1.2 –  Responses to Public Comments on EPA’s Authority

This file contains responses to public comments on EPA’s authority (comment codes

1400 to 1540).  This section includes comments supporting or opposing the rule, EPA’s

authority to regulate CO2 and injection, other authorities, and State efforts to regulate

GS.

The table below presents all of the EPA‐assigned comment codes that are included in

this section of the comment and response summary.  Use the bookmarks in the PDF to

move among the comment codes.   

Topics included in this summary and associated comment codes

Topic Code

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

1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking 1410

1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 1420

1.2.1.2 Support EPA's authority to regulate CO2 injection 1430

1.2.1.3 EPA should develop guidance 1435

1.2.2 Comments opposing EPA/rulemaking (No comments were submitted for this topic.) 1440

1.2.2.1 Oppose the GS rulemaking 1450

1.2.2.2 Oppose EPA's authority to regulate CO2 injection 1460

1.2.2.2.1 CO2 injection is exempt from UIC (No comments were submitted for this topic.) 1470

1.2.2.2.2 CO2 is not a pollutant 1480

1.2.2.2.3 CO2 is not a fluid (No comments were submitted for this topic.) 1490

1.2.2.2.4 Some other agency should regulate GS 1500

1.2.2.3 Need for additional study 1510

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

1.2.3.1 State regulatory efforts on GS   1530

1.2.3.2 Climate change legislation 1540

Every comment on these topic areas and the associated response is included in this

summary; there is some repetition where multiple commenters made the same

comment.

Responses to letters from individual commenters or organizations are also available in

the rulemaking docket.

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

Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Herbert Skolnick, Ph.D. Letter ID: 0110

Commenter Organization: Group Against Smog and Pollution, Inc. (GASP) Comment ID: 22039

Comment: Agency Administration and Oversight 

The costs and logistics of large scale CO2 sequestration are mindboggling. 

Participating utilities will have to retrofit in order to collect, clean, 

compress, and store CO2; pipelines and storage depots must be constructed; and 

fleets of tanker trucks will be required for transport. Given the critical 

environmental and energy problems we face and the complexity of large scale CO2 

sequestration infrastructure, the CO2 sequestration program needs special 

oversight to keep costs down, maintain efficiency, minimize political 

interventions, and keep inter-agency squabbles out of the mix. The roles of 

relevant government agencies, particularly EPA and DOE, must be clarified in 

order to keep administration as uncomplicated as possible and provide strong 

oversight. 

Response: EPA received a number of comments indicating that the Agency should further explore

environmental and regulatory issues beyond the scope of the proposed SDWA requirements for

underground injection of CO2 for GS. 

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

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

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

implementation phase of the GS regulation.

Commenter Name: Patrick Nugent Letter ID: 0143

Commenter Organization: Texas Pipeline Association (TPA) Comment ID: 23126

Comment: 3. EPA should not go beyond the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA) in the development of rules to support geologic sequestration of carbon 

dioxide. As a word of caution, TPA urges EPA to limit its development of 

criteria for the safe long term storage of carbon dioxide to its statutory 

1
authority under the SDWA. The statutory authority under which EPA is proceeding 

in this rulemaking is limited to the SDWA. Any attempt by EPA to propose 

criteria that exceed the boundaries or authority of the SDWA would be 

inappropriate. TPA recognizes that it is anticipated that this program will be a 

component of any future climate change program that Congress may fashion in the 

future. As tempting as it might be to establish criteria in this rule package 

that will complement a future carbon cap-andtrade or other regulatory program, 

we would urge EPA not to do so. Only after Congress finalizes the structure of a 

climate change program should EPA begin development of those complimentary 

provisions. 

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

regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final

GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

EPA adds that regulating carbon cap and trade is outside of the UIC program's authority under

SDWA.

Commenter Name: James Rower Letter ID: 0173

Commenter Organization: Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) Comment ID: 23490

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 4670 2.6.7 Surface air monitoring and/or soil gas

monitoring (seeking comment) 

Comment: It also is important to clarify in the Final Rule that well plugging is only 

necessary and appropriate for those wells that are potential conduits of 

contamination to USDWs. USWAG raises this point because EPA suggests that the 

Final Rule may give the Director discretion to require Owners or Operators to 

conduct surface air monitoring and/or soil gas monitoring in the AoR. Id. at 

43516. Such a requirement would be appropriate only to the extent that this 

monitoring would be done with the goal of identifying potential endangerment of 

USDWs as a result of CO2 injection and sequestration activities. Id. To the 

extent that such monitoring would be required simply to guard against potential 

atmospheric releases or to trigger a corrective action requirement to terminate 

such atmospheric releases, it would be outside of the scope of EPA's authority 

under this rulemaking. See id. at 43498 ("preventing releases of CO2 to the 

atmosphere is not within the scope of this proposal"). 

Response: EPA believes that surface air and soil gas monitoring are within the scope of the SDWA

in that they can provide additional data to pinpoint the location and magnitude (or absence) of leaks

that could endanger USDWs. Used in conjunction with deep subsurface monitoring, as required at

2
§146.90, and as part of a multi-barrier approach to protecting USDWs from endangerment, surface

air and soil gas monitoring are within the scope of SDWA’s general authority (SDWA sections 1421

et al.).

EPA clarifies that use of surface air and soil gas monitoring as specified in the final GS rule at

§146.90(h), as a means of identifying leaks that may pose a risk to USDWs and informing

emergency notification of a Class VI owner or operator and UIC Director in the event of a USDW

endangerment, pursuant to requirements at §146.91(c), is at the Director's discretion.

Regarding corrective action for wells in the AoR, EPA clarifies that the rule, at §146.84(d), requires

owners or operators to perform corrective action on all deficient wells in the AoR. This requirement

is independent of the testing and monitoring requirements at §146.90.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177

Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23572

Comment: 4. Limitations on existing authority. The Agency should adhere to its limited 

authority at this juncture under SDWA and should avoid exceeding that authority. 

The value of developing a clear regulatory regime will be undermined if that 

regime is potentially unstable or subject to lengthy delays because of potential 

susceptibility to attack for failure to adhere to the Agency‘s authority. 

Moreover, as EPA notes in the preamble, SDWA does not provide EPA "authority to 

develop regulations for all areas related to GS." More specifically, EPA 

further states that it "is not proposing regulation for CO2 under the Clean Air 

Act [ ] in this proposed rulemaking."[FN3] 

[FN3] Id. at 43495. 

Response: The EPA acknowledges the comment and believes the final rulemaking falls within

EPA’s authority under the SDWA. EPA clarifies that the SDWA provides EPA with the authority to

develop federal minimum requirements for underground injection, such as GS, that are directly

related to protecting USDWs from endangerment. Thus, EPA does not have authority under the

SDWA to address other general issues related to CCS, such as capture and transportation. EPA

clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as a pollutant or commodity. The UIC

requirements regulate the injection of fluids.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177

Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23573

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment: 5. Anticipation of related developments. On the other hand, the Agency should 

strive to anticipate future statutory and regulatory developments in the climate 

change arena so that any rulemaking has a reasonable chance of melding with such 

developments. For instance, while it is clear that SDWA does not authorize the 

Agency to develop rules that specify any kind of "credit" system for capture and 

storage of CO2, the Agency can and should consider how its UIC rulemaking will 

fit with foreseeable features of potential future regimes and how rules can be 

drafted to complement such features to the extent possible. 

3
Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for

regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final

GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177

Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23591

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 4670 2.6.7 Surface air monitoring and/or soil gas

monitoring (seeking comment) 

Comment: - Potential issues of EPA authority: As noted above, EEI views the development 

and implementation of legally defensible regulations as a key to commercial 

deployment of CCS. To that end, EEI encourages the Agency to consider carefully 

the link between each proposed provision and its authority to regulate under 

SDWA. Where the link is more tenuous, the proposed provision may be subject to 

greater risk of legal challenge, posing uncertainty for those who desire to move 

ahead with projects. While, as the Agency points out, the use of tracers or 

surface air/soil gas monitoring could indicate that some threat to USDW may be 

posed, it seems more likely that by the time the results of such methods 

revealed any concerns, such sources would already be affected. Thus, the nexus 

between those methods and protection of USDW may be subject to challenge by 

opponents of the proposed provisions. And the nexus between surface air/soil 

gas monitoring and protection of USDW may be at greater risk of challenge, as 

the detection of a CO2 leak to surface air conceivably provides no useful 

information that would serve to protect USDW. Indeed, while EPA notes in the 

preamble that detection of leakage to the surface "would indicate potential 

endangerment" to USDW as a last line of defense, the Agency also acknowledges 

that regulation of surface or atmospheric releases of CO2 are outside the scope 

of the proposed rules and the Agency‘s SDWA authority. 

While the proposed rules would leave these requirements to the discretion of the 

UIC program director, again the proposal sets no clear parameters for the 

exercise of such discretion. EEI does not believe that any provisions related 

to the use of tracers are required or warranted for the protection of USDW, but 

should EPA choose to impose a discretionary requirement, any such requirement 

should be bounded by appropriate parameters for its use. 

Response: As described above, subsurface geochemical and pressure monitoring in the subsurface

formations are the first line of monitoring that would allow detection of potential endangerment to

USDWs from GS activities (this is required at all GS sites, as described at §146.90(d)). 

4
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 under §146.84, the types of monitoring appropriate to GS projects under

§146.90, and the post-injection site care process under §146.93. 

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.

EPA disagrees with the comment with respect to its authority under the SDWA and believes it

within the Agency’s authority to provide the Director with discretion to require surface air

monitoring and/or soil gas monitoring in the AoR at §146.90(h). This discretion is limited to

potential risks to USDWs within the AoR. EPA believes that monitoring for the injected fluid at the

surface for the purposes of protecting USDWs is within the jurisdiction of the SDWA. If the injected

CO2 were to migrate through fractures, abandoned well bore holes or other means, it would be

released in a gaseous form at the surface, and therefore must be monitored as such. EPA believes

that having this information can be critical to allow the Director to determine whether injected CO2

has migrated from the injection zone and endangered a USDW(s). 

EPA is developing guidance for permitting authorities that will include recommendations for how

Directors may exercise discretion in implementing the requirements of the GS rule, including the

testing and monitoring requirements. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at

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

The final rule at §146.90(h) retains the allowance for surface air and soil gas monitoring at the

discretion of the Director as a means of identifying leaks that may pose a risk to USDWs and

informing emergency notification of a Class VI owner or operator and UIC Director in the event of a

USDW endangerment, pursuant to requirements at §146.91(c).

Commenter Name: Frederick R. Eames Letter ID: 0178

Commenter Organization: CCS Alliance Comment ID: 23796

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: If atmospheric emissions of CO2 are to be controlled, CCS is the only tool now 

on the horizon that may be capable of addressing in a major way and within a 

mid-term timeframe, the very large quantities of CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel 

using facilities in the United States. However, CCS still requires the 

definition of a stable and rational legal and regulatory regime before it can be 

widely deployed. EPA has clear regulatory authority over the injection of wastes 

and other substances into below-surface wells through the UIC program. The UIC 

program was created by Congress under the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA") over 

30 years ago, without consideration of potential interaction with policies to 

address climate change, for the protection of underground sources of drinking 

water ("USDW). The Agency now proposes to use this framework to regulate belowground CO2 injection activities, an application not contemplated at the time 

SDWA was drafted. Rules for geologic sequestration ("GS") of CO2 are timely and 

would be needed even if CCS is not deployed as quickly as many predict. While 

many projects are under development, many observers are operating under the 

5
assumption that it will be a decade or more before there can be wide deployment 

of CCS.[FN3] The future of CCS is and will be at a critical juncture for some years. 

The CCS Alliance seeks, through its comments, to help ensure that these 

regulatory activities promote well designed and implemented CCS projects with 

sound risk management practices, and do not preclude the responsible, cost 

effective commercial-scale sequestration of CO2. 

[FN3] See, e.g., "EPRI Summer Seminar and Energy Technology Assessment Center 

(ETAC) Studies," presentation of Hank Courtright, Senior Vice President, 

Electric Power Research Institute. October 22. 2008. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes that the UIC Program, under the authority

of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

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 §146.90, and

the post-injection site care process §146.93.

Commenter Name: Frederick R. Eames Letter ID: 0178

Commenter Organization: CCS Alliance Comment ID: 23808

Comment: B. SDWA AUTHORITY IS LIMITED 

The CCS Alliance agrees with EPA's view of its authority under the SDWA as 

limited to preventing endangerment of USDWs by the underground injection of CO2. 

The Agency properly notes that regulating surface water and atmospheric releases 

is outside the scope of this proposal and SDWA authority. Though EPA regulates 

both pollutants and commodities under the UIC provisions, it is clear that the 

proposal does not address the status of CO2 whether as a pollutant or commodity. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment.

Commenter Name: Frederick R. Eames Letter ID: 0178

Commenter Organization: CCS Alliance Comment ID: 23877

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS

(capture, transport); 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space

ownership 

Comment: XII. RELATED ISSUES, NOT RAISED IN THE PROPOSED RULE, THAT REQUIRE

RESOLUTION 

6
The SDWA does not provide EPA authority to develop regulations for many 

important areas related to the geological sequestration of CO2. Thus the draft 

rule cannot address all of the potential impediments to CCS development. Even if 

EPA were to promulgate a final UIC rule that encourages development of these 

critical technologies, there are other key factors that would need to be 

properly addressed before major investment in these technologies can be 

expected. 

The following sets forth key issues that will not be resolved through this 

rulemaking but are linked inextricably to the successful development and 

implementation of CCS technology. 

A. EMINENT DOMAIN AUTHORITY TO FACILITATE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION 

Energy facilities for the public convenience and necessity, such as electric 

transmission facilities and natural gas pipelines, are able to make use of state 

or federal eminent domain authority to ensure that private landowners cannot 

block a project necessary for the public good. Eminent domain authority should 

be available for CO2 pipelines for CCS when it is necessary to cross private 

property. A substantial CO2 pipeline network may be required for the transport 

of CO2 from sites where it is produced to an injection site. CO2 pipelines for 

CCS clearly should be considered to be used for the public convenience and 

necessity. 

B. DETERMINATION OF SUB-SURFACE PROPERTY RIGHTS 

The government must address the ability to gain sufficient property rights to 

deep saline formations to conduct geologic sequestration. State property 

ownership regimes vary, but surface owners typically are considered to own 

property below the surface to the center of the earth. Safe sequestration of CO2 

will not have any effect on the surface, but GS injections will result in 

underground plumes that may stretch across many square miles under the property 

of multiple surface property owners. Property ownership issues have been 

resolved successfully in the context of EOR, but it should not be assumed that 

the same will be true for GS. Eminent domain authority should be available to 

obtain rights to subsurface storage space for geologic sequestration because of 

its public benefit. 

C. RESOLUTION OF SURFACE LIABILITY ISSUES 

Though this Proposed Rule is limited in its scope to underground injection of 

CO2 and the potential risks and resulting liabilities, issues regarding risks 

and liability at the surface must be addressed for CCS technology to fully 

develop. These include liability for major and sudden releases, seismic activity 

and ground heave, as well as liability under any GHG emission control regime 

when sequestered CO2, for the storage of which credits or offsets have been 

granted, is subsequently released into the upper atmosphere. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CCS. EPA

received a number of comments indicating that the Agency should further explore environmental and

7
regulatory issues beyond the scope of the GS rule as proposed. This comment is outside the scope of

this rulemaking.

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

EPA recognizes that liability is an important issue to owners or operators but the Agency does not

have authority under the SDWA to transfer long term liability from owners or operators to the state

or federal government. Therefore, liability remains with the owner or operator.

Commenter Name: Wendy Jacobs Letter ID: 0183

Commenter Organization: Harvard Law School Environmental Law and Policy

Center

Comment ID:

25137

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1210 1.1.1 Comments about the proposed rule 

Comment: The ELPC’s primary objection to the proposed regulation is that regulation of

geologic sequestration under the SDWA is too narrow in focus to ensure that

carbon capture and sequestration ("CCS") fulfills its potential to be "a key

mitigation technology for achieving domestic [greenhouse gas] emissions

reductions." 73 Fed. Reg. at 43,496. EPA is proposing to regulate GS by

creating a new category of injection well ("Class VI") for GS under its existing

UIC program under the SDWA. As EPA acknowledges, however, its authority under

the SDWA is limited. See 42 U.S.C. 300h(a)-(b)(1), (d); 73 Fed. Reg. at 43,495.

Other rules and regulations are needed to address CCS issues falling outside the

scope of the SDWA (e.g., establishing mechanisms for protecting private drinking

water supplies, funding costs and damages associated with injury to persons

and/or water supplies despite compliance with the UIC regulations, accidental

releases of CO2 to the atmosphere, and compensation for and remediation of harm

to public health or the environment other than the endangerment of underground

sources of drinking water ("USDWs")). See infra Part III(c)(1)(b); 73 Fed. Reg.

at 43,495, 43,497, 43,520, 43,522 (discussing EPA’s view of CCS issues that fall

outside purview of SDWA). Other issues related to the capture and transport of

CO2 also need to be considered and addressed.

Many of these issues are of critical importance and will likely need to be

addressed before large-scale industry investment in CCS will take place. See,

e.g., infra Part III(C)(1)(b)(ii) (discussing industry’s need for a clear and

comprehensive long-term liability scheme). Piecemeal regulation of CCS is

likely to cause confusion, inefficiency, potentially conflicting requirements or

8
policies, and other problems that could be avoided by a comprehensive approach

to regulation of CCS. Although ELPC and ETIP believe comprehensive regulations

addressing CCS would more likely ensure that CCS becomes a successful climate

change mitigation technology, we recognize that Congress may need to enact

legislation enabling EPA (or another federal agency) to take such a

comprehensive approach.

Response: EPA received a number of comments indicating that the Agency should further explore

environmental and regulatory issues beyond the scope of the GS rule as proposed. This comment is

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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.

Commenter Name: Edward Steadman Letter ID: 0220

Commenter Organization: The Energy and Environmental Research Center at the

University of North Dakota

Comment ID:

21584

Comment: Page 43495. II. What Is EPA Proposing. "development of a key climate change 

mitigation technology"? Will these rules really support the "development of a 

key climate change mitigation technology"? Is it really within the purview of 

protecting USDW? 

Response: EPA is finalizing federal minimum requirements for geologic sequestration under the

SDWA’s UIC program. EPA believes that GS is a key climate change mitigation technology that is

part of a portfolio of options that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. The SDWA mandates

EPA to establish federal minimum requirements for state programs in order to prevent underground

injection that endangers USDWs. See 42 U.S.C. §300h et. seq. Under the SDWA, the underground

injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under

40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid,

sludge, gas or other form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected

into the subsurface. CO2 injected for the purpose of GS is subject to the SDWA. 

EPA clarifies that the scope of this GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all

requirements in the GS rule are designed to protect USDWs from endangerment.

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.,

9
with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

Commenter Name: M. Granger Morgan Letter ID: 0233

Commenter Organization: Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CCS

Reg Project

Comment ID:

21899

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope"

issues, e.g., pore space ownership 

Comment: 7. EPA’s laudable efforts notwithstanding, we believe the Safe Drinking Water 

Act (SDWA) does not provide adequate authority to comprehensively regulate GS. 

Because the statutory authority for the UIC Program derives from the SDWA, the 

proposed rule is unable to address key issues that must be resolved for 

commercial-scale GS,[FN1] such as: 

• ownership of pore space (discussed in Chapter 5 of attached report); 

• potential human health or ecological impacts if carbon dioxide leaks to the 

surface or near-surface (discussed in Chapters 1, 4, and 6 of attached report); 

• long-term liability (discussed in Chapters 7 and 8 of attached report); and, 

• greenhouse gas regulatory accounting, which will be the enabling link to 

incentive structures that make GS economically viable (discussed in Chapters 8 

and 9 of attached report). 

[FN1: These limitations are acknowledged by the agency in the preamble to the 

rule. (73 FR 43,495)] 

8. Failure to resolve the above issues could make the commercial development of 

CCS impossible. 

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

regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final

GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal

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

Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; 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. 

10
EPA is also aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks,

regulations, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS. States can use multiple

authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA and UIC regulations, including laws and policies

addressing surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights,

worker safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of state oil and gas resource

exploitation. EPA plans to work closely with states and tribes as they develop Class VI primacy

programs in this broader context. EPA adds that states may adopt more stringent standards for Class

VI wells than the Federal requirements. 

The final rulemaking falls within EPA’s authority under the SDWA. EPA clarifies that the SDWA

provides EPA with the authority to develop federal minimum requirements for underground

injection, such as GS, that are directly related to protecting USDWs from endangerment. Thus EPA

does not have authority under the SDWA to address other general issues related to CCS, such as

capture and transportation. EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as a

pollutant or commodity. The UIC requirements regulate the injection of fluids. EPA adds that

regulating carbon cap-and trade is outside of the UIC program's authority under SDWA.

EPA recognizes that liability is an important issue to owners or operators but the Agency does not

have authority under the SDWA to transfer long-term liability from owners or operators to the state

or federal government. Therefore, liability remains with the owner or operator.

Commenter Name: M. Granger Morgan Letter ID: 0233

Commenter Organization: Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CCS

Reg Project

Comment ID:

21901

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope"

issues, e.g., pore space ownership 

Comment: Overarching recommendations 

10. The inability of the proposed rule to manage the issues listed above should 

be remedied by either: 

a. passage of new federal legislation to supplement the UIC program and amend 

the SDWA; or 

b. passage of new freestanding federal legislation to regulate GS 

comprehensively. 

These options are detailed in Chapter 6 of the attached report [SEE PDF TO VIEW THE REPORT]. 

Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. As described above, EPA

recognizes that a more comprehensive framework may be needed and that some stakeholders remain

uncertain about the potential applicability of other federal environmental statutes, such as the Clean

Air Act, to various aspects of GS. The Agency is currently evaluating the need for a more

comprehensive regulatory framework for this emerging technology.

Commenter Name: M. Granger Morgan Letter ID: 0233

Commenter Organization: Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CCS

Reg Project

Comment ID:

21904

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope"

11
issues, e.g., pore space ownership 

Comment: Issues that would requirement amendment of the SWDA or passage of new 

legislation 

13. Need to balance multiple environmental interests: Protection of drinking 

water is an essential environmental goal, but must be balanced with avoidance of 

the dangerous impacts of climate change. As mandated by the SDWA, the UIC 

Program rules have been developed with the objective of preventing any migration 

of injected fluid or other contaminants into USDWs. In practice, however, 

regulatory treatment of injectate migration has been less clear-cut. For example 

the experience in Florida, discussed in Chapter 6 of the attached report [SEE PDF TO VIEW THE

REPORT], 

suggests that it would be highly desirable to have arrangements in place ahead 

of time to allow balancing of potentially conflicting national environmental 

interests. We recommend that the SDWA be amended to allow balancing multiple 

environmental interests. 

Response: This comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking. As described above, EPA

recognizes that a more comprehensive framework may be needed and that some stakeholders remain

uncertain about the potential applicability of other federal environmental statutes, such as the Clean

Air Act, to various aspects of GS. The Agency is currently evaluating the need for a more

comprehensive regulatory framework for this emerging technology.

Commenter Name: Abbie Krebsbach Letter ID: 0235

Commenter Organization: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Comment ID: 23194

Comment: EPA should adhere to its limited authority at this juncture under SDWA and 

should avoid exceeding that authority. The value of developing a clear 

regulatory regime will be undermined if that regime is potentially unstable or 

subject to lengthy delays because of potential susceptibility to attack for 

failure to adhere to EPA's authority. On the other hand, EPA should strive to 

anticipate future statutory and regulatory developments in the climate change 

arena so that any rulemaking has a reasonable chance of melding with such 

developments. 

Response: The final GS rule, which addresses the injection of CO2 for the purpose of protecting

USDWs from endangerment, is within EPA's authority under Part C of the SDWA. The SDWA

mandates EPA to establish federal minimum requirements for state programs in order to prevent

underground injection that endangers USDWs. See 42 U.S.C. §300h et. seq. Under the SDWA, the

injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under

40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid,

sludge, gas or other form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected

into the subsurface. EPA clarifies that CO2 injected for the purpose of GS is subject to the SDWA.

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.

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

12
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, 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.

Commenter Name: Abbie Krebsbach Letter ID: 0235

Commenter Organization: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Comment ID: 23197

Comment: Conclusion 

Montana-Dakota encourages the EPA to consider carefully the link between each 

proposed provision and its authority to regulate under SDWA. Where the link is 

more tenuous, the proposed provision may be subject to greater risk of legal 

challenge, posing uncertainty for those who desire to move ahead with CCS 

projects. Montana-Dakota believes that the EPA has proposed a rule that, pending 

Response: EPA believes that the SDWA provides EPA with adequate authority to regulate injection

of CO2 for GS and that the GS rule does not overstep its authority under the SDWA. The GS

regulation, which addresses the injection of CO2 for the purpose of protecting USDWs from

endangerment, is within EPA's authority under the SDWA. The SDWA mandates EPA to establish

federal minimum requirements for state programs in order to prevent underground injection that

endangers USDWs. See 42 U.S.C. §300h et. seq. Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is

subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any

material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other

form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface.

EPA clarifies CO2 injected for the purpose of GS is subject to the SDWA.

Commenter Name: James T. Sims Letter ID: 0249

Commenter Organization: Western Business Roundtable Comment ID: 22267

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. 

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

13
that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

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.

Commenter Name: David Hawkins Letter ID: 0272

Commenter Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council Comment ID: 24076

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1210 1.1.1 Comments about the proposed rule 

Comment: B. Definition of GS 

Geologic sequestration and authority 

In the proposed rule, EPA has defined geologic sequestration as follows [FR p. 

43535, §146.81(d)]: 

"Geologic sequestration means the long-term containment of a gaseous, 

liquid or supercritical carbon dioxide stream in subsurface geologic 

formations. This term does not apply to its capture or transport." 

The proposed rule has cited authority for EPA to regulate GS under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act. However, we believe that EPA should exercise its authority 

under the Clean Air Act as well to regulate GS for the added purpose of 

preventing releases to the atmosphere, and not just for the purpose of 

protecting USDWs. Under such authority, the Agency should ensure that any wells 

permitted for the purposes of GS meet an adequate permanence standard, such as 

that already promulgated in the UIC rules by the state of Washington, which was 

based on the IPCC’s findings in its Special Report on Carbon Capture and 

Storage [FN1]: 

"Permanent sequestration means the retention of greenhouse gases in a 

containment system using a method that is in accordance with standards approved 

by the department and that creates a high degree of confidence that 

substantially ninety nine percent of the greenhouse gases will remain contained 

for at least one thousand years." [FN2] 

Under this added authority, EPA should ensure that Class VI is adequate for the 

purposes of protecting USDWs and for preventing releases of CO2 to the 

atmosphere. 

Other wells permitted for GS, whether for that sole purpose or for GS and other 

purposes, should also be subject to regulatory requirements sufficient both to 

protect USDWs and to prevent releases of CO2 to the atmosphere. Such 

requirements include, but are not limited to, adequate site characterization, 

monitoring, modeling, corrective and remedial action and closure standards, as 

14
well as other requirements that EPA has proposed for Class VI. We cannot endorse 

the classification of either Class II (as was proposed or as modified by some 

other commenters) wells or Class VI wells as proposed by EPA in the rule, as the 

definition only covers protection of USDWs. 

[FN1] In its technical summary, IPCC’s Special Report on Carbon Capture and 

Storage states that "With regard to global risks, based on observations and 

analysis of current CO2 storage sites, natural systems, engineering systems and 

models, the fraction retained in appropriately selected and managed reservoirs 

is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years, and is likely to exceed 99% over 

1000 years. Similar fractions retained are likely for even longer periods of 

time, as the risk of leakage is expected to decrease over time as other 

mechanisms provide additional trapping." 

[FN2] WAC 173-407-110 Definitions to Part II. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that

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

endangerment. Consequently, this comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking. The SDWA does

not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS,

such as releases to the atmosphere. 

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

Commenter Name: George Peridas Letter ID: 0291

Commenter Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council Comment ID: 25287

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope"

issues, e.g., pore space ownership 

Comment: Third, we raise the issue of authority. The rulemaking to date has only cited 

authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). As we stated in our comments 

of Dec24, 2008, an appropriate regulatory regime for GS must also be grounded on 

authority to prevent re-emissions of injected carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. 

The proposed rule defines GS solely for the purposes of protecting Underground 

Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs). Climate legislation is presently being 

drafted in Congress however, and will very likely rely on EPA’s injection 

classes to certify GS. Specifically, the legislation will very likely exempt 

carbon dioxide emissions from large facilities that are geologically sequestered 

15
according to regulations promulgated by EPA and/or other agencies. We stress the 

importance of EPA being ready and prepared to meet such requirements. Accounting 

protocols for carbon allowances is an issue that can be dealt with outside the 

scope of the current rulemaking, and is likely to have a far narrower remit than 

the current rule’s specific requirements for site screening, monitoring, and 

various plans. EPA, therefore, must define and regulate GS from the outset in a 

way that assures not only that USDWs are not endangered, but that GS for the 

purposes of climate protection is also taking place. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that

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

endangerment. Consequently, this comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking. The SDWA does

not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS,

such as releases to the atmosphere. 

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

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.

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0292

Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 25277

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1290 1.1.2.2 Comments that EPA should regulate

CO2 as a pollutant 

Comment: The preamble to the proposed GS rule states "EPA is not proposing regulations for 

CO2 under the Clean Air Act (CAA) in this proposed rulemaking". As noted in our 

previous letter and comments, it is clear the Clean Air Act provides authority to regulate 

the geologic sequestration of CO2. Therefore CATF urges EPA to reconsider the 

position stated in the preamble and propose for comment, as part of the contemplated 

NODA, the inclusion of GS regulations under the Clean Air Act in the proposed 

rulemaking. 

16
Response: EPA clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that

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

endangerment. Consequently, this comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. The SDWA does

not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS,

such as releases to the atmosphere. 

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program rulemaking and docket.

Commenter Name: Ginny Brannon Letter ID: 0521

Commenter Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and

Environments

Comment ID:

21446

Comment: And our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is reflected in the 

Colorado Climate Action Plan which calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 

by 20% from 2005 levels by 2020. We realize that clean air coal technologies can 

help us reach this goal and may be a key component in reaching that goal, but 

emerging solution such as geologic sequestration must be technologically and 

environmentally sound and supported by a viable and efficient regulatory 

framework. With respect to that regulatory framework, the Safe Drinking Water 

Response: While EPA agrees 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.

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

17
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.

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

Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Karl R. Moor Letter ID: 0109

Commenter Organization: Southern Company, on behalf of Edison Electric

Institute (EEI)

Comment ID:

21991

Comment: First, I’d like the put the importance of carbon capture and storage in context. 

Electricity generation produces 34 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and 40 

percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. The Energy 

Information Administration projects net electric demand will increase 30 percent 

by 2030, even after taking into account energy- efficiency improvements. New 

and replacement power plant capacity to meet this increased demand is projected 

to total 150,000 megaWatts. Coal is one of the primary sources of baseload 

generation in the United States and will continue to be an important fuel for 

generating electricity through 2030 because it is comparatively affordable and 

abundant in this country. Given this backdrop, the potential environmental 

benefits of carbon capture and storage - in terms of avoided carbon dioxide 

emissions - are substantial. Consequently, EEI and its members see carbon 

capture and storage as a critical element in the full portfolio of options 

needed not only to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but also to ensure continued 

affordable and reliable electric service to customers throughout the United 

States. 

Our assessment of the proposed regulations has been extensive and is ongoing. 

We are here today to learn as well as to educate. EEI’s members, like Southern 

Company and American Electric Power and others, are gaining experience with 

pilot and demonstration projects involving site characterization, permitting, 

monitoring and verification, and understanding storage capacity and integrity. 

Our testimony today is informed by what we have already learned from these 

projects. Our goal at these hearings - and throughout this process - is to use 

this experience to help EPA ensure that the final rules for geologic storage of 

carbon dioxide are part of a clear and flexible regulatory regime that will 

facilitate the development of, and investment in, carbon capture and storage 

technology and projects. 

As EPA noted in the Preamble to the proposed regulations, its goal is to create 

a regulatory framework that "supports the development of a key climate change 

mitigation technology." EPA’s regulations for geologic storage of carbon 

dioxide are an important first step in moving carbon capture and storage closer 

18
to reality. EEI and its members applaud EPA for taking this step, and encourage 

EPA to keep this important goal in mind as it moves to finalize the regulations. 

EEI and its members intend to submit detailed written comments on the proposed 

regulations, but today I would like to highlight several initial areas for EPA 

consideration. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

Commenter Name: Matt Toner Letter ID: 0117

Commenter Organization: Hydrogen Energy International Comment ID: 22060

Comment: EPA recognition of anthropogenic EOR + storage as a valid method of geologic 

sequestration, subject of course to appropriate measurement, monitoring and site 

closure, will provide much needed economic incentive to near-term Carbon Capture 

and Storage efforts, while longer-term Cap & Trade or Taxation schemes develop, 

in support of saline storage options. 

Response: EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for

the purpose of ER, and that sites used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS

sites. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2

is trapped in the receiving formation. 

However, 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 until the Director determines under §144.19 that

the primary purpose of CO2 injection project is long term storage wherein a Class VI permit is

required. Class VI requirements will apply to wells used for the purpose of long-term GS. The

requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS,

including the volumes of CO2 being anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant nature of the

injectate, its mobility within subsurface geologic formations, and its corrosivity in the presence of

water. EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote GS; rather it is designed to ensure

19
that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: William Kovacs Letter ID: 0148

Commenter Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Comment ID: 21749

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: As part of the U.S. strategy for addressing climate change and implementing CCS, 

EPA has proposed a first-time rule under the SDWA for sequestering CO2 in 

geologic formations. The proposed rule is based on EPA’s existing regulatory 

framework for its UIC Program and proposes a new category of injection well 

(Class VI) along with several technical criteria for its implementation. 

The Chamber strongly supports the development and deployment of carbon capture 

and sequestration technology, and we applaud EPA for its extensive public 

outreach, stakeholder dialog, and public workshops on this issue. Nevertheless, 

in order to ensure that this proposed rule accomplishes its objectives to 

promote a CCS regulatory framework and support "the development of a key climate 

change mitigation technology," the Chamber offers the following comments on 

potential legal, economic, regulatory, and technical barriers to CCS deployment 

that EPA should consider before finalizing this rule. 

Response: EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital

component of a successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree of cooperation,

participation, and active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will continue to work with

stakeholders and experts as it implements the GS rule.

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is

necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that

protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the

SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS

regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS

including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of

water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

20
Commenter Name: James Childress Letter ID: 0158

Commenter Organization: Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) Comment ID: 23754

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards) 

Comment: EPA is commended for taking this action that begins the process of providing 

regulatory clarity to a complex and important topic. In its decision process, 

EPA needs to consider the importance of CCS to the success of the nation's 

overall climate change, energy independence and economic growth strategies. Any 

rule for geologic storage of CO2 needs to provide an unambiguous framework that 

promotes the development and deployment of CCS while protecting the environment. 

Also, given the current state of experience in geologic sequestration, any 

prescription needs to be flexible and adaptive. 

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.

EPA agrees that an adaptive and flexible approach is appropriate. 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.

Commenter Name: Scott Davis Letter ID: 0187

Commenter Organization: Arizona Public Service Company Comment ID: 25224

Comment: EPA's proposal represents an important first step in developing a sequestration 

regulatory program, and APS commends EPA for its effort. Again, APS appreciates 

the opportunity to comment on this important rulemaking initiative. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well

class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the deployment of GS as a climate

change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes

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

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

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

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

CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: G. Graham Holden Letter ID: 0189

Commenter Organization: Oglethorpe Power Corporation Comment ID: 25242

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation 

Comment: It appears that GS of CO2 from fossil-fueled power plants will be a critical 

part of any national strategy to control greenhouse gas emissions. Oglethorpe 

appreciates EPA's work toward developing a regulatory framework for underground 

injection of CO2. EPA's decision to develop regulations under the UIC program 

21
and to develop a new class of injection wells (Class VI) for CO2 GS seems 

appropriate. We also support EPA's recognition that while the new regulations at 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well

class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to deployment of GS as a climate change

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

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

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

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

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

CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: G. Graham Holden Letter ID: 0189

Commenter Organization: Oglethorpe Power Corporation Comment ID: 25244

Comment: Oglethorpe Power is encouraged by the efforts EPA has taken thus far to instill 

"certainty" and "transparency" into the future Class VI CO2 regulatory 

regime.(Footnote 3) The challenge EPA faces is to craft a Final Rule for 

Footnote 3: 73 Fed. Reg. at 43496. 

Response: As described above, EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI)

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

technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190

Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24315

Comment: We strongly support EPA’s effort to develop appropriate regulations governing 

CO2 injection for purposes of GS. We agree that GS is an important option for 

the reduction of CO2 emissions, that the UIC program provides the appropriate 

framework for the regulation of CO2 injection, and that UIC regulations 

specifically tailored to CO2 injection could play a vital role in facilitating 

the development and implementation of GS projects while ensuring that 

appropriate environmental safeguards are in place. 

Response: EPA agrees with the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well class

(VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change

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

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

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

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

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

CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Robert F. Van Voorhees Letter ID: 0190

Commenter Organization: Carbon Sequestration Council Comment ID: 24319

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards) 

Comment: We support EPA’s conclusion that the UIC program provides an appropriate 

22
framework for regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) injection for geologic 

sequestration (GS). The UIC program governs a very wide range of underground 

injection activities - including the operation of thousands of existing CO2 

injection wells - and enjoys an extensively documented record of success. The 

program has in many respects been a model for Federal-State cooperation, and has 

benefited from a long history of regulatory and technical discourse among 

agencies and regulators armed with considerable practical experience and 

exceptional technical expertise. While the UIC program is focused on the 

protection of "underground sources of drinking water" (USDWs), this seemingly 

narrow objective is narrow in name only. In fact, the measures the UIC program 

relies upon to protect USDWs - measures designed to ensure that injected 

material remains isolated in the deep subsurface - are by nature sufficient to 

ensure protection of human health and the environment. 

The UIC program currently provides regulations that can be (and are being) 

successfully applied to CO2 injection into oil and gas reservoirs. We also agree 

that it makes sense to develop regulations more specifically designed to address 

CO2 injection in the GS context especially for formations that are not oil and 

gas reservoirs. Such regulations can and should be designed to build on relevant 

UIC program experience, including experience with CO2 injection, and should be 

tailored to address the particular needs for this category of injection 

activity: both the need to protect USDWs and the need to facilitate use of GS as 

a technology for reducing CO2 emissions. Those regulations should follow a 

flexible, performance-based approach that allows regulators to tailor specific 

permit requirements as appropriate based on the broad range of injection sites 

and practices that may be encountered in the GS context and on the body of 

knowledge and experience that will be gained not only from pilot and 

demonstration projects, but from the initial deployment of commercial scale 

geologic sequestration projects. 

Moreover, the safeguards of the UIC program have been adequate to protect USDWs 

of all types, including sole source aquifers, from injection that occurs 

substantially below those aquifers even where that involves drilling through the 

aquifer to construct wells that will inject into deeper formations. These 

drilling activities have not resulted in any significant contamination of sole 

source aquifers and, indeed, have probably served to protect those aquifers by 

avoiding surface disposal operations that would have been more likely to pose 

threats of endangerment to drinking water resources.[FN1] 

[FN1: Each year, industrial facilities and municipal wastewater treatment 

plants generate billions of gallons of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. Class 

I injection wells provide a safe means to remove these wastes from the surface 

environment by isolating them deep below the land surface, away from drinking 

water resources. 

Class I injection wells inject far below the lowermost USDW. Injection zones 

typically range from 1,700 to more than 10,000 feet in depth. The injection zone 

is separated from USDWs by an impermeable "cap" rock called the confining layer, 

along with additional layers of permeable and impermeable rock and sediment that 

separate the injection layer from the USDW. 

23
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_class1.html] 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well

class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change

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

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

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

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

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

CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

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 §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.

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.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0206

Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

(AMWA)

Comment ID:

22215

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs 

Comment: AWWA and AMWA appreciate the opportunity to comment on EPA’s proposal. The 

proposed regulation is a good technical starting point given the need to have a 

federal standard to guide permit writers. However, the technology is still in 

its infancy and as a result we urge EPA to exercise caution and to ensure the 

protection of USDWs and future USDWs from harmful unintended consequences. 

Response: As described above, EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses

unique challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water sources or have other

adverse impacts. EPA agrees that caution is warranted and has, as a result, developed a new well

class with requirements tailored to address the unique challenges posed by GS and potential risks

associated long-term injection of CO2. These requirements include the tailored AoR delineation

process per §146.84, monitoring that is appropriate to GS projects per §146.90, and extended postinjection site care per §146.93. 

As part of its adaptive rulemaking approach, The Agency plans, every six years, to collect and

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

24
and documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are

necessary.

Also, as EPA noted above the Agency believes that sufficient data and experience currently exist to

develop regulations for Class VI wells. EPA has considered the results of past research in developing

the GS rule.

Commenter Name: Tiffany Rau Letter ID: 0224

Commenter Organization: Hydrogen Energy International Comment ID: 21646

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: As an initial matter, we applaud EPA’s significant efforts to include and 

encourage broad stakeholder participation both before and after publication of 

the Proposed Rule. Furthermore, it is evident from the Proposed Rule that EPA 

considered and incorporated many of the stakeholders’ comments from the public 

workshops. Accordingly, EPA adopted a framework that is intended to encourage 

the deployment of carbon capture and sequestration or storage ("CCS") in a 

manner that is protective of underground sources of drinking water ("USDWs"). 

There is growing consensus among scientists, environmental groups and members of 

government that CCS will play a critical role in addressing greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

Response: EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital

component of successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree of cooperation,

participation, and active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will continue to work with

stakeholders and experts as it implements the GS rule.

Commenter Name: Abbie Krebsbach Letter ID: 0235

Commenter Organization: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Comment ID: 23177

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards); 1850 1.4.2 CO2 GS Field Research 

Comment: Montana-Dakota strongly supports research and development efforts underway to 

facilitate commercial-scale CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS) projects, and 

shows this support specifically through its active membership in the Plains CO2 

Regional (PCOR) Partnership. Led by the EERC and assisted by its members, PCOR 

and has developed and is currently carrying out two CO2 geologic sequestration 

projects designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of CO2 geologic 

sequestration. As these efforts increase, it is necessary to develop clear, 

flexible and appropriately tailored regulations to facilitate the development of 

and spur investment in carbon capture and sequestration technology. The proposed 

rule assists with creating additional certainty in approaching GS project 

development, however there are some concerns that need to be addressed. MontanaResponse: EPA acknowledges the value of the DOE pilot projects and resultant data and

information generated by such projects. EPA has evaluated permits and reviewed operational data

and information associated with the seven RCSPs funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and

coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). In addition to the

information cited in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability

and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802) in which the Agency described the

25
results of research at three DOE partnership sites: the Escatawpa, Mississippi project; the Aneth Field

project in Paradox Basin, Southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico.

EPA agrees that flexibility to address new research is important. Even after finalizing the rule, the

Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects, including research by the

DOE Partnerships, 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.

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 (§146.90)

and the post-injection site care process (§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.

EPA agrees that an adaptive and flexible approach is appropriate. 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.

Commenter Name: Robert E. Carter Jr. Letter ID: 0236

Commenter Organization: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) Comment ID: 23199

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 

26
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 

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 §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.

Commenter Name: Philip Papadeas Letter ID: 0238

Commenter Organization: Sandia Technologies, LLC Comment ID: 23343

Comment: Sandia Technologies, LLC provides the following comments to U.S. EPA regarding 

the proposed Class VI UIC regulations, which in our judgment offer an excellent 

basis for regulating Geologic Sequestration projects and their anticipated large 

injectate volumes. The foundation of these rules has been derived from EPA’s 

highly successful Class I, Class II and Class V programs, which have a proven 

record of protecting groundwater and the near surface environment while managing 

large volumes of industrial aqueous waste. There are considerable areas in the 

rules which are vague in meaning and intent within portions of the proposed 

regulations. 

Response: EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong

framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC

requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection

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

presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Karl R. Moor Letter ID: 0501

Commenter Organization: Southern Company Comment ID: 21157

Comment: And I'd like to thank the EPA for the opportunity to discuss the rule-making. 

I'd also like to the congratulate the EPA on the process, there's been much good 

comment in our industry and other industries. You're familiar with the way and 

the approach the EPA has taken for this regulation, you know, for this process 

with the thoroughness and professionalism. 

And I would first like to put the importance of CCS in a context. Electricity 

generation produces 34 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions and 40 percent of 

carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. So this technology is critical to 

27
address that share of CO2 emissions in the United States. 

As EPA noted in the preamble in its proposed regulations, the goal is to create 

a regulatory framework that supports, and I'm quoting the development of the key 

climate change mitigation technology. EPA's regulations for geological storage 

of carbon dioxide are an important first step in moving the country forward and 

for securing the reality being expressed in the preamble. 

EEI and its member companies not only applaud you for the process, we also think 

that the, the goals that we are, have articulated in the technology are the 

right goals. And we are supportive in that regard as well. 

But we do have several key messages which, which may seem critical at some 

level, but we mean them as a source of constructive review of the regulations 

and hopefully a way of improving them. 

The key, the two key points that we would leave you with today are this, first, 

these regulations can and should promote the development and deployment of 

carbon capture and storage while protecting underground sources of drinking 

water without, and this is key, without unduly stigmatizing carbon dioxide 

injection storage. 

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 believes the rule does not “stigmatize” injection of carbon dioxide. Rather,

the requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS,

including the volumes of CO2 being anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant nature of the

injectate, its mobility within subsurface geologic formations, and its corrosivity in the presence of

water. EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote GS. Rather, the purpose of the GS

regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from

endangerment.

Commenter Name: Michele Schoepper Letter ID: 0503

Commenter Organization: American Petroleum Institute Comment ID: 21172

Comment: Regarding EPA's proposed rule, API is very supportive of the fact that EPA has 

recognized the integrity of the existing regulatory framework for CO2 based 

enhanced oil recovery, of the amount of flexibility in most parts of the 

proposed rule, and of the use of performance based approaches. 

Specific examples include the proposed confining zone requirements and the 

proposed ground water monitoring requirements, although there are several 

aspects of the proposed rule that should be reconsidered for further inclusion. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a

manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the

authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and

adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with

large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the

28
presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within

subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Matt Toner Letter ID: 0506

Commenter Organization: Hydrogen Energy International Comment ID: 21187

Comment: EPA recognition of anthropogenic EOR plus storage as a valid method of geologic 

sequestration subject, of course, to appropriate measurement, monitoring, and 

site closure, would provide much needed near term economic incentive to carbon 

capture and storage efforts while longer term cap and trade or taxation schemes 

can be developed. 

Response: EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for

the purpose of ER, and that sites used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS

sites. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2

is trapped in the receiving formation. 

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 until the Director determines under §144.19 that the

primary purpose of CO2 injection project is long term storage wherein a Class VI permit is required.

The requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS,

including the volumes of CO2 being anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant nature of the

injectate, its mobility within subsurface geologic formations, and its corrosivity in the presence of

water. EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote or incentivize GS. Rather, the

purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that

protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0510

Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 21218

Comment: And the remaining time, I wanted to now shift from that sort of slap on the 

wrist to some compliments. We have that, we think EPA deserves for the work on 

this rule. 

Despite having to begin on kind of a negative note I want to stress that we 

think that adequate, effective sequestration regulations are definitely in 

sight, and there is much more about this rule that we like than we don't like. 

And we see the necessary changes in the rule as being in the nature of technical 

assessments rather than fixing fundamental flaws. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well

class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change

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

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

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

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

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

CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0520

29
Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 21416

Comment: MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. I am Scott Anderson with the Environmental Defense

Fund 

and I think I would like to begin by complimenting the EPA for having done 

generally an excellent job with this proposed rule making. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Steve Crookshank Letter ID: 0523

Commenter Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) Comment ID: 21355

Comment: Regarding EPA's proposed rule, API is very supportive of the fact that EPA has 

recognized the integrity of the existing regulatory framework for CO2 based 

enhanced oil recovery, of the amount of flexibility in most parts of the 

proposed rule and of the use of performance based approaches. Specific examples 

include the proposed confining zone requirements and the proposed ground water 

monitoring requirements. There are several aspects of the proposed rule that 

should be reconsidered for further improvement. The first of these is the 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well

class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change

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

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

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

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

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

CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Mike Moore Letter ID: 0532

Commenter Organization: North American Carbon Capture and Storage

Association (NACCSA)

Comment ID:

21364

Comment: I applaud the EPA for proposing these regulations. CCS holds significant promise 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well

class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change

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

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

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

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

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

CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

30
Commenter Name: Paul Pike Letter ID: 0535

Commenter Organization: Ameren Corporation on behalf of Utility Solid Waste

Activities Group (USWAG)

Comment ID:

21432

Comment: Clearly the rulemaking reflects the important undertaking it will have 

significant, very practical and cost implications for the entire power industry. 

While the challenges and uncertainties associated with the development of large 

scale commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage are significant, the 

utility industry certainly would be at the forefront of these controls. Given 

the direct impact this program will have on the electric industry, we appreciate 

EPA's goal of establishing certainty and transparency to the requirements of 

Class VI carbon dioxide injection. It is also crucial however for the 

regulations to reflect the challenges inherent in crafting controls for 

commercial CO2 injection and storage activities when such large scale commercial 

operations are in the planning stage. 

Response: Comments related to challenges industry will face in crafting control technology for CO2

injection that are not related to the endangerment of USDWs are outside the scope of this

rulemaking. 

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is

necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that

protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the

SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS

regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS

including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of

water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Olon Plunk Letter ID: 0536

Commenter Organization: Xcel Energy Comment ID: 21374

Comment: I am here this morning to speak in support of the important work EPA is 

undertaking to establish regulations governing the underground sequestration of 

carbon dioxide. In so doing, I would like to share with you a few of the lessons 

we have learned as we have studied the feasibility of developing an IGCC project 

with carbon capture. 

Response: Comments related to the feasibility of developing IGCC projects not related to preventing

endangerment of USDWs are outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is

necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that

protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the

SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS

regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS

including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of

water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

31
Commenter Name: Olon Plunk Letter ID: 0536

Commenter Organization: Xcel Energy Comment ID: 21376

Comment: Finally and most relevant to today's discussion we learned that permanent 

storage of CO2 can be done safely and without harm to the environment as long as 

we apply the right knowledge base, detailed site specific information, technical 

expertise and sound management practices. This is where EPA's proposed 

regulations for geologic storage of CO2 come into the picture. Because as we 

went forward with our investigations over the last years, we also came to 

understand something that caused us as much concern in terms of our IGCC 

project. We came to understand that government regulation and oversight of 

underground sequestration were areas of significant uncertainty. Nobody knew 

exactly who had authority over what and what requirements might apply to a clean 

coal power plant project that included geologic sequestration. We realized that 

this regulatory uncertainty in time created major uncertainties for our project 

with regard to getting necessary environmental and other approvals in a timely 

fashion. With regard to obtaining insurance and financial assurances needed to 

manage project risk and liability and with regard to establishing confidence and 

community acceptance of the project. 

In short we came to understand the regulatory situation created an environment 

of uncertainty in which an IGCC project involving an investment of over a 

billion dollars could not responsibly proceed. This is why I am here this 

morning to speak in favor of what EPA is doing to address a critical element in 

our national response to climate change and why I think the real world 

experience Excel Energy has gained in Colorado would be of value in this 

rulemaking process. The company will join other electric utilities in submitting 

detailed written comments we hope will lay groundwork for a program that will be 

protective, but practical and provide the certainty needed to make carbon 

sequestration a viable near term climate mitigation option for the industry. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

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 §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.

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

32
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.

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Gerald C. Blount Letter ID: 0107

Comment ID: 21940

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation 

Comment: As a concerned practicing geoscientist I believe it is reasonable to 

regulate the geologic storage of CO2 by creating a new well class (Class VI) 

within the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program and it is necessary to 

protect underground drinking water sources. However, it may not be appropriate 

to categorically limit storage to formations with water salinity greater than 

10,000 parts per million. 

Response: EPA agrees that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Comments related to redefining or modifying the definition of USDWs under 40 CFR 144.3 are

outside the scope of the rulemaking. The GS rule, as part of the UIC program regulations, continues

the program’s tradition of ensuring the protection of USDWs by prohibiting injection of carbon

dioxide into USDWs. EPA clarifies that all Class VI injection must be into non-USDWs, which are

formations with water salinity greater than 10,000 parts per million. The mandate as required by the

SDWA of any Federally approved UIC Program (whether administered by a State, Territory, Tribe

or EPA) is the protection of USDWs. This includes not only those formations that are presently

being used for drinking water, but also those that can reasonably be expected to be used in the

future. EPA has established through its UIC regulations that USDWs are underground aquifers with

less than 10,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) total dissolved solids (TDS) and which contain a

sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a public water system (40 CFR 144.3). EPA defines

saline formations as deep and geographically extensive sedimentary rock layers saturated with

waters or brines that have a high total dissolved solids (TDS) content (i.e., over 10,000 mg/L TDS). 

EPA notes that owners or operators of Class II wells have the option to expand aquifer exemptions

that have already been granted for purposes of Class VI injection under §144.7(d). The owner or

operator must meet the requirements found in 146.4(d).

33
Commenter Name: John Stormon Letter ID: 0123

Commenter Organization: Washington State Dept. of Ecology Comment ID: 22996

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1350 1.1.3.3 Comments on the need for GS

technology 

Comment: federal UIC regulations for the Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide. It is 

good to see that EPA has proposed a well defined, environmentally protective 

program through these rules for the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. 

I'm sure that EPA will receive many comments targeted at weakening or removing 

key parts of the proposed regulatory program; contrary to the arguments of some 

industry voices, geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide is new, untested 

technology that, if poorly implemented, could have large and long lasting 

environmental impacts including potentially degrading the quality of our ground 

water resources (USDW). Please help to encourage the use of this important 

technology by keeping a strong, environmentally protective regulatory program. 

One early disaster could destroy geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide as a 

strategy we can use to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Caution is 

warranted in the first set of regulations. Once experience with geologic 

sequestration has been gained, the regulations may be streamlined where 

appropriate. 

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 §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.

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. 

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.

Commenter Name: Jonathan Pershing Letter ID: 0124

Commenter Organization: World Resources Institute (WRI) Comment ID: 23042

Comment: The draft EPA UIC Class VI rule is largely consistent with the content of the 

CCS Guidelines. In many ways the similarities between the EPA approach and CCS 

Guidelines are more important than the differences because they demonstrate the 

need for site specific monitoring plans and risk assessments. Both frameworks 

also include monitoring and risk assessments of both the CO2 plume and 

associated area of elevated pressure, which is essential. The draft rule 

34
requires periodic updates to submitted plans, which is consistent with the CCS 

Guidelines emphasis on integrated planning and operation. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and is aware of WRI's guidelines and notes that there

are many similarities between WRI's guidelines and the GS regulation, including agreement

regarding the relevant aspects of GS that warrant a tailored regulatory approach that is appropriate to

the unique nature of GS. These documents are referenced in the final rule and are available in the

docket for this rulemaking. For additional information, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final

Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: John Hanger Letter ID: 0130

Commenter Organization: Pennsylvania Dept. of Env. Protection Comment ID: 21523

Comment: In conclusion, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania maintains that this proposed 

rule represents a good initial effort to address issues related to the 

protection of USDW, while allowing for the potential development of carbon 

capture and storage. Pennsylvania is interested in participating in the process 

of addressing the questions, comments and concerns identified in this document. 

DEP and DCNR appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed regulation 

and look forward to assisting the EPA in concentrating on some of the remaining 

issues. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well

class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate

change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees

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

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

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

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

CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

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.

Commenter Name: Carl Carlsson Letter ID: 0131

Commenter Organization: SUEZ Energy Generation NA, LLC Comment ID: 21541

Comment: Conclusion 

In summary, SEGNA is supportive of EPA's efforts to provide regulatory clarity for 

geologic sequestration of CO2. We encourage EPA to consider the above 

recommendations to ensure that geologic sequestration of CO2 is conducted in 

an environmentally safe and technically sound manner, while avoiding 

unnecessary technical and regulatory complexity. An appropriate balance 

between these considerations will maximize the potential for this technology to 

35
play a significant role in addressing the challenges of climate change. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and believes that the creation of a new injection well

class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate

change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees

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

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

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

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

CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

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 §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.

Commenter Name: Anonymous2 Letter

ID: 0133

Commenter Organization: Sierra Club National Global Warming and Energy

Committee and Sierra Club California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee on

Energy and Climate Change

Comment

ID: 21621

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study 

Comment: Conclusion 

Although the proposed EPA regulations are not designed to address the presence 

of overabundant CO2 in our atmosphere, the Sierra Club urges the EPA to continue 

fulfilling its mandate to protect the environment by working with the DOE and 

other federal agencies to construct a cohesive body of regulations for all CCS 

methods, and to expand the current purview from attention to the subsurface 

movement of CO2 to include the atmospheric dimensions of the issues as a whole. 

Additionally, the Sierra Club urges the EPA, DOE, and other federal agencies to 

substantially increase their commitment to the funding of research and 

development for alternatives to geologic storage, such as innovative biological 

and chemical approaches to carbon sequestration, thereby increasing public 

acceptance of CCS as an important tool for cleaning the atmosphere during this 

period of transition to an optimal use of sustainable energy resources. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CCS, but

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

in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA

does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to

GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. 

EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology. The Agency

believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of

36
CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not result in

endangerment of USDWs. EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC

Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data

every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information

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

requirements are appropriate or necessary. Please also see the preamble section entitled, “What Steps

Did EPA Take to Develop This Rulemaking?”

EPA acknowledges 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, 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. 

The Agency acknowledges that there is ongoing research in many fields that could address the

broader environmental concern of climate change, but the focus of the Class VI requirements is to

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

endangerment. 

Much of the research on terrestrial and geologic sequestration is being conducted by other federal

agencies, particularly DOE's Office of Science and Technology

(www.energy.gov/sciencetech/carbonsequestration.htm). Other federal agencies involved in research

include the US Department of Agriculture, US Geological Survey, and others. EPA's Office of

Research and Development is also researching issues related to global climate change, including

geologic and terrestrial sequestration.

Commenter Name: Dawn A. Thorne Letter ID:

0134

Commenter Organization: University of Utah Energy and Geoscience Institute on

behalf of the Southwest Regional Partnership

Comment

ID: 21652

Comment: The Southwest Regional Partnership (SWP) is one of seven (7) regional 

partnerships selected by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and 

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to characterize, evaluate, test, 

and verify the feasibility of carbon dioxide sequestration within our particular 

region. As such, the SWP is currently conducting three (3) geologic 

sequestration (GS) pilot studies and one (1) terrestrial sequestration project, 

with a fourth GS pilot study to begin in the middle of 2009. The SWP would like 

to commend the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for recognizing the 

importance of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and making an effort to create a 

sound regulatory process that is protective of human health and the environment. 

On behalf of the SWP, we would like to submit the following comments on the 

proposed rule to public record: 

37
Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Dwight Lockwood, PE, QEP Letter ID: 0141

Commenter Organization: Global Energy, Inc. Comment ID: 23089

Comment: the Injection and GS of CO2. We strongly support the broad intent of the rule 

and believe it will ultimately foster accelerated implementation of carbon 

management programs. The US Department of Energy has identified numerous 

feasible locations across the country, some of which are very large and 

extensive, for geologic sequestration. Some of these are today being used with 

DOE’s Regional Testing Programs. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations. For additional information on site characterization, please also see the

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

Commenter Name: Dwight Lockwood, PE, QEP Letter ID: 0141

Commenter Organization: Global Energy, Inc. Comment ID: 23091

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 3820 2.3.1 Well construction procedures 

Comment: 2.Well installation, operation, monitoring, record keeping, and corrective 

action are similarly rigorous and reasonably pragmatic; and they materially 

minimize the potential for inappropriate actions. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that protection of USDWs from

endangerment and prevention of fluid movement between formations is paramount. Appropriately

designed and constructed wells are necessary to prevent endangerment to USDWs and maintain

integrity of the well throughout the lifetime of a GS project. This is the foundation of the

requirements for construction and pre-operational testing of Class VI wells at §§146.86 and 146.87.

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is

necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that

protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the

SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS

regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS

including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of

38
water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Richard Driggans Letter ID: 0145

Commenter Organization: Tennessee Valley Authority Comment ID: 23156

Comment: TVA believes that a Class VI permitting program is reasonable and necessary 

before GS can be implemented at the operational scale necessary for mitigating 

power plant CO2 emissions, and TVA applauds EPA for this initial effort to 

provide a regulatory framework and some degree of regulatory certainty for GS 

under the UIC program. TVA appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA’s 

Response: EPA agrees that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

Commenter Name: Kenneth Alexander Letter ID: 0146

Commenter Organization: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) Comment ID: 21705

Comment: ODEC appreciates EPA's efforts to develop regulations that will help insure C02 

geological sequestration (GS) activities can move forward in an orderly manner. 

Please consider the attached comments that are intended to help promote final GS 

regulations that will aid the development of full scale, commercial GS 

activities while remaining protective of the environment. If you have any 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

39
of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Kenneth Alexander Letter ID: 0146

Commenter Organization: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) Comment ID: 21706

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation 

Comment: ODEC greatly appreciates EPA's work toward developing a regulatory framework for 

underground injection of CO2. EPA's decision to develop regulations under the 

UIC program and to develop a new Class VI for CO2GS well is appropriate. ODEC 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells

are necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that

USDWs are protected from endangerment. The Class VI requirements are appropriate because of the

unique nature and risks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., large injection volumes, long

project duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule contains tailored requirements for

the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction,

operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site

closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for

GS.

Please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS

rule.

Commenter Name: Kenneth Alexander Letter ID: 0146

Commenter Organization: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) Comment ID: 21708

Comment: It appears that GS of CO2 from fossil-fueled power plants will be a necessary 

part of any national strategy to control green house gas emissions. ODEC has 50% 

undivided interest in the Clover Power Station and pursuing the licensing of a 

new coal plant where these coal-fired power plants are likely to be directly 

affected by new GS regulations. Additionally, ODEC owns combustion turbines 

fueled with natural gas and fuel oil as back up and diesel generators. The 

regulations could have significant financial and operational impacts on ODEC and 

we ask EPA to carefully consider our comments because of the significant stake 

we have in the outcome of this impOliant rulemaking. ODEC is a member of the 

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association ("NRECA"). NRECA will also be 

submitting comments on the proposed UIC rules. ODEC supports NRECA's comments, 

and incorporates them here by reference. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not regulate use of resources, or cost reduction

associated with GS into various formations. 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.

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

40
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.

Commenter Name: Brianne Metzger Letter ID: 0151

Commenter Organization: Spectra Energy Corp Comment ID: 21815

Comment: Spectra Energy Corp ("Spectra" or "Spectra Energy") appreciates this 

opportunity to submit for the U.S. EPA’s ("EPA" or "Agency") consideration the 

following comments regarding the Agency’s proposed development of Federal 

Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide 

Geologic Sequestration Wells (hereafter referred to as the "Proposed Rule" or 

"GS Rule"). 73 Fed. Reg. 43491 (July 25, 2008). We appreciate the Agency’s 

recognition of the importance of the GS Rule in the larger context of carbon, 

capture and sequestration ("CCS") and we acknowledge the Agency’s tremendous 

work in proposing this rule within such a short schedule, especially given the 

complexities of the issue. Although we have a number of concerns and 

recommendations regarding the proposed technical requirements and potential 

liabilities, we believe that the Proposed Rule provides a solid foundation 

toward promulgating the Final Rule. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS, including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Brianne Metzger Letter ID: 0151

Commenter Organization: Spectra Energy Corp Comment ID: 21816

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards) 

Comment: Spectra believes the GS Rule should be designed to encourage carbon capture and 

sequestration as an integral part of any national climate change policy. Second, 

while Spectra appreciates many of the unknowns that currently exist with respect 

to commercial scale GS operations, sour CO2 [1] from natural gas operations has been 

safely injected for nearly two decades and such operations present significant 

opportunities for further reductions in atmospheric CO2 emission through longterm geologic sequestration. Lastly, Spectra and many others within the 

industry have ongoing operations in North America and elsewhere, and we are 

concerned that, should EPA impose excessive or unreasonable requirements as part 

of the GS Rule, this could have negative implications for GS activities in other 

jurisdictions such as Canada - where the majority of Spectra’s current geologic 

41
sequestration activities occur. 

1 The term sour CO2 (a/k/a "acid gas") is used to describe the by-product 

generated from natural gas processing and is primarily a mixture of CO2 and H2S 

but may also contain a small amount of impurities. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the intent of the GS rule is not to encourage GS or CCS in the US or

elsewhere; 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. The Agency's authority as it relates to GS is

limited to protection of USDWs within the United States.

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, Compensation, and

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

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

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

see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS

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

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

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

determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation

are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.

Commenter Name: Steven Pirner Letter ID: 0153

Commenter Organization: South Dakota Department of Environment and

Natural Resources

Comment ID:

22133

Comment: We appreciate the chance to comment on the rules. In general we believe EPA has 

done a good job in formulating rules that will be protective of underground 

sources of drinking water (USDW) without being overly stringent on operators, 

given the potential size, scope and impact of the sequestration operations. Our 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

42
Commenter Name: Jeff Moseley Letter ID: 0155

Commenter Organization: Greater Houston Partnership (GHP) Comment ID: 21253

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: Carbon capture technologies have been developed and there is reason to expect 

that CO2 can be successfully stored on a long-term basis in properly selected 

and managed geologic formations. Full commercialization will require additional 

economic incentives and early demonstration projects at large scale. In 

addition, it is important for business planning purposes that the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) soon adopt reasonable rules governing CO2 storage in 

geologic formations. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Jeff Moseley Letter ID: 0155

Commenter Organization: Greater Houston Partnership (GHP) Comment ID: 21254

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: The EPA is presently considering how CO2 sequestration should be regulated under 

the federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. The Partnership is 

pleased that this work is a priority for the agency. We encourage EPA to develop 

rules that: 

1. Assure that sites are properly selected managed and monitored in order to 

protect underground sources of drinking water (USDW), especially sole source 

aquifers. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the purpose of the GS rule is to protect USDWs from endangerment

through permitting, siting, construction, operation, injection, and post-injection site care and site

closure requirements that are tailored to address the unique nature of GS.

EPA clarifies that SDWA, under section 1422(b)(3)(9)(A), requires that the regulations of the

Administrator "permit or provide for varying geologic, hydrological, or historical conditions in

different states and in different areas within a state." EPA has provided the Director discretion in

applying the GS requirements, taking into account varying conditions, particularly with regard to the

evaluation of site characteristics. 

For additional information on site characterization and testing and monitoring requirements, please

also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Jeff Moseley Letter ID: 0155

Commenter Organization: Greater Houston Partnership (GHP) Comment ID: 21262

Comment: The Partnership supports EPA's efforts to implement rules governing long term 

43
storage of CO2 in geologic formations and further encourages the agency to seek 

to harmonize its rules with international rules and best practices. 

Response: In response to the comments suggesting that EPA harmonize with international rules and

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

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

entitled " International GS Efforts: A Look at the Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah Projects and other

International Regulatory Developments " is in the rulemaking docket. The Agency's authority as it

relates to GS is limited to protection of USDWs within the United States. 

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

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

including international 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.

Commenter Name: M. Michael Rounds Letter ID: 0159

Commenter Organization: Midwestern Governors Association (MGA) Comment ID: 22222

Comment: On behalf of the Midwestern Governors Association (MGA), we commend the 

Environmental Protection Agency on its effort to facilitate the injection of CO2 

for long-term geologic sequestration (GS). Greater regulatory certainty will 

help advance the deployment of carbon capture and sequestration projects. Our 

comments are based on the role of geological sequestration within the context of 

established MGA regional goals and objectives. We offer comments below in the 

following areas: (1) the adaptive approach, (2) the implications of the rule on 

CO2-enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects, and (3) the role of states in 

implementation of the rule. 

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 (per §146.84), the types of monitoring appropriate to GS

projects (per §146.90), and the post-injection site care process (per §146.93). 

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.

Commenter Name: Joseph Eutizi Letter ID: 0161

Commenter Organization: San Miguel Electric Cooperative, Inc Comment ID: 21280

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation 

Comment: San Miguel greatly appreciates EPA's work toward developing a regulatory 

framework for underground injection of CO2. EPA's decision to develop 

regulations under the UIC program and to develop a new Class VI for CO2 GS well 

is appropriate. San Miguel also appreciates EPA's recognition that while the new 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells

44
are necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that

USDWs are protected from endangerment. The Class VI requirements are appropriate because of the

unique nature and risks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., large injection volumes, long

project duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule contains tailored requirements for

the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction,

operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site

closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for

GS.

Commenter Name: James Stine Letter ID: 0163

Commenter Organization: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

(NRECA)

Comment ID:

21309

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation 

Comment: NRECA greatly appreciates EPA's work toward developing a regulatory framework 

for underground injection of CO2. EPA's decision to develop regulations under 

the UIC program and to develop a new Class VI for CO2 GS well is appropriate. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells

are necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that

USDWs are protected from endangerment. The Class VI requirements are appropriate because of the

unique nature and risks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., large injection volumes, long

project duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule contains tailored requirements for

the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction,

operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site

closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for

GS.

Commenter Name: Erik Silvola Letter ID: 0171

Commenter Organization: Great River Energy Comment ID: 23437

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation 

Comment: Great River Energy (GRE) greatly appreciates EPA's work toward developing a 

regulatory framework for underground injection of CO2. EPA's decision to develop 

regulations under the UIC program and to develop a new Class VI for CO2 GS well 

is appropriate. GRE also appreciates EPA's recognition that while the new 

regulations at hand must be within the scope of the SDWA, there are a number of 

very important issues (such as long term liability) that are outside the scope 

of the act but are highly pertinent to developing a viable GS program and we are 

glad that EPA is willing to discuss these issues as part of this regulatory 

proposal. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells

are necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that

USDWs are protected from endangerment. The Class VI requirements are appropriate because of the

unique nature and risks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., large injection volumes, long

project duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule contains tailored requirements for

the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction,

operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site

closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for

45
GS.

EPA understands that there are a number of issues that are outside of the scope of this rulemaking

and SDWA authority that are important to commenters, such as long-term liability. EPA clarifies

that long-term liability is a broad concept that includes many mechanisms, however, for purposes of

the SDWA there are liability mechanisms available under §§ 1423 and 1431 for those activities that

endanger USDWs. EPA recognizes that liability is an important issue to owners or operators but the

Agency does not have authority under the SDWA to transfer long-term liability from owners or

operators to the state or federal government. Therefore, liability remains with the owner or operator.

Please see the preamble discussion on financial responsibility and liability.

Commenter Name: James Taft Letter ID: 0172

Commenter Organization: Association of State Drinking Water Administrators

(ASDWA)

Comment ID:

23449

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general; 2020

1.5.1 Support Class VI designation 

Comment: Overall Comments 

ASDWA and its members appreciate EPA’s efforts to develop this rule under very 

limited time constraints and agree with EPA’s plan to create a new class of 

wells for carbon dioxide geologic sequestration sites. States believe that all 

appropriate steps need to be taken to ensure the effectiveness of Carbon Capture 

and Sequestration as a tool to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, as well as 

avoid potential unintended consequences that could have a negative impact on 

Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDW). Additional research and data are 

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

water sources. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells

are necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that

USDWs are protected from endangerment. The Class VI requirements are appropriate because of the

unique nature and risks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., large injection volumes, long

project duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule contains tailored requirements for

the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction,

operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site

closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for

GS. 

EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS

technology. EPA is aware of research by other federal agencies, industry, international parties, and

academia related to GS, including projects that address many of the topics suggested by commenters.

EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment on August 31,

2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership

sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump

Canyon Site, New Mexico). In the NODA and Request for Comment, EPA also described two

studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential effects of CO2 injection on

ground water and surrounding formations to determine the potential for impacts on USDWs and

human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated, or managed. 

46
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, every six

years, collect and review data 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.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177

Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23549

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: Executive Summary 

Addressing climate change concerns requires a full commitment to development and 

commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. EEI 

thus supports the development of clear, flexible and appropriately tailored 

regulatory regimes that will facilitate development of and investment in CCS 

technology and projects while protecting against potential environmental risks. 

We applaud the Agency for taking this crucial first step toward establishing 

such a regime for geological sequestration (GS). Recognizing the significance of 

EPA‘s initiative in proposing regulations for the injection and storage of 

carbon dioxide (CO2) under the Safe Drinking Water Act‘s (SDWA) Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) program, EEI appreciates the opportunity to provide 

input into the process and to share our suggestions for changes to the proposed 

rule. Incorporation of our comments into the final rule will serve to promote 

the dual goals of promoting the commercialization of CCS technology and 

preventing potentially undesirable impacts to drinking water resources. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177

Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23561

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: I. General Principles Applicable To EPA's GS Regulatory Effort 

As we noted in our prior comments, addressing climate change concerns requires a 

full commitment to development and commercial deployment of carbon capture and 

storage (CCS) technologies. To put the need for this commitment in context, 

consider that electricity generation is responsible for 34 percent of greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions and 40 percent of CO2 in the U.S. The Energy Information 

Administration projects net electric demand will increase 30 percent by 2030, 

47
even after taking into account energy-efficiency improvements. New and 

replacement power plant capacity to meet this increased demand is projected to 

total 150,000 megaWatts. Coal is one of the primary sources of baseload 

generation in the U.S. and will continue to be an important fuel for generating 

electricity through 2030 because it is comparatively affordable and abundant in 

this country. Given this backdrop, the potential environmental benefits of CCS 

- in terms of reduced or avoided CO2 emissions - are substantial. Consequently, 

EEI and our members see CCS as a critical element in the full portfolio of 

options needed not only to reduce CO2 emissions, but also to ensure continued 

affordable and reliable electric service to customers throughout the nation. 

EEI thus supports the development of clear, flexible and appropriately tailored 

regulatory regimes that will facilitate development of and investment in CCS 

technology and projects while protecting against potential environmental risks. 

We applaud the Agency for taking this crucial first step toward establishing 

such a regime for GS. Recognizing the significance of EPA's initiative in 

proposing regulations for the injection and storage of CO2 under SDWA's UIC 

program, EEI appreciates the opportunity to provide input into the process and 

to share our suggestions for changes to the proposed rules. Incorporation of 

our comments into the final rules will serve to promote the dual goals of 

promoting the commercialization of CCS technology and preventing potentially 

undesirable impacts to drinking water resources. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

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 (per §146.84), the types of monitoring appropriate to GS projects (per

§146.90), and the post-injection site care process (per §146.93). 

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.

Commenter Name: Wendy Jacobs Letter ID: 0183

Commenter Organization: Harvard Law School Environmental Law and Policy

Center

Comment ID:

25169

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1260 1.1.1.5 More certainty/stringency is needed 

Comment: VII. Conclusion

48
ELPC and ETIP support many portions of the EPA's proposed regulations and

commend the EPA for implementing safeguards for GS that go beyond those required

for other classes of injection wells. For example, we are pleased to see that

EPA has provided flexibility in the choice of construction materials used by

well owners while preserving rigorous construction standards. Our primary

objection to the regulations, however, is that they constitute a piecemeal

approach to regulation ofGS (and CCS), thus leaving several issues unaccounted

for. The lack of certainty on issues of liability, financial assurance, and

well-closure standards, could both stifle the use ofGS as a climate change

mitigation tool and place the public at greater risk.

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

regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final

GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

EPA recognizes that liability is an important issue to owners or operators; however the Agency does

not have authority under the SDWA to transfer long term liability from owners or operators to the

state or federal government. Therefore, liability remains with the owner or operator. EPA notes that

the final rule clarifies the requirements for the use of financial responsibility instruments for GS. In

addition, the final rule requires owners or operators to address well plugging in well plugging plans

submitted with the Class VI permit application. EPA is developing guidance manuals for owners or

operators that describe the financial responsibility and injection well plugging requirements in the

GS rule.

Commenter Name: Jeff W. Sheets Letter ID: 0192

Commenter Organization: ConocoPhillips Comment ID: 23887

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1210 1.1.1 Comments about the proposed rule;

1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performance-based standards) 

Comment: Protection of U.S. Drinking Water (USDW) sources is paramount and a central 

requirement of the Safe Drinking Water Act and ConocoPhillips wholeheartedly 

supports high standards for protection of current and potential future USDWs. We 

believe that maintaining focus on several key principles can ensure rulemaking 

that is protective and flexible to allow site specific considerations while 

maintaining cost-effective operations. We applaud EPA's work to that end. We 

support most concepts, elements and details in the proposed requirements, and 

provide our comments to reinforce and amplify a few issues which we believe flow 

from the following important key principles: 

o All UIC well classes have requirements fully designed to protect USDW's. 

49
o The oil and gas industry's experience with CO2 injection for enhanced oil 

recovery (EOR) provides a track record of USDW protection that can enhance EPA's 

rulemaking. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the

purpose of ER, and that sites used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS

sites. Some of the research that informs the final GS rule was conducted at ER sites. EPA also

recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the

receiving formation.

Commenter Name: Craig R. Walters Letter ID: 0200

Commenter Organization: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Comment ID: 24563

Comment: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation appreciates the opportunity to submit comments on 

the EPA's proposed regulations governing underground injection of carbon dioxide 

for geologic sequestration. Anadarko feels the EPA has done a very good job on 

many critical aspects of this very important rule including the ability to 

sequester CO2 under current Class II regulations during enhanced recovery and 

the protective nature of the current Class II operations. In addition, we would 

like to recommend several modifications based on our experiences with conducting 

Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). Currently, Anadarko operates two EOR projects that 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the

purpose of ER, and that sites used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS

sites. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2

is trapped in the receiving formation.

Also, since field experience and well construction, injection, and monitoring information relevant to

GS comes from operations that inject acid gas or inject CO2 for ER, the Agency has conducted

evaluations regarding these commercial field operations and continues to track GS-relevant

developments in these commercial operations. Some of the research that informs the final GS rule

50
was conducted at ER sites.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Letter ID: 0201

Commenter Organization: Southern Company Comment ID: 22151

Comment: Enclosed please find the comments of Southern Company on the Environmental 

Protection Agency's Proposed Rule for Geologic Sequestration ("GS") of Carbon 

Dioxide ("C02") under the Underground Injection Control ("UIC") Program. 

Southern Company believes that carbon capture and storage has the potential to 

lead to substantial environmental benefits in terms of avoided CO2 emissions. 

Therefore, a workable CCS program, including a regulatory framework for longterm CO2 sequestration as anticipated by this rulemaking, is an essential 

element in the full portfolio of options needed to ensure continued affordable 

and reliable electric service to customers throughout the United States while 

reducing CO2 emissions. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important rulemaking and look 

forward to continuing to work with EPA on this issue. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Letter ID: 0201

Commenter Organization: Southern Company Comment ID: 22153

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: of energy sources including renewable energy. Southern Company has already begun 

a CO2 injection project at a deep saline-filled geologic formation in 

Mississippi as part of the Southeast Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership. 

We believe that carbon capture and storage ("CCS") is critical to the likely 

federal goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to the implementation of a 

number of federal and state energy reform initiatives; we are proud of our 

efforts to help bring this important technology towards commercial viability and 

generally support EPA's efforts in this rulemaking. 

Carbon capture and storage has the potential to lead to substantial 

environmental benefits in terms of avoided CO2 emissions. Therefore, a workable 

CCS program, including a regulatory framework for long-term carbon dioxide 

sequestration as anticipated by this rulemaking, is an essential element in the 

full portfolio of options needed to ensure continued affordable and reliable 

electric service to customers throughout the United States while reducing CO2 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

51
that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Chris M. Hobson Letter ID: 0201

Commenter Organization: Southern Company Comment ID: 22177

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards) 

Comment: Southern Company applauds the EPA's initial efforts to create a clear and 

flexible regulatory scheme that will promote carbon capture and storage 

technology and projects while protecting underground sources of drinking water. 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking and look forward to 

continuing to work with EPA on this important issue. 

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the

SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0204

Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 22188

Comment: We appreciate the expertise from your staff, and the public workshops and 

meetings that were held by your agency during the deliberative process. We stand 

ready to work with you and the state regulatory agencies in implementing the new 

rule. 

Response: EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital

component of successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree of cooperation,

participation, and active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will continue to work with

stakeholders and experts as it implements the GS rule.

Commenter Name: Michael Stroben Letter ID: 0209

Commenter Organization: Duke Energy Comment ID: 22676

Comment: Duke Energy supports EPA’s efforts to develop a regulatory framework for 

geologic sequestration ("GS") of carbon dioxide ("CO2"). Coal, the nation’s most 

abundant natural energy resource, accounts for approximately 50% of the 

electricity consumed in the U.S. today. Development of a workable GS regulatory 

program is critical to this country’s ability to make substantial reductions in 

CO2 emissions while keeping coal as a viable energy resource that contributes to 

the nation’s energy independence. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

52
of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Michael Stroben Letter ID: 0209

Commenter Organization: Duke Energy Comment ID: 22689

Comment: CONCLUSION 

Duke Energy appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this important 

rulemaking. Having a workable regulatory program in place for the geologic 

sequestration of CO2 is absolutely essential to this country’s ability to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions at a reasonable cost and without eliminating coal as a 

viable energy resource. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: John King Letter ID: 0211

Commenter Organization: Shell Exploration and Production Company

(SEPCo)

Comment ID:

22745

Comment: I. INTRODUCTION 

A. Shell Exploration & Production Company (SEPCo) appreciates this opportunity 

to provide comment to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its proposed 

rule regarding Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control 

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

B. SEPCo strongly supports EPA’s effort to develop appropriate regulations 

governing CO2 injection for purposes of GS. SEPCo agrees that GS is an important 

option for the reduction of CO2 emissions, that the UIC program provides an 

appropriate framework for the regulation of CO2 injection, and that UIC 

regulations specifically tailored to CO2 injection could play a vital role in 

facilitating the development and implementation of GS projects while ensuring 

that appropriate environmental safeguards are in place. 

C. As EPA has correctly recognized, it is critical that any UIC program 

regulation addressing GS be designed to achieve two goals. First, such a rule 

should ensure that CO2 injection is conducted in a manner that is protective of 

human health and the environment. Second, such a rule should effectively 

facilitate and encourage GS as a means to address climate change through the 

reduction of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. 

53
D. Fortunately, there is abundant evidence that CO2 injection can be 

accomplished in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. 

Indeed there has been a long history of successful injection well operation in 

the United States, and multiple studies have confirmed that the UIC program has 

been remarkably effective in ensuring protection of human health and the 

environment. While GS projects are likely to be large in scale, it is important 

to recognize that the injection of CO2 is nothing new. To the contrary, CO2 has 

been injected for purposes of enhanced oil and gas recovery (EOR/EGR) for more 

than thirty-five years, and the UIC program already regulates more than ten 

thousand CO2 injection wells that have successfully injected more than half a 

billion tons of CO2. We therefore have a vast body of experience demonstrating 

that CO2 injection can be conducted without adverse impacts on human health and 

the environment. 

E. To achieve its goals for this rulemaking - to address the risks of CO2 

injection and promote the use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions - we ask that EPA 

utilize more of the successful practices from the experience detailed above in 

its final decision on each of the requirements it has proposed for CO2 

injection. SEPCo believes, as further detailed in these comments that the 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the

purpose of ER, and that sites used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS

sites. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2

is trapped in the receiving formation.

Also, since field experience and well construction, injection, and monitoring information relevant to

GS comes from operations that inject acid gas or inject CO2 for ER, the Agency has conducted

evaluations regarding these commercial field operations and continues to track GS-relevant

developments in these commercial operations. Some of the research that informs the final GS rule

was conducted at ER sites.

Commenter Name: John King Letter ID: 0211

Commenter Organization: Shell Exploration and Production Company

(SEPCo)

Comment ID:

22756

Comment: A. SEPCo Supports Development of Appropriate UIC Program Regulations for GS. 

SEPCo strongly supports the conclusion that the UIC program provides the 

appropriate framework for regulation of CO2 injection for GS. The UIC program 

governs a very wide range of underground injection activities - including the 

operation of tens of thousands of existing CO2 injection wells - and enjoys an 

enviable and extensively documented record of success. The program has in many 

54
respects been a model for Federal-State cooperation, and has benefited from a 

long history of regulatory and technical discourse among agencies and regulators 

armed with considerable practical experience and exceptional technical 

expertise. While the UIC program is focused on the protection of "underground 

sources of drinking water" (USDWs), this seemingly narrow objective is narrow in 

name only. In fact, the measures the UIC program relies upon to protect USDWs - 

measures designed to ensure that injected material remains isolated in the deep 

subsurface - are by nature sufficient to ensure protection of human health and 

the environment. 

The UIC program currently provides regulations that are being successfully 

applied to CO2 injection. Nevertheless, SEPCo agrees with EPA in the need to 

develop regulations more specifically designed to address CO2 injection in the 

GS context. Our primary recommendation is that such regulations build on 

relevant UIC program experience, including experience with CO2 injection, and 

should be tailored to address the particular needs for this category of 

injection activity: both the need to protect USDWs and the need to facilitate 

use of GS as a technology for reducing CO2 emissions. In developing such 

Response: As described above, EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI)

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

technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213

Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

(AMWA)

Comment ID:

22923

Comment: AMWA supports EPA’s rulemaking to provide a framework for the permitting of 

carbon sequestration wells, recognizing that state agencies are looking to EPA 

to provide this leadership since carbon sequestration wells are already being 

piloted, yet there is no comprehensive federal standard currently in place. 

AMWA’s comments are comprised of general comments about the proposal as well as 

several responses to specific EPA requests for comment. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Dennis R. James Letter ID: 0214

Commenter Organization: North American Coal Corporation (NAC) Comment ID: 22957

Comment: A. NAC supports the Administration in its efforts to develop regulations that 

will protect our valuable groundwater resources. If laws or regulations are 

promulgated that restrict the emissions of CO2, then sequestration will be the 

only viable way to dispose of CO2 until beneficial uses can be developed. 

55
Sequestration activities will need to be regulated to insure our environment and 

ALL of our natural resources are protected. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Tiffany Rau Letter ID: 0224

Commenter Organization: Hydrogen Energy International Comment ID: 21702

Comment: CONCLUSION 

HEI commends EPA for the tremendous amount of work that EPA has done in 

preparing the Preamble and Proposed Rule in an expedited timeframe. After due 

consideration of studies and analyses performed by international research 

organizations, non-governmental organizations, sister-agencies, and scientists 

worldwide, EPA’s research has determined that CCS could be "a key mitigation 

technology for achieving domestic emissions reductions," and CCS has the 

"potential to play a significant role in climate change mitigation scenarios." 

(73 Fed. Reg. at 45496.) HEI applauds EPA’s willingness to play a significant 

role in this Nation’s strategy to address climate change. We are very supportive 

of EPA’s effort to implement a regulatory scheme that will both protect one of 

our vital resources, USDWs, and facilitate the implementation of CCS technology 

and geologic sequestration of CO2. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Brian Williams Letter ID: 0225

Commenter Organization: BP Alternative Energy North America, Inc. (BP) Comment ID: 21763

Comment: CONCLUSION 

BP commends EPA for the tremendous amount of work that EPA has done in preparing 

the Preamble and Proposed Rule in an expedited timeframe. After due 

consideration of studies and analyses performed by international research 

organizations, non-governmental organizations, sister-agencies, and scientists 

worldwide, EPA’s research has determined that CCS could be "a key mitigation 

technology for achieving domestic emissions reductions," and CCS has the 

56
"potential to play a significant role in climate change mitigation scenarios." 

(73 Fed. Reg. at 45496.) BP applauds EPA’s willingness to play a significant 

role in this Nation’s strategy to address climate change. We are very supportive 

of EPA’s effort to implement a regulatory scheme that will both protect one of 

our vital resources, USDWs, and facilitate the implementation of CCS technology 

and geologic sequestration of CO2. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Andrew Duguid Letter ID: 0226

Commenter Organization: Schlumberger Carbon Services Comment ID: 23995

Comment: Schlumberger feels that the proposed rule for geologic sequestration of carbon 

dioxide is a very good start and relatively few changes are needed to create a 

final rule under which geologic CO2 sequestration can become a commercial 

industry and an effective piece in the solution to climate change. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: David L. Armstrong Letter ID: 0231

Commenter Organization: Kentucky Public Service Commission Comment ID: 21891

Comment: Broadly speaking the proposed rule appears to be intended to help protect 

underground sources of drinking water from the possible contaminating effects of 

injecting massive amounts of compressed C02 into underground geological 

formations for long-term geological sequestration. As over 107 million people 

within the United States obtain their drinking water from underground sourcesover 400,000 of whom are in the Commonwealth of Kentucky-it is vital that the 

nation's drinking water supply be protected from such contamination. [FN1] 

[FN1: See, "FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2007," pp. 

4-5, found at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pdfs/data factoids 2007.pdf.] 

KPSC also commends EPA for its efforts in formulating the proposed rule, because 

it will further the prospect of deploying effective technological solutions to 

the problem of capturing and sequestering carbon emissions from coal combustion 

57
and gasification, as it appears likely that federal legislation to limit carbon 

emissions will become law in the future. 

Without clear rules to govern the underground injection and long-term 

equestration of C02, the full-scale deployment of C02 capture and sequestration 

technology on a nationwide basis could be subject to inconsistent and uncertain 

treatment under diverse state regulatory procedures. That, in turn, could 

unnecessarily complicate and forestall the process of effectively dealing with 

climate change, which would be especially vexing for states like Kentucky, 

Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming whose coal 

reserves will continue to be used to ensure the nation's energy independence 

into the future. 

Furthermore, KPSC supports the goal of EPA's proposed rule to, "enable the 

continued use of coal in a manner that greatly reduces the associated C02 

emissions while other safe and affordable alternative energy sources are 

developed in the coming decades. [FN2] KPSC also supports EPA's "strategy to 

address climate change through: (1) Slowing the growth of emissions; (2) 

strengthening science, technology and institutions; and (3) enhancing 

international cooperation ." [FN3] 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: M. Granger Morgan Letter ID: 0233

Commenter Organization: Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CCS

Reg Project

Comment ID:

21898

Comment: Overarching issues and concerns 

6. We applaud EPA’s work toward developing regulations for GS. It is urgent that 

the U.S. moves forward with deployment of CCS technologies: EPA’s effort to 

write rules for GS wells incorporating sound scientific and technical knowledge 

contributes to creating a regulatory framework that ensures that GS will be done 

in a manner that is safe and environmentally sound. The speed with which EPA 

drafted these rules, and the inclusiveness of the rulewriting process, are well 

matched to the urgency and broad interest in the problem. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

58
of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital component

of successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree of cooperation, participation, and

active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will continue to work with stakeholders and

experts as it implements the GS rule.

Commenter Name: Steven B. Corneli Letter ID: 0234

Commenter Organization: NRG Energy, Inc. Comment ID: 23159

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation 

Comment: NRG appreciates the substantial efforts which have been part of this proposal 

development governing CO2 injection for the purpose of GS. As a company, NRG is 

committed to effectively addressing climate change, and believes that GS is a 

critical component for the reduction of CO2 emissions. In general, NRG supports 

and commends the efforts of the EPA to develop a rational approach that would 

(1) create a new category of injection wells (i.e., Class VI) under the 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program and (2) establishes Federal 

regulations that are specifically tailored to CO2 injection for GS. However, we 

Response: EPA agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells are necessary to address the

unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that USDWs are protected from

endangerment. The GS rule contains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site

characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity

testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly

address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for GS.

The EPA believes the final rulemaking falls within EPA’s authority under the SDWA. EPA clarifies

that the SDWA provides EPA with the authority to develop federal minimum requirements for

underground injection, such as GS, that are directly related to protecting USDWs from

endangerment. Thus, EPA does not have authority under the SDWA to address other issues related

to CCS, such as capture and transportation.

Commenter Name: Abbie Krebsbach Letter ID: 0235

Commenter Organization: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Comment ID: 23175

Comment: Dakota appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed rule. The 

proposed regulation provides a critical framework for implementing future CO2 GS 

projects in which CO2 is captured and sequestered from fossil-fired power 

generating facilities. 

Response: EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong

framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC

requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS, including large injection

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

presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Abbie Krebsbach Letter ID: 0235

Commenter Organization: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Comment ID: 23198

59
Comment: projects. Montana-Dakota believes that the EPA has proposed a rule that, pending 

the consideration of the above recommendations, should provide additional 

certainty for further CCS project development. 

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 (per §146.84), the types of monitoring appropriate to GS

projects (per §146.90), and the post-injection site care process (per §146.93).

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0250

Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 22271

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope"

issues, e.g., pore space ownership 

Comment: It is also essential that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take 

supplemental action, based on other (non-SDWA) authority, to provide additional 

assurance that injected CO2 will not be released into the atmosphere in a way 

that adversely impacts the climate or otherwise endangers public health and 

welfare. Generally, the steps needed to protect USDWs are also needed in order 

to prevent emissions to the atmosphere. Supplemental steps citing additional 

authority should also guarantee that CO2 injected into geologic formations stays 

out of the atmosphere. This should be done according to a permanence 

(performance) standard, which will certify CO2 as ‘geologically sequestered’ for 

that purpose, in addition to protecting USDWs. These are needed, as none of the 

existing or proposed injection classes are adequate for the task of certifying 

CO2 as permanently sequestered for the purposes of preventing atmospheric 

releases. In order to be fully protective of the environment, Congress will also 

need to pass comprehensive cap and trade legislation to control the emission of 

greenhouse gases from all anthropogenic sources. But the need for such 

legislation is not a basis for deferring the adoption of EPA rules to protect 

USDWs or to assure that injected CO2 does not result in harmful releases to the 

atmosphere. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CCS, but

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

in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA

does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to

GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. "Cap and trade" legislation is outside of the scope of this

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

manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

60
Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program rulemaking and docket.

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0250

Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 22281

Comment: C. The Proposed Rule Has Many Positive Features 

Before offering comments on the proposal itself, we want to praise and lend our 

support to EPA for incorporating, or in some cases intending to incorporate, a 

number of features of the rule that we regard not solely as desirable, but 

essential. These include: 

• specific requirements for a comprehensive characterization before deeming a 

sequestration site as appropriate for injection; 

• monitoring requirements for tracking the behavior and location of CO2 in the 

subsurface, validating its confinement, or detecting unwanted behavior early to 

allow for corrective action; 

• the need to compile a monitoring plan, a site care and closure plan and a 

remedial response plan prior to obtaining a permit; 

• the requirement to update and report on these plans, including the area of 

review adjustment process, as monitoring and operational data become available; 

• a requirement for a continuous feedback loop between monitoring and modeling, 

whereby one updates the other in order to optimize operations and refine 

simulations; and 

• a criterion for site closure that is not based on the mere passage of a set 

number of years, but on the finding that drinking water is not endangered and 

that the project meets the necessary performance standards (we note, however, 

that articulation of the performance standards that need to be met in order to 

make such a finding is one of the areas where the rule needs work). 

These features are captured to differing extents by the proposed rule’s 

language, and our suggested changes below serve to reinforce these features. 

Some of these features appropriately go beyond what is currently required under 

existing well classes in the UIC program. We regard them as necessary for the 

effective regulation of GS in the Class VI context, and strongly support them. 

We would therefore label our proposed changes as technical modifications, and 

not radical changes in the rule. Even though these strengthening changes are 

needed, we urge EPA to maintain the basic structure of the rule as proposed and 

61
thank the drafting working group for producing the proposed rule in a short 

timeframe. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations. For additional information, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final

Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Walter L. Baker Letter ID: 0253

Commenter Organization: Utah Division of Water Quality Comment ID: 22336

Comment: Introduction 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed rule for carbon 

dioxide geologic sequestration wells. We commend EPA’s efforts in engaging 

international, national, state, and local experts from a broad spectrum of 

relevant fields to inform the development of the proposed rule. Finalizing the 

rule for carbon dioxide geologic sequestration wells will make significant 

progress in removing one of the identified (GAO, September 2008) barriers to 

implementing large-scale commercial carbon capture and geologic sequestration 

(CCGS) projects, namely the legal and regulatory uncertainties associated with 

CCGS, particularly with regards to injection and storage of CO2. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

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, and 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 (per §146.84), the types of monitoring appropriate to GS projects (per

§146.90), and the post-injection site care process (per §146.93). 

EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital component

of successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree of cooperation, participation, and

active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will continue to work with stakeholders and

experts as it implements the GS rule.

Commenter Name: Dianna Tickner Letter ID: 0262

62
Commenter Organization: Peabody Energy Comment ID: 22990

Comment: The following general comments are submitted by Peabody Energy in response to 

EPA's proposed federal requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for 

the underground injection of carbon dioxide ("CO2") for the purpose of geologic 

sequestration. EPA is to be commended for beginning the process to provide 

regulatory clarity for CO2 sequestration. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Michael Moore Letter ID: 0265

Commenter Organization: North American Carbon Capture & Storage

Association (NACCSA)

Comment ID:

22849

Comment: EPA's proposed regulations are a needed first step toward establishing a stable, 

predictable, and workable regulatory framework that appropriately encourages the 

development of a CCS industry to both safely mitigate GHG emissions and maximize 

energy production. 

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.

For additional information on EPA’s authority to promulgate this rulemaking, see the preamble

section on "Under What Authority is This Rulemaking Promulgated?"

Commenter Name: William Herz Letter ID: 0266

Commenter Organization: The Fertilizer Institute Comment ID: 22875

Comment: General Comments 

TFI wishes to thank EPA for the opportunity to comment on the proposed requirements 

for underground injection of CO2 under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),and for 

holding a public hearing on the subject. TFI is generally supportive of the 

proposed rules, but would ask for additional regulatory clarification and/or 

guidance for potential upstream industrial clients. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

63
EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital component

of successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree of cooperation, participation, and

active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will continue to work with stakeholders and

experts as it implements the GS rule. 

EPA is developing a series of guidance documents to support the GS rulemaking. These are

available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0295

Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 26138

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

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

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

proposed rule constitutes a significant step forward for the geologic 

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

now submitted several sets of individual and joint comments containing technical 

recommendations to improve the rule and ensure that geologic sequestration is 

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

gaps that the Agency must address in an expeditious manner. 

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

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Bill Hertz Letter ID: 0500

Commenter Organization: Fertilizer Institute Comment ID: 21208

Comment: So in general, TFI is supportive of the proposed rules but would request 

additional regulatory clarity and/or guidance for potential upstream industrial 

clients. 

Now, specific, aspects of the rule that TFI supports: we support the 

establishment of a new class of well, Class VI, for geologic sequestration and 

maintaining injection of carbon dioxide for the purposes of enhanced oil 

recovery under the Class II program. 

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under

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

mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

64
EPA is developing a series of guidance documents to support the GS rulemaking. These are

available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: Bill Hertz Letter ID: 0500

Commenter Organization: Fertilizer Institute Comment ID: 21213

Comment: To conclude, the EPA Science Advisory Board on Integrated Nitrogen has estimated 

that fertilizer is responsible for almost 50 percent of the world food 

production. There is over a billion people that are living essentially on a 

dollar a day or less globally. And this rule, if done correctly, has the 

potential to lower farmers' input cost and, and positively impact food security. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the impact of GS on food security is outside the scope of the GS rule.

Commenter Name: Mark Singer Letter ID: 0504

Commenter Organization: Green America Project, LLC Comment ID: 21251

Comment: So in summary, the eyes of posterity are focused on us right here today, what we 

do here is critically important. Geologic sequestration is essential, it is 

urgently needed, but it must be done right. Thank you. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0510

Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 21224

Comment: So a lot of careful thought has gone in this ruling and we recognize that. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0520

Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 21417

Comment: We think that an adequate regulatory regime for CO2 sequestration is within 

sight. That is not to say that we do not think that changes are needed. We do 

see the need for quite a few changes in the rule, but I think it is fair to 

characterize the changes we have in mind as technical. 

65
Response: As described above, EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the

SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0520

Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 21420

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 3310 2.2.1.1 Comments in favor of requiring

computational models to delineate the AoR (seeking comment); 4660 2.6.6 Geochemical monitoring 

Comment: We think the rule, the proposed rule has done a very good job of keeping the 

focus on both CO2 leakage risks and also the risk of problems from displaced 

brine. The confining zone in the rule is required to contain both CO2 and 

displaced formation fluids. The zone of elevated pressure as defined in the rule 

focuses on both CO2 and formation fluids that might be driven out of a US -- 

into a USDW. The modeling requirements are modeling both of the CO2 plume extent 

and formation fluid movement. There is the requirement for periodic monitoring 

of groundwater quality and geochemical changes above the confining zone which 

would help detail whether either CO2 or brine is leaking and there are adequate 

response provisions. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support and believes that predicting the complex

multiphase, buoyant flow of the CO2, co-injectates, and compounds that may be mobilized due to

injection requires the sophistication of computational models, as required at §146.84(c)(1). Models

can predict CO2 fate and transport, as well as changes in formation pressure, in three dimensions, as

a function of time in order to delineate the subsurface storage site and the AoR. Models can account

for site-specific and predicted operating conditions as well as geologic heterogeneities and potential

migration through faults, fractures, and artificial penetrations.

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is

necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that

protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the

SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS

regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS

including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of

water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations. For additional information on well construction, siting, and testing and

monitoring requirements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the

preamble to the final GS rule.

Commenter Name: Kevin Frederick Letter ID: 0525

Commenter Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Comment ID: 21396

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for

permit applications (seeking comment) 

Comment: A few specific comments on issues where we agree with EPA's proposed rule. We 

believe that permit applications for GS sites should include several plans, not 

currently required under existing UIC regulations. These plans include a 

monitoring, a testing plan and an area of review and corrective action plan and 

a post injection site care and site closure plan. 

66
Response: EPA believes that the GS requirements, which are based on the long-standing UIC

regulatory framework and tailored to meet the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS, appropriately

address endangerment risks to USDWs. The GS rule contains minimum technical criteria for the

permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation,

mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, injection well plugging, postinjection site care, and site closure of GS wells, which will ensure that USDWs are protected from

endangerment. 

For additional information on testing and monitoring, corrective action, and post-injection site care

requirements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to

the final GS rule.

EPA agrees that incorporating the plans into the permit rather than establishing specific requirements

for corrective action, monitoring, injection well plugging, and post-injection site care in the

regulation provide the appropriate flexibility to address the variety of site-specific conditions that

may be encountered at GS sites. 

EPA also believes that it is appropriate to require owners and operators to submit all plans, including

the injection well plugging and post-injection site care and site closure plans, at the time of permit

application. EPA believes that the Director needs a satisfactory level of assurance that the owner or

operator has planned for these events before injection commences and that the owner or operator has

ensured that appropriate financial resources are available to fund all required activities, as required at

§146.85. The final rule retains requirements for submitting these plans with the permit application at

§146.82(a). EPA believes that the requirement for this and other plans associated with GS projects

will promote an ongoing dialogue between the owner or operator and the Director to ensure USDWs

are protected from endangerment. In addition, these plans will support a demonstration that owners

and operators have adequate financial resources to meet well plugging and post-injection site care

and site closure requirements. Please see the final rule and the discussion of the GS project plans in

the preamble for additional information.

Commenter Name: Barbara Massoner Letter ID: 0531

Commenter Organization: Legacy Economy Comment ID: 21442

Comment: In the past week with the economic crisis, it has illustrated it is essential to 

develop sensible regulations before a crisis hits. Toning down regulations based 

on threats from industry that the government oversight is going to have an 

impact on our economy has been shown to not be the case. In fact, it is the 

other way around. Therefore, I commend the EPA for addressing carbon 

sequestration. It is essential that we control CO2 emissions, not only so that 

we have a healthy environment, but so that we can usher in a prosperous economy 

for the next generation. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

67
Commenter Name: George Peridas Letter ID: 0534

Commenter Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Comment ID: 21453

Comment: I believe the time is right to be writing a sound regulatory framework on CCS. 

We need to be getting on with reducing emissions from qualified power plants and 

other industrial facilities as soon as we can and I would like to thank and 

commend EPA for putting together what is I think a very well thought out rule in 

a very limited amount of time. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Olon Plunk Letter ID: 0536

Commenter Organization: Xcel Energy Comment ID: 21380

Comment: I want to close by reiterating Excel Energy's strong support for the expeditious 

adoption of affective rules that will facilitate geologic carbon sequestration 

and give our company, our industry and our nation a powerful tool in reducing 

CO2 emissions. And thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of

the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

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

Individual Comments

Commenter Name: George Holliday, PhD, PE, BCEE Letter ID: 0114

Commenter Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. Comment ID: 22515

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general 

Comment: 43492-43541. We agree EPA has the authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA) to propose regulations governing the protect Underground Sources of 

Drinking Water, but we believe Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Wells are: 1) 

dangerous and 2) unnecessary and should not promulgated. Also, we believe the 

68
Response: EPA disagrees that properly managed GS projects are dangerous. EPA believes that the

GS requirements, which are based on the long-standing UIC regulatory framework and tailored to

meet the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS, appropriately address endangerment risks to

USDWs. The GS rule contains minimum technical criteria for the permitting, geologic site

characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity

testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and site

closure of GS wells, which will ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. 

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is

necessary to enable the deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Anonymous2 Letter

ID: 0133

Commenter Organization: Sierra Club National Global Warming and Energy

Committee and Sierra Club California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee on

Energy and Climate Change

Comment

ID: 21601

Comment: In order to optimize the implementation of CCS in the US, it is necessary to 

construct a regulatory framework that is progressive in vision, responsive to 

new data, representative of all stakeholders, substantive in expertise, and 

ethical in decision making. The second section will offer policy recommendations 

for effective regulatory oversight. In order to optimize public acceptance, it 

is necessary to anticipate and consider the types of community concerns that are 

being raised in conjunction with proposed sitings and operations of geologic 

sequestration projects (and future carbon capture and transportation projects) 

under EPA and DOE auspices. The third section will suggest protocols for 

establishing mechanisms that will address and alleviate the social and 

environmental concerns of local communities relating to health, safety, and 

economic factors. 

Response: EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital

component of successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree of cooperation,

participation, and active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will continue to work with

stakeholders and experts as it implements the GS rule.

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

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

determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation

are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.

Commenter Name: William Kovacs Letter ID: 0148

Commenter Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Comment ID: 21751

Comment: 1. Statutory Liability EPA is proposing its rule under the SDWA, which governs 

the Underground Injection Control program, and provides the statutory authority 

for geologic sequestration of CO2. EPA readily admits, however, that the SDWA is 

limited; it does not cover the capture or transfer of CO2, the transfer of 

liability between entities, nor accounting or certification of greenhouse gas 

reductions -- only CO2 injection. But it is exactly because EPA’s authority 

69
under the SDWA is limited that EPA needs to provide greater clarity as to what 

other statutory authorities may become relevant, which provisions could be 

triggered, and to delineate, to the extent possible, all potential liabilities 

associated with owning, operating, or investing in a Class VI well. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that

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

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

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

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

Commenter Name: James Dooley Letter ID: 0156

Commenter Organization: Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory

Comment ID:

22618

Comment: Filling in the Missing Linkages between Class VI Rule and a Larger National 

Climate Policy 

It is clear from the draft Class VI storage rule that the USEPA was constrained 

to issuing the rule under the existing authorities it has via the Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA). The federal employees who put together the current draft 

Class VI storage rule did an admirable job of staying within the confines of the 

authorities granted by the SDWA and in doing so produced a draft rule for CO2 

storage that helps to answer many key questions about how CO2 storage will be 

regulated within the United States. 

However, there are still many, many critical issues that need to be addressed 

that go beyond the statutory authority granted by the SDWA. If EPA does not 

begin to address these issues, the resulting lack of clarity is potentially as 

large of a stumbling block for the commercial deployment of CCS technologies as 

would be the case if there was not this well thought out draft of the Class VI 

rule. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that

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

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

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

70
EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0250

Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 22275

Comment: [FN6: 6 42 U.S.C. §300h, et seq. Geologic sequestration of CO2 clearly meets the 

definition of underground injection found at 42 U.S.C. §300h(d)(1), "the 

subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection." Carbon dioxide, whether 

injected in a supercritical state, or as a gas, meets the definition of a fluid 

included in the existing regulations under the SDWA: those rules state that a 

"fluid" is "any material or substance which flows or moves whether in a 

semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state." 40 CFR § 144.3.] 

Response: EPA agrees that the SDWA provides EPA with the authority to regulate underground

injection of CO2 for GS (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.). Injection wells are regulated under SDWA’s UIC

Program. Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC

program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves,

whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and

semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface.

Commenter Name: Kurt Waltzer Letter ID: 0250

Commenter Organization: Clean Air Task Force Comment ID: 22277

Comment: B. The Safe Drinking Water Act Authorizes EPA to Create a Preventive, Forward 

Looking, and Adaptive Program Specific to CO2 GS Permitting 

Under the SDWA, EPA’s authority to protect USDWs is clearly defined, broadly 

scoped, and forward looking. [FN7] Section 1421 requires the Administrator to 

publish rules for state implemented underground injection programs that "prevent 

underground injection which endangers drinking water sources" as that phrase is 

further defined by the statute. [FN8] Such programs, at a minimum, must 

"prohibit any underground injection ... which is not authorized by a permit," 

[FN9] and such permit programs must require a showing to the satisfaction of the 

state that the underground injection will not endanger drinking water sources. ..." 

[FN10] Underground injection "endangers drinking water sources if such injection 

may result in the presence in underground water which supplies or can reasonably 

be expected to supply any public water system of any contaminant, and if the 

71
presence of such contaminant may result in such system’s not complying with any 

national primary drinking water regulation or may otherwise adversely affect the 

health of persons. [FN11] And "contaminant" is defined as "any physical, 

chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter in water." [FN12] 

Underground injection furthermore is prohibited without a permit, and to receive 

a permit the applicant must demonstrate that endangerment "will not" occur. 

[FN13] This preventive, broadly scoped language demonstrates that Congress 

intended that all underground injection be regulated under the UIC program. 

[FN14] 

[FN7: While our Environmental NGO Group agrees that EPA’s primary authority for 

the promulgation of this rule is found in the Safe Drinking Water Act, we also 

point out above that the Clean Air Act authorizes controls on CO2 emissions that 

necessarily implicate and necessitate this UIC approach, and so also can be said 

to provide authority for Class VI rules. EPA must exercise its Clean Air Act 

authority to regulate CO2 for the purposes of preventing its release to the 

atmosphere. Additionally, and more generally, EPA could also promulgate 

verification and accounting protocols for CO2 GS, as needed, under those Clean 

Air Act rules. Such Clean Air Act rules may or may not prove adequate for 

purposes of any future legislatively created trading system. Clearly, however, 

the UIC rules should not be regarded as sufficient to authorize or certify 

carbon credits as part of such a system, as they do not provide sufficient proof 

that CO2 will be permanently sequestered from the atmosphere, nor do they 

include additional details necessary for verifying and quantifying any 

atmospheric releases.] 

[FN8: 42 U.S.C. §§ 300h(a)(1),(b)(1).] 

[FN9: Id. § 300h(b)(1)(A).] 

[FN10: Id. § 300h(b)(1)(B).] 

[FN11: Id. § 300h(d)(2).] 

[FN12: 42 U.S.C. § 300f(6).] 

[FN13: 42 U.S.C. § 300h(b)(1)(A), (B).] 

[FN14: See also NRDC v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1258, 1271 (1st Cir. 1987), holding that 

Congress intended the phrase "underground injection which endangers drinking 

water sources" should have the broadest applicability, and citing and quoting 

H.R. Rep. No. 1185, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1974 U.S. Code Cong. & 

Admin. News at 6484.] 

Response: EPA agrees that the SDWA provides the EPA with the authority to regulate underground

injection of CO2 for GS. (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.). Injection wells are regulated under SDWA’s UIC

Program. Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC

program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves,

whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and

semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface. 

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

72
Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

EPA acknowledges that carbon crediting and greenhouse gas accounting are important issues.

However, these issues are outside of the UIC Program's authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act

and outside the scope of this rulemaking. The UIC requirements are designed to ensure that where

GS is employed, it is done in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. All of the

requirements of the GS rule are for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment, consistent

with the UIC Program's authority under SDWA.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0295

Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 26139

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

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

geologic sequestration solely for the purposes of protecting underground sources 

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

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

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

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

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

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

acceptability, regulatory measures aimed at preventing atmospheric emissions are 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

currently in the process of considering comments on a proposed rulemaking 

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

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

as a proposed endangerment finding prerequisite to setting certain regulatory 

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

2009). 

73
Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for

regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final

GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule. Please note all comments related to EPA’s

authority outside the SDWA are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

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

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

implementation phase of the GS regulation. 

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

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

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

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

within the United States. 

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

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

determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation

are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.

Comment Code: 1435 1.2.1.3 EPA should develop guidance 

Individual Comments

Commenter Name: William Kovacs Letter ID: 0148

Commenter Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Comment ID: 21776

Comment: 5. OMB’s Good Guidance Practices 

With respect to EPA’s suggestion that future guidance documents be issued to 

clarify requirements for financial responsibility on CO2 injection projects, the 

Chamber reiterates that such guidance must be issued in conformance with OMB’s 

Good Guidance Practices bulletin. 

Response: EPA is developing guidance on financial responsibility for GS wells. The guidance is

74
available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

EPA intends to take OMB’s Good Guidance Manual into consideration as financial responsibility

guidance is developed. OMB’s Good Guidance Manual establishes policies and procedures for the

development, issuance, and use of significant guidance documents by Executive Branch departments

and agencies.

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Letter ID: 0169

Commenter Organization: American Public Power Association Comment ID: 23395

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment: EPA asked for comments on financial guidance on any aspect of the final rule 

(for example, clarification of requirements for financial assurance mechanisms). 

APPA thinks that this might be an area where the EPA might call for a "second 

bite at the apple" after we know more from the preliminary carbon sequestration 

projects and "scaling up" projects. We agree with Utility Solid Waste Activities 

Group (USWAG) and others who have suggested that that guidance must be developed 

in accordance with OMB’s Good Guidance Practices Bulletin, which directs that 

notice and comment be provided for the development of "significant" and 

"economically significant" guidance documents. 

Response: The GS rule contains minimum technical criteria for the permitting, geologic site

characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity

testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and site

closure of GS wells, which will ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. 

To promote consistency while providing the Director with an appropriate level of discretion, EPA is

developing guidances for states and tribes that describe the process of applying for and receiving

primacy for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and

administrative issues associated with developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum

federal criteria and requirements. These are available on EPA’s website at

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

EPA intends to take OMB’s Good Guidance Manual into consideration as financial responsibility

guidance is developed. OMB’s Good Guidance Manual establishes policies and procedures for the

development, issuance, and use of significant guidance documents by Executive Branch departments

and agencies.

EPA agrees that an adaptive and flexible approach is appropriate. 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, every six years, collect and

review data 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.

Commenter Name: Frederick R. Eames Letter ID: 0178

Commenter Organization: CCS Alliance Comment ID: 23816

Comment: C. GUIDANCE FOR EPA REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND STATE

OFFICIALS 

75
Broad responsibility and decision making authority is centered in the EPA 

Regional Administrators (for UIC programs administered by EPA) and in non-EPA 

officials (responsible for permitting, implementation and compliance of state, 

territorial or tribal UIC programs). However, no guidance is provided as to how 

these individuals are to exercise such wide discretion. They will have the 

authority to determine whether large pilot projects should be considered Class V 

(experimental) or Class VI wells, but on what basis such a decision is to be 

made is not clear. In accordance with OMB's Final Bulletin for Agency Good 

Guidance Practices,[FN8] EPA should consider developing additional guidelines 

that limit the ability of mid-level officials to implement and alter the program 

without review by the EPA Administrator or other organs of the U.S. Government. 

[FN8] Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices, 72 Fed. Reg. 3432 

(Jan. 25, 2007). 

Response: To promote consistency while providing the Director with an appropriate level of

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

and receiving primacy for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical

and administrative issues associated with developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of

minimum federal criteria and requirements. These are available on EPA’s website at

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

EPA intends to take OMB’s Good Guidance Manual into consideration as guidance is developed.

OMB’s Good Guidance Manual establishes policies and procedures for the development, issuance,

and use of significant guidance documents by Executive Branch departments and agencies.

Commenter Name: John Corra Letter ID: 0205

Commenter Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ)

Comment ID:

22192

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1530 1.2.3.1 State regulatory efforts on GS

(seeking comment) 

Comment: 4. Training: The U.S. EPA should establish, on a regional level, training 

programs that assist in building state's capacity in the science and technology 

necessary to effectively regulate CO2 sequestration. 

Response: EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person

training for states and tribes that describes 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 associated with developing GS regulations that are the

equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. These are available on EPA’s website at

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

Commenter Name: Paul L. Carpinone Letter ID: 0212

Commenter Organization: Tampa Electric Company Comment ID: 22899

Comment: and avoids unnecessary prohibitions. In addition, guidance on any aspect of the 

Final Rule (for example, clarification of requirements for financial assurance 

mechanisms) must be developed in accordance with OMB's Good Guidance Practices 

76
Bulletin, which directs that notice and comment be provided on "economically 

significant" guidance documents.(Foot note 1) See 72 Fed. Reg. 3432, 3438 (Jan. 

25, 2007). 

(1)The Bulletin defines "economically significant guidance document" 

as "a significant guidance document that 'may reasonably be anticipated to lead 

to' art annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect 

in a material way the economy or a sector a the economy." See 72 Fed. Reg. at 

3435. 

Response: To promote consistency while providing the Director with an appropriate level of

discretion, EPA is developing guidance for states and tribes that describes the process of applying for

and receiving primacy for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical

and administrative issues associated with developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of

minimum federal criteria and requirements. These are available on EPA’s website at

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

EPA intends to take OMB’s Good Guidance Manual into consideration as guidance is developed.

OMB’s Good Guidance Manual establishes policies and procedures for the development, issuance,

and use of significant guidance documents by Executive Branch departments and agencies.

Commenter Name: Barbara Walz Letter ID: 0216

Commenter Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,

Inc.

Comment ID:

22966

Comment: maintaining a rule that is flexible and avoids unnecessary prohibitions. In 

addition, guidance on any aspect of the final rule (far example, clarification 

of requirements for financial assurance mechanisms) must be developed in 

accordance with Office of Management and Budget's Good Guidance Practices 

Bulletin, which directs that notice and comment be provided on "economically 

significant" guidance documents. EPA should not issue guidance that is 

effectively implemented as regulations. 

Response: To promote consistency while providing the Director with an appropriate level of

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

and receiving primacy for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical

and administrative issues associated with developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of

minimum federal criteria and requirements. These are available on EPA’s website at

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

EPA intends to take OMB’s Good Guidance Manual into consideration as guidance is developed.

OMB’s Good Guidance Manual establishes policies and procedures for the development, issuance,

and use of significant guidance documents by Executive Branch departments and agencies.

Commenter Name: Saba Tahmassebi Letter ID: 0218

Commenter Organization: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ)

Comment ID:

21563

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment: 2. Reconsider shifting the burden to the States when not enough information is 

77
available. It appears that much research is needed to ensure that geologic 

sequestration can be conducted in a safe manner. When research data is not 

available, or when EPA is uncertain of the best way to address a situation, the 

burden of addressing the issue is shifted to the states. Examples include 

corrective action methodology for abandoned wells, materials used in 

construction of the wells, and the use of tracers among other issues. Oklahoma 

DEQ recommends that EPA prepare guidance documents to address the above 

concerns. 

Response: EPA clarifies that such decisions would be made by the state, if the well is located in a

state with Class VI primacy. Any state that wishes to obtain primacy for Class VI wells will need to

describe in their program description the criteria that would be used to make determinations on

topics the commenter mentions. See §145.23. EPA adds that it is developing guidance for states and

tribes that describes the process of applying for and receiving primacy for GS Class VI wells under

Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and administrative issues associated with

developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements.

These are available on EPA’s website at

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

Commenter Name: Ben Yamagata Letter ID: 0227

Commenter Organization: Coal Utilization Research Council Comment ID: 21794

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment: D. Interim Program Recommendations 

CURC proposes that EPA consider issuing guidance to create an interim program 

that would provide a regulatory framework for CCS projects prior to the 

promulgation of a final rule. Our concern rests with the possibility that the 

final rules may not be issued for some time in the future. For example, a 

section in the preamble to the NOPR states: 

During the Deployment Phase (1008-1017), the [RCSP] partnerships will 

conduct large volume carbon storage tests to demonstrate that large-scale 

CO2 injection and storage can be achieved safely and economically. EPA 

will use the data collected from these projects to support decisions in the 

final GS rule. 

This statement suggests that a final GS rule may not be issued until 2017 or 

that rules issued earlier than that date could be modified and changed later. 

While we ascribe to a belief that any final rule should be informed by the 

findings and data collected through RCSP partnerships, we are concerned that 

regulatory uncertainty will delay CCS project development; hence the need for an 

interim program. 

Projects issued permits under this guidance would collect data and technological 

experience that could contribute information necessary to establish a viable 

working framework for a long term permitting and liability regime for geologic 

CO2 storage activities. The program might be limited to a maximum number of 

projects, or cumulative amount of CO2 injection, and it should be designed to be 

compatible with anticipated financial incentives for "early adopters" of CCS 

78
technology. Projects permitted under this interim guidance should be 

grandfathered from the final UIC rule. 

Specific limiting provisions could be required in order to ease any concerns 

regarding the endangerment of USDW under such an interim program. Since proper 

site characterization is the most effective risk management tool for GS wells, 

EPA could require applicants under this program to use geologically superior 

sites, or provide alternative requirements for sites with significantly superior 

characteristics. The World Resource Institute (WRI) CCS Guidelines [FN5] and 

IOGCC model rules include provisions for selecting storage sites that have a 

high probability of retaining injected CO2. [FN6] An interim program would 

recognize the same goals sought by EPA when it issued its guidance for DOE 

Regional Partnership pilot projects designed to evaluate the technical issues 

associated with CO2 injection as Class V experimental technology wells. [FN7] 

[FN5: World Resource Institute, "CCS Guidelines: Guidelines for Carbon Capture, 

Transport and Storage" (2008). The WRI Guidelines also offer a comprehensive 

regulatory approach to CCS that goes beyond the regulation of GS wells. 

However, in the guideline’s discussion of site closure, the WRI acknowledges a 

need for proper incentives so as not to impede the deployment of CCS technology 

as private companies may be reluctant to engage in storage operations if 

required to carry a financial commitment and liability out into the indefinite 

future. Id. at 104.] 

[FN6: The IOGCC model rules premise approval of a GS storage site on four 

findings: (1) the facility and reservoir are suitable and feasible for injection 

and storage; (2) that a good faith effort has been made to obtain the consent of 

a majority of the owners having property interests affected by the storage 

facility, and that the operator intends to acquire any remaining interest by 

eminent domain or otherwise allowed by statute; (3) that the use of the storage 

facility will not contaminate other formations containing fresh water, oil, gas, 

coal or other mineral deposits; and (4) that the proposed storage will not 

unduly endanger human health and the environment and is in the public interest. 

See IOGCC Model Rules, supra note 5 at Appendix I.] 

[FN7: Envtl. Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, UIC 

Program Guidance #83, Using Class V Experimental Technology Well Classification 

for Pilot Geologic Sequestration Projects (2007).] 

Response: EPA disagrees that an interim program is necessary. EPA believes that sufficient data

have been collected to inform the final GS rule. In addition to laboratory studies and modeling

research that provide relevant information on GS, the Agency is also collecting and analyzing GS

project data and permit information from a variety of sources. Most notably, EPA has evaluated

permits and reviewed operational data and information associated with the seven regional carbon

sequestration partnerships funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and coordinated through the

National Energy Technology Laboratory. EPA believes that these projects form a solid basis for

finalizing the GS requirements, and there is no reason to wait until all phases of the DOE

demonstration tests are complete. Nevertheless, EPA anticipates that future experimental and fullscale projects will continue to inform the technology, and is therefore using an adaptive rulemaking

approach. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine

whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being

collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. EPA

79
believes that the completion of the DOE pilots in 2017 will allow the incorporation of results of these

projects into the first review of the rule.

EPA clarifies that this rule does not allow grandfathering. However, under §146.81 owners or

operators seeking to convert existing Class I, Class II, or Class V experimental wells to Class VI

geologic sequestration wells must demonstrate to the Director that the wells were engineered and

constructed to meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of

requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a).

Commenter Name: Ben Yamagata Letter ID: 0227

Commenter Organization: Coal Utilization Research Council Comment ID: 21801

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment: proposed. Lastly, CURC recommends that EPA issue guidance for an interim Class 

VI program for CCS projects that predate the final UIC rule. 

Response: In advance of the GS rulemaking, EPA developed UIC Program Guidance # 83: Using

the Class V Experimental Technology Well Classification for Pilot Carbon GS Projects (USEPA,

2007), which provides recommendations for permit writers regarding the use of the UIC Class V

experimental technology well classification at demonstration GS projects while ensuring USDW

protection. 

EPA disagrees that an interim program is necessary. EPA believes that sufficient data have been

collected to inform the final GS rule. In addition to laboratory studies and modeling research that

provide relevant information on GS, the Agency is also collecting and analyzing GS project data and

permit information from a variety of sources. Most notably, EPA has evaluated permits and reviewed

operational data and information associated with the seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships

funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and coordinated through the National Energy Technology

Laboratory. EPA believes that these projects form a solid basis for finalizing the GS requirements,

and there is no reason to wait until all phases of the DOE demonstration tests are complete.

Nevertheless, EPA anticipates that future experimental and full-scale projects will continue to inform

the technology, and is therefore using an adaptive rulemaking approach. The Agency plans to, every

six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and

types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if

modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. EPA believes that the completion of

the DOE pilots in 2017 will allow the incorporation of results of these projects into the first review

of the rule.

EPA clarifies that this rule does not allow grandfathering. However, under §146.81 owners or

operators seeking to convert existing Class I, Class II, or Class V experimental wells to Class VI

geologic sequestration wells must demonstrate to the Director that the wells were engineered and

constructed to meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of

requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a). 

EPA clarifies that following finalization of the GS rule, all GS projects that are not for experimental

purposes must be re-permitted as Class VI wells and be subject to the final GS rule requirements.

Commenter Name: Cynthia Lane Letter ID: 0528

Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 21386

80
Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 4600 2.6 Proposed Plume and Pressure Front

Monitoring Requirements (40 CFR 146.90) 

Comment: EPA should provide guidance on acceptable monitoring techniques and frequency, 

provide for a consistent application of the monitoring requirements. Another 

Response: EPA is developing guidance on testing and monitoring to assist owners or operators and

Directors in evaluating requirements under §146.90, including proposed monitoring plans. The

guidance describes available technologies and recommended approaches for implementing a testing

and monitoring plan, including pre-operational geophysical logging and testing of injection wells,

MITs, injection well testing during operation, groundwater quality monitoring, tracking the CO2

plume and pressure front, and soil gas and surface air monitoring which may be required by the UIC

Director for specific GS projects. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at

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

Comment Code: 1450 1.2.2.1 Oppose the GS rulemaking 

Individual Comments

Commenter Name: George Holliday, PhD, PE, BCEE Letter ID: 0114

Commenter Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. Comment ID: 22526

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 3800 2.3 Proposed Injection Well Construction

Requirements (40 CFR 146.86) 

Comment: e.g., without EPA specifications, except longevity of materials, e.g., corrosion 

resistance requirements, etc., EPA PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY ON AN INDUSTRY 

WHICH GOVERNMENT, THE PUBLIC AND REGULATORS HAVE NEVER TRUSTED,

BRYANT (2007). 

THE PROPOSED RULE MUST BE WITHDRAWN! 

Bryant, S., 2007. Geologic CO2 Storage - Can the Oil and Gas Industry Help 

Save the Planet? J Pet. Tech (JPT), p 98-105, September 

Response: EPA disagrees that the final GS rulemaking provides industry with the responsibility to

enforce GS requirements. EPA clarifies that responsibility for enforcing the GS rule rests with state

and/or regional permitting authorities, not industry, and that states seeking to implement the GS rule

must demonstrate in their primacy program submission that they will implement a program that is at

least as stringent as the federal requirements for permitting, site characterization, monitoring, and

site closure, as well as for all other GS rule requirements as required under §1422 of SDWA. 

The prescribed construction requirements described in the final GS rule for Class VI wells are

sufficient to protect USDWs from endangerment. EPA adds that the requirement at §146.86(b)(1)

that materials must meet or exceed standards developed by the American Petroleum Institute, ASTM

International, or comparable standards acceptable to the Director invokes the expertise of these

bodies which, combined with the review by the Director of all site-specific information required to

be submitted at §146.82(a) will ensure that the owner or operator constructs a well that will ensure

USDWs are protected from endangerment. EPA believes that permitting authorities, which have

many staff who have been overseeing UIC programs for decades, have sufficient expertise to

evaluate the appropriateness of cements for use in specific situations. 

81
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. See the

discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS rule for

additional information.

Commenter Name: George Holliday, PhD, PE, BCEE Letter ID: 0127

Commenter Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. Comment ID: 23059

Comment: Based on my reading, the proposed EPA rule is not ready for promulgation. The 

proposal should be withdrawn. 

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

Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes that the UIC Program, under the authority

of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the

GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations. EPA adds that the final GS rule includes a variety of changes from the

proposed rule that enhance and clarify the requirements and address public comments on the

proposed rule.

Commenter Name: Adam P. Haynes Letter ID: 0184

Commenter Organization: Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners

Association (TIPRO)

Comment ID:

22784

Comment: TIPRO is concerned about the overall structure of the carbon capture and storage 

(CCS) regulation within the EPA. While TIPRO applauds the initial effort of this 

rule making, especially the effort not to categorize carbon dioxide (CO2) as a 

waste product, we urge caution on proceeding to a final rule. TIPRO believes a 

comprehensive effort by the EPA is warranted, including input by all offices 

with oversight for the control of CO2. However, this action should not be 

undertaken until Congress has passed specific legislation that addresses the 

control and capture of CO2, To proceed otherwise will likely lead to a patchwork 

of regulations and laws that will ultimately lead to confusion in the regulated 

community and in the different offices of the EPA. The capture and storage of 

CO2 will be a complicated effort, at best, and a regulatory nightmare at worst. 

The regulated industry must have comprehensive regulations governing CCS, not a 

patchwork of individual regulations from separate offices within the EPA. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule for the UIC 

program for the capture and storage of CO2 , TIPRO does not support proceeding 

to a final rulemaking with this effort. Rather, TIPRO urges the EPA to begin a 

holistic review of CO2 regulations once Congressional action on CO2 is final. 

Until then, action by separate offices within the EPA will lead to confusion and 

a patchwork of regulations that are confusing to the regulated community. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the intent of the GS rule is not to address climate change. Rather, the

purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that

protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA is aware that broader climate change legislation is under

82
consideration by Congress. The Agency is monitoring the progress of this legislation, and if any

Congressional action were to require EPA to regulate GS in the broader context, the Agency would

address this requirement accordingly, including working with the appropriate stakeholders and

federal agencies. 

EPA believes that there is a potential that GS may be deployed at a fast pace (e.g., if climate change

legislation provides an incentive for sequestering CO2 or if other climate policies or regulations limit

CO2 emissions), and that it is necessary to prepare for such an event. EPA's adaptive approach to

regulating CO2 injection for GS will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the

current and future demand for Class VI permits while recognizing the need to continue to gather data

from pilot projects and other research as it becomes available and enhance understanding of the

technical and administrative aspects of GS deployment, operation, and technology developments.

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

Commenter Name: A. James Mayer Letter ID: 0230

Commenter Organization: A. J. Mayer International on behalf of the American

Energy Security Initiative

Comment ID:

21870

Comment: Unnecessary government policies and regulations, like the subject EPA rule, can 

continue to deny the United States the energy security it needs to prosper. 

CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) is Key to U.S. Energy Security and Independence 

The American Energy Security Study, sponsored by the Atlanta based regional 

energy compact, Southern States Energy Board (www.SSEB.org and 

www.AmericanEnerySecurity.org ) identified CO2 EOR as a key to U.S. energy 

security and independence. 

EPA’s proposed rule for UIC of CO2, if not changed dramatically, could undermine 

the potential for increased domestic production of crude oil and methane, 

leading to an increase in our dependence on imported oil and natural gas. The 

harmful economic and national security impacts of dependence on energy imports 

cannot be understated. 

Response: In response to comments that the GS rule could impede technology or undermine the

potential for increased domestic production of crude oil and methane, EPA stresses that the purpose

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

83
USDWs from endangerment. Consequently, these comments are outside the scope of the rulemaking.

EPA adds that this rulemaking is not intended to promote oil or natural gas production or to address

U.S. dependence on imported oil and natural gas. EPA clarifies that wells injecting CO2 for the

purpose of ER are regulated as Class II wells.

Commenter Name: A. James Mayer Letter ID: 0230

Commenter Organization: A. J. Mayer International on behalf of the American

Energy Security Initiative

Comment ID:

21872

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize

CO2 

Comment: GENERAL COMMENTS AND CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED UIC RULE 

1. It is strongly recommended that the EPA promote and encourage, not block and 

erect barriers to, geosequestration of CO2 for both productive and nonproductive uses of CO2. 

EPA’s stated goals for this proposal are to protect Underground Sources of 

Drinking Water (USDWs) while promoting carbon capture and storage. The proposed 

regulations would succeed in protecting USDWs, but would fails to promote carbon 

capture and storage. The Proposed Rule overestimates the risks of CO2 geologic 

sequestration and creates barriers to rapid technology development and 

commercial scale deployment projects that will greatly benefit American (as 

noted in the preceding narrative). 

Response: EPA disagrees that the requirements in the GS rule overstate the risk associated with GS.

The requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS,

including the volumes of CO2 being anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant nature of the

injectate, its mobility within subsurface geologic formations, and its corrosivity in the presence of

water.

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is

necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that

protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the

SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS

regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS

including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of

water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

In response to comments that the GS rule could impede technology, EPA stresses that 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.

Comment Code: 1460 1.2.2.2 Oppose EPA's authority to regulate CO2 injection 

Individual Comments

84
Commenter Name: George Holliday, PhD, PE, BCEE Letter ID: 0114

Commenter Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. Comment ID: 22532

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste issues (seeking

comment) 

Comment: EPA DOES NOT HAVE PROPER STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO PROPOSE CO2

SEQUESTRATION RULE 

EPA relies on the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to protect USDWs from CO2 

sequestration. The SDWA authorizes EPA to protect drinking water, not encourage 

indefinite storage of a corrosive, high press fluid. CO2 is known to attack 

carbon and stainless steel, Meyer (2007). The fact that Meyer reported 

stainless steel 404 was badly corroded by "dry" CO2 indicates wet CO2 (carbonic 

acid) is a RCRA corrosive waste, since it meets the RCRA definition of 

corrosive. In addition, the fact a leak of CO2 could enter a building basement 

suffocating the inhabitants, demonstrates CO2 sequestration is not an 

environmental problem, but, when sequestered, it is a pervasive and dangerous 

life threatening hazard. EPA is ill equipped to control potentially unsafe 

activities under the guise of protecting drinking water. 

Meyer, J.P. 2007. "Summary of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2EOR) 

Injection Well Technology" prepared for American Petroleum Institute, p 21. 

Response: EPA disagrees that the SDWA does not provide EPA with adequate authority to regulate

underground injection of CO2 for GS or that the GS rule oversteps the boundaries or authority of the

SDWA. The GS regulation, which addresses the injection of CO2 for the purpose of protecting

USDWs from endangerment, is within EPA's authority under the SDWA. Injection wells are

regulated under the authority of Part C of the SDWA (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.). Under the SDWA,

the underground injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid"

is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in a

semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e.,

slurries) injected into the subsurface. 

EPA disagrees that properly managed GS projects are dangerous. EPA believes that the GS

requirements, which are based on the long-standing UIC regulatory framework and tailored to meet

the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS, appropriately address endangerment risks to USDWs.

The GS rule contains minimum technical criteria for the permitting, geologic site characterization,

AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring,

financial responsibility, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells,

which will ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. 

EPA considers the risk of asphyxiation and other chronic and acute health effects from airborne

exposure resulting from CO2 injection activities (even in the case of leakage or accidental exposure)

to be minimal. This finding is based on experience gained in the oil and gas industry, experience

from international GS projects, and evaluation of large scale releases of naturally occurring CO2 (73

FR 43498). 

Please also see the GS final rule preamble sections entitled, “Under What Authority is This

Rulemaking Promulgated?" and "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities

and GS Initiatives?"

85
Commenter Name: George Holliday, PhD, PE, BCEE Letter ID: 0114

Commenter Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc. Comment ID: 22536

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste issues (seeking

comment) 

Comment: Further, EPA believes they can assume the RCRA type authority for Class VI wells 

under the SDWA. If challenged in court, the court most likely will disagree, 

because the SDWA was written only for protection of USDW. Even the Agency 

suggests the Safe Drinking Water Act is not appropriate to regulate CO2 

sequestration. 

Response: EPA disagrees that the SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with adequate

authority to regulate underground injection of CO2 for GS or that the GS rule oversteps the

boundaries or authority of the SDWA. The GS regulation, which addresses the injection of CO2 for

the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment, is within EPA's authority under the SDWA.

Injection wells are regulated under the authority of Part C of the SDWA (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.).

Under the SDWA, the underground injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC

program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves,

whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and includes liquids, gases, and

semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface. 

Please also see the GS final rule preamble sections entitled, “Under What Authority is This

Rulemaking Promulgated?" and "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities

and GS Initiatives?"

Comment Code: 1480 1.2.2.2.2 CO2 is not a pollutant 

Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Anonymous2 Letter

ID: 0133

Commenter Organization: Sierra Club National Global Warming and Energy

Committee and Sierra Club California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee on

Energy and Climate Change

Comment

ID: 21620

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/

global warming 

Comment: J. CO2 as a Valuable Commodity 

Recommendation J: Re-frame public perceptions of CO2 as a hazardous waste 

material by funding CCS demonstration projects which biologically or chemically 

transform CO2 into valuable products. 

Localities that oppose the permitting of geologic sequestration projects usually 

hold the perception that CO2 is a toxic waste material being dumped and buried 

in their backyards. Typically, localities are distrustful of the motivations of 

business and government representatives who seek to allay fears of economic, 

health, and environmental risks attendant to pumping CO2 into injection wells. 

An important avenue for re-framing such perceptions is by emphasizing CCS 

86
methods which value carbon dioxide as a naturally occurring and commercially 

valuable resource. The DOE's carbon sequestration program at the National Energy 

Technology Laboratory includes funding for research and development of advanced 

chemical and biological approaches, including systems for decarbonization, 

photosynthesis, and conversion of CO2 into useful forms. However, since no 

demonstration projects have been announced over the same time period that 

multiple geosequestration projects have been implemented, the DOE's "Novel 

Carbon Sequestration Concepts" program appears to be under- publicized and 

under-funded. This lack of vigor in promoting carbon transformation methods 

gives the public the impression that CCS technologies are being readied solely 

for the purpose of perpetuating our dependency on fossil fuels for electricity 

generation and manufacturing processes. 

Numerous business ventures are seeking opportunities to prove the efficacy of 

their carbon mineralization processes with larger demonstration projects. 

Companies holding proprietary patents for useful CO2-sequestered materials such 

as calcium carbonate cement and construction materials, paper products, 

biodegradable plastics, and algae biofuels need government funding and support 

to scale-up their methods. By narrowly targeting geosequestration as the primary 

carbon storage solution, the federal government is missing an opportunity to 

secure broader public acceptance of CCS as a safe and viable method for reducing 

the overabundance of CO2 in our atmosphere, and is neglecting important avenues 

for achieving that goal. 

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

regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final

GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal

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

Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; 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. 

EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote GS. Rather, the purpose of the GS

regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from

endangerment.

The Agency acknowledges that there is ongoing research in many fields that could address the

broader environmental concern of climate change, but the focus of the Class VI requirements is to

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

endangerment. 

Much of the research on terrestrial and geologic sequestration is being conducted by other federal

agencies, particularly DOE's Office of Science and Technology

(www.energy.gov/sciencetech/carbonsequestration.htm). Other federal agencies involved in research

87
include the US Department of Agriculture, US Geological Survey, and others. EPA's Office of

Research and Development is also researching issues related to global climate change, including

geologic and terrestrial sequestration.

Commenter Name: Skiles Boyd Letter ID: 0160

Commenter Organization: DTE Energy Comment ID: 21272

Comment: APPROPRIATE CHARACTERIZATION OF RISKS 

DTE Energy fully supports EPA efforts to protect all drinking water sources from 

contamination. It would facilitate commercial deployment and public acceptance 

of this technology if EPA would not impose the same requirements on CO2 

injection and storage as is imposed on those materials and wastes that truly do 

pose a substantial risk to public health and the environment. Enhanced Oil 

Response: EPA agrees that requirements for GS projects should be tailored to the specific risks

associated with carbon dioxide injection for GS. The requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to

address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the volumes of CO2 being anticipated for

long-term storage, the buoyant and nature of the injectate, its mobility in subsurface formations, and

its corrosivity in the presence of water. EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote GS.

Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a

manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Sandi Tabor Letter ID: 0162

Commenter Organization: Lignite Energy Council (LEC) Comment ID: 21295

Comment: Second, EPA must be careful to avoid labeling C02 as a waste, pollutant or 

contaminant. Regulations should require storage operators to properly 

characterize the C02 they intend to store and protocols for storage should be 

based on that characterization. Broad sweeping characterizations of CO2 as 

hazardous waste, however, should be avoided due to the potential deterrent such 

characterizations will have on entities attempting to develop CCS projects. 

Response: EPA agrees that owners or operators should characterize the injectate. Among the

information owners or operators are required to submit with their permit applications (at §146.82

(a)(7)) is an analysis of the chemical and physical characteristics of the CO2 stream and information

on the compatibility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the

injection and the confining zone(s). The Director will evaluate this information when setting permit

conditions. 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. In addition, owners or operators must periodically monitor their

injectate throughout injection operations under §146.90(a).

Commenter Name: James Stine Letter ID: 0163

Commenter Organization: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

(NRECA)

Comment ID:

21328

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize

CO2 

Comment: 7. EPA should view CCS as a resource, not a waste. NRECA endorses the view of 

the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission ("IOGCC") that CO2 should be 

88
treated in any regulatory regime as a resource and not as a waste. As an initial 

matter, CO2 has a commercial value for EOR operators. A number of commercial 

operations exist solely for the extraction and sale of natural CO2. Moreover, 

anthropogenic CO2 may have a commercial value for traders in carbon emissions 

reduction credits, once the CO2 is captured and stored. While the reason for 

capturing the CO2 may be to prevent it from entering the earth’s atmosphere, it 

nonetheless will have a commercial value when stored. Also, states that 

currently regulate CO2 injections for EOR operations do so under a resource 

management framework. Surface Transportation Boards, which are responsible for 

the economic regulation of CO2 interstate pipelines, also view CO2 as a 

commodity. Characterization as a waste would have a chilling effect on the 

development of CCS projects. 

Response: EPA clarifies 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. In addition, whether or not a fluid could be sold on the market as a

commodity does not override EPA's authority under the SDWA to protect USDWs from

endangerment. 

Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program.

"Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether

in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and it includes liquids, gases, and

semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface. 

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.

Commenter Name: James Stine Letter ID: 0163

Commenter Organization: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

(NRECA)

Comment ID:

21329

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize

CO2 

Comment: 8. The General Accounting Office ("GAO") recently issued a report entitled 

"Climate Change -- Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect the Viability of Carbon 

Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option" (GAO-08-1080, September 2008) 

("GAO Report"). GAO cites a National Academy of Sciences ("NAS") report 

emphasizing that a largescale CO2 UIC program cannot be successful "if a 

significant fraction of the public views it as dangerous or unacceptable" and, 

therefore, CO2 storage technologies must not only be safe and effective, they 

must be presented "to the public and the regulatory community in such a way as 

to instill confidence that they are in fact safe and effective." Id. at 49 

(citing NAS, Prospective Evaluation). This is another reason EPA should not 

characterize CO2 as a waste. ********* 

Response: As described above, EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as

either a pollutant or a commodity or a waste. 

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is

necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that

89
protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the

SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS

regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS

including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of

water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177

Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23564

Comment: i. Appropriate characterization of CO2. It is critical that any regulation 

under the UIC program does not unnecessarily characterize CO2 as a waste, 

pollutant or contaminant or otherwise unduly stigmatize the injection and 

geologic storage of CO2. While it is appropriate to consider the actual 

characteristics of CO2 and tailor regulations accordingly, unwarranted 

characterization of CO2 as a hazardous waste, for example, should be avoided. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant or

a commodity. In addition, whether or not a fluid could be sold on the market as a commodity does

not override EPA's authority under the SDWA to protect USDWs from endangerment. 

Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program.

"Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether

in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and it includes liquids, gases, and

semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface. 

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 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.

Commenter Name: Lee O. Fuller Letter ID: 0179

Commenter Organization: Independent Petroleum Association of America et

al.

Comment ID:

23610

Comment: These comments address three primary - and interrelated - concerns regarding the 

proposed federal regulatory scheme for CO2 GS wells. Our primary interest in 

this proposal to create a Class VI well category is its interaction with the use 

of CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) under the Class II category. CO2 EOR 

offers both an existing technology and one with rapidly expanding application. 

In this context, the utilization of CO2 during EOR also provides for geologic 

sequestration. The decisions attendant to the Class VI proposal regarding the 

characterization of CO2 as a commercial chemical, a pollutant or a hazardous 

waste and regarding the federal regulatory structure and impacts on state 

primacy are interrelated and of significant concern. 

90
Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant or

a commodity. In addition, whether or not a fluid could be sold on the market as a commodity does

not override EPA's authority under the SDWA to protect USDWs from endangerment. 

Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program.

"Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether

in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and it includes liquids, gases, and

semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface. 

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 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. 

Please see EPA's response below for additional information on the final approach to transitioning

permits from Class II to Class VI.

Commenter Name: Lee O. Fuller Letter ID: 0179

Commenter Organization: Independent Petroleum Association of America et

al.

Comment ID:

23612

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize

CO2 

Comment: Second, these concerns similarly arise regarding the characterization of CO2 in 

the GS process. Currently, for EOR operations, CO2 is essentially treated as a 

commercial chemical. This characterization is significant because of the 

connotation that characterization as a pollutant or a hazardous waste implies. 

CO2 has not been declared either a pollutant or a hazardous substance under any 

federal law. Suggesting that it should be so classified (or even a treatment in 

policy that would indirectly point to it as such) as a part of this rulemaking 

implies a risk that is not consistent with its use in EOR. Indeed, implicit in 

such an implication is a liability threat that would chill further development 

of CO2 EOR with no incremental environmental benefit. However, we do recognize 

that compositional controls over what is injected may be necessary. This does 

not seem to be addressed in the draft rules. 

Response: 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

imposed by the injection of CO2, and do not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant,

91
commodity, or waste.

Commenter Name: Adam P. Haynes Letter ID: 0184

Commenter Organization: Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners

Association (TIPRO)

Comment ID:

22785

Comment: Regarding this rulemaking effort, TIPRO suggests the following comments for 

consideration. First, CO2 is a valuable commodity that has been used by the 

exploration and production sector for more than 30 years. It is not a waste 

product. While we applaud the initial efforts not to label CO2 as a waste, 

tracking the regulatory requirements for Class I wells so closely while 

considering the development of the new Class VI wells is concerning. Without 

further clarification, CO2 regulations could develop more in line with waste 

classifications associated with RCRA and CERCLA. That would signal a failure of 

sound CCS practices that have developed with proper regulatory oversight at the 

state level for the last 30 years. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant or

a commodity. In addition, whether or not a fluid could be sold on the market as a commodity does

not override EPA's authority under the SDWA to protect USDWs from endangerment. 

Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program.

"Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether

in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and it includes liquids, gases, and

semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface. 

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 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.

Commenter Name: Barbara Walz Letter ID: 0216

Commenter Organization: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association,

Inc.

Comment ID:

22968

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize

CO2 

Comment: C. EPA should view CO2 as a resource, not a waste. CO2 has a commercial value for 

enhanced oil recovery operators. A number of commercial operations exist solely 

for the extraction and sale of natural CO2. Moreover, anthropogenic CO2 may have a 

commercial value for traders in carbon emissions reduction credits, once the 

CO2 is captured and stored. While the reason for capturing the CO2 may be to 

prevent it from entering the earth's atmosphere, it nonetheless will have a 

commercial value when stored. Also, states that currently regulate CO2 injections 

for enhanced oil recovery operations do so under a resource management 

92
framework. Surface Transportation Boards, which are responsible for the economic 

regulation of CO2 interstate pipelines, also view CO2 as a commodity. 

Characterization as a waste would have a chilling effect on the development of 

carbon capture and storage projects. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant,

waste, or a commodity. In addition, whether or not a fluid could be sold on the market as a

commodity does not override EPA's authority under the SDWA to protect USDWs from

endangerment. 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. 

Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program.

"Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether

in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and it includes liquids, gases, and

semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface. 

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).

Commenter Name: Olon Plunk Letter ID: 0217

Commenter Organization: Xcel Energy, Inc. Comment ID: 21551

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize

CO2 

Comment: CO2 Characterization 

CO2 is produced continually by natural process throughout the natural world and 

poses no significant hazard to human health when properly managed. EPA is 

correct to note in the proposed rule that a potential barrier to CCS and 

geologic storage involves how the captured CO2 is treated within existing 

regulatory frameworks. EPA is incorrect, however, to suggest or presume that 

captured CO2 is a waste, or that geologic storage via a Class VI well 

constitutes disposal. In several instances, the proposed rule refers to CO2 as a 

potential hazardous waste and suggests the need for regulatory requirements for 

Class VI wells that exceed those deemed necessary for Class I hazardous waste 

injection wells. Creating such a regulatory framework that implies an undue 

level of risk associated with geologic storage is misleading and could 

stigmatize proposed projects in the eyes of both the public and investors. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant or

a commodity. In addition, whether or not a fluid could be sold on the market as a commodity does

not override EPA's authority under the SDWA to protect USDWs from endangerment. 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. 

Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program.

93
"Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any material or substance which flows or moves, whether

in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or other form or state, and it includes liquids, gases, and

semisolids (i.e., slurries) injected into the subsurface. 

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 disagrees that the GS regulation overstates the risk of CO2 injection or implies an undue level

of risk. 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 does not agree that the tailored requirements will create a negative public perception of GS.

The Agency believes that a demonstration to the public that GS projects are meeting the GS rule's

tailored requirements will likely improve confidence in the project and help address public questions

and concerns.

Regarding the ability of owners or operators to secure investment in GS projects, EPA believes that

financing entities will have improved confidence in projects that incorporate multiple protective

requirements.

Commenter Name: Edward Steadman Letter ID: 0220

Commenter Organization: The Energy and Environmental Research Center at the

University of North Dakota

Comment ID:

21574

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize

CO2 

Comment: It is important to be mindful that CO2, relative to other common and not-socommon injectates, is relatively innocuous. Increasing concentrations are easily 

detected in groundwater through simple monitoring of pH. Carbon dioxide in 

groundwater poses minimal acute or chronic threat to human health or the 

environment, especially when compared to other materials that have been 

classified as hazardous. As long as potential injection sites are appropriately 

characterized and judiciously selected and injection operations are designed and 

conducted according to longstanding engineering and regulatory standards, the 

leakage of CO2 into underground sources of drinking water (USDW) is likely to be 

a preventable and infrequent occurrence. In the rare event that CO2 should leak 

into USDWs, it is also important to note that its primary effect on groundwater 

will be to form a weak acid (carbonic acid) and lower pH, which can be 

relatively easily mitigated by a variety of commonly used, simple remediation 

practices. 

94
Response: In response to the comment that CO2 is relatively innocuous and that the primary effect

of a leak to groundwater will be to form a weak acid and lower pH, EPA clarifies that the mission of

the UIC Program is to protect USDWs from injection activity that may endanger USDWs. Reduction

in pH may also lead to mobilization of contaminants (e.g., arsenic, lead, and organic compounds),

which can degrade water quality. In addition, the migration of formation fluids containing mobilized

contaminants could cause endangerment of USDWs (Birkholzer et al., 2008a). 

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is

necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that

protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the

SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS

regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS

including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of

water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

EPA disagrees that the GS regulation overstates the risk of CO2 injection. 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 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.

Commenter Name: A. James Mayer Letter ID: 0230

Commenter Organization: A. J. Mayer International on behalf of the American

Energy Security Initiative

Comment ID:

21882

Comment: 5. The Proposed Rule incorrectly implies that CO2 is a waste. 

The EPA states that it has not classified CO2 as a waste or a commodity. 

However, by using the waste injection well requirements (Class I) as the 

framework for the new Class VI requirements, the Proposed Rule implies that the 

CO2 is a waste. The Proposed Rule has proposed requirements for Class VI 

injection wells that are more severe than those for wells used for the injection 

of hazardous waste. 

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

95
commodity. 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).

Commenter Name: James T. Sims Letter ID: 0249

Commenter Organization: Western Business Roundtable Comment ID: 22260

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 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 

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. 

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.

96
Commenter Name: Mike Nasi Letter ID: 0254

Commenter Organization: Clean Coal Technology Foundation of Texas Comment ID: 22363

Comment: 2. Liability under RCRA and CERCLA 

Despite the fact that EPA states in the preamble that it has not classified CO2 

as either a waste or commodity, the framework under which the proposed rules are 

drafted creates an implication that the CO2 stream is a waste. Every effort must 

be made to avoid labeling CO2 as a waste, pollutant or contaminant, as such 

terms will act as deterrents to the development of carbon capture and storage 

technology. 

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. 

EPA clarifies that 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).

Commenter Name: Mark Vickery Letter ID: 0280

Commenter Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Comment ID: 24105

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards) 

Comment: With regard to the appropriate level of regulation, EPA has described the rule 

development as an adaptive process occurring over a period of years with careful 

consideration of stakeholder and general public comment, and results of research 

including experimental CO2 injection projects worldwide. This process includes 

the possibility of future revision of the final adopted rules in response to 

accumulating knowledge from project operational experience, research, and 

increasing public confidence in capture and sequestration technology. Concern 

however remains that overly burdensome regulations may seriously impede the 

technology in a manner not easily correctable by later rule revisions, 

especially considering the experience from CO2 injection in Class II well 

enhanced recovery projects indicating no significant environmental or health 

risks. EPA should strive to protect drinking water sources as mandated by the 

SDWA while imposing reasonable and proven controls on carbon sequestration, not 

97
onerous burdens without risk-based justification or cost effectiveness. 

Reasonable and proven controls will encourage responsible parties to voluntarily 

implement carbon capture and storage technology. In short, carbon is not a 

hazardous material and responsible industries need incentives, rather than 

unreasonable stringency, to participate in the program. Otherwise, the United 

States may not realize the benefits of carbon geosequestration. 

Response: EPA believes the final GS rule addresses the commenter’s concern that it protects

drinking water sources while imposing reasonable and proven controls. The GS rulemaking builds

upon decades of knowledge about safe injection practices regulated by the UIC Program (including

the oil and gas industry’s decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER). The final GS

rule contains new requirements for Class VI wells that 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. 

EPA remains committed to an adaptive approach. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and

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

and 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. 

EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote GS. Rather, the purpose of the GS

regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from

endangerment.

Comment Code: 1500 1.2.2.2.4 Some other agency should regulate GS 

Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Emily Rochon Letter ID: 0129

Commenter Organization: Greenpeace International Comment ID: 23069

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study 

Comment: Greenpeace’s concerns and comments on requirements for any successful regulation 

Given the serious potential risks of CCS and the consequences of improper CO2 

storage there are a number of critical areas that any regulation allowing CCS 

must address. Since the breadth and enforceability of the SDWA is not sufficient 

to address all of these concerns we urge that before any CCS is permitted a 

comprehensive regulatory structure is put in place. 

Greenpeace would urge that at the moment it is too early to propose rules for a 

nascent industry like CCS that is not fully understood. The ability to safely 

deploy carbon capture and sequestration on a commercial-scale has not been 

proven and will not be fully understood until pilot projects are completed and 

reviewed. The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy should 

98
await the completion of these studies in order to be able to make an informed 

set of regulations with full understanding of the effects and consequences. 

Delaying the creation of the regulatory process until it is fully understood 

will prevent companies from investing in processes that could have severe 

undesirable consequences. 

When it is the appropriate time to devise a regulatory structure for the 

creation and oversight of the carbon storage and sequestration industry it is 

critical that the regulation is comprehensive and complete. Given the myriad of 

risks associated with CCS, our concern would be that the Safe Drinking Water Act 

is not of sufficient scope and enforceability to handle a regulatory field as 

broad as CCS. While there are significant and dangerous connections between 

underground carbon storage and drinking water, there are many other significant 

impacts outside of the purview of that act. We cannot emphasize strongly enough 

the absolute need that any regulation of CCS be comprehensive and inclusive of 

all areas of the capture, storage, and monitoring. It is simply not possible for 

such a complex and potentially dangerous process to be adequately regulated with 

piecemeal regulations. 

Response: EPA believes that sufficient data and experience currently exist to develop regulations for

GS wells. The GS rulemaking builds upon decades of knowledge about safe injection practices

regulated by the UIC Program. While developing the GS regulation, EPA evaluated relevant GS

research, including projects conducted by the seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships

(RCSPs) funded by DOE and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory

(NETL), and several international projects. EPA is monitoring international GS efforts currently

operating on a commercial scale. These include the Sleipner Project in the Norwegian North Sea

(operating since 1996); the Weyburn ER project in Saskatchewan, Canada (since 2000); the In Salah

Gas Project in Algeria (since 2004); and Snohvit, also in offshore Norway in the Barents Sea (since

2008). Other projects EPA is tracking include Gorgon and Otway (in Australia); Ketzin (in

Germany); Lacq (in France); and CarbFix, (in Iceland). These projects are designed to operate for

decades and plan to cumulatively inject over 200 MT of CO2. A paper summarizing EPA's research

on international GS projects and legislation is in the rulemaking docket.

The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and

deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not

result in endangerment of USDWs. 

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

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

determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation

are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.

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

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

The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas

related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. 

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

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

99
Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

Commenter Name: Emily Rochon Letter ID: 0129

Commenter Organization: Greenpeace International Comment ID: 23076

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1260 1.1.1.5 More certainty/stringency is needed;

1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study 

Comment: that are consistent with what Greenpeace believes must be done, however a more 

comprehensive regulatory structure is what is truly needed before any carbon 

capture and sequestration project can be allowed to start. 

Response: As described above, EPA believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future

development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the

activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs.

Further, as described above, 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.

Commenter Name: Daniel Plath Letter ID: 0188

Commenter Organization: NiSource, Inc. Comment ID: 25225

Comment: We believe numerous program areas need to be developed to address the multitude 

of issues that are certain arise to make GS a commercially viable option for the 

CO2 capture and storage. In all likelihood, other regulatory authorities will be 

responsible for components of the GS regulatory framework. Close coordination 

between all parties will be needed to assure a consistent set of standards for 

effective GS. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that

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

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

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

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

100
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. 

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

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

implementation phase of the GS regulation. 

EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote GS. Rather, the purpose of the GS

regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from

endangerment.

Commenter Name: Pamela A. Lacey Letter ID: 0228

Commenter Organization: American Gas Association Comment ID: 21806

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment: As noted in our joint comments with USWAG, many complex technical and legal 

issues will have to be resolved before geologic sequestration of CO2 can become 

a reality, and this will require a cooperative effort among several federal 

agencies, including EPA, the Department of Transportation, and the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission. The General Accounting Office ("GAO") recently 

issued a report entitled "Climate Change - Federal Actions Will Greatly Affect 

the Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option" 

(GAO-08-1080, September 2008) ("GAO Report"), which emphasizes that significant 

technological barriers involving CO2 capture technologies, as well as regulatory 

and legal uncertainties involving CO2 storage, leakage, and ownership issues, 

must be resolved before a successful CO2 CCS program of the scale envisioned by 

policymakers can be achieved. GAO Report at 3-5. A National Academy of Sciences 

Response: Regarding the need for a CCS agency to coordinate across agencies, EPA is coordinating

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

implementation phase of the GS regulation.

Commenter Name: M. Granger Morgan Letter ID: 0233

Commenter Organization: Carnegie Mellon University on behalf of the CCS

Reg Project

Comment ID:

21906

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1650 1.3.5 Human health impacts; 1660 1.3.6

Ecosystem impacts (soil, air, surface water) 

Comment: 15. Potential Health or Environmental Impacts other than to Groundwater: While 

we believe that the risk of health or environmental impacts other than to 

groundwater is very slight for sites that are well-characterized and welloperated, we understand that this is a topic of concern to the public. The 

inability of the proposed UIC Class VI rules to address these concerns carries 

the potential to undermine public acceptance of CCS. Should such impacts occur 

under the proposed UIC Class VI rules, some other regulator would need to 

101
intervene. It would be preferable, and more efficient, to have site permitting 

conducted by a program with the authority to manage all potential risks from CO2 

injection comprehensively. 

Response: EPA agrees that properly managed GS projects present lower risk. EPA believes that the

GS requirements, which are based on the long-standing UIC regulatory framework and tailored to

meet the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS, appropriately address endangerment risks to

USDWs. The GS rule contains minimum technical criteria for the permitting, geologic site

characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity

testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and site

closure of GS wells, which will ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. 

EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CCS, but clarifies that the

scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are

designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the

UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to

the atmosphere. 

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is

necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that

protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the

SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS

regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS

including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of

water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

To the comment that the geologic siting requirements could create a negative public perception, EPA

believes that a demonstration to the public, through the promulgation of the GS rule, that extensive

data have been collected and evaluated will likely improve confidence in the project and help

address public questions and concerns.

Regarding the suggestion to develop an integrated permitting process that addresses the entire CCS

process, EPA clarifies that the UIC Program's authority is limited to ensuring that GS projects

protect USDWs from endangerment. Oversight of the capture and transport of CO2 is outside of

SDWA authority. 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, 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.

102
Commenter Name: Kristin Henry Letter ID: 0242

Commenter Organization: Sierra Environmental Law Program, Sierra Club Comment ID: 23317

Comment: important question of liability, and requires a few definition tweaks. Finally, 

CCS is not exclusively a groundwater issue, and regulating CCS with the proposed 

rule under SDWA is insufficient to address other risks. CCS should be regulated 

through a comprehensive statutory regime. 

I. A Comprehensive Statutory and Regulatory Scheme for CCS is Required. 

It is critical that a CCS regulatory structure be comprehensive. Given the 

myriad of risks associated with CCS, Sierra Club believes that the Safe Drinking 

Water Act is not of sufficient scope and enforceability to handle a regulatory 

field as broad as CCS. Specifically, the Safe Drinking Water Act only protects 

"underground sources of drinking of water" and any CCS program raises many 

potential issues other than groundwater impacts. EPA acknowledges in the rule: 

[t]he SDWA does not provide authority to develop regulations for all areas 

related to GS. These areas include, but are not limited to, capture and 

transport of CO2; determining property rights (i.e., to permit its use for GS 

and for possible storage credits); transfer of liability from one entity to 

another; and accounting or certification for greenhouse gas ("GHG") reductions. 

73 Fed. Reg. 43,492, 43,495 (July 25, 2008). 

Sierra Club cannot emphasize strongly enough the absolute need that the 

government regulates CCS in a comprehensive and inclusive manner that accounts 

for all potential environmental and health impacts, and the universe of issues 

involved with large-scale CCS implementation such as capture, transportation and 

pipeline standards, interstate boundary issues, and liability. Moreover, it is 

simply not possible for the government to adequately regulate such a complex 

process through piecemeal regulations. A comprehensive regime, as opposed to a 

patchwork of regulations under different statutes, would be more adaptive to 

emergent information on this budding program as it becomes available. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that

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

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

regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere, and therefore comments

related to such efforts are outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

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

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

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals

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

potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean

Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental

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

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

related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For

additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to

103
Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule. 

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is

necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that

protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the

SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS

regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS

including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of

water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study 

Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Michael H. Cochran Letter ID:

0108

Commenter Organization: Bureau of Water, Division of Environment, Kansas

Department of Health & Environment (KDHE)

Comment

ID: 21943

Comment: 3. There is much that needs to be understood about the behavior of CO2 

sequestered in geologic formations. Additional research is needed to evaluate 

and determine this impact. This includes obtaining a much better understanding 

of the geochemistry involved, plume movement, plume tracking methods and plume 

fate. 

Response: EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to

development of GS technology. EPA is aware of research by other federal agencies, industry,

international parties, and academia related to GS, including projects that address many of the topics

suggested by commenters. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for

Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research

at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin,

southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). In the NODA and Request for Comment,

EPA also described two studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential

effects of CO2 injection on ground water and surrounding formations to determine the potential for

impacts on USDWs and human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated,

or managed. 

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

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

determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation

are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.

Commenter Name: John Stormon Letter ID: 0123

Commenter Organization: Washington State Dept. of Ecology Comment ID: 22997

Comment: Pilot Studies: Consider specifically including a streamlined process to 

encourage Pilot Studies at potential geologic sequestration projects. Thorough 

104
site characterization is the most important requirement for most geologic 

sequestration projects. Site characterization will be extremely expensive. EPA 

should consider some method to encourage potential projects to start with pilot 

studies, designed to collect detailed site characterization information and test 

analytical models prior to full scale project construction. In Washington we 

have included a special consideration for pilot studies in our geologic 

sequestration rule [WAC 173-218-115(4)(b)]. Of course this is also a potential 

loop-hole, so it is also important that pilot study permits have limits intended 

to prevent them from being used as a by-pass of the permitting process for full 

scale sequestration projects. 

Response: EPA clarifies that, with the promulgation of the GS rule, it no longer considers it

appropriate to permit CO2 injection wells that are testing the injectivity or appropriateness of an

individual formation (e.g., as a prelude to a commercial-scale operation) as Class V experimental

technology wells. Such wells should be permitted as Class VI wells. EPA clarifies that Class V

experimental technology wells may be used for experimental projects designed to test new

technologies.

EPA is preparing an addendum to UICPG #83 that describes the use of the Class V experimental

technology well classification to clarify permitting for Class V wells. This addendum will address

shifting of Class V experimental projects to full-scale GS projects and the future use of the Class V

experimental technology well subclass for research and testing of new GS technologies. For

additional information, please see the section entitled, “How Does This Rule Affect Existing

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

Commenter Name: Emily Rochon Letter ID: 0129

Commenter Organization: Greenpeace International Comment ID: 23069

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1500 1.2.2.2.4 Some other agency should regulate

GS 

Comment: Greenpeace’s concerns and comments on requirements for any successful regulation 

Given the serious potential risks of CCS and the consequences of improper CO2 

storage there are a number of critical areas that any regulation allowing CCS 

must address. Since the breadth and enforceability of the SDWA is not sufficient 

to address all of these concerns we urge that before any CCS is permitted a 

comprehensive regulatory structure is put in place. 

Greenpeace would urge that at the moment it is too early to propose rules for a 

nascent industry like CCS that is not fully understood. The ability to safely 

deploy carbon capture and sequestration on a commercial-scale has not been 

proven and will not be fully understood until pilot projects are completed and 

reviewed. The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy should 

await the completion of these studies in order to be able to make an informed 

set of regulations with full understanding of the effects and consequences. 

Delaying the creation of the regulatory process until it is fully understood 

will prevent companies from investing in processes that could have severe 

undesirable consequences. 

When it is the appropriate time to devise a regulatory structure for the 

105
creation and oversight of the carbon storage and sequestration industry it is 

critical that the regulation is comprehensive and complete. Given the myriad of 

risks associated with CCS, our concern would be that the Safe Drinking Water Act 

is not of sufficient scope and enforceability to handle a regulatory field as 

broad as CCS. While there are significant and dangerous connections between 

underground carbon storage and drinking water, there are many other significant 

impacts outside of the purview of that act. We cannot emphasize strongly enough 

the absolute need that any regulation of CCS be comprehensive and inclusive of 

all areas of the capture, storage, and monitoring. It is simply not possible for 

such a complex and potentially dangerous process to be adequately regulated with 

piecemeal regulations. 

Response: EPA believes that sufficient data and experience currently exist to develop regulations for

GS wells. The GS rulemaking builds upon decades of knowledge about safe injection practices

regulated by the UIC Program. While developing the GS regulation, EPA evaluated relevant GS

research, including projects conducted by the seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships

(RCSPs) funded by DOE and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory

(NETL), and several international projects. EPA is monitoring international GS efforts currently

operating on a commercial scale. These include the Sleipner Project in the Norwegian North Sea

(operating since 1996); the Weyburn ER project in Saskatchewan, Canada (since 2000); the In Salah

Gas Project in Algeria (since 2004); and Snohvit, also in offshore Norway in the Barents Sea (since

2008). Other projects EPA is tracking include Gorgon and Otway (in Australia); Ketzin (in

Germany); Lacq (in France); and CarbFix, (in Iceland). These projects are designed to operate for

decades and plan to cumulatively inject over 200 MT of CO2. A paper summarizing EPA's research

on international GS projects and legislation is in the rulemaking docket.

The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and

deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not

result in endangerment of USDWs. 

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

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

determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation

are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or

necessary.

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

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

The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas

related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. 

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

106
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.

Commenter Name: Emily Rochon Letter ID: 0129

Commenter Organization: Greenpeace International Comment ID: 23076

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1260 1.1.1.5 More certainty/stringency is needed;

1500 1.2.2.2.4 Some other agency should regulate GS 

Comment: that are consistent with what Greenpeace believes must be done, however a more 

comprehensive regulatory structure is what is truly needed before any carbon 

capture and sequestration project can be allowed to start. 

Response: As described above, EPA believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future

development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the

activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs.

Further, as described above, 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.

Commenter Name: Anonymous2 Letter

ID: 0133

Commenter Organization: Sierra Club National Global Warming and Energy

Committee and Sierra Club California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee on

Energy and Climate Change

Comment

ID: 21621

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: Conclusion 

Although the proposed EPA regulations are not designed to address the presence 

of overabundant CO2 in our atmosphere, the Sierra Club urges the EPA to continue 

fulfilling its mandate to protect the environment by working with the DOE and 

other federal agencies to construct a cohesive body of regulations for all CCS 

methods, and to expand the current purview from attention to the subsurface 

movement of CO2 to include the atmospheric dimensions of the issues as a whole. 

Additionally, the Sierra Club urges the EPA, DOE, and other federal agencies to 

substantially increase their commitment to the funding of research and 

development for alternatives to geologic storage, such as innovative biological 

and chemical approaches to carbon sequestration, thereby increasing public 

acceptance of CCS as an important tool for cleaning the atmosphere during this 

period of transition to an optimal use of sustainable energy resources. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CCS, but

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

in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA

does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to

GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. 

107
EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology. The Agency

believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of

CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not result in

endangerment of USDWs. EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC

Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data

every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information

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

requirements are appropriate or necessary. Please also see the preamble section entitled, “What Steps

Did EPA Take to Develop This Rulemaking?”

EPA acknowledges 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, 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. 

The Agency acknowledges that there is ongoing research in many fields that could address the

broader environmental concern of climate change, but the focus of the Class VI requirements is to

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

endangerment. 

Much of the research on terrestrial and geologic sequestration is being conducted by other federal

agencies, particularly DOE's Office of Science and Technology

(www.energy.gov/sciencetech/carbonsequestration.htm). Other federal agencies involved in research

include the US Department of Agriculture, US Geological Survey, and others. EPA's Office of

Research and Development is also researching issues related to global climate change, including

geologic and terrestrial sequestration.

Commenter Name: Ellen Gilinsky Letter ID: 0157

Commenter Organization: Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ)

Comment ID:

21264

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1854 1.4.2.2 Other Pilot Projects 

Comment: carbon dioxide. The pilot projects will provide additional information to 

strengthen the technical criteria associated with the long-term storage of 

carbon dioxide. DEQ encourages the Environmental Protection Agency to postpone 

adoption of the Class VI regulations until all of the Phase II and Phase III pilot 

projects have been completed. Time taken to organize and thoroughly analyze 

information from these completed pilot projects should ensure final regulations 

that are protective of our natural resources. 

Response: EPA believes that sufficient data and experience currently exist to develop regulations for

108
GS wells. The GS rulemaking builds upon decades of knowledge about safe injection practices

regulated by the UIC Program. While developing the GS regulation, EPA has evaluated relevant GS

research, including projects conducted by the seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships

(RCSPs) funded by DOE and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory

(NETL), and several international projects. 

EPA acknowledges that, because all GS in the United States is currently associated with pilot

projects, there are many unknowns about how GS projects will unfold and the practicalities of

permitting, operating, monitoring, and closing a GS project. Therefore, EPA is using an adaptive

approach to regulating GS. EPA will collect and review project data on early GS projects to

determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation

are required and being collected and determine if modifications to the requirements are necessary.

EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to the development of GS technology, but

disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot studies to be complete before finalizing the

GS rule. EPA believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and

deployment of CCS technology protects USDWs from endangerment and will not impede industry

adoption of CCS. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (NODA)

on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three

DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah;

and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). EPA has used the data generated to inform the final rule

and will continue to monitor ongoing research.

Commenter Name: James Taft Letter ID: 0172

Commenter Organization: Association of State Drinking Water Administrators

(ASDWA)

Comment ID:

23450

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 3100 2.1 Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements

(40 CFR 146.83) 

Comment: Specific Comments 

Geologic Siting Requirements and Area of Review (AOR) 

Additional Research and Data Needed: 

More research and data are needed, than are typically available now, to make 

scientific determinations as well as implement proven methods to ensure the 

integrity of the proposed geologic sites, without displacement of existing USDW. 

Such research and data will be particularly important with regard to 

characterizing the thickness of the confining zone and permeability. 

Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology,

but disagrees that the Agency is unable to ensure the integrity of the proposed geologic sites.

EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS

technology. EPA is aware of research by other federal agencies, industry, international parties, and

academia related to GS, including projects that address many of the topics suggested by commenters.

EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment on August 31,

2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership

sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump

109
Canyon Site, New Mexico). In the NODA and Request for Comment, EPA also described two

studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential effects of CO2 injection on

ground water and surrounding formations to determine the potential for impacts on USDWs and

human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated, or managed. 

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

using an adaptive approach to 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 documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the

requirements are 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.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0181

Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 23658

Comment: Several issues need more research by EPA and DOE, and the following research 

needs to be completed prior to issuance of the final regulation: 

- Criteria for the determination that the carbon dioxide plume has stabilized; 

- The potential for seismic shifts due to subsurface pressure changes; 

- The minimum concentration of carbon dioxide in the injection stream; and 

- The types of tracers that would be acceptable for GS. 

Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology,

but disagrees that the Agency should wait for all current field research to be complete before

finalizing the GS rule. The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future

development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the

activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs. 

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.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0204

Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 22185

Comment: - Although geosequestration might look feasible, especially in oil/gas 

formations, there is still much to be known about this technology. 

Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology,

but disagrees that the Agency should wait for all current field research to be complete before

finalizing the GS rule. The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future

development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the

activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs.

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

110
using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to, every six

years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types

of information and 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.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0204

Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 22187

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs 

Comment: - It is not realistic to presume that we know enough about carbon separation or 

geosequestration to draw the conclusion that all new power plants with these new 

technologies would be carbon neutral in the first few decades of operation. 

- More research is needed to answer USDW protection and technical questions 

related to feasibility, infrastructure and reliability. This research includes 

the work from the U.S. Geological Survey and other agencies. 

Response: The effectiveness of various climate change mitigation technologies, including carbon

capture, is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. EPA clarifies that the purpose of the GS regulation

is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from

endangerment. As described above, EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields

will be integral to development of GS technology. 

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0206

Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

(AMWA)

Comment ID:

22214

Comment: - Theoretical and observational research must be continued and must be 

comprehensive. While the UIC program has a long history, the injection of CO2 

into the ground is a process that is not well understood. The substance is 

different and the behavior of the compound under severe pressures and 

temperatures is not well known. We strongly recommend that EPA and DOE perform 

both modeling (theoretical) and observational research to better understand the 

carbon sequestration process and the effects of CO2 injection on saline aquifers 

and the subsurface geology. The results of this research must be made available 

to permit writers and stakeholders so that improvements to the technology and 

permitting process can be realized. 

Response: EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to

development of GS technology. EPA is aware of research by other federal agencies, industry,

international parties, and academia related to GS, including projects that address many of the topics

suggested by commenters. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for

Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research

at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin,

southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). In the NODA and Request for Comment,

EPA also described two studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential

effects of CO2 injection on ground water and surrounding formations to determine the potential for

impacts on USDWs and human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated,

111
or managed. 

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, every six

years, collect and review data 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.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213

Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

(AMWA)

Comment ID:

22917

Comment: Many strategies must be used to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) -- from 

conservation to alternative energy sources. Carbon capture and sequestration 

(CCS) may be one tool in the toolbox, but it is not the silver bullet in that it 

does not reduce GHG but simply stores GHG underground. While it is important to 

perform the research to explore options for CCS, including the proper modeling 

of the subsurface dynamics and comprehensive monitoring of pilot and permitted 

sites, it is also important to consider the permanent nature of sequestration. 

Our ability to predict how subsurface dynamics may change over the life of the 

sequestration is currently very limited. Carbon sequestration is still largely 

Response: EPA agrees that GS is a key climate change mitigation technology, one that is part of a

portfolio of options that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. Other options could include

efficiency improvements and the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources. The purpose

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

USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be

integral to development of GS technology. EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2

injection for GS. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data 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.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213

Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

(AMWA)

Comment ID:

22918

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs 

Comment: Therefore, AMWA recommends that the final regulation take a phased approach and 

prohibit the construction of CO2 sequestration wells in the following types of 

aquifers until more is known about the risks of CO2 sequestration to USDWs as a 

result of the effects and dynamics of the fluid in the subsurface: 

1. Aquifers currently used for potable water supply today, or 

2. Aquifers where it can be demonstrated that the aquifer will be used for 

potable supply in the future. AMWA is not trying to block carbon sequestration 

but believes that unintended consequences to the nation's water supply can be 

avoided by initially prohibiting the construction of CO2 wells in any aquifer 

112
for potable supply, and by waiting to construct sequestration wells through any 

USDW until there is a better understanding of the effects of carbon 

sequestration on the dynamics of the subsurface geology and geochemistry. EPA 

should then revisit this exclusion once the potential risk factors and 

unintended consequences to USDWs are better understood. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the final regulation does not allow injection of carbon dioxide into

USDWs. USDWs include both currently used sources and sources that may be used in the future.

Under §144.3 a USDW is defined as an aquifer or portion of an aquifer that supplies any public

water system or that contains a sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a public water system,

and currently supplies drinking water for human consumption, or that contains fewer than 10,000

mg/L total dissolved solids and is not an exempted aquifer. The GS rule requires injection below the

lowermost USDW, unless the owner or operator obtains a waiver from this requirement, in which

case injection may occur into non-USDWs that lie above or between USDWs, provided the

requirements at §146.95 are met. The final rule also allows for the expansion of the areal extent of

existing aquifer exemptions for Class II EOR/EGR wells transitioning to Class VI injection for GS

pursuant to requirements at §§146.4 and 144.7(d). Please see the discussion of "Class VI Injection

Depth Waivers and Use of Aquifer Exemptions for GS" in the preamble to the final rule for

additional information. 

The Agency acknowledges the commenter’s concerns about water resources and future water

resource availability. The primary goal of the UIC Program under the SDWA is to protect USDWs

from endangerment. Consistent with SDWA §1422, the UIC program provides that no injection shall

be authorized if it results in the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into USDWs, if the

presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulation or may

adversely affect the health of persons as specified in §144.12.

The GS rule, as part of the UIC program regulations, continues the Program’s mandate under the

SDWA of ensuring the protection of USDWs from endangerment. EPA expects that the tailored

permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in

the GS rule will prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213

Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

(AMWA)

Comment ID:

22921

Comment: There are many potential issues that affect water quality that are not directly 

related to EPA’s authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), yet AMWA 

would like to note that many of these issues need to be addressed before carbon 

sequestration is fully deployed on a national scale. Specifically, AMWA 

believes that the Department of Energy (DOE) should develop feasibility and 

cost-benefit analyses with respect to additional energy and water consumed under 

a CCS scenario versus traditional coal power plants and other engineering 

solutions for GHG mitigation and reduction. Research regarding the water 

requirements for a CCS project and the study and consideration of future water 

quantity needs in the regions of potential geosequestration sites must be 

performed. 

Response: EPA clarifies that cost-benefit analysis of CCS and other greenhouse gas mitigation

technologies and the water resource requirements for CCS are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

113
Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213

Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

(AMWA)

Comment ID:

22924

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs 

Comment: Protection of drinking water sources is our primary concern. AMWA is concerned 

about the potential for CCS projects to result in unintended, and possibly 

harmful, consequences to sources of drinking water. Much of the work in the CCS 

arena is still in pilot or pre-pilot phase. AMWA cautions against the permitting 

of large scale CCS projects until protection of potable or potentially potable 

aquifers can be established as a primary concern, and information about DOE 

pilot projects and the effects of carbon sequestration on the subsurface and 

USDW can be collected and analyzed. 

Response: As described above, EPA believes that sufficient data and experience currently exist to

develop regulations for Class VI wells. While developing the GS regulation, EPA evaluated relevant

GS research, including projects conducted by the seven Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships

(RCSPs) funded by DOE and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory

(NETL), and several international projects. 

EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees

that the Agency should wait for all current field research to be complete before finalizing the GS

rule. The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and

deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not

result in endangerment of USDWs. 

EPA believes that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework

for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements

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

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

impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213

Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

(AMWA)

Comment ID:

22933

Comment: Research must be comprehensive and must continue to increase our limited 

understanding of this technology. Class VI is a new unique type of well category 

that needs to have theoretical research (i.e., modeling) and monitoring 

performed, as well as other data gathered, to better understand how CO2 

sequestration will affect groundwater and the subsurface geology. The research 

must include a combination of good theoretical work and sound observational work 

as we are entering uncharted territory. While CO2 has been used for gas 

extraction, under geosequestration, CO2 would be put in the ground permanently. 

As a result, AMWA has the following recommendations for research: 

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will

be integral to development of GS technology.

114
Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213

Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

(AMWA)

Comment ID:

22934

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1600 1.3 Risk Associated with CO2 GS 

Comment: o Before any CO2 geosequestration projects are fully deployed, more research is 

needed to allow EPA and/or DOE to develop a risk assessment for the technology, 

taking into account risks to USDWs. 

o The effectiveness of available risk management methods must be demonstrated. 

This is also recommended by the IPCC in its Summary for Policymakers. 

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will

be integral to development of GS technology. EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS

under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and

review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of

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

the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

EPA believes that the GS rule requirements are tailored to address the unique challenges posed by

GS and the potential risks associated with the long-term injection of CO2. These requirements

include the tailored AoR delineation process per §146.84, monitoring that is appropriate to GS

projects per §146.90, and extended post-injection site care per §146.93.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213

Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

(AMWA)

Comment ID:

22938

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS

(capture, transport) 

Comment: o Potential ancillary effects of CCS -- such as pressure waves, which could move 

hundreds of miles and affect sequestration sites -- must be evaluated. 

Response: EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to

development of GS technology. EPA notes that a study conducted by Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory evaluated basin-scale hydrology and pressure changes that could occur as a result of GS;

this study is described in EPA’s Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (74 FR

44802, see references to Birkholzer et al. 2008b).

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213

Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

(AMWA)

Comment ID:

22939

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2100 1.6 Target Geologic Formations for GS 

Comment: o Effects of CCS on saline aquifers are unknown. CO2 geosequestration modeling 

performed to-date has generally not considered this type of aquifer. This 

modeling must be conducted. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's concern about water resources and the protection of

USDWs from endangerment. The Agency clarifies that the statutory mandate of the UIC Program—

and the purpose of the GS rule—is to protect current and future underground sources of drinking

115
water. Under SDWA authority as implemented by the UIC Program regulations, the GS rule

establishes comprehensive, rigorous requirements for permitting, siting, construction, operation,

monitoring, and closure of GS projects. The GS rule's siting requirements found at §146.82, along

with other requirements for construction, operation, testing and monitoring, and post-injection site

care and site closure are designed to prevent the endangerment of USDWs in the vicinity of GS

operations.

EPA disagrees that insufficient modeling and risk evaluation have been conducted to support the GS

rulemaking. To develop the GS rule, EPA considered laboratory, modeling, and field research, which

included data from saline aquifers. In addition, the Agency is involved in collecting and analyzing

GS project data and information from a variety of sources. Most notably, EPA has evaluated and

written permits and reviewed operational data and information associated with the regional carbon

sequestration partnership pilot projects funded by DOE and coordinated through the National Energy

Technology Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects. 

EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS

technology. EPA is aware of research by other federal agencies, industry, international parties, and

academia related to GS, including projects that address many of the topics suggested by commenters.

EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment on August 31,

2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE partnership

sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump

Canyon Site, New Mexico). In the NODA and Request for Comment, EPA also described two

studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential effects of CO2 injection on

ground water and surrounding formations to determine the potential for impacts on USDWs and

human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated, or managed. 

EPA acknowledges that there may be risks associated with GS in certain formation types. For this

reason, the Agency is using an adaptive approach to regulate GS injection. EPA will collect and

review project data on early GS projects, including those that inject into various formation types, to

determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and documentation are being

collected. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data 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.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213

Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

(AMWA)

Comment ID:

22941

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2166 1.6.3.2 Comments opposing injection into

unmineable coal seams 

Comment: - 73 FR 43503 - EPA requests comment on prohibiting injection into unmineable 

coal seam formations if they are above the lowermost USDW. 

Response: AMWA opposes the injection of CO2 into coal seams in general and as 

stated earlier recommends that EPA and DOE conduct additional research to 

determine the impacts of CO2 storage on coal seams. Furthermore, AMWA opposes 

Response: As described above, the final GS rule does not preclude injection into unmineable coal

seams (or any formation type) provided owners or operators can demonstrate that GS can be

116
performed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

EPA recognizes that GS in unmineable coal seams has been the subject of less research than saline

formations or depleted oil and gas reservoirs. EPA continues to follow existing DOE projects and

plans, every six years, to collect and review data 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.

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213

Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

(AMWA)

Comment ID:

22952

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5200 2.8.2 Post injection site care (seeking

comment) (40 CFR 146.93) 

Comment: stabilization may continue for several decades." AMWA also recommends that 

additional research be conducted to better understand the movement of CO2 plumes 

and that EPA provide guidance to owner/operators about the criteria for 

monitoring and modeling data that would be necessary to demonstrate that the 

plume has stabilized and justify site closure. 

Response: EPA is developing guidance to assist owners or operators in evaluating well plugging,

post-injection site care, and site closure requirements of §146.92 and §146.93. Additionally, the

guidance will assist Directors in evaluating proposed well plugging plans and post-injection site care

and site closure plans under §146.92 and §146.93. The guidance describes recommended approaches

for how an owner or operator could plug injection and monitoring wells; perform post-injection

monitoring; demonstrate non-endangerment; and perform site closure activities. The guidance will

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

EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to development of GS

technology. EPA plans to, every six years, collect and review project data on early GS projects,

including site characterization, operational, monitoring, and modeling data, 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.

For additional information on these requirements, please also see the discussion of testing and

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

Commenter Name: Diane VanDe Hei Letter ID: 0213

Commenter Organization: Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

(AMWA)

Comment ID:

22953

Comment: In conclusion, AMWA again stresses the need for more research using the improved 

groundwater modeling techniques and variable density flow models for deeper 

aquifers now available. In addition, EPA must gather data now and in the future 

to better understand the behavior of CO2 plumes and the interaction between 

water, CO2 and bedrock formations. Above all, drinking water needs should be 

AMWA appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA’s proposal. GHG reduction 

and mitigation measures including carbon sequestration are, understandably, very 

important issues to our members. As CCS technology has not been widely deployed 

117
in the U.S. to date, AMWA urges EPA and DOE to continue to perform the research 

suggested in these comments as well as follow-up assessments of the technology 

once deployed. 

Response: EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to

development of GS technology. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request

for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which EPA described a study by the Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential effects of CO2 injection, including far-field pressure

effects, on ground water and surrounding formations to determine the potential for impacts on

USDWs and human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated, or managed.

Commenter Name: Saba Tahmassebi Letter ID: 0218

Commenter Organization: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ)

Comment ID:

21561

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1850 1.4.2 CO2 GS Field Research 

Comment: 1. Delay the proposed schedule for the implementation of the final rule. With 

the current state of technology, there does not appear to exist enough data to 

determine whether geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide can be accomplished 

in a safe manner. In fact, in its preamble to the proposed rule, EPA states 

that conducting large volume carbon storage tests are necessary to demonstrate 

that large-scale CO2 injection and storage can be achieved safely and 

economically. The preamble also suggests that the DOE-sponsored "Deployment 

Phase" of research is likely to provide the necessary data to make this 

determination. The Deployment Phase is scheduled to be completed in 2017. 

Therefore, EPA will not have enough data to adequately determine that largescale implementation of the rule is safe until after 2017 when the data is 

gathered and analyzed. Oklahoma DEQ recommends that EPA postpone finalizing the 

rule until after 2017 to include the results of the pilot studies. Without the 

benefit of considering the results of these studies, the safety of geologic 

sequestration activities will remain questionable. In the meantime, EPA may 

Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology,

but disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot studies to be complete before finalizing

the GS rule. EPA believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and

deployment of CCS technology protects USDWs from endangerment and will not impede industry

adoption of CCS. 

EPA believes that sufficient research has been conducted and sufficient data gathered to proceed

with rule promulgation. While developing the GS regulation, EPA evaluated relevant GS research,

including projects conducted by the seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships funded by the

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and coordinated through the National Energy Technology

Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects. Additionally, EPA's Office of Water

continues to fund research at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory examining the effects of

CO2 interaction on ground water aquifers and any potential mobilization of trace elements that may

occur. EPA is communicating with other research organizations and academic institutions including,

among others, Princeton University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Montana State

University, where specific research on geologic sequestration, injection well materials, and CO2

monitoring techniques is in progress. EPA is also working with DOE, USGS, and others to identify

tools and training techniques that will provide GS permitting assistance and technical expertise as

118
appropriate. Additionally, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is undertaking

multiple research efforts on GS. Topics of research include bolstering different default

thermodynamic databases to include more comprehensive information on aqueous complexes and

solid-phases that contain carbonate/bicarbonate and toxic elements for which EPA has a listed

maximum contaminant level (MCL) for safe drinking water. 

ORD's National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) awarded six Science To Achieve

Results (STAR) grants in the Fall of 2009 to recipients from major universities and institutions

within the scope of the "Integrated Design, Modeling and Monitoring of Geologic Sequestration of

Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide to Safeguard Sources of Drinking Water" research area. These

projects, which started in late 2009, include these lead institutions with specific topics of

investigation: Clemson University will study potential impacts to drinking water aquifers of CO2-

rich dissolved brines; the University of Illinois-Urbana will conduct research related to reducing

hydrologic and geochemical uncertainties associated with CO2 sequestration in deep, saline

reservoirs; the University of Texas at Austin will assess appropriate monitoring approaches at

geologic sequestration sites; the University of Utah will integrate design, monitoring, and modeling

of GS to assist in developing a practical methodology for characterizing risks to USDWs; Columbia

University will conduct laboratory experiments on shallow aquifer systems to improve understanding

of geochemical and microbiological reactions under low pH/high CO2 stress; and Princeton

University will develop a set of computational tools to model CO2 and brine movement associated

with GS.

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

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

determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and documentation are being

collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are necessary.

Commenter Name: Jonathon Palm Letter ID: 0222

Commenter Organization: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau

of Water Pollution Control

Comment ID:

21640

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1800 1.4 Scientific Background/Informing the

Proposal 

Comment: 1. Before a project can be approved, there must be an accurate determination of 

the integrity and capacity of the underground reservoir that is to receive the 

injected fluids. At this time, it does not appear that the required expertise 

and good science are available and will be used in the evaluation of the 

underground reservoir to verify that the formation is capable of long term 

storage. If the integrity is not realized, the Co2 and other gasses would escape 

and possibly re-enter the atmosphere. No benefit to the reduction of greenhouse 

gasses would be realized, or, worse, some unforeseen, negative consequence would 

result. Recall the MTBE issue where the remedy to an air pollution problem 

turned out to be a widespread and costly contamination of groundwater. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the permitting requirements at §146.82 require an extensive evaluation

of the geologic conditions at a proposed GS site to demonstrate the suitability of a potential project

site for GS. If adequate maps and cross sections do not exist to support a thorough evaluation of the

site, the owner or operator must produce the information (e.g., through additional, new studies), and

the Director has the authority to request additional information under §146.82(a)(21).

119
While developing the GS regulation, EPA evaluated relevant GS research, including projects

conducted by the seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships funded by the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE) and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and

several international projects. Additionally, EPA's Office of Water continues to fund research at the

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory examining the effects of CO2 interaction on ground water

aquifers and any potential mobilization of trace elements that may occur. EPA is communicating

with other research organizations and academic institutions including, among others, Princeton

University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Montana State University, where specific

research on geologic sequestration, injection well materials, and CO2 monitoring techniques is in

progress. EPA is also working with DOE, USGS, and others to identify tools and training techniques

that will provide GS permitting assistance and technical expertise as appropriate. Additionally, EPA's

Office of Research and Development (ORD) is undertaking multiple research efforts on GS. 

EPA disagrees that GS is analogous to the MTBE experience. EPA believes 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 fluids for decades. The GS

regulation enhances this framework with requirements for GS wells that are tailored to address the

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

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

CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. 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.

Commenter Name: Kristin Henry Letter ID: 0242

Commenter Organization: Sierra Environmental Law Program, Sierra Club Comment ID: 23309

Comment: CCS is an Emerging Technology and Many Hurdles Remain 

CCS is an evolving technology and many uncertainties remain. CCS employs a 

combination of known and emerging technologies and processes. [FN2] Known 

storage technologies generally rely on experience injecting CO2 into depleted 

oil fields for enhanced oil recovery ("EOR"). Emerging CO2 storage approaches 

include the injection of CO2 into deep saline geological formations and a 

variety of other geologies, and are needed on a much larger scale than is the 

practice for EOR. 

[FN2: "The technical maturity of specific CCS system components varies greatly. 

Some technologies are extensively deployed in mature markets, primarily in oil 

and gas industry, while others are still in the research, development or 

demonstration phase." IPCC CCS Technical Summary p. 19. See also Table TS.1 

(charting maturity of CCS system components).] 

Burning fossil fuel to generate electricity is the largest single source of CO2 

emissions, and therefore the CCS system’s major contribution to climate change 

mitigation would come from deployment in the electricity sector and most 

importantly, on coal-fired electricity plants. [FN3] However, there are 

currently no coal power plants with CCS in operation or under construction. In 

the US, there is one small 1.7 MW project currently testing capture (but not 

sequestration) using pulverized coal. One project under construction will 

120
capture and store a small percent of the existing power plant emissions. [FN4] 

[FN3: IPCC CCS Summary for PolicyMakers at 11.] 

[FN4: http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/aep_alstom_mountaineer.html 

(last visited December 15, 2008).] 

Since there is considerable lack of experience with CCS, there are also 

significant gaps in knowledge. The rule must reflect these uncertainties, and be 

flexible enough to adapt to new information produced by the first major 

demonstration projects. The IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage 

devoted a section of their report to the current gaps in knowledge regarding 

CCS. The relevant gaps include (from IPCC CCS section 5.10, p. 264): 

• need for more development and agreement on assessment methodologies. 

• capacity estimates. 

• kinetics of geochemical trapping and the long-term impact of CO2 on reservoir 

fluids and rocks. 

• the fundamental processes of CO2 adsorption and CH4 desorption on coal during 

storage operations. 

• risks of leakage from abandoned wells caused by material and cement 

degradation. 

• reliable coupled hydrogeological-geochemical-geomechanical simulation models 

to predict long-term storage performance accurately. 

• experience with mitigating and remediating a leakage event. 

• requirements for decommissioning a storage project. 

Additionally, the IPCC reports that large-scale demonstration of CO2 capture is 

needed, "a better understanding of long-term storage, migration and leakage 

processes," and "an enhanced ability to monitor and verify the behaviour [sic] 

of geologically stored CO2." [FN5] The IPCC, a collaboration of the foremost experts 

in CCS-related fields from across the globe, then concluded that "[t]he 

implementation of more pilot and demonstration storage projects in a range of 

geological, geographical and economic settings would be important to improve our 

understanding of these issues." [FN6] 

[FN5: IPCC CCS Technical Summary 48.] 

[FN6: Id.] 

Response: EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to

development of GS technology, and adds that much of the research on terrestrial and geologic

sequestration is being conducted by other federal agencies, particularly DOE's Office of Science and

Technology (www.energy.gov/sciencetech/carbonsequestration.htm). Other federal agencies involved

in research include the US Department of Agriculture, US Geological Survey, and others. EPA's

121
Office of Research and Development is also researching issues related to global climate change,

including geologic and terrestrial sequestration.

EPA believes that large scale GS can be done safely: the GS regulation builds upon the longstanding protective framework of the UIC program, which has been regulating the injection of

billions of gallons of fluids for decades. The GS regulation enhances this framework with

requirements for GS wells that are tailored to address the unique issues associated with large-scale

GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence

of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations. 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 postinjection monitoring and site care. 

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, every six

years, collect and review data 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.

Commenter Name: Kristin Henry Letter ID: 0242

Commenter Organization: Sierra Environmental Law Program, Sierra Club Comment ID: 23311

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2400 1.8 Comments on EPA's adaptive rulemaking

process 

Comment: There is broad agreement that CCS should proceed by undertaking a few large 

demonstration projects in the U.S. the next few years, which must be carefully 

selected and monitored to learn from performance to incorporate into the next 

generation. [FN12] The EPA’s proposed rule should enable selection of the 

lowest-risk, best overall sites for these initial projects, and be adaptive to 

the changes that will occur after knowledge is gleaned from those projects. 

[FN12: IPCC CCS Technical Summary 48 ; Wilson, E., Morgan, M. et al., Regulating 

the Geological Sequestration of CO2, Environmental Science & Technology, Apr. 

15, 2008, at p. 4; Union of Concerned Scientists, Coal Power in a Warming World, 

Oct. 2008, p. 19-21.] 

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development

of GS technology, and is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. 

EPA adds that it considered information from laboratory, modeling, and field research as it

developed the requirements for GS wells. In addition to laboratory studies and modeling research

that provide relevant information on GS, the Agency is also involved in collecting and analyzing GS

project data and permit information from a variety of sources. Most notably, EPA has evaluated

permits and reviewed operational data and information associated with the seven regional carbon

sequestration partnerships funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and coordinated through the

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects. In addition to

the information cited in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data

122
Availability and Request for Comment (NODA) on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the

Agency described the preliminary results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa,

Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, Southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New

Mexico). EPA sought comment on this data and used it to inform the final rule. 

Commenter Name: Craig Hart Letter ID: 0261

Commenter Organization: Alston & Bird LLP Comment ID: 22983

Comment: Importance of Future CCS Research 

Members of the research community and practitioners interviewed in connection 

with the review of Phase II projects widely agreed that continued research in 

CCS will be essential to the development of CCS, even after CCS is deployed in 

several commercialscale plants. Just as research in the oil and gas area 

continues and is increasing as that industry seeks to take advantage of new 

technologies and overcome increasingly challenging conditions as fields mature, 

research in various aspects of CCS is likely to be indispensable in such areas 

as exploring potential new sites, and improving tools for monitoring, 

measurement and verification. 

For example, early pilot projects have shown that the most complete 

understanding of the site-specific behavior of CO2 has come from monitoring the 

movement of CO2 itself [FN3]. Research tests have provided important information for 

researchers studying CO2 migration in various types of formations. Well-designed 

test injections could be employed to collect data on response measures to 

leakage or other contingencies. In a commercial setting, research-scale tests 

could be used during the assessment phase of a project before a larger investment 

is made in fully characterizing an area. 

[FN3] Christine Doughty, Barry M. Freifeld, Robert C. Trautz, "Site 

Characterization for CO2 Geologic Storage and Vice Versa: The Frio Brine Pilot, 

Texas, USA as a Case Study," 54 ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY 1635-1656 (2007). 

Response: EPA agrees that continued research in all GS associated fields will be integral to

development of GS technology. EPA is aware of research by other federal agencies, industry,

international parties, and academia related to GS, including projects that address many of the topics

suggested by commenters. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for

Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research

at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin,

southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). In the NODA and Request for Comment,

EPA also described two studies by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory on the potential

effects of CO2 injection on ground water and surrounding formations to determine the potential for

impacts on USDWs and human health in the event that a GS project is not properly sited, operated,

or managed. 

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

using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to, every six

years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types

of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications

to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. An adaptive approach will allow regulatory

123
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.

Commenter Name: Lori Mathieu Letter ID: 0283

Commenter Organization: Connecticut Department of Health Comment ID: 25298

Comment: 3. Unintended consequences should be anticipated, and therefore more time to 

characterize these consequences should be allowed. Given the unknown factor of 

time on the reliability of sequestering activities, the time required for these 

activities should be extended to insure there are no unintended consequences. 

Furthermore a period of assessment should be provided between the validation 

phase and deployment phase. Currently these two phases overlap. To that end, it 

is recommended that more extensive studies should be performed to indicate the 

impact of leakage on sources of public drinking water in order to minimize the 

impact to public health. 

Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology,

but disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot studies to be complete before finalizing

the GS rule. EPA believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and

deployment of CCS technology protects USDWs from endangerment and will not impede industry

adoption of CCS. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (NODA)

on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three

DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah;

and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). EPA has used the data generated to inform the final rule

and will continue to monitor ongoing research. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and

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

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

requirements are appropriate or necessary.

EPA believes that the ability to safely deploy CCS on a commercial-scale has been proven. EPA is

monitoring international GS efforts currently operating on a commercial scale. These include the

Sleipner Project in the Norwegian North Sea (operating since 1996); the Weyburn ER project in

Saskatchewan, Canada (since 2000); the In Salah Gas Project in Algeria (since 2004); and Snohvit,

also in offshore Norway in the Barents Sea (since 2008). Other projects EPA is tracking include

Gorgon and Otway (in Australia); Ketzin (in Germany); Lacq (in France); and CarbFix, (in Iceland).

These projects are designed to operate for decades and plan to cumulatively inject over 200 MT of

CO2. A paper summarizing EPA's research on international GS projects and legislation is in the

rulemaking docket.

Commenter Name: Greg Shubel Letter ID: 0284

Commenter Organization: Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan, Inc Comment ID: 25301

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2400 1.8 Comments on EPA's adaptive rulemaking

process 

Comment: The aforementioned deployment phase will not be completed until 2017. ITCMI ESD 

believes all research studies should be completed and the results thoroughly 

understood BEFORE the rule is finalized. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's need for regulatory certainty and believes it has

sufficient data on GS to finalize the rule. However, EPA acknowledges that, because all GS in the

124
United States is currently associated with pilot projects, there are many unknowns about how GS

projects will unfold and the practicalities of permitting, operating, monitoring, and closing a GS

project. Therefore, EPA agrees that an adaptive approach to the UIC GS rulemaking is appropriate.

The Agency plans to use such an approach to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment

and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment. EPA believes that an adaptive approach will

allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demand for Class VI

permits while recognizing the need to: continue to gather data from pilot projects and other research

as it becomes available; and to enhance understanding of the technical and administrative aspects of

GS deployment, operation, and technology developments. 

EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the

appropriate amount and types of information and documentation are being collected, and to

determine if modifications to the requirements are or necessary.

EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology, but disagrees

that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot studies to be complete before finalizing the GS rule.

EPA believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and deployment

of CCS technology protects USDWs from endangerment and will not impede industry adoption of

CCS. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (NODA) on August

31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three DOE

partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and

the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico). EPA has used the data generated to inform the final rule and

will continue to monitor ongoing research.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0520

Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 21427

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2166 1.6.3.2 Comments opposing injection into

unmineable coal seams; 2200 1.6.4 Other formation types 

Comment: Other suggestion and improvements for the rule are that coal seams, the basalts, 

hollowed out salt domes and shale are simply not ready for commercial 

sequestration at this time. And that is true whether or not they are below the 

lowest USDW. So our recommendation is that the Class VI proposal clearly be 

written not to apply to these sorts of formations. We do favor continued 

experimentation in these formations and some of them, especially coal seams may 

become commercially viable in the future, but for now we think they should be 

written, should be permitted under Class V. We should await further knowledge 

before deciding precisely that those formations not to be regulated. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be risks associated with GS, particularly regarding GS

into coal seams, basalts, salt domes, shales, which have been the subject of limited experimental

projects in the past. EPA anticipates that in the short-term, GS into these types of formations will

continue to be experimental in nature (i.e., if they are to test GS technologies and collect data), and

will likely be permitted as Class V experimental technology wells and be subject to UIC Program

Guidance #83. EPA will continue to review data on early GS projects, including those in such

formations, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and

documentation are required and being collected. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review

data 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.

125
Commenter Name: Leslie Glustrome Letter ID: 0527

Comment ID: 21414

Comment: I would like to underscore the importance of waiting for the results. You 

actually talked to geologists who go up to Sleipner and actually look at what is 

going on. Success, it is kind of like saying Lehman Brothers is a successful 

company as long as you are talking about September 1 or whatever that day was 

before they failed so, success depends on how much data you calculate and 

gather. So it is very important to get that information just as the AWWA 

representative pointed out, before we finalize any rules. It would be completely 

absurd to try and go ahead. We need to make sure that all data is completely 

Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology,

but disagrees that the Agency should wait for all current field research to be complete before

finalizing the GS rule. The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future

development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the

activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs. 

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, every six

years, collect and review data 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.

Commenter Name: Cynthia Lane Letter ID: 0528

Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 21388

Comment: AWWA is aware of several ongoing research and pilot projects related to geologic 

sequestration of carbon dioxide, however we are concerned that the results of 

these projects may not be available until after EPA's regulation on geologic 

carbon sequestration has been finalized. 

We believe that the results of this research are crucial to their good 

development of a comprehensive regulation that protects water resources from the 

potential unintended consequences of geologic carbon sequestration. In 

particular, we believe that research on the potential pathways for contamination 

of USDW's has not yet been completed. As a result, we are concerned that the 

appropriate subsurface monitoring methods and technologies have not been 

adequately identified or developed. 

Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology,

but disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot studies to be complete before finalizing

the GS rule. EPA believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and

deployment of CCS technology protects USDWs from endangerment and will not impede industry

adoption of CCS. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (NODA)

on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency described the results of research at three

DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah;

and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico), including the feasibility and appropriateness of various

126
monitoring technologies. EPA has used the data generated to inform the final rule and will continue

to monitor ongoing research. The Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS

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

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

appropriate or necessary.

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 fluids for decades. The GS regulation

enhances this framework with requirements for GS wells that are tailored to address the unique

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

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

and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. 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.

Commenter Name: Cynthia Lane Letter ID: 0528

Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 21391

Comment: public, the environment and drinking water utilities. We are also concerned that 

the results of current research and pilot projects may not be available until 

after EPA's regulation on geologic carbon sequestration has been finalized. We 

are aware of the impacts that climate change will have on water utilities across 

the country or recognize that something needs to be done to address climate 

change. 

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development

of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot studies to be

complete before finalizing the GS rule.

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

Individual Comments

Commenter Name: William Kovacs Letter ID: 0148

Commenter Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Comment ID: 21752

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste issues (seeking

comment); 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment) 

Comment: For example, if EPA eventually determines that CO2 is hazardous, what are the 

ramifications under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)?[FN3 42 

U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq.] Presumably, its stringent "cradle to grave" requirements 

will be imposed on all generators, transporters, and treatment, storage and 

disposal facilities involved in the CCS project. Or, in the event of a release, 

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 

(CERCLA)?[FN4 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq.] The Clean Air Act? [FN5 42 U.S.C. §§ 

7401 et seq.] If CO2 is deemed a "hazardous air pollutant" under Section 112, it 

will automatically trigger CERCLA liability as it incorporates HAPs in its 

127
definition of "hazardous substance." [FN6 CERCLA, Section 101(14).] The Clean 

Water Act? [FN7 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.] 

Response: Under the final GS rule, owners or operators will need to determine whether the CO2

stream is hazardous under EPA’s RCRA regulations, and if so, any injection of the hazardous CO2

stream may only occur in a Class I hazardous waste injection well. Conversely, Class VI wells

cannot be used for the co-injection of RCRA hazardous wastes (i.e., hazardous wastes that are

injected along with the CO2 stream). 

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.

Commenter Name: Frederick R. Eames Letter ID: 0178

Commenter Organization: CCS Alliance Comment ID: 23852

Comment: The CCS Alliance also is concerned about numerous federal and state statutes 

that may be triggered through the siting of a CCS project. At the federal level, 

the siting of linear facilities most often raises issues under the Clean Water 

Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the National Environmental Policy Act, 

and the Endangered Species Act. Any number of other federal statutes may apply, 

depending upon the resources affected by or near the facility. Congress may need 

to consider how to balance the objectives of these acts with the policy inherent 

in promoting CCS. 

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

regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final

GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal

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

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

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

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

128
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. 

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

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

implementation phase of the GS regulation. 

EPA clarifies that the Agency is not obligated under the UIC program to comply with NEPA

§§102(2)(c) and 102(2)(e) because the UIC permitting process is considered a “functional equivalent.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0295

Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 26142

Comment: We therefore urge EPA to: 

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

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

5] without delaying promulgation of the pending rule; and 

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

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

Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CCS, but

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

in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA

does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to

GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. 

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

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

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

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

129
additional information, see the section of the final GS rule preamble entitled, "How Does Mandatory

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

Program rulemaking and docket.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0295

Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 26144

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

provisions for injected CO2 under the proposed Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and 

Reporting Rule. [FN 6] 

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

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

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

09000064809cf9e9 

Response: Comments related to the need to develop regulations under the Clean Air Act are outside

the scope of this rulemaking. However, in a separate rulemaking under authority of the Clean Air

Act, EPA is amending the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program at 40 CFR Part 98 to add

reporting requirements for facilities that conduct GS (subpart RR) and all other facilities that inject

CO2 underground (subpart UU). For additional information, see the section of the final GS rule

preamble entitled, "How Does Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Relate to This

Rulemaking?” and the GHG Reporting Program rulemaking and docket. EPA clarifies that

accounting for injected carbon dioxide is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. 

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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.

Commenter Name: Mark Singer Letter ID: 0504

Commenter Organization: Green America Project, LLC Comment ID: 21243

Comment: This hearing is EPA's critical crucial role in the technical and legal framework 

for geologic sequestration. And this brings me to my first point, which is 

jurisdiction. 

Basing EPA jurisdiction only on the Safe Drinking Water Act and not on the Clean 

Air Act is a critical mistake. The central issue in geologic sequestration is 

whether CO2 sequestration will be permanent. But the Safe Drinking Water Act 

jurisdiction does not allow EPA to assert its full legal authority to ensure 

130
that sequestration will be permanent. 

We all sat through the presentations this morning, and probably read the 

publication in the Federal Register. Every time the EPA discusses this they 

hammer away that this is just under the Safe Drinking Water Act and that's it. 

This is a mistake. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CCS, but

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

in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA

does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to

GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. 

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program rulemaking and docket.

Commenter Name: Mark Singer Letter ID: 0504

Commenter Organization: Green America Project, LLC Comment ID: 21245

Comment: Molly Bayer had a slide just now which talks about the special characteristics 

of CO2. Significantly it did not even mention that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It 

makes no sense not, for the EPA not to exercise jurisdiction under the Clean Air 

Act. 

The science is clear, our planet is being degraded. This is an act of violence 

against future generations that will damn us to all posterity. The EPA must 

exercise Clean Air Act jurisdiction in this ruling. 

Response: As described above, EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader

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

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

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

131
regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere.

Commenter Name: Lee Sprague Letter ID: 0505

Commenter Organization: Sierra Club Comment ID: 21238

Comment: While it's clear that the current regulatory environment Clean Water Act, it is 

clear that the carbon sequestration process is a constituent element of the coal 

system, from the emission, and transportation, and to, to the source. And I 

understand the authority is simply to protect drinking water at this point. 

However, the lead agency must be identified to regulate the entirety of the coal 

system process for the emission and transportation and storage of the 

monitoring, and contingency planning for UIC well failures. 

The gaps within the regulatory framework is troublesome, and in my opinion is 

likely to be the topic of future hearings if not addressed at this point. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CCS, but

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

in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA

does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to

GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. 

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

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

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

implementation phase of the GS regulation.

Commenter Name: Lee Sprague Letter ID: 0505

Commenter Organization: Sierra Club Comment ID: 21239

Comment: As a tribal member and the individual rights of Necedah territory I got the 

following initial comments. As to what, the tribes reserve the right to protect, 

to prohibit UIC well sites that are on or adjacent to reservation boundaries, 

trust land, and ceded territories, or Indian countries that can have a material 

impact on the reserved rights of tribes and tribal members. 

132
But a detailed government to government consultation process would clearly 

outline the tribes specifically to ensure a uniform process for the proposed UIC 

site or in areas of review adjacent to Indian country, and that the EPA must 

ensure that tribes have adequate financial resources and technical assistance 

for determining the suitability of UIC wells on or adjacent to Indian country as 

part of its trust responsibility to tribes, and take into consideration human 

health and reserve rights for access and utilization of lands that are held by 

international law or treaty with the United States. Thank you very much. 

Response: 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 §146.82(b) and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g.,

development of the emergency and remedial response plan (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 and Tribal jurisdictions and plans,

the Agency will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate communication among States and

Tribes 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 and Tribes with primacy. 

In addition, as part of the UIC permit review process in 40 CFR 124, the UIC program Director is

required to notify certain stakeholders of any public hearings and the availability of the draft permit.

The existing public notice regulations require the Director to notify any unit of local government

having jurisdiction over the area where the facility is proposed to be located (124.10(c)(x)(A)). EPA

has also added a requirement at 124.10(c)(1)(xi) that state and local oil and gas regulatory agencies

and state agencies regulating mineral exploration and recovery, the PWSS program director, and all

agencies that oversee injection wells in the state must be notified as part of the public notice process

for a Class VI permit. “State” agencies include tribes. Thus, where a tribe has primacy for UIC, it

must notify the relevant tribal agencies or federal agencies that have primacy for the programs of

concern. If a tribe does not have primacy, the EPA regional office with oversight must notify the

appropriate tribal and federal agencies.

Commenter Name: Becky English Letter ID: 0524

Commenter Organization: Sierra Club Comment ID: 21489

Comment: contains in its primary energy capture mode. Short of that, I must call today 

for ending the current inappropriate, piece meal approach to regulating IGCC and 

carbon capture sequestration. We need a more comprehensive law or regulation. 

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

regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final

GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal

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

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

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

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

133
Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is

necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that

protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes that the UIC Program, under the authority of the

SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS

regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS

including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of

water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface

geologic formations.

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

Individual Comments

Commenter Name: John Hanger Letter ID: 0130

Commenter Organization: Pennsylvania Dept. of Env. Protection Comment ID: 21499

Comment: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) 

and Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) are pleased to 

provide comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed 

rule, "Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells," published 

for comment on July 25, 2008, at 73 Federal Register 43492. 

Section 27 (relating to natural resources and the public estate) of the 

Pennsylvania Constitution declares that, "The people have a right to clean air, 

pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and 

esthetic values of the environment. Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are 

the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As 

trustee of these resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them 

for the benefit of all the people." 

Geologic sequestration of CO2 would have to be conducted in a manner that 

complied with the laws and regulations of the Commonwealth. Although 

Pennsylvania does not have specific groundwater protection statutes, the Clean 

Streams Law provides the legal framework for managing the groundwater quality in 

the waters of the Commonwealth. The Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, Act of 

1937, P.L. 1987, as amended in 1989, provides for preservation and improvement 

of the waters of the Commonwealth for the protection of public health, animal 

and aquatic life, and/or industrial consumption, and recreation. The Act states 

that "the waters of the Commonwealth shall be construed to include any and all 

rivers, streams, creeks, rivulets, impoundments, ditches, and other bodies or 

134
channels of conveyance of surface and underground (emphasis added) water, or 

parts thereof, whether natural or artificial, within or on the boundaries of the 

Commonwealth." Through the Clean Streams Law and specific program regulations, 

the goals and standards are integrated with all other state water quality and 

environmental goals. Specifically, 35 PA Code chapter 91.51 and chapter 91.52 

prohibit disposal of wastes underground by means that pose a threat to 

underground sources of drinking water. 

Act 70 of 2008, the Pennsylvania Climate Change Act, requires DEP to establish a 

permanent climate change advisory committee, designate voluntary emissions and 

offset registries, establish annual greenhouse gas inventories, develop an 

impacts assessment that identifies both scientific and economic impacts to 

Pennsylvania from climate change, and create a climate change mitigation action 

plan. The inventories, impacts assessment, and climate change action plan are 

to be presented to the General Assembly and Governor, and are to be updated 

every three years. Currently, DEP is working with the climate change advisory 

committee to comply with Act 70. 

Act 129 of 2008, amending the Title 66 (Public Utilities) of the Pennsylvania 

Consolidated Statues, requires DCNR to conduct studies of carbon capture and 

sequestration, and present its findings to the Governor and the General 

Assembly by mid-to-late 2009. The studies will include: 

(1) Identification of suitable geological formations for the location of a CO2 

sequestration network (due May 1, 2009); and 

(2) An independent assessment (due November 1, 2009) of the following: 

a) Costs to establish, operate, and maintain a CO2 sequestration network; 

b) Safety and potential risk to individuals, property, and the environment 

associated with the geological sequestration of CO2; 

c) Existing federal and state regulatory standards for the storage of CO2; 

d) Factors contained in the U.S. EPA’s vulnerability evaluation framework for 

geologic sequestration of CO2; 

e) Different types of insurance, bonds, other instruments and recommended levels 

of insurance which should be carried by an operator of a state network during 

construction and operation, and availability of commercial insurance; 

f) Models for the establishment of a Commonwealth fund to provide protection against risk. 

Following review of the above, Act 129 authorizes DCNR to conduct a pilot 

project to determine the viability of establishing a network in Pennsylvania 

that facilitates carbon capture, pipeline transmission, and geologic 

sequestration. 

The government of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is committed to preserving 

the natural resources and public estate afforded to the people of Pennsylvania. 

Response: EPA recognizes the complexity and importance of states' approaches to managing GS

and is aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks,

regulations, workgroups, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS. States can

135
use multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA and UIC regulations, including

laws and policies addressing surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space

ownership, mineral rights, worker safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of state oil

and gas resource exploitation. EPA plans to work closely with states and tribes as they develop Class

VI primacy programs in this broader context. EPA adds that states may adopt more stringent

standards for Class VI wells than the Federal requirements. 

Throughout the regulatory development process for the Class VI regulation, EPA monitored states'

regulatory and legislative development efforts and approaches. In EPA's August 31, 2009, Notice of

Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment, the Agency described its ongoing monitoring

of states' regulatory efforts and approaches and how the Agency is considering this information as it

develops guidance on the primacy application and approval process for Class VI wells. Information

about these state activities may be found in the docket for the GS rule.

Commenter Name: Anonymous2 Letter

ID: 0133

Commenter Organization: Sierra Club National Global Warming and Energy

Committee and Sierra Club California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee on

Energy and Climate Change

Comment

ID: 21607

Comment: Currently, 33 states have primacy in administering all classes of injection well 

permitting under the UIC program, while 7 states share responsibility with the 

EPA, and 10 state programs are solely administered by the EPA. The tailored 

nature of the present UIC program is being upheld in the EPA's proposed 

regulatory approach of "Tailored Requirements" for Class VI permitting. 

Throughout the 2007-08 consensus process for formulating the proposed federal 

geosequestration standards, state regulatory agencies have consistently asked 

that national regulations be inclusive of data from local and regional contexts. 

State-by-state variations in structural features such as the density and 

porosity of rock formations and cap rock, the composition of geologic systems, 

the presence of underground voids and conduits, the commonality of transmissive 

faults, or the existence of active fracture zones can dictate different siting 

requirements. Also, the environments surrounding the injection wells can 

evidence confounding aspects such as heavily populated and/or socially impacted 

communities, destabilizing weather events, recorded seismic activity, the 

existence of mineral deposits, proprietary oil and gas reserves, water wells, 

other classes of injection wells, abandoned wells, or sensitive wildlife 

habitats. State laws governing water and mineral rights vary widely, and some 

targeted underground aquifers may span contiguous state boundary lines. 

Response: EPA clarifies that SDWA, under section 1422(b)(3)(9)(A), requires that the regulations

of the Administrator "permit or provide for varying geologic, hydrological, or historical conditions in

different states and in different areas within a state." EPA has provided the Director discretion in

applying the GS requirements, taking into account varying conditions, particularly with regard to the

evaluation of site characteristics. For additional information, please see the discussion of EPA’s Final

Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA recognizes the complexity and importance of states' approaches to managing GS and is aware

that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks, regulations,

workgroups, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS.

136
Commenter Name: Dave Freudenthal Letter ID: 0150

Commenter Organization: State of Wyoming Comment ID: 22218

Comment: Wyoming is one of the first states to take the initiative to proactively 

establish both a statutory and regulatory framework for the thoughtful 

management of CO2 sequestration. I have attached a copy of the relevant laws. We 

have invested state funds through the University of Wyoming and Wyoming State 

Geological Survey (WSGS) for focused research pertaining specifically to CO2 

sequestration. We are committed to continuing our investment in sequestration 

research and development, provided the regulatory framework offers reasonable 

incentives to proceed with such work. 

Response: EPA recognizes the complexity and importance of states' approaches to managing GS

and is aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks,

regulations, workgroups, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS. 

For additional information, please see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach and the

section entitled, “How Does This Action Affect UIC Program Implementation?" in the preamble to

the final GS rule.

Throughout the regulatory development process for the Class VI regulation, EPA monitored states'

regulatory and legislative development efforts and approaches. In EPA's August 31, 2009, Notice of

Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment, the Agency described its ongoing monitoring

of states' regulatory efforts and approaches and how the Agency is considering this information as it

develops guidance on the primacy application and approval process for Class VI wells. Information

about these state activities may be found in the docket for the GS rule.

Commenter Name: Steven Pirner Letter ID: 0153

Commenter Organization: South Dakota Department of Environment and

Natural Resources

Comment ID:

22134

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performancebased standards) 

Comment: given the potential size, scope and impact of the sequestration operations. Our 

main concerns focus on states being given sufficient flexibility to regulate 

such a program efficiently and effectively. 

Response: EPA clarifies that SDWA, under section 1422(b)(3)(9)(A), requires that the regulations

of the Administrator "permit or provide for varying geologic, hydrological, or historical conditions in

different states and in different areas within a state." In the final GS rule, EPA has provided the

Director discretion in applying the GS requirements, taking into account varying conditions,

particularly with regard to the evaluation of site characteristics. 

For additional information, please see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the

preamble to the final GS rule and the section entitled, “How Does This Action Affect UIC Program

Implementation?"

Commenter Name: James Stine Letter ID: 0163

Commenter Organization: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

(NRECA)

Comment ID:

21327

137
Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS

(capture, transport) 

Comment: 6. NRECA urges EPA to issue more definitive direction in the Final Rule 

regarding the regulation of CO2 injection activities that cross state 

boundaries. This issue is mentioned in the Preamble to the Proposal but receives 

little attention. See 73 Fed. Reg. at 43497. Rather, EPA simply observes that 

"some injection activities may raise cross-state boundary issues that are beyond 

the scope of this rulemaking." Id. More guidance should be given regarding how 

such cross-state activities should be regulated, including making clear in the 

Final Rule that Owners or Operators of Class VI CO2 GS projects will seek a 

Class VI permit for that operation from the state in which the wellhead is 

located; in other words, a given state is the permitting body for any Class VI 

CO2 GS project with a wellhead in that state. EPA should direct states to 

consult and coordinate with other affected states (i.e., other states to which 

the underground portion of the well may extend and/or those to which there could 

be a subsurface release or migration of injected material) in determining how to 

avoid duplicative or dueling regulatory systems. NRECA urges EPA to play a 

leadership role and proactively address these issues by suggesting procedural 

guidelines for inter-state regulation and cooperation. 

Response: EPA understands that the CO2 plumes for large GS projects may cross state, tribal, EPA

Regional, or national 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 §146.82(b) and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g.,

development of the emergency and remedial response plan (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 and Tribal jurisdictions and plans,

EPA will work with the appropriate entities to facilitate communication among States and Tribes

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 and Tribes with primacy. 

EPA is developing a series of guidance documents to support the GS rulemaking. These are

available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Commenter Name: Quinlan J. Shea Letter ID: 0177

Commenter Organization: Edison Electric Institute Comment ID: 23569

Comment: b. Balancing state and federal interests. The Agency‘s UIC rulemaking is 

occurring in the context of the development of an overall framework for CCS 

projects, one that must properly balance federal and state roles. As to the UIC 

rules, EPA should consider the significant interests and experience of the 

states in developing regulations. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the SDWA does not provide EPA with specific authority to develop

UIC regulations for GS that are not directly related to protecting USDWs from endangerment; thus

138
EPA does not have authority under the SDWA to address issues related to CO2 pipelines, subsurface property rights, and capture and transport of CO2. 

EPA acknowledges the expertise of states and tribes, and also recognizes that some are developing

statutory frameworks, regulations, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing broader issues

related to CCS and GS, and encourages states to seek primacy for Class VI wells to further these

efforts. States can use multiple authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA and UIC

regulations, including laws and policies addressing surface access and land rights, unitization of

fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights, worker safety and emergency preparedness, and

maximization of state oil and gas resource exploitation. EPA plans to work closely with states and

tribes as they develop Class VI primacy programs in this broader context. EPA adds that states may

adopt more stringent standards for Class VI wells than the Federal requirements.

Commenter Name: Frederick R. Eames Letter ID: 0178

Commenter Organization: CCS Alliance Comment ID: 23806

Comment: State and Federal Regulatory Responsibility 

State oil and gas commissions are repositories of expertise in regulating oil 

and gas industry underground injections, which have been safely undertaken for 

many decades. These commissions also have regulated CO2 injections for enhanced 

oil and gas recovery, a practice that has been in use for 40 years. However, not 

all states have oil and gas regulatory experience. In states that do not have 

experience regulating oil and gas injections, EPA and the state should ensure 

the application of reasonable regulation that protects public health and the 

environment without discouraging CCS development and deployment. 

Response: EPA clarifies that states will be granted primacy for Class VI wells on the basis of

meeting minimum federal requirements for the protection of USDWs. EPA believes that the

requirement that states' regulations meet the minimum federal requirements will promote national

consistency. To further ensure the final rule is applied consistently, EPA is developing guidance

documents 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. EPA adds that the guidance discusses additional considerations for

states that do not have primacy for Class II wells. EPA is developing a series of guidance documents

to support the GS rulemaking. These are available on EPA’s website at

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

EPA acknowledges that some states and tribes are developing statutory frameworks, regulations,

technical guidance, and strategies for addressing broader issues related to CCS and GS, and

encourages states to seek primacy for Class VI wells to further these efforts.

Commenter Name: Thomas Curtis Letter ID: 0181

Commenter Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) Comment ID: 23712

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1650 1.3.5 Human health impacts 

Comment: Category: State Capacity 

EPA Request for Comment: EPA seeks comment on any aspects of the ongoing State 

139
efforts to regulate the GS of CO2 and how these efforts might be used to better 

inform a final Federal rulemaking. EPA Notice 43497. 

AWWA Response: From our perspective, EPA’s proposed rule appears to be focused 

on preventing brine from formations where carbon dioxide was stored from 

reaching USDWs and/or from preventing carbon dioxide that reaches USDWs from 

causing primary MCLs to be exceeded. This focus may not be adequate from the 

standpoint of protecting source water and beneficial use aquifers from 

detrimental changes in water quality other than the exceedance of primary MCLs. 

Other water quality impacts could be observed such as increased concentrations 

of iron, manganese and TDS, as well as lowered pH, all of which have secondary 

MCLs. Increases in the concentrations of silica and boron, which do not 

currently have MCLs but can significantly degrade water quality, are also likely 

to occur. 

This past year, the State of Washington adopted carbon sequestration regulations 

which AWWA recommends that EPA review and incorporate some of the language into 

the final regulation. The Washington regulations require that the owner or 

operator must demonstrate that the "design and construction standards of all 

facility structures and wells are sufficient to prevent migration of carbon 

dioxide or nonpotable water that will degrade water quality or impact beneficial 

uses outside the geologic containment system." The language in this regulation 

provides protection mechanisms for groundwater sources that may not be used as 

USDWs but have other beneficial uses, such use as industrial applications or 

agriculture. Given the stresses that the drinking water industry is facing with 

respect to water resources, AWWA recommends that the monitoring requirements in 

the final rule be extended to protect against aquifer contamination beyond that 

which is associated with compounds that have primary MCLs. 

Response: EPA recognizes the complexity and importance of states' approaches to managing GS

and is aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks,

regulations, workgroups, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS. 

Throughout the regulatory development process for the Class VI regulation, EPA monitored states'

regulatory and legislative development efforts and approaches. In EPA's August 31, 2009, Notice of

Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment, the Agency described its ongoing monitoring

of states' regulatory efforts and approaches and how the Agency is considering this information as it

develops guidance on the primacy application and approval process for Class VI wells. Information

about these state activities may be found in the docket for the GS rule.

EPA clarifies that the UIC program’s authority applies to protection of USDWs from endangerment.

SDWA §1421(d)(2) states that “underground injection endangers drinking water sources if such

injection may result in the presence in underground water which supplies or can reasonably be

expected to supply any public water system of any contaminant, and if the presence of such

contaminant may result in such system’s not complying with any primary drinking water regulation

or may otherwise adversely affect the health of person.” EPA disagrees that the GS rule is only

focused on MCL contamination as it relates to endangerment; rather the rule also focuses on “adverse

effects on the health of person[s].” This does not necessarily require a showing of non-compliance

with an MCL. 

140
EPA clarifies that the UIC regulations apply only to underground injection wells and injection

activities, and not to "facility structures” that are not considered to be wells under §144.3. 

Under §146.94, if the owner or operator obtains evidence that injection may cause endangerment to a

USDW, he or she must stop injection and implement the emergency and remedial response plan for

that well. 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, the tailored permitting, siting, construction, operation,

monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule are intended to prevent leakage

from injection formations and protect USDWs.

Commenter Name: John Corra Letter ID: 0205

Commenter Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

(DEQ)

Comment ID:

22192

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1435 1.2.1.3 EPA should develop guidance 

Comment: 4. Training: The U.S. EPA should establish, on a regional level, training 

programs that assist in building state's capacity in the science and technology 

necessary to effectively regulate CO2 sequestration. 

Response: EPA is developing guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person

training for states and tribes that describes 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 associated with developing GS regulations that are the

equivalent of minimum federal criteria and requirements. These are available on EPA’s website at

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

Commenter Name: Richard Guinn Letter ID: 0210

Commenter Organization: Eastman Chemical Company Comment ID: 22715

Comment: minimize approach to any USDWs, thus preventing potential endangerment. Concern 

#9: On-going state efforts to regulate GS. (Ref: page 43497, Sec. C. Who 

Implements the UIC Program?) 

Although we recognize that state primacy is integral to the UIC program, we 

strongly recommend that EPA drive its state stakeholder activities towards the 

goal of unanimity and uniformity of technical requirements. Disparate 

requirements and processes will increase cost, delay, and complexity and make 

the permitting process less predictable. Individual states should not develop 

regulations that are substantially more restrictive or prescriptive than that 

required by the EPA. Many states will also not have technical resources that are 

comparable to that of the US EPA. EPA’s stakeholder technical workshops had good 

representation from the EPA regions, but it appears that many states have not 

yet been engaged. To avoid this and the problems from a patchwork of permitting 

regulations, EPA should carefully but quickly consider and integrate input from 

a majority of state environmental protection and conservation and natural 

resource offices. 

Response: EPA agrees that a consistent approach to regulating GS activities across the United States

is important. For this reason, the Agency has finalized minimum federal requirements for GS

141
projects that owners or operators of Class VI (GS) wells must meet. EPA clarifies that states and

tribes seeking to implement the Class VI program may apply for primary enforcement responsibility

(primacy) under Section 1422 of SDWA. States and tribes must meet EPA's minimum federal

requirements for UIC programs by establishing permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and

corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, financial

responsibility, injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS well owners or

operators. Following primacy approval, programs will need to implement these minimum

requirements. 

EPA clarifies that SDWA, under section 1422(b)(3)(9)(A), requires that the regulations of the

Administrator "permit or provide for varying geologic, hydrological, or historical conditions in

different states and in different areas within a state." EPA has provided the Director discretion in

applying the GS requirements, taking into account varying conditions, particularly with regard to the

evaluation of site characteristics. 

To promote consistency while providing the Director with an appropriate level of discretion, EPA is

developing guidances for states and tribes that describe the process of applying for and receiving

primacy for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the technical and

administrative issues associated with developing GS regulations that are the equivalent of minimum

federal criteria and requirements. These are available on EPA’s website at

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

Commenter Name: Mark Bohrer Letter ID: 0241

Commenter Organization: North Dakota Industrial Commission Comment ID: 23223

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI

wells (seeking comment) 

Comment: 1. EPA seeks comment on any aspects of the ongoing State efforts to regulate the 

GS of CO2 and how these efforts might be used to better inform a final Federal 

rulemaking. EPA Notice 43497. 

The North Dakota Industrial Commission has drafted legislation concerning 

capture and storage of carbon dioxide to be acted upon during the upcoming 

legislative session in January 2009. This legislation was crafted using the 

IOGCC model. If the legislation is enacted, administrative rules will be 

promulgated. As with most regulatory programs, the states are best qualified to 

take state-specific issues into account and to tailor the regulatory needs to 

fit their unique circumstances. To this end, partial primacy for Class VI wells 

is imperative. 

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

142
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 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.

EPA recognizes that some states have already begun legislative efforts that are wider in scope than

the Federal GS rule and believes that allowing Class VI primacy (independent of other well classes)

may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of a more comprehensive approach to

managing CCS projects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration).

Commenter Name: Kevin Wanttaja Letter ID: 0248

Commenter Organization: Western Energy Supply and Transmission

Associates

Comment ID:

22241

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment: – EPA needs to design the UIC program to facilitate GS sites that can be 

utilized by many individual power plants that may not have ready access to 

geologically suitable GS sites in proximity to such plants. What will be needed 

is state, tribal and federal cooperation to develop regional storage sites that 

could accommodate CO2 from sources in several states. Development of such 

regional storage sites would allow critically needed sharing pore space in 

states that have the most favorable geology. 

Response: EPA encourages owners and operators and permitting authorities to coordinate where

143
multiple injection operations are planned, but notes that the rule does not require such coordination.

EPA notes that the impacts of multiple operators injecting into hydraulically connected formations

must be accounted for in the AoR modeling required at §146.84, which must be based on detailed

site-specific geologic data collected during the site characterization process including consideration

of existing conditions (e.g., current injection activities). Please see the discussion of AoR and

Corrective Action in the preamble to the final rule for additional information.

EPA adds that regulation of pore space ownership is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Kevin Wanttaja Letter ID: 0248

Commenter Organization: Western Energy Supply and Transmission

Associates

Comment ID:

22249

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program

primacy for Class VI wells 

Comment: – EPA's proposed UIC for CO2 GS rule needs to fully respect states' expertise in 

administering the current SDWA programs. The UIC for CO2 GS program needs to 

provide a reasonable process whereby individual states can obtain permitting and 

compliance primacy over regulation of EPA's proposed Class VI (CCS) wells. Many 

states already administer SDWA programs and a number of states are moving ahead 

with developing their own initiatives and regulations to solve other issues 

associated with CCS. However, EPA will need to consider how to handle projects 

that span multiple states, tribal lands, and other agency jurisdictions as 

commented earlier. EPA could establish a primary state in such multiple 

jurisdiction affected projects, along with a permitting and coordination process 

for permitting purposes would engage other affected states in providing for 

notice and comment by all stakeholders. This same principle may be applied to 

multiple agency jurisdictions, such as the BLM, the NPS, and other agencies. 

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,

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. 

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. The Agency will allow

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

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

144
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. 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

and plans, 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.

Commenter Name: James T. Sims Letter ID: 0249

Commenter Organization: Western Business Roundtable Comment ID: 22265

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 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. 

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. 

145
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 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/StateTribal 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. 

Commenter Name: Craig Hart Letter ID: 0261

Commenter Organization: Alston & Bird LLP Comment ID: 22987

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for

permit applications (seeking comment) 

Comment: Examples of Streamline Permitting in CCS Regimes and U.S. Environmental Law 

The State of Washington's Underground Injection Control Program allows 

streamline permitting under Class V for small-scale pilot injections of under 

1,000 metric tons or larger volumes by application.[FN5] Australia has adopted a 

146
phased permitting process, which includes an assessment permit.[FN6] 

[FN5] Wash. Admin. Code, 173-218-115(4)(b). 

[FN6] Nigel Bankes and Jenette Poschwatta, Australian Legislation on Carbon Capture 

and Storage: A Canadian Perspective (June 2008), available at 

www.iseee.cajfilesjiseeejbankesJesearch_paper.pdf. 

Response: EPA clarifies that, with the promulgation of the GS rule, it no longer considers it

appropriate to permit CO2 injection wells that are testing the injectivity or appropriateness of an

individual formation (e.g., as a prelude to a commercial-scale operation) as Class V experimental

technology wells. Such wells should be permitted as Class VI wells. EPA clarifies that Class V

experimental technology wells may be used for experimental projects designed to test new

technologies.

EPA is preparing an addendum to UICPG #83 that describes the use of the Class V experimental

technology well classification to clarify permitting for Class V wells. This addendum will address

shifting of Class V experimental projects to full-scale GS projects and the future use of the Class V

experimental technology well subclass for research and testing of new GS technologies. 

Throughout the regulatory development process for the Class VI regulation, EPA monitored states'

regulatory and legislative development efforts and approaches. In EPA's August 31, 2009, Notice of

Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment, the Agency described its ongoing monitoring

of states' regulatory efforts and approaches and how the Agency is considering this information as it

develops guidance on the primacy application and approval process for Class VI wells. Information

about these state activities may be found in the docket for the GS rule.

EPA disagrees with the suggestion that it should streamline or provide a different approval process

for small-volume operators. To protect USDWs from endangerment, EPA believes that the

information required to be submitted with the permit application under §146.82 is necessary and

appropriate to provide permitting authorities sufficient information on which to base informed

decisions about establishing permit conditions and granting permits. The purpose of these

requirements is to protect USDWs from endangerment, and like large-volume operations, smallvolume operations must be permitted and operated in manner that is protective of USDWs.

EPA clarifies that small scale, experimental research injection wells, such as those operated by the

Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships, will continue to be regulated as Class V experimental

wells as long as they remain small scale and of an experimental nature. Permitting of these wells is

addressed in UIC Program Guidance #83: Using the Class V Experimental Technology Well

Classification for Pilot Carbon Geologic Sequestration Projects.

Existing pilot projects will continue to be regulated under their Class V experimental well permits

and must meet the reporting requirements set forth in their individual permit. EPA expects that, as

the permits for these Class V projects expire, they will either be re-permitted as Class VI wells

(subject to reporting requirements at §146.91) or, if they continue to be of an experimental nature,

they may continue to be permitted as Class V experimental technology wells (subject to the

reporting requirements in the permit). EPA is preparing an addendum to UICPG #83 that describes

the use of the Class V experimental technology well classification following promulgation of the GS

Class VI rule. The guidance will address shifting of Class V experimental projects to full-scale GS

projects and the future use of the Class V experimental technology well subclass for research and

147
testing of new GS technology. The guidance will be available on EPA's web site, at

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

Commenter Name: Lee Sprague Letter ID: 0505

Commenter Organization: Sierra Club Comment ID: 21236

Comment: And while I agree there should be no standardized real-time monitoring of CO2, 

but local communities, however, and the EPA is clear that states can have 

additional requirements above the federal requirements for public and health and 

safety welfare. But I think you also need to be very explicit in telling the 

local planning authorities that issue the special use permits, or the permit, 

that they are allowed to take safeguards above the federal level, above the 

state level, that are more protective of human health and welfare in that 

specific location. 

The EPA, and regulations, do not take into account the entirety of the problems 

that local communities will face on a case by case basis. So, while you notice 

the states have an opportunity to have stricter regulations than the EPA, I 

think that you also need to notice, and the public notices to the local 

communities that local planning authorities also have the right to impose strict 

standards above and beyond EPA or state standards. 

Oftentimes, we also acknowledge local communities sometimes just defer to EPA or 

state standard, which can probably be standard. And sometimes this is not 

adequate to protect the very specific circumstances of a local community, where 

economic activities may take place in low lying areas for these kind of 

concerns. It could have impact on long range planning communities, and 

physically alter the environment in ways that may not be fully known at this 

point in time. 

Response: EPA clarifies that Section 1422 of the SDWA provides that states, territories, and

federally recognized tribes may apply to EPA for primary enforcement responsibility to administer

the UIC program. States and tribes must meet EPA's minimum federal requirements for UIC

programs by establishing permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well

construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, injection

well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS well owners or operators. EPA adds

that states may adopt more stringent standards for Class VI wells than the Federal requirements and

may act independently to manage development activities within their jurisdiction. EPA encourages

local governments to become informed about and involved in all aspects of the public process

associated with GS wells, but does not have the authority to authorize UIC program primacy for

local governments.

Commenter Name: Kevin Frederick Letter ID: 0525

Commenter Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality Comment ID: 21407

Comment: In closing, let me say that Wyoming is in the process of developing a CO2 

sequestration regulation. We are looking very closely at EPA's proposed rule as 

the model that we can use and apply in our state. We hope to have a draft of 

that regulation available before the end of the year and thank you for the 

opportunity to provide a public comment here today. 

148
Response: EPA recognizes the complexity and importance of states' approaches to managing GS

and is aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks,

regulations, workgroups, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS. 

Throughout the regulatory development process for the Class VI regulation, EPA monitored states'

regulatory and legislative development efforts and approaches. In EPA's August 31, 2009, Notice of

Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment, the Agency described its ongoing monitoring

of states' regulatory efforts and approaches and how the Agency is considering this information as it

develops guidance on the primacy application and approval process for Class VI wells. Information

about these state activities may be found in the docket for the GS rule.

Comment Code: 1540 1.2.3.2 Climate change legislation 

Individual Comments

Commenter Name: Victor B. Flatt Letter ID:

0103

Commenter Organization: The Center of Environment, Energy & Natural Resources

Law (EENR Center), University of Houston Law Center

Comment

ID: 22490

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1380 1.1.3.6 Deployment of GS 

Comment: However, we also believe that there are other barriers which may still impede 

the deployment of CCS, which cannot be addressed through existing legislative 

grants of power. Specifically, there are concerns governing short and long term 

liability, ownership issues, state and tribal sovereignty issues, and possible 

sequestration on the Outer Continental Shelf. Therefore, the Program for 

Interagency Cooperation is proposing legislation to address more of these 

barriers. It should be noted that while the Program for Interagency 

Environmental Cooperation supports the creation of new legislation to deal with 

CCS, much of the technical requirements which would be determined by the EPA 

under such proposed legislation are thoroughly addressed in this Proposed 

Rulemaking, meaning that the work and research done here would be equally useful 

in implementing the Program’s Proposed Legislation. 

Although the Call for Comments does not request legislative proposals, we 

provide the entire proposed legislation and accompanying white paper to provide 

context for evaluating whether this Proposed Final Rulemaking should also spur 

additional legislative action. While we support the Proposed Rule and the EPA 

moving forward with this Rule, the EPA also has the authority to suggest and 

comment on proposed legislation that furthers the agency’s environmental 

protection mandates. (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7609). We believe that in addition to 

implementing the Proposed Rule, that the EPA should also examine and suggest 

federal legislative changes that would further reduce legal and regulatory 

barriers to the deployment of CCS. 

Response: EPA clarifies that the SDWA does not provide EPA with specific authority to develop

UIC regulations for GS that are not directly related to protecting USDWs from endangerment; thus

149
EPA does not have authority under the SDWA to address issues related to CO2 pipelines, subsurface property rights, and capture and transport of CO2. EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not

address the status of CO2 as a pollutant or commodity. The UIC requirements regulate the injection

of fluids. EPA recognizes that liability is an important issue to owners or operators but the Agency

does not have authority under the SDWA to transfer long term liability from owners or operators to

the state or federal government. Therefore, liability remains with the owner or operator. 

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

Commenter Name: William Kovacs Letter ID: 0148

Commenter Organization: U.S. Chamber of Commerce Comment ID: 21768

Comment: A final possibility would be to pursue a legislative remedy -- ask Congress to 

address the issue -- in order to give this promising technology a chance to 

flourish or fail on its own merits. Similarly, Congress should be encouraged to 

appropriate money to fund the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy 

Independence and Security Act, which together contain over 130 new energy 

technology provisions. Funding these technologies would go a long way toward 

EPA’s stated goal of addressing climate change. 

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

regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final

GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

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

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

implementation phase of the GS regulation.

150
Commenter Name: James Dooley Letter ID: 0156

Commenter Organization: Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory

Comment ID:

22619

Comment: One simple to articulate but difficult /complex to answer question that must be 

resolved is: Is compliance with the requirements of a Class VI well rule 

sufficient to establish that CO2 has not been emitted to the atmosphere for the 

purposes of accounting for a firm’s annual CO2 emissions and therefore assessing 

that firm’s compliance with future climate policy? 

It is clear that the answer to this question is not a simple "yes" or "no." For 

example, there are good GS reservoir management practices that could lead to the 

intentional, controlled release of some previously injected CO2 that would not 

be consistent with creating verified CO2 emissions reductions. 

As the USEPA revises and finalizes this draft Class VI rule, it must begin to 

devote significant attention to these issues and begin to communicate and 

dialogue with numerous classes of stakeholders to get their input on how 

compliance with the Class VI rule will be integrated into a larger national 

climate policy. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that carbon crediting and greenhouse gas accounting are important

issues. However, these issues are outside of the UIC Program's authority under the Safe Drinking

Water Act and outside the scope of this rulemaking. The UIC requirements are designed to ensure

that where GS is employed, it is done in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

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

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

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

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

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

Program rulemaking and docket.

Commenter Name: James Dooley Letter ID: 0156

Commenter Organization: Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory

Comment ID:

22621

151
Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program

primacy for Class VI wells 

Comment: On the Issue of Primacy: An Example of the Challenge Inherent in "Filling in the 

Missing Linkages between Class VI Rule and a Larger National Climate Policy" 

Given the need to link the issuance and compliance with a Class VI injection 

permit to a larger national climate policy and eventually the need to link that 

U.S. national climate policy to an international climate policy regime, careful 

consideration should be given about how high the bar should be set for granting 

primacy to States, Territories, and Tribes. There is a significant imperative 

to make sure that CCS derived emissions reductions are comparable (and more 

precisely fungible) with GHG emission reductions obtained by implementing other 

greenhouse gas mitigation technologies and measures. A delicate balance must be 

sought between the desire to delegate authority to the local level with a need 

to preserve a sufficient level of national uniformity in how CO2 storage is 

carried out in practice. At a very minimum, the USEPA needs to recognize and 

reject as insufficient such reasoning that says because a state has shown that 

it can handle the Class II program they should also be given primacy for Class 

VI wells. The requirements to eventually integrate this proposed Class VI rule 

which in its present form is bounded by the SDWA into a much larger climate 

protection regulatory structure implies that the decision to grant primacy must 

be deliberate and must explicitly take account of how it would complicate the 

smooth and efficient functioning of a national climate policy. 

The degree to which EPA changes what is proposed as a common federal rule for 

Class VI CO2 storage wells because some states might be further along in the 

development of their own CO2 storage regulations (see for example discussion of 

"Who implements the UIC program" p. 43497) must also take into account the need 

for an owner/operator of CCS infrastructure to eventually be able to take CO2 

injected under a class VI permit in Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, California, 

Washington State, etc. and turn that into a tradable/fungible emissions 

reduction credit (or a verified non-emission) that could be used to satisfy the 

requirements of a national climate policy. The degree to which the federal 

class VI CO2 storage policy should be amended to allow for discrepancies in how 

individual states are currently planning on regulating CO2 storage must take 

into account the need to create an economically efficient national climate 

change policy. This consideration goes well beyond the boundaries of the SDWA 

but it must be addressed by the USEPA as a whole if this proposed Class VI 

storage rule is to be put into practice (e.g., if this issue is not resolved it 

is hard to see the private sector motivation for deploying CCS technologies even 

if the Class VI rule is in place). 

Response: EPA agrees that it is important to balance flexibility and national consistency. EPA

clarifies that the primacy approval processes for Class II and Class VI differ. The SDWA directs

EPA to grant primary enforcement responsibility (or primacy) to the States through two statutory

provisions. The first provision, under Section 1422, provides for States to demonstrate that their

proposed UIC program is at least as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements in order to

prevent endangerment of USDWs. The second provision, under Section 1425, allows States to

submit an alternative demonstration for their Class II programs (oil and gas) where the State only

has to demonstrate that its proposed Class II program is an effective program to prevent underground

152
injection that endangers USDWs. 

EPA acknowledges the expertise of state oil and gas agencies that have been regulating Class II

wells for decades under section 1425 of SDWA. These agencies already understand many of the

issues pertaining to Class VI wells and have experience with CO2 injection, subsurface operations,

and pipeline transport, as well as familiarity with local interests and the SDWA. EPA assumes that

this experience, along with the agencies' familiarity with UIC permitting requirements, will help

facilitate the adoption of Class VI primacy programs and assumes that many states with Class II

programs will choose to have the Class II primacy agency implement the Class VI program.

However, EPA clarifies that, while there are many similarities between Class II and Class VI wells,

additional requirements are needed to fully address the unique nature of Class VI wells for CO2 GS,

and because GS wells are not oil and gas wells, they must be regulated under authority of Section

1422 of SDWA. 

EPA believes that the requirement that states' regulations meet the minimum federal requirements

will promote national consistency. To further ensure the final rule is applied consistently, EPA is

developing guidance documents 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.

EPA acknowledges that some states and tribes are developing statutory frameworks, regulations,

technical guidance, and strategies for addressing broader issues related to CCS and GS, and

encourages states to seek primacy for Class VI wells to further these efforts.

EPA acknowledges that carbon crediting and greenhouse gas accounting are important issues.

However, these issues are outside of the UIC Program's authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act

and outside the scope of this rulemaking. The UIC requirements are designed to ensure that where

GS is employed, it is done in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. All of the

requirements of the GS rule are for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment, consistent

with the UIC Program's authority under SDWA. 

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

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

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

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

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

Program rulemaking and docket. 

Commenter Name: James Dooley Letter ID: 0156

Commenter Organization: Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory

Comment ID:

22622

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 2320 1.7.2 Comments on Alternative 1 

Comment: Page 43504. In laying out its reasoning for why it did not select Regulatory 

Alternative Number 1 as the basis of the proposed Class VI rule, the USEPA 

correctly notes that there is value in having a common federal approach as there 

are many potential CCS adopters that will operate facilities in numerous 

different states. This is true and it is appropriate for USEPA to note this. It 

is also important to realize that there are numerous reasons for pursuing a 

153
common federal approach and that decision will cascade through numerous parts of 

the proposed rule and how it is implemented in practice and how it is integrated 

into a future national climate policy. 

Response: As described above, EPA agrees that a consistent approach to regulating GS activities

across the United States is important. 

EPA believes that the technical requirements in Regulatory Alternative 3 build upon the existing 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 being anticipated for long-term storage, the

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

This approach provides a foundation for national consistency in permitting of GS projects, promotes

USDW protection, incorporates flexibility or the discretion of the permitting authority when

appropriate, and seeks to limit burden on owners or operators and permitting agencies. The tailored

approach in this alternative (and the final GS rule) modifies the existing UIC requirements for site

characterization, area of review, well construction, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well

plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure, to address full-scale GS. 

Commenter Name: Theresa Pugh Letter ID: 0169

Commenter Organization: American Public Power Association Comment ID: 23389

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: Some personnel at the U.S. EPA and members of Congress often assume falsely that 

CCS or GS is commercially deployable now in all states based upon the success in 

the half dozen or perhaps as many as a dozen oil/gas production states. The 

development of a national viable and workable CO2 capture and sequestration 

permitting program is one of the key prerequisites to the implementation of 

contemplated energy reform initiatives-ranging from state laws that force 

reductions in CO2 to pending new Federal legislation to require a national cap 

(on CO2 emissions.) APPA’s comments are offered here on the UIC permitting 

system are valid regardless to whatever "carbon signal" there might be to reduce 

CO2 from power plants. Even if there is no new national law setting a carbon 

emissions limit, intensity limit, carbon tax, or new generation requirement, 

states also have the ability to set state by state limits on 16 carbon dioxide 

emissions from power plants under separate state CO2 laws. APPA does not like 

patchwork quilt state by state regulatory approaches to reduce CO2 through 

different laws and regulations. It is entirely too soon to know what Congress 

might do. At this time, we have no clue what Congress might do in the future to 

constrain CO2 that would motivate any party to reduce CO2 from coal or natural 

gas plants. APPA’s comments are neutral as to the new legislative mechanism that 

would "constrain carbon". These technical, logistical, or cost issues are valid 

regardless of why utilities would want to inject CO2 under any carbon dioxide 

mitigation standard, reduction policy, or law. 

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

regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final

GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal

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

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

154
Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

EPA is also aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks,

regulations, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS. States can use multiple

authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA and UIC regulations, including laws and policies

addressing surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights,

worker safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of state oil and gas resource

exploitation. EPA plans to work closely with states and tribes as they develop Class VI primacy

programs in this broader context. EPA adds that states may adopt more stringent standards for Class

VI wells than the Federal requirements. 

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

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

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

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

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

Program rulemaking and docket.

Commenter Name: Frederick R. Eames Letter ID: 0178

Commenter Organization: CCS Alliance Comment ID: 23800

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS

(capture, transport) 

Comment: Single, Clear Regulatory Structure 

There should be a single, clear regulatory structure applicable to CCS rather 

than multiple, ill-suited regulatory and liability statutes and regulations that 

likely will discourage CCS To that end, the CCS Alliance believes that a 

beneficial approach would be to enact at the federal level a new regulatory 

structure specific to CCS. 

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

regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final

GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

155
CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule. 

EPA is also aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks,

regulations, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS. States can use multiple

authorities beyond those afforded under the SDWA and UIC regulations, including laws and policies

addressing surface access and land rights, unitization of fields, pore space ownership, mineral rights,

worker safety and emergency preparedness, and maximization of state oil and gas resource

exploitation. EPA plans to work closely with states and tribes as they develop Class VI primacy

programs in this broader context. EPA adds that states may adopt more stringent standards for Class

VI wells than the Federal requirements. 

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

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

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

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

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

Program rulemaking and docket.

Commenter Name: Mary Munn Letter ID: 0273

Commenter Organization: Fond du Lac Reservation Comment ID: 24081

Comment: General The proposed rule is quite specific and seeks to compartmentalize 

comments only to the endangerment that may be caused to underground sources of 

drinking water (USDW). However, the proposal goes on to state that the Class VI 

injection wells are to be one approach "that could be deployed to reduce CO2 

emissions to the atmosphere and help to mitigate climate change." 

While such specificity allows for a focused approach, if approved, it may allow 

Class II wells to be used for GS of CO2 under the rule. The use of Class II 

wells for GS of CO2 will likely allow carbon credits in one form or another, 

even though the injected CO2 would be used to enhance the extraction of 

additional fossil fuels (oil or natural gas), which when consumed releases CO2, 

impeding rather than mitigating CO2 emissions. 

If the proposed wells are to be a part of a climate mitigation strategy, 

supporting data must be supplied to verify that goal. 

Response: EPA clarifies that carbon crediting and climate change mitigation are outside of the UIC

Program's authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The UIC requirements are designed to

ensure that, where GS is employed, it is done in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

All of the requirements of the GS rule are for the purpose of protecting USDWs, consistent with the

UIC Program's authority under SDWA. 

EPA clarifies that injection of CO2 for the purpose 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. Class VI

requirements will apply to wells used for the purpose of long-term GS. 

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

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

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

156
additional information, see the section of the final GS rule preamble entitled, "How Does Mandatory

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

Program rulemaking and docket.

Commenter Name: Mary Munn Letter ID: 0273

Commenter Organization: Fond du Lac Reservation Comment ID: 24087

Comment: · If carbon credits are developed, they must not apply to other UIC wells except 

specific Class V experimental wells. To use sequestered carbon dioxide under the 

auspices of this rule, to enhance the recovery of additional fossil fuels is 

imprudent and illogical. 

Response: As described above, EPA clarifies that carbon crediting is outside of the UIC Program's

authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act and outside the scope of this rulemaking.

Commenter Name: Scott Anderson Letter ID: 0295

Commenter Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Comment ID: 26137

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

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

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

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

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

sequestration that will continue after climate legislation is enacted. 

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

available at: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USDWs from endangerment.

Commenter Name: Paul Pike Letter ID: 0535

Commenter Organization: Ameren Corporation on behalf of Utility Solid Waste

Activities Group (USWAG)

Comment ID:

21438

Other EPA Comment Codes and Descriptions: 1930 1.4.4.2 Consultations with State, Tribal, and

local Associations (e.g., GWPC, IOGCC) 

Comment: USWAG recognizes that while there are some measures Agency can take in the 

regulatory context to address these concerns, those measures may be limited. In 

the end USWAG also believes that the Agency should consider whether legislative 

solutions will be necessary and if so, we strongly support that they take such 

action. Because state regulators have worked extensively with permitting the 

157
existing injection wells, we believe that we should work with those agencies to 

continue and to have implementation of the Class VI rules by the states would be 

crucial to the UIC program. 

Response: EPA agrees that states should implement the Class VI rule. EPA believes that allowing

states to obtain Class VI primacy may encourage them 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 are outside UIC authority to provide a more comprehensive CCS

management approach. EPA acknowledges that some states and tribes are developing statutory

frameworks, regulations, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing broader issues related to

CCS and GS, and encourages states to seek primacy for Class VI wells to further these efforts.

EPA agrees that GS is a key climate change mitigation technology that is part of a portfolio of

options that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. EPA clarifies that the scope of this GS

regulation is limited to underground injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are

designed to ensure protect USDWs from endangerment.

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

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

Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g.,

with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy

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

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

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

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

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

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

and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the

discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and

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

158