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.
October 13, 2009

Submitted via online comment system at:

www.regulations.gov

RE: Comments of Greenpeace USA on: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

To Whom It May Concern:

On behalf of Greenpeace USA, please accept this submission in response to the request for comments

on the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program: Federal Requirements Under the Underground

Injection Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells; Notice of Data Availability (NODA)

and Request for Comment. Greenpeace is an independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful

direct action and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and to promote

solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.

CO2 storage is an unproven end-of-pipe ‘fix’ for climate change emissions

The EPA is currently considering permitting the burying of CO2 in underground formations because of a

proposed technological solution to the climate problem posed by fossil fuel combustion. This solution,

known as carbon capture and storage (CCS), aims to allow the continued reliance on fossil fuels as a

primary source of energy while affording a chance to combat climate change. However, in almost every

way this technology is unproven, risky and expensive.

Greenpeace does not support CCS as a means to combat climate change. This is due to the substantial

risks and uncertainties surrounding the effectiveness, safety, energy penalties, liability and environmental

impacts of CCS and CO2 storage. In seeking to reduce global warming pollution, Greenpeace believes

that the US should focus its resources on solutions that avoid the creation of CO2 and other greenhouse

gases instead of banking on unproven end-of-pipe fixes that may create more problems than they solve.

1

Permitting geological storage of CO2 under the SDWA is premature and incomplete

Greenpeace would like to reiterate its concerns that any effort to regulate geological storage of CO2 under

the SDWA is premature and incomplete. We understand EPA’s motivation to create some sort of

regulatory framework to permit this activity and appreciate the care the Agency has taken in drafting its

proposed rules. However, the magnitude of the unknowns regarding underground storage of CO2

prevents the creation of a comprehensive and effective permitting regime at this time. Safe, permanent

storage of carbon dioxide can not be assured; the techniques needed to adequately characterize and

monitor storage locations are limited. There is no standard methodology that prescribes how a site must

be characterized; no standard protocols or established network designs exist for monitoring and leakage;

and no existing studies systematically estimate the probability and magnitude of CO2 release across a

sample of geological storage systems.

As such, the EPA should refrain from rushing to regulate that which is unknown. The storage of CO2 is

not the only way to combat climate change and unless and until the environmental, public health and

safety concerns are resolved, large scale projects should not be allowed.

Another source of concern is that the SWDA is not of sufficient scope and enforceability to regulate this

activity. Any regulatory regime enacted to permit this activity must, at a bare minimum, put standards in

1

For more information on Greenpeace’s position on CCS and CO2 storage, please read False Hope: why carbon

capture and storage won’t save the climate. Published May 2008. Available at: www.greenpeace.org/ccs.
place that deal with matters such as ownership of stored CO2, liability, procedures for the detection and

mitigation of leaks, verification of stored CO2, licensing of storage site operators and purity of the CO2

stream. While the SWDA does allow for the EPA to address some of these, it does not allow for a

comprehensive approach to lay out a clear policy framework for the geological storage of CO2. Partial

regulation of CO2 storage is inadequate at best and dangerous as well as costly to the public at worst.

EPA should not enact regulations that are only able to partially address the substantial issues associated

with pumping vast quantities of CO2 underground.

GS studies highlight the significant knowledge gaps associated with CO2 storage

The geological studies that are highlighted in the NODA provide interesting new information while

underscoring how much more work needs to be done in order to fully understand that which the EPA is

seeking to regulate. And while modeled analyses and calculations provide helpful insights they are

imperfect proxies for real world experience.

In addition to the research mentioned, Greenpeace would recommend that the EPA review the following:

 Gilfillan, S.M.V. et al. Nature 458, 614-618 (2009).

This study adds to the body of knowledge regarding primary trapping mechanisms for CO2 and

counters the previously held notion that the primary trapping mechanism of CO2 is geological

mineral fixation. Instead, the research indicates that the primary mechanism is dissolution which

raises concerns about the permanence of CO2 storage, etc.

 Lee, J-Y. et al. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 59, 725-728 (2009).

This study quantifies the flue gas components, other than CO2, that are present in a separated

CO2 stream.

 Bjureby, E. et al. Reality Check on Carbon Storage, Greenpeace Publications (2009). Available

at: www.greenpeace.org/utsira.

By examining the world’s longest running CO2 storage project - the Sleipner project, and the

Utsira formation on which it is located - this briefing highlights some of the major challenges and

uncertainties facing CCS; and raises questions about the degree of certainty with which we can

assess leakage or guarantee permanent storage of CO2 in projects such as these.

Injection depth for GS Projects should remain as originally proposed in draft rule

Greenpeace supports the EPA’s original proposal to constrain injection to below the lowermost USDW.

Maximizing protection of UDW is the priority of the SDWA and this standard should not be relaxed in

order to facilitate underground storage of CO2. As noted by Dr. Sally Benson, “The biggest risk of storage

and saline aquifers is potential impacts to ground water.”

2

In Florida, partially treated wastewater has been injected into saline formations underground for more

than 30 years. Over time, some of that contaminated water has migrated into UDW.

3

The analogy to

CO2 storage is inescapable. It is foolish to assume that all of the stored CO2 will stay in its place and not

migrate into UDW sources. Leakages of CO2 will undoubtedly occur because things such as poor

planning, unforeseen complications and bad project management cannot be ruled out.

In the context of the SDWA, the question before the EPA is not how best to facilitate the storage of CO2

but how best to prevent protect UDW. From Greenpeace’s perspective, that means not allowing any

injection to occur above USDWs.

2 Sally M. Benson. Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Technological Challenges. (A University of California,

Berkeley, symposium) Video presentation by Sally M. Benson, Executive Director, The Global Climate and Energy

Project, Stanford University. November 13, 2008. See:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=665563992926487780&hl=en

3 David. W. Keith, et al. “Regulating the Underground Injection of CO2: Florida’s battle over injecting wastewater deep

underground offer a lesson for any future U.S. regulation of the underground disposal and sequestration of CO2”.

Environmental Science and Technology. December 15, 2005.
We are aware that such a requirement could preclude the use of CO2 storage in certain parts of the

country but it is worth noting that CO2 storage is not a necessity, it is merely a potential option that could

stem the increase in atmospheric concentrations of global warming pollution. Places where CO2 storage

would be ruled out by such a requirement can explore alternative measures to combat climate change

and meet their energy needs. For example, a variety of untapped renewable energy resources are

available throughout the United States and can be readily harnessed with existing technologies. Western

states, in particular, have tremendous renewable energy potential and western Governors are

increasingly committed to diversifying their energy sources, which means less coal and CO2.

4 Energy

efficiency measures are also available to reduce the growth of energy demand. Both of these options

avoid the generation of new CO2 and obviate the need for underground storage.

Conclusion

Given the substantial knowledge gaps relating to our ability to execute carbon storage safely,

Greenpeace argues that the permitting and regulation of large scale geological storage projects is

premature. Given the fact that technical feasibility of CCS is not expected until 2030, it would seem

prudent to wait for proof that environmentally sound carbon storage is possible before moving forward

with regulations. The inability of the EPA to fully address the issue of CO2 storage under the SDWA

underscores is another critical reason for the Agency to hold off on promulgating final regulations at this

juncture.

In considering the new science on the GS storage of CO2, we hope that the EPA recognizes the need to

proceed with the utmost caution on this issue. Keeping in mind its mandate to maximize the protection of

UDW, it should not weaken any standards that facilitate CO2 storage operations at the expense of that

mandate.

Thank you for taking our comments into consideration.

Sincerely,

Emily Rochon

Climate and Energy Campaigner

Greenpeace International

Ottho Heldringstraat 5

1066 AZ Amsterdam

The Netherlands

4 See Western Governors’ Association Policy resolution on renewable energy:

http://www.westgov.org/wga/policy/09/energy.pdf
Letter ID: 0342  

Commenter: Emily Rochon  

Organization: Greenpeace International  

Letter ID: 0342 Comment ID: 28027 Letter Lines: 34 to 52  

Comment Code: 6000 6. Other Comments that are Out of Scope for the NODA  

Comment: CO2 storage is an unproven end‐of‐pipe 'fix' for climate change emissions  

The EPA is currently considering permitting the burying of CO2 in underground  

formations because of a proposed technological solution to the climate problem  

posed by fossil fuel combustion. This solution, known as carbon capture and  

storage (CCS), aims to allow the continued reliance on fossil fuels as a primary  

source of energy while affording a chance to combat climate change. However, in  

almost every way this technology is unproven, risky and expensive.  

Greenpeace does not support CCS as a means to combat climate change. This is due  

to the substantial risks and uncertainties surrounding the effectiveness,  

safety, energy penalties, liability and environmental impacts of CCS and CO2  

storage. In seeking to reduce global warming pollution, Greenpeace believes  

that the US should focus its resources on solutions that avoid the creation of  

CO2 and other greenhouse gases instead of banking on unproven end‐of‐pipe fixes  

that may create more problems than they solve.[Footnote 1]  

[Footnote 1]:For more information on Greenpeace's position on CCS and CO2  

storage, please read False Hope: why carbon capture and storage won't save the  

climate. Published May 2008. Available at: www.greenpeace.org/ccs.  

Individual Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Notice of Data Availability and the UIC

Program’s authority under the GS rulemaking.  

Letter ID: 0342 Comment ID: 28028 Letter Lines: 54 to 86  

Comment Code: 5000 5. Comments on the Proposed Rule (out of NODA Scope)  

Comment: Permitting geological storage of CO2 under the SDWA is premature and incomplete  

Greenpeace would like to reiterate its concerns that any effort to regulate  

geological storage of CO2 under the SDWA is premature and incomplete. We  
understand EPA's motivation to create some sort of regulatory framework to  

permit this activity and appreciate the care the Agency has taken in drafting  

its proposed rules. However, the magnitude of the unknowns regarding  

underground storage of CO2 prevents the creation of a comprehensive and  

effective permitting regime at this time. Safe, permanent storage of carbon  

dioxide can not be assured; the techniques needed to adequately characterize and  

monitor storage locations are limited. There is no standard methodology that  

prescribes how a site must be characterized; no standard protocols or  

established network designs exist for monitoring and leakage; and no existing  

studies systematically estimate the probability and magnitude of CO2 release  

across a sample of geological storage systems.  

As such, the EPA should refrain from rushing to regulate that which is unknown.  

The storage of CO2 is not the only way to combat climate change and unless and  

until the environmental, public health and safety concerns are resolved, large  

scale projects should not be allowed.  

Another source of concern is that the SWDA is not of sufficient scope and  

enforceability to regulate this activity. Any regulatory regime enacted to  

permit this activity must, at a bare minimum, put standards in  

place that deal with matters such as ownership of stored CO2, liability,  

procedures for the detection and mitigation of leaks, verification of stored  

CO2, licensing of storage site operators and purity of the CO2 stream. While  

the SWDA does allow for the EPA to address some of these, it does not allow for  

a comprehensive approach to lay out a clear policy framework for the geological  

storage of CO2. Partial regulation of CO2 storage is inadequate at best and  

dangerous as well as costly to the public at worst. EPA should not enact  

regulations that are only able to partially address the substantial issues  

associated with pumping vast quantities of CO2 underground.  

Individual Response: This comment pertains to EPA’s proposed GS rule (73 FR 43492) and is outside the

scope of the Notice of Data Availability. Please see responses to comments on the proposed rule for

EPA’s response to similar comments.  

Letter ID: 0342 Comment ID: 28029 Letter Lines: 94 to 113  

Comment Code: 2400 2.4. Other Research Offered by Commenters (seeking comment)  

Comment: In addition to the research mentioned, Greenpeace would recommend that the EPA  
review the following:  

‐ Gilfillan, S.M.V. et al. Nature 458, 614‐618 (2009). This study adds to the  

body of knowledge regarding primary trapping mechanisms for CO2 and counters the  

previously held notion that the primary trapping mechanism of CO2 is geological  

mineral fixation. Instead, the research indicates that the primary mechanism is  

dissolution which raises concerns about the permanence of CO2 storage, etc.  

‐ Lee, J‐Y. et al. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 59, 725‐728  

(2009). This study quantifies the flue gas components, other than CO2, that are  

present in a separated CO2 stream.  

‐ Bjureby, E. et al. Reality Check on Carbon Storage, Greenpeace Publications  

(2009). Available at: www.greenpeace.org/utsira. By examining the world's  

longest running CO2 storage project ‐ the Sleipner project, and the Utsira  

formation on which it is located ‐ this briefing highlights some of the major  

challenges and uncertainties facing CCS; and raises questions about the degree  

of certainty with which we can assess leakage or guarantee permanent storage of  

CO2 in projects such as these.  

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the submittals and will continue to review studies of this

nature. EPA intends to continue to collect data on GS and to incorporate such data and information as it

implements its adaptive approach to the GS rulemaking to incorporate new research, data, and

information about GS. For more information on the adaptive approach, see the responses to comments

on the proposed rule in the rulemaking docket.  

Letter ID: 0342 Comment ID: 28030 Letter Lines: 115 to 178  

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

Comment: Injection depth for GS Projects should remain as originally proposed in draft  

rule  

Greenpeace supports the EPA's original proposal to constrain injection to  

below the lowermost USDW. Maximizing protection of UDW is the priority of the  

SDWA and this standard should not be relaxed in order to facilitate underground  

storage of CO2. As noted by Dr. Sally Benson, "The biggest risk of storage and  

saline aquifers is potential impacts to ground water." [Footnote 2]  

[Footnote 2]: Sally M. Benson. Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Technological  

Challenges. (A University of California, Berkeley, symposium) Video presentation  
by Sally M. Benson, Executive Director, The Global Climate and Energy Project,  

Stanford University. November 13, 2008. See:  

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=665563992926487780&hl=en  

In Florida, partially treated wastewater has been injected into saline  

formations underground for more than 30 years. Over time, some of that  

contaminated water has migrated into UDW.[Footnote 3] The analogy to CO2 storage  

is inescapable. It is foolish to assume that all of the stored CO2 will stay in  

its place and not migrate into UDW sources. Leakages of CO2 will undoubtedly  

occur because things such as poor planning, unforeseen complications and bad  

project management cannot be ruled out.  

[Footnote 3]: David. W. Keith, et al. "Regulating the Underground Injection of  

CO2: Florida's battle over injecting wastewater deep underground offer a lesson  

for any future U.S. regulation of the underground disposal and sequestration of  

CO2". Environmental Science and Technology. December 15, 2005.  

In the context of the SDWA, the question before the EPA is not how best to  

facilitate the storage of CO2 but how best to prevent protect UDW. From  

Greenpeace's perspective, that means not allowing any injection to occur above  

USDWs.  

We are aware that such a requirement could preclude the use of CO2 storage in  

certain parts of the country but it is worth noting that CO2 storage is not a  

necessity, it is merely a potential option that could stem the increase in  

atmospheric concentrations of global warming pollution. Places where CO2  

storage would be ruled out by such a requirement can explore alternative  

measures to combat climate change and meet their energy needs. For example, a  

variety of untapped renewable energy resources are available throughout the  

United States and can be readily harnessed with existing technologies. Western  

states, in particular, have tremendous renewable energy potential and western  

Governors are increasingly committed to diversifying their energy sources, which  

means less coal and CO2.[Footnote 4] Energy efficiency measures are also available to  

reduce the growth of energy demand. Both of these options avoid the generation  

of new CO2 and obviate the need for underground storage.  

[Footnote 4]: See Western Governors' Association Policy resolution on renewable energy:  

http://www.westgov.org/wga/policy/09/energy.pdf  

Conclusion  

Given the substantial knowledge gaps relating to our ability to  

execute carbon storage safely, Greenpeace argues that the permitting and  
regulation of large scale geological storage projects is premature. Given the  

fact that technical feasibility of CCS is not expected until 2030, it would seem  

prudent to wait for proof that environmentally sound carbon storage is possible  

before moving forward with regulations. The inability of the EPA to fully  

address the issue of CO2 storage under the SDWA underscores is another critical  

reason for the Agency to hold off on promulgating final regulations at this  

juncture.  

In considering the new science on the GS storage of CO2, we hope that the EPA  

recognizes the need to proceed with the utmost caution on this issue. Keeping  

in mind its mandate to maximize the protection of UDW, it should not weaken any  

standards that facilitate CO2 storage operations at the expense of that mandate.  

Individual Response: EPA agrees that USDW protection is the highest priority and clarifies that the

purpose of the GS regulation is to ensure that GS, where deployed, is conducted in a manner that

protects USDWs. Incentivizing the use of GS or other renewable energy resources and technologies is

outside the scope of this rulemaking and the UIC Program’s authority under the SDWA. EPA disagrees

that finalization of the GS rule is premature. For additional information regarding the data on which EPA

based the final GS rule, see the preamble to the final GS rule.

EPA acknowledges the commenter's concerns about USDW protection and clarifies that the mission of

the UIC Program is to protect USDWs from endangerment. Based on an evaluation of comments on the

proposed injection depth requirements, the waiver process discussed in the NODA and Request for

Comment, and concerns about USDW protection, EPA believes that there are situations where injection

into non‐USDW formations above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects

USDWs. 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.  

The waiver approach establishes requirements for extensive site‐specific information related to injecting

above or between USDWs that the owner or operator must submit and the Director must consider, in

consultation with PWSS Directors, to ensure that water supplies in the area and all USDWs are

protected. Furthermore, owners or operators granted injection depth waivers are subject to additional

requirements at §146.95(f), which include: modified construction requirements and requirements to

monitor above and below the injection zone in order to ensure protection of USDWs underlying and

overlying the injection zone during both well operation and the post‐injection site care period.  

In response to the comment regarding unintended consequences related to municipal disposal wells in

Florida, EPA clarifies that GS is different from the injection of wastewater in Florida. An owner or

operator seeking to characterize a site for GS pursuant to the requirements at §146.82 and identify both

injection formations and suitable confining units per §146.83 may not be able to meet the requirements

and ensure protection of USDWs due to the nature of karst formations/geology. In addition, the
computational modeling required to delineate the AoR for a GS project would likely predict

inappropriate buoyant flow and eliminate such formations as potential GS sites.  

Letter ID: 0342 Comment ID: 28636 Letter Lines: 87 to 92  

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

(seeking comment)  

Comment: GS studies highlight the significant knowledge gaps associated with CO2 storage  

The geological studies that are highlighted in the NODA provide interesting new  

information while underscoring how much more work needs to be done in order to  

fully understand that which the EPA is seeking to regulate. And while modeled  

analyses and calculations provide helpful insights they are imperfect proxies  

for real world experience.  

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that research continues on GS, but believes that sufficient data

exist on which to base final requirements for GS at this time. EPA continues to work with DOE, national

laboratories (such as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories), the USGS, and internal Agency Offices

(e.g., Office of Research and Development) on research on various aspects of GS, including potential

risks to USDWs.  

EPA intends to use an adaptive approach to the GS regulation. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and

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

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

are appropriate or necessary.