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.
From: Mary Munn 

Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:42 PM

To: 'OW-GENERAL@epa.gov'

Cc: Dennis Peterson; Ben Giwojna; Darrel Harmon; Wayne Dupuis; 

Mckelvey.Laura@epamail.epa.gov; Stephen Hartsfield

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

Please find attached from the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior:

Comment letter

Docket EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390 Federal Requirements Underground Injection Control Program 

for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells

Supporting Documents:

RECCS Final Report Short version

Thank you

Mary Munn

Air Program Coordinator

Fond du Lac Reservation

1720 Big Lake Road

Cloquet MN 55720

MaryMunn@fdlrez.comhttp://www.fdlrez.com/newnr/logohistory.htm

office: 218.878-8030

fax: 218.878-4854
Environmental Protection Agency proposed Federal Requirements under the Underground

Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells. 

Proposed Regulations Published in the July 25, 2008

Federal Register Notice

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

December 23, 2008

Mr. Stephen L. Johnson

Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NM

Washington D.C. 20460

Honorable Mr. Johnson,

The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (the “Band”), a federally recognized tribe, 

appreciates the opportunity to respond to the proposed Federal Requirements Under the 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration 

(GS) Wells. 

The Fond du Lac Reservation and the related Ceded Territories are located in northeastern 

Minnesota, a region with significant metal extraction activities, associated fossil fuel electric 

generating units, forest product industry, with land and sea shipping hubs. The region is home to 

the Ojibwe people and the tribes retain usufructuary rights (hunting and gathering) in the Ceded 

Territories. The area has significant natural and freshwater resources including Lake Superior.

As an indigenous population, it is of primary importance to work to toward maintaining and 

restoring the health of the environment as a direct means to improve the health and welfare of the 

Band. As a community, we must protect and heal Omizakamigokwe, Mother Earth, the provider 

and live sustainably within the environment.
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.

Assessment of the Proposed Rule

The proposed rule repeatedly references climate change mitigation by the injection of CO2 as the 

justification for the need for the new class of injection well:

Summary:

“EPA is proposing Federal requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

(SDWA) for underground injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) for the purpose of 

geologic sequestration (GS). GS is one of a portfolio of options that could be 

deployed to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere and help to mitigate climate 

change.”

And 

“If finalized, this proposal would help ensure consistency in permitting underground 

injection of CO2 at GS operations across the U.S. and provide requirements to 

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

reduce CO2 emissions.”

In Part II “What is the EPA Proposing” the proposition reiterates:

“In addition to protecting USDWs, today’s proposed rule provides a regulatory 

framework to promote consistent approaches to permitting GS projects across the 

U.S. and supports the development of a key climate change mitigation technology.”

Under Part II A. “Why Is EPA Proposing To Develop New Regulations To Address GS of 

CO2?” Part II. Section 2, states: 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that much 

of the warming in recent decades is very likely the result of human activities (IPCC, 

2007). The burning of fossil fuels (e.g., from coalfired electric plants and other 

sources in the electricity and industrial sectors) is a major contributor to humaninduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Fossil fuels are expected to remain the mainstay of energy production well into the 

21st century, and increased concentrations of CO2 are expected unless energy 

producers reduce the CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. The capture and storage 

of CO2 would enable the continued use of coal in a manner that greatly reduces 

the associated CO2 emissions while other safe and affordable alternative energy 

sources are developed in the coming decades. Given the United States’ abundant 

coal resources and reliance on coal for power generation, CCS could be a key 

mitigation technology for achieving domestic emissions reductions”

And:

“Congressional climate change legislative proposals (the McCain-Lieberman bill S. 

280, the Bingaman-Specter bill S. 1766, and the Lieberman-Warner bill S. 2191)

indicate that CCS has the potential to play a significant role in climate change

mitigation scenarios.”
And:

“Today’s proposal provides a regulatory framework to protect USDWs as this key 

climate mitigation technology is developed and deployed.”

The allusion of mitigating climate change or reducing CO2 emissions by geologic sequestration 

cannot be fairly used as persuasive point for this rule without providing data demonstrating the 

mass balance of energy and carbon dioxide in the whole system.

A great deal of analysis has been completed and posted on the docket of cost and incremental 

cost within the proposed rule for CCS and GS implementation but no analysis is made in terms of 

the actual amount carbon dioxide that will be sequestered in relation to the amount of carbon 

dioxide emitted throughout the process (Cost: EPA–HQ–OW–2008–0390-0073 and EPA–HQ–

OW–2008–0390-0094).

A mass balance of the participating fossil energy processes, generating the CO2, must be 

evaluated to determine if any real reduction in CO2 can be made. CO2 is emitted during the 

excavation and transport of the fossil fuel to a power plant. Additional power will be required, and 

will emit additional CO2, to provide the energy to extract the CO2 from the emission stream, to 

compress, transport, and to inject the CO2 into a geologic formation.

Very little data is available to evaluate the energy balance of various carbon capture processes. 

The evaluations available limit the efficiency of carbon capture (CC) to a percent recovered from 

the feed stack to the emission stack. Capturing the carbon is very energy intensive and may

increase energy demand by up to 50%. (www.lowtechmagazine.com accessed October 27 2008).

According to Greenpeace International: False Hope: Why carbon capture and storage won't save 

the climate, “capturing and storing carbon uses lots of energy; anywhere from 10-40% of a power 

station’s capacity. An energy penalty of just 20% would require the construction of an extra power 

station for every four built. These reductions in efficiency will require more coal to be mined, 

transported, and burned, for a power station to produce the same amount of energy as it did 

without CCS.”

The attached summary of a study by Wuppertal Institute, the German Aerospace Center (DLR), 

Zentrum für Sonnenenergie- und Wasserstoff-Forschung Baden-Württemberg (ZSW) and the 

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) for the German government (the full report 

available at: www.wupperinst.org, accessed on line Dec. 23 2008) offers an in depth study of 

CCS that evaluates the various power plant designs, transport, and storage costs; accesses life 

cycle, ecological criteria, carbon neutrality etc. Estimates in the study show a 20 to 40% increase 

in energy consumption and the process will only lower emissions of CO2, ignoring the increases 

of other greenhouse gases (GHG). 

Consuming an additional 20 to 50% more coal to energize the capture of CO2 is a questionable 

tactic that must supported by transparent data analysis.

Even as this proposed rule is being considered, the EPA is soliciting “applications to conduct 

research to support the development of sound risk management strategies for the underground 

injection of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2)” (accessed online October 6 2008 

http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/2008/2008_star_gsc02.html). The technology for GS of CO2 is not yet

available or known to be safe.

Social Justice:

The United Nations Environmental Progamme states:

“Globally around $300 billion or 0.7 per cent of global GDP is being spent on energy 

subsidies annually.

The lion's share is being used to artificially lower or reduce the real price of fuels like 

oil, coal and gas or electricity generated from such fossil fuels.

Cancelling these subsidies might reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as six 

per cent a year while contributing 0.1 per cent to global GDP.”
Mr. Steiner added: 

"Whereas fossil fuel subsidies are an example of a blunt policy instrument, 

perpetuating old and inefficient economic models, the CDM is an example of a more 

intelligent, market-based mechanism that is fostering the transition to a modern Green 

Economy". (Accessed online Nov. 14, 2008

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=543&ArticleID=5902 )

Recommendations:

· A thorough mass balance of the CO2 generated in the participating fossil energy 

processes, generating CO2 must be demonstrated to prove the feasibility of the proposal;

including mining and transport of the fossil fuel to power plants, extraction and 

compression of the CO2 emissions, transport, and injection the CO2 into a geologic 

formation.

· 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.

· Liability issues must be clarified in regard to human welfare and environmental protection 

rather than ensuring the financial viability of the commercial entities of power plants, 

pipeline, and well operators. Proponents wish to diminish liability for CCS and GS 

activities (EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390-0150.1) and EPA must explicitly recognize the threat 

of an uncontrolled release of CO2 to human life. Acknowledgement of the potential 

hazard, in a manner similar to OSHA guidelines on “gases, vapors, fumes, dusts, and 

mists - 1926.55” would be beneficial.

· Fond du Lac will defer to the experts in the case of pipeline and well integrity and the long 

term safety of geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. However, the skill of deep drilling 

brings to mind the mudflow disaster of Sidoarjo Porong, East-Java Indonesia, which 

began in May 2006 and is still flowing to this day.

Conclusion:

Although the effort made to address the serious issues of climate mitigation through CCS is 

greatly appreciated, the effort largely appears to mitigate CO2 emissions via a complex system 

that will, in reality, increase fossil energy consumption. With projected consumption to increase 

more than 30% by 2030 and CCS adding at least 20% additional demand, one may wonder if this 

proposal equates to yet another subsidy for fossil fuel industry.

The absence of analysis of the carbon neutrality of this project is a serious omission. An analysis 

of this kind should have been the first step in evaluating this proposal, yet it is not addressed in 

the rule or in any of the supporting documentation. An endeavor of this magnitude should be 

demonstrably carbon neutral and hopefully operate as a true carbon sink. 

The commitment of resources; human, material, and capital, required to construct the network of 

pipelines and wells for a project that is most likely energetically untenable, cannot be supported 

without a proper evaluation of carbon throughput of the entire process. 

This rule is written for the existing energy production system. The reliance on fossil energy must 

change to meet the challenge of climate change. Barriers to the success of alternate sources of 

energy must be removed so the issue can be faced head on. This rule will impede and obstruct 

progress for those competing industries.

The resources required to pursue this undertaking will be in direct competition with efforts 

focused on sustainable energy sources and alternative, arguably more effective carbon 

sequestration, utilizing wetland restoration, improved agricultural methods, and sustainable 

forestry practices that have numerous and vital fringe benefits.
Experts in carbon sequestration know that utilizing biologic methods of carbon capture is cost 

effective and will include economic benefits. For example, wetland protection and restoration will 

not only sequester carbon but will purify water, impede drainage (flooding), and replenish 

aquifers. Many avenues could be used to reverse engineer the activities that drained these 

wetlands. Many studies including the Kyoto Protocol Wetland Restoration and Management and 

the Wilderness Society Forest Carbon Report support these alternative carbon sequestration 

mechanisms.

Reduction of carbon emissions to the atmosphere is the primary driver for this new class of well, 

proof that carbon capture and sequestration will provide a net removal of CO2 must be provided 

else any reference to the reduction of CO2 emissions or climate mitigation must be removed from 

the document. 

Respectfully,

Mary Munn

Air Program Coordinator

Fond du Lac Reservation

1720 Big Lake Road

Cloquet MN 55720

marymunn@fdlrez.com

Office: 218.878-8030

c.c. Wayne Dupuis – FdL Environmental Program Manager

Dennis Peterson – FdLTribal Attorney 

Darrel Harmon – EPA, HQ

Ben Giwojna – EPA, Region V

Laura McKelvey – EPA, OAQPS

Stephen Hartsfield – NTAA
































Letter ID: 0273 

Commenter: Mary Munn 

Organization: Fond du Lac Reservation 

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24081 Letter Lines: 82 to 96 

Comment Code: 1540 1.2.3.2 Climate change legislation 

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. 

Individual 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 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. 

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24082 Letter Lines: 98 to 164 

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming 

Comment Code: 1320 1.1.3 General comments about GS 

1
Comment: Assessment of the Proposed Rule The proposed rule repeatedly references climate 

change mitigation by the injection of CO2 as the justification for the need for 

the new class of injection well: 

Summary: "EPA is proposing Federal requirements under the Safe Drinking Water 

Act (SDWA) for underground injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) for the purpose of 

geologic sequestration (GS). GS is one of a portfolio of options that could be 

deployed to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere and help to mitigate climate 

change." 

And "If finalized, this proposal would help ensure consistency in permitting 

underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the U.S. and provide 

requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual 

use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions." 

In Part II "What is the EPA Proposing" the proposition reiterates: 

"In addition to protecting USDWs, today’s proposed rule provides a regulatory 

framework to promote consistent approaches to permitting GS projects across the 

U.S. and supports the development of a key climate change mitigation 

technology." 

Under Part II A. "Why Is EPA Proposing To Develop New Regulations To Address GS 

of CO2?" Part II. Section 2, states: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) has concluded that much of the warming in recent decades is very 

likely the result of human activities (IPCC, 2007). The burning of fossil fuels 

(e.g., from coalfired electric plants and other sources in the electricity and 

industrial sectors) is a major contributor to humaninduced greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

Fossil fuels are expected to remain the mainstay of energy production well into 

the 21st century, and increased concentrations of CO2 are expected unless energy 

producers reduce the CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. The capture and storage of 

CO2 would enable the continued use of coal in a manner that greatly reduces the 

associated CO2 emissions while other safe and affordable alternative energy 

sources are developed in the coming decades. Given the United States’ abundant 

coal resources and reliance on coal for power generation, CCS could be a key 

mitigation technology for achieving domestic emissions reductions" 

And: 

"Congressional climate change legislative proposals (the McCain-Lieberman bill 

S. 280, the Bingaman-Specter bill S. 1766, and the Lieberman-Warner bill S. 

2191) indicate that CCS has the potential to play a significant role in climate 

change mitigation scenarios." 

2
And: 

"Today’s proposal provides a regulatory framework to protect USDWs as this key 

climate mitigation technology is developed and deployed." 

The allusion of mitigating climate change or reducing CO2 emissions by geologic 

sequestration cannot be fairly used as persuasive point for this rule without 

providing data demonstrating the mass balance of energy and carbon dioxide in 

the whole system. A great deal of analysis has been completed and posted on the 

docket of cost and incremental cost within the proposed rule for CCS and GS 

implementation but no analysis is made in terms of the actual amount carbon 

dioxide that will be sequestered in relation to the amount of carbon dioxide 

emitted throughout the process (Cost: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390-0073 and EPA-HQOW-2008-0390-0094). 

A mass balance of the participating fossil energy processes, generating the CO2, 

must be evaluated to determine if any real reduction in CO2 can be made. CO2 is 

emitted during the excavation and transport of the fossil fuel to a power plant. 

Additional power will be required, and will emit additional CO2, to provide the 

energy to extract the CO2 from the emission stream, to compress, transport, and 

to inject the CO2 into a geologic formation. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure 

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

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

eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. The requirements apply to owners or operators of 

injection wells used to inject CO2 for permanent storage. 

GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including energy conservation, efficiency 

improvements, and the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, that could be 

deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. However, the use of and investment in these technologies is 

outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. The Class VI GS requirements are designed to 

ensure that, where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, and 

closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24083 Letter Lines: 166 to 192 

Comment Code: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS (capture, transport) 

Comment: Very little data is available to evaluate the energy balance of various carbon 

capture processes. The evaluations available limit the efficiency of carbon 

capture (CC) to a percent recovered from the feed stack to the emission stack. 

Capturing the carbon is very energy intensive and may increase energy demand by 

up to 50%. (www.lowtechmagazine.com accessed October 27 2008). 

3
According to Greenpeace International: False Hope: Why carbon capture and 

storage won't save the climate, "capturing and storing carbon uses lots of 

energy; anywhere from 10-40% of a power station’s capacity. An energy penalty of 

just 20% would require the construction of an extra power station for every four 

built. These reductions in efficiency will require more coal to be mined, 

transported, and burned, for a power station to produce the same amount of 

energy as it did without CCS." 

The attached summary of a study by Wuppertal Institute, the German Aerospace 

Center (DLR), Zentrum für Sonnenenergie- und Wasserstoff-Forschung BadenWürttemberg (ZSW) and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) 

for the German government (the full report available at: www.wupperinst.org, 

accessed on line Dec. 23 2008) offers an in depth study of CCS that evaluates 

the various power plant designs, transport, and storage costs; accesses life 

cycle, ecological criteria, carbon neutrality etc. Estimates in the study show a 

20 to 40% increase in energy consumption and the process will only lower 

emissions of CO2, ignoring the increases of other greenhouse gases (GHG). [SEE 

EPA-OW-2008-0390-0273.PDF FOR THIS DOCUMENT.] 

Consuming an additional 20 to 50% more coal to energize the capture of CO2 is a 

questionable tactic that must supported by transparent data analysis. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that CO2 capture and the energy demands of CCS 

operations are outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. The UIC program’s authority 

under the SDWA focuses on ensuring that GS projects are permitted, sited, constructed, 

operated, monitored, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

Other federal agencies (e.g., DOE and the U.S. Geological Survey) have conducted research on 

available storage capacity and determinations of the feasibility of capturing and storing CO2 at 

the scales needed to address climate change. These agencies, along with private entities, have 

identified large areas for potential sequestration in capacity studies. For example, in 2008, USGS 

initiated development of a methodology for estimating the capacity to store CO2 in geologic 

formations of the United States. In 2009, USGS published a proposed, risk-based methodology 

for GS capacity estimation. This report, Development of a Probabilistic Assessment 

Methodology for Evaluation of Carbon Dioxide Storage, is available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1035/ofr2009-1035.pdf. 

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24084 Letter Lines: 194 to 199 

Comment Code: 1600 1.3 Risk Associated with CO2 GS 

Comment: Even as this proposed rule is being considered, the EPA is soliciting 

"applications to conduct research to support the development of sound risk 

management strategies for the underground injection of anthropogenic carbon 

dioxide (CO2)" (accessed online October 6 2008 

http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/2008/2008_star_gsc02.html). The technology for GS of 

4
CO2 is not yet available or known to be safe. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that sufficient data and experience currently exist to 

develop regulations for Class VI 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. 

Several large-scale pilot projects are currently underway worldwide to test the appropriateness 

and efficacy of various technologies to characterize sites, ensure proper well construction and 

operation, and monitor injection activities and CO2 plume and pressure front distribution. EPA is 

tracking international GS efforts and is aware of four commercial-scale projects that are 

currently in operation: 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). 

Activities at Weyburn, In Salah, Sleipner, and the RCSP sites have been supervised by leading 

industry scientists and practitioners. Activities at Weyburn have also been peer-reviewed by the 

IEA-GHG Programme, an international collaborative research program that includes the 

European Commission and OPEC as members. EPA has considered the results of these pilot 

projects and data from RCSPs in developing the GS rule. 

As the commenter notes, EPA continues to research GS and associated technologies. EPA will 

use any knowledge gained through this research to inform 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 and appropriate documentation are being 

collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. 

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24085 Letter Lines: 201 to 214 

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming 

Comment: Social Justice: The United Nations Environmental Progamme states: "Globally 

around $300 billion or 0.7 per cent of global GDP is being spent on energy 

subsidies annually. The lion's share is being used to artificially lower or 

reduce the real price of fuels like oil, coal and gas or electricity generated 

from such fossil fuels. Cancelling these subsidies might reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions by as much as six per cent a year while contributing 0.1 per cent to 

global GDP." 

Mr. Steiner added: "Whereas fossil fuel subsidies are an example of a blunt 

policy instrument, perpetuating old and inefficient economic models, the CDM is 

an example of a more intelligent, market-based mechanism that is fostering the 

5
transition to a modern Green Economy". (Accessed online Nov. 14, 2008 

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=543&ArticleID= 

5902 ) 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure 

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

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

eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. The requirements apply to owners or operators of 

injection wells used to inject CO2 for permanent storage. Fuel subsidies are outside the scope of 

the Class VI GS rulemaking. 

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24086 Letter Lines: 216 to 222 

Comment Code: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS (capture, transport) 

Comment: Recommendations: 

· A thorough mass balance of the CO2 generated in the participating fossil 

energy processes, generating CO2 must be demonstrated to prove the feasibility 

of the proposal; including mining and transport of the fossil fuel to power 

plants, extraction and compression of the CO2 emissions, transport, and 

injection the CO2 into a geologic formation. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that other federal agencies (e.g., DOE and the U.S. 

Geological Survey) have conducted research on available storage capacity and determinations of 

the feasibility of capturing and storing CO2 at the scales needed to address climate change. 

These agencies, along with private entities, have identified large areas for potential sequestration 

in capacity studies. For example, in 2008, USGS initiated development of a methodology for 

estimating the capacity to store CO2 in geologic formations of the United States. In 2009, USGS 

published a proposed, risk-based methodology for GS capacity estimation. This report, 

Development of a Probabilistic Assessment Methodology for Evaluation of Carbon Dioxide 

Storage, is available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1035/ofr2009-1035.pdf. 

The UIC program’s authority under the SDWA focuses on ensuring that GS projects are 

permitted, sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and closed in a manner that is protective of 

USDWs. Coal mining and CO2 capture and transport are outside the scope of the Class VI GS 

rulemaking. 

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24087 Letter Lines: 224 to 227 

Comment Code: 1540 1.2.3.2 Climate change legislation 

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 

6
imprudent and illogical. 

Individual 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. 

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24088 Letter Lines: 229 to 236 

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

Requirements 

Comment: · Liability issues must be clarified in regard to human welfare and 

environmental protection rather than ensuring the financial viability of the 

commercial entities of power plants, pipeline, and well operators. Proponents 

wish to diminish liability for CCS and GS activities (EPA-HQOW-2008-0390-0150.1) and EPA must explicitly recognize the threat of an 

uncontrolled release of CO2 to human life. Acknowledgement of the potential 

hazard, in a manner similar to OSHA guidelines on "gases, vapors, fumes, dusts, 

and mists - 1926.55" would be beneficial. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the goal of financial responsibility is to ensure that 

financial resources are available to prevent endangerment of USDWs (and risks to human health) 

from improper plugging, remediation, and management of wells in the event that the owner or 

operator experiences financial difficulties as it relates to the Class VI well. EPA believes that 

assuring financial responsibility for corrective action on wells in the AoR, injection well 

plugging, PISC and site closure, and emergency and remedial response at GS sites is an 

important component of ensuring that USDWs are protected. See the final rule and preamble for 

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

EPA adds that regulation of carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. However, such a release would indicate endangerment of a USDW under the GS 

rule and may trigger an enforcement action under SDWA § 1423 and would most likely require 

implementation of the emergency and remedial response plan required under §146.94. 

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24089 Letter Lines: 238 to 242 

Comment Code: 1670 1.3.7 Other/miscellaneous risks 

Comment: · Fond du Lac will defer to the experts in the case of pipeline and well 

integrity and the long term safety of geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. 

However, the skill of deep drilling brings to mind the mudflow disaster of 

Sidoarjo Porong, East-Java Indonesia, which began in May 2006 and is still 

flowing to this day. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the CO2 release at Sidoarjo is a valid analogue for 

7
GS. The situation at Sidoarjo is not analogous to GS because the eruption of the naturallyoccurring CO2 at Sidoarjo was due to the highly over-pressurized natural geologic conditions in 

the region (and associated lack of an impermeable and extensive confining zone). No injection 

was associated with this event, and this site would not have been considered sufficiently 

geologically stable to be issued a Class VI permit based on the rigorous site characterization 

requirements at §146.82 (e.g., including lack of confining units). 

GS takes places thousands of feet below the Earth’s surface within porous spaces in deep rock 

formations. CO2 is injected for GS through technically engineered wells with multiple barriers 

designed to isolate the injectate in the well and protect formations outside the well materials. The 

injected CO2 is stored in geologic formations underneath confining layers of rock that act as 

natural barriers to leakage. It is unlikely that CO2 would escape from a GS site that is properly 

characterized, operated, monitored, and closed. During the site selection process, operators of 

Class VI wells identify and evaluate the appropriateness of a site for GS of CO2. The evaluation 

includes the identification of surface and subsurface features such as deep stratified lakes and 

other naturally occurring pockets of CO2. Furthermore, during GS operation, injection pressures 

and formation conditions are monitored to avoid overpressuring the storage formation. 

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24090 Letter Lines: 246 to 257 

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming 

Comment: Although the effort made to address the serious issues of climate mitigation 

through CCS is greatly appreciated, the effort largely appears to mitigate CO2 

emissions via a complex system that will, in reality, increase fossil energy 

consumption. With projected consumption to increase more than 30% by 2030 and 

CCS adding at least 20% additional demand, one may wonder if this proposal 

equates to yet another subsidy for fossil fuel industry. 

The absence of analysis of the carbon neutrality of this project is a serious 

omission. An analysis of this kind should have been the first step in evaluating 

this proposal, yet it is not addressed in the rule or in any of the supporting 

documentation. An endeavor of this magnitude should be demonstrably carbon 

neutral and hopefully operate as a true carbon sink. 

Individual Response: As described above, EPA clarifies that the purpose of the Class VI GS 

requirements are designed to ensure consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at 

GS operations across the United States and provide requirements to prevent endangerment of 

USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. The requirements 

apply to owners or operators of injection wells used to inject CO2 for permanent storage. The 

topics of climate change mitigation, fossil energy consumption, carbon neutrality, CO2 

emissions, and GHG regulations are outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. 

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24091 Letter Lines: 259 to 262 

8
Comment Code: 1300 1.1.2.3 Comments on other aspects of CCS (capture, transport) 

Comment: The commitment of resources; human, material, and capital, required to construct 

the network of pipelines and wells for a project that is most likely 

energetically untenable, cannot be supported without a proper evaluation of 

carbon throughput of the entire process. 

Individual Response: As described above, CO2 transport is outside the scope of the Class VI 

GS rulemaking, which is focused on ensuring that Class VI CO2 injection projects are permitted, 

sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and closed in a manner that is protective of USDWs. 

Letter ID: 0273 Comment ID: 24092 Letter Lines: 264 to 288 

Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming 

Comment: This rule is written for the existing energy production system. The reliance on 

fossil energy must change to meet the challenge of climate change. Barriers to 

the success of alternate sources of energy must be removed so the issue can be 

faced head on. This rule will impede and obstruct progress for those competing 

industries. 

The resources required to pursue this undertaking will be in direct competition 

with efforts focused on sustainable energy sources and alternative, arguably 

more effective carbon sequestration, utilizing wetland restoration, improved 

agricultural methods, and sustainable forestry practices that have numerous and 

vital fringe benefits. 

Experts in carbon sequestration know that utilizing biologic methods of carbon 

capture is cost effective and will include economic benefits. For example, 

wetland protection and restoration will not only sequester carbon but will 

purify water, impede drainage (flooding), and replenish aquifers. Many avenues 

could be used to reverse engineer the activities that drained these wetlands. 

Many studies including the Kyoto Protocol Wetland Restoration and Management and 

the Wilderness Society Forest Carbon Report support these alternative carbon 

sequestration mechanisms. 

Reduction of carbon emissions to the atmosphere is the primary driver for this 

new class of well, proof that carbon capture and sequestration will provide a 

net removal of CO2 must be provided else any reference to the reduction of CO2 

emissions or climate mitigation must be removed from the document. 

Individual Response: 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. Other options 

include efficiency improvements and the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources. 

However, promoting or incentivizing these technologies is outside the UIC program’s authority 

under the SDWA, which focuses on ensuring that, where deployed, GS projects are permitted, 

9
10

sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from 

endangerment. 

Other federal agencies (e.g., DOE and the U.S. Geological Survey) have conducted research on 

available storage capacity and made determinations of the feasibility of capturing and storing 

CO2 at the scales needed to address climate change. These agencies, along with private entities, 

have identified large areas for potential sequestration in capacity studies. For example, in 2008, 

USGS initiated development of a methodology for estimating the capacity to store CO2 in 

geologic formations of the United States. In 2009, USGS published a proposed, risk-based 

methodology for GS capacity estimation. This report, Development of a Probabilistic 

Assessment Methodology for Evaluation of Carbon Dioxide Storage, is available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1035/ofr2009-1035.pdf.