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.
1 

 

COMMENTS OF THE COAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH COUNCIL ON THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S 

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL 

PROGRAM FOR CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) GEOLOGIC SEQUESTRATION WELLS; 

NOTICE OF DATA AVAILABILITY AND REQUEST FOR COMMENT 

DOCKET ID NO. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390-0297 

October 13, 2009 

The Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC)1

 submits these comments to Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390-0297, 74 Fed. Reg. 44802, the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA or Agency)’s Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for Underground Injection Control 

Program (UIC) for CO2 injection as authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 

U.S.C. § 300f et seq. CURC and its members have been at the forefront of promoting the 

demonstration and commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. 

The widespread implementation of CCS will allow the nation to continue to enjoy the economic 

and energy security benefits of using our vast domestic and essential U.S. coal resources while 

promoting reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The American Public Power Association 

(APPA), a member of CURC, does not agree with comments made in this submittal supporting 

the granting of waiver authority to state UIC program directors as more fully explained herein. 

Therefore APPA cannot support these comments. 

Several CURC members (membership list attached) in their comments are requesting a 30 day 

extension to comment on the NODA, as those members have deep experience in this area and 

need additional time to properly review the data provided by EPA. CURC joins in that request. 

CURC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject NODA. Our comments will focus 

on a single issue: the proposal’s alternative for injection depth requirements. In EPA’s July 25, 

2008 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Agency proposed a blanket prohibition on CO2

Geologic Sequestration (GS) wells injecting into formations which were either not far enough 

below an Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW), or above a very deep USDW. The 

current NODA offers consideration of an alternative to permit such injection wells, subject to 

certain requirements. 

CURC agrees with numerous assessments of climate mitigation strategies that conclude broad 

deployment of GS is an essential element of a strategy to achieve sharp reductions in greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions, such as those proposed in recent legislation before the U.S. Congress.2

 

1

 CURC is an association of coal stakeholders which has the primary purpose of fostering programs of technology, 

research, development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies to enable the continued economic and 

energy security benefits that derive from coal use, in a manner that is consistent with the nation’s environmental 

policies and goals. CURC members include U.S. coal companies, coal-using electric utilities, manufacturers of 

power plants and power plant environmental control systems, major universities, and major coal-related associations 

and institutes. 

2

 For example, both HR 2454 and the recent Kerry-Boxer draft legislation propose an 83% reduction in U.S. GHG 

emissions (relative to 2005 emissions) by 2050. Separate EPA and DOE/EIA analyses each conclude that the cost 

of achieving the reductions specified in these bills is greatly increased if CCS technology is either unavailable, or 

significantly more costly to implement than currently projected. Other studies of global strategies conclude that 
2 

The potential utility of CCS technology in addressing global climate change is the basis for a 

global effort to demonstrate currently available technologies at commercial scale, while still 

conducting research and development to improve the technologies to make them more effective 

and affordable. EPA is faced with the challenge of ensuring that CO2 storage projects do not 

cause environmental damage to USDW, while not stifling the technology with unreasonably 

conservative regulation. 

CURC believes that the best way to do this is to provide State UIC Program Directors with a 

strong mandate to permit only injection wells which do not present a significant threat to USDW, 

and to develop tools and procedures to facilitate implementation of that mandate. Consistent 

with this philosophy, CURC opposes generic prohibitions of activities that, in the absence of 

much better data than is currently available, should be evaluated by the Program Director on a 

case-by-case basis. The prohibition related to injection depth included in the July 25, 2008, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking3 is such a requirement. 

EPA’s more recent NODA4

 proposes an alternative to the proposed depth-related prohibition. 

The NODA includes a waiver process whereby a State UIC Program Director could allow GS of 

CO2 in formations which are either relatively shallow (such as in coal seams or basalt structures), 

or which are above a very deep USDW. GS projects in states receiving such a waiver would 

need to provide additional, specific information to the UIC Program Director, demonstrating that 

the proposed project would not adversely impact USDW. 

While the waiver approach is preferred over a blanket prohibition, it is generally CURC’s view 

that if EPA believes that the specified additional information submittals are necessary to protect 

USDW, the Agency should simply require their submittal for GS scenarios of concern, and adopt 

neither the general prohibition nor the waiver process. 

Moreover, CURC requests that EPA demonstrate that certain of the prescribed requirements in 

the waiver information submittal are universally necessary to protect USDW. For example, it is 

not clear why it is necessary to show that “the injection matrix is not dissolved as a result of 

injection.” It is our understanding that the nature of these systems will result in slow chemical 

reactions between the rock matrix and the injected CO2, which means that some of the rock 

material could dissolve. Similarly, it is not clear to us that the same structural requirements are 

appropriate for downward migration of the inherently buoyant injectate, as are needed for 

limiting upward migration. A requirement for a clear demonstration of the inability of injected 

CO2 to reach any deep USDW is appropriate, but a universal requirement for a mandatory 

impermeable barrier below the injection zone may not be. 

 

CCS can reduce the marginal cost of meeting emission mitigations goals by approximately one-half (See Energy 

Technology Perspectives – 2008, Table 2.5, OECD/International Energy Agency, 2008). 3

 73 FR 43492, July 25, 2008. 

4

 74 FR 44802, August 31, 2009.
3 

CURC 2009 Membership List

Air Products and Chemicals 

Alliant Energy 

Alpha Natural Resources** 

Alstom Power, Inc. 

American Coal Council 

American Coalition for Clean Coal 

 Electricity (ACCCE) 

American Electric Power* 

American Public Power Association 

 (APPA)*** 

Arch Coal, Inc. 

BabcockPower 

The Babcock & Wilcox Company 

Battelle 

ConocoPhillips 

CONSOL Energy, Inc. 

Duke Energy Services* 

Eastman Gasification Services Company 

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 

Energy Industries of Ohio 

E. On US LLC 

FirstEnergy Corporation 

Foster Wheeler 

FutureGen Industrial Alliance 

General Electric Company 

Illinois Department of Commerce & Community Affairs 

Jamestown Board of Public Utilities 

Kentucky Office of Energy Policy 

Lehigh University 

National Mining Association (NMA) 

National Rural Electric Cooperative 

 Association (NRECA) 

New York Power Authority 

NRG Energy 

Ohio University 

Peabody Energy 

Praxair, Inc. 

Penn State University 

Purdue University 

Rio Tinto Energy America Services 

RW Beck 

Salt River Project 

Schlumberger Carbon Services 

Shell US Gas & Power 
4 

Siemens Power Generation 

Southern Company 

Southern Illinois University 

State of Ohio, Air Quality Development 

 Authority 

Tenaska, Inc. 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 

Tri-State Generation & Transmission 

Association 

United Mine Workers of America 

University of Kentucky 

University of Utah 

University of Wyoming 

West Virginia Coal Association 

West Virginia University 

Western Research Institute 

* CURC 2009 Co-chairs 

** CURC 2009 Vice-Chair 

*** APPA, a member of CURC, does not support certain recommendations made in this 

submittal and therefore is not to be associated with these comments. 
Letter ID: 0338  

Commenter: Shannon Angielski  

Organization: Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC)  

Letter ID: 0338 Comment ID: 28283 Letter Lines: 30 to 35  

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

Comment: the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. Â§ 300f et seq. CURC and its  

members have been at the forefront of promoting the demonstration and commercial  

deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. The widespread  

implementation of CCS will allow the nation to continue to enjoy the economic  

and energy security benefits of using our vast domestic and essential U.S. coal  

resources while promoting reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The American  

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: 0338 Comment ID: 28285 Letter Lines: 65 to 98  

Comment Code: 5000 5. Comments on the Proposed Rule (out of NODA Scope)  

Comment: CURC agrees with numerous assessments of climate mitigation strategies that  

conclude broad deployment of GS is an essential element of a strategy to achieve  

sharp reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, such as those proposed in  

recent legislation before the U.S. Congress.[Footnote 2]  

[Footnote 2]: For example, both HR 2454 and the recent Kerry‐Boxer draft  

legislation propose an 83% reduction in U.S. GHG emissions (relative to 2005  

emissions) by 2050. Separate EPA and DOE/EIA analyses each conclude that the  

cost of achieving the reductions specified in these bills is greatly increased  

if CCS technology is either unavailable, or significantly more costly to  

implement than currently projected. Other studies of global strategies conclude  

that CCS can reduce the marginal cost of meeting emission mitigations goals by  

approximately one‐half (See Energy Technology Perspectives ‐ 2008, Table 2.5,  

OECD/International Energy Agency, 2008).  

The potential utility of CCS technology in addressing global climate change is  
the basis for a global effort to demonstrate currently available technologies at  

commercial scale, while still conducting research and development to improve the  

technologies to make them more effective and affordable. EPA is faced with the  

challenge of ensuring that CO2 storage projects do not cause environmental  

damage to USDW, while not stifling the technology with unreasonably conservative  

regulation.  

CURC believes that the best way to do this is to provide State UIC Program  

Directors with a strong mandate to permit only injection wells which do not  

present a significant threat to USDW, and to develop tools and procedures to  

facilitate implementation of that mandate. Consistent with this philosophy,  

CURC opposes generic prohibitions of activities that, in the absence of much  

better data than is currently available, should be evaluated by the Program  

Director on a case‐by‐case basis. The prohibition related to injection depth  

included in the July 25, 2008, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [Footnote 3] is  

such a requirement.  

[Footnote 3]: 73 FR 43492, July 25, 2008.  

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: 0338 Comment ID: 28287 Letter Lines: 80 to 86  

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

Comment: The potential utility of CCS technology in addressing global climate change is  

the basis for a global effort to demonstrate currently available technologies at  

commercial scale, while still conducting research and development to improve the  

technologies to make them more effective and affordable. EPA is faced with the  

challenge of ensuring that CO2 storage projects do not cause environmental  

damage to USDW, while not stifling the technology with unreasonably conservative  

regulation.  

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: 0338 Comment ID: 28288  

Comment: Individual Response:

Letter ID: 0338 Comment ID: 28289 Letter Lines: 100 to 114  

Comment Code: 3210 3.2.1. Comments Generally in Support of the Approach  

Comment: EPA's more recent NODA [Footnote 4] proposes an alternative to the proposed  

depth‐related prohibition. The NODA includes a waiver process whereby a State  

UIC Program Director could allow GS of CO2 in formations which are either  

relatively shallow (such as in coal seams or basalt structures), or which are  

above a very deep USDW. GS projects in states receiving such a waiver would  

need to provide additional, specific information to the UIC Program Director,  

demonstrating that the proposed project would not adversely impact USDW.  

[Footnote 4]: 74 FR 44802, August 31, 2009.  

While the waiver approach is preferred over a blanket prohibition, it is  

generally CURC's view that if EPA believes that the specified additional  

information submittals are necessary to protect USDW, the Agency should simply  

require their submittal for GS scenarios of concern, and adopt neither the  

general prohibition nor the waiver process.  

Individual Response: The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owners and operators

can seek a waiver of the Class VI injection depth requirements. The GS rule, at §146.95, contains

additional requirements that apply to owners or operators of Class VI wells granted a waiver of the

injection depth requirements. These additional requirements are tailored to ensure protection of all

USDWs above and below the injection zone and are therefore not appropriate as a "default" for all Class

VI wells.  

Letter ID: 0338 Comment ID: 28290  

Comment: Individual Response:
Letter ID: 0338 Comment ID: 28292  

Comment: Individual Response:

Letter ID: 0338 Comment ID: 28293 Letter Lines: 116 to 127  

Comment Code: 3310 3.3.1. Site Characterization  

Comment: Moreover, CURC requests that EPA demonstrate that certain of the prescribed  

requirements in the waiver information submittal are universally necessary to  

protect USDW. For example, it is not clear why it is necessary to show that  

"the injection matrix is not dissolved as a result of injection." It is our  

understanding that the nature of these systems will result in slow chemical  

reactions between the rock matrix and the injected CO2, which means that some of  

the rock material could dissolve. Similarly, it is not clear to us that the  

same structural requirements are appropriate for downward migration of the  

inherently buoyant injectate, as are needed for limiting upward migration. A  

requirement for a clear demonstration of the inability of injected CO2 to reach  

any deep USDW is appropriate, but a universal requirement for a mandatory  

impermeable barrier below the injection zone may not be.  

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the requirements at §146.95 for owners and operators seeking

injection depth waivers are intended to add to and modify the requirements that all GS well owners or

operators must meet, including those for site‐specific geologic characterization and information on

potential mineralization reactions, to ensure that the proposed site is evaluated in the context of the

presence of USDWs above and below the injection zone. EPA believes that the presence of confining

zones above and below the injection zone are appropriate where injection depth waivers are employed

because the area of increased pressure ahead of the CO2 plume, can potentially displace saline, native

fluids into USDWs above or below the injection zone.

EPA anticipates that issuance of waivers will be limited to circumstances where there are deep USDWs

and/or where the lack of a waiver of injection depth requirements would result in impractical or

technically infeasible well construction, and where USDW protection is demonstrated and maintained

through the life of the GS project.  

The GS regulation requires the owner or operator to submit information on the porosity, permeability,

mineralogy, and geochemistry of the targeted injection and confining zones and on the compatibility of
the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and confining zones

as specified in §146.82(c)(3). The data can help the Director determine the potential for geochemical

reactions between the injectate (CO2) and the host geologic formations, which could result in the

plugging of pore spaces or the dissolution of formation minerals. For additional information on site

characterization for GS projects, see the preamble to the final rule and the responses to comments on

the proposed GS rule.  

Letter ID: 0338 Comment ID: 29036 Letter Lines: 35 to 39  

Comment Code: 3220 3.2.2. Comments in Opposition to the Approach  

Comment: resources while promoting reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The American  

Public Power Association (APPA), a member of CURC, does not agree with comments  

made in this submittal supporting the granting of waiver authority to state UIC  

program directors as more fully explained herein. Therefore APPA cannot support  

these comments.  

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns and clarifies that the mission of the

UIC Program is to protect USDWs from endangerment. Based on an evaluation of comments on the

proposed injection depth requirements and the waiver process discussed in the NODA, and concerns

about USDW protection, EPA believes that there are limited situations where injection into non‐USDW

formations above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs. The final

GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owners or operators can seek a waiver of the Class VI

injection depth requirements. The waiver approach establishes requirements for extensive site‐specific

information related to injecting above or between USDWs (including ground water use and water supply

needs, as the commenter suggests) that the owner or operator must submit and the Director must

consider, in consultation with PWSS Directors, to ensure that water supplies in the area and all USDWs

are protected.