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.
MR. BUCKLEY: Okay. Good morning. My name is Harold Buckley. 

I'm here on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute. And before 

I start my formal comments, I'd like to incorporate by reference 

some materials we've already submitted to EPA, specifically the 

comments we've submitted on May 15th, 2008 to EPA; oral and 

written testimony at EPA's September 30th, 2008 public hearing; 

and the written comments that we submitted to EPA on December 

24th, 2008. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 The first area I want to touch on relates to 

siting decisions. Originally, the proposed Class VI regulations 

prohibited any injection and storage above the lowermost USDW. 

For a number of reasons, this prohibition was unnecessary, and in 

recognition of this, EPA proposed the waiver program to inject 

some, no pun intended, flexibility into the administration of the 

program. 

 EEI appreciates the efforts the EPA is making to 

increase flexibility, but we believe that the appropriateness of 

any given receiving formation should be considered on a case by 

case basis in light of the geologic characteristics of a given 

project in clear and appropriate parameters set forth in the 

rules. A case by case approach would provide the same level of 

protection for USDWs as a waiver process which could still create 

a perception that geologic storage projects pose a heightened 
risk to drinking water. The case by case approach, with the 

creation of clear and appropriate parameters, would also provide 

more transparency and predictability than the waiver process to 

future applicants. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 Currently, it is unclear how Class II enhanced oil 

recovery wells or projects would be treated under the proposed 

waiver process. And the rules should include a mechanism to 

allow existing Class II wells injecting into receiving formations 

above the lower USDW to convert to Class VI wells absent a threat 

to drinking water. Under those circumstances, an automatic 

waiver or aquifer exemption may be appropriate. 

 The NODA notes that the availability of data could 

change EPA's approach to final rule-making, and this is the 

adaptive approach that was discussed briefly a moment ago. EEI 

supports this adaptive approach. We think that it's more 

appropriate than waiting until after the data is gathered in 

final form to adopt the rules. In fact, EEI believes a 

regulatory framework is needed in the short term to spur 

development of a commercial scale GS industry, and currently 

available information is sufficient to form the basis of an 

effective and safe program. 

 The NODA gives an extensive discussion of 

experimental projects. We would hope that EPA is mindful of the 
fact that experimental projects are just that, experimental 

projects. The successful application of experimental techniques 

in any given setting does not make those techniques appropriate 

for universal application automatically. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 The NODA emphasizes the use of surface or near 

surface monitoring for upward carbon migration at the SECARB 

Plant Daniel Project and references the use of tracers at the SWP 

Project in Utah. These technologies would likely provide too 

little information too late in terms of protecting USDWs and they 

carry a high risk of false positive results. Requiring their use 

may inflame public fears regarding the safety of GS projects. 

EEI advises against the requirement to use tracers and/or surface 

air/soil gas monitoring to detect carbon movement even if such 

requirements are left to the UIC Director's discretion. 

 The NODA also discusses studies underway at 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory to test the potential for 

carbon to mobilize trace elements in potable groundwater. These 

studies looked at the potential consequences of carbon leakage 

into USDW but not the likelihood of the occurrence of such 

leakages. Migration of carbon from properly sited and managed 

projects is extremely unlikely. The Inter-Governmental Panel on 

Climate Change concluded in 2005 that a fraction of carbon 

retained in appropriately selected and managed geologic 
reservoirs is likely to exceed 99 percent over 1,000 years. EEI 

agrees that it's important to understand the potential impacts on 

USDW if migration occurs. However, the most important risk 

management tool for GS is proper site characterization. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 In terms of the regulatory framework for geologic 

storage, many commenters on the proposed rules favor a more 

comprehensive framework for geologic storage which would address 

issues under statutes other than the Safe Drinking Water Act such 

as the Clean Air Act, RCRA and CERCLA. EPA should adhere to its 

limited jurisdiction under the Safe Drinking Water Act to achieve 

a stable regulatory framework and to avoid challenges based on 

the lack of legal authority. The Agency should also work to 

develop a single rule to address issues arising outside the 

context of the Safe Drinking Water Act to avoid a patchwork 

regulatory scheme for carbon capture and storage. 

 EPA is considering various positions directly 

impacting carbon capture and storage projects under its proposed 

rule on mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases and proposed 

changes to the renewable fuel standard program. This approach 

increases the risk of a patchwork approach to regulation relative 

to state involvement in the administration of the carbon capture 

and storage regulations. 

 The NODA seeks comments on current state 
activities addressing GS and seeks to avoid hindering progress 

states have made on this front. The NODA suggests an approach 

that would give the states substantial authority under a 

delegated program through primacy. EEI agrees that states and 

tribes have decades of valuable experience in this area and 

should play a key role in managing carbon capture and storage 

projects. In fact, states also have substantial authority to 

regulate aspects of carbon capture and storage in issues relating 

to property rights and financial incentives beyond injection and 

storage. However, it is important that states be given primacy 

for Class VI wells only if they request it or if they choose to 

do so. This would allow them to be part of the administrative 

process or to actually run it within their state without being 

required to assume the burden of the entire UIC program for their 

state. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

 And then, finally, it's vitally important that the 

EPA ensure adequate funding for primacy states given the 

extraordinarily detailed process that will likely accompany 

obtaining a Class VI permit. That concludes my comments and 

thank you very much. 
Letter ID: 0540  

Commenter: Harold Buckley  

Organization: Edison Electric Institute  

Letter ID: 0540 Comment ID: 28311 Letter Lines: 24 to 38  

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

Comment: The first area I want to touch on relates to siting decisions. Originally, the  

proposed Class VI regulations prohibited any injection and storage above the  

lowermost USDW. For a number of reasons, this prohibition was unnecessary, and  

in recognition of this, EPA proposed the waiver program to inject some, no pun  

intended, flexibility into the administration of the program.  

EEI appreciates the efforts the EPA is making to increase flexibility, but we  

believe that the appropriateness of any given receiving formation should be  

considered on a case by case basis in light of the geologic characteristics of a  

given project in clear and appropriate parameters set forth in the rules. A case  

by case approach would provide the same level of protection for USDWs as a  

waiver process which could still create a perception that geologic storage  

projects pose a heightened risk to drinking water. The case by case approach,  

with the creation of clear and appropriate parameters, would also provide more  

transparency and predictability than the waiver process to future applicants.  

Individual Response: EPA agrees that all decisions regarding waivers (and all aspects of GS project

permitting) should be made on a site‐specific basis, as the commenter suggests. The waiver approach

establishes requirements for extensive site‐specific information related to injecting above or between

USDWs 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.  

Letter ID: 0540 Comment ID: 28312 Letter Lines: 40 to 45  

Comment Code: 3130 3.1.3. Addressing the Differences Between Class II and Class VI Wells  

Comment: Currently, it is unclear how Class II enhanced oil recovery wells or projects  

would be treated under the proposed waiver process. And the rules should include  

a mechanism to allow existing Class II wells injecting into receiving formations  

above the lower USDW to convert to Class VI wells absent a threat to drinking  
water. Under those circumstances, an automatic waiver or aquifer exemption may  

be appropriate.  

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that an "automatic" waiver is appropriate where wells are

grandfathered. However, EPA agrees that there are situations where injection into non‐USDW

formations above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs, as long as

appropriate protections are in place. 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 purpose of the

injection depth waiver requirements is to ensure protection of USDWs while allowing the use of GS

capacity above and between USDWs if a site is suitable and all Class VI requirements are met.  

EPA clarifies that owners or operators seeking waivers from the injection depth requirements must

provide additional information to ensure USDW protection. Specifically, they must submit a

supplemental report (the GS Class VI injection depth waiver application report) referenced at §146.82(d)

and outlined at §146.95(a) with additional, site‐specific information, including: additional information

about the injection zone; identification of confining units above and below the injection zone; tailored

AoR modeling above and below the injection zone; a demonstration that well design is appropriate and

protective of USDWs, in lieu of specific requirements at §146.86; a description of how monitoring will be

tailored for injection above/between USDWs; and information about public water supplies in the AoR.

EPA clarifies that the final GS rule contains risk‐based criteria at §144.19 to inform a Director’s

determination to apply Class VI requirements to wells transitioning from an ER project to a project for

which the primary purpose is long‐term storage of CO2. For additional information on transitioning of

Class II wells for GS, see the preamble to the final rule and the responses to comments on the proposed

GS rule.  

Letter ID: 0540 Comment ID: 28313 Letter Lines: 47 to 54  

Comment Code: 5700 5.14. Comments on Other Aspects of the Proposed Rule  

Comment: The NODA notes that the availability of data could change EPA's approach to  

final rule‐making, and this is the adaptive approach that was discussed briefly  

a moment ago. EEI supports this adaptive approach. We think that it's more  

appropriate than waiting until after the data is gathered in final form to adopt  

the rules. In fact, EEI believes a regulatory framework is needed in the short  

term to spur development of a commercial scale GS industry, and currently  

available information is sufficient to form the basis of an effective and safe  

program.  

Individual Response: The final rule is based on the most recent GS‐related data, information, and
scientific research available. EPA intends to continue to collect data on GS and to incorporate such data

as it implements its adaptive approach to GS rulemaking. EPA plans to, every six years, collect and

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

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

are appropriate or necessary.  

For additional information on the adaptive approach and site specific requirements, see the responses

to comments on the proposed rule in the rulemaking docket.  

Letter ID: 0540 Comment ID: 28314 Letter Lines: 56 to 60  

Comment Code: 2000 2. Comments on Research, Data Analysis, and Findings presented in the NODA

(seeking comment)  

Comment: The NODA gives an extensive discussion of experimental projects. We would hope  

that EPA is mindful of the fact that experimental projects are just that,  

experimental projects. The successful application of experimental techniques in  

any given setting does not make those techniques appropriate for universal  

application automatically.  

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that use of a technology in a RCSP project does not necessarily

make the technology valid for all applications. Each project will be unique and the final rule provides for

site‐specific approaches to ensure that appropriate construction, operation, and monitoring is

performed at each site. However, by testing multiple technologies, the pilot sites provide valuable data

that demonstrate whether or not these technologies are viable and informed the final GS rule. Please

see the discussion of EPA's final regulatory approach in the preamble to the final GS rule for additional

detail on the final requirements for GS wells.

EPA plans to continue to monitor ongoing research on GS, however, and intends to use an adaptive

approach to the GS regulation. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to

determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation

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

Letter ID: 0540 Comment ID: 28315 Letter Lines: 62 to 69  

Comment Code: 2110 2.1.1. SECARB (Escatawpa, MS)  

Comment Code: 2120 2.1.2. SWP (Aneth Field, UT)  

Comment: The NODA emphasizes the use of surface or near surface monitoring for upward  
carbon migration at the SECARB Plant Daniel Project and references the use of  

tracers at the SWP Project in Utah. These technologies would likely provide too  

little information too late in terms of protecting USDWs and they carry a high  

risk of false positive results. Requiring their use may inflame public fears  

regarding the safety of GS projects. EEI advises against the requirement to use  

tracers and/or surface air/soil gas monitoring to detect carbon movement even if  

such requirements are left to the UIC Director's discretion.  

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that the pilot sites studied involved extensive monitoring that

may not necessarily be appropriate for all GS sites. However, EPA believes that a robust monitoring

program is critical to ensuring protection of USDWs at GS projects from endangerment, but clarifies that

the use of any monitoring technique in the pilot projects does not amount to an endorsement by EPA or

an intent by EPA to require that particular method. By testing multiple technologies, the pilot sites

provide valuable data that demonstrate whether or not these technologies are viable and informed the

final GS rule about the appropriate use of monitoring technologies.

EPA acknowledges that the appropriate monitoring methods and technologies will be determined on a

site‐specific basis. Data from the projects presented supports the need for a site‐specific monitoring

plan that will allow use of a range of monitoring technologies suitable for each unique GS site.

To the comment about the utility of surface or near‐surface CO2 monitoring, EPA stresses that

subsurface geochemical and pressure monitoring is the first line of monitoring that would allow

detection of potential endangerment to USDWs from GS activities (this is required at all GS sites, as

described at 146.90). GS projects will not rely solely on surface air or soil gas monitoring for detection of

such endangerment to USDWs, but such methods may be used to provide additional information on the

magnitude and location of suspected leaks.  

EPA recognizes that certain monitoring technologies, particularly tracers, are subject to variability and

may not be appropriate or necessary in all settings. The GS rule at 146.90 gives the Director discretion to

determine what methods are appropriate. All monitoring must be performed according to the Director‐

approved testing and monitoring plan. See the response to comments document for the proposed rule

for additional information on EPA’s final approach to monitoring at GS sites.  

Letter ID: 0540 Comment ID: 28316 Letter Lines: 71 to 81  

Comment Code: 2210 2.2.1. Groundwater Quality and Mobilization of Trace Elements (seeking

comment)  

Comment: The NODA also discusses studies underway at Lawrence Berkeley National  

Laboratory to test the potential for carbon to mobilize trace elements in  
potable groundwater. These studies looked at the potential consequences of  

carbon leakage into USDW but not the likelihood of the occurrence of such  

leakages. Migration of carbon from properly sited and managed projects is  

extremely unlikely. The Inter‐Governmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in  

2005 that a fraction of carbon retained in appropriately selected and managed  

geologic reservoirs is likely to exceed 99 percent over 1,000 years. EEI agrees  

that it's important to understand the potential impacts on USDW if migration  

occurs. However, the most important risk management tool for GS is proper site  

characterization.  

Individual Response: It is understood (and mentioned in the NODA) that the risk of CO2 leaking from

deep storage is low for properly managed GS projects. However, the potential consequences of unlikely

leakage events need to be understood and predictive capabilities need to be developed as a basis for

risk and vulnerability assessment.  

EPA agrees that proper site characterization is necessary to understand the potential geochemical

reactions at a GS site. For this reason, all GS project owners or operators must submit detailed, site‐

specific information about a proposed GS site, including information on the porosity, permeability,

mineralogy, and geochemistry of the targeted injection and confining zones as well as all USDWs within

the Area of Review. Operators must also present information on the compatibility of the CO2 stream

with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in the injection and confining zones (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. For additional information on EPA’s approach to site

characterization for GS wells, see the responses to comments on the proposed rule in the rulemaking

docket.

In addition, the Agency will, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects and research 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: 0540 Comment ID: 28317 Letter Lines: 83 to 97  

Comment Code: 1100 1.1 Comments on the Comprehensive Approach  

Comment: In terms of the regulatory framework for geologic storage, many commenters on  

the proposed rules favor a more comprehensive framework for geologic storage  

which would address issues under statutes other than the Safe Drinking Water Act  

such as the Clean Air Act, RCRA and CERCLA. EPA should adhere to its limited  

jurisdiction under the Safe Drinking Water Act to achieve a stable regulatory  

framework and to avoid challenges based on the lack of legal authority. The  
Agency should also work to develop a single rule to address issues arising  

outside the context of the Safe Drinking Water Act to avoid a patchwork  

regulatory scheme for carbon capture and storage.  

EPA is considering various positions directly impacting carbon capture and  

storage projects under its proposed rule on mandatory reporting of greenhouse  

gases and proposed changes to the renewable fuel standard program. This approach  

increases the risk of a patchwork approach to regulation relative to state  

involvement in the administration of the carbon capture and storage regulations.  

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. 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: 0540 Comment ID: 28318 Letter Lines: 99 to 106  

Comment Code: 4000 4. Comments on Current State GS Activities (seeking comment)  

Comment: The NODA seeks comments on current state activities addressing GS and seeks to  

avoid hindering progress states have made on this front. The NODA suggests an  

approach that would give the states substantial authority under a delegated  

program through primacy. EEI agrees that states and tribes have decades of  

valuable experience in this area and should play a key role in managing carbon  

capture and storage projects. In fact, states also have substantial authority to  

regulate aspects of carbon capture and storage in issues relating to property  

rights and financial incentives beyond injection and storage. However, it is  

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the expertise of state oil and gas agencies that have been

regulating Class II wells for decades under section 1425 of SDWA. These agencies already understand

many of the issues pertaining to Class VI wells and have experience with CO2 injection, subsurface
operations, and pipeline transport, as well as familiarity with local interests and the SDWA. EPA assumes

that this experience, along with the agencies’ familiarity with UIC permitting requirements, will help

facilitate the adoption of Class VI primacy programs.  

Letter ID: 0540 Comment ID: 28319 Letter Lines: 100 to 115  

Comment Code: 5700 5.14. Comments on Other Aspects of the Proposed Rule  

Comment: avoid hindering progress states have made on this front. The NODA suggests an  

approach that would give the states substantial authority under a delegated  

program through primacy. EEI agrees that states and tribes have decades of  

valuable experience in this area and should play a key role in managing carbon  

capture and storage projects. In fact, states also have substantial authority to  

regulate aspects of carbon capture and storage in issues relating to property  

rights and financial incentives beyond injection and storage. However, it is  

important that states be given primacy for Class VI wells only if they request  

it or if they choose to do so. This would allow them to be part of the  

administrative process or to actually run it within their state without being  

required to assume the burden of the entire UIC program for their state.  

And then, finally, it's vitally important that the EPA ensure adequate funding  

for primacy states given the extraordinarily detailed process that will likely  

accompany obtaining a Class VI permit. That concludes my comments and thank you  

very much.  

Individual Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that states should be allowed to obtain primacy

for Class VI wells independently of other well classes. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI

primacy may encourage states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and

provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of

GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations

involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface

access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level (but outside UIC

authority) to provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach. For additional information on

primacy, please see the preamble to the final rule and responses to comments on the proposed GS rule.  

Other parts of this comment pertain to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and are 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.