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.
To:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water

From:

The Sierra Club National Global Warming and Energy Committee, and

The Sierra Club California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee on Energy

and Climate Change

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

Proposed Federal Regulations for the Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

Summary of Recommendations

I. Technical Definitions

Area of Review and Fluid Movement: Adopt the specific language used by the ad-hoc

CO2 workgroup in its Recommendation 3.1 for determining the parameters of each Area 

of Review, i.e. -- “based on generally accepted and site relevant techniques, such as

modeling, that define, in three dimensions, the maximum extent of the modeled CO2 

plume [inclusive of free phase and water-dissolved CO2]and associated pressure front.”

Mechanical Integrity: Include the term Mechanical Integrity under the phrases originally

defined at 40 CFR § 146.81(d).

USDWs and Exempted Aquifers: Re-evaluate the UIC program’s current definition of

Underground Source of Drinking Water (at 40 CFR § 146.3), as applied to Criteria for

Exempted Aquifers (at 40 CFR § 146.4), in regards to the EPA’s total dissolved solids

(TDS) standard of <10,000 mg/L.
2

II. Regulatory Oversight

Regional Advisory Boards: Establish a Carbon Capture and Sequestration Advisory

Board for each of the EPA’s ten regional offices (according to guidelines under 40 CFR

§ 25.7), in order to optimally administer a “Tailored Requirements Approach” that

applies national standards which are adaptive to a variety of regional differences in 

geological formations, natural resources, weather patterns, industrial operations, and 

applicable state laws.

“Vulnerability Evaluation Framework”: Expand the “Vulnerability Evaluation

Framework” to include a multi-scaled classification scheme for adverse impacts

associated with the capture and transportation of CO2 and the operational infrastructure

involved in CO2 storage, such as pipelines, roads, buildings, and well construction.

Federal Pipeline Standards for Transporting CO2: Co-ordinate with the US Congress

and federal agencies to adopt national standards for materials requirements and 

performance specifications in pipelines used to transmit CO2.

III. Public Acceptance

Public Participation: Adopt the existing requirements for public participation in programs

under the Safe Drinking Water Act at 40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part 124.

Environmental Justice and the Siting of Injection Wells: Acknowledge the clear potential

for environmental justice issues to be involved in the siting of Class VI injection wells, and

formulate mandatory protocols for addressing those issues within the permitting process.

CCS and a ‘Clean Energy Future’: Encourage public acceptance of CCS by emphasizing it

as one part of a strategic national plan for effecting a ‘Clean Energy Future’.

CO2 as a Valuable Commodity: Re-frame public perceptions of CO2 as a hazardous

waste material by funding CCS demonstration projects which biologically or chemically

transform CO2 into valuable products.
3

Introduction

The Sierra Club appreciates this opportunity to comment on the EPA’s proposed 

regulations (at 40 CFR Parts 144 & 146) for the geologic sequestration of carbon 

dioxide, as facilitated by the Agency’s creation of the Class VI injection well

classification within the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program of the Safe

Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Given that the EPA’s primary purpose for these

regulations is the protection of the integrity of our groundwater resources, the Sierra Club 

will begin by commenting on the technical topics delineated by the EPA as being 

essential to its permitting processes for this specific goal. We will offer suggestions for

clarification of the proposed technical definitions used in 40 CFR Part 146.

As numerous EPA and Department of Energy publications have reiterated, the

regulation of the geologic storage of CO2 for the purpose of safeguarding underground 

sources of drinking water (USDWs) and public health, cannot be isolated from the

construction of a broad national framework for the regulation of carbon capture and 

sequestration (CCS) in its myriad current and anticipated forms. While technical

standards are of paramount importance in addressing safety issues attendant to CO2 

injection and storage, there are two other key factors in successfully implementing an 

integrated CCS program: regulatory oversight and public acceptance.

In order to optimize the implementation of CCS in the US, it is necessary to 

construct a regulatory framework that is progressive in vision, responsive to new data,

representative of all stakeholders, substantive in expertise, and ethical in decision 

making. The second section will offer policy recommendations for effective regulatory 

oversight. In order to optimize public acceptance, it is necessary to anticipate and 

consider the types of community concerns that are being raised in conjunction with 

proposed sitings and operations of geologic sequestration projects (and future carbon

capture and transportation projects) under EPA and DOE auspices. The third section will

suggest protocols for establishing mechanisms that will address and alleviate the social

and environmental concerns of local communities relating to health, safety, and economic

factors.
4

Technical Definitions

A. Area of Review and Fluid Movement

Recommendation A: Adopt the specific language used by the ad-hoc CO2 workgroup in 

its Recommendation 3.1 for determining the parameters of each Area of Review, i.e. --

“based on generally accepted and site relevant techniques, such as modeling, that define,

in three dimensions, the maximum extent of the modeled CO2 plume [inclusive of free

phase and water-dissolved CO2]and associated pressure front.”

In contradistinction to the workgroup’s Recommendation 3.1, neither the

proposed definition of the Area of Review (AOR) contained in 40 CFR § 146.81(d) nor

the Required Class VI Permit Information for initially permitting the AOR under 40 CFR

§ 146.82, stipulate that the AOR be determined using --among other techniques --

modeling along three dimensions. The three dimensional modeling requirement only 

appears in the proposed definition for the phrase Geologic Sequestration Project at 40 

CFR § 146.81(d). Likewise, Recommendation 3.1’s inclusion of “the associated pressure

front” as a required modeling target – along with the CO2 plume -- neither appears in the

Area of Review definition nor its permitting language under 40 CFR § 146.82 [Required

Class IV Permit Information], but does appear in the definition of the Geologic

Sequestration Project at § 146.81(d). Conversely, the Geologic Sequestration Project is

not named as the targeted area for the initial permitting information required for Class VI

injection wells at § 146.82, and is only mentioned later in the protocols at § 146.84(a)

[Area of Review and Corrective Action]. These discrepancies and omissions may lead to 

confusion regarding the nature and extent of the modeling required at the outset for

determining each AOR and its continuing viability, and could be corrected by inserting

the workgroup’s recommended AOR language in the Definitions and the Required Class

IV Permit Information sections.
5

B. Mechanical Integrity 

Recommendation B: Include the term Mechanical Integrity under the phrases originally

defined at 40 CFR 146.81(d).

Although Mechanical Integrity is defined later in the Class VI regulations under

its own heading [at 146.89(a)], it would be helpful to include it as a term within the

Definitions section at the beginning of the permitting rules.

C. USDWs and Exempted Aquifers

Recommendation C: Re-evaluate the UIC program’s current definition of an

Underground Source of Drinking Water (at 40 § CFR 146.3), as applied to Criteria for

Exempted Aquifers (at 40 CFR § 146.4), in regards to the EPA’s total dissolved solids

(TDS) standard of <10,000 mg/L.

The US Army, US Navy, US Coast Guard, FEMA, and NASA all routinely use

reverse osmosis technology to desalinate seawater (rated at 25,000-35,000 mg/L TDS)

for drinking water purposes, as do boat owners and cruise ship companies. The Tampa

Bay region is providing up to 25 million gallons of drinking water per day through its

seawater desalination plant, while the city of San Diego recently approved the

construction of a plant that is slated to supply 50 million gallons of drinking water per

day. Many seaboard municipalities and utility companies currently desalinate ocean 

water for industrial and agricultural uses; others are actively considering the installation

of desalination plants for residential usage.

As population demands are increasing and many regions are experiencing 

lessening rain and snow falls, the favored groundwater drinking sources with lower TDS

counts are becoming more scarce. In the near future, it may be necessary for landlocked,

arid states to use water from aquifers that exceeds the EPA’s standard for a protected 

USDW, currently set at <10,000 mg/L TDS. Since saline aquifers have been identified 

by the DOE as having the greatest potential storage capacity of all viable types of
6

geologic sequestration sites in the US, it is of utmost importance at the outset that all

aquifer GS candidates be tested for identification as brackish, saline, or briny along a

TDS continuum. Taking into account the current technology and practices, it would be

appropriate for the EPA to re-define protected and exempted USDWs within the Class VI

permitting protocols as those aquifers with sufficient quantities of replenishable water to

supply a public water system, rated at <35,000 mg/L TDS.

Regulatory Oversight

D. Regional Advisory Boards

Recommendation D: Establish a Carbon Capture and Sequestration Advisory Board for

each of the EPA’s ten regional offices (according to guidelines under 40 CFR § 25.7), in

order to optimally administer a “Tailored Requirements Approach” that applies national

standards which are adaptive to a variety of regional differences in geological

formations, natural resources, weather patterns, industrial operations, and applicable

state laws.

Currently, 33 states have primacy in administering all classes of injection well

permitting under the UIC program, while 7 states share responsibility with the EPA, and

10 state programs are solely administered by the EPA. The tailored nature of the present

UIC program is being upheld in the EPA’s proposed regulatory approach of “Tailored 

Requirements” for Class VI permitting. Throughout the 2007-08 consensus process for

formulating the proposed federal geosequestration standards, state regulatory agencies

have consistently asked that national regulations be inclusive of data from local and 

regional contexts. State-by-state variations in structural features such as the density and

porosity of rock formations and cap rock, the composition of geologic systems, the

presence of underground voids and conduits, the commonality of transmissive faults, or

the existence of active fracture zones can dictate different siting requirements. Also, the

environments surrounding the injection wells can evidence confounding aspects such as

heavily populated and/or socially impacted communities, destabilizing weather events,
7

recorded seismic activity, the existence of mineral deposits, proprietary oil and gas

reserves, water wells, other classes of injection wells, abandoned wells, or sensitive

wildlife habitats. State laws governing water and mineral rights vary widely, and some

targeted underground aquifers may span contiguous state boundary lines.

While the more difficult legal entanglements will require federal legislation

and/or federal adjudication, an optimal structure for administering regionally-tailored 

regulations would include a specialized administrator and staff to coordinate and direct

all CCS-related projects within each of the EPA’s 10 regions, supported by an

independent Board of Advisors with members who reside in each of those regions. To

fulfill guidelines established at 40 CFR § 25.7, the Board would be comprised of

balanced representatives from groups of major stakeholders, such as: municipal and state

government officials, EOR/EGR companies, CCS project managers, electric utility

companies, public and municipal water providers, renewable energy providers,

environmental groups, community members, research scientists, geologists, public policy

consultants. This administrative structure would facilitate the protection of states’

divergent local needs while maintaining an umbrella of national standards for the

regulation of complex methodologies.

In order for public acceptance to remain high – as more fully discussed in the

third section – it is necessary for the Board to consistently and carefully maintain a

balanced representational roster. A case in point is the current composition of the

Ground Water Protection Council, through which the EPA interacts and “shares

information and collaborates with [state UIC] primacy programs”

(http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/primacy.html). The GWPC’s web site states that it is

comprised of academicians, citizens, environmentalists, government officials, and

industry representatives. However, its current roster of principals is almost exclusively 

comprised of government officials, government consultants, fossil fuel industry

representatives, and fossil fuel industry consultants. It is virtually lacking in

representative academicians, citizens, environmentalists, public interest professionals, or

public policy consultants. It is imperative that the composition of the Regional Advisory 

Boards be truly representative of local citizens and non-partisan technical consultants so 
8

that communities can participate in Class VI permitting processes and facilitate

acceptance of geosequestration projects in their regions.

E. “Vulnerability Evaluation Framework”

Recommendation E: Expand the “Vulnerability Evaluation Framework” to include a multiscaled classification scheme for adverse impacts associated with the capture and 

transportation of CO2 and the operational infrastructure involved in CO2 storage, such 

as pipelines, roads, buildings, and well construction.

The Sierra Club supports the EPA’s use of the VEF approach to “systematically 

identify those conditions that may increase or decrease susceptibility to adverse impacts

from GS”; we approve of the establishment of categories, thresholds, and flowcharts to

aid administrative decision making processes(See:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/VEFTechnical_Document_072408.pdf). It is understood that the vulnerability assessment is

intended to be iterative and adaptive to new data. However, at the outset, Sierra Club

urges the EPA to refine the binary vulnerability classification, which exhibits a flawed 

gap between the low and elevated levels in its current formulation. Most specifically, the

taxonomy only allows for a finding of corrective action (“monitoring and mitigation 

procedures”) to be applied in cases of an elevated vulnerability impact, and does not

anticipate the rejection of a permit on the basis of a site’s high vulnerability impact on

human populations, ecosystems, and geospheres surrounding the proposed injection well

sites. At the very minimum, a three-tiered classification of low, medium, and high

vulnerability would trigger certain corrective actions at a medium level, and would result

in the denial of a permit where there exists a high vulnerability level for legislatively 

protected human populations, conservation lands, endangered wildlife, and surrounding

bodies of water other than protected USDWs.

Secondarily, the Sierra Club urges the EPA to expand the VEF design to include

“operational aspects of GS such as surface infrastructure (e.g. buildings, pipelines, well

construction), and specific monitoring techniques to ensure the integrity of the GS system

recommended.” As the authors of the document conclude: “[T]hese elements need to be
9

considered because they may play an important role in defining a project’s overall

vulnerability”[italics added].

F. Federal Pipeline Standards for Transporting CO2

Recommendation F: Co-ordinate with the US Congress and federal agencies to adopt

national standards for materials requirements and performance specifications in 

pipelines used to transmit CO2.

The EPA’s Office of Water has stated that the transmission of captured CO2 to 

injection storage sites is somewhat outside the scope of the SDWA (“Proposed UIC

Regulations for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide” February 2008; See:

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/page_uic_washingtondc_feburay2008_summary.

pdf ). However, the EPA is coordinating its issuance of UIC regulations with the US

Department of Transportation, and has recognized the importance of maintaining safety 

standards and risk management practices throughout the various stages of carbon capture,

transportation, and storage. Currently in the US, about 3,600 miles of CO2 pipelines are

in operation, primarily located in Texas and New Mexico. They carry CO2 from

underground reservoirs, natural gas processing facilities, ammonia manufacturing plants,

and a North Dakota coal gasification project to oil fields for use in EOR/EGR (See:

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/nicholas/insider/thegreengrok/co2pipeline/).

According to a recent press release, a Norwegian risk management company is

partnering with European businesses and governments to establish EU pipeline standards

for transmitting large amounts of captured CO2 to onshore and offshore storage sites.

The guidelines will relate to issues of “safety, fast propagating ductile fractures, fatigue

crack growth, pipeline operation conditions, flow assurance, corrosion and material

compatibility,” and will address all phases of construction and lifetime performance,

“including the design, testing, inspection, operation, maintenance and de-commissioning 

phases”(See:
10

http://www.dnv.com/press_area/press_releases/2008/developingthefirstco2pipelinestanda

rd.asp). One important objective of the standards is to standardize the transport of CO2 

so that it will become uniformly insurable by private insurance companies.

Reportedly, American-based oil companies are participating in the European rulemaking process, and so presumably will have ongoing information about the standards

adopted by the EU. This information can enhance the decision making process during 

the coming period that US regulations are being promulgated for all stages of carbon

capture, transportation, and storage. Several 2008 Congressional Research Reports

indicate that the US Congress has begun to address the issues related to constructing and

operating a network of CO2 pipelines for CCS(See:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33971_20080117.pdf and

http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/08Apr/RL34307.pdf). When such a network is

constructed, it is probable that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and 

the Surface Transportation Board (STB) will receive jurisdiction over interstate pipelines

used for this purpose. Currently, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety

Administration applies safety requirements to CO2 pipelines that are mandated by CO2’s

classification as a Class 2.2 (non-flammable gas) hazardous material under DOT

regulations (40 CFR § 172.101). Since it is likely that a federally-administrated hierarchy

will be established over the next decade, it is important that the EPA’s terrestrial storage

regulations remain compatible with progressive developments for the transportation of CO2 

to the injection well sites.

Public Acceptance

G. Public Participation

Recommendation G: Adopt the existing requirements for public participation in programs

under the Safe Drinking Water Act at 40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part 124.

Historical illustrations of community resistance to a range of proposed CCS

projects would suggest that EPA policies which truncate the technical aspects of CO2 

storage from the social and cultural values held by targeted localities carry a high degree of

likelihood for public opposition. A 2008 Congressional Research Report, “Community 
11

Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Sequestration Infrastructure: Siting Challenges” cites

public opposition as an important consideration in the successful formulation of national

CCS policy in general, and local resistance as a key ingredient in the appropriate siting of

geosequestration projects in particular. The Report warns:

Community opposition could complicate and delay each element of CCS

implementation, potentially adding years to a national CCS deployment.

Alternatively, community concerns could lead to a national patchwork of

CCS projects constructed only in publicly acceptable geographies (or on

public lands), creating inter-regional disparities and failing to meet

congressional objectives

(http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34601_20080729.pdf at CRS-28).

As a general rule, community concerns regarding CCS will fall into three categories: health

and safety, economic, and environmental. In 2007, two studies involving residents of

California’s Central Valley expressed the following concerns about proposed 

geosquestration projects in their areas: a risk of carbon dioxide release and/or an increase in

seismic activity [health and safety]; the lowering of property values and/or the raising of

cost-of-living [economic]; the disruptive construction of a pipeline infrastructure for

transporting the CO2 to the proposed site and/or a negative change to the character of the

community [environmental] (see “Community” at CRS-16).

While it is unrealistic to expect that every contentious rationale raised by local

residents can be overcome through trust-building strategies instituted by governments and 

businesses, it is well-recognized that a substantial number of legitimate grievances can be

allayed ‘up-front’ with the structuring of participatory permitting processes. In cases where

residents can be convinced that benefits to their community will outweigh anticipated costs,

that the risks are clearly articulated and will be competently managed, sufficient community 

acceptance can be garnered in order to proceed. Establishing procedural mechanisms for

public citizens to express genuine concerns relating to proposed geosequestration sites

under the new EPA regulations can provide opportunities for solving disputes before they 

become intractable.

H. Environmental Justice and the Siting of Injection Wells

Recommendation H: Acknowledge the clear potential for environmental justice issues to be

involved in the siting of Class VI injection wells, and formulate mandatory protocols for

addressing those issues within the permitting process.
12

California’s Central Valley is a particularly valuable example for illustrating the

importance of both technical and social considerations in establishing the permitting

protocols for Class VI injection wells. The Central Valley has been consistently identified

as a primary location for CCS projects by the DOE, the Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and British Petroleum – among

others. The DOE has entered into an agreement with Clean Energy Systems for a pilot

CCS project at a natural gas power plant in Kern county, and BP has applied to the

California Energy Commission for approval of a proposed project. Thus, employing certain

technical considerations alone, the Central Valley is ideal for early CCS deployment.

However, a history of economic and social issues in the region has served to heighten 

public resistance to such projects.

Due to previous identification as a region with economically disadvantaged 

populations, dangerously poor air quality, and degraded wildlife habitats, the Central Valley 

has become the focus of numerous governmental and nonprofit interventions, including 

ongoing EPA sanctions for violations of the Clean Air Act. Typically, when new industrial

developments seek to become established in the region, they will be opposed unless they 

can be shown to carry greater benefits than costs to local communities. Because all three

categories (health and safety, economic, and environmental) are interdependent in the

Central Valley, the ability to ameliorate or solve any specific grievance becomes more

difficult.

In its comments to the proposed regulations, the EPA states: “Existing electric

power generation plants that burn fossil fuels may be more prevalent in areas with high 

percentages of people who are minorities or have lower incomes on average, but it is hard to 

predict where new plants with CCS will be built.” This statement fails to acknowledge the

large prevalence of proposed geologic storage sites near existing oil and gas fields and/or

currently operational power plants. Every study by industry and business consultants has

concluded that CO2 storage is most economically feasible when sited as close to the source

of emissions as possible. Whether CO2 is defined as an industrial commodity or a

hazardous waste product, it is incompatible with storage in high income residential

population centers. It is most likely that GS sites will be proposed in areas of similar

populations to those communities, like California’s Central Valley, that have histories of

economic disadvantage, of environmental degradation from industrial developments, and of

chronic health issues among the general populace, especially children. Therefore, it is of

utmost importance for the EPA to mandate protocols for addressing environmental justice

issues which will most likely be attendant to a large percentage of GS permit applications.
13

I. CCS and a ‘Clean Energy Future’

Recommendation I: Encourage public acceptance of CCS by emphasizing it as one part of

a strategic plan for effecting a ‘Clean Energy Future’.

A prominent theme in public opposition to CCS is the concern that geologic storage

will prolong our dependence on fossil fuels and divert the necessary funds for developing

sustainable energy resources in the US. In addition to providing protocols for public

outreach, education, and dialogue about geosequestration siting, the EPA has an opportunity 

during these early stages of implementation of national CCS policies to frame social

perceptions of geologic storage as part of a larger set of strategies for achieving a ‘Clean 

Energy Future.’ The Sierra Club strongly recommends that the EPA partner with the DOE

and other federal agencies to garner public support for CCS by characterizing it as one of

several policy measures designed to reduce the overabundance of CO2 in our atmosphere.

While CO2 capture is outside the scope of these proposed regulations for CO2 injection 

and storage, it is important to recognize that many opponents of CCS in general are fearful

that the development of CO2 capture technology will prolong our reliance on coal for

electrical generation, thus delaying deployment of renewable energy resources such as wind,

solar, and geothermal. By promoting the adoption of ‘companion carbon control

strategies’ such as energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy electrical

generation, the EPA can help position CCS as one constituent of a broader integrated

objective.

J. CO2 as a Valuable Commodity

Recommendation J: Re-frame public perceptions of CO2 as a hazardous waste material

by funding CCS demonstration projects which biologically or chemically transform CO2 

into valuable products.

Localities that oppose the permitting of geologic sequestration projects usually hold 

the perception that CO2 is a toxic waste material being dumped and buried in their

backyards. Typically, localities are distrustful of the motivations of business and 

government representatives who seek to allay fears of economic, health, and environmental

risks attendant to pumping CO2 into injection wells. An important avenue for re-framing

such perceptions is by emphasizing CCS methods which value carbon dioxide as a naturally

occurring and commercially valuable resource. The DOE’s carbon sequestration program
14

at the National Energy Technology Laboratory includes funding for research and 

development of advanced chemical and biological approaches, including systems for

decarbonization, photosynthesis, and conversion of CO2 into useful forms. However,

since no demonstration projects have been announced over the same time period that

multiple geosequestration projects have been implemented, the DOE’s “Novel Carbon

Sequestration Concepts” program appears to be under-publicized and under-funded. This

lack of vigor in promoting carbon transformation methods gives the public the impression 

that CCS technologies are being readied solely for the purpose of perpetuating our

dependency on fossil fuels for electricity generation and manufacturing processes.

Numerous business ventures are seeking opportunities to prove the efficacy of

their carbon mineralization processes with larger demonstration projects. Companies

holding proprietary patents for useful CO2-sequestered materials such as calcium

carbonate cement and construction materials, paper products, biodegradable plastics, and 

algae biofuels need government funding and support to scale-up their methods. By 

narrowly targeting geosequestration as the primary carbon storage solution, the federal

government is missing an opportunity to secure broader public acceptance of CCS as a

safe and viable method for reducing the overabundance of CO2 in our atmosphere, and is

neglecting important avenues for achieving that goal.

Conclusion

Although the proposed EPA regulations are not designed to address the presence

of overabundant CO2 in our atmosphere, the Sierra Club urges the EPA to continue

fulfilling its mandate to protect the environment by working with the DOE and other

federal agencies to construct a cohesive body of regulations for all CCS methods, and to 

expand the current purview from attention to the subsurface movement of CO2 to include

the atmospheric dimensions of the issues as a whole. Additionally, the Sierra Club urges

the EPA, DOE, and other federal agencies to substantially increase their commitment to

the funding of research and development for alternatives to geologic storage, such as

innovative biological and chemical approaches to carbon sequestration, thereby 

increasing public acceptance of CCS as an important tool for cleaning the atmosphere

during this period of transition to an optimal use of sustainable energy resources.
Letter ID: 0133 

Commenter: Anonymous2 

Organization: Sierra Club National Global Warming and Energy Committee and Sierra Club 

California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee on Energy and Climate Change 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21578 Letter Lines: 24 to 31 

Comment Code: 1220 1.1.1.1 Terminology and definitions 

Comment Code: 3200 2.2 Proposed Area of Review and Corrective Action Requirements (40 

CFR 146.84) 

Comment: I. Technical Definitions 

Area of Review and Fluid Movement: Adopt the specific language used by the adhoc CO2 workgroup in its Recommendation 3.1 for determining the parameters of 

each Area of Review, i.e. -- "based on generally accepted and site relevant 

techniques, such as modeling, that define, in three dimensions, the maximum 

extent of the modeled CO2 plume [inclusive of free phase and water- dissolved 

CO2]and associated pressure front." 

Individual Response: Based on review of all public comments on the AoR definition at 

146.84(a), the Agency has modified it to read as follows: The region surrounding the geologic 

sequestration project where USDWs may be endangered by the injection activity. The area of 

review is delineated using computational modeling that accounts for the physical and chemical 

properties of all phases of the injected CO2 stream and is based on available site 

characterization, monitoring, and operational data. The definition in the proposed rule accounted 

for the varying physical and chemical properties of the CO2 including free-phase and waterdissolved CO2, as the commenter suggests. The definition in the final rule will continue to do so. 

The UIC regulations, including the Class VI regulations, are designed to ensure protection of 

USDWs from endangerment. The Agency believes that the AoR needs to incorporate not only 

the CO2 itself—regardless of saturation or phase—but also the area of increased pressure ahead 

of the CO2 plume, which can potentially displace saline, native fluids (i.e., naturally occurring 

salty water) into USDWs. This pressure front would typically encompass an area larger than the 

plume itself, including any areas of small scale fingering or heterogeneities or where CO2 

saturation is less than 100 percent. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21579 Letter Lines: 33 to 34 

Comment Code: 1220 1.1.1.1 Terminology and definitions 

Comment: Mechanical Integrity: Include the term Mechanical Integrity under the phrases 

originally defined at 40 CFR 146.81(d). 

1
Individual Response: EPA clarifies that mechanical integrity is defined at §146.89(a) as the 

absence (1) of significant leak in the casing, tubing, or packer and (2) of significant fluid 

movement into a USDW through channels adjacent to the injection wellbore. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21580 Letter Lines: 36 to 39 

Comment Code: 1220 1.1.1.1 Terminology and definitions 

Comment Code: 2120 1.6.1 Deep saline formations 

Comment Code: 4400 2.4.4.3 Allowing injection above or between USDWs (seeking comment) 

Comment: USDWs and Exempted Aquifers: Re-evaluate the UIC program's current definition 

of 

Underground Source of Drinking Water (at 40 CFR 146.3), as applied to Criteria 

for Exempted Aquifers (at 40 CFR 146.4), in regards to the EPA's total dissolved 

solids (TDS) standard of 

Individual Response: The Agency acknowledges commenter concerns about water resources 

and future water resource availability. However, modifying the definition of a USDW is outside 

the scope of the GS rulemaking. USDWs are defined as aquifers currently being used as sources 

of drinking water or those capable of supplying a public water system and they have a total 

dissolved solids (TDS) content of 10,000 milligrams per liter or less (§144.3). 

The primary goal of the UIC Program under the SDWA is to protect USDWs in order to ensure a 

reliable supply of drinking water for the American public. The GS rule, as part of the UIC 

program regulations, continues the program’s statutory mandate of ensuring the protection of 

USDWs. The permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care 

requirements in the GS rule built on a long-standing protective regulatory framework, tailored to 

the unique characteristics of CO2 GS. 

EPA recognizes that there is increasing demand for water resources and that technology 

improvements may make high TDS aquifers viable drinking water sources. EPA believes these 

potential resources should be considered when injection depth waivers are sought. Therefore, the 

final GS rule at §146.95(b) requires the Director to consider these issues in determining whether 

an injection depth waiver is appropriate. Specifically, the Director must consider whether 

alternative injection sites are available; community needs, demands, and supply from drinking 

water resources; planned needs, potential and/or future use of USDWs and non-USDWs in the 

area; and a plan for securing alternative resources or treating USDW formation waters in the 

event of contamination related to the Class VI injection activity. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21581 Letter Lines: 41 to 48 

Comment Code: 1260 1.1.1.5 More certainty/stringency is needed 

Comment Code: 1970 1.4.4.6 Need for other consultations 

Comment: II. Regulatory Oversight 

2
Regional Advisory Boards: Establish a Carbon Capture and Sequestration Advisory 

Board for each of the EPA's ten regional offices (according to guidelines under 

40 CFR 25.7), in order to optimally administer a "Tailored Requirements 

Approach" that applies national standards which are adaptive to a variety of 

regional differences in geological formations, natural resources, weather 

patterns, industrial operations, and applicable state laws. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that establishing a Carbon Capture and Sequestration 

Advisory Board is out of the scope of the GS rulemaking. EPA adds that the Agency plans to 

collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate 

amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to 

determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. As part of this 

adaptive rulemaking approach, EPA will consult with a variety of stakeholders, including the 

National Drinking Water Advisory Council, associations and organizations, ORD, and experts to 

ensure that implementation of the national Class VI program is based on the best available 

science. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21582 Letter Lines: 50 to 54 

Comment Code: 1820 1.4.1.1 Vulnerability Evaluation Framework (VEF) 

Comment: "Vulnerability Evaluation Framework": Expand the "Vulnerability Evaluation 

Framework" to include a multi-scaled classification scheme for adverse impacts 

associated with the capture and transportation of CO2 and the operational 

infrastructure involved in CO2 storage, such as pipelines, roads, buildings, and 

well construction. 

Individual Response: The Agency clarifies that the VEF is intended to be a risk screening tool, 

but it is not a required component of the GS site selection process. The UIC Class VI well permit 

application requirements, including the minimum criteria for siting at §146.83, and the 

information requirements at §146.82 provide the basis for determining whether a proposed GS 

site is geologically appropriate and the proposed operations are technically viable, safe, and will 

not endanger USDWs. 

The GS rule provides flexibility to determine the suitability of a proposed site based on 

extensive, site-specific data. The Director may consider some components of the VEF (e.g., 

information regarding wells, faults, and pressure changes) when assessing the appropriateness of 

a site for GS; however, the Director's permit approval determination is based on UIC Class VI 

requirements and not the VEF. EPA clarifies that concerns about operational infrastructure (e.g., 

pipelines) have no bearing on USDW protection and are outside of the scope of the GS 

rulemaking. 

3
Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21583 Letter Lines: 56 to 58 

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

Comment: Federal Pipeline Standards for Transporting CO2: Co-ordinate with the US 

Congress and federal agencies to adopt national standards for materials 

requirements and performance specifications in pipelines used to transmit CO2. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the purpose of the Class VI GS rule is 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. Transportation of CO2 via pipelines is outside the 

scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21596 Letter Lines: 60 to 64 

Comment Code: 5520 2.10.1 Appropriateness of existing public participation requirements 

(Part 25 and Part 124) for GS (seeking comment) 

Comment: III. Public Acceptance 

Public Participation: Adopt the existing requirements for public participation 

in programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act at 40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part 

124. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the existing UIC public participation requirements as 

specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are appropriate for GS projects. In addition, because of 

the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest in GS projects, EPA 

encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the public with accurate, project 

specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help clarify project details and 

avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects, and will allow a potential 

GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's concerns before the 

permitting process is complete. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21597 Letter Lines: 66 to 69 

Comment Code: 8000 4.1 Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice 

Comment: Environmental Justice and the Siting of Injection Wells: Acknowledge the clear 

potential for environmental justice issues to be involved in the siting of Class 

VI injection wells, and formulate mandatory protocols for addressing those 

issues within the permitting process. 

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that some Class VI wells may be sited in areas with high 

percentages of minority, low-income, or tribal people. Furthermore, the Agency agrees that 

4
permit writers reviewing Class VI well permit applications should consider environmental justice 

issues when conducting their review. 

EPA clarifies that siting of GS projects is based on the presence of appropriate geologic 

formations that can receive and confine the total volume of CO2 anticipated to be injected under 

§ 146.83(a)(2). The GS regulation at § 146.82 requires owners/operators to collect and submit 

extensive geological data on the proposed GS site, including an assessment of the geologic, 

hydrogeologic, geochemical, and geomechanical properties of the proposed GS site to ensure 

that GS wells are located in suitable formations and that USDWs are protected from 

endangerment. 

EPA also emphasizes that the purpose of the GS rule is to protect USDWs through permitting, 

siting, construction, operation, injection, and post-injection site care and site closure 

requirements that are tailored to address the unique nature of GS. The Class VI requirements, in 

turn, minimize health risks to all populations, including minority, and low-income, and tribal 

populations. The "Risk and Occurrence Document for the Geologic Sequestration Rulemaking," 

available in the rulemaking docket, presents a broad discussion of risks to human health and the 

environment associated with GS, including those addressed under SDWA authority and those 

beyond the scope of the SDWA. The GS rule does not address risks outside the scope of the 

SDWA. 

EPA is developing guidance for UIC Directors that places emphasis on considering the potential 

impact of any GS permits on communities (such as minority, and low-income and tribal 

populations) when evaluating Class VI injection well permit applications. The guidance also 

provides suggestions and tools for targeted outreach to ensure more meaningful public input and 

participation from the most affected communities during the permit evaluation and approval 

process. Additionally, as part of the permitting process pursuant to requirements at 40 CFR Part 

124 the public has an opportunity to review public notices on GS permit applications, participate 

in hearings related to GS permit decisions, and inform permit writers of any environmental 

justice concerns associated with a specific GS project. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21598 Letter Lines: 71 to 73 

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

Comment: CCS and a 'Clean Energy Future': Encourage public acceptance of CCS by 

emphasizing it as one part of a strategic national plan for effecting a 'Clean 

Energy Future'. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that 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. 

5
Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21599 Letter Lines: 75 to 77 

Comment Code: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate risk, don't stigmatize CO2 

Comment: CO2 as a Valuable Commodity: Re-frame public perceptions of CO2 as a hazardous 

waste material by funding CCS demonstration projects which biologically or 

chemically transform CO2 into valuable products. 

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique 

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

adverse impacts. However, with proper site selection, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements 

address the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of 

water, and potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, the tailored permitting, siting, 

construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule are 

intended to prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs. 

EPA adds that the requirements of the GS rule are tailored to the nature of the CO2 itself, and do 

not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant, commodity, or waste. The comment regarding 

funding of CCS demonstration projects is outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21600 Letter Lines: 92 to 100 

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

Comment: As numerous EPA and Department of Energy publications have reiterated, the 

regulation of the geologic storage of CO2 for the purpose of safeguarding 

underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) and public health, cannot be 

isolated from the construction of a broad national framework for the regulation 

of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) in its myriad current and anticipated 

forms. While technical standards are of paramount importance in addressing 

safety issues attendant to CO2 injection and storage, there are two other key 

factors in successfully implementing an integrated CCS program: regulatory 

oversight and public acceptance. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS regulation is being promulgated under 

authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The purpose of the Class VI GS rule is 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. 

EPA believes that the Class VI GS regulation, which builds upon the long-standing protective 

framework of the UIC program, will provide the regulatory certainty and oversight that operators 

have requested. EPA also believes that tailored requirements to ensure that GS projects are 

permitted, sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a manner that avoids releases of CO2 will 

protect USDWs from endangerment and thus may improve public confidence in GS. 

6
Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21601 Letter Lines: 102 to 113 

Comment Code: 1430 1.2.1.2 Support EPA's authority to regulate CO2 injection 

Comment: In order to optimize the implementation of CCS in the US, it is necessary to 

construct a regulatory framework that is progressive in vision, responsive to 

new data, representative of all stakeholders, substantive in expertise, and 

ethical in decision making. The second section will offer policy recommendations 

for effective regulatory oversight. In order to optimize public acceptance, it 

is necessary to anticipate and consider the types of community concerns that are 

being raised in conjunction with proposed sitings and operations of geologic 

sequestration projects (and future carbon capture and transportation projects) 

under EPA and DOE auspices. The third section will suggest protocols for 

establishing mechanisms that will address and alleviate the social and 

environmental concerns of local communities relating to health, safety, and 

economic factors. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of 

stakeholders is a vital component of successful rulemaking. The Agency appreciates the degree 

of cooperation, participation, and active dialogue between the EPA and stakeholders and will 

continue to work with stakeholders and experts as it implements the GS rule. 

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC Program. Even after 

finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on 

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

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

requirements are appropriate or necessary. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21602 Letter Lines: 115 to 124 

Comment Code: 3200 2.2 Proposed Area of Review and Corrective Action Requirements (40 

CFR 146.84) 

Comment: Technical Definitions 

A. Area of Review and Fluid Movement 

Recommendation A: Adopt the specific language used by the ad-hoc CO2 workgroup 

in its Recommendation 3.1 for determining the parameters of each Area of Review, 

i.e. -- "based on generally accepted and site relevant techniques, such as 

modeling, that define, in three dimensions, the maximum extent of the modeled 

CO2 plume [inclusive of free phase and water- dissolved CO2]and associated 

pressure front." 

Individual Response: Based on review of all public comments on the AoR definition at 

7
146.84(a), the Agency has modified it to read as follows: The region surrounding the geologic 

sequestration project where USDWs may be endangered by the injection activity. The area of 

review is delineated using computational modeling that accounts for the physical and chemical 

properties of all phases of the injected CO2 stream and is based on available site 

characterization, monitoring, and operational data. The definition in the proposed rule accounted 

for the varying physical and chemical properties of the CO2 including free-phase and waterdissolved CO2, as the commenter suggests. The definition in the final rule will continue to do so. 

The UIC regulations, including the Class VI regulations, are designed to ensure protection of 

USDWs from endangerment. The Agency believes that the AoR needs to incorporate not only 

the CO2 itself—regardless of saturation or phase—but also the area of increased pressure ahead 

of the CO2 plume, which can potentially displace saline, native fluids (i.e., naturally occurring 

salty water) into USDWs. This pressure front would typically encompass an area larger than the 

plume itself, including any areas of small scale fingering or heterogeneities or where CO2 

saturation is less than 100 percent. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21603 Letter Lines: 126 to 144 

Comment Code: 3300 2.2.1 Delineating the AoR/Modeling CO2 movement 

Comment: In contradistinction to the workgroup's Recommendation 3.1, neither the proposed 

definition of the Area of Review (AOR) contained in 40 CFR 146.81(d) nor the 

Required Class VI Permit Information for initially permitting the AOR under 40 

CFR 146.82, stipulate that the AOR be determined using --among other techniques 

-- modeling along three dimensions. The three dimensional modeling requirement 

only appears in the proposed definition for the phrase Geologic Sequestration 

Project at 40 CFR 146.81(d). Likewise, Recommendation 3.1's inclusion of "the 

associated pressure front" as a required modeling target along with the CO2 

plume -- neither appears in the Area of Review definition nor its permitting 

language under 40 CFR 146.82 [Required Class IV Permit Information], but does 

appear in the definition of the Geologic Sequestration Project at 146.81(d). 

Conversely, the Geologic Sequestration Project is not named as the targeted area 

for the initial permitting information required for Class VI injection wells at 

section 146.82, and is only mentioned later in the protocols at section 146.84 

(a) [Area of Review and Corrective Action]. These discrepancies and omissions 

may lead to confusion regarding the nature and extent of the modeling required 

at the outset for determining each AOR and its continuing viability, and could 

be corrected by inserting the workgroup's recommended AOR language in the 

Definitions and the Required Class IV Permit Information sections. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the term “three dimensional” that is in the definition 

of the Geologic Sequestration Project must necessarily be repeated in the AoR requirement for 

modeling for that modeling to be implicitly three-dimensional. The intent of the AoR, a longstanding concept within the UIC Program, is to delineate the surface area and all subsurface 

formations below it that may potentially be impacted by injection activity. Acceptable 

8
delineation models will provide predictions of CO2 fate and transport, as well as changes in 

formation pressure, in three dimensions as a function of time that can be used to delineate the 

subsurface storage site and the AoR. Although EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestions, 

the Agency has carefully considered all comments on the AoR definition at 146.84(a) and 

modified it to read as follows: The region surrounding the geologic sequestration project where 

USDWs may be endangered by the injection activity. The area of review is delineated using 

computational modeling that accounts for the physical and chemical properties of all phases of 

the injected CO2 stream and is based on available site characterization, monitoring, and 

operational data. 

EPA believes that this definition is sufficiently broad and describes both the intent of the 

computational modeling and the relationship of the AoR to areas that are subject to the risks 

associated with injection. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21604 Letter Lines: 146 to 153 

Comment Code: 1220 1.1.1.1 Terminology and definitions 

Comment: B. Mechanical Integrity 

Recommendation B: Include the term Mechanical Integrity under the phrases 

originally defined at 40 CFR 146.81(d). 

Although Mechanical Integrity is defined later in the Class VI regulations under 

its own heading [at 146.89(a)], it would be helpful to include it as a term 

within the Definitions section at the beginning of the permitting rules. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that mechanical integrity is defined at §146.89(a) as the 

absence (1) of significant leak in the casing, tubing, or packer and (2) of significant fluid 

movement into a USDW through channels adjacent to the injection wellbore. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21605 Letter Lines: 155 to 185 

Comment Code: 2120 1.6.1 Deep saline formations 

Comment: C. USDWs and Exempted Aquifers 

Recommendation C: Re-evaluate the UIC program's current definition of an 

Underground Source of Drinking Water (at 40 CFR 146.3), as applied to Criteria 

for Exempted Aquifers (at 40 CFR 146.4), in regards to the EPA's total dissolved 

solids (TDS) standard of 

The US Army, US Navy, US Coast Guard, FEMA, and NASA all routinely use reverse 

osmosis technology to desalinate seawater (rated at 25,000-35,000 mg/L TDS) for 

9
drinking water purposes, as do boat owners and cruise ship companies. The Tampa 

Bay region is providing up to 25 million gallons of drinking water per day 

through its seawater desalination plant, while the city of San Diego recently 

approved the construction of a plant that is slated to supply 50 million gallons 

of drinking water per day. Many seaboard municipalities and utility companies 

currently desalinate ocean water for industrial and agricultural uses; others 

are actively considering the installation of desalination plants for residential 

usage. 

As population demands are increasing and many regions are experiencing lessening 

rain and snow falls, the favored groundwater drinking sources with lower TDS 

counts are becoming more scarce. In the near future, it may be necessary for 

landlocked, arid states to use water from aquifers that exceeds the EPA's 

standard for a protected USDW, currently set at 

aquifers have been identified by the DOE as having the greatest potential 

storage capacity of all viable types of geologic sequestration sites in the US, 

it is of utmost importance at the outset that all aquifer GS candidates be 

tested for identification as brackish, saline, or briny along a TDS continuum. 

Taking into account the current technology and practices, it would be 

appropriate for the EPA to re-define protected and exempted USDWs within the 

Class VI permitting protocols as those aquifers with sufficient quantities of 

replenishable water to supply a public water system, rated at 

Individual Response: The Agency acknowledges commenter concerns about water resources 

and future water resource availability. However, modifying the definition of a USDW and 

analyzing water resource availability is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. USDWs are 

defined as aquifers currently being used as sources of drinking water or those capable of 

supplying a public water system and they have a total dissolved solids (TDS) content of 10,000 

milligrams per liter or less (§144.3). 

The primary goal of the UIC Program under the SDWA is to protect USDWs in order to ensure a 

reliable supply of drinking water for the American public. The GS rule, as part of the UIC 

program regulations, continues the program’s statutory mandate of ensuring the protection of 

USDWs. The permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care 

requirements in the GS rule built on a long-standing protective regulatory framework, tailored to 

the unique characteristics of CO2 GS. 

EPA clarifies that a state’s Class VI primacy program may be more stringent then the federal 

requirements. For example, a state has the discretion to ban GS projects from taking place in 

specific formations or other areas where there are water resource issues. EPA believes that state 

permitting authorities are in the best position to make determinations about the appropriateness 

of a particular site based on all available information, including drinking water supply needs 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21606 Letter Lines: 187 to 196 

10
Comment Code: 1260 1.1.1.5 More certainty/stringency is needed 

Comment Code: 1970 1.4.4.6 Need for other consultations 

Comment: Regulatory Oversight 

D. Regional Advisory Boards 

Recommendation D: Establish a Carbon Capture and Sequestration Advisory Board 

for each of the EPA's ten regional offices (according to guidelines under 40 CFR 

25.7), in order to optimally administer a "Tailored Requirements Approach" that 

applies national standards which are adaptive to a variety of regional 

differences in geological formations, natural resources, weather patterns, 

industrial operations, and applicable state laws. 

Individual Response: EPA will continue to consult with a variety of stakeholders, including the 

National Drinking Water Advisory Council, associations and organizations, ORD, and experts; 

review permits; and continue to hold workshops to build expertise and ensure that 

implementation of the national program is based on the best available science. The Agency plans 

to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate 

amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to 

determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21607 Letter Lines: 198 to 216 

Comment Code: 1530 1.2.3.1 State regulatory efforts on GS (seeking comment) 

Comment: Currently, 33 states have primacy in administering all classes of injection well 

permitting under the UIC program, while 7 states share responsibility with the 

EPA, and 10 state programs are solely administered by the EPA. The tailored 

nature of the present UIC program is being upheld in the EPA's proposed 

regulatory approach of "Tailored Requirements" for Class VI permitting. 

Throughout the 2007-08 consensus process for formulating the proposed federal 

geosequestration standards, state regulatory agencies have consistently asked 

that national regulations be inclusive of data from local and regional contexts. 

State-by-state variations in structural features such as the density and 

porosity of rock formations and cap rock, the composition of geologic systems, 

the presence of underground voids and conduits, the commonality of transmissive 

faults, or the existence of active fracture zones can dictate different siting 

requirements. Also, the environments surrounding the injection wells can 

evidence confounding aspects such as heavily populated and/or socially impacted 

communities, destabilizing weather events, recorded seismic activity, the 

existence of mineral deposits, proprietary oil and gas reserves, water wells, 

other classes of injection wells, abandoned wells, or sensitive wildlife 

habitats. State laws governing water and mineral rights vary widely, and some 

targeted underground aquifers may span contiguous state boundary lines. 

11
Individual Response: EPA clarifies that SDWA, under section 1422(b)(3)(9)(A), requires that 

the regulations of the Administrator "permit or provide for varying geologic, hydrological, or 

historical conditions in different states and in different areas within a state." EPA has provided 

the Director discretion in applying the GS requirements, taking into account varying conditions, 

particularly with regard to the evaluation of site characteristics. For additional information, 

please see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final GS 

rule. 

EPA recognizes the complexity and importance of states' approaches to managing GS and is 

aware that states are currently in various stages of developing statutory frameworks, regulations, 

workgroups, technical guidance, and strategies for addressing CCS and GS. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21614 Letter Lines: 218 to 248 

Comment Code: 1910 1.4.4 Stakeholder outreach 

Comment: While the more difficult legal entanglements will require federal legislation 

and/or federal adjudication, an optimal structure for administering regionallytailored regulations would include a specialized administrator and staff to 

coordinate and direct all CCS-related projects within each of the EPA's 10 

regions, supported by an independent Board of Advisors with members who reside 

in each of those regions. To fulfill guidelines established at 40 CFR 25.7, the 

Board would be comprised of balanced representatives from groups of major 

stakeholders, such as: municipal and state government officials, EOR/EGR 

companies, CCS project managers, electric utility companies, public and 

municipal water providers, renewable energy providers, environmental groups, 

community members, research scientists, geologists, public policy consultants. 

This administrative structure would facilitate the protection of states' 

divergent local needs while maintaining an umbrella of national standards for 

the regulation of complex methodologies. 

In order for public acceptance to remain high -- as more fully discussed in the 

third section -- it is necessary for the Board to consistently and carefully 

maintain a balanced representational roster. A case in point is the current 

composition of the Ground Water Protection Council, through which the EPA 

interacts and "shares information and collaborates with [state UIC] primacy 

programs"(http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/primacy.html). The GWPC's web site 

states that it is comprised of academicians, citizens, environmentalists, 

government officials, and industry representatives. However, its current roster 

of principals is almost exclusively comprised of government officials, 

government consultants, fossil fuel industry representatives, and fossil fuel 

industry consultants. It is virtually lacking in representative academicians, 

citizens, environmentalists, public interest professionals, or public policy 

consultants. It is imperative that the composition of the Regional Advisory 

Boards be truly representative of local citizens and non-partisan technical 

consultants so that communities can participate in Class VI permitting processes 

12
and facilitate acceptance of geosequestration projects in their regions. 

Individual Response: EPA will continue to consult with a variety of stakeholders, including the 

National Drinking Water Advisory Council, associations and organizations, ORD, and experts; 

review permits; and continue to hold workshops to build expertise and ensure that 

implementation of the national program is based on the best available science. The Agency plans 

to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate 

amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to 

determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21615 Letter Lines: 250 to 283 

Comment Code: 1820 1.4.1.1 Vulnerability Evaluation Framework (VEF) 

Comment: E. "Vulnerability Evaluation Framework" 

Recommendation E: Expand the "Vulnerability Evaluation Framework" to include a 

multi-scaled classification scheme for adverse impacts associated with the 

capture and transportation of CO2 and the operational infrastructure involved in 

CO2 storage, such as pipelines, roads, buildings, and well construction. 

The Sierra Club supports the EPA's use of the VEF approach to "systematically 

identify those conditions that may increase or decrease susceptibility to 

adverse impacts from GS"; we approve of the establishment of categories, 

thresholds, and flowcharts to aid administrative decision making processes(See: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/VEFTechnical_Document_072408.pdf). It is understood that the vulnerability 

assessment is intended to be iterative and adaptive to new data. However, at the 

outset, Sierra Club urges the EPA to refine the binary vulnerability 

classification, which exhibits a flawed gap between the low and elevated levels 

in its current formulation. Most specifically, the taxonomy only allows for a 

finding of corrective action ("monitoring and mitigation procedures") to be 

applied in cases of an elevated vulnerability impact, and does not anticipate 

the rejection of a permit on the basis of a site's high vulnerability impact on 

human populations, ecosystems, and geospheres surrounding the proposed injection 

well sites. At the very minimum, a three-tiered classification of low, medium, 

and high vulnerability would trigger certain corrective actions at a medium 

level, and would result in the denial of a permit where there exists a high 

vulnerability level for legislatively protected human populations, conservation 

lands, endangered wildlife, and surrounding bodies of water other than protected 

USDWs. 

Secondarily, the Sierra Club urges the EPA to expand the VEF design to include 

"operational aspects of GS such as surface infrastructure (e.g. buildings, 

pipelines, well construction), and specific monitoring techniques to ensure the 

integrity of the GS system recommended." As the authors of the document 

13
conclude: "[T]hese elements need to be considered because they may play an 

important role in defining a project's overall vulnerability"[italics added]. 

Individual Response: The Agency clarifies that the VEF is intended to be a risk screening tool, 

but it is not a required component of the GS site selection process. The UIC Class VI well permit 

application requirements, including the minimum criteria for siting at §146.83, and the 

information requirements at §146.82 provide the basis for determining whether a proposed GS 

site is geologically appropriate and the proposed operations are technically viable, safe, and will 

not endanger USDWs. 

EPA believes that requiring appropriate site characterization by the owner or operator and 

providing an appropriate degree of flexibility to the Director to evaluate site-specific geologic 

data will afford the greatest protection of USDWs. The issuance of a UIC Class VI permit is 

determined based on evaluation of site-specific permit information pursuant to the requirements 

at §§146.82 and 146.83. The Director may consider some components of the VEF (e.g., 

information regarding wells, faults, and pressure changes) when assessing the appropriateness of 

a site for GS; however, the Director's permit approval determination is based on UIC Class VI 

requirements and not the VEF. EPA clarifies that concerns about operational infrastructure (e.g., 

pipelines) have no bearing on USDW protection and are outside of the scope of the GS 

rulemaking. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21616 Letter Lines: 285 to 336 

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

Comment: F. Federal Pipeline Standards for Transporting CO2 

Recommendation F: Co-ordinate with the US Congress and federal agencies to adopt 

national standards for materials requirements and performance specifications in 

pipelines used to transmit CO2. 

The EPA's Office of Water has stated that the transmission of captured CO2 to 

injection storage sites is somewhat outside the scope of the SDWA ("Proposed UIC 

Regulations for Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide" February 2008; See: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/pdfs/page_uic_washingtondc_feburay2008_summ 

ary.pdf). However, the EPA is coordinating its issuance of UIC regulations with 

the US Department of Transportation, and has recognized the importance of 

maintaining safety standards and risk management practices throughout the 

various stages of carbon capture, transportation, and storage. Currently in the 

US, about 3,600 miles of CO2 pipelines are in operation, primarily located in 

Texas and New Mexico. They carry CO2 from underground reservoirs, natural gas 

processing facilities, ammonia manufacturing plants, and a North Dakota coal 

gasification project to oil fields for use in EOR/EGR (See: 

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/nicholas/insider/thegreengrok/co2pipeline/). 

14
According to a recent press release, a Norwegian risk management company is 

partnering with European businesses and governments to establish EU pipeline 

standards for transmitting large amounts of captured CO2 to onshore and offshore 

storage sites. The guidelines will relate to issues of "safety, fast propagating 

ductile fractures, fatigue crack growth, pipeline operation conditions, flow 

assurance, corrosion and material compatibility," and will address all phases of 

construction and lifetime performance, "including the design, testing, 

inspection, operation, maintenance and de-commissioning phases"(See: 

http://www.dnv.com/press_area/press_releases/2008/developingthefirstco2pipelines 

tandard.asp) . One important objective of the standards is to standardize the 

transport of CO2 so that it will become uniformly insurable by private insurance 

companies. 

Reportedly, American-based oil companies are participating in the European rulemaking process, and so presumably will have ongoing information about the 

standards adopted by the EU. This information can enhance the decision making 

process during the coming period that US regulations are being promulgated for 

all stages of carbon capture, transportation, and storage. Several 2008 

Congressional Research Reports indicate that the US Congress has begun to 

address the issues related to constructing and operating a network of CO2 

pipelines for CCS(See: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33971_20080117.pdf and 

http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/08Apr/RL34307.pdf). When such a network is 

constructed, it is probable that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

and the Surface Transportation Board (STB) will receive jurisdiction over 

interstate pipelines used for this purpose. Currently, the Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration applies safety requirements to CO2 

pipelines that are mandated by CO2's classification as a Class 2.2 (nonflammable gas) hazardous material under DOT regulations (40 CFR 172.101). Since 

it is likely that a federally-administrated hierarchy will be established over 

the next decade, it is important that the EPA's terrestrial storage regulations 

remain compatible with progressive developments for the transportation of CO2 to 

the injection well sites. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that regulation of CO2 pipelines is outside the scope of the 

GS rulemaking. Rather, the purpose of the Class VI GS rule is 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. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21617 Letter Lines: 338 to 383 

Comment Code: 5560 2.10.3 Enhancing the public participation process (seeking comment) 

Comment: Public Acceptance 

G. Public Participation 

15
Recommendation G: Adopt the existing requirements for public participation in 

programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act at 40 CFR Part 25 and 40 CFR Part 

124. 

Historical illustrations of community resistance to a range of proposed CCS 

projects would suggest that EPA policies which truncate the technical aspects of 

CO2 storage from the social and cultural values held by targeted localities 

carry a high degree of likelihood for public opposition. A 2008 Congressional 

Research Report, Community Acceptance of Carbon Capture and Sequestration 

Infrastructure: Siting Challenges cites public opposition as an important 

consideration in the successful formulation of national CCS policy in general, 

and local resistance as a key ingredient in the appropriate siting of 

geosequestration projects in particular. The Report warns: 

Community opposition could complicate and delay each element of CCS 

implementation, potentially adding years to a national CCS deployment. 

Alternatively, community concerns could lead to a national patchwork of CCS 

projects constructed only in publicly acceptable geographies (or on public 

lands), creating inter-regional disparities and failing to meet congressional 

objectives (http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34601_20080729.pdf at CRS-28). 

As a general rule, community concerns regarding CCS will fall into three 

categories: health and safety, economic, and environmental. In 2007, two studies 

involving residents of California's Central Valley expressed the following 

concerns about proposed geosquestration projects in their areas: a risk of 

carbon dioxide release and/or an increase in seismic activity [health and 

safety]; the lowering of property values and/or the raising of cost-of-living 

[economic]; the disruptive construction of a pipeline infrastructure for 

transporting the CO2 to the proposed site and/or a negative change to the 

character of the community [environmental] (see "Community" at CRS-16). 

While it is unrealistic to expect that every contentious rationale raised by 

local residents can be overcome through trust-building strategies instituted by 

governments and businesses, it is well- recognized that a substantial number of 

legitimate grievances can be allayed 'up- front' with the structuring of 

participatory permitting processes. In cases where residents can be convinced 

that benefits to their community will outweigh anticipated costs, that the risks 

are clearly articulated and will be competently managed, sufficient community 

acceptance can be garnered in order to proceed. Establishing procedural 

mechanisms for public citizens to express genuine concerns relating to proposed 

geosequestration sites under the new EPA regulations can provide opportunities 

for solving disputes before they become intractable. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the existing UIC public participation requirements as 

specified in 40 CFR 25 and 40 CFR 124 are appropriate for GS projects. GS permitting 

16
authorities must follow the existing public participation requirements for UIC permits as 

specified in 40 CFR Part 124. These regulations lay out the procedures for decision making and 

include requirements such as requiring the Director to notify the public regarding the availability 

of the draft permit and allow him or her to require a public hearing on the draft permit. 

In addition, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public 

interest in GS projects, EPA encourages early public involvement in GS projects. Providing the 

public with accurate, project specific information in the early stages of each GS project can help 

clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS 

projects, and will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address 

the public's concerns before the permitting process is complete. 

Furthermore, the Agency recognizes that the initial phases of site evaluation and site selection 

may begin in advance of permit application submission. The public may become aware of these 

activities and begin to have questions or concerns about the pending project. For this reason, 

outreach and education—which are outside of, but complementary to, the public notification 

process—can help clarify project details and avoid public misperceptions about the nature and 

safety of GS projects. This may also benefit the owner or operator by improving local acceptance 

of the site. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21618 Letter Lines: 385 to 431 

Comment Code: 8000 4.1 Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice 

Comment: H. Environmental Justice and the Siting of Injection Wells 

Recommendation H: Acknowledge the clear potential for environmental justice 

issues to be involved in the siting of Class VI injection wells, and formulate 

mandatory protocols for addressing those issues within the permitting process. 

California's Central Valley is a particularly valuable example for illustrating 

the importance of both technical and social considerations in establishing the 

permitting protocols for Class VI injection wells. The Central Valley has been 

consistently identified as a primary location for CCS projects by the DOE, the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, and British Petroleum -- among others. The DOE has entered into an 

agreement with Clean Energy Systems for a pilot CCS project at a natural gas 

power plant in Kern county, and BP has applied to the California Energy 

Commission for approval of a proposed project. Thus, employing certain technical 

considerations alone, the Central Valley is ideal for early CCS deployment. 

However, a history of economic and social issues in the region has served to 

heighten public resistance to such projects. 

Due to previous identification as a region with economically disadvantaged 

populations, dangerously poor air quality, and degraded wildlife habitats, the 

17
Central Valley has become the focus of numerous governmental and nonprofit 

interventions, including ongoing EPA sanctions for violations of the Clean Air 

Act. Typically, when new industrial developments seek to become established in 

the region, they will be opposed unless they can be shown to carry greater 

benefits than costs to local communities. Because all three categories (health 

and safety, economic, and environmental) are interdependent in the Central 

Valley, the ability to ameliorate or solve any specific grievance becomes more 

difficult. 

In its comments to the proposed regulations, the EPA states: "Existing electric 

power generation plants that burn fossil fuels may be more prevalent in areas 

with high percentages of people who are minorities or have lower incomes on 

average, but it is hard to predict where new plants with CCS will be built." 

This statement fails to acknowledge the large prevalence of proposed geologic 

storage sites near existing oil and gas fields and/or currently operational 

power plants. Every study by industry and business consultants has concluded 

that CO2 storage is most economically feasible when sited as close to the source 

of emissions as possible. Whether CO2 is defined as an industrial commodity or a 

hazardous waste product, it is incompatible with storage in high income 

residential population centers. It is most likely that GS sites will be proposed 

in areas of similar populations to those communities, like California's Central 

Valley, that have histories of economic disadvantage, of environmental 

degradation from industrial developments, and of chronic health issues among the 

general populace, especially children. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for 

the EPA to mandate protocols for addressing environmental justice issues which 

will most likely be attendant to a large percentage of GS permit applications. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that siting of GS projects is based on the presence of 

appropriate geologic formations that can receive and confine the total volume of CO2 anticipated 

to be injected under §146.83(a)(2). The GS regulation at §146.82 requires owners/operators to 

collect and submit extensive geological data on the proposed GS site, including an assessment of 

the geologic, hydrogeologic, geochemical, and geomechanical properties of the proposed GS site 

to ensure that GS wells are located in suitable formations and that USDWs are protected from 

endangerment. 

EPA also emphasizes that the purpose of the GS rule is to protect USDWs through permitting, 

siting, construction, operation, injection, and post-injection site care and site closure 

requirements that are tailored to address the unique nature of GS. The Class VI requirements, in 

turn, minimize health risks to all populations, including minority and low-income populations. 

EPA is developing guidance for UIC Directors that places emphasis on considering the potential 

impact of any GS permits on communities such as minority and low income populations when 

evaluating Class VI injection well permit applications, as well as provides suggestions and tools 

for targeted outreach to ensure more meaningful public input and participation from the most 

affected communities during the permit evaluation and approval process. Additionally, as part of 

the permitting process pursuant to requirements at 40 CFR Part 124 the public has an opportunity 

18
to review public notices on GS permit applications, participate in hearings related to GS permit 

decisions, and inform permit writers of any environmental justice concerns associated with a 

specific GS project. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21619 Letter Lines: 433 to 456 

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

Comment: I. CCS and a 'Clean Energy Future' 

Recommendation I: Encourage public acceptance of CCS by emphasizing it as one 

part of a strategic plan for effecting a Clean Energy Future'. 

A prominent theme in public opposition to CCS is the concern that geologic 

storage will prolong our dependence on fossil fuels and divert the necessary 

funds for developing sustainable energy resources in the US. In addition to 

providing protocols for public outreach, education, and dialogue about 

geosequestration siting, the EPA has an opportunity during these early stages of 

implementation of national CCS policies to frame social perceptions of geologic 

storage as part of a larger set of strategies for achieving a 'Clean Energy 

Future.' The Sierra Club strongly recommends that the EPA partner with the DOE 

and other federal agencies to garner public support for CCS by characterizing it 

as one of several policy measures designed to reduce the overabundance of CO2 in 

our atmosphere. While CO2 capture is outside the scope of these proposed 

regulations for CO2 injection and storage, it is important to recognize that 

many opponents of CCS in general are fearful that the development of CO2 capture 

technology will prolong our reliance on coal for electrical generation, thus 

delaying deployment of renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, and 

geothermal. By promoting the adoption of "companion carbon control strategies" 

such as energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy electrical 

generation, the EPA can help position CCS as one constituent of a broader 

integrated objective. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS regulation does not promote or 

encourage the use of GS; rather the purpose of the rule is 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. EPA agrees that 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. 

19
Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21620 Letter Lines: 458 to 492 

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

Comment Code: 1480 1.2.2.2.2 CO2 is not a pollutant 

Comment: J. CO2 as a Valuable Commodity 

Recommendation J: Re-frame public perceptions of CO2 as a hazardous waste 

material by funding CCS demonstration projects which biologically or chemically 

transform CO2 into valuable products. 

Localities that oppose the permitting of geologic sequestration projects usually 

hold the perception that CO2 is a toxic waste material being dumped and buried 

in their backyards. Typically, localities are distrustful of the motivations of 

business and government representatives who seek to allay fears of economic, 

health, and environmental risks attendant to pumping CO2 into injection wells. 

An important avenue for re-framing such perceptions is by emphasizing CCS 

methods which value carbon dioxide as a naturally occurring and commercially 

valuable resource. The DOE's carbon sequestration program at the National Energy 

Technology Laboratory includes funding for research and development of advanced 

chemical and biological approaches, including systems for decarbonization, 

photosynthesis, and conversion of CO2 into useful forms. However, since no 

demonstration projects have been announced over the same time period that 

multiple geosequestration projects have been implemented, the DOE's "Novel 

Carbon Sequestration Concepts" program appears to be under- publicized and 

under-funded. This lack of vigor in promoting carbon transformation methods 

gives the public the impression that CCS technologies are being readied solely 

for the purpose of perpetuating our dependency on fossil fuels for electricity 

generation and manufacturing processes. 

Numerous business ventures are seeking opportunities to prove the efficacy of 

their carbon mineralization processes with larger demonstration projects. 

Companies holding proprietary patents for useful CO2-sequestered materials such 

as calcium carbonate cement and construction materials, paper products, 

biodegradable plastics, and algae biofuels need government funding and support 

to scale-up their methods. By narrowly targeting geosequestration as the primary 

carbon storage solution, the federal government is missing an opportunity to 

secure broader public acceptance of CCS as a safe and viable method for reducing 

the overabundance of CO2 in our atmosphere, and is neglecting important avenues 

for achieving that goal. 

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 

20
Minerals Management Service; and the Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to 

evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not 

limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research 

and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate 

on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or 

operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This 

Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to 

the final GS rule. 

EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote GS. Rather, the purpose of the GS 

regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs 

from endangerment. 

The Agency acknowledges that there is ongoing research in many fields that could address the 

broader environmental concern of climate change, but the focus of the Class VI requirements is 

to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from 

endangerment. 

Much of the research on terrestrial and geologic sequestration is being conducted by other 

federal agencies, particularly DOE's Office of Science and Technology 

(www.energy.gov/sciencetech/carbonsequestration.htm). Other federal agencies involved in 

research include the US Department of Agriculture, US Geological Survey, and others. EPA's 

Office of Research and Development is also researching issues related to global climate change, 

including geologic and terrestrial sequestration. 

Letter ID: 0133 Comment ID: 21621 Letter Lines: 494 to 507 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study 

Comment: Conclusion 

Although the proposed EPA regulations are not designed to address the presence 

of overabundant CO2 in our atmosphere, the Sierra Club urges the EPA to continue 

fulfilling its mandate to protect the environment by working with the DOE and 

other federal agencies to construct a cohesive body of regulations for all CCS 

methods, and to expand the current purview from attention to the subsurface 

movement of CO2 to include the atmospheric dimensions of the issues as a whole. 

Additionally, the Sierra Club urges the EPA, DOE, and other federal agencies to 

substantially increase their commitment to the funding of research and 

development for alternatives to geologic storage, such as innovative biological 

and chemical approaches to carbon sequestration, thereby increasing public 

acceptance of CCS as an important tool for cleaning the atmosphere during this 

period of transition to an optimal use of sustainable energy resources. 

21
22

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

CCS, but clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all 

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

endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop 

regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. 

EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS technology. The 

Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and 

deployment of CCS technology provides a framework for injecting CO2 so that the activity does 

not result in endangerment of USDWs. EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS 

under the UIC Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency plans to collect 

and review data every six years on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and 

types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if 

modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. Please also see the preamble 

section entitled, “What Steps Did EPA Take to Develop This Rulemaking?” 

EPA acknowledges the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from 

endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other 

Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; 

United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, 

please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal 

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

The Agency acknowledges that there is ongoing research in many fields that could address the 

broader environmental concern of climate change, but the focus of the Class VI requirements is 

to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from 

endangerment. 

Much of the research on terrestrial and geologic sequestration is being conducted by other 

federal agencies, particularly DOE's Office of Science and Technology 

(www.energy.gov/sciencetech/carbonsequestration.htm). Other federal agencies involved in 

research include the US Department of Agriculture, US Geological Survey, and others. EPA's 

Office of Research and Development is also researching issues related to global climate change, 

including geologic and terrestrial sequestration.