing UIC framework for 

deep wells. The new tailored approach was designed to address the general risks deep injection 

may pose to USDWs and was tailored specifically to address the unique nature of CO2 GS (i.e., 

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). 

EPA also believes that the regulations allow appropriate flexibility to the Director to evaluate the 

appropriateness of the owner or operator's proposed well construction procedures based on sitespecific information about the injection project, including injection pressures, injection and 

confining zone lithology, and information about the carbon dioxide stream as provided in 

§146.86(b)(1). See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to 

the final GS rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the 

construction of Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at 

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

EPA recognizes that each GS project will be unique and, for this reason, the rule provides 

flexibility regarding appropriate materials for Class VI wells. The rule does not specify materials 

to be used; rather, it provides owners or operators with the flexibility to choose, as long as the 

materials used in Class VI wells are compatible with fluids with which they may come into 

contact and meet or exceed standards developed for such materials by API or ASTM 

International, or comparable standards approved by the Director, as provided at §146.86(b)(1). 

10
Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 29218 Letter Lines: 208 to 217 ; 224 to 224 

Comment Code: 4200 2.4.2 Down-hole shut-off valves in GS wells (seeking comment) 

Comment: States like Indiana with a proven track record of effectively managing similar 

programs have indeed demonstrated an ability to adapt to evolving technologies 

and we believe do possess the capability to effectively address long-term 

storage issues. In fact, as indicated earlier in our comments, many of the longterm issues associated with CCGS operations will be outside the purview of the 

UIC Program and will need to be addressed by states as they enact appropriate 

CCGS legislation. EPA should consider implementing rules which afford states 

with the greatest flexibility to select regulatory options that are best suited 

to their specific needs and conditions. Specific examples of requirements that 

may be too prescriptive include: 

3. Any requirement that down-hole shut off valves be installed in GS wells. 

Individual Response: Regarding down-hole shutoff devices, after evaluating the risks and 

benefits of down-hole shut-off systems and considering additional research, EPA will not require 

automatic down-hole shut-off devices for onshore Class VI wells since they are not necessary in 

all cases to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment. Instead, the final rule, at 

§146.88(e)(2), requires that owners or operators of onshore Class VI wells install automatic 

surface shut-off devices. The rule affords Director's discretion to mandate automatic down-hole 

shut-off devices in onshore situations that may warrant their use. However, the Agency believes 

that offshore Class VI wells present unique construction and operational conditions, including 

isolation from shorelines and the need to construct wells through the water column and the 

subsurface, which may delay response time in the event of well difficulties. The rule requires, at 

§146.88(e)(3), that owners or operators of offshore wells within State territorial waters install 

automatic down-hole shut-off systems. EPA believes that these requirements at §146.88(e) 

ensure that proper precautions are taken to prevent subsurface fluid movement and ensure 

protection of USDWs. 

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 29219 Letter Lines: 208 to 217 ; 226 to 226 

Comment Code: 4324 2.4.4.1.2 Comments opposed to requiring injection below the lowermost 

USDW 

Comment: States like Indiana with a proven track record of effectively managing similar 

programs have indeed demonstrated an ability to adapt to evolving technologies 

and we believe do possess the capability to effectively address long-term 

storage issues. In fact, as indicated earlier in our comments, many of the longterm issues associated with CCGS operations will be outside the purview of the 

UIC Program and will need to be addressed by states as they enact appropriate 

CCGS legislation. EPA should consider implementing rules which afford states 

with the greatest flexibility to select regulatory options that are best suited 

11
to their specific needs and conditions. Specific examples of requirements that 

may be too prescriptive include: 

4. Blanket prohibition of GS in zones above the lowermost USDW. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are limited circumstances where injection 

above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs from 

endangerment. The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owners or operators 

can seek a waiver of the Class VI injection depth requirements for injection into non-USDW 

formations above and/or between USDWs. The final rule also establishes limited circumstances 

under which expansions of the areal extent of aquifer exemptions may be granted for owners or 

operators of Class II EOR/EGR wells transitioning to Class VI injection for GS. Additionally, 

the final GS rule does not categorically preclude or prohibit injection into any type of formation. 

EPA believes that these requirements will ensure USDW protection while providing flexibility to 

UIC program Directors and owners or operators who will undertake CO2 injection for GS. The 

Agency believes this 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. 

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 29220 Letter Lines: 208 to 217 ; 228 to 228 

Comment Code: 4344 2.4.4.2.2 Comments opposed to setting a minimum injection depth 

Comment: States like Indiana with a proven track record of effectively managing similar 

programs have indeed demonstrated an ability to adapt to evolving technologies 

and we believe do possess the capability to effectively address long-term 

storage issues. In fact, as indicated earlier in our comments, many of the longterm issues associated with CCGS operations will be outside the purview of the 

UIC Program and will need to be addressed by states as they enact appropriate 

CCGS legislation. EPA should consider implementing rules which afford states 

with the greatest flexibility to select regulatory options that are best suited 

to their specific needs and conditions. Specific examples of requirements that 

may be too prescriptive include: 

5. Any requirement to establish minimum injection depth requirements. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that it is not appropriate to set a minimum injection depth for 

GS projects and the Agency believes that a determination of site-suitability for GS (i.e., that 

12
subsurface formations will receive and confine injected CO2) should be made on a site-specific 

basis. The GS rule at §146.82 requires the owner or operator to provide extensive site and 

project-specific information to the Director to demonstrate that the site meets the minimum siting 

criteria at §146.83 and that the CO2 will be contained within the injection formation and that 

USDWs will be protected from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 29221 Letter Lines: 208 to 217 ; 230 to 230 

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

(seeking comment) 

Comment: States like Indiana with a proven track record of effectively managing similar 

programs have indeed demonstrated an ability to adapt to evolving technologies 

and we believe do possess the capability to effectively address long-term 

storage issues. In fact, as indicated earlier in our comments, many of the longterm issues associated with CCGS operations will be outside the purview of the 

UIC Program and will need to be addressed by states as they enact appropriate 

CCGS legislation. EPA should consider implementing rules which afford states 

with the greatest flexibility to select regulatory options that are best suited 

to their specific needs and conditions. Specific examples of requirements that 

may be too prescriptive include: 

6. Any provision requiring the use of down-hole tracer systems. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the use of tracers should not be required at all GS sites, 

but should be available as an option. For this reason, EPA does not require the use of tracers at 

all GS sites; however, the Director has discretion to require their use if he/she determines that the 

use of tracers could improve monitoring of the site and enhance USDW protection from 

endangerment. The rule will also allow their use if proposed by the owner or operator and 

approved by the Director. 

Letter ID: 0236 Comment ID: 29222 Letter Lines: 208 to 217 ; 232 to 232 

Comment Code: 5240 2.8.2.2 Post injection timeframe (seeking comment) 

Comment: States like Indiana with a proven track record of effectively managing similar 

programs have indeed demonstrated an ability to adapt to evolving technologies 

and we believe do possess the capability to effectively address long-term 

storage issues. In fact, as indicated earlier in our comments, many of the longterm issues associated with CCGS operations will be outside the purview of the 

UIC Program and will need to be addressed by states as they enact appropriate 

CCGS legislation. EPA should consider implementing rules which afford states 

with the greatest flexibility to select regulatory options that are best suited 

to their specific needs and conditions. Specific examples of requirements that 

may be too prescriptive include: 

13
14

7. Fixed 50-year post-injection time period. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that a post-injection site care timeframe of 50 years is 

excessive and clarifies that the 50 year period is not fixed. For example, EPA acknowledges that 

there will be circumstances where it can be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the plume and 

pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs. For this reason, the final GS 

regulation includes a provision that the Director may, at his/her discretion, shorten the postinjection site care timeframe if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the GS project does 

not pose a risk to USDWs, as specified in §146.93(b)(2). Such a demonstration will be sitespecific, and based on pressure monitoring and USDW impacts. EPA believes however, that to 

ensure USDW protection from endangerment, a default timeframe for post-injection site care is 

necessary. A 50 year post-injection site care timeframe represents a reasonable and protective 

monitoring period based on a review of research studies, industry reports, and existing 

environmental programs, and evaluation of public comments.