This comment letter response contains two parts:   

(1) The original submittal from the commenter.

(2) A data base printout of EPA’s response to each point raised by the commenter.

Notes about the response letters:

• The response letters were generated by a data base used to track the content of all public

comment submittals and ensure that the Agency responds to each. Each comment letter

was assigned a Letter ID that corresponds to the last four digits of the docket number of the

original comment (as posted on www.regulations.gov).

• Each response letter includes: comment text; an EPA‐assigned comment code; and an

individual response. These are described and explained below.  

• The data base contains Comment text from the letters submitted by commenters.  

Many hard copy letters were scanned into electronic format for inclusion in the data

base. As a result, there may be some typographical errors attributable to optical

character recognition issues.  However, all original submittals were reviewed in the

process of drafting responses to ensure that the comment content was understood and

appropriately addressed.

• The content of each comment letter was divided into topic areas and assigned a unique

Comment ID.  Additionally, one or more Comment Codes (i.e., unique topic area ID) was

assigned to each discrete point raised by a commenter. This information was added to

the data base. To inform final rulemaking decisions, all comments and information

received on a given topic were reviewed by technical experts in each rule area (e.g., on

construction requirements).  

• Following decisions on the final rule requirements, Individual responses were drafted

by topic area to ensure completeness and consistency of the responses with the final

rule and other responses to similar comments.  Each discrete point made by a

commenter was given a unique response.

• Upon completion of comment responses, all information was entered into the data base.

Each letter response is a compilation of each comment and its individual response,

compiled in the order of the original comment letter.  As a result of this process, there is

repetition in the response text.  The Agency believes this approach ensures completeness

and attention to each comment letter that was submitted.   

• All comments in a topic area were reviewed, evaluated, and responded to concurrently.  

Responses on each topic area are compiled and are also available in the rulemaking docket.
~tah of ~ f:fu mf:rsf:U

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

MARK N. MAURIELLO

Acting Commissioner

JON S. CORZINE

Governor Policy, Planning and Science

401 East State Street, 7th floor

P .0. Box 402

Trenton,NJ 08625-0402

Tel: (609) 431-5311

Fax: (609) 292-3268

October 15,2009

Water Docket

Environmental Protection Agency

Mailcode 4101T

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460

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

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Federal Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control

(UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geological Sequestration (GS) Wells; Notice of Data Availability and

Request for Comment.

Our comments address four issues:

I.

2.

3.

4.

State discretion with respect to adoption of an injection depth waiver process

Need for a more comprehensive regulatory framework for geological sequestration beyond the scope of the

Safe Drinking Water Act

Regulation of sub-seabed geological sequestration of CO2

Proposed technical criteria for permitting geological sequestration wells

State discretion with respect to adoption of an injection depth waiver process

In the August 31,2009 Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment (NODA), the EPA requested

comment on a proposed waiver process that would allow as injection above and between Underground Sources of

Drinking Water (USDWs) under specific conditions in lieu of a blanket prohibition on injection above and between

USDWs.

We support the EPA 's approach in this NODA that adoption of any such injection depth waiver process should be at

the discretion of the UIC Program Director, and that UIC Programs in States may instead adopt and enforce the

proposed requirements that injection for as be below the lowermost USDW.

Further, we appreciate that EP A reiterates in the NODA that States and UIC Directors have discretion to be more

stringent in writing regulations for as and/or adopting Federal UIC requirements. As such, States have discretion to

include a minimum injection depth requirement in their regulations; or, as an alternate approach, Directors may impose such requirements on a site-specific basis. ,

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Printed on Recycled Paper and Recyclable
Need for a more comprehensive regulatory framework for geological sequestration beyond the scope of the

Safe Drinking Water Act

The NODA states that in response to the July 25, 2008 proposed rule, "Federal Requirements Under the

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geological Sequestration (GS) Wells,"

EP A received a number of comments recommending that the Agency explore environmental and regulatory issues

beyond the scope of the proposed Safe Drinking Water Act requirements for underground injection of CO2 for

geological sequestration.

The NODA states that EP A is currently evaluating the need for a more comprehensive regulatory framework for as

sequestration, and that in developing such a framework, the Agency would consider the potential applicability of

other Federal environmental statutes such as the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Clean Water Act to various

aspects of geologic sequestration of CO2°

We add our voice to those commenters who have urged the Administrator to pursue a more comprehensive

regulatory approach to as rulemaking. In particular, we urge that the Agency consider the potential applicability of

Federal Statutes that would address various aspects of sub-seabed as.

Regulation of sub-seabed geological sequestration of CO2

Whether EP A pursues a stand-alone UIC GS rulemaking or a more comprehensive regulatory approach, we urge

that the EPA include in its rulemaking provisions that would address issues related to sub-seabedGS ofCO2.

Regulation under a stand-alone UIC OS rulemaking.

According to the July 25,2008 proposed rulemaking, the proposal applies to injection wells in the U.S. including

those in State territorial waters. Deep saline aquifers offshore New Jersey have been identified by geologists as

potential sub-seabed GS sites, both in New Jersey State territorial waters and in Federal waters.

In New Jersey, as well as some other coastal States, some geological formations that serve as onshore USDWs

extend offshore beneath the seabed. Given that fact, is imperative that a regulations pertaining to GS for the

purposes of protecting USDWs must take into account conditions in the marine environment that may impact

geologic siting requirements, Area of Review, well construction and operation; mechanical integrity testing and

monitoring; well plugging; post-injection site care; plume monitoring, measurement and verification, and site

closure.

In addition, regulations should take into account a number of potential scenarios that could occur in coastal areas

with respect to the spatial relationship between the injection site and the sequestration site. Specifically, the

injection site may be located onshore or offshore, and the sequestration site may be located onshore or offshore.

In the case of an onshore injection site, the sequestration site may be either offshore in State territorial waters,

offshore in Federal waters, or may straddle State and Federal waters. When the injection site is onshore, transport of

CO2 to the sequestration site may involve a pipeline that is situated either on the seabed or sub-seabed. The

proposed rule does not address issues of pipeline integrity, monitoring, or remediation.

In the case of an offshore injection site in State waters, the sequestration site may be located in State waters, Federal

waters, or may straddle State and Federal waters. Issues of pipeline integrity arise if injection is in State waters and

sequestration is in Federal waters.

All of these scenarios raise potential issues of contamination ofUSDWs. We urge the EPA to consider differences

between terrestrial and marine environments when considering appropriate regulations for GS.
Regulation under a more comprehensive regulatory framework

The July 25, 2005 proposed rule indicates that wells up to three miles offshore may be subject to other authorities or

may require approval under other authorities. It appears from the proposal that wells located outside of State

territorial waters would not be regulated under this proposal. We recommend that EP A consider the potential

applicability of Federal Statutes that would address various aspects of sub-seabed as both in State and Federal

waters in its rulemaking.

In September 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy announced grant awards for two projects to conduct site

characterization of promising offshore geologic formations for CO2 storage: Terralog Technologies USA, Inc,

investigating formations offshore Los Angeles, CA; and University of Texas at Austin, investigating formations

offshore Texas in the Gulf of Mexico.

In addition, the State of New Jersey is currently in the process of joining the USDOE-sponsored Midwest Regional

Carbon Sequestration Partnership to conduct an assessment of geological sequestration capacity in New Jersey and

the adjacent offshore region.

Given the USDOE's demonstrated interest in pursuing sub-seabed storage ofCO2, and given the likeliness that some

sequestration sites (and their associated CO2plumes) will either be in Federal waters, or will straddle State and

Federal waters, it is imperative that a regulatory framework be put in place that will address issues associated with

these conditions.

Federal Statutes that may have applicability include, but may not be limited to, the Marine Protection Research and

Sanctuaries Act, relating to regulation of dumping of materials into ocean waters; and the Outer Continental Shelf

Lands Act, relating to U.S. Department of Interior authority to issue leases for activities on the Outer Continental

Shelf relating to energy sources other than oil and gas. A proposed regulatory framework should address issues of

jurisdiction where more than one Federal agency may have authority over protection of marine environments

It should be noted that the NODA seeks comment based on data and finding that have been generated by the pilot

and demonstration projects conducted by the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships. The Partnerships have

not conducted any pilot or demonstration projects involving sub-seabed sequestration. We are concerned about the

lack of availability of data that could inform EP A in its rulemaking, and would urge the Agency to seek out expert

guidance regarding specific geological conditions offshore the U.S., as well as expert guidance on technical and

scientific issues relating to sub-seabed sequestration of CO2.

Proposed technical criteria for permitting geological sequestration wells

The following comments are on the July 25,2008 proposed rules under 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146 Geologic

Sequestration (GS) Wells.

Pages 43505 to 43506- Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements

There are no minimum criteria for either the thickness or the permeability of the confining zone. Although there may

be some rationality in lithified (solid rock) formations, in unconsolidated coastal plain formations the thickness and

permeabilities are critical. In the New Jersey Coastal Plain there are many pump tests that demonstrated effects on

overlying aquifers even when separated by 50 feet of less than lE-08 clay. Note the permeability should be for the

CO2 in the state being injected, gaseous or super critical CO2.

Pages 43598 to 43510- Proposed Injection Well Construction Requirements

Some states such as New Jersey have well construction requirements which are stricter than the oil industry

standards, and in those cases the state regulations should be followed down through all of the fresh water aquifers
into the confining layer above the target zone. New Jersey requires a 2 inch annulus, and generally the oil industry

requires a 1 inch annulus. New Jersey has a standard for the maximum permeability of a grout. New Jersey requires

the entire annulus be grouted to the surface. In the coastal areas where there is potential for salt water intrusion into

underlying aquifers from shallow saline aquifers there is a requirement that the well be double-cased with all

annuluses permanently sealed.

Pages 43514 to 43517- Proposed Plume and Pressure Front Monitoring Requirements

At a minimum there should be a monitoring well set just above the confming layer at every site the injection zone

has a monitoring well. There also should be a monitoring well above the confining layer at the site of the injection

well.

Pages 43518 to 43520- Proposed Well Plugging, Post- Injection Site Care, and Site Closure Requirements

The well sealing requirements should meet the state standards, if more stringent than the federal standards. For New

Jersey, the entire confining layer and fresh water aquifer zones should properly sealed with a grout that meets the

state and EPA standards. The permeability tests on the grout should be done using the CO2 stream that was injected

into the well.

Page 43536- section 145.82- Require Class VI permit information

In (b) it is indicated that only information of public record is required to be on the map. ALL known information

public and confidential should be required to be on the map. There may mineral exploration drill holes or mapping

that shows significant open shear zones or faults that may allow migration from the injection zone to the fresh water

aquifers.

Page 43537- section 146.86- Injection well construction requirements

The injection and monitoring wells should meet the state standards down through all freshwater zones if the state

standard is more stringent than the fed.eral standard.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment. Please

feel free to contact my office if we may be of any assistance.
Letter ID: 0361  

Commenter: Jeanne Herb  

Organization: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP)  

Letter ID: 0361 Comment ID: 28244 Letter Lines: 40 to 58  

Comment Code: 3390 3.3.9. Comments Regarding State Discretion to Adopt the Waiver Approach  

Comment: State discretion with respect to adoption of an injection depth waiver process  

In the august 31,2009 notice of data availability and request for comment  

(noda), the epa requested comment on a proposed waiver process that would allow  

as injection above and between underground sources of drinking water (usdws)  

under specific conditions in lieu of a blanket prohibition on injection above  

and between usdws.  

We support the EPA 's approach in this NODA that adoption of any such injection  

depth waiver process should be at the discretion of the UIC Program Director,  

and that UIC Programs in States may instead adopt and enforce the proposed  

requirements that injection for as be below the lowermost USDW.  

Further, we appreciate that EP A reiterates in the NODA that States and UIC  

Directors have discretion to be more stringent in writing regulations for as  

and/or adopting Federal UIC requirements. As such, States have discretion to  

include a minimum injection depth requirement in their regulations; or, as an  

alternate approach, Directors may impose such requirements on a site specific  

basis.  

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that adoption of the waiver process remains at the discretion of

individual UIC programs. Therefore, States, Territories, and Tribes seeking primacy for Class VI wells are

not required to provide for injection depth waivers in their UIC regulations and may choose not to make

this process available to Class VI wells under their jurisdiction. Although some commenters asked EPA to

require that waivers be applied nationally, the Agency believes that the decision about whether a waiver

program is appropriate in a specific State, Tribe, or Territory should be made by each program. This

approach allows flexibility for individual program Directors to determine the appropriateness of allowing

for waivers based on regional or state‐specific conditions, such as the predominant geologic settings

anticipated to be used for GS or other land uses in the state while ensuring maximum protection of

USDWs. The final approach for injection depth waivers represents minimum Federal requirements. UIC

program Directors may adopt GS requirements that do not allow injection above or between USDWs if
they determine this to be appropriate (for conditions in their State, territory, Tribe, or Region) and

protective.  

Letter ID: 0361 Comment ID: 28245 Letter Lines: 60 to 79  

Comment Code: 1100 1.1 Comments on the Comprehensive Approach  

Comment: Need for a more comprehensive regulatory framework for geological sequestration  

beyond the scope of the Safe Drinking Water Act  

The NODA states that in response to the July 25, 2008 proposed rule, "Federal  

Requirements Under the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon  

Dioxide (CO2) Geological Sequestration (GS) Wells," EP A received a number of  

comments recommending that the Agency explore environmental and regulatory  

issues beyond the scope of the proposed Safe Drinking Water Act requirements for  

underground injection of CO2 for geological sequestration.  

The NODA states that EP A is currently evaluating the need for a more  

comprehensive regulatory framework for as sequestration, and that in developing  

such a framework, the Agency would consider the potential applicability of other  

Federal environmental statutes such as the Clean Air Act, the Resource  

Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response,  

Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Clean Water Act to various aspects of  

geologic sequestration of CO2°  

We add our voice to those commenters who have urged the Administrator to pursue  

a more comprehensive regulatory approach to as rulemaking. In particular, we  

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

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

rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices 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.  
Regarding sub‐seabed GS, EPA clarifies that sub‐seabed CO2 injection for GS may, in certain

circumstances, be defined as ocean dumping and subject to regulation under the Marine Protection,

Research, and Sanctuaries Act. EPA adds that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and

Enforcement (BOEM), formerly the Minerals Management Service, administers the Outer Continental

Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which provides for the grant of leases, easements, or rights‐of‐way on the

outer continental shelf to the extent that an activity “supports production, transportation, or

transmission of energy from sources other than oil and gas” and complies with the other provisions of

OCSLA section 8(p).  

For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to

Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.  

Letter ID: 0361 Comment ID: 28246 Letter Lines: 79 to 126  

Comment Code: 6000 6. Other Comments that are Out of Scope for the NODA  

Comment: a more comprehensive regulatory approach to as rulemaking. In particular, we  

urge that the Agency consider the potential applicability of Federal Statutes  

that would address various aspects of sub‐seabed GS.  

Regulation of sub‐seabed geological sequestration of CO2  

Whether EP A pursues a stand‐alone UIC GS rulemaking or a more comprehensive  

regulatory approach, we urge that the EPA include in its rulemaking provisions  

that would address issues related to sub‐seabed GS of CO2.  

Regulation under a stand‐alone UIC GS rulemaking.  

According to the July 25, 2008 proposed rulemaking, the proposal applies to  

injection wells in the U.S. including those in State territorial waters. Deep  

saline aquifers offshore New Jersey have been identified by geologists as  

potential sub‐seabed GS sites, both in New Jersey State territorial waters and  

in Federal waters.  

In New Jersey, as well as some other coastal States, some geological formations  

that serve as onshore USDWs extend offshore beneath the seabed. Given that fact,  

is imperative that a regulations pertaining to GS for the purposes of protecting  

USDWs must take into account conditions in the marine environment that may  

impact geologic siting requirements, Area of Review, well construction and  

operation; mechanical integrity testing and monitoring; well plugging; post‐  
injection site care; plume monitoring, measurement and verification, and site  

closure.  

In addition, regulations should take into account a number of potential  

scenarios that could occur in coastal areas with respect to the spatial  

relationship between the injection site and the sequestration site.  

Specifically, the injection site may be located onshore or offshore, and the  

sequestration site may be located onshore or offshore.  

In the case of an onshore injection site, the sequestration site may be either  

offshore in State territorial waters, offshore in Federal waters, or may  

straddle State and Federal waters. When the injection site is onshore, transport  

of CO2 to the sequestration site may involve a pipeline that is situated either  

on the seabed or sub‐seabed. The proposed rule does not address issues of  

pipeline integrity, monitoring, or remediation.  

In the case of an offshore injection site in State waters, the sequestration  

site may be located in State waters, Federal waters, or may straddle State and  

Federal waters. Issues of pipeline integrity arise if injection is in State  

waters and sequestration is in Federal waters.  

All of these scenarios raise potential issues of contamination ofUSDWs. We urge  

the EPA to consider differences between terrestrial and marine environments when  

considering appropriate regulations for GS.  

Individual Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Notice of Data Availability and the UIC

Program’s authority under the GS rulemaking.  

Letter ID: 0361 Comment ID: 28247 Letter Lines: 128 to 136  

Comment Code: 1100 1.1 Comments on the Comprehensive Approach  

Comment Code: 6000 6. Other Comments that are Out of Scope for the NODA  

Comment: Regulation under a more comprehensive regulatory framework  

The July 25, 2005 proposed rule indicates that wells up to three miles offshore  

may be subject to other authorities or may require approval under other  

authorities. It appears from the proposal that wells located outside of State  

territorial waters would not be regulated under this proposal. We recommend that  

EP A consider the potential applicability of Federal Statutes that would address  
various aspects of sub‐seabed as both in State and Federal waters in its  

rulemaking.  

Individual Response: The GS rulemaking, promulgated under SDWA authority, applies to owners and

operators of injection wells used for GS of CO2, including those in state territorial waters. Injection wells

outside of state territorial waters may be subject to other federal authorities. For example, sub‐seabed

CO2 injection for GS may, in certain circumstances, be defined as ocean dumping and subject to

regulation under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. EPA adds that the Bureau of

Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEM), formerly the Minerals Management

Service, administers the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which provides for the grant of

leases, easements, or rights‐of‐way on the outer continental shelf to the extent that an activity

“supports production, transportation, or transmission of energy from sources other than oil and gas”

and complies with the other provisions of OCSLA section 8(p).  

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.  

Letter ID: 0361 Comment ID: 28248 Letter Lines: 138 to 147  

Comment Code: 2400 2.4. Other Research Offered by Commenters (seeking comment)  

Comment: In September 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy announced grant awards for two  

projects to conduct site characterization of promising offshore geologic  

formations for CO2 storage: Terralog Technologies USA, Inc, investigating  

formations offshore Los Angeles, CA; and University of Texas at Austin,  

investigating formations offshore Texas in the Gulf of Mexico.  

In addition, the State of New Jersey is currently in the process of joining the  

USDOE‐sponsored Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership to conduct an  
assessment of geological sequestration capacity in New Jersey and the adjacent  

offshore region.  

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the submittal. EPA is aware of the GS projects described and

will continue to review studies of this nature. EPA intends to continue to collect data on GS and to

incorporate such data and information as it implements its adaptive approach to the GS rulemaking to

incorporate new research, data, and information about GS. For more information on the adaptive

approach, see the responses to comments on the proposed rule in the rulemaking docket.  

Letter ID: 0361 Comment ID: 28249 Letter Lines: 149 to 162  

Comment Code: 6000 6. Other Comments that are Out of Scope for the NODA  

Comment: Given the USDOE's demonstrated interest in pursuing sub‐seabed storage ofCO2,  

and given the likeliness that some sequestration sites (and their associated  

CO2plumes) will either be in Federal waters, or will straddle State and Federal  

waters, it is imperative that a regulatory framework be put in place that will  

address issues associated with these conditions.  

Federal Statutes that may have applicability include, but may not be limited to,  

the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, relating to regulation of  

dumping of materials into ocean waters; and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands  

Act, relating to U.S. Department of Interior authority to issue leases for  

activities on the Outer Continental Shelf relating to energy sources other than  

oil and gas. A proposed regulatory framework should address issues of  

jurisdiction where more than one Federal agency may have authority over  

protection of marine environments  

Individual Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Notice of Data Availability and the UIC

Program’s authority under the GS rulemaking.  

Letter ID: 0361 Comment ID: 28251 Letter Lines: 173 to 186  

Comment Code: 5100 5.2. Comments on the Proposed Siting Requirements (146.83)  

Comment: Proposed technical criteria for permitting geological sequestration wells  

The following comments are on the July 25,2008 proposed rules under 40 CFR Parts  

144 and 146 Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells.  
Pages 43505 to 43506‐ Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements  

There are no minimum criteria for either the thickness or the permeability of  

the confining zone. Although there may be some rationality in lithified (solid  

rock) formations, in unconsolidated coastal plain formations the thickness and  

permeabilities are critical. In the New Jersey Coastal Plain there are many pump  

tests that demonstrated effects on overlying aquifers even when separated by 50  

feet of less than lE‐08 clay. Note the permeability should be for the CO2 in the  

state being injected, gaseous or super critical CO2.  

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.  

Letter ID: 0361 Comment ID: 28252 Letter Lines: 188 to 199  

Comment Code: 5250 5.5. Comments on the Proposed Construction Requirements (146.86)  

Comment: Pages 43598 to 43510‐ Proposed Injection Well Construction Requirements  

Some states such as New Jersey have well construction requirements which are  

stricter than the oil industry standards, and in those cases the state  

regulations should be followed down through all of the fresh water aquifers into  

the confining layer above the target zone. New Jersey requires a 2 inch annulus,  

and generally the oil industry requires a 1 inch annulus. New Jersey has a  

standard for the maximum permeability of a grout. New Jersey requires the entire  

annulus be grouted to the surface. In the coastal areas where there is potential  

for salt water intrusion into underlying aquifers from shallow saline aquifers  

there is a requirement that the well be double‐cased with all annuluses  

permanently sealed.  

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.  

Letter ID: 0361 Comment ID: 28253 Letter Lines: 201 to 205  

Comment Code: 5450 5.9. Comments on the Proposed Monitoring Requirements (146.90)  
Comment: Pages 43514 to 43517‐ Proposed Plume and Pressure Front Monitoring Requirements  

At a minimum there should be a monitoring well set just above the confining layer  

at every site the injection zone has a monitoring well. There also should be a  

monitoring well above the confining layer at the site of the injection well.  

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.  

Letter ID: 0361 Comment ID: 28254 Letter Lines: 207 to 214  

Comment Code: 5550 5.11. Comments on the Proposed Well Plugging Requirements (146.92)  

Comment: Pages 43518 to 43520‐ Proposed Well Plugging, Post‐ Injection Site Care, and  

Site Closure Requirements  

The well sealing requirements should meet the state standards, if more stringent  

than the federal standards. For New Jersey, the entire confining layer and fresh  

water aquifer zones should properly sealed with a grout that meets the state and  

EPA standards. The permeability tests on the grout should be done using the CO2  

stream that was injected into the well.  

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.  

Letter ID: 0361 Comment ID: 28255 Letter Lines: 216 to 222  

Comment Code: 5050 5.1. Comments on the Proposed Permit Application Information (146.82)  

Comment: Page 43536‐ section 145.82‐ Require Class VI permit information  

In (b) it is indicated that only information of public record is required to be  

on the map. ALL known information public and confidential should be required to  

be on the map. There may mineral exploration drill holes or mapping that shows  

significant open shear zones or faults that may allow migration from the  

injection zone to the fresh water aquifers.  
Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.  

Letter ID: 0361 Comment ID: 28256 Letter Lines: 224 to 228  

Comment Code: 5250 5.5. Comments on the Proposed Construction Requirements (146.86)  

Comment: Page 43537‐ section 146.86‐ Injection well construction requirements  

The injection and monitoring wells should meet the state standards down through  

all freshwater zones if the state standard is more stringent than the federal  

standard.  

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.  

Letter ID: 0361 Comment ID: 28580 Letter Lines: 164 to 171  

Comment Code: 2100 2.1 DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Projects  

Comment: It should be noted that the NODA seeks comment based on data and finding that  

have been generated by the pilot and demonstration projects conducted by the  

Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships. The Partnerships have not conducted  

any pilot or demonstration projects involving sub‐seabed sequestration. We are  

concerned about the lack of availability of data that could inform EP A in its  

rulemaking, and would urge the Agency to seek out expert guidance regarding  

specific geological conditions offshore the U.S., as well as expert guidance on  

technical and scientific issues relating to sub‐seabed sequestration of CO2.  

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that none of the RCSP projects currently investigate offshore

sequestration. The rule for Class VI GS wells is authorized under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

The UIC program does not have purview beyond some boundaries and state territorial waters. However,

EPA is also monitoring overseas projects such as Sleipner and Snohvit which are offshore sequestration

facilities. EPA will continue to monitor all sequestration projects, including offshore projects for useful

information. EPA is also in continual contact with experts in all areas of GS, including offshore projects.  
EPA has been cooperating with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement

(BOEM), formerly the Minerals Management Service, which administers the Outer Continental Shelf

Lands Act (OCSLA). As a result of recent OCSLA amendments by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the OCSLA

provides for the grant of leases, easements, or rights‐of‐way on the outer continental shelf to the extent

that an activity “supports production, transportation, or transmission of energy from sources other than

oil and gas” and complies with the other provisions of OCSLA section 8(p).