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.




Letter ID: 0146 

Commenter: Kenneth Alexander 

Organization: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) 

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21705 Letter Lines: 37 to 41 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: ODEC appreciates EPA's efforts to develop regulations that will help insure C02 

geological sequestration (GS) activities can move forward in an orderly manner. 

Please consider the attached comments that are intended to help promote final GS 

regulations that will aid the development of full scale, commercial GS 

activities while remaining protective of the environment. If you have any 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the 

existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation 

technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC 

Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection 

of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the 

unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative 

buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in 

captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. 

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21706 Letter Lines: 68 to 70 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment Code: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation 

Comment: ODEC greatly appreciates EPA's work toward developing a regulatory framework 

for 

underground injection of CO2. EPA's decision to develop regulations under the 

UIC program and to develop a new Class VI for CO2GS well is appropriate. ODEC 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that tailored requirements for 

Class VI wells are necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and 

to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. The Class VI requirements are 

appropriate because of the unique nature and risks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., 

large injection volumes, long project duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule 

contains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and 

corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well 

plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique 

to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for GS. 

Please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the preamble to the final 

GS rule. 

1
Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21707 Letter Lines: 70 to 75 

Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space 

ownership 

Comment: UIC program and to develop a new Class VI for CO2GS well is appropriate. ODEC 

also appreciates EPA's recognition that while the new regulations at hand must 

be within the scope of the SDWA, there are a number ofvery important issues 

(such as long term liability) that are outside the scope of the act but are 

highly pertinent to developing a viable GS program and we are glad that EPA is 

willing to discuss these issues as part of this regulatory proposal. 

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. EPA recognizes the importance of providing clear, 

flexible, scalable, and appropriate regulations. EPA believes that the Class VI GS regulation will 

provide certainty to industry and the public by providing consistency in requirements across the 

U.S. and transparency about what requirements apply to owners or operators. 

EPA notes that long-term liability is outside of the scope of the GS rulemaking and is not 

addressed in the GS rule. SDWA does not contain any express provisions addressing liability. An 

owner or operator will be held liable for any permit violations under SDWA §1423. 

Under the final GS rule, once an owner or operator has met all regulatory requirements under 

Part 146 for Class VI wells and the Director has approved site closure pursuant to requirements 

at §146.93, the owner or operator will generally no longer be subject to enforcement for 

regulatory noncompliance. Furthermore, their financial instrument as required under §146.85 

will be released if it was not used. However, even if a site closure is approved under §146.93, an 

owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance (including violation of 40 

CFR 144.12) in certain circumstances. For example, an owner or operator may be held liable for 

regulatory noncompliance even after site closure was approved if the Director relied on 

erroneous information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provided by the owner or operator when 

approving site closure. 

Separate from EPA’s authority to enforce regulatory compliance, an owner or operator may be 

subject to a §1431 response order even after proper site closure is approved under §146.93. 

Under §1431 the Administrator may require an owner or operator to take necessary response 

measures if he or she receives information that a contaminant is present or is likely to enter a 

public water system or an USDW, which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment 

to the health of persons, and the appropriate State and local authorities have not acted to protect 

the health of such persons. The action may include issuing administrative orders or commencing 

a civil action for appropriate relief against the owner or operator of a Class VI well. If the owner 

or operator fails to comply with the order, they may be subject to a civil penalty for each day in 

which such violation occurs or failure to comply continues. 

2
Furthermore, after site closure an owner or operator may remain liable under tort and other 

remedies, or under other federal statutes including, but not limited to, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 7401-7671; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601-9675; and RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901-6992. EPA 

does not have authority to transfer SDWA or other legal liability for Class VI wells to the State 

or federal government or a third-party fund. See the final rule preamble for further discussion of 

EPA's final approach to financial responsibility for Class VI wells. 

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21708 Letter Lines: 77 to 88 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: It appears that GS of CO2 from fossil-fueled power plants will be a necessary 

part of any national strategy to control green house gas emissions. ODEC has 50% 

undivided interest in the Clover Power Station and pursuing the licensing of a 

new coal plant where these coal-fired power plants are likely to be directly 

affected by new GS regulations. Additionally, ODEC owns combustion turbines 

fueled with natural gas and fuel oil as back up and diesel generators. The 

regulations could have significant financial and operational impacts on ODEC and 

we ask EPA to carefully consider our comments because of the significant stake 

we have in the outcome of this impOliant rulemaking. ODEC is a member of the 

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association ("NRECA"). NRECA will also be 

submitting comments on the proposed UIC rules. ODEC supports NRECA's comments, 

and incorporates them here by reference. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not regulate use of resources, or cost 

reduction associated with GS into various formations. The focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, 

where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory 

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

the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies 

(e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau 

of Land Management). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other 

Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of 

GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize 

redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, 

please see the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal 

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

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21709 Letter Lines: 90 to 122 

3
Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performance-based standards) 

Comment: SUMMARY 

ODEC applauds the efforts EPA has taken thus far to instill "certainty" and 

"transparency" into the future Class VI C02 regulatory regime, 73 Fed. Reg. at 

43496. The challenge EPA faces is to craft a Final Rule for commercial 

CO2injection appropriate for activities that will largely be conducted in the 

future. EPA has had to confront many technical uncertainties regarding the 

establishment and operation of GS wells. Because many of the technical aspects 

are unknown, it is also very difficult to develop a clear understanding 

ofproject risks and liabilities. As long as risks and liabilities are largely 

unknown and open-ended, private companies will not step forward to offer 

insurance and other risk management products, and it will not be possible to 

obtain the level of financing needed to undertake a costly GS operation. We hope 

the pilot carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects conducted by DOE and 

other entities will help resolve some of these uncertainties. EPA needs to 

establish clear, reasonable regulations that are environmentally protective and 

cover a range of operations for which the technology will not be commercially 

deployed for a number of years. To the extent practicable, EPA needs to 

establish a single, clear, reasonable and protective liability regime for an 

activity where the nature of the risks are different from many other industrial 

activities and the full extent of possible risks from full scale CCS operations 

are presently unknown. Comments Regarding UIC Regulations 

1.Because ofthe difficulty of regulating future activities, we urge EPA to 

continue to use a "performance based" approach in developing the requirements 

for Class VI UIC wells. This way, rules can be readily adjusted and fine-tuned 

as industry and regulators alike gain experience with large-scale CO2 

sequestration. 

2.Because information and technology related to carbon sequestration will evolve 

as industry and regulators gain experience with CCS, ODEC urges EPA to resist 

placing blanket prohibitions or detailed operational specifications in the Final 

Rule. 

Individual Response: The Agency believes that the Class VI requirements balance site-specific 

flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based 

standards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flexible approach, where operators of GS projects 

would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring 

the site, performing corrective action, and post-injection site care. EPA believes that the plans—

which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodically updated throughout the 

life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operator and the Director that will 

encourage use of the most appropriate technologies for a particular project. 

To address the comment that the rule should accommodate future technological developments 

4
related to GS, EPA adds that it is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS under the UIC 

Program. Even after finalization of the GS regulation, EPA plans, every six years, to collect and 

review project data on GS research 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. 

EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where deployed, GS 

is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. Encouraging investment in 

CCS projects and facilitating deployment are outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. 

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21710 Letter Lines: 124 to 127 

Comment Code: 2100 1.6 Target Geologic Formations for GS 

Comment Code: 3110 2.1.1 Proposed siting requirements (i.e., injection/confining zones, 

trapping mechanism) 

Comment: 3.EPA should not automatically exclude placement of wells in pmiicular geologic 

tructures. The Final Rule should leave the door open for a range of injection 

sites and methods provided the owner or operator can show that the injection and 

storage will be protective of Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs). 

Individual Response: The final rule does not preclude injection into any formations or types of 

injection sites provided that the wells meet the final GS rule requirements. The purpose of the 

GS regulation is to ensure that injection of CO2 for GS is conducted in a manner that is 

protective of USDWs. This includes appropriate site characterization and identification of 

geologic formations that are amenable to injection of potentially large volumes of CO2 for longterm storage. The regulation provides flexibility to owners or operators to select appropriate sites 

and target formations (under §146.82), well construction specifics (under §146.86), and injection 

procedures provided the owner or operator can demonstrate that the injection and storage will not 

endanger USDWs and that minimum requirements for the site are met. 

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: 0146 Comment ID: 21723 Letter Lines: 129 to 132 

Comment Code: 5600 2.11 Comments related to UIC Program primacy for Class VI wells 

Comment: 4.ODEC believes that the states will have the best knowledge of regional 

geology, existing projects, areas in need of special protection, etc. and that 

states should be allowed to assume primacy for administration of the UIC Class 

VI well program. 

5
Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of states having primacy 

for GS wells given the variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes 

that State, Tribal, Territorial, and DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate 

the unique issues related to well depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI 

well. Some degree of flexibility is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be 

site-specific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for 

these site-specific decisions with the need for minimum standards to ensure national consistency. 

The Agency believes that it is important for states to use their unique efficiencies to promote 

adoption of this burgeoning and important technology, while assuring that USDWs are protected 

from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA encourages states to accept 

primacy for Class VI, and believes that, due to the importance of implementing an effective, 

comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States should be provided the flexibility to obtain 

primacy for Class VI only. 

However, given the potential for CCS (encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic 

sequestration) to be an important part of a national priority to address climate change, EPA 

believes that providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently 

of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing 

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

Class VI regulations and provide for a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects 

by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a broader framework for 

managing CCS. The Agency will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) 

of the final GS rule. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline 

operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call 

upon other authorities that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to provide a more 

comprehensive CCS management approach. 

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21724 Letter Lines: 134 to 136 

Comment Code: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste issues (seeking comment) 

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

Comment: 5.EPA should be careful not to stigmatize as operations and to take positive 

measures to build public acceptance. EPA should avoid characterizing stored CO2 

as a waste. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule, being issued only under the SDWA, does 

not affect whether CO2 is considered a solid waste under RCRA or EPA’s RCRA regulations. 

EPA received many comments regarding the applicability of the RCRA regulations and statute to 

CO2 streams that are geologically sequestered under the final Class VI UIC well requirements. 

As a result, EPA has decided to initiate a separate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine 

the issue of RCRA applicability to CO2 streams being geologically sequestered, including the 

6
possible option of a conditional exemption from the RCRA requirements for CO2 GS in Class 

VI wells. EPA will consider these comments as part of its development of that proposal. The 

Agency will consider issues particular to RCRA in the context of that separate rulemaking, and 

recommends that the commenter read that proposed rule when it is published. The Agency notes 

that commenters who wish to submit comments on the RCRA proposal will need to do so during 

the comment period for that rule. 

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21725 Letter Lines: 138 to 145 

Comment Code: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste issues (seeking comment) 

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment) 

Comment: 6.EPA must settle the way as activities will relate to RCRA and CERCLA. RCRA is 

simply the wrong tool to use to regulate as of C02 and EPA needs to find a way 

to insure that the onerous requirements of CERCLA, (never intended for as of 

CO2), are not applied to this highly specialized storage operation. 

7. Dealing with these last two hazardous waste issues appears to ODEC to be one 

of the most difficult hurdles standing in the way of commercial deployment of 

full scale as projects and we recognize that Congressional action may be needed. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that any requirements for the CO2 stream should be clearly 

identified. EPA received many comments regarding the applicability of the RCRA regulations 

and statute to CO2 streams that are geologically sequestered under the final Class VI UIC well 

requirements. As a result, EPA has decided to initiate a separate proposed rulemaking 

specifically to examine the issue of RCRA applicability to CO2 streams being geologically 

sequestered, including the possible option of a conditional exemption from the RCRA 

requirements for CO2 GS in Class VI wells. EPA will consider these comments as part of its 

development of that proposal. The Agency will consider issues particular to RCRA in the context 

of that separate rulemaking, and recommends that the commenter read that proposed rule when it 

is published. The Agency notes that commenters who wish to submit comments on the RCRA 

proposal will need to do so during the comment period for that rule. Finally, EPA also notes that 

the final GS rule, which adds new regulations for Class VI wells under the Safe Drinking Water 

Act (SDWA), is not making any changes to the RCRA regulations. 

EPA clarifies that CO2 itself is not listed as a hazardous substance under CERCLA; however, the 

CO2 stream may contain a listed hazardous substance (such as mercury) or may mobilize 

substances in the subsurface that could react with ground water to produce listed hazardous 

substances (such as sulfuric acid). Whether such substances may result in CERCLA liability 

from a sequestration facility depends entirely on the composition of the specific CO2 stream and 

the environmental media in which it is stored (e.g., soil or ground water). CERCLA exempts 

from liability, under CERCLA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, certain “federally permitted 

releases” (FPR) as defined in CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(10). Class VI permits will need to be 

carefully structured to ensure that they prevent potential releases from the well which are outside 

the scope of the Class VI permit. 

7
Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21726 Letter Lines: 149 to 164 

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: ODEC supports the comments of the Carbon Capture and Sequestration Alliance 

(CCS, or the Alliance) on the proposed UIC regulations. The CCS Alliance is a 

coalition of entities, spanning a number of economic sectors, that share a 

common interest in removing impediments to investment in and development of CCS, 

as well as mitigating the potential risks associated with the deployment ofthis 

technology.[l] Its purpose is to promote development of policy by the states and 

the federal government to appropriately address risks and potential liabilities, 

thereby enabling the further development and increased deployment of CCS. The 

CCS Alliance believes these technologies can be developed while protecting 

underground water resources, significantly reducing global and U.S. greenhouse 

gas ("GHG") emissions, and enhancing u.s. energy security. The Alliance's 

purpose is to consider ways ofpromoting the development and use ofCCS 

technologies and to support effOlis by the private sector, states, the federal 

government, non- governmental organizations and others, to help ensure that 

these technologies can be developed and widely, efficiently and cost-effectively 

deployed. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the purpose of the UIC GS regulation is to ensure that 

GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 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. 

Please see the remainder of EPA’s responses to this comment, and CCS Alliance’s comment for 

further details. For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please see the 

final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket. 

Letter ID: 0146 Comment ID: 21727 Letter Lines: 166 to 184 

Comment Code: 5434 2.9.1.2 Need for additional instruments (seeking comment) 

Comment: We support the comments of the Alliance and incorporate them here by reference. 

ODEC is relying on NRECA and the Alliance to provide EPA with specific comments 

on the Financial Assurance and Long Term Liability issues discussed in the 

proposal. We are not experts on these matters, however we ask EPA to consider 

the following general comments for managing risk and liability associated with 

GS: 

1.It appears to ODEC that a tiered approach with a government back-stop as 

used in the framework ofthe Price-Anderson Act for nuclear faculties could be a 

8
rational way of structuring liability management for GS of C02. This is 

discussed further in the comments NRECA is submitting on this rulemaking. 

2.EPA should consider a broad array of financial mechanisms owners or operators 

can use to meet financial responsibility requirements specified in the 

regulations. 

3.While Self Insurance mechanisms belong on EPA's menu of Financial Assurance 

options, ODEC is a small business and we have a relatively small capitalization 

so Corporate Guarantees or Self Insurance may not be available options for us. 

Individual Response: Owners or operators may choose from a variety of financial instruments 

to meet their financial responsibility obligations under the rule, provided the Director determines 

that the operator's proposed instrument is adequate to protect USDWs from endangerment. The 

ability of the owner or operator to pay for each activity must be demonstrated, including 

corrective action on wells in the AoR, injection well plugging, PISC and site closure, and 

emergency and remedial response throughout the life of the project. The final GS rule specifies 

at §146.85(a)(1) the permitted types of financial responsibility instruments. See the final rule and 

preamble for further discussion of EPA's approach to financial responsibility. 

EPA will retain self insurance as an option for financial responsibility for Class VI wells. EPA 

believes that if properly used, the financial test can be an appropriate option for some owners or 

operators. Owner or operators who choose to self-insure and use the financial test must be able to 

demonstrate profitability, with a margin sufficient to cover contingencies and unknown 

obligations, and stability. If the owner or operator meets corporate financial test criteria, this is 

an indication that the owner or operator can guarantee its ability to satisfy financial obligations 

based solely on the strength of the company’s financial condition. If an operator or operator is 

not able to meet the corporate financial test criteria, it may arrange a corporate guarantee by 

demonstrating that its corporate parent meets the financial requirements on its behalf. 

Once an owner or operator has met all regulatory requirements under Part 146 for Class VI wells 

and the Director has approved site closure pursuant to requirements at §146.93, he or she will 

generally no longer be subject to enforcement for regulatory noncompliance. The financial 

instrument as required under §146.85 will be released if it has not been used. However, even if a 

site closure is approved under §146.93, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory 

noncompliance (including violation of 40 CFR 144.12) in certain circumstances, for example, if 

the Director relied on erroneous information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provided by the 

owner or operator when approving site closure. 

An owner or operator may always be subject to any action the Administrator deems necessary to 

protect the health of persons under §1431 of the SDWA after site closure if there is unanticipated 

migration towards or into a USDW that causes or threatens imminent and substantial 

endangerment to public health. The action may include issuing administrative orders or 

commencing a civil action for appropriate relief. If the owner or operator fails to comply with the 

order, they may be subject to a civil penalty for each day in which such violation occurs or 

failure to comply continues. 

9
10

The Agency clarifies that Class VI well permits may be transferred to another owner or operator 

pursuant to §144.38 whereby generally all other regulatory responsibilities are transferred to that 

new owner and operator, which includes all potential liabilities associated with meeting the 

requirements of that permit. 

After site closure an owner or operator may remain liable under tort and other remedies, or under 

other federal statutes including, but not limited to, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671; 

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601-9675; and RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6901-6992. EPA does not have 

authority to transfer SDWA or other legal liability for Class VI wells to the State or federal 

government or a third-party fund. See the final rule preamble for further discussion of EPA's 

final approach.