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.
"Bryan Brendle" 

<BBrendle@nam.org> 

12/22/2008 02:10 PM 

To OW-Docket@EPA 

cc "Christina Burch" <CBurch@nam.org> 

bcc

Subject NAM Comments - EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 

 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

 

Attached please find comments from the National Association of Manufacturers relating to 

Federal Requirements pursuant to the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon 

Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells. Please contact me if you have any questions related to 

the filing. 

 

Regards, 

 

Bryan L. Brendle 

Director, Energy and Resources Policy 

The National Association of Manufacturers 

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite 600 

Washington, DC 20004 

 

Direct: 202-637-3176 

Fax: 202-637-3182 

Email: BBrendle@nam.org 

 
December 22, 2008 

Docket I.D. NO.: EPA-HQ-OW-2998-0390 

Via electronic filing and U.S. Mail 

Water Docket 

Docket Center (EPPA/DC) 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Re: The National Association of Manufacturers’ Comments on EPA’s Proposed 

Rule: Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) submits these comments in response 

to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Proposed Rule for federal requirements 

pursuant to the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program for carbon dioxide (CO2) geologic 

sequestration wells, as published in the July 25, 2008 issue of the Federal Register, 73 Fed. Reg. 

43503. The NAM is the nation’s largest industrial trade association representing small and large 

manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. The NAM is the nation’s leading 

voice for the manufacturing economy, a sector that employs more than 13,500,000 Americans 

and generates $1.6 trillion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Any EPA program laying out a 

framework for Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technology will impact energy markets 

and choices. Because manufacturers use more than 1/3 of all energy consumed in the U.S., 

policies that may shape our nation’s fuel choices and energy markets have a disproportionate 

impact on the manufacturing sector. 

The NAM’s mission is to enhance the competitiveness of manufacturers and improve 

American living standards by shaping a legislative and regulatory environment conducive to U.S. 

economic growth. As a general matter, the NAM supports EPA regulations that are designed to 

provide real net benefits to environmental quality and the public health, including the health of 

manufacturing workers and their families. Conversely, the NAM opposes regulations that would 

impose overly burdensome compliance costs on the manufacturing sector, especially with no 

clear goal for achieving improved environmental quality. 

The NAM supports development and deployment of advanced, energy efficient and zeroand-low-Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission and sequestration technology as part of a long-term 

strategy to reduce GHG emissions in the U.S. economy. Many members of the NAM have a 

direct interest in removing impediments to the development of CCS technology in order to 

increase its commercial viability. Pursuant to issues raised specifically by the proposal, the NAM 

believes that CCS can be developed in a manner that does not undermine the safety of 

underground sources of drinking water. 
Page 2 

CCS – EPA 

The NAM believes that a CCS policy can be designed that promotes a variety of public 

goals, including energy security, economic prosperity and protection of public health and the 

environment. The NAM believes that policy makers, building on the knowledge and expertise of 

energy professionals who have long injected carbon into geologic formations to enhance oil 

recovery, should establish a new regime and regulatory scheme which will promote the 

development and commercial deployment of CCS technology. The NAM is concerned, however, 

that EPA regulators may be looking backward, by considering liability schemes pursuant to the 

Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as models on which to 

establish a framework for the long-term capture and storage of carbon. The NAM does not 

believe that use of a statute such as Superfund, which has been the source of endless litigation, is 

an appropriate model on which to base something as modern as CCS. 

The NAM also supports establishment of a single and transparent regulatory structure 

that applies to CCS rather than a patchwork of regulatory and liability statutes that were designed 

to regulate activities completely unrelated to CCS. To this end, the NAM would support a 

continued dialogue with EPA and other regulators in order to craft a new and modern structure 

specific to CCS, and established in such a manner that will expedite its deployment, while not 

hindering the refinement and improvement of the process. 

The NAM appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Manufacturers look 

forward to working with federal officials to craft a comprehensive framework that will promote 

the commercial viability of CCS. For more information related to the NAM’s position on CCS 

technology, please contact Bryan Brendle at (202) 637-3176. 

 Sincerely, 

 Keith McCoy 

 Vice President, Energy and Resources Policy 
Letter ID: 0258 

Commenter: Keith McCoy 

Organization: National Association of Manufacturers 

Letter ID: 0258 Comment ID: 22373 Letter Lines: 102 to 109 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: The NAM supports development and deployment of advanced, energy efficient and 

zero-and-low-Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission and sequestration technology as part 

of a long-term strategy to reduce GHG emissions in the U.S. economy. Many 

members of the NAM have a direct interest in removing impediments to the 

development of CCS technology in order to increase its commercial viability. 

Pursuant to issues raised specifically by the proposal, the NAM believes that 

CCS can be developed in a manner that does not undermine the safety of 

underground sources of drinking water. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that large-scale GS can be done safely. The GS regulation 

builds upon the long-standing protective framework of the UIC program, which has been 

regulating the injection of billions of gallons of liquids for decades. The GS regulation enhances 

this existing framework with requirements for GS wells that are tailored to the unique nature of 

large-scale GS of CO2. These additional protective requirements include more extensive 

geologic testing, detailed computational modeling of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations, 

detailed requirements for monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and 

extended post-injection monitoring and site care. 

For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and 

preamble as well as the rulemaking docket. 

Letter ID: 0258 Comment ID: 22374 Letter Lines: 112 to 124 

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

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment) 

Comment: The NAM believes that a CCS policy can be designed that promotes a variety of 

public goals, including energy security, economic prosperity and protection of 

public health and the environment. The NAM believes that policy makers, 

building on the knowledge and expertise of energy professionals who have long 

injected carbon into geologic formations to enhance oil recovery, should 

establish a new regime and regulatory scheme which will promote the development 

and commercial deployment of CCS technology. The NAM is concerned, however, 

that EPA regulators may be looking backward, by considering liability schemes 

pursuant to the Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as 

models on which to establish a framework for the long-term capture and storage 

of carbon. The NAM does not believe that use of a statute such as Superfund, 

1
which has been the source of endless litigation, is an appropriate model on 

which to base something as modern as CCS. 

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. 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. 

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 promoting 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: 0258 Comment ID: 22375 Letter Lines: 126 to 132 

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment: The NAM also supports establishment of a single and transparent regulatory 

structure that applies to CCS rather than a patchwork of regulatory and 

liability statutes that were designed to regulate activities completely 

unrelated to CCS. To this end, the NAM would support a continued dialogue with 

EPA and other regulators in order to craft a new and modern structure specific 

to CCS, and established in such a manner that will expedite its deployment, 

while not hindering the refinement and improvement of the process. 

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

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

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

2
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, 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: 0258 Comment ID: 22376 Letter Lines: 134 to 138 

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments 

Comment: The NAM appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Manufacturers 

look forward to working with federal officials to craft a comprehensive 

framework that will promote the commercial viability of CCS. For more 

information related to the NAM’s position on CCS technology, please contact 

Bryan Brendle at (202) 637-3176. 

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 the intent of the GS rule is not to promote or encourage the use of GS; rather, 

its purpose 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. 

3