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: 0150 

Commenter: Dave Freudenthal 

Organization: State of Wyoming 

Letter ID: 0150 Comment ID: 22216 Letter Lines: 32 to 53 

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: To whom it may concern: 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed rules for 

federal management of geologic sequestration of CO2 in Docket ID No. EPA-HQOW-2008-0390. This is a unique opportunity to broaden our national public policy 

foundation by melding new federal energy policy with responsible natural 

resource policy and, in so-doing, expand economic opportunities and potentially 

reduce the amount of CO2 that is introduced into the atmosphere. As currently 

written, provisions of the proposed rules related to the suitability of specific 

reinjection locations cause serious concern. 

Wyoming has been proactive in its stewardship of all state resources and we 

recognize the need for environmental regulation. Over the years we have 

demonstrated our regulatory capability by meeting and often exceeding EPA 

standards in managing activities that impact public health, public safety and 

all public resources. We are eager to collaborate with the federal government 

yet again, to craft rules that work not only for the interests of the nation but 

that also work directly for the people of Wyoming. Within the framework of this 

collaborative undertaking, the importance of including local expertise and 

knowledge into the regulation of CO2 sequestration is necessary to ensure public 

safety while also providing new growth opportunities for a vibrant new 

industry. 

Individual Response: EPA recognizes 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 sitespecific and conditions will differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these 

site-specific decisions with the need for minimum Federal requirements to ensure national 

consistency while ensuring the protection of USDWs. 

EPA also 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 

1
managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA into a 

broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities 

(e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which 

states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state level (but outside UIC authority) to 

provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach. The Agency will allow independent 

primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of the final GS rule. 

For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and 

preamble as well as the rulemaking docket. EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS. 

Letter ID: 0150 Comment ID: 22217 Letter Lines: 55 to 62 

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments 

Comment: Geologists, geochemists and geophysicists from both the public and private 

sectors have been researching and analyzing Wyoming geology for nearly a 

century. Their work provides a rich database and a solid foundation of specific 

attributes for underground geologic structures and systems. Our reliance on 

natural resource development in Wyoming has closely tied our economic livelihood 

to these endeavors, and there is a wealth of local expertise and knowledge about 

Wyoming geology which should be factored into any federal rulemaking regarding 

CO2 sequestration. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA's 

responses to this 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. 

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS. 

Letter ID: 0150 Comment ID: 22218 Letter Lines: 64 to 71 

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

Comment: Wyoming is one of the first states to take the initiative to proactively 

establish both a statutory and regulatory framework for the thoughtful 

management of CO2 sequestration. I have attached a copy of the relevant laws. We 

have invested state funds through the University of Wyoming and Wyoming State 

Geological Survey (WSGS) for focused research pertaining specifically to CO2 

sequestration. We are committed to continuing our investment in sequestration 

research and development, provided the regulatory framework offers reasonable 

incentives to proceed with such work. 

Individual Response: 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. 

2
For additional information, please see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach and 

the section entitled, “How Does This Action Affect UIC Program Implementation?" in the 

preamble to the final GS rule. 

Throughout the regulatory development process for the Class VI regulation, EPA monitored 

states' regulatory and legislative development efforts and approaches. In EPA's August 31, 2009, 

Notice of Data Availability (NODA) and Request for Comment, the Agency described its 

ongoing monitoring of states' regulatory efforts and approaches and how the Agency is 

considering this information as it develops guidance on the primacy application and approval 

process for Class VI wells. Information about these state activities may be found in the docket 

for the GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0150 Comment ID: 22219 Letter Lines: 73 to 97 

Comment Code: 2123 1.6.1.1 Comments in favor of injection into deep saline 

Comment Code: 4324 2.4.4.1.2 Comments opposed to requiring injection below the lowermost 

USDW 

Comment: Unfortunately, the overarching framework and specific rule provisions pertaining 

to suitable re-injection locations contemplated in Docket ID No. EPA-HQOW-2008-0390 prematurely exclude consideration of geologic structures with deep 

saline aquifers that occur in Wyoming. By eliminating the use of these deep 

saline aquifers, the rules would effectively preclude Wyoming from participating 

in CO2 sequestration efforts and effectively disregards the technical expertise, 

referenced earlier, that exists in Wyoming. This broad brush, generalized 

approach deprives Wyoming and the rest of the region from viable consideration 

for CO2 sequestration opportunities. 

I ask that you carefully review the comments submitted by the Wyoming State 

Geological Survey (WSGS) which explain why our nation will be much better served 

if the proposed regulations for geological CO2 sequestration are modified. With 

respect to the depth of injection of C02, the proposed rules only allow 

injection at levels below the lowest underground source of drinking water (USDW) 

aquifer. As WSGS explains, the language needs to be modified to read: 

"Geological CO2 sequestration will be allowed in deep saline aquifers in Rocky 

Mountain Laramide Basins (RMLB) unless it can be demonstrated that the injected 

CO2 will have a deleterious effect on USDW." 

This change will allow for the use of geologic formations with deep saline 

aquifers, which we believe can be safely used for the injection of CO2 in 

Wyoming and other western states. If this change is not made, an illogical 

result will occur in which the proposed sequestration rules for CO2 will be more 

onerous than the rules for injecting hydrogen sulfide into deep saline aquifers. 

Individual Response: As described above, EPA acknowledges that there are limited 

3
circumstances where injection above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that 

protects USDWs from endangerment, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The final 

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

Class VI injection depth requirements for injection into non-USDW formations above and/or 

between USDWs. 

EPA believes that these requirements will ensure USDW protection while providing flexibility to 

UIC program Directors and owners or operators who undertake CO2 injection for GS. 

Letter ID: 0150 Comment ID: 22220 Letter Lines: 99 to 111 

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments 

Comment: For economic and regulatory purposes, the regulations as proposed will make 

geological sequestration of CO2 nearly impossible. Overarching CO2 sequestration 

regulations which do not provide an opportunity to use Rocky Mountain Laramide 

geology will make it extremely difficult to mitigate the effects of greenhouse 

emissions on climate change in the West. I ask that you adopt the 

recommendations of the WSGS, and if you have further questions regarding the 

WSGS recommendations, please contact Ron Surdam, the Wyoming State Geologist 

(phone: 307.766.2286). 

I look forward to a strong and effective partnership with the EPA in order to 

promulgate regulations governing CO2 sequestration that meet both the interests 

of the federal government and the state of Wyoming. Thank you for your careful 

consideration of our comments regarding the proposed rules and their importance. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Please see the remainder of EPA's 

responses to this 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. 

4