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.
Cpportunity 

HOUSTON sm 

All the World-One Region 

November 25, 2008 

Water Docket 

Environmentai Protection Agency 

Mailcode : 28?2T 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

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

-(V ., -zCb~p_ b 37 6 

Jeff Moseley 

President and CEO 

713-844-3601 ; Fax 713-844-0201 

jmoseley@houston.org 

OEL 0 1 = 

Being the primary advocate of Houston's business community, the Greater Houston Partnership advocates 

environmental regulation and legislation pertinent to our 10-cou.nt+v region, 

Partnershdp Members include representatives of small and mid-sized businesses and Fortune 500 cazTanre :, 

throughout the i0-cou.nty Houston region. The Partnership is dedicated to improving environmental quality 

while accommodating economic growth . 

Given public concern over climate change, pending legislative proposals to sharply curtail carbon dioxide 

(COZ) emissions, and estimates that energy companies based in Houston and elsewhere could use 

anthropogenic COZ to produce billions of barrels of oil that would otherwise not be produced, the Partnership, 

believes it is important that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies become commercially available as 

soon as possible . In the near term, strategies employing COZ sequestration for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) 

will help commercialize the carbon capture technology and will help demonstrate the technology necessary for 

long-t¬izn storage of COZ as a predicate to larger-scale CCS projects . The Partnersrip strongly supports 

regulatory efforts.-6 strengthen in~enti,y,qs fQr .F,QR and other techul,ogies focused on meeting ,the, challenge, of 

, 

1, 6J ,f : global warming whileplov?.ding energy znd-entjan,cih~ our region s ecoriorii~c f~fe ; 

:~ 

Carbon capture technologies hav bePn developed a,z+d there is reason to expect that COZ can be successfully 

stored on a long-term basis in.grqperEy *ejectpd .and .ipanagPd.-geqjogiG,foTtnatiolts : FulA,cpmtr~erV~ia~i,~4t~q}a`.~il,l : 

require additional economic incentives and~early demonstration projects at large scale. In addition, it is 

important for business planning purposes that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) soon adopt 

reasonable rules governing COZ storage in geologic formations . 

The EPA is presently considering how COZ sequestration should be regulated under the federal Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) program. The Partnership is pleased that this work is a priority for the agency . We 

encourage EPA to develop rules that : . ., . . . ,, 

1. Assure that sites are pror,eTly ,c,°,1PrYP~ Tpa.,~ge, :l, and mopir^;ed jr. oa;d?r in_pfntPct vrlderyr11, .'id sp,irc-~a of 

drinking water (USDW), ~fnecjaHy.sole sqyrqe, ~quifeis : .,' . 

2. Establish a new ~-!as Vl; well category tailored for large-sca?P CC?, ,eaue~,tra;tion prc,:crt: dnat buslds on 

the existing UIC frarrievYork, in ~,hiti:in; the oii and gas industry's ovcr,35 y;,zrs of experience irr r,ting 

ror nvx; . , . . 

r 

Greater H60ston Partnership 

houston.org ' , 

. : " .1= . . .,!. ....J~ .~cr~ .- 

U .iu 1200 Smith, Suite 700 i Houston, TX 77002 

20tnr't~ _ . ., .~ 

Np~ 2 7 20, , 

,. . .r, 

4ustin Brazoria Chambers Fort Bend Galveston Harris LihPrtv AAnninnmorv c~ ., iFram*  ~Vnmii 
p. 2 

r ..- 

Water Docket 

November 25, 2008 

Page 2 

3 . Recognize and maintain :he integrity of the existing Class II regulatory framework for COZ EOR projects ; 

4. Support the development of innovative technologies for geologic carbon sequestration; 

5 . Create and maintain a consistent national framework for geologic carbon sequestration, while continuing 

to enable states to apply for authority to administer the rules at the state level; 

6. Provide more flexibility than has been proposed for projects that transition from Class II to Class V! 

status . In order to fully reflect tit petroleum industry's 35 year successful record of managir.g CC3z 

projects, the rule should provide flexibility for monitor;ng and other operational requirements and 

should provide greater flexibility for well construction requirements than has been proposed ; 

7. Revise the standard for determining site closure. Criteria should be pe:r"ormznce based and a function of 

site-specific geologic and other risk criteria, rather than being dependent on z J0-yPa- period or any rther 

fixed period of time ; and, 

8 . Revise the proposed requirement that COZ storage must occur below the deepest USDW; this is 

unnecessarily stringent. The ru:es should allow site selection based upon more flexible, site-specific 

considerations . 

The Partnership supports EPA's efforts to imp!enmeni rales governing long term storage of COZ in geologic 

formations and further encourages the agency to see, to harmoAzL ifs rules ",v?th ir^}°raa .ional rules and best 

practices. 

Thank you for the opp3i!,mity to co:r-m,°.nt on this iss,ie . "our consideration of this matter is greatly 

appreciated. 

Onward, 

Beth Whitehead, Manage:, Envi_-onmer_: Programs 

Dan Wolterm.M, Chair, Greater Houston Partnership 

Doug Foshee, Chair, Enviror.ment Advisoiy Committee 

Tracy Hester, Vice Chair, Environment Advisory Committee 

Craig Beskid, Chair, Clean Air Committe°, 

Matt Kuryla, Chair, Climate Change Work Group 

Russell Reese, Senior V-Ice r -;~sid+~ut, Pu::`_,. Peliry Divi::ion 
Letter ID: 0155 

Commenter: Jeff Moseley 

Organization: Greater Houston Partnership (GHP) 

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21252 Letter Lines: 38 to 49 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment Code: 1350 1.1.3.3 Comments on the need for GS technology 

Comment: Given public concern over climate change, pending legislative proposals to 

sharply curtail carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and estimates that energy 

companies based in Houston and elsewhere could use anthropogenic CO2 to produce 

billions of barrels of oil that would otherwise not be produced, the 

Partnership believes it is important that carbon capture and storage (CCS) 

technologies become commercially available as soon as possible. In the near 

term, strategies employing CO2 sequestration for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) will 

help commercialize the carbon capture technology and will help demonstrate the 

technology necessary for long-term storage of CO2 as a predicate to larger-scale 

CCS projects. The Partnership strongly supports regulatory efforts to strengthen 

incentives for EOR and other technologies focused on meeting the challenge of 

global warming while providing energy and enhancing our region's economic life. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the intent of the Class VI regulation is not to promote 

or encourage the use of GS, but, instead to ensure protection of USDWs where GS technologies 

are deployed. In addition, EPA clarifies that injection of CO2 for the purposes of enhanced oil 

and gas recovery will continue to be permitted under the Class II program, as long as any oil or 

gas production is occurring. The UIC GS requirements will apply to wells used for the purpose 

of long-term GS. 

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21253 Letter Lines: 51 to 57 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: Carbon capture technologies have been developed and there is reason to expect 

that CO2 can be successfully stored on a long-term basis in properly selected 

and managed geologic formations. Full commercialization will require additional 

economic incentives and early demonstration projects at large scale. In 

addition, it is important for business planning purposes that the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) soon adopt reasonable rules governing CO2 storage in 

geologic formations. 

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 

1
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: 0155 Comment ID: 21254 Letter Lines: 59 to 66 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: The EPA is presently considering how CO2 sequestration should be regulated under 

the federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. The Partnership is 

pleased that this work is a priority for the agency. We encourage EPA to develop 

rules that: 

1. Assure that sites are properly selected managed and monitored in order to 

protect underground sources of drinking water (USDW), especially sole source 

aquifers. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the purpose of the GS rule is to protect USDWs from 

endangerment 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. 

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 on site characterization and testing and monitoring requirements, 

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

GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21255 Letter Lines: 68 to 70 

Comment Code: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation 

Comment: 2. Establish a new Class VI well category tailored for large-scale CO2 

sequestration projects that builds on the existing UIC framework including the 

oil and gas industry's over 35 years of experience injecting CO2 and EOR. 

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 

2
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. 

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21256 Letter Lines: 72 to 73 

Comment Code: 2046 1.5.2.3 Continuing to classify CO2 injection for EOR/EGR as Class II/ 

dividing line between Class II and Class VI (seeking comment) 

Comment: 3. Recognize and maintain :he integrity of the existing Class II regulatory 

framework for CO2 EOR projects; 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that injection of CO2 for the primary purpose of enhancing 

oil and gas recovery should remain under the Class II Program. EPA recognizes that the oil and 

gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER, and that sites used 

for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS sites. EPA also recognizes that a 

by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving 

formation. 

However, the final Class VI regulations require that any owner or operator injecting CO2 for the 

primary purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI permit with some special consideration 

for the fact that they are transitioning from a well not originally designed to meet Class VI 

requirements. The Director has the authority to determine at what point a Class VI permit is 

required for those projects that are transitioning from the primary purpose of EOR to long term 

storage of CO2. The final regulation provides a set of technical factors for the Director to 

evaluate in making this determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that this approach provides 

sufficient protection of USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to 

traditional Class II operations while allowing for site-specific flexibility. For more information, 

please see the discussion on transition of Class II wells in the preamble to the final GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21257 Letter Lines: 75 to 76 

Comment Code: 1350 1.1.3.3 Comments on the need for GS technology 

Comment: 4. Support the development ofinnovative technologies for geologic carbon 

sequestration; 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the UIC Program’s authority under SDWA is focused 

on ensuring protection of USDWs from endangerment. Promoting the use of GS or associated 

technologies is outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. For additional information on 

EPA’s final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking 

docket. 

3
Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21258 Letter Lines: 78 to 80 

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

Comment: 5. Create and maintain a consistent national framework for geologic carbon 

sequestration, while continuing to enable states to apply for authority to 

administer the rules at the state level; 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that it is important to balance flexibility and national 

consistency. The GS rule sets forth minimum requirements, tailored to the unique nature of CO2 

GS, which must be met in order to ensure USDW protection from endangerment. EPA 

acknowledges the importance of flexibility for certain Class VI well requirements given the 

variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied and therefore affords the Director 

discretion when making permitting decisions. Such requirements where the Director has 

discretion include whether to require owners or operators to identify and characterize additional 

confining zones, as specified in §146.83, whether to require surface air monitoring and/or soil 

gas monitoring, as specified in §146.90, and whether to extend or shorten the post-injection site 

care period or approve an alternative post-injection site care timeframe as part of the permitting 

process, as specified in §146.93. EPA Headquarters also plans to review initial permits to ensure 

that the final rule, including all permitting decisions, are implemented consistently, and to ensure 

that USDW protection goals are consistently met across differing geologic situations. 

EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain primacy for Class VI wells 

independently of other well classes, and will allow independent primacy for Class VI wells under 

§145.1(i) of the final GS rule. 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. 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 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 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. 

EPA also believes that allowing states to apply only for Class VI primacy will shorten the 

primacy approval process for states. EPA's willingness to accept independent primacy 

applications for Class VI wells represents a shift in its longstanding policy of discouraging 

4
"partial primacy." It is very important to note that this shift in policy allowing for Class VI 

primacy does not apply to any other well Class under Section 1422. EPA will continue to 

discourage applications for partial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422. 

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independent of other 

well classes provided they develop regulations that are at least as stringent as the minimum 

Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspection, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping 

requirements) in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise 

to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for 

Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA to ensure that their GS programs integrate into 

national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21259 Letter Lines: 82 to 87 

Comment Code: 2064 1.5.3.2 Grandfathering construction of Class II wells (seeking comment) 

Comment: 6. Provide more flexibility than has been proposed forprojects that transition 

from Class II to Class VI status. In order to fully reflect the petroleum 

industry's 35 year successful record of managing CO2 projects, the rule should 

provide flexibility for monitoring and other operational requirements and should 

provide greater flexibility for well construction requirements than has been 

proposed; 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that many Class I, Class II, and Class V experimental 

technology wells are designed and constructed to withstand exposure to CO2. The final GS rule 

provides for the construction of these wells to be grandfathered per §146.81(c), provided the 

owner or operator can demonstrate to the Director that the wells were engineered and constructed 

to meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements 

at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a). 

EPA disagrees that other requirements (e.g., MITs, siting, monitoring, operational, and AoR 

requirements) should also be grandfathered. Following re-permitting of the well as Class VI, 

many of the unique factors of GS sites (e.g., increased reservoir pressures associated with large 

volumes of stored CO2 and the corrosivity of CO2 in the presence of water) will result in an 

increased risk profile, warranting the specific requirements in the final GS rule. Therefore, 

following re-permitting as Class VI wells, these projects must be subject to the operational, MIT, 

monitoring, reporting, plugging, and post-injection site care and site closure requirements in the 

final GS rule. See the discussion of EPA's final regulatory approach in the preamble to the GS 

rule for additional detail on these requirements. 

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21260 Letter Lines: 89 to 92 

Comment Code: 5240 2.8.2.2 Post injection timeframe (seeking comment) 

Comment Code: 5260 2.8.2.3 Adjusting the post-injection timeframe (seeking comment) 

5
Comment: 7. Revise the standard for determining site closure. Criteria should be 

performance based and a function of site-specific geologic and other risk 

criteria, rather than being dependent on a 50-year-period or any other fixed 

period of time; and, 

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters that there will be circumstances where it 

can be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk 

of endangerment to USDWs. For this reason, the final GS regulation offers owners or operators 

flexibility regarding the duration of the PISC timeframe by: (1) allowing the Director discretion 

to shorten or lengthen the PISC timeframe during the PISC period based on site-specific data, 

pursuant to requirements at §146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class 

VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, based on substantial data during the permitting 

process, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensures non-endangerment 

of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c). 

EPA believes that a default post-injection site care timeframe of 50 years, with flexibility to 

adjust the timeframe for a limited number of GS projects during the permitting process where 

substantial data exists to demonstrate that an alternative timeframe would be protective of 

USDWs, or based on data collected during the PISC period, is appropriate to address the range of 

sites where GS is anticipated to occur, to accommodate site-specific circumstances and various 

geologic conditions, and addresses commenters’ concerns, while ensuring USDW protection. 

Both approaches will utilize site-specific data, and be based on pressure monitoring and USDW 

impacts. 

EPA believes however, that to ensure USDW protection from endangerment, a default timeframe 

for post-injection site care is necessary in most cases. A 50 year post-injection site care 

timeframe represents a reasonable and protective monitoring period for most GS projects based 

on a review of research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and 

evaluation of public comments. 

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21261 Letter Lines: 94 to 96 

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

USDW 

Comment: 8 . Revise the proposed requirement that CO2 storage must occur below the 

deepest USDW; this is unnecessarily stringent. The rules should allow site 

selection based upon more flexible, site-specific considerations. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are limited 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. The 

6
Agency believes this approach: 1) responds to concerns about local and regional geologic storage 

capacity limitations imposed by the proposed injection depth requirements; 2) allows for a more 

site-specific assessment of injection depth for GS projects; 3) accommodates injection into 

different formation types; 4) allows for injection of CO2 for GS into non-USDWs above and/or 

between USDWs when appropriate and where it can be demonstrated that USDWs will be 

protected; and 5) responds to concerns about the use of aquifer exemptions for GS. Finally, 

EPA’s approach to addressing injection depth variability through a waiver process responds to 

concerns about future drinking water resource availability and the need to ensure that high 

quality water remains available in sufficient quantities to supply drinking water needs. For 

additional information on the waiver approach, please see the final rule and preamble, as well as 

EPA's responses to comments on the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment. 

Letter ID: 0155 Comment ID: 21262 Letter Lines: 98 to 100 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: The Partnership supports EPA's efforts to implement rules governing long term 

storage of CO2 in geologic formations and further encourages the agency to seek 

to harmonize its rules with international rules and best practices. 

Individual Response: In response to the comments suggesting that EPA harmonize with 

international rules and best practices, EPA clarifies that it is monitoring the progress of 

international research and legislative developments; a paper summarizing EPA's research on 

international GS projects and legislation, entitled " International GS Efforts: A Look at the 

Sleipner, Weyburn, and In Salah Projects and other International Regulatory Developments " is 

in the rulemaking docket. The Agency's authority as it relates to GS is limited to protection of 

USDWs within the United States. 

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, including international 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. 

7