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.
Western Business Roundtable | 200 Union Blvd., #105 | Lakewood, CO 80228 | 303-384-9911 

info@westernroundtable.com | www.westernroundtable.com

The opinions expressed in this letter represent the views of a majority of Roundtable Members, but not necessarily all of our members. 

December 24, 2008 

Water Docket 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Code: 2822T 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

I am writing, on behalf of the multi-sector membership of the Western Business Roundtable 

(the “Roundtable”), in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (the “Agency’s”) 

request for public comments regarding its proposed rulemaking to implement federal 

requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) Underground Injection Control 

(UIC) Program for carbon dioxide (CO2) geologic sequestration wells (73 Federal Register 

43492, August 28, 2008). 

The whole issue of CO2 management has tremendous macro-economic, consumer 

pocketbook, environmental and national security implications. Extensive Congressional 

and regulatory reviews are underway regarding the efficacy of mandatory carbon 

regulations. A necessary predicate to any such regime must be a clear understanding of: 

 The effectiveness of sequestration and storage options; 

 Hurdles to the efficient implementation of those options; 

 CO2 transportation system challenges; and 

 Liability issues associated with both transportation and storage of CO2. 

The Roundtable strongly supports the aggressive research and development efforts 

underway to facilitate commercial-scale CO2 capture and sequestration (“CCS”) projects. 

We also believe that expansion of enhanced oil recovery (“EOR”) present a meaningful 

opportunity to utilize CO2 in a way that is beneficial to the global environment and both 

our nation’s economy and its energy security. 

Clearly, a viable large-scale commercial CCS program requires resolution of a broad range 

of technical, policy and legal questions, most of which are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. A good synopsis of those challenges was documented in the recent General 

Accounting Office (“GAO”) report, “Climate Change – Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect 

the Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage as a Key Mitigation Option” (GAO-08-1080, 

September, 2008). That said, we think EPA’s efforts here are an important first step and 
Roundtable Comments –SDWA CCS Regulations

 

will set the tone for how EPA and other federal and state regulatory bodies will approach 

CCS going forward. 

This rulemaking will also set the tone for how the public perceives CCS. Public acceptance 

is a crucial linchpin to any meaningful CCS program. This point was emphasized in a 2007 

National Academy of Sciences report, which noted that a large-scale CCS program cannot 

be successful “if a significant fraction of the public views it as dangerous or unacceptable.” 

(National Research Council, NAS, Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and 

Development of DOE (Phase Two) (2007). 

The Western Business Roundtable is a broad-based coalition of companies doing business in 

the Western United States. Our members are engaged in a wide array of enterprises, 

including: manufacturing; retail energy sales; mining; electric power generation and 

transmission; energy infrastructure development; and oil and gas exploration, development, 

transportation and distribution. We work to defend the interests of the West and support 

policies that encourage economic growth and opportunity, freedom of enterprise and a 

common-sense, balanced approach to conservation and environmental stewardship.

Most of our members are centrally involved in the development, transportation and 

processing of a wide variety of energy resources -- fossil, renewable and nuclear -- as well as 

the generation and distribution of electricity across the West and technologies that 

facilitate greater energy conservation and efficiency. Roundtable members also are on the 

cutting edge of technology development related to the management of CO2 emissions. 

I hope you will find the broad perspective and expertise reflected in this letter helpful as 

the Agency moves forward with its deliberations on this important policy issue. 

ROUNDTABLE CONCERNS 

As policymakers and project developers work through the many nuances involved with 

large-scale CCS, we believe that it is important to keep focused on this central tenet: 

strong and early investment in CCS technologies and infrastructure is a necessary 

foundation for any viable climate change regulatory regime. 

One of the biggest impediments to commercial-scale CCS projects today is regulatory 

uncertainty. Meaningful investments in CCS will only occur in the presence of clear, 

carefully tailored regulatory constructs that help encourage early and robust development 

of projects and which aid in eliminating liability risk for such early investments. In that 

regard, we appreciate EPA’s statement, in the rule’s preamble, that it recognizes CCS as a 

key climate change mitigation technology and that the rule is intended to support its 

development. 

With that goal in mind, we would offer the Agency the following thoughts on how the 

proposed regulations might be clarified and strengthened: 
Roundtable Comments –SDWA CCS Regulations

 

1. Don’t Chill On-Going Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Activities -- EPA’s search 

for a regulatory structure to manage geologic sequestration of CO2, in the context of 

CO2 capture initiatives contemplated in CCS initiatives, has resulted in this 

proposal to create a new SDWA UIC “Class VI” category . This effort reflects the fact 

that geologic sequestration wells do not fall neatly into any of the current SWDA UIC 

classes. We understand that rationale and generally support the distinction being 

drawn. In fact, we want to make sure that the distinction is drawn clearly enough 

that it doesn’t confuse or impede the existing CO2 uses, such as EOR, already 

covered under Class II of the UIC regime. 

2. Appropriately Characterize CO2 -- We strongly urge EPA to be very careful in its 

characterization of CO2 under the UIC program. As has been previously noted, a 

successful climate change control program will necessarily be predicated on 

development of -- and public support for -- CCS. EPA could inadvertently, and 

inappropriately, stigmatize CCS, if it veers into an unwarranted categorization of 

CO2 as a pollutant or a hazardous waste. Such suggestions would imply a liability 

risk that would chill further development of both CCS and Enhanced Oil Recovery 

(EOR) operations. 

3. Avoid Regulatory Creep – We are extremely concerned by arguments that the 

whole suite of environmental laws -- including the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) -- be applied to CCS projects. 

These laws, if applied broadly to CCS, would impose significant obligations and 

potential liabilities not only on project operators, but also potentially on other 

entities in the CO2 chain, such as entities producing the CO2 that is ultimately 

injected. That would put advancement of CCS commercialization into a deep freeze. 

Such an outcome would clearly be counter-productive. Thus, we urge the Agency to 

pursue options that will limit CCS projects’ liability under CERCLA and RCRA. 

4. Characterize Carefully Risks of the Geologic Sequestration of CO2 – It is, of 

course, crucial that the final rule meet EPA’s objective of protecting drinking water 

supplies. We are concerned, however, that some of the more stringent requirements 

being proposed for Class VI wells are not supported by findings of unique risks 

actually posed by CCS wells. EPA’s regulations should be based upon an accurate 

characterization of the potential risks posed by the geologic sequestration of CO2 and 

be specifically tailored accordingly to address those identified risks. This will ensure 

that EPA meets its obligation to provide appropriate protection of underground 

sources of drinking water, while avoiding unnecessary regulations that may hamper 

CCS or EOR projects from going forward or call into question the general safety of 

CO2 storage. 

EPA should consider applying a tiered set of site characterization requirements 

based on demonstrable and known site characteristics. For example, potential sites 
Roundtable Comments –SDWA CCS Regulations

 

that are deep saline formations located one or more kilometers below the ground 

surface are generally recognized as among the most favorable and secure site 

options for assuring public safety. If such sites do not have a Underground Source of 

Drinking Water (USDW) aquifer located between it and the ground surface above, a 

more streamlined regulatory site characterization and risk review may be 

appropriate. 

On the other hand, an example of a potential site that may require a more rigorous 

site characterization and risk assessment are “sole source aquifers” which are 

aquifers that are the sole supply of water for a region and are critically important to 

protect. Some stakeholders may assert that there should be no CO2 storage above or 

below a sole source aquifer. However, such a restriction could essentially prohibit 

storage in many Western areas. Rather, a better approach would allow EPA to 

permit UIC Class VI wells in areas where it can be shown that there are sufficient 

caps and protections to prevent the migration of CO2 in overlying aquifers, even in 

proximity to aquifers designated as sole source. An early detection monitoring 

program could be established to provide sufficient opportunity to mitigate any 

unlikely release of CO2 from geologic storage unit. 

Approaches like this illustrate how EPA can streamline UIC regulations for site 

characterizations and permit UIC Class VI wells that first and foremost protect 

public safety, yet reflect a workable balance in adapting site characterization and 

risk assessments based on criteria adaptable to unique candidate sites. 

5. Make Risk Management Approaches Reasonable – We strongly urge EPA to 

avoid utilizing risk management approaches that discourage CCS deployment. 

Regulatory certainty is absolutely crucial, if meaningful investment is going to flow 

to CCS technologies and implementation. 

EPA can be helpful in that regard by bringing certainty to the long-term obligations 

and risks associated with geologic sequestration projects. For example, EPA should 

refrain from requiring financial assurance for potential liabilities more than 50 

years in the future. Extending those requirements any further may deter and even 

prevent investment in CCS projects. Likewise, post-injection monitoring and 

financial assurance requirements are important, but need to be tailored to comport 

with the potential risks, which decrease substantially after injection is complete. 

 

6. Respect State Primacy on SDWA Permitting – EPA should respect states’ 

expertise in administering the SDWA, by providing a reasonable process whereby 

they can obtain primacy over regulation of Class VI (CCS) wells. Many states 

already administer SDWA programs and have long experience regulating CO2

injection through Class II EOR programs. Further, a number of states are moving 

ahead with developing their own initiatives and regulations to solve other issues 

associated with CCS -- incentives provisions and provisions clarifying the nature of 

potentially affected property rights as two examples. 
Roundtable Comments –SDWA CCS Regulations

 

Clearly, in determining state primacy, EPA will have to consider how to handle 

projects that span multiple states. We do not believe that issue to be 

insurmountable. Rules could include, for example, provisions for establishing a 

primary state for permitting purposes, with other affected states provided an 

opportunity for notice and comment. 

7. Avoid Over-Generalization in Regulations – We strongly urge EPA to avoid 

blanket prohibitions or arbitrary absolutes in the rule. As currently proposed, EPA’s 

regulations contain a number of default provisions that presume universal 

application. We believe that approach is problematic. It is too early to fully 

understand precisely which methods or technologies will ultimately prove optimal. 

Further, the geologic variability involved in different conceivable GS projects needs 

to be taken into account in issues ranging from site characterization to area of 

review (AOR) to containment requirements. The regulations should encourage sitespecific, performance-based determinations at the permitting stage to handle these 

important issues. 

EPA should leave the door open for a range of injection sites and methods (some of 

which are not yet fully understood), provided that the Owner or Operator can show 

that the injection and storage will be protective of drinking water supplies. 

8. Put Limits on EPA Authority and Discretion -- The Roundtable fully recognizes 

the difficulty EPA faces in establishing regulations for CCS. We fully support the 

notion that some level of discretion is necessary for the Agency to adjust to changes 

or new information that emerges as pilot projects move forward. Having said that, 

the balance here is a delicate one. Too much discretion can undermine the certainty 

that is so important to encourage CCS projects. Certainly, any discretion that is 

afforded should be bound by reasonable criteria. Equally important: EPA should 

adhere to its limited authority under the SDWA and not use this as an opportunity 

to seek to extend it. 

CONCLUSION 

On behalf of the many member organizations of the Western Business Roundtable, thank 

you for the opportunity to provide our input on this crucially important public policy issue, 

the implications of which are so pivotal to the continued vitality of the West. 

Sincerely, 

James T. Sims 

President and CEO 
Roundtable Comments –SDWA CCS Regulations

 

Western Business Roundtable 

cc: 

White House Council on Environmental Quality 

Office of Management and Budget 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Members 

Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee Members 

House Energy and Commerce Committee Members 

American Legislative Exchange Council 

Western House and Senate Delegations 

Western Governors 

Western Governors Association 

Western State Legislators 

Counsel of State Governments – West 
Letter ID: 0249 

Commenter: James T. Sims 

Organization: Western Business Roundtable 

Letter ID: 0249 Comment ID: 22253 Letter Lines: 27 to 43 

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments 

Comment: I am writing, on behalf of the multi-sector membership of the Western Business 

Roundtable (the "Roundtable"), in response to the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (the "Agency’s") request for public comments regarding its proposed 

rulemaking to implement federal requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

("SDWA") Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for carbon dioxide (CO2) 

geologic sequestration wells (73 Federal Register 43492, August 28, 2008). 

The whole issue of CO2 management has tremendous macro-economic, 

consumerpocketbook, environmental and national security implications. Extensive 

Congressionaland regulatory reviews are underway regarding the efficacy of 

mandatory carbon regulations. A necessary predicate to any such regime must be a 

clear understanding of: 

“ The effectiveness of sequestration and storage options; 

“ Hurdles to the efficient implementation of those options; 

“ CO2 transportation system challenges; and 

“ Liability issues associated with both transportation and storage of CO2. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. 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. 

EPA clarifies that climate change policy, evaluating the barriers to CO2 storage, and CO2 

transport are outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is 

to ensure consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the 

United States and provide requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of 

the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. 

Letter ID: 0249 Comment ID: 22254 Letter Lines: 45 to 49 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: The Roundtable strongly supports the aggressive research and development efforts 

underway to facilitate commercial-scale CO2 capture and sequestration ("CCS") 

projects. We also believe that expansion of enhanced oil recovery ("EOR") 

present a meaningful opportunity to utilize CO2 in a way that is beneficial to 

the global environment and both our nation’s economy and its energy security. 

1
Individual Response: EPA clarifies that injection of CO2 for the purposes of enhanced oil and 

gas recovery will continue to be permitted under the Class II program, as long as any oil or gas 

production is occurring. The UIC GS requirements will apply to wells used for the purpose of 

long-term GS. The intent of the Class VI regulations is not to promote or encourage the use of 

GS, but, instead to ensure protection of USDWs where GS technologies are deployed. 

For additional information on EPA’s approach to wells that are transitioning from ER to GS, see 

the discussion of Class II wells under “How Does This Rule Affect Existing Injection Wells 

Under the UIC Program?” in the preamble to the final GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0249 Comment ID: 22255 Letter Lines: 51 to 67 

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment: Clearly, a viable large-scale commercial CCS program requires resolution of a 

broad range of technical, policy and legal questions, most of which are beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking. A good synopsis of those challenges was 

documented in the recent General Accounting Office ("GAO") report, "Climate 

Change - Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the Viability of Carbon Capture and 

Storage as a Key Mitigation Option" (GAO-08-1080, September, 2008). That said, 

we think EPA’s efforts here are an important first step and will set the tone 

for how EPA and other federal and state regulatory bodies will approach CCS 

going forward. 

This rulemaking will also set the tone for how the public perceives CCS. Public 

acceptance is a crucial linchpin to any meaningful CCS program. This point was 

emphasized in a 2007 National Academy of Sciences report, which noted that a 

large-scale CCS program cannot be successful "if a significant fraction of the 

public views it as dangerous or unacceptable." (National Research Council, NAS, 

Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development of DOE (Phase 

Two) (2007). 

Individual Response: The GS regulation will provide certainty to industry and the public by 

providing consistency in requirements across the U.S. and transparency about what requirements 

apply to owners or operators. Furthermore, the tailored requirements in the GS rule will help 

allay public concerns about the technology and its impacts on USDWs and, in turn, promote 

acceptance of GS projects. 

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; and the 

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, 

2
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. 

Letter ID: 0249 Comment ID: 22256 Letter Lines: 69 to 87 

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments 

Comment: The Western Business Roundtable is a broad-based coalition of companies doing 

business inthe Western United States. Our members are engaged in a wide array of 

enterprises, including: manufacturing; retail energy sales; mining; electric 

power generation and transmission; energy infrastructure development; and oil 

and gas exploration, development, transportation and distribution. We work to 

defend the interests of the West and support policies that encourage economic 

growth and opportunity, freedom of enterprise and a common-sense, balanced 

approach to conservation and environmental stewardship. 

Most of our members are centrally involved in the development, transportation 

and processing of a wide variety of energy resources -- fossil, renewable and 

nuclear -- as well as the generation and distribution of electricity across the 

West and technologies that facilitate greater energy conservation and 

efficiency. Roundtable members also are on the cutting edge of technology 

development related to the management of CO2 emissions. 

I hope you will find the broad perspective and expertise reflected in this 

letter helpful as the Agency moves forward with its deliberations on this 

important policy issue. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. 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: 0249 Comment ID: 22257 Letter Lines: 89 to 95 

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

ownership 

Comment: ROUNDTABLE CONCERNS 

As policymakers and project developers work through the many nuances involved 

with large-scale CCS, we believe that it is important to keep focused on this 

central tenet: strong and early investment in CCS technologies and 

infrastructure is a necessary foundation for any viable climate change regulatory 

3
regime. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the purpose of the Class VI GS rule is to ensure 

consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations 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 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 intent of the Class VI GS regulations is not to promote or incentivize the use of 

GS, but, instead to ensure protection of USDWs where GS technologies are deployed. 

EPA recognizes the importance of providing clear, flexible, scalable, and appropriate 

regulations. EPA believes that the Class VI GS regulation will provide certainty to industry and 

the public by providing consistency in requirements across the U.S. and transparency about what 

requirements apply to owners or operators. 

Letter ID: 0249 Comment ID: 22258 Letter Lines: 97 to 106 

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment: One of the biggest impediments to commercial-scale CCS projects today is 

regulatory uncertainty. Meaningful investments in CCS will only occur in the 

presence of clear, carefully tailored regulatory constructs that help encourage 

early and robust development of projects and which aid in eliminating liability 

risk for such early investments. In that regard, we appreciate EPA’s statement, 

in the rule’s preamble, that it recognizes CCS as a key climate change 

mitigation technology and that the rule is intended to support its development. 

With that goal in mind, we would offer the Agency the following thoughts on how 

the proposed regulations might be clarified and strengthened: 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the GS regulation will provide regulatory certainty and 

oversight that operators have requested, and allow for the deployment of this key climate change 

mitigation technology that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. EPA adds that the GS 

rule does not promote or encourage the use of GS; rather, it is designed to ensure consistency in 

permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provide 

requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to 

reduce CO2 emissions. 

Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment letter 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: 0249 Comment ID: 22259 Letter Lines: 108 to 117 

4
Comment Code: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation 

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: 1. Don’t Chill On-Going Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Activities -- EPA’s search 

for a regulatory structure to manage geologic sequestration of CO2, in the 

context of CO2 capture initiatives contemplated in CCS initiatives, has resulted 

in this proposal to create a new SDWA UIC "Class VI" category . This effort 

reflects the fact that geologic sequestration wells do not fall neatly into any 

of the current SWDA UIC classes. We understand that rationale and generally 

support the distinction being drawn. In fact, we want to make sure that the 

distinction is drawn clearly enough that it doesn’t confuse or impede the 

existing CO2 uses, such as EOR, already covered under Class II of the UIC 

regime. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that injection for the primary purpose of long-term storage 

is sufficiently different from Class II EOR operations and warrants tailored requirements. EPA 

agrees that the nature and risks of CO2 injection for long-term storage is different from Class II 

CO2 injection for EOR, and that tailored requirements for GS wells are appropriate and 

necessary to protect USDWs from endangerment. For this reason, the Agency tailored UIC 

requirements for Class VI wells that address the general risks deep injection may pose to 

USDWs and specifically address the unique nature of CO2 GS (i.e., very large volumes, very 

long time-periods, and reservoir pressure conditions). 

EPA clarifies that the purpose of the GS rule is not to incentivize or encourage the use of GS or 

to address the use of pore space. The purpose of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is 

deployed, it is conducted in a manner that does not endanger USDWs. 

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: 0249 Comment ID: 22260 Letter Lines: 119 to 126 

Comment Code: 1480 1.2.2.2.2 CO2 is not a pollutant 

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

Comment: 2. Appropriately Characterize CO2 - We strongly urge EPA to be very careful in 

its characterization of CO2 under the UIC program. As has been previously 

5
noted, a successful climate change control program will necessarily be predicated 

on development of -- and public support for -- CCS. EPA could inadvertently, 

and inappropriately, stigmatize CCS, if it veers into an unwarranted 

categorization of CO2 as a pollutant or a hazardous waste. Such suggestions 

would imply a liability risk that would chill further development of both CCS and 

Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) operations. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the requirements in the GS rule overstate the risk 

associated with GS or imply that CO2 is a waste. The requirements for Class VI wells are 

tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the injection volumes 

anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant nature of the injectate, its corrosivity in the 

presence of water, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. 

In addition, although the requirements were based on the existing regulatory framework for deep 

wells, including Class I wells, the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as a pollutant or 

commodity. While the Class I requirements formed the basis of many of the specific 

requirements for GS wells, EPA clarifies that the GS rule is tailored to the unique nature of GS. 

EPA based many of the GS requirements on the Class I regulations because, like Class VI wells, 

Class I wells are typically deep and involve waste streams that, if not properly managed, can 

harm the well and lead to contamination. 

Under §146.82(a)(7), owners or operators of GS wells must characterize their CO2 stream as part 

of their permit application. If the injectate is determined to meet the definition of a hazardous 

waste under RCRA, and as defined in 40 CFR Part 261, the stringent UIC Class I hazardous 

waste requirements for injection of hazardous waste apply. Thus, injection of corrosive CO2 into 

Class VI wells is prohibited. In addition, owners or operators must periodically monitor their 

injectate throughout injection operations under §146.90(a). 

EPA adds that the requirements of the GS rule are tailored to the nature of the CO2 itself and 

risks associated with the injection of CO2, and do not address the status of CO2 as either a 

pollutant, commodity, or waste. 

Letter ID: 0249 Comment ID: 22261 Letter Lines: 128 to 139 

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

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment) 

Comment: 3. Avoid Regulatory Creep - We are extremely concerned by arguments that 

the whole suite of environmental laws -- including the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") and the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") -- be applied to CCS projects. 

These laws, if applied broadly to CCS, would impose significant obligations and 

potential liabilities not only on project operators, but also potentially on 

other entities in the CO2 chain, such as entities producing the CO2 that is 

ultimately injected. That would put advancement of CCS commercialization into a 

6
deep freeze. Such an outcome would clearly be counter-productive. Thus, we 

urge the Agency to pursue options that will limit CCS projects’ liability under 

CERCLA and RCRA. 

Individual Response: 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. 

CO2 itself is not listed as a hazardous substance under CERCLA; however, the CO2 stream may 

contain a listed hazardous substance (such as mercury) or may mobilize substances in the 

subsurface that could react with ground water to produce listed hazardous substances (such as 

sulfuric acid). Whether such substances may result in CERCLA liability from a sequestration 

facility depends entirely on the composition of the specific CO2 stream and the environmental 

media in which it is stored (e.g., soil or ground water). CERCLA exempts from liability, under 

CERCLA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, certain “federally permitted releases” (FPR) as defined in 

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(10). Class VI permits will need to be carefully structured to ensure 

that they prevent potential releases from the well which are outside the scope of the Class VI 

permit. 

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

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

USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0249 Comment ID: 22262 Letter Lines: 141 to 151 

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

Comment: 4. Characterize Carefully Risks of the Geologic Sequestration of CO2 - It is, of 

course, crucial that the final rule meet EPA’s objective of protecting drinking 

water supplies. We are concerned, however, that some of the more stringent 

requirements being proposed for Class VI wells are not supported by findings of 

unique risks actually posed by CCS wells. EPA’s regulations should be based 

upon an accurate characterization of the potential risks posed by the geologic 

sequestration of CO2 and be specifically tailored accordingly to address those 

identified risks. This will ensure that EPA meets its obligation to provide 

appropriate protection of underground sources of drinking water, while avoiding 

unnecessary regulations that may hamper CCS or EOR projects from going forward 

or call into question the general safety of CO2 storage. 

7
Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the GS regulation overstates the risk of CO2 injection 

or that the requirements are not supported by findings associated with CO2’s unique risks. EPA 

recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not 

properly managed, could endanger drinking water sources and have other adverse impacts. 

However, with proper site selection, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large 

volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and 

potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expects the tailored permitting, siting, 

construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule to 

prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs. 

EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote CCS; rather, the purpose of the rule is 

to ensure that, where deployed, GS is performed in a manner that protects USDWs from 

endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0249 Comment ID: 22263 Letter Lines: 153 to 178 

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

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

Comment: EPA should consider applying a tiered set of site characterization requirements 

based on demonstrable and known site characteristics. For example, potential 

sites that are deep saline formations located one or more kilometers below the 

ground surface are generally recognized as among the most favorable and secure 

site options for assuring public safety. If such sites do not have a 

Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW) aquifer located between it and the 

ground surface above, a more streamlined regulatory site characterization and 

risk review may be appropriate. 

On the other hand, an example of a potential site that may require a more 

rigorous site characterization and risk assessment are "sole source aquifers" 

which are aquifers that are the sole supply of water for a region and are 

critically important to protect. Some stakeholders may assert that there should 

be no CO2 storage above or below a sole source aquifer. However, such a 

restriction could essentially prohibit storage in many Western areas. Rather, a 

better approach would allow EPA to permit UIC Class VI wells in areas where it 

can be shown that there are sufficient caps and protections to prevent the 

migration of CO2 in overlying aquifers, even in proximity to aquifers designated 

as sole source. An early detection monitoring program could be established to 

provide sufficient opportunity to mitigate any unlikely release of CO2 from 

geologic storage unit. 

Approaches like this illustrate how EPA can streamline UIC regulations for site 

characterizations and permit UIC Class VI wells that first and foremost protect 

public safety, yet reflect a workable balance in adapting site characterization 

and risk assessments based on criteria adaptable to unique candidate sites. 

8
Individual Response: EPA believes that requiring appropriate, site-specific, site 

characterization by the owner or operator (under §146.82) and providing an appropriate degree 

of flexibility to the Director to evaluate site-specific geologic data will afford the greatest 

protection of USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes that it is important for the Director to 

have as much site-specific information as possible in order to make an informed decision to 

permit injection for GS at a specific site. This approach allows the permit writer to establish 

requirements considering varying site conditions eliminating the need for tiered requirements. 

GS in areas that may pose risks to USDWs, as assessed and identified by the owner or operator 

and the Director during the site selection process, would not be permitted. EPA disagrees that a 

tiering system for GS sites or formations is appropriate. Instead, the GS rule focuses on 

evaluating the suitability of a site based on site-specific geological and operational data. 

EPA adds that the final GS rule contains a provision (at 146.95) for owners or operators to apply 

for waivers from the requirement that injection be below the lowermost USDW. EPA believes 

this waiver provision will reduce potential limitations on the re-permitting of Class II wells as 

Class VI wells, provided they meet the requirements at 146.95 while still protecting USDWs 

from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0249 Comment ID: 22264 Letter Lines: 180 to 192 

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

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Responsibility and Long-Term Care 

Requirements 

Comment: 5. Make Risk Management Approaches Reasonable - We strongly urge EPA to avoid 

utilizing risk management approaches that discourage CCS deployment. Regulatory 

certainty is absolutely crucial, if meaningful investment is going to flow to 

CCS technologies and implementation. 

EPA can be helpful in that regard by bringing certainty to the long-term 

obligations and risks associated with geologic sequestration projects. For 

example, EPA should refrain from requiring financial assurance for potential 

liabilities more than 50 years in the future. Extending those requirements any 

further may deter and even prevent investment in CCS projects. Likewise, postinjection monitoring and financial assurance requirements are important, but 

need to be tailored to comport with the potential risks, which decrease 

substantially after injection is complete. 

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

excessive for most Class VI wells. EPA recognizes that there are challenges associated with 

assuring funding for activities that will occur far in the future. However, the Agency believes 

that operators must demonstrate that financial resources are available to plug the injection well 

and provide post-injection care at the point in time that the first CO2 is injected. 

EPA disagrees that the requirements for financial responsibility are overly stringent. The goal of 

9
financial responsibility is to ensure that financial resources are available to prevent the 

endangerment of USDWs from improper plugging, remediation, and management of wells in the 

event that the owner or operator experiences financial difficulties throughout the life of the 

project. 

EPA believes that minimum financial responsibility requirements are necessary to hold well 

owners or operators accountable for the safe operation and through closure of the well and avoid 

expense and risk to the public. EPA adds that the purpose of the GS rule is not to encourage the 

use of GS; rather, the purpose of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is 

conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. See the final rule and preamble 

for further discussion of EPA's final approach to financial responsibility. 

Under SDWA authority, owners or operators of injection wells must ensure protection of 

USDWs from endangerment and are subject to liability for enforcement under the Act. The final 

rule requires that an owner or operator must conduct post-injection site care that is consistent 

with the approved PISC plan or for the duration of the alternative timeframe approved by the 

Director pursuant to requirements in §146.93(c), until a demonstration can be made to the 

satisfaction of the Director that the plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of 

endangerment to USDWs. For additional information about the PISC and site closure 

requirements, see the preamble to the final GS rule. 

EPA also recognizes the concerns associated with assuring financial responsibility for the long 

time-frames over which post-injection site care will be conducted. EPA is developing guidance 

on financial responsibility to assist owners or operators in evaluating the requirements of 

§146.85 and to assist Directors in evaluating financial responsibility demonstrations. The 

guidance describes the types of financial mechanisms that operators may choose to use when 

evaluating the financial responsibility requirements for GS wells, and it will also include a 

section on how to estimate costs to support accurate financial responsibility demonstrations. The 

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

EPA adds that the purpose of the GS rule is not to incentivize the use of GS; rather, the purpose 

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

USDWs from endangerment. See the final rule and preamble for further discussion of EPA's 

final approach to financial responsibility. 

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 GS rule offers owners or operators flexibility regarding the duration of the PISC 

timeframe by: (1) allowing the Director discretion to shorten or lengthen the PISC timeframe 

during the post-injection period based on site-specific data, pursuant to requirements at 

§146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to 

demonstrate, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC 

timeframe may be appropriate if it ensures non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to 

requirements at §146.93(c). 

EPA believes that a default post-injection site care timeframe of 50 years, with flexibility to 

10
adjust the timeframe for a limited number of GS projects during the permitting process where 

substantial data exists to demonstrate that an alternative timeframe would be protective of 

USDWs, or based on data collected during the PISC period, is appropriate to address the range of 

sites where GS is anticipated to occur, to accommodate site-specific circumstances and various 

geologic conditions, and addresses commenters¿ concerns, while ensuring USDW protection. 

Both approaches will utilize site-specific data, and be based on pressure monitoring and USDW 

impacts. 

Letter ID: 0249 Comment ID: 22265 Letter Lines: 194 to 207 

Comment Code: 1530 1.2.3.1 State regulatory efforts on GS (seeking comment) 

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

Comment: 6. Respect State Primacy on SDWA Permitting - EPA should respect states’ 

expertise in administering the SDWA, by providing a reasonable process whereby 

they can obtain primacy over regulation of Class VI (CCS) wells. Many 

states already administer SDWA programs and have long experience regulating CO2 

injection through Class II EOR programs. Further, a number of states are 

moving ahead with developing their own initiatives and regulations to solve other 

issues associated with CCS -- incentives provisions and provisions clarifying 

the nature of potentially affected property rights as two examples. 

Clearly, in determining state primacy, EPA will have to consider how to handle 

projects that span multiple states. We do not believe that issue to be 

insurmountable. Rules could include, for example, provisions for establishing a 

primary state for permitting purposes, with other affected states provided an 

opportunity for notice and comment. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy 

for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes 

that State, Tribal, and Territorial, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to 

evaluate the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a 

Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision 

made will be site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the 

need for these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national 

consistency. 

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 encourages states to accept 

primacy for Class VI, and 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. 

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 

11
providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well 

classes can help foster effective management of CCS. The Agency will allow independent 

primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. 

EPA understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross State, Tribal, Territorial, 

or EPA Regional boundaries. The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator 

to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundaries within the AoR. Based on this 

information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to 

inform them of the permit application, as specified in §146.82(b), and ensure that they are 

involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and remedial response 

plan, as specified in §146.94). The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process 

and anticipates that State-State/State-Tribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate 

information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects. 

Because some GS projects will require coordination across State, Tribal, and Territorial 

jurisdictions, the Agency will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate communication 

among States, Tribes, and Territories interested in obtaining Primacy during the implementation 

phase of the GS regulation. Such communication may involve other organizations such as the 

Sierra Club, NDWAC, associations, and other experts. However, the responsibility for 

addressing such subjects ultimately rests with the States, Tribes, and Territories with primacy. In 

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

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

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

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

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

EPA clarifies that issuance and oversight of a GS permit, including any associated AoR 

boundary related coordination, is the responsibility of the primacy (State, Tribal, or Territorial) 

or regional DI program in the state where the injection well is located. 

Letter ID: 0249 Comment ID: 22266 Letter Lines: 209 to 225 

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

Comment: 7. Avoid Over-Generalization in Regulations - We strongly urge EPA to avoid 

blanket prohibitions or arbitrary absolutes in the rule. As currently proposed, 

EPA’s regulations contain a number of default provisions that presume universal 

application. We believe that approach is problematic. It is too early to 

fully understand precisely which methods or technologies will ultimately prove 

optimal. 

Further, the geologic variability involved in different conceivable GS projects 

needs to be taken into account in issues ranging from site characterization to 

area of review (AOR) to containment requirements. The regulations should 

encourage site-specific, performance-based determinations at the permitting 

12
stage to handle these important issues. 

EPA should leave the door open for a range of injection sites and methods (some 

of which are not yet fully understood), provided that the Owner or Operator can 

show that the injection and storage will be protective of drinking water 

supplies. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that permitting decisions for GS wells should be based on 

site-specific factors. The GS rule requires owners or operators to submit, and Directors to 

consider, extensive site-specific data, specified at §146.82, to demonstrate that a site is suitable 

for GS. Additionally, many of the permit requirements for GS wells are established through 

individualized site-specific plans for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, and 

injection well plugging and post-injection site care and site closure. EPA adds that the final GS 

rule includes a balance of specific criteria to be met by the owner or operator and areas of 

Directorial discretion and considerations for how that discretion would be exercised. The Agency 

believes this balance allows for GS projects to be designed and permitted to address the unique, 

site-specific aspects of each project, while providing consistency in permitting across the U.S. 

Rather than setting performance- or technology-based standards for GS projects, EPA is 

adopting a flexible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement sitespecific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring the site, performing corrective 

action, and post-injection site care. EPA believes that the plans—which would be reviewed and 

approved by the Director and periodically updated throughout the life of the project—promote an 

ongoing dialogue between the operator and the Director that will encourage use of the most 

appropriate technologies for a particular project. 

Letter ID: 0249 Comment ID: 22267 Letter Lines: 227 to 236 

Comment Code: 1400 1.2 Comments on EPA's Authority to Regulate Injection of CO2 

Comment: 8. Put Limits on EPA Authority and Discretion - The Roundtable fully 

recognizes the difficulty EPA faces in establishing regulations for CCS. We 

fully support the notion that some level of discretion is necessary for the 

Agency to adjust to changes or new information that emerges as pilot projects 

move forward. Having said that, the balance here is a delicate one. Too much 

discretion can undermine the certainty that is so important to encourage CCS 

projects. Certainly, any discretion that is afforded should be bound by 

reasonable criteria. Equally important: EPA should adhere to its limited 

authority under the SDWA and not use this as an opportunity to seek to extend 

it. 

Individual Response: While EPA agrees with commenters that a stable, predictable, nationally 

consistent, and workable regulatory framework is important, EPA stresses that the focus of the 

GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs 

from endangerment. 

13
To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, 

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. 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. An adaptive 

approach will allow regulatory development to proceed 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: 0249 Comment ID: 22268 Letter Lines: 238 to 243 

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments 

Comment: CONCLUSION 

On behalf of the many member organizations of the Western Business Roundtable, 

thank you for the opportunity to provide our input on this crucially important 

public policy issue, the implications of which are so pivotal to the continued 

vitality of the West. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA's 

responses to this letter for further details. 

14