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.

1
Public Comments and EPA Responses to Comments Provided at

Denver, CO Hearing on the Proposed Rule

EPA held a public hearing on the proposed rule on October 2, 2008 in Denver, CO.

Eighteen (18) people commented at the Denver hearing, including:

• Scott Anderson; Environmental Defense Fund

• Ginny Brannon; Colorado Department of Public Health and Environments  

• Dave Bufalo      

• Steve Crookshank; American Petroleum Institute  

• Becky English; Sierra Club

• Kevin Frederick; Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality  

• Jonah Fruchter; Sierra Club

• Leslie Glustrome

• Cynthia Lane; American Water Works Association  

• Nancy LaPlaca  

• Doug Louis; Kansas Corporation Commission

• Barbara Massoner; Legacy Economy

• Mike Moore; North American Carbon Capture and Storage Association  

• Dag Nummedal; Colorado Energy Resource Institute

• George Peridas; Natural Resources Defense Council  

• Paul Pike; Ameren Corporation on behalf of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group  

• Olon Plunk; Excel Energy

• Talib Syed

Their comments are included in the hearing transcript in the first part of this file.  The

second part of this file contains EPA’s responses to the comments.

Use the bookmarks in the PDF to locate a specific comment or response.
 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. I am Scott Anderson 

 12 with the Environmental Defense Fund and I think I would 

 13 like to begin by complimenting the EPA for having done 

 14 generally an excellent job with this proposed rule 

 15 making. 

 16 We think that an adequate regulatory regime 

 17 for CO2 sequestration is within sight. That is not to 

 18 say that we do not think that changes are needed. We 

 19 do see the need for quite a few changes in the rule, 

 20 but I think it is fair to characterize the changes we 

 21 have in mind as technical. 

 22 I would also like to start out by addressing 

 23 a couple of issues that are perhaps technically outside 

 24 the scope of this rulemaking. They may not actually 

 25 affect the wording of the rule, but they are certainly 

2
 59 

 1 relevant to the subject. 

 2 First I would like to agree with Doug Louis 

 3 of the Kansas Corporation Commission and also the 

 4 people from the Department of Environmental Quality of 

 5 Wyoming that it is essential that this program be 

 6 funded adequately both at the federal, but also at the 

 7 state level. In round numbers, state UIC agencies 

 8 currently get about ten million dollars from the 

 9 federal government to administer these programs. It 

 10 has been estimated that they really need even under the 

 11 current regulatory system, something more like fifty 

 12 million dollars and it has further been estimated that 

 13 for the state programs to do a good job both with the 

 14 existing UIC classes and Class VI that they may need 

 15 something more in the order of a hundred million 

 16 dollars and I realize you people at the table do not 

 17 have a hundred million dollars handy, but I think that 

 18 is a very important policy issue that perhaps the EPA 

 19 could help highlight with Congress. 

 20 And then secondly, I would like to agree with 

 21 American Waterworks Association about the point that 

 22 changing technical abilities for cleaning up water as 

 23 well as increasing water demand does make it important 

 24 that we not consider ten thousand parts per million to 

 25 be set in stone. 

3
 60 

 1 Okay. I want to spend the rest of my time 

 2 talking about a few of the strengths of the rule and a 

 3 few opportunities for improvement. 

 4 We think the rule, the proposed rule has done 

 5 a very good job of keeping the focus on both CO2 

 6 leakage risks and also the risk of problems from 

 7 displaced brine. The confining zone in the rule is 

 8 required to contain both CO2 and displaced formation 

 9 fluids. The zone of elevated pressure as defined in 

 10 the rule focuses on both CO2 and formation fluids that 

 11 might be driven out of a US -- into a USDW. The 

 12 modeling requirements are modeling both of the CO2 

 13 plume extent and formation fluid movement. There is 

 14 the requirement for periodic monitoring of groundwater 

 15 quality and geochemical changes above the confining 

 16 zone which would help detail whether either CO2 or 

 17 brine is leaking and there are adequate response 

 18 provisions. 

 19 A couple comments on some issues that we 

 20 still have under review, but I can at least go this far 

 21 at this time. We would urge the EPA to give serious 

 22 consideration to the points that many have made about 

 23 not restricting this rule to sites that are below the 

 24 lowest USDW. And we would also urge the EPA to give 

 25 serious consideration to modifying the requirement for 

4
 61 

 1 cementing the long string casing from top to bottom. We 

 2 will finish making up our mind about those issues by 

 3 the time we file written comments, but at this point, I 

 4 would say that those issues are worthy of serious 

 5 consideration. 

 6 I would also like to agree in part and 

 7 strongly disagree in part with my good friends from API 

 8 and the National Association of Carbon Capture and 

 9 Storage folks on this closure standard. The 

 10 disagreement is this; we think that to call the fifty 

 11 year default period arbitrary is just not accurate. If 

 12 it said fifty years period without any ability to flex 

 13 either direction, perhaps that would be arbitrary. Now 

 14 that said, that does not mean that we support the 

 15 proposed rule standard for approving site closure. In 

 16 fact, the opposite. We think it needs to be 

 17 substantially reworked and we do not even think you 

 18 necessarily need a default period in order to have a 

 19 solid performance standard for this. I am not going to 

 20 go into exactly what we would substitute instead, but I 

 21 can say that it will be generally consistent and 

 22 perhaps precisely the same as comments that are being 

 23 developed by the Ground Water Protection Council. 

 24 Other suggestion and improvements for the 

 25 rule are that coal seams, the basalts, hollowed out 

5
 62 

 1 salt domes and shale are simply not ready for 

 2 commercial sequestration at this time. And that is 

 3 true whether or not they are below the lowest USDW. So 

 4 our recommendation is that the Class VI proposal 

 5 clearly be written not to apply to these sorts of 

 6 formations. We do favor continued experimentation in 

 7 these formations and some of them, especially coal 

 8 seams may become commercially viable in the future, but 

 9 for now we think they should be written, should be 

 10 permitted under Class V. We should await further 

 11 knowledge before deciding precisely that those 

 12 formations not to be regulated. 

 13 We like the fact that the rules place a lot 

 14 of importance on monitoring. In several instances, the 

 15 rules proposed using monitoring to modify the various 

 16 aspects of the operations, but we think the rules can 

 17 go further in this respect and we will spell that out 

 18 in our final comments. 

 19 The rule I believe, I believe the preamble 

 20 does mention the possibility of interference among 

 21 projects, but whether or not that is the case, we think 

 22 it is important that the rule contain a provision to 

 23 head off potential interference among projects. The 

 24 idea that seems to make sense to us is to flatly say 

 25 that a project cannot interfere with the effectiveness 

6
 63 

 1 of a preexisting project and anytime there is an 

 2 overlap in the pressure fronts or footprint or however 

 3 else you might define it, we think there ought to be 

 4 inquiry made as to whether that would constitute 

 5 interference. A rule like that would force projects in 

 6 a single basin or brine formation to space themselves 

 7 at least somewhat properly. 

 8 We think the AOR's area of reviews need to be 

 9 calculated as intended and updated as necessary. We 

 10 think ten year updates is far too infrequent and we 

 11 think that there are some technical problems with the 

 12 way the AOR is defined in the rule. We believe the 

 13 EPA's intention is to use elevated pressure as the main 

 14 guide to AOR delineation, but in our judgment the 

 15 definition just does not say that. 

 16 Injection pressure limits. This is very 

 17 important and we think EPA's about halfway toward 

 18 addressing this properly. The half that seems to be 

 19 well done is that the proposed rule requires quite a 

 20 bit of geomechanical information to be submitted. The 

 21 kind of information that could be used, should be used 

 22 to determine whether or not there is a risk of induced 

 23 seismicity and to determine whether or not there is 

 24 risks of reopening otherwise closed faults and 

 25 fractures making them, making what starts out as a 

7
 64 

 1 non-transmissive fault into a transmissive fault. So 

 2 the proposed rule calls for the information that 

 3 enables that kind of stuff to be calculated, but it 

 4 fails to require that information to be used as part of 

 5 the permitting process to inform the injection pressure 

 6 limits. Instead the rule uses the traditional sort of 

 7 injection pressure limit from oil and gas regulation 

 8 that says accepted as a percentage of fracture 

 9 pressure. The problem with that is that these other 

 10 problems I mentioned, induced seismicity and reopening 

 11 of faults can occur in lower pressures than say 90% of 

 12 fracture pressure, it is possible for one to comply 

 13 with the 90% of fracture pressure requirement and yet 

 14 still cause these other geomechanics related problems. 

 15 Well I do not even need that minute because 

 16 the last thing I had was to talk about the standard for 

 17 authorizing site closure, but I have already done that, 

 18 so thank you very much. 

8
 MS. BRANNON: Good morning. My name is Ginny 

 13 Brannon and I am the Climate Change Manager at the 

 14 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environments 

 15 and this morning I am testifying on behalf of the 

 16 Department. 

 17 My testimony will be quite brief. It is 

 18 pretty much just primacy over Class VI wells. Let me 

 19 first thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 

 20 proposed rule setting forth federal requirements under 

 21 the Safe Drinking Water Act for the underground 

 22 injection of carbon dioxide. 

 23 Geologic sequestration holds promise as a key 

 24 component in the promotion of premier coal 

 25 technologies. As a coal producing state in Colorado, 

9
 73 

 1 we are especially interested in technologies that will 

 2 secure the industry's future in the face of the 

 3 challenges associated with reducing greenhouse gas 

 4 emissions and thereby mitigating the impacts from 

 5 global warming. 

 6 And our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas 

 7 emissions is reflected in the Colorado Climate Action 

 8 Plan which calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 

 9 by 20% from 2005 levels by 2020. We realize that clean 

 10 air coal technologies can help us reach this goal and 

 11 may be a key component in reaching that goal, but 

 12 emerging solution such as geologic sequestration must 

 13 be technologically and environmentally sound and 

 14 supported by a viable and efficient regulatory 

 15 framework. With respect to that regulatory framework, 

 16 the Safe Drinking Water Act provides the states that 

 17 apply to EPA for primary enforcement responsibility to 

 18 administer the underground injection control program. 

 19 These states referred to as primacy states must meet 

 20 the minimum federal requirements for UIC programs 

 21 including construction, operating, monitoring, testing, 

 22 reporting and closure requirements for well owners or 

 23 operators. 

 24 Additionally, the Safe Drinking Water Act 

 25 allows states to apply for such primacy in part, such 

10
 74 

 1 as for only classes I, III, IV and VI under section 

 2 1422 or for Class II wells only under section 1425. 

 3 Colorado falls in this latter camp with 

 4 primacy for Class II wells only. 

 5 The proposed rule calls for another class of 

 6 wells, Class VI with the injection of carbon dioxide. 

 7 It is our contention the state should be able to seek 

 8 primacy for Class VI wells as a stand alone class just 

 9 as they do for Class II wells now. Because Class II 

 10 wells are for oil and gas injection, Class II wells and 

 11 the proposed Class VI wells for CO2 injection are 

 12 similar in purpose and particularly suited as stand 

 13 alone classes of wells. 

 14 Also in addition to our own staff, Colorado 

 15 is home to a premier university and scientific 

 16 community such that we have the expertise in the event 

 17 we were to assume primacy for Class VI wells. 

 18 Finally geologic sequestration is only one 

 19 component in a broader carbon and capture, carbon 

 20 capture and sequestration context. Colorado agrees 

 21 with EPA. By allowing states to acquire primacy for 

 22 Class VI wells may encourage them to assume the 

 23 responsibility of implementation and provide for more 

 24 comprehensive approach to managing carbon capture and 

 25 sequestration projects. 

11
 75 

 1 Thank you so much for the opportunity to 

 2 comment on the proposed rule. 

12
16 MR. BUFALO: My name is Dave Bufalo. I am 

 17 retired. I am a licensed professional engineer. I 

 18 spent the last eighteen months studying the issue of 

 19 carbon dioxide and climate change. 

 20 With respect to the injection of CO2 and its 

 21 affect on water quality, I am most concerned about a 

 22 potential catastrophic failure of the environment 

 23 system. There is a lake in Africa that somehow or 

 24 another evolved a tremendous amount of carbon dioxide 

 25 in one massive instantaneous release and it killed all 

13
 85 

 1 the villagers within some radius of that. So the issue 

 2 is, do we have fault systems that may allow this to 

 3 happen and what then is the proximity of the local 

 4 population base? That is my primary concern. 

 5 If we have a gradual leak of CO2 

 6 from a containment system, I do not see that as 

 7 catastrophic. It was once in the atmosphere, it has 

 8 under gone sequestration and now it comes back out. So 

 9 be it. 

 10 I recognize that the Supreme Court of the 

 11 United States has given the EPA the regulatory 

 12 authority to regulate CO2. Over the past eighteen 

 13 months, I have come to the conclusion that managed 

 14 production of CO2 is not the cause of global climate 

 15 change. 

 16 Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama 

 17 has written a book called Climate Confusion. In this 

 18 book he states that man's production of CO2 is 

 19 equivalent to one molecule of CO2 for every 100,000 

 20 molecules of the atmosphere over a five year period. So 

 21 when we hear these numbers of millions and millions of 

 22 tons of CO2 being released in the atmosphere, we must 

 23 put that in context of what part of that is generated 

 24 by man. Dr. Spencer thinks that this is not a 

 25 significant contribution to global warming. 

14
 86 

 1 I have also read numerous articles, five 

 2 different books, consulted with several PhD. 

 3 Climatologists, in particular, Dr. William Gray from 

 4 Colorado State University who is known for his annual 

 5 forecast of hurricane activity. All of the literature 

 6 that I have read further indicate that man's production 

 7 of CO2 is not the cause of climate change. 

 8 The issue of CO2 causing climate change is 

 9 not a closed issue as some would have you believe. 

 10 I would refer you to a project called the 

 11 Petition Project written by the Oregon Institute of 

 12 Science and Medicine where over 31,000 scientists have 

 13 signed a petition to the President of the United States 

 14 of America saying to take drastic action with respect 

 15 to eliminating mass production of CO2 will not do 

 16 anything to minimize climate change. 

 17 So, I respect the EPA for its efforts and 

 18 attempts to do something to comply with the mandate by 

 19 the U.S. Supreme Court and to also respond to the 

 20 apparent public concern of climate change by man. 

 21 However, as we go forward the development of these 

 22 regulations, both the regulation of drinking water 

 23 quality and atmospheric relationship to, I would urge 

 24 the EPA to look closely at the cost benefit ratios of 

 25 what this is going to cost. 

15
 87 

 1 I am now a certified old guy, 66 years old. 

 2 I have got gray hair, I wear tri-focals and my income 

 3 is fixed. Any type of environmental regulation without 

 4 proven benefits to the benefit of mankind is going to 

 5 cost all of us consumers money and that money could be 

 6 better spent doing something else other than pure 

 7 regulation. Thank you. 

16
1 MR. CROOKSHANK: Thank you. I have come 

 2 to testify today on EPA proposed rule on carbon dioxide 

 3 geologic sequestration wells under the underground 

 4 injection control program. I am Steve Crookshank, 

 5 Senior Economist for API the National Trade Association 

 6 of the U.S. oil and natural gas industry. API 

 7 represents nearly four hundred companies involved in 

 8 all aspects of the oil and natural gas industry 

 9 including exploration and production, refining, 

 10 marketing and transportation as well as the service 

 11 companies that serve a quarter of our industry. 

 12 First I would like to provide some context 

 13 for our comments. Oil, natural gas and coal provide 

 14 approximately 85% of the world's energy. The power 

 15 plants, vehicles, homes, businesses and factories that 

 16 use these fuels produce more than twenty five billion 

 17 tons of CO2 emissions annually. While no single 

 18 technology is sufficient to mitigate human CO2 

 19 emissions, capturing CO2 and storing it in deep 

 20 underground formations could play an important role. 

 21 As an industry, we have over thirty-five 

 22 years experience safely transporting and injecting CO2 

 23 for enhanced oil recovery. While constantly evolving, 

 24 the technology, upgrading practices and regulatory 

 25 requirements have been developed for enhanced oil 

17
 25 

 1 recovery are extensive, mature and generally 

 2 appropriate for CCS. 

 3 In U.S. alone, the oil and gas industry 

 4 operates over thirteen thousand CO2 EOR wells, over 

 5 thirty five hundred miles of high pressure CO2 

 6 pipelines and has injected over six hundred million 

 7 tons of CO2 for EOR alone all while maintaining an 

 8 excellent health environment and safety record. 

 9 Industry also has extensive experience in 

 10 large scale separation and re-injection of natural gas 

 11 streams. The largest operation of this kind is on the 

 12 north slope of Alaska where forty-seven trillion cubic 

 13 feet of natural gas consisting of about twelve percent 

 14 carbon dioxide has been cumulatively re-injected over 

 15 the past thirty plus years. The CO2 fraction 

 16 corresponds to approximately four hundred and twenty 

 17 million metric tons of CO2. 

 18 Regarding EPA's proposed rule, API is very 

 19 supportive of the fact that EPA has recognized the 

 20 integrity of the existing regulatory framework for CO2 

 21 based enhanced oil recovery, of the amount of 

 22 flexibility in most parts of the proposed rule and of 

 23 the use of performance based approaches. Specific 

 24 examples include the proposed confining zone 

 25 requirements and the proposed ground water monitoring 

18
 26 

 1 requirements. There are several aspects of the proposed 

 2 rule that should be reconsidered for further 

 3 improvement. The first of these is the proposal to 

 4 restrict injection into formations below the lower most 

 5 underground source of drinking water or USDW. This 

 6 requirement is not necessary for protection of USDW's 

 7 and would remove a vast number of viable formations 

 8 from consideration. Industry has shown they can operate 

 9 CO2 injection wells and EOR context without endangering 

 10 USDW's that are located below the injection zone. An 

 11 excellent example is the Saw Creek EOR project in 

 12 Wyoming which has a USDW directly below the injection 

 13 zone. 

 14 Moreover, under the proposed rule, there are 

 15 other measures that provide real assurance of formation 

 16 integrity and require operators to demonstrate that the 

 17 project will not endanger USDW's making the lower most 

 18 USDW restriction unnecessary. 

 19 EPA should also reconsider a proposed fifty 

 20 year default period proposed injection site care. EPA 

 21 offers no rationale for this arbitrarily selected 

 22 period of fifty years. Establishing a fixed and 

 23 unusually long time period may create a significant 

 24 barrier for operators considering entry into CCS 

 25 operations. Criteria for determining the period post 

19
 27 

 1 injection site care should be performance based and a 

 2 function of the site specific characteristics of the 

 3 project such as project size, geologic factors and the 

 4 relative risks of the project. 

 5 Clear guidelines also need to be established 

 6 regarding when operators have met the performance 

 7 standards that determine site closure. Specifically, 

 8 the standard that the project no longer poses an 

 9 endangerment to USDW's needs to be defined using 

 10 reasonable risk based criteria. 

 11 EPA should also reconsider its proposed well 

 12 construction and operating requirements which are much 

 13 more prescriptive and rigorous than necessary and do 

 14 not reflect industries thirty-five plus years of 

 15 success in injecting CO2 under the Class II UIC 

 16 program. Class II EOR wells constructed for these 

 17 projects and their operating practices have an 

 18 excellent record of mechanical integrity and protecting 

 19 USDW's. 

 20 Some of the proposed requirements such as 

 21 cementing the long string casing to surface are not 

 22 only unnecessarily burdensome, but might also interfere 

 23 with operations and could introduce unintended risks. 

 24 Additionally while unnecessarily creating a 

 25 regulatory gap between Class II wells and their 

20
 28 

 1 operations and Class VI wells and their operations, EPA 

 2 is creating potential economic and operational barrier 

 3 to transitioning from EOR operations to storage 

 4 operations thereby further reducing the number of 

 5 target formations where CO2 can be stored. 

 6 In conclusion, API shares the same goal as 

 7 EPA to develop rules that facilitate the safe, secure, 

 8 long term storage of CO2. API is concerned that if by 

 9 being overly prescriptive in designing a new well 

 10 class, the proposed rule will hinder the development of 

 11 CCS and could have the unanticipated consequence of 

 12 hindering the innovations that could improve both well 

 13 security and performance. CCS is one of the essential 

 14 technologies that could help to ensure that we can 

 15 continue to produce clean energy society demands. 

 16 The points I have cited in my oral comments 

 17 are examples that illustrate our areas of concern. API 

 18 will be submitting more detailed written comments in 

 19 response to the notice. 

 20 Thank you for your attention. 

21
MS. ENGLISH: I requested five minutes when I 

 24 signed up, so although this could be a little longer 

 25 than that, I do not know. 

22
 102 

 1 Good afternoon and thank you very much for 

 2 coming to Denver and allowing this public comment 

 3 period. My name is Becky English. I chair Sierra 

 4 Club's Energy Committee for the state of Colorado which 

 5 is called the Rocky Mountain Chapter. Sierra Club has 

 6 22,000 members in Colorado. 

 7 I wanted to make a few points this afternoon. 

 8 First, I wanted to ask that the comment period be 

 9 extended. These are very complicated issues for IGCC 

 10 and for carbon capture and sequestration. I notice 

 11 that EPA's six to nine months late in doing its due 

 12 diligence on this topic and because of the complication 

 13 of the process and the complication of the science and 

 14 of course, the public is even less able to comprehend 

 15 these issues than EPA is so I am asking you today, to 

 16 give us a six month extension for public comment on 

 17 this. It does not seem fair to ask us to do the hustle 

 18 to respond in thirty days. 

 19 I was wondering if this might have been part 

 20 of a pattern that some of us have noticed at EPA for 

 21 some hurry up processing before the Bush administration 

 22 runs out. Some of us frankly do not quite trust 

 23 Administrator Johnson's motives in this and we think we 

 24 need to have some time to digest this process. 

 25 Congress has been in a continuing resolution 

23
 103 

 1 mode producing anyway and there is new information 

 2 coming out as I know you are even more aware of than I 

 3 am about some actual leaks of CO2 in process and these, 

 4 of course, would need to be considered not only by EPA, 

 5 but by the public and so I do not know if this is a 

 6 discursive mode, but I want to ask you a question of 

 7 process. Is my requesting this extension, does that 

 8 mean it will happen or do we need to file a formal 

 9 extension request? 

 10 FEMALE: [Indecipherable]. 

 11 MS. ENGLISH: Okay. Thank you very much. 

 12 FEMALE: [Indecipherable]. 

 13 MS. ENGLISH: Okay, okay. The answer was to 

 14 wait for the end of my comments and then to go to Q & 

 15 A, so. 

 16 Secondly I wanted to point out that permit 

 17 applications should not be able, applicants rather, 

 18 should not be able to use proprietary software if they 

 19 are not willing to disclose their modeling data. And 

 20 their operating assumptions and explain their research 

 21 methods more fully for a transparent, for transparency 

 22 with the public; people such as myself and Sierra Club. 

 23 We need complete transparency in order to give adequate 

 24 public input. That is just obvious. Modeling data 

 25 should have been provided well before the beginning of 

24
 104 

 1 this thirty day period, this comment period. Again, we 

 2 need more time. 

 3 I also want to point out that a remediation 

 4 plan should have been developed by now to deal with all 

 5 possible contamination events in tandem with this 

 6 particular process especially in view of EPA's, some of 

 7 EPA's past failures to perform adequate risk monitoring 

 8 and timely detection of remediation of contamination. 

 9 Obviously, a remediation plan needs to be in place 

 10 along with this particular proposal. Please provide us 

 11 with that remediation plan and give the public time to 

 12 comment on that as well. 

 13 EPA's management of carbon capture and 

 14 sequestration operations should be absolutely 

 15 transparent to the public and so today, I want to call 

 16 for real time online postings and RSS feeds of all 

 17 incidents no matter how minor to interested members of 

 18 the public. EPA should be providing such reporting for 

 19 all incidents already and not just for carbon 

 20 sequestration leaks, but for really I think all 

 21 incidents across your entire realm of responsibility. 

 22 Again, with the transparency, the public needs to know 

 23 what is going on a lot easier than it currently is for 

 24 us to find things out. 

 25 I am not a geologist or a mining engineer, 

25
 105 

 1 but I think I have some common sense and as a U.S. 

 2 citizen, I just must insist that EPA adopt a more 

 3 comprehensive method for evaluating IGCC and carbon 

 4 sequestration, carbon capture and sequestration in view 

 5 of the now well known fact that carbon based fuels are 

 6 roasting our atmosphere and rapidly reducing the 

 7 viability of our planet. 

 8 EPA must develop its own models of the 

 9 overall life cycle of carbon based fuel processes. A 

 10 good model would give this lay person satisfying 

 11 answers to some naive, but necessary questions. 

 12 Does it make any sense at all to be expending 

 13 more energy than coal actually yields and more money 

 14 than could ever be justified with comprehensive life 

 15 cycle accounting to widely used coal as a fuel source 

 16 in the first place or by extension to perform carbon 

 17 capture and sequestration? Does it net out to 

 18 administer this stuff with hearings like this knowing 

 19 what we already know? To accept as taxpayers the well 

 20 known liabilities to fish and wildlife habitats and 

 21 human health? To do the appropriate and necessary 

 22 greenhouse gas reduction accounting? To deal with 

 23 interstate boundary and commerce issues? To mine and 

 24 process the coal with all the environmental degradation 

 25 and health costs that we know are associated with that; 

26
 106 

 1 to transport it to its destinations and then spend the 

 2 fuel and human resources and fuel again to send the 

 3 trains back empty? To burn it, gasify it, liquify it, 

 4 whatever and then spend more money and more energy 

 5 trying to put CO2 back into the ground from whence it 

 6 came in the first place, for heaven's sake? And then, 

 7 and then importantly trying to guess, guess how 

 8 effective that process might be since we are lacking 

 9 longitudinal data and I am wondering do reliable 

 10 methods even exist to monitor that the sequestered CO2 

 11 is staying put? We are getting new information that it 

 12 is not staying put at least in a few cases, but even 

 13 this non-scientist here knows that gasses have a 

 14 tendency to seek the surface. I can see that when I 

 15 drink my 7-up that I like every afternoon. The bubbles 

 16 like to go up and as many others here can attest to 

 17 better than I, CO2 leakage at the surface can cause 

 18 serious public health and safety issues so. And then 

 19 of course, not to mention that we have been undoing the 

 20 energy intents given costly sequestration exercise that 

 21 we just gone through and oh by the way, reintroducing 

 22 CO2 again above ground as a greenhouse gas. So I am 

 23 asking you, does this make any sense at all to even be 

 24 in the business of doing these activities? 

 25 How about an EPA rule that goes like this. 

27
 107 

 1 No use of any form of energy that does not yield more 

 2 net energy across its process life cycle than it 

 3 actually contains in its primary energy capture mode. 

 4 Short of that, I must call today for ending the current 

 5 inappropriate, piece meal approach to regulating IGCC 

 6 and carbon capture sequestration. We need a more 

 7 comprehensive law or regulation. 

 8 So in addition to asking for more time for 

 9 public comment then, on behalf of Sierra Club's 22,000 

 10 members in the state of Colorado, thank you very much 

 11 for your consideration. And now did you want to ask me 

 12 anything? 

28
15 MR. Corra: I cede my time to my colleague, 

 16 Kevin Fredrick. 

 17 MR. BIERNAT: Okay, Mr. Frederick. 

 18 MR. FREDRICK: Good morning. Kevin Fredrick, 

 19 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. I am the 

 20 Program Manager for the Underground Injection Control 

 21 Program at the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

 22 Qualities Water Quality Division. 

 23 I would like to provide some comments today 

 24 on behalf of myself and Mr. John Corra, the Director of 

 25 the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 

29
 45 

 1 First of all, let me start with a few general 

 2 comments on EPA's proposed approach. With respect to 

 3 funding, EPA funding to states to administer federal 

 4 environmental programs such as the underground 

 5 injection control program continues to decline in terms 

 6 of real dollars. Recognizing the scope of work 

 7 anticipated for CO2 sequestration in this country 

 8 alone, substantial additional skills and resources 

 9 would be required at the state level in order to 

 10 develop and implement effective permitting and 

 11 oversight programs. It is imperative that EPA 

 12 recognize that need and begin to consider establishing 

 13 special provisions to set aside and identify funds 

 14 specifically for the use by states and tribes that they 

 15 will need in order to effectively develop and operate 

 16 these types of permitting programs. 

 17 Secondly, we believe that additional 

 18 clarification and guidance on financial assurance 

 19 instruments and their appropriate use with respect to 

 20 different phases of CO2 sequestration projects is 

 21 needed in order to provide a guideline that states may 

 22 actually begin to use with respect to evaluating the 

 23 financial assurance requirements and the appropriate 

 24 use of various types of financial instruments. 

 25 Lastly, U.S. EPA should seriously review and 

30
 46 

 1 consider the comments that will be provided in the 

 2 future in this proposed rule by the Ground Water 

 3 Protection Council. The Ground Water Protection 

 4 Council has a working committee comprised of members 

 5 from industry, state regulatory agencies, and 

 6 environmental interest groups that are reviewing the 

 7 proposed rule and we believe we will be providing 

 8 important comments that EPA should consider in 

 9 reviewing the proposed rule. 

 10 A few specific comments on issues where we 

 11 agree with EPA's proposed rule. We believe that permit 

 12 applications for GS sites should include several plans, 

 13 not currently required under existing UIC regulations. 

 14 These plans include a monitoring, a testing plan and an 

 15 area of review and corrective action plan and a post 

 16 injection site care and site closure plan. 

 17 We agree that the directors should be 

 18 provided discretion to shorten or lengthen the proposed 

 19 post injection site care monitoring period based on 

 20 performance information. 

 21 There are areas that we agree with EPA that 

 22 discretion allowed to the director should be provided 

 23 to determine or require grandfathering the construction 

 24 requirements for existing Class I and Class II wells 

 25 and Class V wells seeking a permit for geologic 

31
 47 

 1 sequestration of CO2. 

 2 Discretion for identifying and characterizing 

 3 additional confining and containment zones of the 

 4 primary confining zone that could further impede 

 5 vertical fluid movement and allow for pressure 

 6 dissipation. 

 7 Discretion to allow the use of proprietary 

 8 models. Wyoming, in particular, has options available 

 9 for applying for confidential treatment of proprietary 

 10 models and we believe that should be allowed at the 

 11 discretion of the director as well. 

 12 And finally discretion to allow for a phased 

 13 approach to corrective action. 

 14 There are a few areas which we do not agree 

 15 with EPA's proposed approach. Especially prohibiting 

 16 injection into formations if they are above the lower 

 17 most USDW. We believe it is imperative that the 

 18 director be allowed discretion to allow injection above 

 19 or between USDW's in specific geologic settings where 

 20 the depth of the USDW's preclude geologic 

 21 sequestration, make GS technically challenging or 

 22 significantly limits storage capacity. Such approval 

 23 by the director would allow injection between USDW's 

 24 and thereby allow injection above the lower most USDW. 

 25 In most circumstances it may be demonstrated that the 

32
 48 

 1 USDW's would not be in danger. 

 2 Furthermore, we support allowing directors to 

 3 exempt aquifers for the purpose of CO2 injection in 

 4 accordance with the requirements of 40CFR 144.7. This 

 5 essentially allows directors upon accepting primacy to 

 6 exempt aquifers which he specifically identifies. 

 7 We support allowing directors to exempt 

 8 aquifers for the purpose of CO2 injection in accordance 

 9 with the requirements of 40CFR 146.4. This allows 

 10 exemption of aquifers if they contain hydrocarbons, 

 11 mineable minerals are contaminated or are located at a 

 12 definite location that makes future use impractical. 

 13 We support allowing directors to provide for 

 14 CO2 injection into aquifers previously exempted for 

 15 Class I and Class II injection operations provided that 

 16 the operator obtains a new aquifer exemption for the 

 17 purpose of geologic sequestration. 

 18 Given the variety of sub-surface geologic 

 19 conditions that exist both within and between states, 

 20 we would not support setting a minimum injection depth 

 21 requirement for CO2 geologic sequestration in lieu of 

 22 requiring that such injection take place below the 

 23 lower most USDW. 

 24 We do not support prohibiting the injection 

 25 of CO2 for long term storage into certain formations 

33
 49 

 1 where they are above the lowermost USDW. As mentioned 

 2 before, we believe there are likely circumstances where 

 3 injection into formations including deep or mineable 

 4 coal seams situated above the lower most USDW may be 

 5 practical and protective of overlying and underlying 

 6 USDW's. 

 7 We do not support requiring a fixed time 

 8 frame for post injection site care of fifty years. We 

 9 recommend that a performance standard be applied to 

 10 determine a period of post injection site care. That 

 11 post injection site care continues until the plume is 

 12 stabilized and cannot endanger USDW's. 

 13 And finally, we do not support allowing, or 

 14 excuse me, not allowing for the use of separate 

 15 financial demonstrations to be submitted for the 

 16 plugging of the injection well and for the post 

 17 injection site care requirements. It may be 

 18 advantageous to require the approval of the well 

 19 plugging financial demonstration at permit issuance and 

 20 the post injection site care financial demonstration at 

 21 a later time. 

 22 In closing, let me say that Wyoming is in the 

 23 process of developing a CO2 sequestration regulation. 

 24 We are looking very closely at EPA's proposed rule as 

 25 the model that we can use and apply in our state. We 

34
 50 

 1 hope to have a draft of that regulation available 

 2 before the end of the year and thank you for the 

 3 opportunity to provide a public comment here today. 

35
24 MR. FRUCHTER: Hi. I just wanted to thank you 

 25 guys first of all for holding this public comment. I 

36
 108 

 1 think it is great that the EPA is listening to 

 2 Coloradans about this important issue that will affect 

 3 our air, water and wallets. 

 4 My name is Jonah Fruchter and I am a 

 5 conservation organizer for the Sierra Club and while 

 6 the club is not opposed to carbon sequestration, we are 

 7 concerned with how it impacts the environment. 

 8 I would like to start my comments in talking 

 9 about the general approach the EPA has taken to 

 10 regulate sequestration. While it is great that we are 

 11 talking about keeping water clean in Colorado, I do not 

 12 understand why EPA is not taking a comprehensive 

 13 approach to environmental regulation. We should be 

 14 talking about how to regulate the capture, transfer, 

 15 leakage problems, public health issues and water safety 

 16 all in one package. I do not think it is helpful to 

 17 draft environmental regulation in a piecemeal fashion. 

 18 The environment does not function as separate 

 19 pieces. It is interconnected. What affects the water, 

 20 affects the land and what affects the land affects our 

 21 air and so on and so forth. 

 22 Furthermore it is cumbersome and inefficient to 

 23 form regulatory policy in separate parts. I would not 

 24 suggest you use piecemeal regulation for anything, I 

 25 mean, including the environment. Environmental 

37
 109 

 1 regulation should always reflect a comprehensive 

 2 approach rather than the singular and isolated approach 

 3 we are taking with only regulating water safety. 

 4 With that said, I would like to focus on 

 5 transparency in regard to a future permit process. As 

 6 I said earlier, I think that the public comment in 

 7 deciding environmental regulation is important and I am 

 8 glad the EPA is hosting comment periods. However, this 

 9 is complicated stuff. If you would like comment from 

 10 Coloradans in the future, for example, when companies 

 11 have submitted permit applications, the public needs 

 12 more than thirty days to digest and respond to the 

 13 information submitted. We are not experts. 

 14 One way of helping with this to release this 

 15 permit information as it is submitted so that just like 

 16 the EPA, the public will have time to digest and 

 17 develop an informed opinion, so that is in regard to 

 18 future permitting that will occur. 

 19 There is no point in holding a comment period 

 20 if you do not give the public time to inform themselves 

 21 on the issues. The information itself also needs to be 

 22 accessible to the public and comprehensive in order to 

 23 create informed meaning filled public comment. 

 24 Companies need to submit their information in an 

 25 accessible manner such as using modeling software that 

38
 110 

 1 is open access to the public. It does not require an 

 2 expensive purchase to view the modeling data. Also the 

 3 EPA should make it easy for anyone to gain access to 

 4 information and comment on provisional permits and 

 5 permanent permits. I do not see a point in having a 

 6 comment for one and not the other. The public should 

 7 be allowed to comment on all potential moves to develop 

 8 a carbon sequestration program in Colorado. 

 9 In closing, I would like to see the EPA make 

 10 it easier not more difficult for Colorado to have a say 

 11 in what happens in their own backyard. I hope you see 

 12 many more comment periods in the future in regards to 

 13 carbon sequestration technology and that we are allowed 

 14 as the public to comment on how sequestration develops 

 15 in the future. Thank you. 

39
MS. GLUSTROME: My name is Leslie Glustrome. 

 19 I am a member of many environmental groups, Co-founder 

 20 of Clean Energy Action, but today I am speaking for 

 21 myself and I want to thank EPA for this opportunity. I 

 22 just got an email that an old friend died, so I 

 23 apologize. 

 24 I think it is very important whenever we 

 25 think about these things to take a little higher level 

40
 51 

 1 look at what is going on and the very first thing I 

 2 would like to do is ask EPA to schedule another public 

 3 hearing. There is very important ground water meeting 

 4 going on at the same time as this hearing. Many of the 

 5 people that know the most about protection of ground 

 6 water and underground injection are tied up and are 

 7 unable to be here which means that those of us that are 

 8 not experts are not able to benefit from their 

 9 expertise, so I would ask that EPA schedule another 

 10 public hearing and then extend the public comment 

 11 period for forty-five days after that so we have time 

 12 to learn from them, process what they have and submit 

 13 our comments at that point. I frankly hear through the 

 14 grape vine that it is not a coincidence that this 

 15 meeting was actually scheduled at a time when some of 

 16 the country's top ground water experts are not 

 17 available, so I would like to make sure that that gets 

 18 addressed before the rules are finalized. 

 19 Secondly, what I would like to do is remind 

 20 everyone that carbon dioxide is what you might call a 

 21 rock of a molecule. Once you have carbon and oxidize 

 22 it fully at four bonds oxygen, you have created the 

 23 molecule that is the foundation of all life on this 

 24 planet. It is, in a sense, by nature's design, a 

 25 molecule that does not go away. Climate scientists 

41
 52 

 1 tell us that we will be dealing with the climate 

 2 science, climate change and warming of the planet for 

 3 thousands of years after we stabilize CO2 levels in the 

 4 atmosphere. This is not something to play around with. 

 5 This is not something to take lightly. This is not 

 6 something to assume that somehow the guys in the suits 

 7 have it figured out because we had a very clear 

 8 demonstration that that is not the case very recently. 

 9 Carbon dioxide by nature is a gas. It is 

 10 as the waterworks association person has reminded us, 

 11 corrosive. It is an acid forming gas, tenth grade 

 12 chemistry reminds us of that. Carbon dioxide and water 

 13 forms carbonic acid. When you are creating large 

 14 amounts of carbon dioxide, you will be getting large 

 15 amounts of carbonic acid and to state it very 

 16 scientifically, when you make large amounts of carbonic 

 17 acid, we can expect it to acidify the crap out of 

 18 everything that it comes into contact with. That means 

 19 that you change the carbonate cycle and you start to 

 20 liberate iron and manganese and arsenic and all, many 

 21 other metals, so this is not something to somehow think 

 22 that -- this is just a high level injection experiment. 

 23 We are talking about massive volumes of something that 

 24 is very different than something that we have. 

 25 EOR is not CCS. You put the CO2 under, you 

42
 53 

 1 have no idea whether it stays under. Enhanced oil 

 2 recovery is not CCS. Put the CO2 under, you have no 

 3 idea whether it stays under the ground or not. There 

 4 has been essentially no monitoring there and all we 

 5 have to do is talk to the experts and they'll tell you 

 6 that; no do not assume that EOR is CCS. It is a very 

 7 different thing. 

 8 Lastly, another thing I would like to remind 

 9 EPA and all of the participants is that Tom Friedman 

 10 and his recent focus point book has pointed out that 

 11 Americans are learning that we can no longer be "as 

 12 dumb as we want to be" and that nothing will happen. 

 13 We have seen what has happened on Wall Street. We have 

 14 seen what happened in Iraq that was unjustified. Right 

 15 now, we are flying on the assumption that we have two 

 16 hundred years to rely on coal energy in this country. 

 17 Anybody who says that has not read the U.S.G.S (United 

 18 States Geological rvey) reports on coal availability. 

 19 That should be, in my mind, part of the preamble to 

 20 this so that we, as a country, can come to face the 

 21 fact that we actually only have a very small percentage 

 22 of that "200 years." A most recent study tells us 

 23 about 6%. Six percent of 200 is about 12 years depends 

 24 upon how we look at the Powder River field up in 

 25 Wyoming. So the reality is very different than what we 

43
 54 

 1 have been told in the media. As Americans we like to 

 2 think this is not unusual actually. We have been told 

 3 lots of things that were not exactly true, so it is 

 4 time to sit up, pay attention and demand answers, not 

 5 demonstrate what we want them to be. 

 6 Next I would like to point out that life does 

 7 not follow models. You can do anything on a computer. 

 8 You can make assumptions about anything and when you 

 9 look at the models that have been used, Mike Celia 

 10 models or whoever you want to use, they make 

 11 assumptions that basically determine the outcome. In 

 12 the real world, it does not work that way. As a simple, 

 13 but I think a very important example, I am trained as a 

 14 biochemist, I worked at the University of Colorado for 

 15 eight years, I have worked at lots of other places, but 

 16 that is one of the things I have done. During that 

 17 eight years working with people who were highly trained 

 18 scientists, as I try to remember it, we had at least 

 19 six incidents where someone left the water running and 

 20 the drain plugged one way or another. That meant that 

 21 a highly expensive lab flooded and the water comes 

 22 leaking through to the lab underneath destroying and 

 23 many times very expensive, extremely expensive 

 24 scientific equipment. In eight years, my memory is six 

 25 of those occurrences. Now we happen to have been in 

44
 55 

 1 sort of penthouse lab which meant we were on the top 

 2 floor, so you might think we might have been immune 

 3 from such a thing, but in a separate set of incidences, 

 4 all of the HVAC equipment is up on that ceiling and I 

 5 remember at least three times when the guys who were 

 6 in, maybe women, but the guys who were fixing the HVAC 

 7 equipment did something so our lab flooded and we lost 

 8 very expensive, both results and scientific equipment 

 9 so stuff happens. Life does not happen the way models 

 10 tell you it is going to happen. We have better ways to 

 11 do this. We aren't just talking about boiling water 

 12 when we are burning coal. We can boil water too by 

 13 using concentrating, solar power. We can ship the 

 14 electrons instead of shipping the coal over in nineteen 

 15 century railroad system. We do not have as much coal 

 16 as we have been told anyway, so all of these are very 

 17 important as we think about this question of what to do 

 18 and whether we should really be somehow thinking that 

 19 the only way to address climate change is to burn coal 

 20 and somehow try to smash a gas back into the planet and 

 21 hope it does not come back out. It is completely 

 22 absurd assumption in part because we do not have that 

 23 much coal anyway. 

 24 So, putting all that into context as we think 

 25 about these rules, the sequestration space in our 

45
 56 

 1 country and around the planet, but for now our country 

 2 is going to be a very valuable commodity, so a 

 3 fundamental concept behind these rules should be that 

 4 sequestration space should only be used, because we can 

 5 be pretty sure it is going to fail. We do not know it 

 6 is probably not going to fail, it may or may not fail 

 7 in our lifetimes because we have got a bunch of old 

 8 folks in this room, but it -- we can be pretty sure 

 9 that it will fail. As this country moves beyond the 

 10 fossil fuel era and into the post fossil fuel era, how 

 11 excited are we going to be -- or are future generations 

 12 going to be about taking care of our carbon dioxide 

 13 disposals sites? You know, they are going to have 

 14 other things they are going to be tending to, all the 

 15 other problems we have left them. 

 16 So the fact, the concept that somehow they 

 17 are going to be managing these sites for hundreds and 

 18 thousands of years and paying great attention to them 

 19 is just absurd. And we need to start with that 

 20 assumption. They are not going to be well monitored 

 21 and they are going to fail. Carbon dioxide is a gas, 

 22 it is a corrosive gas and we can assume that it is 

 23 going to fail in due time and we have got millions of 

 24 wells around this country. So carbon dioxide space 

 25 should only be used to sequester carbon dioxide that 

46
 57 

 1 has been used for processes for which there is no 

 2 reasonable alternative. That may be something like 

 3 making cement or making steel. Our children and 

 4 grandchildren may want to make that and they may need 

 5 to use coal to do that. 

 6 Every other process when we have a carbon 

 7 free alternative, that should be the first choice and 

 8 that should be a criteria before carbon, a CCS project 

 9 is approved because that CCS space, if we are able to 

 10 find some spaces that are actually able to stand up to 

 11 really thorough scientific analysis then that is going 

 12 to be a very valuable site and it should only be used 

 13 for processes that do not have a good alternative. 

 14 I would like to underscore the importance of 

 15 waiting for the results. You actually talked to 

 16 geologists who go up to Sleipner and actually look at 

 17 what is going on. Success, it is kind of like saying 

 18 Lehman Brothers is a successful company as long as you 

 19 are talking about September 1 or whatever that day was 

 20 before they failed so, success depends on how much data 

 21 you calculate and gather. So it is very important to 

 22 get that information just as the AWWA representative 

 23 pointed out, before we finalize any rules. It would be 

 24 completely absurd to try and go ahead. We need to make 

 25 sure that all data is completely transparent, fully 

47
 58 

 1 available to the public and all assumptions are 

 2 identified clearly in plain English when you actually 

 3 decipher some of the scientific papers that are being 

 4 used to prepare the models, you realize that the 

 5 assumptions assume that it is all going to be fine. 

 6 Well if you assume it is part of the model, those will 

 7 be fine. That is not -- does not take a lot of brains, 

 8 but it is hard to dig down and find those assumptions, 

 9 so I think that is all. Thank you very much. 

48
15 MS. LANE: Good morning. My name is Cynthia 

 16 Lane and I am appearing here today on behalf of the 

 17 American Waterworks Association, AWWA. We are the 

 18 world's oldest and largest association dedicated to 

 19 safe water. Our utility members serve safe and 

 20 affordable drinking water to more than 80% of the 

 21 American people. We appreciate the opportunity to 

 22 provide our views this morning on the proposed rule for 

 23 geologic carbon sequestration. 

 24 Our overarching concern regarding geologic 

 25 carbon sequestration is the potential contamination of 

49
 40 

 1 underground sources of drinking water from injection 

 2 activities and the potential for other unintended and 

 3 potential, possibly harmful consequences. 

 4 AWWA is particularly concerned about the 

 5 potential for contamination of sole source aquifers and 

 6 suggests that these aquifers be provided special 

 7 protective measures in the proposed rule. We also 

 8 support the portion of the rule that prohibits 

 9 injection of carbon dioxide above the lower most USDW. 

 10 As the demand for water increases during the 

 11 upcoming century and changes in climate impact 

 12 traditional water supplies, water utilities will look 

 13 for new sources of drinking water. It is likely that 

 14 as a result of these changes, there will be a greater 

 15 reliance on ground water for both new supplies and 

 16 conjunctive use. The possibility exists that utilities 

 17 might want to use some of these injection site aquifers 

 18 as new potable sources. In fact, in several 

 19 communities across the country, brackish waters that 

 20 are previously considered to be unusable because they 

 21 are above ten thousand TDS are now being used as 

 22 drinking water sources. 

 23 As desalination technology advances, the 

 24 brackish water sources are treated to EPA drinking 

 25 water standards and provided to water utility 

50
 41 

 1 customers. As this technology improves, even more 

 2 saline water may be used in the future therefore AWWA 

 3 suggest that the selection standards for potential 

 4 injection aquifers and for USDW's be reviewed and 

 5 revised to prevent contamination of aquifers that may 

 6 be considered viable sources of drinking water in the 

 7 near future. 

 8 Owner/operators should be required to involve 

 9 local planning departments and water utilities to 

 10 determine if any of our subsurface aquifers may be used 

 11 as drinking water source in the future. 

 12 Water chemistry in the underground setting is 

 13 complex and AWWA has several technical concerns 

 14 regarding the potential for carbon sequestration to 

 15 contaminate USDWs. Preventing degradation of water 

 16 should not just be limited to contaminants with 

 17 established maximum contaminant levels, but should also 

 18 include other constituents whose presence may either 

 19 make ground water more difficult to treat or impact the 

 20 beneficial uses of at ground water. 

 21 Several references on geologic carbon 

 22 sequestration discussed changes in the carbonate cycle 

 23 resulting in lowered pH conditions and the release of 

 24 iron, manganese, arsenic and possibly other inorganics 

 25 into groundwater surrounding the injection zone. 

51
 42 

 1 We need appropriate subsurface monitoring 

 2 technology identified and developed to prevent or 

 3 respond to potential contamination of USDW's, by these 

 4 and other chemical compounds. 

 5 EPA should provide guidance on acceptable 

 6 monitoring techniques and frequency, provide for a 

 7 consistent application of the monitoring requirements. 

 8 Another area of concern is often the lack of 

 9 good records of abandoned wells that tap the very same 

 10 strata used for carbon dioxide sequestration. There is 

 11 a presumption that even states with oil and gas or 

 12 mining operation have excellent, up to date reports and 

 13 have maps indicating abandoned wells and mines. This 

 14 is not always the case. Many states with extractive 

 15 industries do have maps and surveys, but they are not 

 16 sufficiently precise for geologic sequestration. 

 17 Studies have shown that injected carbon dioxide will be 

 18 able to find the abandoned wells. These wells allow 

 19 for the transmission of the carbon dioxide out of the 

 20 confined aquifer into potential USDW's and then 

 21 eventually to the surface. 

 22 AWWA is aware of several ongoing research and 

 23 pilot projects related to geologic sequestration of 

 24 carbon dioxide, however we are concerned that the 

 25 results of these projects may not be available until 

52
 43 

 1 after EPA's regulation on geologic carbon sequestration 

 2 has been finalized. 

 3 We believe that the results of this research 

 4 are crucial to their good development of a 

 5 comprehensive regulation that protects water resources 

 6 from the potential unintended consequences of geologic 

 7 carbon sequestration. In particular, we believe that 

 8 research on the potential pathways for contamination of 

 9 USDW's has not yet been completed. As a result, we are 

 10 concerned that the appropriate subsurface monitoring 

 11 methods and technologies have not been adequately 

 12 identified or developed. 

 13 We believe that the mechanical integrity 

 14 testing requirements are well developed in the rule and 

 15 that the one year time period that is required will 

 16 provide for the protection of USDW's. 

 17 Finally, AWWA supports the rule requirement 

 18 for the fifty year period for post injection site care. 

 19 However, we suggest that it be set at a fifty year 

 20 minimum with no discretion to shorten. Given the 

 21 potential scope of carbon sequestration, this will 

 22 provide for consistent approach across the U.S., 

 23 provide strong long term protective measures of USDW's. 

 24 In conclusion, AWWA is concerned that the 

 25 proposed large scale sequestration of carbon dioxide in 

53
 44 

 1 underground aquifers may have a significant impact on 

 2 the public, the environment and drinking water 

 3 utilities. We are also concerned that the results of 

 4 current research and pilot projects may not be 

 5 available until after EPA's regulation on geologic 

 6 carbon sequestration has been finalized. We are aware 

 7 of the impacts that climate change will have on water 

 8 utilities across the country or recognize that 

 9 something needs to be done to address climate change. 

 10 While we acknowledge that geologic carbon 

 11 sequestration has been identified as a means to combat 

 12 climate change, we urge caution as we proceed with this 

 13 technology. Thank you. 

54
2 MS. LePLACA: Hello my name is Nancy LePlaca. 

 3 I live at 4801 West Yale in Denver, 80219 and I am here 

 4 to comment today on EPA's underground injection control 

 5 on CO2 and to talk about a number of reasons why this 

 6 is a really, really bad idea and not someplace we 

 7 should put billions of dollars. 

 8 Every pound of coal burned creates three 

 9 pounds of CO2. It is very unique in that way. And CO2 

 10 is a very stable molecule and so it is very difficult 

 11 to capture and the theory behind this whole clean, 

 12 so-called clean coal is that you can burn coal in such 

 13 a way that you can capture the CO2 before it escapes 

 14 into the atmosphere and then liquify it and then 

 15 transport it somewhere and then pump it underground. 

 16 Well, just to compress the CO2 I understand from a guy 

 17 named Erin Coopman [phonetic] who is with a company 

 18 called RamGen [phonetic] and they make the big huge 

 19 machines that compress CO2 and so he gave me a price of 

 20 $17 a ton to compress CO2 so if you take your average 

 21 coal plant that maybe emits let's say a small one, or 

 22 medium sized one 3 million tons a year, then that is 

 23 going to cost three times 17 million dollars a ton for 

 24 every year, so that is like $51 million dollars. That 

 25 is just to compress the CO2. Then you are supposed to 

55
 112 

 1 take this liquid CO2 and pump it underground. It is a 

 2 very highly corrosive liquid and that really wants to 

 3 become a gas again and when you cool the liquid, when 

 4 you cool the gas I mean into a liquid, you have to 

 5 bring it to a temperature of minus 240 Fahrenheit which 

 6 is an extremely energy intensive process; takes a lot 

 7 of power to do that and they estimate that it takes 

 8 about 20% of the plants power just to capture the CO2. 

 9 Now because no one in the United States has ever 

 10 actually captured that CO2, liquified it and pumped it 

 11 somewhere yet in combination with making electricity, 

 12 we do not even know what the total parasitic load would 

 13 be and some people estimate that that could be as high 

 14 as maybe 25 or 30%. 

 15 In addition when you pump liquid CO2 

 16 underground, you basically lubricate existing faults 

 17 and here in Denver, in the 1960's, they injected 165 

 18 million gallons of liquid toxic waste from Rocky 

 19 Mountain arsenal underneath the Denver basin and they 

 20 created some 1,500 seismic events between 1962 and 

 21 1967. Three of those events were over magnitude five. 

 22 My husband was a little boy living here then and most 

 23 people who lived here then and remembered that, 

 24 remember those earthquakes very clearly. 

 25 My father-in-law, George Bardwell, 

56
 113 

 1 mathematician who taught at DU was approached by a 

 2 group of geologists headed by a guy named David Evans 

 3 who is now deceased. David Evans and my father-in-law 

 4 George E. Bardwell now 84 years old this year -- George 

 5 did a study for them correlating the injection of these 

 6 liquids with seismic events. The more they injected, 

 7 the more earthquakes there were. The less they 

 8 injected, the less earthquakes and actually George told 

 9 me that it took a long time and they really did not 

 10 come out with this blue ribbon panel report that they 

 11 were promising for years and years. They went to the 

 12 press, George Bardwell my father-in-law and these 

 13 geologists and the press would not report on it. They 

 14 went to the government and they said you know what 

 15 government, there is a real problem with this and the 

 16 government would not listen to them either. 

 17 And so the lesson for all of us I think is 

 18 that it is up to us citizens. I have been working on 

 19 coal issues for two years completely unpaid and myself 

 20 and my friend filed a complaint against a gasified coal 

 21 plant that was going to be built here in Colorado, 

 22 Excel Energy was proposing to build an IGCC plant over 

 23 4,000 feet elevation, get a $130 million from the feds 

 24 to build a gasified coal plant here in Colorado and we 

 25 let them know that this was not going to happen without 

57
 114 

 1 a fight. They actually withdrew their proposal last 

 2 October and are not building one here. However, states 

 3 like Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois where there is a lot more 

 4 political pressure, they are still getting stuck with 

 5 these plants. 

 6 Future Gen which some have dubbed Never Gen 

 7 which is this prototype clean coal plant that was going 

 8 to be built in South Illinois, but is now up in the 

 9 air, that was going to cost a whopping $6,500 a 

 10 kilowatt. To put that in, to compare that to other -- 

 11 costs of other electric generation, wind is about even 

 12 with escalated costs today about $2,000 a kilowatt to 

 13 build a plant. Concentrating solar is about $3,000 or 

 14 $4,000 a kilowatt, maybe $5,000 a kilowatt, but that 

 15 includes storage, [indecipherable] salt storage. 

 16 Nuclear power plants anywhere between $5,000 and 

 17 $10,000 a kilowatt and incidentally in the energy bill 

 18 right now, there is somewhere between 90 and 190 

 19 billion dollars in giveaways for nuclear industry and 

 20 the energy policy act of 2008. 

 21 And so what have I learned from all of this? 

 22 That wind is cheap. Energy efficiency is really, 

 23 really cheap. Concentrating solar is here, it is now, 

 24 it is working. It costs a fraction of what this 

 25 gasified coal costs and what are we doing? We 

58
 115 

 1 [indecipherable] our planet so all the young people 

 2 that I see in this audience here, I see young people 

 3 and I am afraid of what the world is going to look like 

 4 when your hair looks like mine. I am fearful of that 

 5 and I am fortunate to have a husband and a family that 

 6 will let me quit my job and work for free full time on 

 7 this issue so that we can stop this stupidity because 

 8 all it takes is facts and information. And you know, 

 9 we can whine and the coal industry is spending $100 

 10 million to convince us that coal is clean. Nothing can 

 11 change this basic ratio. One pound of coal burned, 

 12 three pounds of CO2; a very, very stable molecule that 

 13 takes a lot of energy to compress, chill and then you 

 14 pump it somewhere. This is absolute madness. 

 15 And so I will submit my materials online. 

 16 You know it is interesting, here in Colorado, Excel 

 17 Energy was fighting a gasified coal plant in Minnesota. 

 18 I think most of the testimony that we used was from 

 19 Excel, so they were fighting against by a coal plant in 

 20 Minnesota because they did not own it, and they wanted 

 21 to build one here. Why? Because they want to put 

 22 billions of dollars into [indecipherable] base and 

 23 force rate payers, normal people to pay the bills. It 

 24 is sort of like this bail out, but right now where you 

 25 know, the big guys run away with the real cash so that 

59
 116 

 1 when they make a profit, they get to keep it. When it 

 2 does not work, they just stick it to the tax payers and 

 3 so basically this is an incredible [indecipherable] and 

 4 I hope we have the good sense for all the young people 

 5 and all the people on this planet, the six billion 

 6 people on the planet who are not part of the problem. 

 7 They can only deal with what we here in the United 

 8 States, 5% of the population creating 25 to 40% of the 

 9 problems in the world deal them. 

 10 So thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

60
 MR. LOUIS: Thank you. Good morning. I am 

 4 Doug Louis, Director of the natural gas division of the 

 5 Kansas Corporation Commission. And I am here today to 

 6 offer KCC's fast comments about the EPA's proposed 

 7 rules for underground injection of carbon dioxide for 

 8 the purpose of geological sequestration. 

 9 In the 2007 Kansas legislative session, House 

 10 Bill 2419 was passed and signed by Governor Sebelius 

 11 that directed the Kansas Corporation Commission to 

 12 write regulations regarding the subsurface injection of 

 13 CO2 for sequestration. 

 14 Kansas is one of only a few states that have 

 15 written or are in the process of writing regulations 

 16 regarding carbon sequestration, so after careful 

 17 examination of EPA's proposed rules and rules that 

 18 Kansas has written, I would like to offer these brief 

 19 comments and pose a few questions concerning the 

 20 existing CO2 projects. 

 21 For states that will have existing rules 

 22 specifically, what will happen to projects that are 

 23 permitted as classified, experimental wells after the 

 24 EPA passes its rule, but before the states adopt EPA's 

 25 rules? 

61
 20 

 1 Another concept that needs to be fully 

 2 discussed is full-scale, not experimental injection 

 3 facilities that are applied for before proposed EPA 

 4 rules are adopted? How will they be permitted, that is 

 5 what class would they be, and who would permit them? 

 6 The proposed rule should address these specific 

 7 scenarios. 

 8 Concerning grand-fathering Class II wells to 

 9 Class VI wells. It is believed a great deal of 

 10 potential storage CO2 exists in CO2 floods after oil 

 11 production ceases. It is my concern that EPA's 

 12 stringent standards for well construction monitoring 

 13 and financial assurance will discourage well operators 

 14 from using this additional pore space for sequestration 

 15 thus causing waste. If a CO2 recovery operation has 

 16 successfully operated for many years, why should the 

 17 standards be raised simply because it undergoes a well 

 18 classification change? 

 19 Rules that apply to impurities of the CO2 

 20 injectate should be further discussed, determined and 

 21 defined for regulatory certainty. The rules should be 

 22 more specific as to what geochemical data needs to be 

 23 collected; that is from the injection formation, the 

 24 confining layer or from the USDW. 

 25 KCC staff finds the cost of additional 

62
 21 

 1 containment zones above the confining zones to be 

 2 confusing and unnecessary. If the injection zone and 

 3 the confining zone are competent, well understood and 

 4 monitored, there is no need to have a costly and 

 5 unneeded system of redundant containment zones above 

 6 the two. 

 7 Furthermore, the term containment zone has 

 8 was not in the definitions section or fully explained. 

 9 KCC staff agrees that the most accurate and 

 10 realistic method of determining AOR is computational 

 11 models which are updated regularly in conjunction with 

 12 modeling monitoring of physical trailers. A prescribed 

 13 fixed radius surrounding individual wells would not be 

 14 an appropriate determination of AOR for a complex 

 15 dynamic CO2 storage facility. 

 16 Phased corrective action for GS wells that 

 17 lie in front of the path of a CO2 plume would allow 

 18 companies to concentrate current capital expenditures 

 19 on wells that represent the highest risk. Wells that 

 20 might be affected in the distant future would be deemed 

 21 a lower risk, thus given a lower priority. 

 22 On proposed injection well construction 

 23 requirements. The proposed rule requires the long 

 24 string casing to be cemented in place along its entire 

 25 length. In a significant area of Kansas, cement cannot 

63
 22 

 1 be circulated to surface in the bore hole casing 

 2 annulus in the primary cementing job. To accomplish a 

 3 continuous cemented interval would involve numerous 

 4 pipe perforations and cement squeezing operations. 

 5 This additional remedial work sacrifices mechanical 

 6 integrity of the pipe for a marginal possibility of 

 7 additional isolation of the injection zone. 

 8 Considering these unique conditions and 

 9 associated risk, Kansas regulations prescribed an 

 10 interval of five hundred feet of cemented interval 

 11 above the injection zone. KCC staff believes an exotic 

 12 blend of CO2 resistant cement is not needed considering 

 13 the proven record of CO2 EOR well construction history. 

 14 Proposed injection well operating 

 15 requirements. In the proposed rule, EPA is seeking 

 16 comment on the use of tracing material for detection of 

 17 fugitive CO2. KCC staff's opinion is the comparison of 

 18 baseline CO2 levels to monitored levels would provide 

 19 the same information as would costly and potentially 

 20 harmful tracing material. In our opinion, external 

 21 mechanical integrity testing at a one year frequency is 

 22 excessive and not warranted. The frequency which 

 23 Kansas requires in the regulation is once every four 

 24 years. 

 25 Proposed well plugging post injection site 

64
 23 

 1 care and site closure requirements. The proposed rule 

 2 sets the post injection site care period at a default 

 3 period of fifty years. KCC agrees that the UIC program 

 4 director should have the authority to shorten or 

 5 lengthen the post injection site care period if the 

 6 owner/operator demonstrates a different time period is 

 7 appropriate. 

 8 Proposed financial responsibility and long 

 9 term care requirements. The proposed rule states EPA 

 10 would provide guidance to be developed at a later date 

 11 which describes recommended types of owner/operator 

 12 financial responsibility. On such an important 

 13 concept, should it not be addressed in the proposed 

 14 rule rather than clarified through guidance? 

 15 In conclusion, it is our vote the EPA will 

 16 fully fund the Class VI program if it desires states to 

 17 administer the program. The 1425 program re-administer 

 18 is not fully funded and has seen cuts each year for the 

 19 past three fiscal years. It has also become 

 20 increasingly difficult for states to manage numerous 

 21 programs that demand increasing budgets, but undergo 

 22 annual funding decreases. 

 23 Thank you for this opportunity to share our 

 24 comments and questions. 

65
 MS. MASSONER: Good morning. My name is 

 15 Barbara Massoner. I am a member of Legacy Economy. 

 16 Legacy Economy is concerned with the growth of the 

 17 economy not just now during this crisis that we are 

 18 facing in the economy, but also we want to develop 

 19 strategies for growing an economy whose long term 

 20 prosperity is, in fact the basis for the next 

 21 generation's prosperity. 

 22 In the past week with the economic crisis, it 

 23 has illustrated it is essential to develop sensible 

 24 regulations before a crisis hits. Toning down 

 25 regulations based on threats from industry that the 

66
 71 

 1 government oversight is going to have an impact on our 

 2 economy has been shown to not be the case. In fact, it 

 3 is the other way around. Therefore, I commend the EPA 

 4 for addressing carbon sequestration. It is essential 

 5 that we control CO2 emissions, not only so that we have 

 6 a healthy environment, but so that we can usher in a 

 7 prosperous economy for the next generation. 

 8 Coal and gas have powered our economy for the 

 9 past century. This however is a new century and it 

 10 requires new regulations and those regulations must 

 11 include externalities which we have not included in the 

 12 past. Only by including externalities can regulations 

 13 provide a level playing field for all involved. And 

 14 externalities in this case are not CO2's, but they also 

 15 are as Cynthia Lane pointed out with AWWA, a test that 

 16 includes CCWs, that is coal combustion wastes. And 

 17 those externalities are very important as they would 

 18 include chemicals such as mercury, lead, cadmium, 

 19 selenium and a list of other toxins. 

 20 We do not want to contaminate our groundwater 

 21 with those carcinogens. The fact is that CCWs, this is 

 22 a significant issue in that each year our power plants 

 23 produce enough of this stuff to fill a train of coal 

 24 cars that stretches from Manhattan to Los Angeles not 

 25 just once, not just twice, but three and a half times. 

67
 72 

 1 It is a huge problem and the EPA has pointed out that 

 2 these toxins are carcinogenic and EPA has also stated 

 3 that there are no regulations for these toxins. 

 4 Therefore I urge the EPA when you are considering these 

 5 regulations on CO2 sequestration that you broaden them 

 6 to include CCWs. Stricter rules will not set us back 

 7 economically, but rather it is going to ensure that the 

 8 next generation has a prosperity to grow like our 

 9 generation has. 

 10 Thank you. 

68
MR. MOORE: Good morning. My name is Mike 

 23 Moore and I am the Executive Director of the North 

 24 American Carbon Capture and Storage Association or 

 25 NACSA. NACSA is a non-profit organization composed of 

 1 companies engaged in technical, commercial, financial 

 2 and development aspects of CCS in the United States and 

 3 Canada. 

 4 I will deliver a summary of NACSA concerns 

 5 and suggestions. A written submission contains our full 

 6 testimony. 

 7 I applaud the EPA for proposing these 

 8 regulations. CCS holds significant promise to manage 

 9 carbon emissions and should be part of any climate 

 10 change regime. CCS is also essential to enhanced oil 

 11 and gas recovery which we believe can be combined with 

 12 permanent storage. 

 13 Our first area of concern relates to EPA's 

 14 proposed limitations on receiving formations. It 

 15 permits injections only beneath the lower most 

 16 formation containing a USDW. This limitation will 

 17 hamper deployment of CCS by excluding many sites 

 18 otherwise suitable for CCS. Such a blanket limitation 

 19 is unnecessary because operators will be required to 

 20 show that projects will not endanger drinking water 

 21 sources. 

 22 The second area of concern is the proposed 

 23 rule's treatment of CCS operations and monitoring. The 

 24 proposed rule would require CCS wells to meet or exceed 

 25 the operating standards of industrial and hazardous 

69
 1 waste wells in many cases. NACSA believes that such 

 2 treatment is not justified by the attributes of carbon 

 3 dioxide. Also the director would have discretion 

 4 without any guidance to require tracers and/or gas 

 5 monitoring to detect movement of carbon dioxide that 

 6 could endanger a USDW. NACSA believes that these 

 7 methods should not be required because there are too 

 8 many questions about their efficacy and the potential 

 9 risk posed by tracers. 

 10 The third area of concern is the proposed 

 11 fifty year default post injection site care period. 

 12 While some minimum period may be appropriate, a fifty 

 13 year period is arbitrary and unwarranted by the 

 14 specific characteristics of carbon dioxide. We note 

 15 that the program director has discretion to extend or 

 16 shorten the period without guidance. NACSA proposes 

 17 that the rule adopt a period of performance based 

 18 standard based on project specific information gained 

 19 through the site characterization and monitoring phase. 

 20 Alternatively the Agency should shorten the default 

 21 period significantly to reflect the time required to 

 22 assess CCS project work. 

 23 The fourth area of concern relates to the 

 24 proposed rule's financial assurance requirements. The 

 25 proposed rules place greater financial assurance 

70
 1 requirements on Class VI wells than currently apply to 

 2 Class I hazardous waste wells. NACSA believes that the 

 3 physical and chemical properties of carbon dioxide 

 4 injected for storage do not warrant such treatment and 

 5 could prevent the deployment of CCS. 

 6 The fifth area relates to the proposed rule's 

 7 grandfathering of existing wells. Under the proposed 

 8 rule, if a Class II or V well operator wishes to 

 9 transition to Class VI well, the operator would be 

 10 required to meet new Class VI requirements. This 

 11 discourages early deployment of CCS because operators 

 12 will face potentially significant new obligations. The 

 13 rules should broadly permit grandfathering unless the 

 14 director determines that a particular site is not 

 15 suitable for storage based on specific criteria. The 

 16 rule also unnecessarily creates a dichotomy between 

 17 Class II wells and Class VI wells. Class II is only 

 18 available as long as any production is occurring. This 

 19 may prevent EOR wells from being transitioned to 

 20 permanent storage after EOR ceases or ends. EPA's 

 21 rules should grant carbon dioxide storage the same 

 22 legal status under all well classes. 

 23 The sixth area of concern relates to primacy 

 24 or to state primacy for proposed Class VI wells. EPA 

 25 can accelerate the deployment of CCS while allowing 

71
 1 states to obtain primacy for Class VI wells without 

 2 obtaining primacy for the entire UIC program. Numerous 

 3 states have established their own CCS regulations and 

 4 their expertise should be relied upon. 

 5 Our final area of concern relates to the 

 6 Agency's comments in the preamble that injected carbon 

 7 dioxide could be deemed a hazardous waste under RCRA 

 8 and CERCLA. NACSA believes it is appropriate for 

 9 geologically stored carbon dioxide to be categorically 

 10 excluded from the definitions of hazardous waste. 

 11 NACSA urges the Agency to reconsider its positions and 

 12 the deleterious effect it could have on the development 

 13 of CCS. 

 14 Thank you. 

72
 MR. NUMMEDAL: I am submitting a copy of 

 20 my comments. 

 21 MR. NUMMEDAL: Okay. It is a pleasure being 

 22 here this afternoon. My name is Dag Nummedal. I am 

 23 Director of the Colorado Energy Resource Institute and 

 24 also the institutional coordinator of something called 

 25 the Colorado Renewable Energy Collaboratory. 

73
 94 

 1 When I was asked to come here this afternoon 

 2 by my friends here in the audience when we knew that 

 3 you were having this hearing, probably the most useful 

 4 thing that I think I can do is to talk very briefly 

 5 about where we are in the basic science issues 

 6 surrounding geological storage. As I suspect you will 

 7 have other witnesses here today talking about many of 

 8 the other implications of CO2. And but the timing is 

 9 actually very good for dealing with the basic science 

 10 because last night we submitted a very large proposal 

 11 to the Big Sky Partnership or the DOE in response to 

 12 their solicitation for their new projects of energy 

 13 frontier research centers. One category of project 

 14 will deal with subsurface storage of CO2. So rather 

 15 than reading through everything that I have in front 

 16 here, I just want to kind of emphasize where we believe 

 17 the biggest challenges, biggest unknowns lie in this or 

 18 knowledge or community of knowledge, scientific 

 19 knowledge. 

 20 What happens when you put CO2 into the 

 21 subsurface. One is that when you are pumping the large 

 22 quantities of CO2 that we will be looking at, there are 

 23 formations that will be deformed. They are deformed 

 24 both by hydrological, by thermal and by chemical 

 25 disturbances from injected CO2. In turn, this for 

74
 95 

 1 those who are reading, I am reading the second 

 2 paragraph, in turn this deformation probably will have 

 3 a profound effect both on the hydro mechanical and the 

 4 transport response of the injected fluid itself. And of 

 5 course, fractures are particularly important in the 

 6 subsurface because they are already are in the conduit, 

 7 but they are in the pipeline that work, that carry 

 8 fluids through the rocks. So for that reason we do not 

 9 have focus a lot of research and very little has been 

 10 done on this yet, to really get an understanding of the 

 11 distribution properties and response of both the 

 12 natural and induced fractures. How do they respond to 

 13 fluid pressure? To the temperature changes? To the 

 14 mineralogical changes? We can both dissolve minerals 

 15 in the fluid in the subsurface and you can 

 16 re-precipitate others. This will change the 

 17 injectivity of CO2. 

 18 Also many fractures create new fresh 

 19 surfaces and guess what? When you create a new fresh 

 20 surface, that surface is typically chemically very 

 21 reactive, much more so than an old rock surface that 

 22 has been weathered on the surface so understanding -- 

 23 what is called the reactive transport modeling in the 

 24 technical lingo, is basically understanding how the 

 25 chemistry over fluid moving past this reactive 

75
 96 

 1 surfaces. They change the mineral assemblage and in 

 2 turn start growing crystals or dissolving crystals and 

 3 changing activity. 

 4 To this, of course, then in the long run they 

 5 change the mobility of fluids at least the mobility of 

 6 CO2 and where it is trapped and how much we are 

 7 trapping in the subsurface. We are going about this 

 8 with a combination of flow modeling laboratory work and 

 9 we are starting the project building on what we believe 

 10 are the two most advanced numerical modeling codes in 

 11 the world today developed by a partner in this, and our 

 12 partners are the Livermore National Lab in Livermore, 

 13 California and the Lawrence Berkeley lab on the 

 14 Berkeley campus. These labs have over the last five to 

 15 ten years developed some codes called NUFT and 

 16 Tough-react numerical codes worry about those things. 

 17 That really have advanced our ability as scientists to 

 18 model ahead of time what will happen to minerals and 

 19 precipitation and dissolution when this CO2 charge 

 20 fluids go through the rocks. 

 21 Then the model predictions and the American 

 22 Model Predictions will then be tested against lab 

 23 experiments. One of the things that we are very proud 

 24 of at the Colorado School of Mines is how dedicated the 

 25 university is to laboratory work. There is only so 

76
 97 

 1 much you can do in the area of modeling. You have to 

 2 test the models in laboratory before you can feel 

 3 comfortable using the models afterwards to predict what 

 4 would happen in the subsurface. 

 5 The last part then gets at the biosphere. A 

 6 lot of people think I believe that the subsurface 

 7 beneath our feet consists mostly of rocks only. It does 

 8 not. Turns out that we have a very extensive community 

 9 of microorganisms that go deep down. In the deepest 

 10 gold mines in South Africa, people are recovering 

 11 microbes. And these microbes play a fundamental roles 

 12 in the geochemical and radiological reactions. In fact 

 13 in all different rocks, whether they be hard rocks 

 14 where we get gold and silver and copper and whatnot, 

 15 there are organisms related and are present in both 

 16 deep hard rock mines, those organisms that are found on 

 17 limestones. We can look at that as potentially large 

 18 carbon sequestration. Reservoirs contain a lot of 

 19 bacteria, microbes in coal. Coal seams potentially are 

 20 great places to store CO2 partly because some of the 

 21 microbes will actually use the hydrogen as in the 

 22 electron donor and then reduce the CO2 into methane. 

 23 And we add hydrogen to the C and the O's and it 

 24 produces methane and oxygen and water. And then if you 

 25 can get that reaction to work in commercial and 

77
 98 

 1 industrial settings in the subsurface, then you can 

 2 actually use CO2 in the subsurface, in the coal seams, 

 3 the same way that we are increasingly using CO2 in 

 4 algal farms. Algal biofuels which most people are 

 5 strongly in favor of. Environmentally 

 6 algal biofuels are probably very good and what you do 

 7 of course, algae have to eat something, they eat CO2. 

 8 Now if you can get the microbes in this subsurface, in 

 9 the coal seams, to do the same thing basically 

 10 converting that CO2 into methane and regenerate the 

 11 methane, you can have a sustained production of methane 

 12 which can be trapped and captured and used as it leaves 

 13 a much cleaner fuel than coal and oils for a long time 

 14 while you are storing CO2 in the process. I think it 

 15 is a very encouraging future technology. 

 16 And that will then also be a significant part 

 17 of the research that we are attracted, that we are here 

 18 proposing. 

 19 The last comments somebody gave me the 

 20 handout for today's meeting and I am sorry I did not 

 21 get to read it because I worked on that proposal late 

 22 last night and I spoke across the street there this 

 23 morning. 

 24 But according to your point number seven 

 25 in the handout for today's meeting, where you talk 

78
 99 

 1 about EPA has an upstanding history of working with 

 2 academic community and the national labs to answer 

 3 basic science questions and I am delighted to see that 

 4 and I know that in fact. I have been dealing with EPA 

 5 for a long time too and I am very pleased that in fact, 

 6 the labs that you are mentioning are mostly the same 

 7 ones that we believe are the leadership precision in 

 8 this research. You do mention the Lawrence lab. You 

 9 mention the Pacific Northwest labs you are working 

 10 through, but not formally in this particular proposal 

 11 and you have mentioned little more, but of course 

 12 [indecipherable] strength in the carbon sequestration 

 13 [indecipherable]. 

 14 Then you mention the regional carbon 

 15 sequestration partnerships in Colorado is member of the 

 16 southwest partnership headed up by Brian McPherson. 

 17 Started out in New Mexico [indecipherable]. Brian is 

 18 now at the University of Utah and close friend of all 

 19 of ours. So I have a very close interaction with that 

 20 partnership and also the Big Sky partnership in 

 21 Montana, in the Great Plains. Now where our research 

 22 already is different and will continue to differ from 

 23 the partnership is that we are not trying to focus on 

 24 kind of a regional assessment on what particular 

 25 methodology works where which is very much part of the 

79
 100 

 1 partnership and of course, we need that. But instead 

 2 we want to sit back and look at a much more fundamental 

 3 geomechanical, geomicrobiological and geochemical 

 4 reactions in the subsurface in any kind of rock and we 

 5 will limit [indecipherable] submitted if it gets 

 6 funded. Get samples and data from these three 

 7 partnerships that I mentioned, so that the research 

 8 will be tied to the specific environments in the Rocky 

 9 Mountains very likely to store CO2. 

 10 So I think that is -- oh I mentioned the 

 11 Sleipner project which of course is well known. Because 

 12 Sleipner I attached some CO2 emissions back in 1995 and 

 13 1996. I have mailed it and advantageous for 

 14 [indecipherable] business perspective start 

 15 sequestering CO2 and I learned a great deal in the 

 16 process about it, so becoming a leader provider on the 

 17 carbon sequestration expertise and technology. The and 

 18 I have been working with Stockholm for a long time as 

 19 you can tell from my accent, I did not grow up in 

 20 Louisiana, some people think. 

 21 And so I am working very closely with the 

 22 Norwegian company and other friends back in Norway 

 23 including being a board member on their carbon 

 24 sequestration company called Gas and Nova so again as 

 25 part of the research we are about to undertake, we make 

80
 101 

 1 sure that all the learnings that are coming out 

 2 [indecipherable] also are fully available to all the 

 3 members of our research community. 

 4 So with that, thanks for your time. And of 

 5 course, I can copy that and answer any questions that 

 6 you might have. 

81
 MR. PERIDAS: Good morning everybody and 

 5 thanks for the opportunity to comment. My name is 

 6 George Peridas. I am with the Natural Resource Defense 

 7 Council and I would like to thank EPA for holding this 

 8 hearing, also for the proposal of this rule. 

 9 We have been researching carbon sequestration 

 10 for the better part of ten years and now as you can 

 11 imagine as an environmental group, it was not be the 

 12 most intuitive approach in dealing with greenhouse gas 

 13 emissions. 

 14 So I'd like to start with a note and say that 

 15 this is not an attempt to legitimize or to further 

 16 perpetuate the use of coal. We believe that there are 

 17 much better, cheaper, and cleaner ways to meet our 

 18 energy needs. Nonetheless, there is a very good reason 

 19 why we do need to have CCS in the mitigation portfolio 

 20 as well and this is because of the world's vast coal 

 21 resources, the projected business as usual use of this 

 22 resource and the pace at which we see climate change 

 23 evolving. We believe that coal, mainly in China is and 

 24 climatic changes are on a collision course and we 

 25 really need to do something about it. 

82
 76 

 1 We believe that the problem of economics and 

 2 problem with policy can put CCS in context and give it 

 3 the role that it needs. Nonetheless, we do not believe 

 4 that we can do away with this if we are going to meet 

 5 emission reduction targets in time, so this is what we 

 6 think is an absolutely necessary part of the mitigation 

 7 portfolio. We would like to see things happen 

 8 otherwise; I think technically it is feasible. The way 

 9 that some of the developing economies are growing these 

 10 days and the way the political situation in the U.S. is 

 11 heading, means that we wanted to use CCS as well. 

 12 Having spent a good few years studying this 

 13 and we took great care in being diligent, as an 

 14 environmental group the idea of injecting large volumes 

 15 of CO2 underground that is not the most appealing at 

 16 first. Nonetheless, the more we studied this, the more 

 17 convinced we become that if regulated and performed 

 18 well, it can be very safe and effective. And I stress 

 19 the words, can be. 

 20 I do not agree with the assertion that CCS is 

 21 unproven, untried or untested. I think there was a 

 22 good body of experience in related context that gives 

 23 us reason to believe that CCS is safe and effective. 

 24 EOR as one of those examples, I do not claim that EOR 

 25 is tantamount to CCS. There are key differences. 

83
 77 

 1 Nonetheless, there are fields that inject very large 

 2 volumes of CO2 annually and in the U.S. and elsewhere. 

 3 Some of these injections are well above the amount of 

 4 CO2 that would be injected annually by a large 

 5 qualified power plant. 

 6 We do not have the monitoring provisions in 

 7 place that we would have with a standard sequestration 

 8 project. Nonetheless, there are studies that are 

 9 almost completed that show, and these are going to be 

 10 published I think within the next few weeks or few 

 11 months by the University of Texas, that show that there 

 12 is indeed no real contamination issue at some of the 

 13 major UI projects and fields. Even though the 

 14 objective is not to keep the CO2 down for hundreds of 

 15 millions of years or thousands of years, nonetheless we 

 16 have injected very large volumes of CO2 and the 

 17 regulatory experience in Class II has shown that we 

 18 have not come across any major contamination issues. 

 19 The other I think major and striking example 

 20 of CCS which is often overlooked is nature itself. CO2, 

 21 methane and even H2S, hydrogen sulfide are occurring 

 22 naturally in the subsurface. The fields that the 

 23 industry has actually mined contained fairly pure CO2. 

 24 These large volume fields, they have been there and 

 25 they are testament that CO2 can be stored by nature in 

84
 78 

 1 the subsurface for a very, very long time and very 

 2 effectively. 

 3 Oil fields and gas fields and also the deep 

 4 saline formations also show nature's ability to retain 

 5 those fluids, so I would urge a close study and 

 6 consideration of what nature has done already. Just 

 7 putting a label on a new technique and calling it 

 8 sequestration does not necessarily mean that it has not 

 9 been done before. 

 10 I believe the time is right to be writing a 

 11 sound regulatory framework on CCS. We need to be 

 12 getting on with reducing emissions from qualified power 

 13 plants and other industrial facilities as soon as we 

 14 can and I would like to thank and commend EPA for 

 15 putting together what is I think a very well thought 

 16 out rule in a very limited amount of time. 

 17 As I pointed out, we do have a 

 18 number of technical comments, which of course, if you 

 19 take them you will make the rule perfect, so we urge 

 20 you to do that. 

 21 We do believe that some revisions are 

 22 necessary and I would go briefly through some technical 

 23 points, but the final word on the timing here, there is 

 24 a trade off in my mind between how the rule is written 

 25 and the need for language to be revised in the future. 

85
 79 

 1 I think some are claiming that the large scale 

 2 injections, some of which might be performed by DOE, 

 3 will be the catalyst or the trigger for major revisions 

 4 to the rule. I do not think that is necessary. I 

 5 mean, it really does depend on how the rule is phrased 

 6 and to what extent it is flexible and performance based 

 7 and I think if I weigh in that direction. 

 8 And secondly, I do have to doubt the 

 9 capability of these DOE funded projects to provide the 

 10 ultimate or deciding vote if you like on how to 

 11 regulate and how to craft the regulatory language. I 

 12 think there is, there will be some lessons that will be 

 13 learned from those. There will be new data available. 

 14 There will be some research that will take place, but 

 15 ultimately I think that this program is too little, too 

 16 late and I also do not think that it is a prerequisite 

 17 for drafting good rules. There might be some need for 

 18 revision, but the best way to get that experience and 

 19 to that knowledge is to move ahead with a handful or 

 20 two of large scale injections and that will be the best 

 21 possible learning experience. 

 22 Now on the technical issues, the ones I would 

 23 like to mention briefly without going into detail; I 

 24 will defer to the comments about, is the definition of 

 25 the area of review. The definition and treatment of a 

86
 80 

 1 fault in the subsurface, I think I will echo some 

 2 previous comments on whether to inject above or below 

 3 the lowest USDW. The definition of a USDW might 

 4 change. The TDS level in the future and that is 

 5 crucial to policy decisions, but we will have to think 

 6 very carefully of, but I think there are good examples 

 7 of safe CO2 injection that are above the lowest USDW. I 

 8 am willing to make sure that the emphasis is on having 

 9 the adequate confinement systems and confining layers 

 10 that protect USDW's whether they are above or below. 

 11 The closure standards I agree with Scott, I 

 12 do not think that fifty years is arbitrary. I do not 

 13 think that it is the magic number or that it will be 

 14 appropriate for every single site. Nonetheless, I 

 15 think it is a good benchmark, but we do need to have 

 16 other flexibility to revise this upwards or downwards 

 17 as project data comes in. 

 18 I think what needs a little bit of refinement 

 19 is the phrase at the discretion of the administrator. I 

 20 think that should be some more concrete criteria as to 

 21 when the administrator should reserve the rights to 

 22 require certain techniques to be used on other 

 23 requirements in the rule. 

 24 I do believe that discretion in some media 

 25 is, if you like, good to go. And likewise, I do not 

87
 81 

 1 believe that sequestration of the media is ready and in 

 2 that range, in that category, I would include basalts, 

 3 coal seems, organic shales and limestone. I think this 

 4 should still continue any injections and those should 

 5 continue to be regulated under Class V and I do not 

 6 think we are ready to move to a wide scale endorsement 

 7 of CO2 injection as a sequestration technique in those. 

 8 And the final technical point which might be 

 9 somewhat outside the jurisdiction of the EPA, refer to 

 10 this rulemaking is distinction between enhanced oil 

 11 recovery and sequestration. This rule deals 

 12 exclusively with deep saline formations and we believe 

 13 that business as usual enhanced oil recovery should 

 14 continue to be regulated as it always has under Class 

 15 II. Nonetheless, if there are any changes, any 

 16 significant changes in the over-riding conditions in 

 17 oil fields where they inject CO2 which might well be 

 18 the case if people see an economic incentive, to 

 19 sequester larger amounts of CO2 in those oil fields. 

 20 Then I believe that then, we will need to take a closer 

 21 look at how these wells should be regulated and whether 

 22 there is a need to regulate them under Class VI or to 

 23 grandfather them with other appointments into Class VI 

 24 and again the criteria, it should be whether we incur 

 25 any significant changes in the risk profile of those 

88
 82 

 1 injection as a result of trying to get more CO2 in 

 2 there. 

 3 I think this concludes my technical points. 

 4 I think there are many good elements in this rule. The 

 5 proposal of the new injection class itself is a very 

 6 good one. The requirements for extensive monitoring is 

 7 another example. This architectural design nature of 

 8 having to continue to update the proposed plans, 

 9 operational parameters, closure plans, etcetera as 

 10 modeling data comes in and that is monitoring comes in. 

 11 I think it is a very sound one which should be 

 12 maintained and I do also agree with the performance 

 13 based closure standard rather than the mere passage of 

 14 a number of years which could be ten, it could be 

 15 fifty. I really do think that we need to look at what 

 16 happens in each project rather than saying if you have 

 17 been through a number of years, then it is fine. 

 18 I would like to mention since there is talk 

 19 of contamination of groundwater that we need to be 

 20 careful to distinguish risks from hazards. A hazard is 

 21 something that can potentially go wrong. A risk 

 22 involves the probability of it. What we really need to 

 23 do is take a good look at which of these hazards are 

 24 linked to what probabilities and to what extent they 

 25 amount in. I do believe that in the case of 

89
 83 

 1 sequestration, we can effectively manage a lot of those 

 2 risks. 

 3 Climate change will not wait and I think it 

 4 will have a profound effect on drinking water results 

 5 itself and I really do believe that USDWG will suffer 

 6 if we do nothing about climate change. And I think 

 7 sequestration as I said can be effective. 

 8 I would like to end with a note on scale and 

 9 timing. I do not believe that we are ready to proceed 

 10 with wide scale deployment of sequestration all around 

 11 the country. It is something we saw a hundred permit 

 12 application as soon as rules promulgated and I do think 

 13 this is premature. We are not ready to move in that 

 14 direction. Nonetheless I think by the nature of the 

 15 beast and the current economics of CCS, we will not see 

 16 that happen. What we are talking about here is an 

 17 initial wave and an initial set of projects that would 

 18 be permitted and then studied intensely. And I think 

 19 those will inform how we think about sequestration, 

 20 whether we indeed need or do not need any revisions to 

 21 the regulations and also how we manage projects. I 

 22 think ultimately if CCS is to deliver on its promise to 

 23 reduce greenhouse gasses, then yes we will need to 

 24 deploy this at a wide scale. But this is not something 

 25 that will happen over five years. Some we will scale 

90
 84 

 1 up to overnight. There will be ample time, study and 

 2 reassessments. 

 3 And I would like to close with one final 

 4 comment. Even if we do write the perfect rule text via 

 5 its effective implementation really does rest on 

 6 capacity building and funding, not just the federal 

 7 agency level, but at the state agency level. I think 

 8 now is the time to be thinking about it and to put 

 9 requirements in place and sufficient funding in place, 

 10 for states and for federal and regional offices to gear 

 11 up and be up to date with these rules and capable of 

 12 administering them effectively. 

 13 Thank you very much for the opportunity to 

 14 comment. 

91
22 MR. PIKE: Morning. My name is Paul Pike and 

 23 I am a Strategic Analyst at the Ameren Corporation, 

 24 electric and gas utility headquartered in St. Louis, 

 25 Missouri. 

92
 65 

 1 I am here today on behalf of the Utility 

 2 Solid Waste Activities Group or USWAG. USWAG is an 

 3 association of approximately eight electric utilities 

 4 and trade associations throughout the country. I am a 

 5 chair of USWAG's carbon capture and storage task force. 

 6 USWAG will be submitting formal comments on the UIC 

 7 proposal in November, but I would like to take the 

 8 opportunity to highlight a few of the important issues 

 9 as we are seeing it relative to this rulemaking. 

 10 Clearly the rulemaking reflects the important 

 11 undertaking it will have significant, very practical 

 12 and cost implications for the entire power industry. 

 13 While the challenges and uncertainties associated with 

 14 the development of large scale commercial deployment of 

 15 carbon capture and storage are significant, the utility 

 16 industry certainly would be at the forefront of these 

 17 controls. Given the direct impact this program will 

 18 have on the electric industry, we appreciate EPA's goal 

 19 of establishing certainty and transparency to the 

 20 requirements of Class VI carbon dioxide injection. It 

 21 is also crucial however for the regulations to reflect 

 22 the challenges inherent in crafting controls for 

 23 commercial CO2 injection and storage activities when 

 24 such large scale commercial operations are in the 

 25 planning stage. 

93
 66 

 1 The fundamental challenge confronting EPA in 

 2 this rulemaking is to establish a cost effective and 

 3 environmentally sound regulatory program to cover a 

 4 range of operations for which the technology will not 

 5 be commercially deployed for a number of years. To 

 6 meet this challenge and to establish a workable 

 7 regulatory framework over the coming decades for the 

 8 long term storage of carbon dioxide, EPA must craft 

 9 regulations with flexibility so that it may be fine 

 10 tuned as industry and regulations alike gain experience 

 11 with large scale carbon dioxide sequestration. 

 12 Because information related to carbon 

 13 sequestration is sure to develop, Ameren urges EPA to 

 14 avoid blanket probations or arbitrary absolutes in the 

 15 final rule. We agree that the standard underlying 

 16 protective rule requirements for carbon dioxide 

 17 sequestration is the protection of underground sources 

 18 of drinking water. However, because it is difficult to 

 19 know at this point what future technologies will be 

 20 developed for injection and long term storage of carbon 

 21 dioxide in the manner that is protective of these 

 22 drinking water sources. But because there is, there 

 23 should be a significant demand for the capacity to 

 24 store this CO2, EPA should not prematurely preclude 

 25 injection in certain specific types of sites or through 

94
 67 

 1 certain methods. The final rule should leave the door 

 2 open for a range of injection options, sites and 

 3 methods, some of which are unrecognized or even 

 4 unknowable at this point in time provided that the 

 5 ultimate objective of protecting the underground 

 6 sources of drinking water is achieved. 

 7 Of particular importance is also potential 

 8 for liability under CERCLA including the natural 

 9 resources damages cases stemming from injection and 

 10 sequestration of carbon dioxide. As EPA can surely 

 11 appreciate the potential for these opening liabilities 

 12 will act as a serious deterrent for would-be owners and 

 13 operators of these injection wells. Simply put, EPA 

 14 must mitigate the threat of potential CERCLA liability 

 15 to the extent possible in the rulemaking. 

 16 One step that the Agency can take with 

 17 respect to CERCLA is to ensure that the Class VI 

 18 permits have the broadest possible reach or meaning 

 19 protective of drinking waters. To maximize this 

 20 protection offered by the federally permitted release 

 21 exemption, this would mean including the scope of the 

 22 permit for carbon dioxide injection, all other CERCLA 

 23 hazardous constituents likely to be contained in the 

 24 CO2 stream including those generated along with the 

 25 carbon capture and transport and in the injection zone. 

95
 68 

 1 Similarly the scope of the authorized permit 

 2 zone should be as broad as possible while remaining 

 3 protective of drinking water. 

 4 With respect to RCRA, it is 

 5 premature to conclude that captured injected carbon 

 6 dioxide is discarded and therefore possibly a solid 

 7 waste under RCRA. Carbon dioxide is a commodity used 

 8 in a variety of processes currently and we do not know 

 9 exactly what methods or mechanisms will be created as a 

 10 result to deal with CO2. EPA should create an 

 11 applicable exemption from RCRA under the well 

 12 established contingent management concept given that 

 13 the UIC will ensure that they injected material is not 

 14 mismanaged. Such an exclusion will be legally 

 15 justified, consistent with past promulgation of 

 16 excluded rules and it would make sound policy since by 

 17 removing a potentially significant regulatory barrier 

 18 to the commercial development of carbon dioxide 

 19 sequestration operations. 

 20 The bottom line is that the potential for 

 21 interaction with CERCLA or liability in RCRA must be 

 22 mitigated to avoid significant delays in an overall 

 23 chilling effect on this process. 

 24 USWAG recognizes that while there are some 

 25 measures Agency can take in the regulatory context to 

96
 69 

 1 address these concerns, those measures may be limited. 

 2 In the end USWAG also believes that the Agency should 

 3 consider whether legislative solutions will be 

 4 necessary and if so, we strongly support that they take 

 5 such action. Because state regulators have worked 

 6 extensively with permitting the existing injection 

 7 wells, we believe that we should work with those 

 8 agencies to continue and to have implementation of the 

 9 Class VI rules by the states would be crucial to the 

 10 UIC program. 

 11 Because of wildly varied characteristics and 

 12 limitations of sites and projects, it is important to 

 13 incorporate performance based standards into the final 

 14 rule waiting for site specific approach to requirements 

 15 for site review, reevaluation and post injection site 

 16 care and closure. 

 17 With respect to EPA's suggestion that future 

 18 guidance documents be issued to clarify financial 

 19 responsibility, we stress that such guidance must be 

 20 issued in keeping with OMB's good guidance practices 

 21 bulletin. In addition, it is essential that the self 

 22 insurance instruments remain available to owners and 

 23 operators as a method of financial assurance for Class 

 24 VI carbon projects. 

 25 A final rule must not make Class VI permit 

97
 70 

 1 application process overly burdensome or unrealistic by 

 2 requiring detailed information that may not be 

 3 available at the time of the initial application. 

 4 Instead the final rule should allow for submission of 

 5 updated information regarding Class VI well and its 

 6 area of review as that information becomes available. 

 7 On behalf of USWAG, thank you again for the 

 8 opportunity to participate in the process and present 

 9 some of our views. 

98
 MR. PLUNK: Good morning. My name is Olan 

 17 Plunk. I am Vice President of Environmental Services 

 18 for Excel Energy. I also serve as Vice Chairman of the 

 19 Edison Electric Institute's carbon capture and storage 

 20 work group; a group of member companies who are 

 21 committed to exploring carbon capture and storage or 

 22 CCS as an option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

 23 First a little about Excel Energy, we are the 

 24 fifth largest combination natural gas and electricity 

 25 company in the nation. We have regulated operations in 

99
 33 

 1 eight western and mid-western states. We provide 

 2 services to over three million electric companies for 

 3 customers and almost two million natural gas customers. 

 4 Our generating units are capable of producing over 

 5 fifteen thousand megawatts of electricity from a 

 6 diverse portfolio of fuel sources including coal, 

 7 natural gas, oil, nuclear, renewables and hydropower. 

 8 We are committed to developing cleaner sources of 

 9 electric in generation. The company is the nation's 

 10 number one wind energy provider and also ranks fifth in 

 11 the terms of solar power. 

 12 Our most recent energy supply plan approved 

 13 by the Colorado Public Utility Commission just last 

 14 month would extend our leadership in wind and add 

 15 almost ten times more solar generation in Colorado 

 16 before the middle of the next decade. 

 17 In addition, over the last three years we 

 18 have embarked on an ambitious effort to investigate the 

 19 feasibility of developing a coal fueled integrated 

 20 gasification combined cycle or IGCC plant here in 

 21 Colorado that would include carbon capture at the 

 22 outset. 

 23 We recognize how important coal is as an 

 24 energy resource to our state, region and nation and 

 25 therefore how important it is to develop much cleaner 

100
 34 

 1 ways to generate electricity from coal. 

 2 I am here this morning to speak in support of 

 3 the important work EPA is undertaking to establish 

 4 regulations governing the underground sequestration of 

 5 carbon dioxide. In so doing, I would like to share 

 6 with you a few of the lessons we have learned as we 

 7 have studied the feasibility of developing an IGCC 

 8 project with carbon capture. 

 9 First we have learned that carbon 

 10 sequestration is currently one of the most important 

 11 means by which power companies can reduce carbon 

 12 dioxide emissions while still producing reliable and 

 13 affordable energy from coal. 

 14 International studies as well as studies here 

 15 in this country attest to the importance of geologic 

 16 sequestration of carbon dioxide in any strategy to 

 17 reducing increasing carbon concentrations in the 

 18 atmosphere. 

 19 Second, working with respected geo-technical 

 20 and reservoir consultants to DOE sequestration 

 21 partnerships and a world renowned national lab, we 

 22 learned that geologic storage of CO2 is not only 

 23 feasible, but actually happening successfully in a 

 24 number of places around the world. We also discovered 

 25 there are viable and even favorable sites to sequester 

101
 35 

 1 large quantities of CO2 right here in Colorado. 

 2 Finally and most relevant to today's 

 3 discussion we learned that permanent storage of CO2 can 

 4 be done safely and without harm to the environment as 

 5 long as we apply the right knowledge base, detailed 

 6 site specific information, technical expertise and 

 7 sound management practices. This is where EPA's 

 8 proposed regulations for geologic storage of CO2 come 

 9 into the picture. Because as we went forward with our 

 10 investigations over the last years, we also came to 

 11 understand something that caused us as much concern in 

 12 terms of our IGCC project. We came to understand that 

 13 government regulation and oversight of underground 

 14 sequestration were areas of significant uncertainty. 

 15 Nobody knew exactly who had authority over what and 

 16 what requirements might apply to a clean coal power 

 17 plant project that included geologic sequestration. We 

 18 realized that this regulatory uncertainty in time 

 19 created major uncertainties for our project with regard 

 20 to getting necessary environmental and other approvals 

 21 in a timely fashion. With regard to obtaining 

 22 insurance and financial assurances needed to manage 

 23 project risk and liability and with regard to 

 24 establishing confidence and community acceptance of the 

 25 project. 

102
 36 

 1 In short we came to understand the regulatory 

 2 situation created an environment of uncertainty in 

 3 which an IGCC project involving an investment of over a 

 4 billion dollars could not responsibly proceed. This is 

 5 why I am here this morning to speak in favor of what 

 6 EPA is doing to address a critical element in our 

 7 national response to climate change and why I think the 

 8 real world experience Excel Energy has gained in 

 9 Colorado would be of value in this rulemaking process. 

 10 The company will join other electric utilities in 

 11 submitting detailed written comments we hope will lay 

 12 groundwork for a program that will be protective, but 

 13 practical and provide the certainty needed to make 

 14 carbon sequestration a viable near term climate 

 15 mitigation option for the industry. 

 16 In the meantime, I would like to offer some 

 17 general observations. Having been through this effort 

 18 to locate and prove up the acceptability of a CO2 

 19 sequestration site for a large commercial scale 

 20 project, Excel believes the topics EPA would require 

 21 permit applicant to address in its proposed rules are 

 22 appropriate and important. For example, we believe the 

 23 best technical expertise should be brought to bear in 

 24 the first studying and then submitting documentation 

 25 concerning site and formation geology, hydro-geology, 

103
 37 

 1 faults, fractures, injectivity, existing wells and so 

 2 on. 

 3 We believe there must be suitable CO2 

 4 injection plans backed by seismic surveys, multi 

 5 dimensional modeling simulations and formation testing. 

 6 We recognize the overriding importance of well design 

 7 and construction that assures well integrity. We 

 8 believe there must be a sound operations management 

 9 program including appropriate monitoring and corrective 

 10 actions that are prepared and implemented by experts in 

 11 the field. 

 12 We recognize both the local and national 

 13 interest in providing effective post injection site 

 14 care and closure and demonstrating adequate financial 

 15 responsibility for these activities. While agreeing 

 16 with supporting all of these important program 

 17 elements, I would like to add a few words of caution. 

 18 If we as a nation want CO2 

 19 sequestration to become a viable and near term option 

 20 for dealing with carbon emissions, we cannot make 

 21 obtaining approval for sequestration projects so 

 22 difficult, time consuming or expensive that it 

 23 recreates the very barrier that the lack of clear 

 24 regulatory requirements presented in the first place. 

 25 We cannot implement an effective regulatory program for 

104
 38 

 1 sequestering CO2 if the rules are based on the 

 2 erroneous premise that CO2 represents an extreme 

 3 hazard. It is important in these rules that we send 

 4 the right message to the public about the nature of the 

 5 CO2 gas we are dealing with. 

 6 It is likewise critical in these new rules 

 7 that we strike the right balance between addressing 

 8 realistic risks associated with storing CO2 versus 

 9 creating a regime that effectively hinders rather than 

 10 facilitates a key climate mitigation strategy. 

 11 We know that more and larger sequestration 

 12 demonstration projects should be funded and undertaken. 

 13 We agree that careful monitoring of well integrity, 

 14 plume migration and the like is necessary. On the 

 15 other hand, we already have decades of experience in 

 16 the underground injection of CO2 and other much more 

 17 hazardous materials. Tens of millions of dollars have 

 18 been spent doing measurements and monitoring studies at 

 19 large sequestration projects like Weyburn and Sleipner 

 20 and DOE is in the process of spending many millions 

 21 more on projects sponsored by the various regional 

 22 sequestration partnerships. 

 23 Other countries are doing their own 

 24 sequestration demonstrations and related research. The 

 25 real goal is to strike a reasonable balance between how 

105
 39 

 1 much is required and would have to be spent in the way 

 2 of well and ground water monitoring, plume tracking and 

 3 all the rest versus the level of risk presented by a 

 4 given project. Considering what we have already 

 5 learned about the characteristics of CO2 geologic 

 6 storage and the effecticy of various monitoring and 

 7 management practices. 

 8 I want to close by reiterating Excel Energy's 

 9 strong support for the expeditious adoption of 

 10 affective rules that will facilitate geologic carbon 

 11 sequestration and give our company, our industry and 

 12 our nation a powerful tool in reducing CO2 emissions. 

 13 And thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

106
 MR. SYED: Good morning everybody. My name is 

 13 Talib Syed. I am a Consulting Controlling Engineer and 

 14 been supporting mostly UIC related work for the past 

 15 twenty-five, thirty years. Also my recent work, I have 

 16 been involved in the north slope of Alaska. 

 17 I just want to give a few minor, just 

 18 highlight maybe two or three points that in my opinion 

 19 are important. The first thing is I think we have to 

 20 pay a little bit of attention to just transposing the 

 21 area of review concept that they used to with the UIC 

 22 program to the CO2 geologic sequestration program. And 

 23 the reason is, it is not in my opinion, the same 

 24 concept that we had when we were disposing of water, 

 25 etcetera. So we have got buoyancy affects to regard to 

107
 88 

 1 take into consideration and that may be a bigger impact 

 2 on what the zone of endangering influence is. And I 

 3 believe that has not been taken into consideration at 

 4 all and just transposing the zone of endangering 

 5 influence as we are used to with the water etcetera in 

 6 the UIC program, without incorporating buoyancy 

 7 affects, that is an issue that needs to be very 

 8 carefully taken into consideration. 

 9 That leads me to mechanical integrity. The 

 10 integrity, the mechanical integrity is going to be a 

 11 critical component. I believe right around the well 

 12 hole in the casing and the type of cements that you use 

 13 and the potential for flow on the backside due to back 

 14 flow etcetera becomes critical. So I am not ruling out, 

 15 you know, transitioning or using EOR type wells for 

 16 geosequestration, but you have got to be careful on 

 17 looking at those wells and just not saying, okay, I 

 18 have got these wells, they are for EOR purposes and I 

 19 am just going to straight away transition them for 

 20 geosequestration. If you've got a custom designed 

 21 well, that is the way I would go, but I would not rule 

 22 out using Class II EOR wells, but pay a lot of close 

 23 attention to it. 

 24 The requirement that you cement a continuous 

 25 column of cement for the long string casing again, 

108
 89 

 1 could be a potential problem. For instance, if you got 

 2 mud in the bore hole, say you know, a ten pounds per 

 3 gallon mud and you are displacing cement of fourteen 

 4 pounds per gallon, then you may unintentionally 

 5 fracture some deep formations behind the well hole and 

 6 what you have done is you have damaged the integrity of 

 7 the well hole and your primary objective in every 

 8 instance is to make sure that the integrity of the well 

 9 is the most critical component. 

 10 Many times what happens is that we are 

 11 looking at it from an environmental perspective, we 

 12 will look at all environmental considerations, but 

 13 safety, safety becomes you know, a critical component 

 14 that would trump environmental considerations. That 

 15 does not mean that environmental considerations have to 

 16 be set aside. Look at that too, but safety will always 

 17 trump environmental considerations, so if you've got 

 18 unintended fracturing of the formations of big 

 19 formations, what have you done? In effect, you have 

 20 lowered the integrity which was your primary objective 

 21 to begin with because you want to make sure that you 

 22 have got the integrity of the well hole. So you know, 

 23 so in some cases yeah go ahead and do it, but do not 

 24 mandate it in that okay in every instance, you have to 

 25 have a continuous column of cement. So that ties in 

109
 90 

 1 with the integrity because always keep in mind, what is 

 2 -- how can I maintain the integrity of my well hole 

 3 throughout the life of the project? Because in EOR 

 4 applications you know, you are talking about maybe ten 

 5 million, fifty million, hundred million cubic feet per 

 6 day of injection, but here you are talking about an 

 7 exponential manifold increase for geosequestration 

 8 purposes. You are talking about gigatons etcetera. 

 9 The next point I would like to make is we 

 10 have not considered horizontal wells. In the rules 

 11 that were, the proposed rules I have not seen anything 

 12 on, as far as horizontal wells. Are horizontal wells 

 13 going to be used for completion of geosequestration 

 14 wells and how does that play into the matrix? 

 15 Another item that I would like to bring to 

 16 you know, to be considered is the depth of the lower 

 17 most USDW. Yes in an ideal world, you want to have 

 18 your injection zone below your lower most USDW, but 

 19 what happens if you have USDW say at 20,000 feet? 

 20 Nobody is using that USDW for practical purposes. You 

 21 are not going to go and drill a water well 20,000 feet 

 22 deep in order to supply a community, but at the same 

 23 time it meets the criteria of less than 10,000 TDS. So 

 24 there should be some flexibility on a case by case 

 25 basis. Either if it is economically not feasible or it 

110
 91 

 1 is technologically not feasible just as we have an 

 2 aquifer exemption process or you know, for the Class II 

 3 program. But I do prefer as a starting point that you 

 4 use a zone that is you know, deeper than your lower 

 5 most USDW, but not in every instance as mandatory 

 6 requirement. 

 7 One other concern that I have is of you know, 

 8 again the safety of underground water sources. So the 

 9 design of the well and the operation because when, when 

 10 you are dealing with CO2, it is very important that you 

 11 be aware of the phase behavior of CO2. We are all 

 12 aware that CO2 could be in a liquid phase, in a 

 13 supercritical gaseous phase, it could be a 

 14 supercritical gas or a solid, etcetera and that is why 

 15 the critical temperature, critical pressure comes in. 

 16 So a requirement that you always operate at a certain 

 17 depth where you are above the critical temperature, you 

 18 are above the critical pressure becomes important 

 19 because otherwise you are going to have unintended 

 20 consequences. Particularly what you have got to watch 

 21 out for is a catastrophic release. Small releases, 

 22 okay you can manage it, but if you have got a 

 23 catastrophic release, then everything you know, comes 

 24 to naught. 

 25 So that is about it. I think you are headed 

111
 92 

 1 in the right direction, but we've got to be careful on, 

 2 you know, we are going to learn as we go along. We 

 3 have got a lot of experience that EOR, 70% of the 

 4 current CO2 injections are the Permian Basin in west 

 5 Texas. Okay. We started CO2 flooding in west Texas in 

 6 you know, in the `50's so we have got a lot of 

 7 information on how to design the wells, what the 

 8 problems are, but for geosequestration where you are 

 9 just, you know, storing it in deep seated aquifers, you 

 10 have got to be careful with the wells. You have got to 

 11 be careful about you know, the reaction of the 

 12 tubulars, the reaction on the cement. Again for EOR, 

 13 if you got a cement like, let us say a problematic 

 14 cement, that is not going to be effective in preventing 

 15 flow. It has to be modified and there are now new 

 16 cements that are coming in for specifically designed 

 17 for CO2 purposes. So these types of cements may be 

 18 effective again, but again we have got to watch out for 

 19 each case and not just a sealed okay if it is there 

 20 because KBR and Halliburton and all the other service 

 21 companies are coming up with new cement specifically 

 22 designed for making sure that in every instance you 

 23 have got that area covered. Okay? 

 

 24 Thank you very much. 

112
Letter ID: 0520 

Commenter: Scott Anderson 

Organization: Environmental Defense Fund 

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21416 Letter Lines: 18 to 20 

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking 

Comment: MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. I am Scott Anderson with the Environmental 

Defense Fund 

and I think I would like to begin by complimenting the EPA for having done 

generally an excellent job with this proposed rule making. 

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: 0520 Comment ID: 21417 Letter Lines: 22 to 25 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: We think that an adequate regulatory regime for CO2 sequestration is within 

sight. That is not to say that we do not think that changes are needed. We do 

see the need for quite a few changes in the rule, but I think it is fair to 

characterize the changes we have in mind as technical. 

Individual Response: As described above, EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the 

authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS. 

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21418 Letter Lines: 27 to 42 

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

Comment: I would also like to start out by addressing couple of issues that are perhaps 

technically outside the scope of this rulemaking. They may not actually affect 

the wording of the rule, but they are certainly relevant to the subject. 

First I would like to agree with Doug Louis of the Kansas Corporation Commission 

and also the people from the Department of Environmental Quality of Wyoming that 

1

113
it is essential that this program be funded adequately both at the federal, but 

also at the state level. In round numbers, state UIC agencies currently get 

about ten million dollars from the federal government to administer these 

programs. It has been estimated that they really need even under the current 

regulatory system, something more like fifty million dollars and it has further 

been estimated that for the state programs to do a good job both with the 

existing UIC classes and Class VI that they may need something more in the order 

of a hundred million dollars and I realize you people at the table do not have a 

hundred million dollars handy, but I think that is a very important policy issue 

that perhaps the EPA could help highlight with Congress. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative 

challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in 

resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the 

unique technical challenges associated with GS. 

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The 

States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement 

the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant 

allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent 

matching requirement. 

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21419 Letter Lines: 44 to 47 

Comment Code: 1270 1.1.2 Comments on other rules/issues 

Comment Code: 4300 2.4.4 Injection Depth 

Comment: And then secondly, I would like to agree with American Waterworks Association 

about the point that changing technical abilities for cleaning up water as well 

as increasing water demand does make it important that we not consider ten 

thousand parts per million to be set in stone. 

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that there is increasing demand for water resources and 

that technology improvements may make high TDS aquifers viable drinking water sources. EPA 

believes these potential resources should be considered when injection depth waivers are sought. 

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

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

consider whether alternative injection sites are available; community needs, demands, and supply 

from drinking water resources; planned needs, potential and/or future use of USDWs and nonUSDWs in the area; and a plan for securing alternative resources or treating USDW formation 

waters in the event of contamination related to the Class VI injection activity. 

EPA is not changing the USDW definition; changing the definition of a USDW is outside the 

scope of the GS rulemaking. The GS rule focuses on ensuring protection of USDWs, as required 

2

114
under the SDWA, by establishing regulations to ensure the safe injection of CO2 for long-term 

storage. 

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21420 Letter Lines: 52 to 61 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment Code: 3310 2.2.1.1 Comments in favor of requiring computational models to 

delineate the AoR (seeking comment) 

Comment Code: 4660 2.6.6 Geochemical monitoring 

Comment: We think the rule, the proposed rule has done a very good job of keeping the 

focus on both CO2 leakage risks and also the risk of problems from displaced 

brine. The confining zone in the rule is required to contain both CO2 and 

displaced formation fluids. The zone of elevated pressure as defined in the rule 

focuses on both CO2 and formation fluids that might be driven out of a US -- 

into a USDW. The modeling requirements are modeling both of the CO2 plume extent 

and formation fluid movement. There is the requirement for periodic monitoring 

of groundwater quality and geochemical changes above the confining zone which 

would help detail whether either CO2 or brine is leaking and there are adequate 

response provisions. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support and believes that predicting 

the complex multiphase, buoyant flow of the CO2, co-injectates, and compounds that may be 

mobilized due to injection requires the sophistication of computational models, as required at 

§146.84(c)(1). Models can predict CO2 fate and transport, as well as changes in formation 

pressure, in three dimensions, as a function of time in order to delineate the subsurface storage 

site and the AoR. Models can account for site-specific and predicted operating conditions as well 

as geologic heterogeneities and potential migration through faults, fractures, and artificial 

penetrations. 

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. For additional information on well construction, siting, 

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: 0520 Comment ID: 21423 Letter Lines: 63 to 66 

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

USDW 

3

115
Comment: A couple comments on some issues that we still have under review, but I can at 

least go this far at this time. We would urge the EPA to give serious 

consideration to the points that many have made about not restricting this rule 

to sites that are below the lowest USDW. And we would also urge the EPA to give 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that protecting USDWs from endangerment must be a top 

priority. The Agency believes that there are limited circumstances where injection above the 

lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs, 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 nonUSDW formations above and/or between USDWs. The waiver approach requires the submission 

of extensive, site-specific information (in conjunction with the permit application submission) to 

demonstrate that injection of CO2 into a non-USDW that is above or between USDWs can be 

done in a manner that is protective of USDWs. It establishes: 1) requirements specifying 

information that owners or operators must submit, and Directors must consider, in consultation 

with PWSS Directors; 2) procedures for public notice of a waiver application and for DirectorRegional Administrator communication; 3) the waiver issuance process; and, 4) additional 

requirements that apply to owners or operators of Class VI wells granted a waiver of the 

injection depth requirements to ensure USDW protection above and below the injection zone. 

EPA believes that the requirements at §146.95 will ensure USDW protection while providing 

flexibility to UIC Program Directors and owners or operators who undertake CO2 injection for 

GS. The 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: 0520 Comment ID: 21424 Letter Lines: 66 to 68 

Comment Code: 3824 2.3.1.2 Cementing of long-string casing (seeking comment) 

Comment: to sites that are below the lowest USDW. And we would also urge the EPA to give 

serious consideration to modifying the requirement for cementing the long string 

casing from top to bottom. We will finish making up our mind about those issues 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the requirement for long-string casing of Class VI 

wells at §146.86(b) will offer the best protection against fluid movement behind the casing, 

between formations, and above the injection zone and will ensure competency of Class VI wells 

4

116
and protect USDWs from endangerment. The buoyant nature of CO2 dictates deep well 

construction procedures that address movement of fluid behind the casing and provide necessary 

barriers to CO2 leakage outside of the injection zone. EPA believes that the requirement 

provides, at a reasonable cost, corrosion protection of the casing; prevents undesirable migration 

of fluids behind the casing; provides support to the casing; and provides multiple barriers against 

endangerment of USDWs. 

See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS 

rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the construction of 

Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

EPA stresses that protection of USDWs is the primary mission and mandate of the UIC program 

and the purpose of all requirements for injection wells. Any injection activity must be 

demonstrated to not endanger USDWs, regardless of their depth, and if such non-endangerment 

cannot be shown, then the activity will not be allowed under UIC requirements or the SDWA. 

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21426 Letter Lines: 72 to 83 

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

Comment: I would also like to agree in part and strongly disagree in part with my good 

friends from API and the National Association of Carbon Capture and Storage 

folks on this closure standard. The disagreement is this; we think that to call 

the fifty year default period arbitrary is just not accurate. If it said fifty 

years period without any ability to flex either direction, perhaps that would be 

arbitrary. Now that said, that does not mean that we support the proposed rule 

standard for approving site closure. In fact, the opposite. We think it needs to 

be substantially reworked and we do not even think you necessarily need a 

default period in order to have a solid performance standard for this. I am not 

going to go into exactly what we would substitute instead, but I can say that it 

will be generally consistent and perhaps precisely the same as comments that are 

being developed by the Ground Water Protection Council. 

Individual Response: EPA based the GS post-injection site care and site closure requirements at 

§146.93 on existing experience with injection activities, available data from GS pilot projects, 

and research studies. EPA believes that all available data indicates that the injection well 

plugging and site closure provisions provide appropriate safeguards for protection of USDWs 

from endangerment. 

EPA acknowledges that there are unknowns associated with early GS project deployment and the 

long term storage of CO2 for GS. For these reasons, the Agency is using an adaptive approach to 

regulating GS injection. The Agency 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 

5

117
appropriate or necessary. 

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21427 Letter Lines: 85 to 93 

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study 

Comment Code: 2166 1.6.3.2 Comments opposing injection into unmineable coal seams 

Comment Code: 2200 1.6.4 Other formation types 

Comment: Other suggestion and improvements for the rule are that coal seams, the basalts, 

hollowed out salt domes and shale are simply not ready for commercial 

sequestration at this time. And that is true whether or not they are below the 

lowest USDW. So our recommendation is that the Class VI proposal clearly be 

written not to apply to these sorts of formations. We do favor continued 

experimentation in these formations and some of them, especially coal seams may 

become commercially viable in the future, but for now we think they should be 

written, should be permitted under Class V. We should await further knowledge 

before deciding precisely that those formations not to be regulated. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be risks associated with GS, 

particularly regarding GS into coal seams, basalts, salt domes, shales, which have been the 

subject of limited experimental projects in the past. EPA anticipates that in the short-term, GS 

into these types of formations will continue to be experimental in nature (i.e., if they are to test 

GS technologies and collect data), and will likely be permitted as Class V experimental 

technology wells and be subject to UIC Program Guidance #83. EPA will continue to review 

data on early GS projects, including those in such formations, to determine whether the 

appropriate amount and types of information and documentation are required and being 

collected. 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. 

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21428 Letter Lines: 95 to 98 

Comment Code: 4600 2.6 Proposed Plume and Pressure Front Monitoring Requirements (40 

CFR 146.90) 

Comment: We like the fact that the rules place a lot of importance on monitoring. In 

several instances, the rules proposed using monitoring to modify the various 

aspects of the operations, but we think the rules can go further in this respect 

and we will spell that out in our final comments. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of monitoring at GS sites 

and emphasizes that monitoring of injection activities will be an important component of every 

GS project. Monitoring associated with injection wells and the movement of the CO2 plume is 

6

118
necessary to verify that the injectate is confined in the target formations and does not endanger 

USDWs. 

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21429 Letter Lines: 100 to 108 

Comment Code: 1270 1.1.2 Comments on other rules/issues 

Comment Code: 1670 1.3.7 Other/miscellaneous risks 

Comment: The rule I believe, I believe the preamble does mention the possibility of 

interference among projects, but whether or not that is the case, we think it is 

important that the rule contain a provision to head off potential interference 

among projects. The idea that seems to make sense to us is to flatly say that a 

project cannot interfere with the effectiveness of a preexisting project and 

anytime there is an overlap in the pressure fronts or footprint or however else 

you might define it, we think there ought to be inquiry made as to whether that 

would constitute interference. A rule like that would force projects in a single 

basin or brine formation to space themselves at least somewhat properly. 

Individual Response: EPA anticipates that the impacts of multiple operators injecting into 

hydraulically connected formations will be accounted for in the initial AoR calculation. EPA 

adds that the owner or operator must demonstrate, in the proposed AoR and corrective action 

plan, to the satisfaction of the Director that the modeled AoR will be based on detailed geologic 

data collected on the site and includes consideration of existing conditions such as the presence 

of multiple operators. EPA adds that if any new GS projects are permitted within the AoR of a 

GS project between AoR evaluations, the AoR reevaluation must address such projects. EPA 

also expects that the permitting of the newer GS project will have considered the presence of an 

existing GS project. 

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21430 Letter Lines: 110 to 114 

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

Comment Code: 3530 2.2.3.1 AoR reevaluation frequency (seeking comment) 

Comment: We think the AOR's area of reviews need to be calculated as intended and updated 

as necessary. We think ten year updates is far too infrequent and we think that 

there are some technical problems with the way the AOR is defined in the rule. 

We believe the EPA's intention is to use elevated pressure as the main guide to 

AOR delineation, but in our judgment the definition just does not say that. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that reevaluations of the AoR every ten years may not be 

sufficient to appropriately model plume and pressure front movement, establish conditions for 

corrective action, and ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment. For these reasons, the 

Agency changed the minimum frequency for the AoR reevaluation at 146.84(e) from 10 years to 

at least every 5 years in the final GS rule. EPA believes that this revised frequency addresses 

commenters' concerns about the inherent uncertainties in modeling CO2 movement, the 

7

119
emerging nature of GS technology, risk-based targeting of monitoring activities, and the unique 

nature of CO2 GS. 

EPA agrees that the AoR definition should account for the impact of the CO2 plume on USDWs. 

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

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

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

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

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

operational data. 

Letter ID: 0520 Comment ID: 21431 Letter Lines: 115 to 131 

Comment Code: 1620 1.3.2 Induced seismicity 

Comment Code: 4110 2.4.1.1 Injection pressure limitations 

Comment Code: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for permit applications (seeking 

comment) 

Comment: Injection pressure limits. This is very important and we think EPA's about 

halfway toward addressing this properly. The half that seems to be well done is 

that the proposed rule requires quite a bit of geomechanical information to be 

submitted. The kind of information that could be used, should be used to 

determine whether or not there is a risk of induced seismicity and to determine 

whether or not there is risks of reopening otherwise closed faults and fractures 

making them, making what starts out as a non-transmissive fault into a 

transmissive fault. So the proposed rule calls for the information that enables 

that kind of stuff to be calculated, but it fails to require that information to 

be used as part of the permitting process to inform the injection pressure 

limits. Instead the rule uses the traditional sort of injection pressure limit 

from oil and gas regulation that says accepted as a percentage of fracture 

pressure. The problem with that is that these other problems I mentioned, 

induced seismicity and reopening of faults can occur in lower pressures than say 

90% of fracture pressure, it is possible for one to comply with the 90% of 

fracture pressure requirement and yet still cause these other geomechanics 

related problems. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that all information about the site, including seismic history 

and data on rock mechanics, will be used to inform pressure limitations. 

In response to the concern about induced seismicity and reopening of faults at lower pressures 

than 90 percent of fracture pressure, EPA believes that the requirement for the owner or operator 

to submit data on known or suspected faults and fractures and information on the seismic history 

of the site, including the presence and depth of seismic sources and a determination that the 

seismicity would not interfere with containment per §146.82(a)(3)(v), will inform the 

determination of an appropriate pressure limitation in the permit. This investigation would also 

8

120
9

identify any sites with the potential for reopening or reactivation of faults or unacceptable 

seismic risk that could otherwise interfere with containment. 

The Director will also review geologic, hydrogeologic, and geomechanical information 

submitted by the owner or operator in setting permit conditions. If, based on this information, a 

lower pressure limitation is appropriate, the Director has the authority to set a lower limit in the 

operating permit. EPA clarifies that fracturing of the confining zone during injection and/or 

stimulation is also prohibited at §146.88(a). 

121
Letter ID: 0521 

Commenter: Ginny Brannon 

Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environments 

Letter ID: 0521 Comment ID: 21445 Letter Lines: 27 to 31 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: Geologic sequestration holds promise as a key component in the promotion of 

premier coal technologies. As a coal producing state in Colorado, we are 

especially interested in technologies that will secure the industry's future in 

the face of the challenges associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions and 

thereby mitigating the impacts from global warming. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including 

energy conservation, efficiency improvements, and the use of alternative fuels and renewable 

energy sources, that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. However, the use of and 

investment in these technologies is outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. The Class VI 

GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, sited, 

constructed, operated, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. For 

additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble 

as well as the rulemaking docket. 

Letter ID: 0521 Comment ID: 21446 Letter Lines: 33 to 39 

Comment Code: 1400 1.2 Comments on EPA's Authority to Regulate Injection of CO2 

Comment: And our commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is reflected in the 

Colorado Climate Action Plan which calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 

by 20% from 2005 levels by 2020. We realize that clean air coal technologies can 

help us reach this goal and may be a key component in reaching that goal, but 

emerging solution such as geologic sequestration must be technologically and 

environmentally sound and supported by a viable and efficient regulatory 

framework. With respect to that regulatory framework, the Safe Drinking Water 

Individual Response: While EPA agrees that a stable, predictable, nationally consistent, and 

workable regulatory framework is important, EPA stresses that 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 

1

122
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: 0521 Comment ID: 21449 Letter Lines: 39 to 67 

Comment Code: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells (seeking comment) 

Comment: framework. With respect to that regulatory framework, the Safe Drinking Water 

Act provides the states that apply to EPA for primary enforcement responsibility 

to administer the underground injection control program. These states referred 

to as primacy states must meet the minimum federal requirements for UIC programs 

including construction, operating, monitoring, testing, reporting and closure 

requirements for well owners or operators. 

Additionally, the Safe Drinking Water Act allows states to apply for such 

primacy in part, such as for only classes I, III, IV and VI under section 1422 

or for Class II wells only under section 1425. 

Colorado falls in this latter camp with primacy for Class II wells only. 

The proposed rule calls for another class of wells, Class VI with the injection 

of carbon dioxide. It is our contention the state should be able to seek primacy 

for Class VI wells as a stand alone class just as they do for Class II wells 

now. Because Class II wells are for oil and gas injection, Class II wells and 

the proposed Class VI wells for CO2 injection are similar in purpose and 

particularly suited as stand alone classes of wells. 

Also in addition to our own staff, Colorado is home to a premier university and 

scientific community such that we have the expertise in the event we were to 

assume primacy for Class VI wells. 

Finally geologic sequestration is only one component in a broader carbon and 

capture, carbon capture and sequestration context. Colorado agrees with EPA. By 

allowing states to acquire primacy for Class VI wells may encourage them to 

assume the responsibility of implementation and provide for more comprehensive 

approach to managing carbon capture and sequestration projects. 

Individual Response: 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 

2

123
3

(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 agrees that having skilled personnel in various technical areas relevant to GS of CO2 is 

critically important for effective UIC oversight of Class VI wells. EPA acknowledges that such 

expertise may be present among staff in state UIC programs or through university systems, such 

as in state universities or the scientific community. EPA believes such expertise will benefit 

implementation of the Class VI program nation-wide. 

124
Letter ID: 0522 

Commenter: Dave Bufalo 

 

Letter ID: 0522 Comment ID: 21467 Letter Lines: 23 to 33 

Comment Code: 1655 1.3.5.1 Concerns about Lake Nyos and Mammoth Mountain-type events 

Comment: With respect to the injection of CO2 and its affect on water quality, I am most 

concerned about a potential catastrophic failure of the environment system. 

There is a lake in Africa that somehow or another evolved a tremendous amount of 

carbon dioxide in one massive instantaneous release and it killed all the 

villagers within some radius of that. So the issue is, do we have fault systems 

that may allow this to happen and what then is the proximity of the local 

population base? That is my primary concern. 

If we have a gradual leak of CO2 from a containment system, I do not see that as 

catastrophic. It was once in the atmosphere, it has under gone sequestration and 

now it comes back out. So be it. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the CO2 releases at Lake Nyos is a valid analogue for 

GS. GS sites have little in common with the physical setting or mechanism that resulted in the 

release of naturally-occurring CO2 trapped at the bottom of Lake Nyos, a stratified tropical lake 

that suddenly overturned through a process known as "limnic eruption." No injection was 

associated with this event, and this site would not have been considered sufficiently geologically 

stable to be issued a Class VI permit based on the rigorous site characterization requirements at 

§146.82 (e.g., including lack of confining units). 

GS takes places thousands of feet below the Earth’s surface within porous spaces in deep rock 

formations. CO2 is injected for GS through technically engineered wells with multiple barriers 

designed to isolate the injectate in the well and protect formations outside the well materials. The 

injected CO2 is stored in geologic formations underneath confining layers of rock that act as 

natural barriers to leakage. It is unlikely that CO2 would escape from a GS site that is properly 

characterized, operated, monitored, and closed. During the site selection process, operators of 

Class VI wells identify and evaluate the appropriateness of a site for GS of CO2. The evaluation 

includes the identification of surface and subsurface features such as deep stratified lakes and 

other naturally occurring pockets of CO2. Furthermore, during GS operation, injection pressures 

and formation conditions are monitored to avoid overpressuring the storage formation. 

This evaluation must also identify the presence of faults. Suitable GS sites must have confining 

zones that are free of transmissive faults or fractures and are of sufficient areal extent and 

integrity to contain the injected CO2 stream and displaced formation fluids. The formations must 

allow injection at proposed maximum pressures and volumes without initiating or propagating 

fractures in the confining zone(s), as required at§146.83(a)(2). 

1

125
Letter ID: 0522 Comment ID: 21468 Letter Lines: 35 to 68 

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

Comment: I recognize that the Supreme Court of the United States has given the EPA the 

regulatory authority to regulate CO2. Over the past eighteen months, I have come 

to the conclusion that managed production of CO2 is not the cause of global 

climate change. 

Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama has written a book called Climate 

Confusion. In this book he states that man's production of CO2 is equivalent to 

one molecule of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of the atmosphere over a five 

year period. So when we hear these numbers of millions and millions of tons of 

CO2 being released in the atmosphere, we must put that in context of what part 

of that is generated by man. Dr. Spencer thinks that this is not a significant 

contribution to global warming. 

I have also read numerous articles, five different books, consulted with several 

PhD. Climatologists, in particular, Dr. William Gray from Colorado State 

University who is known for his annual forecast of hurricane activity. All of 

the literature that I have read further indicate that man's production of CO2 is 

not the cause of climate change. 

The issue of CO2 causing climate change is not a closed issue as some would have 

you believe. 

I would refer you to a project called the Petition Project written by the Oregon 

Institute of Science and Medicine where over 31,000 scientists have signed a 

petition to the President of the United States of America saying to take drastic 

action with respect to eliminating mass production of CO2 will not do anything 

to minimize climate change. 

So, I respect the EPA for its efforts and attempts to do something to comply 

with the mandate by the U.S. Supreme Court and to also respond to the apparent 

public concern of climate change by man. However, as we go forward the 

development of these regulations, both the regulation of drinking water quality 

and atmospheric relationship to, I would urge the EPA to look closely at the 

cost benefit ratios of what this is going to cost. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that climate change mitigation is outside the scope of the 

Class VI GS rulemaking. Rather, the purpose of the Class VI GS rule is to ensure consistency in 

permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provide 

requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to 

reduce CO2 emissions. 

EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS requirements apply to owners or operators of injection wells 

2

126
used to inject CO2 for permanent storage. The Class VI GS rulemaking is promulgated under 

Safe Drinking Water Act authority and does not relate to any endangerment and cause or 

contribute findings under the Clean Air Act. The Class VI GS requirements do not depend upon, 

and are unaffected by, Clean Air Act endangerment and cause or contribute findings. More 

information on EPA's Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases 

under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html. 

Letter ID: 0522 Comment ID: 21469 Letter Lines: 67 to 74 

Comment Code: 6000 3. Cost of the Proposed Rule 

Comment: and atmospheric relationship to, I would urge the EPA to look closely at the 

cost benefit ratios of what this is going to cost. 

I am now a certified old guy, 66 years old. I have got gray hair, I wear trifocals and my income is fixed. Any type of environmental regulation without 

proven benefits to the benefit of mankind is going to cost all of us consumers 

money and that money could be better spent doing something else other than pure 

regulation. Thank you. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the GS rule requirements are necessary and appropriate 

to address the unique challenges posed by 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. EPA 

acknowledges that the Class VI requirements have associated costs beyond baseline (Class I 

industrial wells) costs, and believes these costs are necessary and appropriate to address the 

unique challenges posed by 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. 

3

127
Letter ID: 0523 

Commenter: Steve Crookshank 

Organization: American Petroleum Institute (API) 

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21353 Letter Lines: 27 to 32 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: First I would like to provide some context for our comments. Oil, natural gas 

and coal provide approximately 85% of the world's energy. The power plants, 

vehicles, homes, businesses and factories that use these fuels produce more than 

twenty five billion tons of CO2 emissions annually. While no single technology 

is sufficient to mitigate human CO2 emissions, capturing CO2 and storing it in 

deep underground formations could play an important role. 

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. 

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21354 Letter Lines: 34 to 50 

Comment Code: 1940 1.4.4.3 Consultations with Industry; experience with other wells 

Comment: As an industry, we have over thirty-five years experience safely transporting 

and injecting CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. While constantly evolving, the 

technology, upgrading practices and regulatory requirements have been developed 

for enhanced oil recovery are extensive, mature and generally appropriate for 

CCS. 

In U.S. alone, the oil and gas industry operates over thirteen thousand CO2 EOR 

wells, over thirty five hundred miles of high pressure CO2 pipelines and has 

injected over six hundred million tons of CO2 for EOR alone all while 

maintaining an excellent health environment and safety record. 

Industry also has extensive experience in large scale separation and reinjection of natural gas streams. The largest operation of this kind is on the 

north slope of Alaska where forty-seven trillion cubic feet of natural gas 

consisting of about twelve percent carbon dioxide has been cumulatively reinjected over the past thirty plus years. The CO2 fraction corresponds to 

approximately four hundred and twenty million metric tons of CO2. 

Individual Response: 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. Some of the research that informs the final GS rule was conducted at 

1

128
ER 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. 

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21355 Letter Lines: 52 to 58 

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking 

Comment: Regarding EPA's proposed rule, API is very supportive of the fact that EPA has 

recognized the integrity of the existing regulatory framework for CO2 based 

enhanced oil recovery, of the amount of flexibility in most parts of the 

proposed rule and of the use of performance based approaches. Specific examples 

include the proposed confining zone requirements and the proposed ground water 

monitoring requirements. There are several aspects of the proposed rule that 

should be reconsidered for further improvement. The first of these is the 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and 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: 0523 Comment ID: 21356 Letter Lines: 58 to 70 

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

USDW 

Comment: should be reconsidered for further improvement. The first of these is the 

proposal to restrict injection into formations below the lower most underground 

source of drinking water or USDW. This requirement is not necessary for 

protection of USDW's and would remove a vast number of viable formations from 

consideration. Industry has shown they can operate CO2 injection wells and EOR 

context without endangering USDW's that are located below the injection zone. An 

excellent example is the Saw Creek EOR project in Wyoming which has a USDW 

directly below the injection zone. 

Moreover, under the proposed rule, there are other measures that provide real 

assurance of formation integrity and require operators to demonstrate that the 

project will not endanger USDW's making the lower most USDW restriction 

unnecessary. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are limited circumstances where injection 

2

129
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. It 

establishes: 1) requirements specifying information that owners or operators must submit, and 

Directors must consider, in consultation with PWSS Directors; 2) procedures for public notice of 

a waiver application and for Director-Regional Administrator communication; 3) the waiver 

issuance process; and, 4) additional requirements that apply to owners or operators of Class VI 

wells granted a waiver of the injection depth requirements to ensure USDW protection above and 

below the injection zone. 

While the Agency acknowledges the experience gained by the oil and gas industry and other 

injection activities, EPA identified unique challenges posed by 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 that warrant the tailored approach in the GS rule. Furthermore, the Agency believes 

that wells that inject into non-USDW formations above and between USDWs presents additional 

challenges that warrant additional requirements. 

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: 0523 Comment ID: 21357 Letter Lines: 72 to 79 

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

Comment: EPA should also reconsider a proposed fifty year default period proposed 

injection site care. EPA offers no rationale for this arbitrarily selected 

period of fifty years. Establishing a fixed and unusually long time period may 

create a significant barrier for operators considering entry into CCS 

operations. Criteria for determining the period post injection site care should 

be performance based and a function of the site specific characteristics of the 

project such as project size, geologic factors and the relative risks of the 

project. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the decision to use a default 50 year period for PISC 

was arbitrarily made. In determining the post-injection site care-timeframe for the proposed 

regulation, EPA reviewed industry reports, existing environmental programs, and initial GS 

research studies. EPA provided a synthesis of pertinent results from GS modeling studies in the 

preamble to the proposed regulation. Further explanation of this analysis was included in an 

EPA-prepared background document that is available in the federal docket, titled 

"Computational Modeling of Underground Injection of Carbon Dioxide for Determination of 

Area-of-Review and Potential Risk to Underground Sources of Drinking Water." Based on 

review of these studies, modeling results indicate that the CO2 plume stabilization may occur on 

the timeframe of 10-100 years after the cessation of injection. EPA believes that a 50 year post3

130
injection site care timeframe represents a reasonable and protective monitoring period and 

available data, including data submitted by commenters, do not support a different default 

timeframe. Furthermore, EPA believes that a 50-year default post-injection site care timeframe, 

as required at §146.93(b)(1), is not overly burdensome, does not exaggerate the risks associated 

with GS, is consistent with other environmental programs, and sufficiently protects USDWs 

from endangerment. 

However, EPA recognizes that there may be sites where the 50 year post injection site care 

timeframe may be either not appropriate or more burdensome than necessary based on sitespecific conditions. For this reason, the GS rule 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 post-injection 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, during the permitting process based on substantial 

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

USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c). 

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

for post-injection site care will be necessary in most cases. The default 50 year post-injection site 

care timeframe represents a reasonable and protective monitoring period based on a review of 

research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public 

comments. 

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. 

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21358 Letter Lines: 81 to 84 

Comment Code: 5300 2.8.3 Site closure activities (40 CFR 146.93) 

Comment: Clear guidelines also need to be established regarding when operators have met 

the performance standards that determine site closure. Specifically, the 

standard that the project no longer poses an endangerment to USDW's needs to be 

defined using reasonable risk based criteria. EPA should also reconsider its 

Individual Response: EPA is developing guidance to assist owners or operators in evaluating 

well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure requirements of 146.92 and 146.93. 

Additionally, the guidance will assist Directors in evaluating proposed well plugging plans and 

post-injection site care and site closure plans under 146.92 and 146.93. The guidance describes 

recommended approaches for how an owner or operator could plug injection and monitoring 

4

131
wells; demonstrate the appropriateness of an alternative post-injection site care time frame; 

perform post-injection monitoring; demonstrate non endangerment; and perform site closure 

activities. The guidance will be available at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21359 Letter Lines: 84 to 87 

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

Comment: defined using reasonable risk based criteria. EPA should also reconsider its 

proposed well construction and operating requirements which are much more 

prescriptive and rigorous than necessary and do not reflect industries thirtyfive plus years of success in injecting CO2 under the Class II UIC program. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the Class VI requirements are overly stringent; 

instead, the GS requirements are tailored to the unique nature of GS, including the large volumes 

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

in the CO2 stream. EPA believes these tailored requirements are more appropriate than Class I or 

Class II requirements. 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. 

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. 

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21360 Letter Lines: 88 to 93 

Comment Code: 3824 2.3.1.2 Cementing of long-string casing (seeking comment) 

Comment: Class II EOR wells constructed for these projects and their operating practices 

have an excellent record of mechanical integrity and protecting USDW's. 

Some of the proposed requirements such as cementing the long string casing to 

surface are not only unnecessarily burdensome, but might also interfere with 

operations and could introduce unintended risks. 

Individual Response: EPA does not believe that the cementing requirements at §146.86 would 

prevent monitoring, operation and remediation of Class VI wells. Cementing of deep wells has 

been performed successfully in the past by owners or operators of Class I hazardous and Class I 

5

132
municipal waste disposal wells. Some of these wells, which must meet the same cementing and 

casing requirements as Class VI wells, are up to 12,000 feet deep and have been successfully 

cemented in a manner that maintains integrity and allows for all required well testing, operation, 

and remediation (EPA, 2001). See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in 

the preamble to the final GS rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing 

guidance on the construction of Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s 

website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm 

EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 and has 

demonstrated the effectiveness of existing cementing materials and procedures. EPA also 

believes that GS is sufficiently different from Class II ER operations to warrant the tailored 

construction requirements for Class VI wells at §146.86. For example, the volume of CO2 

anticipated to be injected in Class VI wells is significantly greater than for Class II wells. 

Reservoir pressure conditions will be different, with Class VI injection operations involving 

large volumes of CO2 and likely having higher pressures within their storage formations than 

Class II ER projects. Therefore, Class VI GS reservoir pressures will increase during the 

injection phase of the GS project. 

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21361 Letter Lines: 95 to 99 

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: Additionally while unnecessarily creating a regulatory gap between Class II 

wells and their operations and Class VI wells and their operations, EPA is 

creating potential economic and operational barrier to transitioning from EOR 

operations to storage operations thereby further reducing the number of target 

formations where CO2 can be stored. 

Individual Response: Comments related to potential economic and operational barriers to 

trainsitioning EOR operations to GS are outside the scope of this rulemaking. EPA clarifies that 

the purpose of the GS rule is to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment. However, the 

Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the future development and 

deployment of CCS technology may provide the regulatory and jurisdictional certainty needed to 

foster development and deployment of CCS while ensuring USDW protection. 

Letter ID: 0523 Comment ID: 21362 Letter Lines: 101 to 105 

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

Comment: In conclusion, API shares the same goal as EPA to develop rules that facilitate 

the safe, secure, long term storage of CO2. API is concerned that if by being 

overly prescriptive in designing a new well class, the proposed rule will hinder 

the development of CCS and could have the unanticipated consequence of hindering 

the innovations that could improve both well security and performance. CCS is 

6

133
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. 

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: 0523 Comment ID: 21363 Letter Lines: 105 to 107 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: the innovations that could improve both well security and performance. CCS is 

one of the essential technologies that could help to ensure that we can continue 

to produce clean energy society demands. 

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. 

7

134
Letter ID: 0524 

Commenter: Becky English 

Organization: Sierra Club 

Letter ID: 0524 Comment ID: 21482 Letter Lines: 26 to 46 

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment: I wanted to make a few points this afternoon. First, I wanted to ask that the 

comment period be extended. These are very complicated issues for IGCC and for 

carbon capture and sequestration. I notice that EPA's six to nine months late in 

doing its due diligence on this topic and because of the complication of the 

process and the complication of the science and of course, the public is even 

less able to comprehend these issues than EPA is so I am asking you today, to 

give us a six month extension for public comment on this. It does not seem fair 

to ask us to do the hustle to respond in thirty days. 

I was wondering if this might have been part of a pattern that some of us have 

noticed at EPA for some hurry up processing before the Bush administration runs 

out. Some of us frankly do not quite trust Administrator Johnson's motives in 

this and we think we need to have some time to digest this process. 

Congress has been in a continuing resolution mode producing anyway and there is 

new information coming out as I know you are even more aware of than I am about 

some actual leaks of CO2 in process and these, of course, would need to be 

considered not only by EPA, but by the public and so I do not know if this is a 

discursive mode, but I want to ask you a question of process. Is my requesting 

this extension, does that mean it will happen or do we need to file a formal 

extension request? 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. EPA did extend the comment period 

for the proposed rule by an additional 30 days. Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to 

this comment and to Sierra Club's written 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: 0524 Comment ID: 21483 Letter Lines: 54 to 59 

Comment Code: 3350 2.2.1.5 Use of proprietary models for GS sites (seeking comment) 

Comment: Secondly I wanted to point out that permit applications should not be able, 

applicants rather, should not be able to use proprietary software if they are 

not willing to disclose their modeling data. And their operating assumptions and 

explain their research methods more fully for a transparent, for transparency 

with the public; people such as myself and Sierra Club. We need complete 

1

135
transparency in order to give adequate public input. That is just obvious. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the use of proprietary models should be disallowed. 

EPA will allow the use of proprietary models in meeting the requirements for the GS regulation, 

but clarifies that GS well operators using proprietary models are required to disclose, to the 

Director's satisfaction, the code assumptions, relevant equations, and scientific basis. 

In response to the comment that the proposal does not sufficiently address transparency, EPA 

clarifies that GS well operators are required to disclose, to the Director's satisfaction, the code 

assumptions, relevant equations, and scientific basis. EPA adds that its Confidential Business 

Information requirements at 40 CFR 144.5 will apply to the use of proprietary models. 

Information including model assumptions and equations are used by the Director to inform 

his/her decision to issue the permit and ensure that the requirements are met and the GS well will 

not endanger USDWs. 

EPA acknowledges commenters' concerns about the need to evaluate the inputs and assumptions 

used in these models, and will allow the use of proprietary models in meeting the requirements 

for the GS regulation. EPA clarifies, however, that GS well operators using proprietary models 

are required to disclose, to the Director's satisfaction, the code assumptions, relevant equations, 

and scientific basis. Information including model assumptions and equations are used by the 

Director to inform his/her decision to issue the permit and ensure that the requirements are met 

and the GS well will not endanger USDWs. EPA adds that its Confidential Business Information 

requirements at 40 CFR 144.5 will apply to the use of proprietary models. 

To ensure that all predictive models used for AoR calculations are meeting the Agency's 

expectations, 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. 

Letter ID: 0524 Comment ID: 21484 Letter Lines: 60 to 84 

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

Comment Code: 5520 2.10.1 Appropriateness of existing public participation requirements 

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

Comment: Modeling data should have been provided well before the beginning of this thirty 

day period, this comment period. Again, we need more time. 

I also want to point out that a remediation plan should have been developed by 

now to deal with all possible contamination events in tandem with this 

particular process especially in view of EPA's, some of EPA's past failures to 

perform adequate risk monitoring and timely detection of remediation of 

contamination. Obviously, a remediation plan needs to be in place along with 

this particular proposal. Please provide us with that remediation plan and give 

2

136
the public time to comment on that as well. 

EPA's management of carbon capture and sequestration operations should be 

absolutely transparent to the public and so today, I want to call for real time 

online postings and RSS feeds of all incidents no matter how minor to interested 

members of the public. EPA should be providing such reporting for all incidents 

already and not just for carbon sequestration leaks, but for really I think all 

incidents across your entire realm of responsibility. Again, with the 

transparency, the public needs to know what is going on a lot easier than it 

currently is for us to find things out. 

I am not a geologist or a mining engineer, but I think I have some common sense 

and as a U.S. citizen, I just must insist that EPA adopt a more comprehensive 

method for evaluating IGCC and carbon sequestration, carbon capture and 

sequestration in view of the now well known fact that carbon based fuels are 

roasting our atmosphere and rapidly reducing the viability of our planet. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the final rule does not change the public notice 

requirements for injection well owners or operators already required under 40 CFR Part 124. 

However, because of the unique nature of GS projects, and the anticipated level of public interest 

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

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

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

will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's 

concerns before the permitting process is complete. 

EPA clarifies that the final GS rule requires each owner or operator to develop an emergency and 

remedial response plan prior to receiving a permit to inject carbon dioxide. See §146.94. This 

plan must be submitted to the Director along with the permit application and will be available for 

review during the public comment period for the draft permit. Each owner or operator will be 

responsible for any remediation associated with his or her well. The rule also requires each 

owner or operator to maintain financial responsibility for emergency and remedial response. See 

§146.85(a). EPA is developing guidance on both financial responsibility and emergency and 

remedial response plans. 

EPA agrees with commenters that the use of new forms of information technology can improve 

public participation and understanding of GS projects and the associated injection technologies 

involved. EPA does not require the use of any new information technologies to inform the 

public, but encourages GS project operators and permitting authorities to use the Internet as well 

as both new and established tools to explain and post information on the latest developments. 

This information may include schedules for hearings, briefings, and other opportunities for 

involvement. EPA plans to conduct outreach on the GS rule, and provides GS related 

information on its website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

EPA currently uses social networking applications for important information (e.g., Facebook and 

Twitter), and will encourage GS operators and permitting authorities to use similar technologies 

3

137
to keep the public informed of GS projects. 

Letter ID: 0524 Comment ID: 21485 Letter Lines: 86 to 88 

Comment Code: 5520 2.10.1 Appropriateness of existing public participation requirements 

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

Comment: EPA must develop its own models of the overall life cycle of carbon based fuel 

processes. A good model would give this lay person satisfying answers to some 

naive, but necessary questions. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the overall life cycle of carbon based fuel processes 

(i.e., beyond the GS component) is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. However, when 

drafting proposed and final GS regulations, EPA estimated the costs associated with complying 

with the GS regulations; these are presented in the docket for this rulemaking. In the cost 

analysis (which is available in the docket), EPA anticipated that the impact on any individual 

household (as a result of CO2 GS requirements) is expected to be very minor. Please see the cost 

analysis for the GS rule for additional information. 

Letter ID: 0524 Comment ID: 21487 Letter Lines: 117 to 119 

Comment Code: 1270 1.1.2 Comments on other rules/issues 

Comment: How about an EPA rule that goes like this. No use of any form of energy that 

does not yield more net energy across its process life cycle than it actually 

contains in its primary energy capture mode. Short of that, I must call today 

Individual Response: The UIC program’s authority under the SDWA focuses on ensuring that 

Class VI GS projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and closed in a 

manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. Prohibiting the use of certain forms of energy 

is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. 

Letter ID: 0524 Comment ID: 21488 Letter Lines: 90 to 115 

Comment Code: 1270 1.1.2 Comments on other rules/issues 

Comment: Does it make any sense at all to be expending more energy than coal actually 

yields and more money than could ever be justified with comprehensive life cycle 

accounting to widely used coal as a fuel source in the first place or by 

extension to perform carbon capture and sequestration? Does it net out to 

administer this stuff with hearings like this knowing what we already know? To 

accept as taxpayers the well known liabilities to fish and wildlife habitats and 

human health? To do the appropriate and necessary greenhouse gas reduction 

4

138
accounting? To deal with interstate boundary and commerce issues? To mine and 

process the coal with all the environmental degradation and health costs that we 

know are associated with that; to transport it to its destinations and then 

spend the fuel and human resources and fuel again to send the trains back empty? 

To burn it, gasify it, liquify it, whatever and then spend more money and more 

energy trying to put CO2 back into the ground from whence it came in the first 

place, for heaven's sake? And then, and then importantly trying to guess, guess 

how effective that process might be since we are lacking longitudinal data and I 

am wondering do reliable methods even exist to monitor that the sequestered CO2 

is staying put? We are getting new information that it is not staying put at 

least in a few cases, but even this non-scientist here knows that gasses have a 

tendency to seek the surface. I can see that when I drink my 7-up that I like 

every afternoon. The bubbles like to go up and as many others here can attest to 

better than I, CO2 leakage at the surface can cause serious public health and 

safety issues so. And then of course, not to mention that we have been undoing 

the energy intents given costly sequestration exercise that we just gone through 

and oh by the way, reintroducing CO2 again above ground as a greenhouse gas. So 

I am asking you, does this make any sense at all to even be in the business of 

doing these activities? 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that prohibiting the use of certain forms of energy, 

including coal and greenhouse gas accounting are outside the scope of the Class VI GS 

rulemaking. 

EPA recognizes that GS poses unique challenges, such as buoyancy; for this reason, the 

requirements for GS wells are tailored to the unique nature of large scale GS of CO2. These 

additional protective requirements include more extensive geologic testing, detailed 

computational modeling of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations, detailed requirements for 

monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and extended post-injection 

monitoring and site care. 

Letter ID: 0524 Comment ID: 21489 Letter Lines: 119 to 121 

Comment Code: 1520 1.2.3 Other authorities (e.g., CAA, MPRSA, London Convention) 

Comment: contains in its primary energy capture mode. Short of that, I must call today 

for ending the current inappropriate, piece meal approach to regulating IGCC and 

carbon capture sequestration. We need a more comprehensive law or regulation. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and 

the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In 

developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices 

and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United States Geological 

Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the 

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 

5

139
to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Research 

and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate 

on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or 

operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitled "How Does This 

Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to 

the final GS rule. 

EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program 

is necessary to enable deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner 

that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes 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: 0524 Comment ID: 21490 Letter Lines: 123 to 125 

Comment Code: 5520 2.10.1 Appropriateness of existing public participation requirements 

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

Comment: So in addition to asking for more time for public comment then, on behalf of 

Sierra Club's 22,000 members in the state of Colorado, thank you very much for 

your consideration. And now did you want to ask me anything? 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that a comment period longer than 30 days should be 

required for all GS projects. EPA believes that the existing public comment period requirements 

at §124.10, which require a minimum 30-day comment period for draft permits, are appropriate 

for GS projects. The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to impose longer time frames if 

they are unnecessary, but supports the Directors' discretion and authority under §124.10 to 

extend the public comment period if he or she determines that such an extension is warranted. 

Circumstances that may affect a Director's determination may include the level of public interest 

in a GS project, specific permit details, or project-specific considerations. 

6

140
Letter ID: 0525 

Commenter: Kevin Frederick 

Organization: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21393 Letter Lines: 28 to 38 

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

Comment: First of all, let me start with a few general comments on EPA's proposed 

approach. With respect to funding, EPA funding to states to administer federal 

environmental programs such as the underground injection control program 

continues to decline in terms of real dollars. Recognizing the scope of work 

anticipated for CO2 sequestration in this country alone, substantial additional 

skills and resources would be required at the state level in order to develop 

and implement effective permitting and oversight programs. It is imperative that 

EPA recognize that need and begin to consider establishing special provisions to 

set aside and identify funds specifically for the use by states and tribes that 

they will need in order to effectively develop and operate these types of 

permitting programs. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative 

challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in 

resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the 

unique technical challenges associated with GS. 

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The 

States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement 

the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant 

allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent 

matching requirement. 

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21394 Letter Lines: 40 to 45 

Comment Code: 5430 2.9.1 Comments on proposed financial responsibility requirements (40 

CFR 146.85) 

Comment: Secondly, we believe that additional clarification and guidance on financial 

assurance instruments and their appropriate use with respect to different phases 

of CO2 sequestration projects is needed in order to provide a guideline that 

states may actually begin to use with respect to evaluating the financial 

assurance requirements and the appropriate use of various types of financial 

instruments. 

Individual Response: In response to public comments, EPA has added more specific 

requirements to the rule. These include a list of permitted financial instruments, timeframes for 

1

141
adjusting cost estimates, requirements for protective coverage, steps to take in the event of 

adverse financial conditions, and others. However, EPA believes flexibility in the financial 

responsibility requirements is also appropriate. Owners or operators may choose from a variety 

of financial instruments to meet their financial responsibility obligations, as listed in §146.85(a), 

provided the Director determines that the owner or operator's proposed financial responsibility 

demonstration is adequate to prevent endangerment of USDWs by demonstrating the ability to 

pay for each GS activity. 

EPA clarifies that it will allow owners or operators to use separate and multiple financial 

responsibility instruments for different GS activities, and that owners or operators can be 

released from an instrument when the phase of the project for which the instrument was required 

is complete, as specified in §146.85(b)(1). However, owners or operators must demonstrate 

adequate financial responsibility with their permit applications for all activities for which 

financial responsibility is required at §146.82(a)(14). See the final rule and preamble for further 

discussion of EPA's final approach to financial responsibility. 

EPA agrees that guidance is necessary. EPA is developing guidance on financial responsibility 

for Class VI wells that will provide information about the appropriateness of various financial 

instruments. This guidance is available on EPA's website at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21395 Letter Lines: 47 to 52 

Comment Code: 1930 1.4.4.2 Consultations with State, Tribal, and local Associations (e.g., 

GWPC, IOGCC) 

Comment: Lastly, U.S. EPA should seriously review and consider the comments that will be 

provided in the future in this proposed rule by the Ground Water Protection 

Council. The Ground Water Protection Council has a working committee comprised 

of members from industry, state regulatory agencies, and environmental interest 

groups that are reviewing the proposed rule and we believe we will be providing 

important comments that EPA should consider in reviewing the proposed rule. 

Individual Response: EPA reviewed GWPC’s comments on the proposed rule; EPA’s response 

can be found in the docket for this rule. 

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21396 Letter Lines: 54 to 58 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment Code: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for permit applications (seeking 

comment) 

Comment: A few specific comments on issues where we agree with EPA's proposed rule. We 

believe that permit applications for GS sites should include several plans, not 

currently required under existing UIC regulations. These plans include a 

2

142
monitoring, a testing plan and an area of review and corrective action plan and 

a post injection site care and site closure plan. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the GS requirements, which are based on the longstanding UIC regulatory framework and tailored to meet the unique nature of CO2 injection for 

GS, appropriately address endangerment risks to USDWs. The GS rule contains minimum 

technical criteria for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, 

well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, 

injection well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells, which will ensure 

that USDWs are protected from endangerment. 

For additional information on testing and monitoring, corrective action, and post-injection site 

care requirements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory Approach in the 

preamble to the final GS rule. 

EPA agrees that incorporating the plans into the permit rather than establishing specific 

requirements for corrective action, monitoring, injection well plugging, and post-injection site 

care in the regulation provide the appropriate flexibility to address the variety of site-specific 

conditions that may be encountered at GS sites. 

EPA also believes that it is appropriate to require owners and operators to submit all plans, 

including the injection well plugging and post-injection site care and site closure plans, at the 

time of permit application. EPA believes that the Director needs a satisfactory level of assurance 

that the owner or operator has planned for these events before injection commences and that the 

owner or operator has ensured that appropriate financial resources are available to fund all 

required activities, as required at §146.85. The final rule retains requirements for submitting 

these plans with the permit application at §146.82(a). EPA believes that the requirement for this 

and other plans associated with GS projects will promote an ongoing dialogue between the 

owner or operator and the Director to ensure USDWs are protected from endangerment. In 

addition, these plans will support a demonstration that owners and operators have adequate 

financial resources to meet well plugging and post-injection site care and site closure 

requirements. Please see the final rule and the discussion of the GS project plans in the preamble 

for additional information. 

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21397 Letter Lines: 60 to 62 

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

Comment: We agree that the directors should be provided discretion to shorten or lengthen 

the proposed post injection site care monitoring period based on performance 

information. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the Director should have discretion to shorten or 

lengthen the post-injection site care monitoring period, and has retained this provision in the 

final GS rule at 146.93(b)(2). EPA adds that the final rule at §146.93(c), also allows the Director 

to approve an alternative post-injection site care timeframe where an owner or operator can 

3

143
demonstrate during the permitting process that an alternative post-injection site care timeframe, 

other than the 50 year default, is appropriate and ensures non-endangerment of USDWs. 

Because of the variety of site-specific circumstances at GS sites, EPA believes that individual 

UIC Directors, in consultation with operators, will be in the best position to determine whether 

additional post-injection site care monitoring is needed (or whether the timeframe may be 

shortened) or whether an alternative PISC timeframe is appropriate, based on the circumstances 

of a particular project. EPA expects this decision to be made based on relevant site data and in 

consultation with all potentially impacted parties. 

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21398 Letter Lines: 64 to 67 

Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment) 

Comment: There are areas that we agree with EPA that discretion allowed to the director 

should be provided to determine or require grandfathering the construction 

requirements for existing Class I and Class II wells and Class V wells seeking a 

permit for geologic sequestration of CO2. 

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 clarifies that only the construction requirements are 

grandfathered and that all other Class VI requirements (reporting, monitoring, mechnical 

integrity testing, etc.) must be met following a determination under §146.81(c). 

EPA adds that conversion of the well must be at the Director's discretion following an evaluation 

of all other site-specific information about the well and the project, e.g., modeling, monitoring, 

and other data. 

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21399 Letter Lines: 69 to 71 

Comment Code: 3120 2.1.2 Need to identify additional confining and containment zones 

(seeking comment) 

Comment: Discretion for identifying and characterizing additional confining and 

containment zones of the primary confining zone that could further impede 

vertical fluid movement and allow for pressure dissipation. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that, in some situations, the presence of 

additional confining and containment zones above the primary (i.e., lowermost) confining zone 

can improve USDW protection from endangerment. The final regulation retains the requirement 

4

144
at §146.83(b) which affords the Director discretion to require owners or operators to identify and 

characterize additional zones. 

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21400 Letter Lines: 73 to 75 

Comment Code: 3350 2.2.1.5 Use of proprietary models for GS sites (seeking comment) 

Comment: Discretion to allow the use of proprietary models. Wyoming, in particular, has 

options available for applying for confidential treatment of proprietary models 

and we believe that should be allowed at the discretion of the director as well. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that some of the available proprietary models may meet the 

needs for calculating the AoRs of GS sites. EPA will allow their use in meeting the requirements 

for the GS regulation, but clarifies that GS well operators using proprietary models are required 

to disclose, to the Director's satisfaction, the code assumptions, relevant equations, and scientific 

basis. EPA acknowledges that several proprietary models have been used by petroleum-reservoir 

engineering professionals as well as in peer-reviewed studies to model CO2 sequestration. EPA 

adds that its Confidential Business Information requirements at 40 CFR 144.5 will apply to the 

use of proprietary models. Information including model assumptions and equations are used by 

the Director to inform his/her decision to issue the permit and ensure that the requirements are 

met and the GS well will not endanger USDWs. 

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21401 Letter Lines: 77 to 77 

Comment Code: 3630 2.2.4.1 Comments in favor of allowing phased corrective action 

Comment: And finally discretion to allow for a phased approach to corrective action. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that there are potential benefits to phased corrective action, 

including distributing the burden and costs of corrective action over time and not delaying 

initiation of the GS project. EPA believes that the phased corrective action approach is 

appropriate for GS projects, and retained it at §146.84(b)(2)(iv) in the final GS regulation. 

However, EPA recognizes that a phased approach to corrective action may not be appropriate in 

all situations, and that the Director is in the best position to make decisions about the 

appropriateness of phased corrective action based on his or her knowledge of the local geologic 

and site conditions. For this reason, the GS rule affords the Director discretion in determining 

whether phased corrective action is appropriate at a given GS site. 

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21402 Letter Lines: 78 to 86 

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

USDW 

Comment Code: 4410 2.4.4.3.1 Comments in favor of allowing injection above/between 

USDWs in certain circumstances 

5

145
Comment: There are a few areas which we do not agree with EPA's proposed approach. 

Especially prohibiting injection into formations if they are above the lower 

most USDW. We believe it is imperative that the director be allowed discretion 

to allow injection above or between USDW's in specific geologic settings where 

the depth of the USDW's preclude geologic sequestration, make GS technically 

challenging or significantly limits storage capacity. Such approval by the 

director would allow injection between USDW's and thereby allow injection above 

the lower most USDW. In most circumstances it may be demonstrated that the 

USDW's would not be in danger. 

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. 

Additionally, the final GS rule does not categorically preclude or prohibit injection into any type 

of formation. 

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 

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: 0525 Comment ID: 21403 Letter Lines: 88 to 102 

Comment Code: 4460 2.4.4.4.1 Comments in favor of allowing aquifer exemptions in certain 

circumstances 

Comment: Furthermore, we support allowing directors to exempt aquifers for the purpose of 

CO2 injection in accordance with the requirements of 40CFR 144.7. This 

essentially allows directors upon accepting primacy to exempt aquifers which he 

specifically identifies. 

We support allowing directors to exempt aquifers for the purpose of CO2 

injection in accordance with the requirements of 40CFR 146.4. This allows 

exemption of aquifers if they contain hydrocarbons, mineable minerals are 

6

146
contaminated or are located at a definite location that makes future use 

impractical. 

We support allowing directors to provide for CO2 injection into aquifers 

previously exempted for Class I and Class II injection operations provided that 

the operator obtains a new aquifer exemption for the purpose of geologic 

sequestration. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are limited circumstances where aquifer 

exemptions for GS may be warranted. The final rule allows for the expansion of the areal extent 

of existing aquifer exemptions for Class II EOR/EGR wells transitioning to Class VI injection 

for GS pursuant to requirements at §§146.4 and 144.7(d). Class VI owners or operators granted 

expansions of existing Class II EOR/EGR aquifer exemptions for GS projects must meet all of 

the tailored requirements for GS wells in the final GS rule. 

However, the final rule precludes the issuance of new aquifer exemptions for Class VI GS wells; 

that is, aquifer exemptions will only be granted for projects that are transitioning from Class II 

EOR/EGR wells to Class VI. 

EPA clarifies that all decisions regarding whether expansion of existing aquifer exemptions will 

be at the Director's discretion and based on site-specific information. If an owner or operator 

applies for a Class VI permit to inject CO2 into a previously exempted aquifer (non-USDW) that 

is located above and/or between USDWs, the permit applicant must also apply for a waiver of 

the injection depth requirements pursuant to §146.95 to ensure that if a waiver is granted, 

USDWs above and below the injection zone are protected from endangerment. 

This approach is designed to ensure that the differences between traditional Class II EOR/EGR 

operations and Class VI operations are considered during the aquifer exemption application 

process and the Class VI permitting process. These differences include the anticipated large CO2 

injection volumes associated with GS, the buoyant and mobile nature of the injectate, and its 

corrosivity in the presence of water. The Agency believes that this process will encourage 

owners or operators and Directors to consider the use of alternative formations for GS, including 

non-USDW formations through the waiver process, prior to applying for or approving aquifer 

exemption expansions for Class II EOR/EGR wells transitioning to Class VI GS operations. 

For additional information on aquifer exemptions for Class VI wells, 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: 0525 Comment ID: 21404 Letter Lines: 104 to 113 

Comment Code: 2163 1.6.3.1 Comments in favor of injection into unmineable coal seams 

Comment Code: 4344 2.4.4.2.2 Comments opposed to setting a minimum injection depth 

Comment: Given the variety of sub-surface geologic conditions that exist both within and 

between states, we would not support setting a minimum injection depth 

7

147
requirement for CO2 geologic sequestration in lieu of requiring that such 

injection take place below the lower most USDW. 

We do not support prohibiting the injection of CO2 for long term storage into 

certain formations where they are above the lowermost USDW. As mentioned before, 

we believe there are likely circumstances where injection into formations 

including deep or mineable coal seams situated above the lower most USDW may be 

practical and protective of overlying and underlying USDW's. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not preclude injection into any nonUSDWs formations, including coal seams, provided the site-suitability requirements in the GS 

rule are met. EPA acknowledges that there may be risks associated with GS into certain 

formation types. For this reason, the Agency is using an adaptive approach to regulate GS 

injection. EPA will collect and review project data on early GS projects, including those that 

inject into various formation types, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of 

information and documentation are being collected. 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. 

EPA agrees that it is not appropriate to set a minimum injection depth for GS projects and the 

Agency believes that a determination of site-suitability for GS (i.e., that subsurface formations 

will receive and confine injected CO2) should be made on a site-specific basis. The GS rule, at 

§146.82, requires the owner or operator to provide extensive site- and project-specific 

information to the Director to demonstrate that the site meets the minimum site criteria at 

§146.83, that the CO2 will be contained within the injection formation, and that USDWs will be 

protected from endangerment. 

EPA acknowledges that there are limited circumstances where injection above the lowermost 

USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs, 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. The waiver approach requires the submission of 

extensive, site-specific information (in conjunction with the permit application submission) to 

demonstrate that injection of CO2 into a non-USDW that is above or between USDWs can be 

done in a manner that is protective of USDWs. The requirements are designed to ensure that the 

owner or operator, the Director, and the Regional Administrator consider, on a site specific basis, 

the implications, benefits, and challenges associated with GS and ensuring water availability and 

USDW protection. 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: 0525 Comment ID: 21405 Letter Lines: 115 to 118 

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

8

148
Comment: We do not support requiring a fixed time frame for post injection site care of 

fifty years. We recommend that a performance standard be applied to determine a 

period of post injection site care. That post injection site care continues 

until the plume is stabilized and cannot endanger USDW's. 

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 GS rule 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 post-injection 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, during the permitting process based on substantial 

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

USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c). 

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

for post-injection site care will be necessary in most cases. The default 50 year post-injection site 

care timeframe represents a reasonable and protective monitoring period based on a review of 

research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public 

comments. 

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. 

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21406 Letter Lines: 120 to 125 

Comment Code: 5436 2.9.1.3 Allowing separate financial demonstrations for plugging and 

abandonment and post-injection site care (seeking comment) 

Comment: And finally, we do not support allowing, or excuse me, not allowing for the use 

of separate financial demonstrations to be submitted for the plugging of the 

injection well and for the post injection site care requirements. It may be 

advantageous to require the approval of the well plugging financial 

demonstration at permit issuance and the post injection site care financial 

demonstration at a later time. 

Individual Response: Owners or operators have the flexibility to choose from a variety of 

financial instruments to meet their financial responsibility obligations. Owners or operators may 

use one or multiple financial responsibility instruments for well plugging and PISC, as specified 

at §146.85(a)(6). However EPA will not allow for a separate financial responsibility 

9

149
demonstration for well plugging and PISC (i.e., a demonstration submitted prior to well plugging 

and the beginning of the post-injection site care period rather than with the permit application). A 

demonstration of financial responsibility for all phases of the GS project will be required prior to 

the issuance of a Class VI permit, per §146.85(a)(5)(i). 

Letter ID: 0525 Comment ID: 21407 Letter Lines: 127 to 131 

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

Comment: In closing, let me say that Wyoming is in the process of developing a CO2 

sequestration regulation. We are looking very closely at EPA's proposed rule as 

the model that we can use and apply in our state. We hope to have a draft of 

that regulation available before the end of the year and thank you for the 

opportunity to provide a public comment here today. 

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. 

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. 

10

150
Letter ID: 0526 

Commenter: Jonah Fruchter 

Organization: Sierra Club 

Letter ID: 0526 Comment ID: 21491 Letter Lines: 25 to 41 

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

Comment: I would like to start my comments in talking about the general approach the EPA 

has taken to regulate sequestration. While it is great that we are talking about 

keeping water clean in Colorado, I do not understand why EPA is not taking a 

comprehensive approach to environmental regulation. We should be talking about 

how to regulate the capture, transfer, leakage problems, public health issues 

and water safety all in one package. I do not think it is helpful to draft 

environmental regulation in a piecemeal fashion. 

The environment does not function as separate pieces. It is interconnected. What 

affects the water, affects the land and what affects the land affects our air 

and so on and so forth. 

Furthermore it is cumbersome and inefficient to form regulatory policy in 

separate parts. I would not suggest you use piecemeal regulation for anything, I 

mean, including the environment. Environmental regulation should always reflect 

a comprehensive approach rather than the singular and isolated approach we are 

taking with only regulating water safety. 

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

authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The purpose of the Class VI GS rule is to ensure that 

where GS technologies are deployed, GS is performed in a manner that protects USDWs from 

endangerment. CO2 capture and transport are outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. 

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating Class VI wells. EPA plans, every six years, to 

collect and review data on Class VI 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. The adaptive approach may 

include solicitation of input and expertise from experts and stakeholders, similar to the 

consultations held to develop the current rule. 

Letter ID: 0526 Comment ID: 21492 Letter Lines: 43 to 72 

Comment Code: 5540 2.10.2 Need for additional public participation requirements/ use of new 

information technology (seeking comment) 

Comment: With that said, I would like to focus on transparency in regard to a future 

permit process. As I said earlier, I think that the public comment in deciding 

1

151
environmental regulation is important and I am glad the EPA is hosting comment 

periods. However, this is complicated stuff. If you would like comment from 

Coloradans in the future, for example, when companies have submitted permit 

applications, the public needs more than thirty days to digest and respond to 

the information submitted. We are not experts. 

One way of helping with this to release this permit information as it is 

submitted so that just like the EPA, the public will have time to digest and 

develop an informed opinion, so that is in regard to future permitting that will 

occur. 

There is no point in holding a comment period if you do not give the public time 

to inform themselves on the issues. The information itself also needs to be 

accessible to the public and comprehensive in order to create informed meaning 

filled public comment. Companies need to submit their information in an 

accessible manner such as using modeling software that is open access to the 

public. It does not require an expensive purchase to view the modeling data. 

Also the EPA should make it easy for anyone to gain access to information and 

comment on provisional permits and permanent permits. I do not see a point in 

having a comment for one and not the other. The public should be allowed to 

comment on all potential moves to develop a carbon sequestration program in 

Colorado. 

In closing, I would like to see the EPA make it easier not more difficult for 

Colorado to have a say in what happens in their own backyard. I hope you see 

many more comment periods in the future in regards to carbon sequestration 

technology and that we are allowed as the public to comment on how sequestration 

develops in the future. Thank you. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the existing public comment period requirements at 

§124.10, which require a minimum 30-day comment period for draft permits, are appropriate for 

GS projects. The Agency does not believe it is appropriate to impose longer time frames if they 

are unnecessary, but supports the Directors' discretion and authority under §124.10 to extend the 

public comment period if he or she determines that such an extension is warranted. 

Circumstances that may affect a Director's determination may include the level of public interest 

in a GS project, specific permit details, or project-specific considerations. 

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

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

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

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

will allow a potential GS owner or operator and the permitting agency to address the public's 

concerns before the permitting process is complete. 

EPA would like to highlight that under §124.12 during the public comment period any interested 

person may request a public hearing in writing. Furthermore, the Director is required to hold a 

2

152
3

public hearing whenever he or she finds, on the basis of requests, a significant degree of public 

interest in a draft permit under §124.12. EPA does not accept comments on final permits but 

does allow appeals of final permit decisions in certain cases under §124.19. In addition, the 

public would be able to participate in the public notice process in the event of modifications to 

the permit. 

153
Letter ID: 0527 

Commenter: Leslie Glustrome 

 

Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21408 Letter Lines: 38 to 59 

Comment Code: 1600 1.3 Risk Associated with CO2 GS 

Comment: Secondly, what I would like to do is remind everyone that carbon dioxide is what 

you might call a rock of a molecule. Once you have carbon and oxidize it fully 

at four bonds oxygen, you have created the molecule that is the foundation of 

all life on this planet. It is, in a sense, by nature's design, a molecule that 

does not go away. Climate scientists tell us that we will be dealing with the 

climate science, climate change and warming of the planet for thousands of years 

after we stabilize CO2 levels in the atmosphere. This is not something to play 

around with. This is not something to take lightly. This is not something to 

assume that somehow the guys in the suits have it figured out because we had a 

very clear demonstration that that is not the case very recently. 

Carbon dioxide by nature is a gas. It is as the waterworks association person 

has reminded us, corrosive. It is an acid forming gas, tenth grade chemistry 

reminds us of that. Carbon dioxide and water forms carbonic acid. When you are 

creating large amounts of carbon dioxide, you will be getting large amounts of 

carbonic acid and to state it very scientifically, when you make large amounts 

of carbonic acid, we can expect it to acidify the crap out of everything that it 

comes into contact with. That means that you change the carbonate cycle and you 

start to liberate iron and manganese and arsenic and all, many other metals, so 

this is not something to somehow think that -- this is just a high level 

injection experiment. We are talking about massive volumes of something that is 

very different than something that we have. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are potential risks associated with GS, 

including the potential that CO2 injection for GS may result in leaching of subsurface materials 

that could mobilize contaminants or compromise pore space, and therefore injectivity. The 

purpose of the Class VI requirements is to minimize and mitigate potential/identified risks 

through proper site characterization, well construction, operation, monitoring, post-injection site 

care, and site closure. To ensure USDW protection and mitigate risks, the GS regulation requires 

the owner or operator of a Class VI well to submit data about the site (during the site 

characterization process), including information on the porosity, permeability, mineralogy, and 

geochemistry of the injection and confining zones, along with information on the compatibility 

of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and 

confining zones as specified in §146.82. This data will help identify potential geochemical 

reactions that may occur between the injected CO2 and the host geologic formation. 

Identification of potential reactions prior to injection would address concerns that formation of 

carbonic acid could dissolve potential limestone creating karst features. 

1

154
During injection operations, operators must extensively monitor ground water quality to provide 

early detection of any unacceptable movement of fluids or impurities in the subsurface as 

specified in §146.90. Operators must develop and follow an emergency and remedial response 

plan to address movement of the injection or formation fluids that may cause an endangerment to 

a USDW during construction, operation, and post-injection site care periods, including 

contamination as specified in §146.94, and provide financial responsibility to address 

contamination as specified in §146.85. 

In response to comments regarding the mobilization of constituents, EPA is funding research at 

the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) on potential USDW impacts associated 

with mobilization of trace elements. In the August 31, 2009, NODA and Request for Comment 

(74 FR 44802), EPA published the results of the study, which evaluated the potential for GS to 

cause changes in ground water quality as a result of CO2 leakage and subsequent mobilization of 

trace elements such as arsenic, barium, cadmium, mercury, lead, antimony, selenium, zinc, and 

uranium (Birkholzer et al., 2008a). In the study, LBNL estimated the amount of trace elements 

from native mineral species that could potentially be mobilized by the intrusion of CO2 and the 

potential ground water concentrations that could result, to determine the potential for drinking 

water standards to be exceeded. Results from this model simulation suggest that if CO2 were to 

leak into a shallow aquifer, the potential for mobilization of lead and arsenic could be enhanced, 

causing increases in the concentration of these trace elements in ground water. The Agency 

continues to monitor research related to CO2 confinement, potential for CO2 leakage, and 

mobilization of trace elements. EPA adds that the GS rule focuses on protection of USDWs from 

endangerment; impacts on the carbon cycle are outside of the scope of the UIC rulemaking. 

Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21409 Letter Lines: 61 to 65 

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: EOR is not CCS. You put the CO2 under, you have no idea whether it stays under. 

Enhanced oil recovery is not CCS. Put the CO2 under, you have no idea whether it 

stays under the ground or not. There has been essentially no monitoring there 

and all we have to do is talk to the experts and they'll tell you that; no do 

not assume that EOR is CCS. It is a very different thing. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the nature and risks of CO2 injection for long term 

storage is different from Class II CO2 injection for EOR, and that tailored requirements for GS 

wells are appropriate and necessary to protect USDWs from endangerment. For this reason, the 

Agency tailored UIC requirements for Class VI wells that address the general risks deep 

injection may pose to USDWs and specifically address the unique nature of CO2 GS (i.e., very 

large volumes, very long time-periods, and reservoir pressure conditions). Owners and operators 

of Class VI wells are subject to the operational, MIT, monitoring, reporting, plugging, and postinjection 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. 

2

155
Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21410 Letter Lines: 67 to 107 

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

ownership 

Comment: Lastly, another thing I would like to remind EPA and all of the participants is 

that Tom Friedman and his recent focus point book has pointed out that Americans 

are learning that we can no longer be "as dumb as we want to be" and that 

nothing will happen. We have seen what has happened on Wall Street. We have seen 

what happened in Iraq that was unjustified. Right now, we are flying on the 

assumption that we have two hundred years to rely on coal energy in this 

country. Anybody who says that has not read the U.S.G.S (United States 

Geological rvey) reports on coal availability. That should be, in my mind, part 

of the preamble to this so that we, as a country, can come to face the fact that 

we actually only have a very small percentage of that "200 years." A most recent 

study tells us about 6%. Six percent of 200 is about 12 years depends upon how 

we look at the Powder River field up in Wyoming. So the reality is very 

different than what we have been told in the media. As Americans we like to 

think this is not unusual actually. We have been told lots of things that were 

not exactly true, so it is time to sit up, pay attention and demand answers, not 

demonstrate what we want them to be. 

Next I would like to point out that life does not follow models. You can do 

anything on a computer. You can make assumptions about anything and when you 

look at the models that have been used, Mike Celia models or whoever you want to 

use, they make assumptions that basically determine the outcome. In the real 

world, it does not work that way. As a simple, but I think a very important 

example, I am trained as a biochemist, I worked at the University of Colorado 

for eight years, I have worked at lots of other places, but that is one of the 

things I have done. During that eight years working with people who were highly 

trained scientists, as I try to remember it, we had at least six incidents where 

someone left the water running and the drain plugged one way or another. That 

meant that a highly expensive lab flooded and the water comes leaking through to 

the lab underneath destroying and many times very expensive, extremely expensive 

scientific equipment. In eight years, my memory is six of those occurrences. Now 

we happen to have been in sort of penthouse lab which meant we were on the top 

floor, so you might think we might have been immune from such a thing, but in a 

separate set of incidences, all of the HVAC equipment is up on that ceiling and 

I remember at least three times when the guys who were in, maybe women, but the 

guys who were fixing the HVAC equipment did something so our lab flooded and we 

lost very expensive, both results and scientific equipment so stuff happens. 

Life does not happen the way models tell you it is going to happen. We have 

better ways to do this. We aren't just talking about boiling water when we are 

burning coal. We can boil water too by using concentrating, solar power. We can 

ship the electrons instead of shipping the coal over in nineteen century 

3

156
railroad system. We do not have as much coal as we have been told anyway, so all 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges this comment. 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 clarifies that setting the scale of GS 

deployment and addressing the availability of coal are outside the scope of the Class VI GS 

rulemaking. 

Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21411 Letter Lines: 107 to 125 

Comment Code: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general 

Comment: railroad system. We do not have as much coal as we have been told anyway, so all 

of these are very important as we think about this question of what to do and 

whether we should really be somehow thinking that the only way to address 

climate change is to burn coal and somehow try to smash a gas back into the 

planet and hope it does not come back out. It is completely absurd assumption in 

part because we do not have that much coal anyway. 

So, putting all that into context as we think about these rules, the 

sequestration space in our country and around the planet, but for now our 

country is going to be a very valuable commodity, so a fundamental concept 

behind these rules should be that sequestration space should only be used, 

because we can be pretty sure it is going to fail. We do not know it is probably 

not going to fail, it may or may not fail in our lifetimes because we have got a 

bunch of old folks in this room, but it -- we can be pretty sure that it will 

fail. As this country moves beyond the fossil fuel era and into the post fossil 

fuel era, how excited are we going to be -- or are future generations going to 

be about taking care of our carbon dioxide disposals sites? You know, they are 

going to have other things they are going to be tending to, all the other 

problems we have left them. 

Individual Response: EPA does not believe that GS is dangerous. The GS regulation builds 

upon the long-standing protective framework of the UIC program, which has been regulating the 

injection of billions of gallons of liquids for decades. The GS regulation enhances this existing 

framework with requirements for GS wells that are tailored to the unique nature of large scale 

GS of CO2. These additional protective requirements include more extensive geologic testing, 

detailed computational modeling of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations, detailed requirements 

for monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and extended post-injection 

monitoring and site care. 

Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21412 Letter Lines: 127 to 136 

Comment Code: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general 

4

157
Comment: So the fact, the concept that somehow they are going to be managing these sites 

for hundreds and thousands of years and paying great attention to them is just 

absurd. And we need to start with that assumption. They are not going to be well 

monitored and they are going to fail. Carbon dioxide is a gas, it is a corrosive 

gas and we can assume that it is going to fail in due time and we have got 

millions of wells around this country. So carbon dioxide space should only be 

used to sequester carbon dioxide that has been used for processes for which 

there is no reasonable alternative. That may be something like making cement or 

making steel. Our children and grandchildren may want to make that and they may 

need to use coal to do that. 

Individual Response: As described above, EPA does not believe that GS is dangerous. The GS 

rule contains tailored requirements to address the unique nature of GS, including extensive 

geologic testing, detailed computational modeling of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations, 

detailed requirements for monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and 

extended post-injection monitoring and site care. 

Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21413 Letter Lines: 138 to 143 

Comment Code: 1370 1.1.3.5 US storage capacity 

Comment: Every other process when we have a carbon free alternative, that should be the 

first choice and that should be a criteria before carbon, a CCS project is 

approved because that CCS space, if we are able to find some spaces that are 

actually able to stand up to really thorough scientific analysis then that is 

going to be a very valuable site and it should only be used for processes that 

do not have a good alternative. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges this comment. 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 clarifies that approval of GS projects will 

be based on a demonstration that the CO2 injection will not endanger USDWs. The Class VI GS 

rule requires the owner or operator to provide extensive information to demonstrate to the 

Director, as specified at §§146.82 and 146.83, that the CO2 will be contained within the injection 

formation. EPA clarifies that siting and approval of facilities for capturing and transporting CO2 

are outside the scope of the Class VI GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21414 Letter Lines: 145 to 152 

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study 

Comment: I would like to underscore the importance of waiting for the results. You 

actually talked to geologists who go up to Sleipner and actually look at what is 

5

158
going on. Success, it is kind of like saying Lehman Brothers is a successful 

company as long as you are talking about September 1 or whatever that day was 

before they failed so, success depends on how much data you calculate and 

gather. So it is very important to get that information just as the AWWA 

representative pointed out, before we finalize any rules. It would be completely 

absurd to try and go ahead. We need to make sure that all data is completely 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS 

technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for all current field research to be 

complete before finalizing the GS rule. The Agency believes that establishing a regulatory 

framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology provides a framework 

for injecting CO2 so that the activity does not result in endangerment of USDWs. 

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, 

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. The Agency plans to, 

every six years, 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. An adaptive 

approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future 

demands for Class VI permits while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other 

research as it becomes available. 

Letter ID: 0527 Comment ID: 21415 Letter Lines: 152 to 159 

Comment Code: 5500 2.1 Comments on Involving the Public in Permitting Decisions 

Comment: absurd to try and go ahead. We need to make sure that all data is completely 

transparent, fully available to the public and all assumptions are identified 

clearly in plain English when you actually decipher some of the scientific 

papers that are being used to prepare the models, you realize that the 

assumptions assume that it is all going to be fine. Well if you assume it is 

part of the model, those will be fine. That is not -- does not take a lot of 

brains, but it is hard to dig down and find those assumptions, so I think that 

is all. Thank you very much. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that all information presented to the public must be clear, 

understandable, and available. 40 CFR 124.10 requires EPA to provide public notice when a 

draft permit is prepared. Additionally, stakeholders may request copies of the draft permit and 

the permit application during the draft permit comment period; the application includes data on 

the geology of the injection and confining zones which are likely to be used as inputs for 

modeling. However, it is likely that information submitted in support of a permit in its original 

form (e.g., modeling inputs) may be extremely technical and not easily understood by a lay 

audience. Permitting authorities are required produce a fact sheet that summarizes relevant 

information for the public in a much more understandable format than the supporting data in a 

permit application. See §124.8. The fact sheet describes the draft permit conditions, procedures 

to determine the final decision on the permit, any procedures to request a hearing, and 

6

159
7

procedures that may be available for additional public participation in the final permitting 

decision. EPA will encourage permitting authorities and operators to present all modeling data to 

the public. 

Please note that EPA is not required under §124.10 to provide public notice of a request for 

permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination is denied. Furthermore, public 

notices may describe more than one permit action. 

160
Letter ID: 0528 

Commenter: Cynthia Lane 

Organization: American Water Works Association (AWWA) 

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21381 Letter Lines: 25 to 32 

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs 

Comment: Our overarching concern regarding geologic carbon sequestration is the potential 

contamination of underground sources of drinking water from injection activities 

and the potential for other unintended and potential, possibly harmful 

consequences. 

AWWA is particularly concerned about the potential for contamination of sole 

source aquifers and suggests that these aquifers be provided special protective 

measures in the proposed rule. We also support the portion of the rule that 

Individual Response: The Agency agrees that drinking water is an important resource to 

protect. The primary goal of the UIC Program under the SDWA is to protect USDWs from 

endangerment. Consistent with §1422, the UIC program provides that no injection shall be 

authorized if it results in the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into USDWs, if the 

presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulation or 

may adversely affect the health of persons as specified in §144.12. 

The GS rule, as part of the UIC program regulations, continues the Program’s mandate under the 

SDWA of ensuring the protection of USDWs from endangerment. EPA expects that the tailored 

permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements 

in the GS rule to prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs. 

The GS rule, at §146.82(a)(5) requires prospective owners or operators to submit information on 

all USDWs within the AoR. EPA expects that this information will include identification of any 

sole source aquifers. The GS rule also requires operators to submit extensive information about 

the site, including the geologic characteristics of the injection and confining zones, to 

demonstrate that the injected CO2 will remain within the target formation. The Director must 

consider this information when determining whether GS is acceptable at a given site. EPA 

expects that during this evaluation the Director will consider the potential impact of the GS 

project on any sole source aquifers. 

EPA agrees that, in many cases, UIC Directors will have extensive knowledge of which areas are 

suitable for GS, but clarifies that it is the responsibility of Class VI permit applicants to 

demonstrate the suitability of a particular site or formation. It is the responsibility of the Director 

to evaluate the information collected and submitted by the owner or operator to determine 

whether a permit for GS at the site is appropriate. 

1

161
Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21382 Letter Lines: 32 to 33 

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

USDW 

Comment: measures in the proposed rule. We also support the portion of the rule that 

prohibits injection of carbon dioxide above the lower most USDW. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that protecting USDWs from endangerment must be a top 

priority. The Agency believes that there are limited circumstances where injection above the 

lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs, 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 nonUSDW formations above and/or between USDWs. The waiver approach requires the submission 

of extensive, site-specific information (in conjunction with the permit application submission) to 

demonstrate that injection of CO2 into a non-USDW that is above or between USDWs can be 

done in a manner that is protective of USDWs. It establishes: 1) requirements specifying 

information that owners or operators must submit, and Directors must consider, in consultation 

with PWSS Directors; 2) procedures for public notice of a waiver application and for DirectorRegional Administrator communication; 3) the waiver issuance process; and, 4) additional 

requirements that apply to owners or operators of Class VI wells granted a waiver of the 

injection depth requirements to ensure USDW protection above and below the injection zone. 

EPA believes that the requirements at §146.95 will ensure USDW protection while providing 

flexibility to UIC Program Directors and owners or operators who undertake CO2 injection for 

GS. The 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: 0528 Comment ID: 21383 Letter Lines: 35 to 50 

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs 

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

USDW 

Comment: As the demand for water increases during the upcoming century and changes in 

climate impact traditional water supplies, water utilities will look for new 

sources of drinking water. It is likely that as a result of these changes, there 

2

162
will be a greater reliance on ground water for both new supplies and conjunctive 

use. The possibility exists that utilities might want to use some of these 

injection site aquifers as new potable sources. In fact, in several communities 

across the country, brackish waters that are previously considered to be 

unusable because they are above ten thousand TDS are now being used as drinking 

water sources. 

As desalination technology advances, the brackish water sources are treated to 

EPA drinking water standards and provided to water utility customers. As this 

technology improves, even more saline water may be used in the future therefore 

AWWA suggest that the selection standards for potential injection aquifers and 

for USDW's be reviewed and revised to prevent contamination of aquifers that may 

be considered viable sources of drinking water in the near future. 

Individual Response: The Agency acknowledges the commenter’s concerns about water 

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

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

as sources of drinking water or those capable of supplying a public water system, with a total 

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

The primary goal of the UIC Program under the SDWA is to protect USDWs from 

endangerment in order to ensure a reliable supply of drinking water for the American public. The 

GS rule, as part of the UIC program regulations, continues the program’s tradition of ensuring 

the protection of USDWs. EPA expects that the tailored permitting, siting, construction, 

operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule will prevent 

leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs. 

As described above, EPA agrees that protecting USDWs from endangerment must be a top 

priority. The Agency believes that there are limited circumstances where injection above the 

lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs, 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 nonUSDW formations above and/or between USDWs. 

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21384 Letter Lines: 52 to 66 

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs 

Comment: Owner/operators should be required to involve local planning departments and 

water utilities to determine if any of our subsurface aquifers may be used as 

drinking water source in the future. 

Water chemistry in the underground setting is complex and AWWA has several 

technical concerns regarding the potential for carbon sequestration to 

contaminate USDWs. Preventing degradation of water should not just be limited to 

contaminants with established maximum contaminant levels, but should also 

3

163
include other constituents whose presence may either make ground water more 

difficult to treat or impact the beneficial uses of at ground water. 

Several references on geologic carbon sequestration discussed changes in the 

carbonate cycle resulting in lowered pH conditions and the release of iron, 

manganese, arsenic and possibly other inorganics into groundwater surrounding 

the injection zone. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that existing regulations under 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1)(x) 

require the notification of local governments with jurisdiction over the area where the Class VI 

well is proposed to be located when the draft permit is available for public comment. In addition, 

EPA has added a requirement at §124.10(c)(1)(xi) that the PWSS program director, among other 

agencies, must be notified as part of the public notice process for a Class VI permit. EPA expects 

that the PWSS director will inform PWSs in the area of review about the proposed GS project. 

EPA acknowledges that there are potential risks associated with GS, including the potential that 

CO2 injection for GS may result in leaching of subsurface materials that could mobilize 

contaminants or compromise pore space, and therefore injectivity. The purpose of the Class VI 

requirements is to minimize and mitigate potential/identified risks through proper site 

characterization, well construction, operation, monitoring, post-injection site care, and site 

closure. To ensure USDW protection and mitigate risks, the GS regulation requires the owner or 

operator of a Class VI well to submit data about the site (during the site characterization 

process), including information on the porosity, permeability, mineralogy, and geochemistry of 

the injection and confining zones, along with information on the compatibility of the CO2 stream 

with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and confining zones as 

specified in §146.82. This data will help identify potential geochemical reactions that may occur 

between the injected CO2 and the host geologic formation. Identification of potential reactions 

prior to injection would address concerns that formation of carbonic acid could dissolve potential 

limestone creating karst features. 

During injection operations, operators must extensively monitor ground water quality to provide 

early detection of any unacceptable movement of fluids or impurities in the subsurface as 

specified in §146.90. Operators must develop and follow an emergency and remedial response 

plan to address any adverse effects associated with the GS operation, including contamination as 

specified in §146.94, and provide financial responsibility to address contamination as specified 

in §146.85. 

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21385 Letter Lines: 68 to 70 

Comment Code: 4610 2.6.1 Testing and monitoring plan requirement (seeking comment) 

Comment: We need appropriate subsurface monitoring technology identified and developed to 

prevent or respond to potential contamination of USDW's, by these and other 

chemical compounds. 

Individual Response: EPA does not believe that prescribing specific technologies to be used in 

4

164
all cases for GS would be appropriate given the variability in sites. Rather EPA is developing 

guidance on testing and monitoring to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating 

requirements under §146.90, including proposed monitoring plans. The guidance describes 

available technologies and recommended approaches for implementing a testing and monitoring 

plan, including pre-operational geophysical logging and testing of injection wells, MITs, 

injection well testing during operation, groundwater quality monitoring, tracking the CO2 plume 

and pressure front, and soil gas and surface air monitoring which may be required by the UIC 

Director for specific GS projects. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. In addition, in January 2009, 

DOE published a best practices manual entitled "Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting of 

CO2 Stored in Deep Geologic Formations" (DOE/NETL-311/081508); this manual is included in 

the docket for the final GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21386 Letter Lines: 72 to 73 

Comment Code: 1435 1.2.1.3 EPA should develop guidance 

Comment Code: 4600 2.6 Proposed Plume and Pressure Front Monitoring Requirements (40 

CFR 146.90) 

Comment: EPA should provide guidance on acceptable monitoring techniques and frequency, 

provide for a consistent application of the monitoring requirements. Another 

Individual Response: EPA is developing guidance on testing and monitoring to assist owners or 

operators and Directors in evaluating requirements under §146.90, including proposed 

monitoring plans. The guidance describes available technologies and recommended approaches 

for implementing a testing and monitoring plan, including pre-operational geophysical logging 

and testing of injection wells, MITs, injection well testing during operation, groundwater quality 

monitoring, tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and soil gas and surface air monitoring 

which may be required by the UIC Director for specific GS projects. The guidance can be found 

on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21387 Letter Lines: 73 to 83 

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

trapping mechanism) 

Comment Code: 3130 2.1.3 Comments that operators should submit more (or different) 

geologic data than proposed 

Comment: provide for a consistent application of the monitoring requirements. Another 

area of concern is often the lack of good records of abandoned wells that tap 

the very same strata used for carbon dioxide sequestration. There is a 

presumption that even states with oil and gas or mining operation have 

excellent, up to date reports and have maps indicating abandoned wells and 

mines. This is not always the case. Many states with extractive industries do 

have maps and surveys, but they are not sufficiently precise for geologic 

5

165
sequestration. Studies have shown that injected carbon dioxide will be able to 

find the abandoned wells. These wells allow for the transmission of the carbon 

dioxide out of the confined aquifer into potential USDW's and then eventually to 

the surface. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that areas previously used for drilling for oil, gas, or 

minerals pose potential challenges for GS. However, regardless of the history of the site, the 

owner or operator must provide to the Director extensive information demonstrating the 

adequacy of the site to contain the CO2 (§146.82). This information includes the location of all 

existing or abandoned wells within the modeled AoR (§§146.82(a)(2) and 146.84(c)(2)) and the 

location, orientation, and properties of all known or existing faults (§146.82(a)(3)(ii)). The 

Director may require ground or airborne surveys to identify active or abandoned wells if there is 

reason to believe, based on knowledge of the site or of available data bases, that the available 

information is not adequate for assessing a proposed GS site (§146.84(c)(2)). The Director may 

also require additional surveys and tests to identify and characterize fractures. After reviewing 

the permit information submitted, the Director may deny the application if there is reason to 

believe that USDWs may be endangered. 

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21388 Letter Lines: 85 to 96 

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study 

Comment: AWWA is aware of several ongoing research and pilot projects related to geologic 

sequestration of carbon dioxide, however we are concerned that the results of 

these projects may not be available until after EPA's regulation on geologic 

carbon sequestration has been finalized. 

We believe that the results of this research are crucial to their good 

development of a comprehensive regulation that protects water resources from the 

potential unintended consequences of geologic carbon sequestration. In 

particular, we believe that research on the potential pathways for contamination 

of USDW's has not yet been completed. As a result, we are concerned that the 

appropriate subsurface monitoring methods and technologies have not been 

adequately identified or developed. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that continued research will be integral to development of GS 

technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot studies to be complete 

before finalizing the GS rule. EPA believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the 

future development and deployment of CCS technology protects USDWs from endangerment 

and will not impede industry adoption of CCS. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability and 

Request for Comment (NODA) on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency 

described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites (in Escatawpa, Mississippi; the 

Aneth Field in Paradox Basin, southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico), 

including the feasibility and appropriateness of various monitoring technologies. EPA has used 

the data generated to inform the final rule and will continue to monitor ongoing research. The 

Agency plans to, every six years, collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether 

6

166
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. 

The GS regulation builds upon the long-standing protective framework of the UIC program, 

which has been regulating the injection of billions of gallons of fluids for decades. The GS 

regulation enhances this framework with requirements for GS wells that are tailored 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. These additional 

protective requirements include more extensive geologic testing, detailed computational 

modeling of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations, detailed requirements for monitoring and 

tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and extended post-injection monitoring and site care. 

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21389 Letter Lines: 98 to 100 

Comment Code: 4500 2.5 Proposed Mechanical Integrity Testing (MIT) Requirements (40 CFR 

146.89) 

Comment Code: 4546 2.5.2.2 MIT frequency (seeking comment) 

Comment: We believe that the mechanical integrity testing requirements are well developed 

in the rule and that the one year time period that is required will provide for 

the protection of USDW's. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees and believes that the MITs described in §146.89(c) of the rule 

(e.g., an approved tracer log or temperature or noise logs) are effective methods to demonstrate 

external MI, provide an important early warning of potential problems in the injection well 

system, and represent standard techniques that have been used successfully by the drilling 

industry and for the UIC Program for decades. For additional information, please see the 

discussion of MITs in the final rule preamble. 

EPA also believes that annual MITs are justifiable for the protection of USDWs from 

endangerment given the unique nature of CO2 GS relative to other injection operations, 

including the potential corrosive impact of CO2 in the presence of water and impurities on well 

materials, the potential geomechanical impacts to well integrity due to CO2 phase changes, the 

temperature and pressure effects associated with injecting supercritical CO2, and the buoyant 

nature of the injected CO2. Because of the unknown long-term effects of CO2 GS, EPA chose a 

more conservative initial approach in the early stages of deployment for GS. 

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21390 Letter Lines: 102 to 110 

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) 

Comment: Finally, AWWA supports the rule requirement for the fifty year period for post 

7

167
injection site care. However, we suggest that it be set at a fifty year minimum 

with no discretion to shorten. Given the potential scope of carbon 

sequestration, this will provide for consistent approach across the U.S., 

provide strong long term protective measures of USDW's. 

In conclusion, AWWA is concerned that the proposed large scale sequestration of 

carbon dioxide in underground aquifers may have a significant impact on the 

public, the environment and drinking water utilities. We are also concerned that 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that a 50 year post-injection site care timeframe represents a 

reasonable and protective post-injection site monitoring period for most projects and available 

data, including data submitted by commenters, do not support a different default timeframe. EPA 

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

and evaluation of public comments. Furthermore, EPA believes that a 50-year default postinjection site care timeframe is not overly burdensome, does not exaggerate the risks associated 

with GS, is consistent with other environmental programs, and sufficiently protects USDWs 

from endangerment. For this reason, the final GS regulation retains the 50 year post-injection site 

care timeframe, as specified in §146.93(b)(1). 

However, EPA disagrees that a 50 year post-injection site care timeframe should be an absolute 

minimum. Rather, EPA believes, as some commenters suggest, 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 GS rule 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 post-injection 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, during the permitting process based on 

substantial data, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensures nonendangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c). 

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

for post-injection site care will be necessary in most cases. The default 50 year post-injection site 

care timeframe represents a reasonable and protective monitoring period based on a review of 

research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public 

comments. 

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. 

8

168
Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21391 Letter Lines: 110 to 115 

Comment Code: 1510 1.2.2.3 Need for additional study 

Comment: public, the environment and drinking water utilities. We are also concerned that 

the results of current research and pilot projects may not be available until 

after EPA's regulation on geologic carbon sequestration has been finalized. We 

are aware of the impacts that climate change will have on water utilities across 

the country or recognize that something needs to be done to address climate 

change. 

Individual Response: As described above, EPA agrees that continued research will be integral 

to development of GS technology, but disagrees that the Agency should wait for the DOE pilot 

studies to be complete before finalizing the GS rule. 

Letter ID: 0528 Comment ID: 21392 Letter Lines: 117 to 119 

Comment Code: 1380 1.1.3.6 Deployment of GS 

Comment: While we acknowledge that geologic carbon sequestration has been identified as a 

means to combat climate change, we urge caution as we proceed with this 

technology. Thank you. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including 

energy conservation, efficiency improvements, and the use of alternative fuels and renewable 

energy sources, that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. However, the use of and 

investment in these technologies is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. The Class 

VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, 

sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

9

169
Letter ID: 0529 

Commenter: Nancy LaPlaca 

 

Letter ID: 0529 Comment ID: 21493 Letter Lines: 19 to 21 

Comment Code: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general 

Comment: 80219 and I am here to comment today on EPA's underground injection control on 

CO2 and to talk about a number of reasons why this is a really, really bad idea 

and not someplace we should put billions of dollars. 

Individual Response: EPA does not believe that GS is dangerous. The GS regulation builds 

upon the long-standing protective framework of the UIC program, which has been regulating the 

injection of billions of gallons of liquids for decades. The GS regulation enhances this existing 

framework with requirements for GS wells that are tailored to the unique nature of large scale 

GS of CO2. These additional protective requirements include more extensive geologic testing, 

detailed computational modeling of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations, detailed requirements 

for monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and extended post-injection 

monitoring and site care. For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please 

see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket. 

Letter ID: 0529 Comment ID: 21494 Letter Lines: 23 to 44 

Comment Code: 6000 3. Cost of the Proposed Rule 

Comment: Every pound of coal burned creates three pounds of CO2. It is very unique in 

that way. And CO2 is a very stable molecule and so it is very difficult to 

capture and the theory behind this whole clean, so-called clean coal is that you 

can burn coal in such a way that you can capture the CO2 before it escapes into 

the atmosphere and then liquify it and then transport it somewhere and then pump 

it underground. Well, just to compress the CO2 I understand from a guy named 

Erin Coopman [phonetic] who is with a company called RamGen [phonetic] and they 

make the big huge machines that compress CO2 and so he gave me a price of $17 a 

ton to compress CO2 so if you take your average coal plant that maybe emits 

let's say a small one, or medium sized one 3 million tons a year, then that is 

going to cost three times 17 million dollars a ton for every year, so that is 

like $51 million dollars. That is just to compress the CO2. Then you are 

supposed to take this liquid CO2 and pump it underground. It is a very highly 

corrosive liquid and that really wants to become a gas again and when you cool 

the liquid, when you cool the gas I mean into a liquid, you have to bring it to 

a temperature of minus 240 Fahrenheit which is an extremely energy intensive 

process; takes a lot of power to do that and they estimate that it takes about 

20% of the plants power just to capture the CO2. Now because no one in the 

United States has ever actually captured that CO2, liquified it and pumped it 

1

170
somewhere yet in combination with making electricity, we do not even know what 

the total parasitic load would be and some people estimate that that could be as 

high as maybe 25 or 30%. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule addresses sequestration only, not capture, 

compression, or transportation. Any impacts on the cost of electricity are likely to be influenced 

by all aspects of CCS, including capture, transport, and sequestration. EPA adds that it does not 

establish or attempt to influence electricity costs – they are set by factors the Agency does not 

control. Sequestration costs are expected to be a small component of total CCS project costs; 

EPA estimates that the GS rule requirements amount to approximately 2 percent of the total CCS 

project costs. 

Letter ID: 0529 Comment ID: 21495 Letter Lines: 46 to 65 

Comment Code: 1620 1.3.2 Induced seismicity 

Comment: In addition when you pump liquid CO2 underground, you basically lubricate 

existing faults and here in Denver, in the 1960's, they injected 165 million 

gallons of liquid toxic waste from Rocky Mountain arsenal underneath the Denver 

basin and they created some 1,500 seismic events between 1962 and 1967. Three of 

those events were over magnitude five. My husband was a little boy living here 

then and most people who lived here then and remembered that, remember those 

earthquakes very clearly. 

My father-in-law, George Bardwell, mathematician who taught at DU was approached 

by a group of geologists headed by a guy named David Evans who is now deceased. 

David Evans and my father-in-law George E. Bardwell now 84 years old this year 

-- George did a study for them correlating the injection of these liquids with 

seismic events. The more they injected, the more earthquakes there were. The 

less they injected, the less earthquakes and actually George told me that it 

took a long time and they really did not come out with this blue ribbon panel 

report that they were promising for years and years. They went to the press, 

George Bardwell my father-in-law and these geologists and the press would not 

report on it. They went to the government and they said you know what 

government, there is a real problem with this and the government would not 

listen to them either. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that induced seismicity is a risk that may be 

associated with GS but maintains that the risk is low (IPCC, 2005). The GS rule contains several 

requirements to address seismic risk. First, as part of the site characterization process, owners or 

operators must submit information about the seismic history of and seismic sources near a 

proposed GS site, data on known or suspected faults in the AoR, geomechanical information on 

fractures, stress, ductility, rock strength, and in situ fluid pressures within the confining zone as 

specified in §146.82(a)(3). This information is evaluated by the Director, who determines the 

suitability of a potential project site for GS. Any sites with the potential for reopening or 

reactivation of faults or unacceptable seismic risk that could otherwise interfere with 

2

171
containment will not be permitted as GS sites. During injection, the pressure in the injection zone 

must not exceed 90 percent of the fracture pressure of the injection zone as specified in 

§146.88(a); this requirement is intended to prevent the opening of fractures or faults through 

over pressurization of the injection zone. 

EPA adds that the seismic episodes at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, which occurred in the 

1960s—before the original UIC regulations were developed—were due to poor site 

characterization and well operation, including high, unmonitored injection pressures (73 FR 

43498). While EPA acknowledges that the volumes of CO2 injected at GS sites will likely be 

larger than the volumes of waste water injected at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, injection volume 

is not the sole factor that determines induced seismicity. Induced seismicity also depends on 

other geologic variables such as pre-existing faults, porosity, and permeability (Sminchak & 

Gupta, 2003). With proper site characterization (i.e., pursuant to §146.82), these variables can 

often be quantified prior to injection (Sminchak and Gupta, 2003) and used to identify sites 

capable of safely sustaining prolonged injection of large volumes with low risk. As long as a site 

is well-characterized and monitored, and the injection volume and rate remain within permitted 

limits set forth by the Director, the injection of large volumes of fluid should not increase the risk 

of seismic activity. 

EPA does not believe that limiting GS to "stable areas" will provide certainty that seismic events 

will not occur. The Agency acknowledges that some regions of the country are at risk for 

infrequent, damage-causing seismic events even if such events have not been recorded in the 

recent historical record (i.e., in the past several hundred years). For this reason, EPA requires 

seismic risk to be evaluated on a site-specific basis, through an analysis of seismic history and an 

evaluation of known or suspected faults in the AoR, geomechanical information on fractures, 

stress, ductility, rock strength, and in situ fluid pressures within the confining zone as specified 

in §146.82(a)(3). In addition, if an adverse event, such as a well failure or evidence of fluid 

movement were to occur, the monitoring requirements at §146.90 and emergency and remedial 

response requirements as specified in §146.94 provide additional protection. 

Letter ID: 0529 Comment ID: 21496 Letter Lines: 67 to 75 

Comment Code: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general 

Comment: And so the lesson for all of us I think is that it is up to us citizens. I have 

been working on coal issues for two years completely unpaid and myself and my 

friend filed a complaint against a gasified coal plant that was going to be 

built here in Colorado, Excel Energy was proposing to build an IGCC plant over 

4,000 feet elevation, get a $130 million from the feds to build a gasified coal 

plant here in Colorado and we let them know that this was not going to happen 

without a fight. They actually withdrew their proposal last October and are not 

building one here. However, states like Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois where there is 

a lot more political pressure, they are still getting stuck with these plants. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the regulation of coal gasification power plants is 

outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. Rather, the purpose of the UIC GS regulation is to 

3

172
ensure that GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 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. 

Letter ID: 0529 Comment ID: 21497 Letter Lines: 77 to 86 

Comment Code: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general 

Comment Code: 6000 3. Cost of the Proposed Rule 

Comment: Future Gen which some have dubbed Never Gen which is this prototype clean coal 

plant that was going to be built in South Illinois, but is now up in the air, 

that was going to cost a whopping $6,500 a kilowatt. To put that in, to compare 

that to other -- costs of other electric generation, wind is about even with 

escalated costs today about $2,000 a kilowatt to build a plant. Concentrating 

solar is about $3,000 or $4,000 a kilowatt, maybe $5,000 a kilowatt, but that 

includes storage, [indecipherable] salt storage. Nuclear power plants anywhere 

between $5,000 and $10,000 a kilowatt and incidentally in the energy bill right 

now, there is somewhere between 90 and 190 billion dollars in giveaways for 

nuclear industry and the energy policy act of 2008. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule addresses sequestration only, not capture or 

transportation. Any impacts on the cost of electricity are likely to be influenced by all aspects of 

CCS, including capture, transport, and sequestration. 

Letter ID: 0529 Comment ID: 21498 Letter Lines: 88 to 115 

Comment Code: 1340 1.1.3.2 Oppose use of GS in general 

Comment: And so what have I learned from all of this? That wind is cheap. Energy 

efficiency is really, really cheap. Concentrating solar is here, it is now, it 

is working. It costs a fraction of what this gasified coal costs and what are we 

doing? We [indecipherable] our planet so all the young people that I see in this 

audience here, I see young people and I am afraid of what the world is going to 

look like when your hair looks like mine. I am fearful of that and I am 

fortunate to have a husband and a family that will let me quit my job and work 

for free full time on this issue so that we can stop this stupidity because all 

it takes is facts and information. And you know, we can whine and the coal 

industry is spending $100 million to convince us that coal is clean. Nothing can 

change this basic ratio. One pound of coal burned, three pounds of CO2; a very, 

very stable molecule that takes a lot of energy to compress, chill and then you 

pump it somewhere. This is absolute madness. 

And so I will submit my materials online. You know it is interesting, here in 

Colorado, Excel Energy was fighting a gasified coal plant in Minnesota. I think 

4

173
5

most of the testimony that we used was from Excel, so they were fighting against 

by a coal plant in Minnesota because they did not own it, and they wanted to 

build one here. Why? Because they want to put billions of dollars into 

[indecipherable] base and force rate payers, normal people to pay the bills. It 

is sort of like this bail out, but right now where you know, the big guys run 

away with the real cash so that when they make a profit, they get to keep it. 

When it does not work, they just stick it to the tax payers and so basically 

this is an incredible [indecipherable] and I hope we have the good sense for all 

the young people and all the people on this planet, the six billion people on 

the planet who are not part of the problem. They can only deal with what we here 

in the United States, 5% of the population creating 25 to 40% of the problems in 

the world deal them. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the regulation of coal gasification power plants is 

outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. Rather, the purpose of the UIC GS regulation is to 

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

174
Letter ID: 0530 

Commenter: Doug Louis 

Organization: Kansas Corporation Commission 

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21333 Letter Lines: 33 to 40 

Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment) 

Comment: For states that will have existing rules specifically, what will happen to 

projects that are permitted as classified, experimental wells after the EPA 

passes its rule, but before the states adopt EPA's rules? 

Another concept that needs to be fully discussed is full-scale, not experimental 

injection facilities that are applied for before proposed EPA rules are adopted? 

How will they be permitted, that is what class would they be, and who would 

permit them? The proposed rule should address these specific scenarios. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that GS experimental research projects will continue to be 

regulated as Class V experimental technology wells as long as they remain of an experimental 

nature. EPA adds that within one year of issuance of the GS rule, projects that are nonexperimental must be re-permitted as Class VI wells and be subject to the requirements of the GS 

rule. GS projects that continue to be of an experimental nature may continue to be permitted as 

Class V experimental technology wells. 

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21334 Letter Lines: 42 to 48 

Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment) 

Comment: Concerning grand-fathering Class II wells to Class VI wells. It is believed a 

great deal of potential storage CO2 exists in CO2 floods after oil production 

ceases. It is my concern that EPA's stringent standards for well construction 

monitoring and financial assurance will discourage well operators from using 

this additional pore space for sequestration thus causing waste. If a CO2 

recovery operation has successfully operated for many years, why should the 

standards be raised simply because it undergoes a well classification change? 

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 clarifies that only the construction requirements are 

grandfathered and that all other Class VI requirements (reporting, monitoring, mechnical 

integrity testing, etc.) must be met following a determination under §146.81(c). 

1

175
In response to the comment that ER operators will be discouraged from pursuing GS or using 

additional pore space for storage, EPA clarifies that this comment is outside the scope of the GS 

rulemaking. The purpose of the GS rule is not to incentivize the use of GS or to address the use 

of pore space, but to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that does not 

endanger USDWs. 

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21338 Letter Lines: 50 to 51 

Comment Code: 1614 1.3.1.2 Impurities in captured CO2; purity standards for CO2 

Comment: Rules that apply to impurities of the CO2 injectate should be further discussed, 

determined and defined for regulatory certainty. The rules should be more 

Individual Response: The GS rule does not set generic purity standards for CO2 injectate 

streams (e.g., a percent CO2). Instead, the GS rule addresses the quality and quantity of 

impurities by requiring owners or operators to submit information on the source of the CO2 and 

its physical and chemical properties. Specifically, the GS rule requires the owner or operator to 

submit data about the site, including an analysis of the chemical and physical characteristics of 

the CO2 stream, as required at §146.82(a)(7)(iv), and information on the compatibility of the 

CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and the confining 

zones and the materials used to construct the well, per §146.82(c)(3). This information can help 

the Director determine the potential for geochemical reactions between the injectate (CO2) and 

the host geologic formations, which could result in the plugging of pore spaces or the dissolution 

of formation minerals. 

EPA recognizes that many CO2 streams may be relatively pure, and research indicates that the 

estimated amounts of impurities in a CO2 stream are likely to be low. However, these estimates 

are based on limited information, and uncertainties remain about the expected concentrations of 

impurities from the various types of CO2 streams. The concentrations of minor and trace 

elements in CO2 streams for GS projects are likely to vary by facility, coal composition, plant 

operating conditions, and pollution removal technologies. 

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21339 Letter Lines: 51 to 53 

Comment Code: 4660 2.6.6 Geochemical monitoring 

Comment: determined and defined for regulatory certainty. The rules should be more 

specific as to what geochemical data needs to be collected; that is from the 

injection formation, the confining layer or from the USDW. 

Individual Response: Section §146.90(d) requires periodic monitoring of the ground water 

quality and geochemical changes above the confining zone(s). Monitoring above the confining 

layer will provide an indication of upward movement of CO2 that might endanger a USDW. The 

exact number of formations to be tested must, however, be based on site-specific characteristics 

and vulnerabilities and described in the Director-approved testing and monitoring plan. 

2

176
EPA is developing guidance on testing and monitoring to assist owners or operators and 

Directors in evaluating requirements under §146.90, including proposed monitoring plans. The 

guidance describes available technologies and recommended approaches for implementing a 

testing and monitoring plan, including pre-operational geophysical logging and testing of 

injection wells, MITs, injection well testing during operation, groundwater quality monitoring, 

tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and soil gas and surface air monitoring which may 

be required by the UIC Director for specific GS projects. The guidance can be found on EPA’s 

website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21340 Letter Lines: 55 to 61 

Comment Code: 3120 2.1.2 Need to identify additional confining and containment zones 

(seeking comment) 

Comment: KCC staff finds the cost of additional containment zones above the confining 

zones to be confusing and unnecessary. If the injection zone and the confining 

zone are competent, well understood and monitored, there is no need to have a 

costly and unneeded system of redundant containment zones above the two. 

Furthermore, the term containment zone has was not in the definitions section or 

fully explained. 

Individual Response: EPA retains the requirement to identify additional containment/confining 

zones, if required by the Director, as proposed (§146.83(b)). EPA acknowledges that such 

additional zones may not be needed in all circumstances, and clarifies that this requirement is at 

the Director's discretion, based on his or her understanding of a particular site. EPA believes that, 

in some situations, the presence of additional confining and containment zones above the 

primary (i.e., lowermost) confining zone can improve USDW protection. These layers could 

further impede vertical fluid movement and allow for pressure dissipation, and also provide 

additional sites for monitoring, mitigation, and remediation. The Agency's decision is supported 

by commenters representing states, water associations, and an electric utility who assert that 

these requirements promote a flexible, risk-based, site-specific approach to characterizing and 

permitting a site for GS projects, and are intended to improve understanding of the project as a 

whole and promote better modeling of the site. 

EPA clarifies that the GS rule defines confining zone as "a geologic formation, group of 

formations, or part of a formation stratigraphically overlying the injection zone that acts as 

barrier to fluid movement." (§146.81(d)). 

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21341 Letter Lines: 63 to 67 

Comment Code: 3310 2.2.1.1 Comments in favor of requiring computational models to 

delineate the AoR (seeking comment) 

3

177
Comment: KCC staff agrees that the most accurate and realistic method of determining AOR 

is computational models which are updated regularly in conjunction with modeling 

monitoring of physical trailers. A prescribed fixed radius surrounding 

individual wells would not be an appropriate determination of AOR for a complex 

dynamic CO2 storage facility. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support and agrees that the unique 

aspects of GS merit the use of sophisticated computational modeling for delineation of the AoR, 

based on site-specific features and geology, including the presence of faults, fractures, and 

artificial penetrations. EPA believes that computational modeling of the AoR prior to injection 

will provide the best obtainable estimates of the extent of the CO2 plume over several years of 

active injection. EPA has strengthened the minimum frequency for the AoR reevaluation from 

ten years to at least every 5 years (146.84(e)). EPA believes that this revised frequency addresses 

commenters' concerns about the inherent uncertainties in modeling CO2 movement, the 

emerging nature of GS technology, risk-based targeting of monitoring activities, and the unique 

nature of CO2 GS. 

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21342 Letter Lines: 69 to 72 

Comment Code: 3630 2.2.4.1 Comments in favor of allowing phased corrective action 

Comment: Phased corrective action for GS wells that lie in front of the path of a CO2 

plume would allow companies to concentrate current capital expenditures on wells 

that represent the highest risk. Wells that might be affected in the distant 

future would be deemed a lower risk, thus given a lower priority. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s support of phased corrective action 

and agrees that phased corrective action may provide many benefits to a project including, but 

not limited to, spreading the burden of cost, avoiding delays in project start-up, allowing for use 

of future, improved corrective action techniques and addressing unanticipated changes in the 

movement of the CO2 plume or pressure front. EPA believes that the phased corrective action 

approach is appropriate for GS projects, and retained it at §146.84(b)(2)(iv) in the final GS 

regulation. EPA clarifies that wells that might not be affected for some time are not necessarily 

considered to pose a lower risk; rather they are considered to not pose a risk for the first several 

years of injection. 

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21343 Letter Lines: 74 to 85 

Comment Code: 3824 2.3.1.2 Cementing of long-string casing (seeking comment) 

Comment: On proposed injection well construction requirements. The proposed rule requires 

the long string casing to be cemented in place along its entire length. In a 

significant area of Kansas, cement cannot be circulated to surface in the bore 

hole casing annulus in the primary cementing job. To accomplish a continuous 

4

178
cemented interval would involve numerous pipe perforations and cement squeezing 

operations. This additional remedial work sacrifices mechanical integrity of the 

pipe for a marginal possibility of additional isolation of the injection zone. 

Considering these unique conditions and associated risk, Kansas regulations 

prescribed an interval of five hundred feet of cemented interval above the 

injection zone. KCC staff believes an exotic blend of CO2 resistant cement is 

not needed considering the proven record of CO2 EOR well construction history. 

Individual Response: Section 146.86(b)(3) requires that the long-string casing extend to the 

injection zone and be cemented by circulating cement to the surface in one or more stages. It 

does not, however, specify how cementing would be accomplished, and gives flexibility to the 

owner or operator to propose alternate methods to provide a sufficient amount of cement to meet 

the standard that USDWs are protected from endangerment, subject to the approval of the 

Director. EPA notes that there are many potential ways to meet the requirement in deep wells, 

such as the use of staged cementing. EPA has evaluated the cementing requirements for other 

well classes and believes that flexibility can be afforded while ensuring that USDWs are 

protected. 

See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS 

rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the construction of 

Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

EPA adds that cementing of deep wells has been performed successfully in the past, for example, 

by owners or operators of Class I hazardous and Class I municipal waste disposal wells. Some of 

these wells, which must meet the same cementing requirements for long-string casing as Class 

VI wells, are up to 12,000 feet deep (EPA, 2001). 

EPA stresses that protection of USDWs is the primary mission and mandate of the UIC program 

and the purpose of all requirements for injection wells. Any injection activity must be 

demonstrated to not endanger USDWs, regardless of their depth, and if such non-endangerment 

cannot be shown, then the activity will not be allowed under UIC requirements or the SDWA. 

EPA recognizes concerns regarding construction of Class VI wells where the lowermost USDW 

is very deep. To further address comments on deep injection wells, the final GS rule at §146.95 

includes requirements for owners or operators that seek a waiver of the injection depth 

requirements. Owners or operators of wells operating under injection depth waivers must comply 

with additional construction requirements to ensure that wells used to inject above or between 

USDWs are protective. See the discussion of the waiver approach in the preamble to the final GS 

rule for additional information. 

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21345 Letter Lines: 87 to 91 

Comment Code: 4490 2.4.5 Use of tracers and potential impact on human health or ecosystems 

(seeking comment) 

5

179
Comment: Proposed injection well operating requirements. In the proposed rule, EPA is 

seeking comment on the use of tracing material for detection of fugitive CO2. 

KCC staff's opinion is the comparison of baseline CO2 levels to monitored levels 

would provide the same information as would costly and potentially harmful 

tracing material. In our opinion, external mechanical integrity testing at a one 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that tracer use is not appropriate in all situations. Some 

tracers may have the potential to cause harm to people or the environment. For this reason, EPA 

does not require the use of tracers at all GS sites. Nevertheless there are many different types of 

tracers and not all are problematic; research is being done to overcome problems with existing 

tracers. EPA believes that tracers have been used safely and successfully in other applications. 

Therefore the Director has discretion to require their use if he/she determines that the use of 

tracers could improve monitoring of the site and enhance USDW protection from endangerment. 

The rule will also allow their use if proposed by the owner or operator and approved by the 

Director. 

If an owner or operator proposes the use of tracers at a GS site, EPA anticipates that the specific 

tracers to be used would be described in the testing and monitoring plan, which the Director 

would evaluate in the context of other information about the GS site. The Director would assess 

the use of tracers in the context of site-specific information, including risks to USDWs and other 

environmental and health risks. 

EPA continues to follow new and ongoing research on the safety and efficacy of tracers. For 

example, studies at the Frio Brine Pilot Experiment site (Dayton, TX) used various types of 

tracers, including PFTs, sulfur hexafluoride, and the noble gases krypton, neon, and xenon. 

These studies (e.g., Phelps and Cole, 2008; Hovorka et al. 2005) found that tracers can provide 

useful CO2 monitoring information at injection wells as well as near-surface locations. At Frio, 

tracers enabled quantification of CO2 plume behavior and provided a technique for model 

validity testing (McCallum et al., 2005). EPA will continue to track research related to tracer use. 

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21346 Letter Lines: 91 to 93 

Comment Code: 4546 2.5.2.2 MIT frequency (seeking comment) 

Comment: tracing material. In our opinion, external mechanical integrity testing at a one 

year frequency is excessive and not warranted. The frequency which Kansas 

requires in the regulation is once every four years. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that a four-year external MIT is appropriate. The final GS 

regulation retains the requirement that owners or operators of Class VI wells must demonstrate 

injection well external mechanical integrity at least once annually under §146.89(c). EPA 

believes this is justifiable for the protection of USDWs from endangerment given the unique 

nature of CO2 GS relative to other injection operations, including the potential corrosive impact 

of CO2 in the presence of water and impurities on well materials, the potential geomechanical 

impacts to well integrity due to CO2 phase changes, the temperature and pressure effects 

6

180
associated with injecting supercritical CO2, and the buoyant nature of the injected CO2. Because 

of the unknown long-term effects of CO2 GS, EPA chose a more conservative initial approach in 

the early stages of deployment for GS. 

In addition, a comprehensive review conducted by EPA of MIT results from 1993 to 1998 found 

that Class I wells injecting corrosive fluids fail MITs at rates two to three times higher than those 

that inject non-corrosive fluids (USEPA 1999). Given the potential for CO2 to be corrosive (e.g., 

in the presence of water or aqueous formation fluids), there is a potential risk factor for MIT 

failure and, for this reason, EPA believes that the tailored MIT requirements in the final GS rule 

are appropriate. 

EPA adds that it is using an adaptive approach to regulating GS. The Agency plans to collect and 

review data every six years on GS projects, including MIT data, 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: 0530 Comment ID: 21347 Letter Lines: 95 to 99 

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

Comment: Proposed well plugging post injection site care and site closure requirements. 

The proposed rule sets the post injection site care period at a default period 

of fifty years. KCC agrees that the UIC program director should have the 

authority to shorten or lengthen the post injection site care period if the 

owner/operator demonstrates a different time period is appropriate. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the Director should have discretion to shorten or 

lengthen the post-injection site care monitoring period, and has retained this provision in the 

final GS rule at 146.93(b)(2). EPA adds that the final rule at §146.93(c), also allows the Director 

to approve an alternative post-injection site care timeframe where an owner or operator can 

demonstrate during the permitting process that an alternative post-injection site care timeframe, 

other than the 50 year default, is appropriate and ensures non-endangerment of USDWs. 

Because of the variety of site-specific circumstances at GS sites, EPA believes that individual 

UIC Directors, in consultation with operators, will be in the best position to determine whether 

additional post-injection site care monitoring is needed (or whether the timeframe may be 

shortened) or whether an alternative PISC timeframe is appropriate, based on the circumstances 

of a particular project. EPA expects this decision to be made based on relevant site data and in 

consultation with all potentially impacted parties. 

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21348 Letter Lines: 101 to 105 

Comment Code: 5430 2.9.1 Comments on proposed financial responsibility requirements (40 

CFR 146.85) 

7

181
Comment: Proposed financial responsibility and long term care requirements. The proposed 

rule states EPA would provide guidance to be developed at a later date which 

describes recommended types of owner/operator financial responsibility. On such 

an important concept, should it not be addressed in the proposed rule rather 

than clarified through guidance? 

Individual Response: In response to public comments, EPA has added more specific 

requirements to the rule. These include a list of permitted financial instruments, timeframes for 

adjusting cost estimates, requirements for protective coverage, steps to take in the event of 

adverse financial conditions, and others. However, EPA believes flexibility in the financial 

responsibility requirements is also appropriate. Under the final GS rule owners or operators may 

choose from a variety of financial instruments to meet their financial responsibility obligations, 

provided the Director determines that the owner or operator's proposed financial responsibility 

demonstration is adequate to prevent endangerment of USDWs, including corrective action on 

wells in the AoR, injection well plugging, PISC and site closure, and emergency and remedial 

response. See the final rule and preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach to 

financial responsibility. 

EPA is developing guidance to help owners or operators, permitting authorities, and third parties 

choose and evaluate appropriate financial methods, and states may set more specific financial 

responsibility requirements if they so choose. This guidance is available on EPA's website at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 21349 Letter Lines: 107 to 111 

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

Comment: In conclusion, it is our vote the EPA will fully fund the Class VI program if it 

desires states to administer the program. The 1425 program re-administer is not 

fully funded and has seen cuts each year for the past three fiscal years. It has 

also become increasingly difficult for states to manage numerous programs that 

demand increasing budgets, but undergo annual funding decreases. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative 

challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in 

resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the 

unique technical challenges associated with GS. 

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The 

States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement 

the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant 

allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent 

matching requirement. 

8

182
Letter ID: 0530 Comment ID: 25076 Letter Lines: 84 to 85 

Comment Code: 3864 2.3.3.2 Use of corrosion-resistant cements (seeking comment) 

Comment: injection zone. KCC staff believes an exotic blend of CO2 resistant cement is 

not needed considering the proven record of CO2 EOR well construction history. 

Individual Response: As described above, EPA clarifies the final rule does not mandate the use 

of corrosion resistant cement; the requirement at §146.86(b)(5) is that cement and cement 

additives must be compatible with the CO2 stream and formation fluids and of sufficient quality 

and quantity to maintain integrity over the design life of the GS project. It should be noted that in 

Carey et al. (2007), their research on the ER- CO2 injection well at SACROC was unable to 

determine whether CO2 in the presence of water, dry CO2, or a CO2-brine mixture had caused 

the cement alteration observed. In Crow et al. (2008), the well materials studied were from a 

production well producing from a natural CO2 deposit that also produced associated water, so 

well materials were presumably exposed to CO2 in the presence of water. Meyer (2007) 

acknowledges the Carey study found no loss of hydraulic integrity after 30 years, but also 

mentions the use of acid-resistant cements in wells used for acid gas injection and where brine is 

encountered. 

See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS 

rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the construction of 

Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

9

183
Letter ID: 0531 

Commenter: Barbara Massoner 

Organization: Legacy Economy 

Letter ID: 0531 Comment ID: 21442 Letter Lines: 23 to 30 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: In the past week with the economic crisis, it has illustrated it is essential to 

develop sensible regulations before a crisis hits. Toning down regulations based 

on threats from industry that the government oversight is going to have an 

impact on our economy has been shown to not be the case. In fact, it is the 

other way around. Therefore, I commend the EPA for addressing carbon 

sequestration. It is essential that we control CO2 emissions, not only so that 

we have a healthy environment, but so that we can usher in a prosperous economy 

for the next generation. 

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: 0531 Comment ID: 21443 Letter Lines: 32 to 39 

Comment Code: 1600 1.3 Risk Associated with CO2 GS 

Comment: Coal and gas have powered our economy for the past century. This however is a 

new century and it requires new regulations and those regulations must include 

externalities which we have not included in the past. Only by including 

externalities can regulations provide a level playing field for all involved. 

And externalities in this case are not CO2's, but they also are as Cynthia Lane 

pointed out with AWWA, a test that includes CCWs, that is coal combustion 

wastes. And those externalities are very important as they would include 

chemicals such as mercury, lead, cadmium, selenium and a list of other toxins. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule focuses on protection of USDWs from 

endangerment; therefore coal combustion wastes and other externalities the commenter mentions 

are outside of the scope of the UIC rulemaking. 

1

184
2

Letter ID: 0531 Comment ID: 21444 Letter Lines: 41 to 50 

Comment Code: 1260 1.1.1.5 More certainty/stringency is needed 

Comment Code: 1614 1.3.1.2 Impurities in captured CO2; purity standards for CO2 

Comment: We do not want to contaminate our groundwater with those carcinogens. The fact 

is that CCWs, this is a significant issue in that each year our power plants 

produce enough of this stuff to fill a train of coal cars that stretches from 

Manhattan to Los Angeles not just once, not just twice, but three and a half 

times. It is a huge problem and the EPA has pointed out that these toxins are 

carcinogenic and EPA has also stated that there are no regulations for these 

toxins. Therefore I urge the EPA when you are considering these regulations on 

CO2 sequestration that you broaden them to include CCWs. Stricter rules will not 

set us back economically, but rather it is going to ensure that the next 

generation has a prosperity to grow like our generation has. 

Individual Response: It is beyond the scope of the GS rule and the UIC Program’s authority to 

require or set standards for upstream management of coal combustion wastes (CCWs), also 

known as coal combustion residuals (CCRs). The UIC program’s authority under the SDWA is 

limited to ensuring that GS projects are sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a manner that 

protects USDWs. EPA is separately considering standards for the management of CCRs under 

RCRA. See 75 Fed. Reg. 35128 (proposed rule). 

185
Letter ID: 0532 

Commenter: Mike Moore 

Organization: North American Carbon Capture and Storage Association (NACCSA) 

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21364 Letter Lines: 27 to 27 

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking 

Comment: I applaud the EPA for proposing these regulations. CCS holds significant promise 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and 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: 0532 Comment ID: 21365 Letter Lines: 27 to 30 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: I applaud the EPA for proposing these regulations. CCS holds significant promise 

to manage carbon emissions and should be part of any climate change regime. CCS 

is also essential to enhanced oil and gas recovery which we believe can be 

combined with permanent storage. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including 

energy conservation, efficiency improvements, and the use of alternative fuels and renewable 

energy sources, that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. However, the use of and 

investment in these technologies is outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. The Class VI 

GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, sited, 

constructed, operated, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

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. 

For additional information on EPA’s approach to wells that are transitioning from ER to GS, see 

the discussion of Class II wells under “How Does This Rule Affect Existing Injection Wells 

Under the UIC Program?” in the preamble to the final GS rule. 

1

186
Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21366 Letter Lines: 32 to 37 

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

USDW 

Comment: Our first area of concern relates to EPA's proposed limitations on receiving 

formations. It permits injections only beneath the lower most formation 

containing a USDW. This limitation will hamper deployment of CCS by excluding 

many sites otherwise suitable for CCS. Such a blanket limitation is unnecessary 

because operators will be required to show that projects will not endanger 

drinking water sources. 

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. 

Additionally, the rule does not categorically preclude or prohibit injection into any type of 

formation. 

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 

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: 0532 Comment ID: 21367 Letter Lines: 39 to 43 

Comment Code: 4000 2.4 Proposed Injection Well Operating Requirements (40 CFR 146.88) 

Comment Code: 4600 2.6 Proposed Plume and Pressure Front Monitoring Requirements (40 

CFR 146.90) 

Comment: The second area of concern is the proposed rule's treatment of CCS operations 

and monitoring. The proposed rule would require CCS wells to meet or exceed the 

operating standards of industrial and hazardous waste wells in many cases. NACSA 

believes that such treatment is not justified by the attributes of carbon 

dioxide. Also the director would have discretion without any guidance to require 

2

187
Individual Response: The Agency recognizes that while there are similarities between injection 

of wastes for disposal (Class I) and GS (Class VI), there are significant differences as well. 

Important unique considerations for GS include the buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity when in 

contact with water, its low viscosity (i.e., high mobility), and the very large injection volumes 

that are anticipated. There is also a degree of uncertainty regarding the behavior of large volumes 

of CO2 in the subsurface after injection. 

Given these characteristics of anticipated GS projects, EPA believes that the monitoring 

requirements at §146.90 are justified to provide early warning of any unforeseen fluid movement 

or problems with the injection well that might endanger USDWs. EPA emphasizes that 

monitoring of injection activities will be an important component of every GS project. 

Monitoring associated with injection wells and the movement of the CO2 plume is necessary to 

verify that the injectate is confined in the target formations and does not endanger USDWs. 

EPA believes the operating requirements for Class VI wells are necessary and provide multiple 

safeguards to ensure that well integrity, containment of fluids within the injection zone, and that 

the integrity of the confining zone is not compromised. Some of the operating requirements in 

the GS regulation (e.g., pressure limitations or annulus pressure requirements) are consistent 

with those for other injection well types, while other requirements (e.g., use of automatic shut-off 

systems or tracers at the Director's discretion) are tailored to directly address the potential for 

large volumes of CO2 to be injected, among other factors. 

The requirements for GS projects are tailored to address the unique issues associated with 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. EPA also believes these requirements are appropriate for Class VI wells 

given the potential geomechanical stresses in the wellbore, and the potential for movement of the 

CO2 in the event of a mechanical integrity loss. 

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21368 Letter Lines: 43 to 47 

Comment Code: 4490 2.4.5 Use of tracers and potential impact on human health or ecosystems 

(seeking comment) 

Comment Code: 4670 2.6.7 Surface air monitoring and/or soil gas monitoring (seeking 

comment) 

Comment: dioxide. Also the director would have discretion without any guidance to require 

tracers and/or gas monitoring to detect movement of carbon dioxide that could 

endanger a USDW. NACSA believes that these methods should not be required 

because there are too many questions about their efficacy and the potential risk 

posed by tracers. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that air and soil gas monitoring are subject to sitespecific limitations and may not be suitable in all settings as a method to ensure USDW 

protection. However, EPA does not believe that this should entirely preclude their use. If surface 

monitoring were the only monitoring method employed to ensure USDW protection, direct 

3

188
correlation of CO2 at the surface with CO2 in the subsurface might be difficult; however, when 

combined with information gathered through other monitoring techniques required of GS well 

owners and operators (e.g., monitoring wells, geophysical techniques), air and soil gas 

monitoring may provide valuable data on the magnitude and location of a leak. The CO2 itself 

may serve as a tracer in the form of stable isotopes of carbon. For example, anthropogenic CO2 

is depleted in 13C compared to naturally occurring CO2. 

Used in conjunction with deep subsurface monitoring, as required at §146.90, and as part of a 

multi-barrier approach to protecting USDWs from endangerment, surface air and soil gas 

monitoring will increase USDW protection, enable immediate notification of the UIC Director in 

the case of potential USDW endangerment, and facilitate remedial action. 

The decision to use surface monitoring and the selection of monitoring methods will be sitespecific (e.g., may be influenced by geology, injection depth, and operational conditions) and 

must be based on potential risks to USDWs within the AoR. The final rule at §146.90(h) retains 

the allowance for surface air and soil gas monitoring at the discretion of the Director as a means 

of identifying leaks that may pose a risk to USDWs and informing emergency notification of a 

Class VI owner or operator and UIC Director in the event of a USDW endangerment, pursuant to 

requirements at §146.91(c). 

EPA agrees that tracer use is not appropriate in all situations. Some tracers may have the 

potential to cause harm to people or the environment. For this reason, EPA does not require the 

use of tracers at all GS sites. Nevertheless there are many different types of tracers and not all are 

problematic; research is being done to overcome problems with existing tracers. EPA believes 

that tracers have been used safely and successfully in other applications. Therefore the Director 

has discretion to require their use if he/she determines that the use of tracers could improve 

monitoring of the site and enhance USDW protection from endangerment. The rule will also 

allow their use if proposed by the owner or operator and approved by the Director. 

EPA continues to follow new and ongoing research on the safety and efficacy of tracers. For 

example, studies at the Frio Brine Pilot Experiment site (Dayton, TX) used various types of 

tracers, including perfluorocarbon tracers (PFTs), sulfur hexafluoride, and the noble gases 

krypton, neon, and xenon. These studies (e.g., Phelps and Cole, 2008; Hovorka et al., 2004; 

McCallum et al., 2005) found that tracers can provide useful CO2 monitoring information at 

injection wells at depth and at near-surface locations. At Frio, tracers enabled quantification of 

CO2 plume behavior and provided a technique for model validity testing (McCallum et al., 

2005). EPA will continue to track research related to tracer use. The Agency plans to, every six 

years, 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. 

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21369 Letter Lines: 49 to 57 

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

Comment: The third area of concern is the proposed fifty year default post injection site 

4

189
care period. While some minimum period may be appropriate, a fifty year period 

is arbitrary and unwarranted by the specific characteristics of carbon dioxide. 

We note that the program director has discretion to extend or shorten the period 

without guidance. NACSA proposes that the rule adopt a period of performance 

based standard based on project specific information gained through the site 

characterization and monitoring phase. Alternatively the Agency should shorten 

the default period significantly to reflect the time required to assess CCS 

project work. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the decision to use a default 50 year time period for 

PISC was arbitrarily made. In determining the post-injection site care-timeframe for the 

proposed regulation, EPA reviewed industry reports, existing environmental programs, and 

initial GS research studies. EPA provided a synthesis of pertinent results from GS modeling 

studies in the preamble to the proposed regulation. Further explanation of this analysis was 

included in an EPA-prepared background document that is available in the federal docket, titled 

"Computational Modeling of Underground Injection of Carbon Dioxide for Determination of 

Area-of-Review and Potential Risk to Underground Sources of Drinking Water." Based on 

review of these studies, modeling results indicate that the CO2 plume stabilization may occur on 

the timeframe of 10-100 years after the cessation of injection. EPA believes that a 50 year postinjection site care timeframe represents a reasonable and protective monitoring period and 

available data, including data submitted by commenters, do not support a different default 

timeframe. Furthermore, EPA believes that a 50-year default post-injection site care timeframe, 

as required at §146.93(b)(1), is not overly burdensome, does not exaggerate the risks associated 

with GS, is consistent with other environmental programs, and sufficiently protects USDWs 

from endangerment. 

To address concerns that, in some situations, it can be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the 

plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs, the GS rule 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 post-injection 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, during the permitting 

process based on substantial data, 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. 

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21370 Letter Lines: 59 to 64 

5

190
Comment Code: 5430 2.9.1 Comments on proposed financial responsibility requirements (40 

CFR 146.85) 

Comment: The fourth area of concern relates to the proposed rule's financial assurance 

requirements. The proposed rules place greater financial assurance requirements 

on Class VI wells than currently apply to Class I hazardous waste wells. NACSA 

believes that the physical and chemical properties of carbon dioxide injected 

for storage do not warrant such treatment and could prevent the deployment of 

CCS. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the requirements on financial responsibility are overly 

stringent. The goal of financial responsibility is to ensure that financial resources are available to 

prevent or remediate the endangerment of USDWs from improper plugging, remediation, and 

management of wells in the event that the owner or operator experiences financial difficulties. 

EPA disagrees that the requirements equate GS wells with Class I hazardous waste wells; rather, 

the financial responsibility requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to account for the unique 

nature of the long term GS of CO2, while providing flexibility for site specific implementation. 

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21371 Letter Lines: 66 to 77 

Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment) 

Comment: The fifth area relates to the proposed rule's grandfathering of existing wells. 

Under the proposed rule, if a Class II or V well operator wishes to transition 

to Class VI well, the operator would be required to meet new Class VI 

requirements. This discourages early deployment of CCS because operators will 

face potentially significant new obligations. The rules should broadly permit 

grandfathering unless the director determines that a particular site is not 

suitable for storage based on specific criteria. The rule also unnecessarily 

creates a dichotomy between Class II wells and Class VI wells. Class II is only 

available as long as any production is occurring. This may prevent EOR wells 

from being transitioned to permanent storage after EOR ceases or ends. EPA's 

rules should grant carbon dioxide storage the same legal status under all well 

classes. 

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 the 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 clarifies that only the construction requirements are 

grandfathered and that all other Class VI requirements (reporting, monitoring, mechnical 

integrity testing, etc.) must be met following a determination under §146.81(c). 

In response to the comment that ER operators will be discouraged from pursuing GS or using 

additional pore space for storage, EPA clarifies that the comment is outside the scope of this 

6

191
rulemaking. The purpose of the GS rule is not to incentivize the use of GS or to address the use 

of pore space, but to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that does not 

endanger USDWs. 

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21372 Letter Lines: 79 to 83 

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

Comment: The sixth area of concern relates to primacy or to state primacy for proposed 

Class VI wells. EPA can accelerate the deployment of CCS while allowing states 

to obtain primacy for Class VI wells without obtaining primacy for the entire 

UIC program. Numerous states have established their own CCS regulations and 

their expertise should be relied upon. 

Individual Response: 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 

"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) provided 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 

7

192
application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and ensure that their GS programs 

integrate into national climate change priorities and protect USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0532 Comment ID: 21373 Letter Lines: 85 to 90 

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

Comment: Our final area of concern relates to the Agency's comments in the preamble that 

injected carbon dioxide could be deemed a hazardous waste under RCRA and CERCLA. 

NACSA believes it is appropriate for geologically stored carbon dioxide to be 

categorically excluded from the definitions of hazardous waste. NACSA urges the 

Agency to reconsider its positions and the deleterious effect it could have on 

the development of CCS. 

Individual Response: 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. 

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. 

8

193
Letter ID: 0533 

Commenter: Dag Nummedal 

Organization: Colorado Energy Resource Institute 

Letter ID: 0533 Comment ID: 21477 Letter Lines: 39 to 69 

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs 

Comment: What happens when you put CO2 into the subsurface. One is that when you are 

pumping the large quantities of CO2 that we will be looking at, there are 

formations that will be deformed. They are deformed both by hydrological, by 

thermal and by chemical disturbances from injected CO2. In turn, this for those 

who are reading, I am reading the second paragraph, in turn this deformation 

probably will have a profound effect both on the hydro mechanical and the 

transport response of the injected fluid itself. And of course, fractures are 

particularly important in the subsurface because they are already are in the 

conduit, but they are in the pipeline that work, that carry fluids through the 

rocks. So for that reason we do not have focus a lot of research and very little 

has been done on this yet, to really get an understanding of the distribution 

properties and response of both the natural and induced fractures. How do they 

respond to fluid pressure? To the temperature changes? To the mineralogical 

changes? We can both dissolve minerals in the fluid in the subsurface and you 

can re-precipitate others. This will change the injectivity of CO2. 

Also many fractures create new fresh surfaces and guess what? When you create a 

new fresh surface, that surface is typically chemically very reactive, much more 

so than an old rock surface that has been weathered on the surface so 

understanding -- what is called the reactive transport modeling in the technical 

lingo, is basically understanding how the chemistry over fluid moving past this 

reactive surfaces. They change the mineral assemblage and in turn start growing 

crystals or dissolving crystals and changing activity. 

To this, of course, then in the long run they change the mobility of fluids at 

least the mobility of CO2 and where it is trapped and how much we are trapping 

in the subsurface. We are going about this with a combination of flow modeling 

laboratory work and we are starting the project building on what we believe are 

the two most advanced numerical modeling codes in the world today developed by a 

partner in this, and our partners are the Livermore National Lab in Livermore, 

California and the Lawrence Berkeley lab on the Berkeley campus. These labs have 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that injection of large volumes of CO2 into the 

subsurface poses potential risks associated with fluid movement, deformation in the subsurface, 

and the potential for leakage of CO2 into USDWs, which could result in the mobilization of 

substances that could pose threats to human health by endangering USDWs. 

1

194
The purpose of the Class VI requirements is to minimize and mitigate potential/identified risks 

through proper site characterization, computational AoR modeling that accounts for the 

multiphase flow of CO2 and native fluids, well construction, operation, monitoring, postinjection site care, and site closure. The mandate of the UIC Program under the SDWA, and the 

GS rule, is to protect public health by ensuring the protection of USDWs from endangerment. 

The GS rule accomplishes this through requirements tailored to address the unique nature of GS, 

including the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy and potential corrosivity in the 

presence of water, and impurities in the CO2 stream. Many of these requirements specifically 

address the potential for mobilized substances to affect USDWs. 

For example, the owner or operator must submit data about the site, including information on the 

porosity, permeability, mineralogy, and geochemistry of the targeted injection and confining 

zones. Operators must also present information on the compatibility of the CO2 stream with 

fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and confining zones as specified at 

§146.82(c)(3). The data can help identify potential geochemical reactions between the injected 

CO2 and the host geologic formations, which could result in the plugging of pore spaces or the 

dissolution of formation minerals. During injection operations, operators must extensively 

monitor ground water quality to provide early detection of any unacceptable movement of fluids 

or impurities in the subsurface as specified in §146.90. Operators must develop and follow an 

emergency and remedial response plan to address any adverse effects associated with the GS 

operation as specified in §146.94 and provide financial responsibility to address contamination 

as specified in §146.85. 

Letter ID: 0533 Comment ID: 21478 Letter Lines: 69 to 80 

Comment Code: 3340 2.2.1.4 Specific delineation models 

Comment: California and the Lawrence Berkeley lab on the Berkeley campus. These labs have 

over the last five to ten years developed some codes called NUFT and Tough-react 

numerical codes worry about those things. That really have advanced our ability 

as scientists to model ahead of time what will happen to minerals and 

precipitation and dissolution when this CO2 charge fluids go through the rocks. 

Then the model predictions and the American Model Predictions will then be 

tested against lab experiments. One of the things that we are very proud of at 

the Colorado School of Mines is how dedicated the university is to laboratory 

work. There is only so much you can do in the area of modeling. You have to test 

the models in laboratory before you can feel comfortable using the models 

afterwards to predict what would happen in the subsurface. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the range and capabilities of numerical modeling 

codes available to GS operators and other modelers and acknowledges the comment. 

Letter ID: 0533 Comment ID: 21479 Letter Lines: 82 to 108 

2

195
Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space 

ownership 

Comment Code: 1660 1.3.6 Ecosystem impacts (soil, air, surface water) 

Comment: The last part then gets at the biosphere. A lot of people think I believe that 

the subsurface beneath our feet consists mostly of rocks only. It does not. 

Turns out that we have a very extensive community of microorganisms that go deep 

down. In the deepest gold mines in South Africa, people are recovering microbes. 

And these microbes play a fundamental roles in the geochemical and radiological 

reactions. In fact in all different rocks, whether they be hard rocks where we 

get gold and silver and copper and whatnot, there are organisms related and are 

present in both deep hard rock mines, those organisms that are found on 

limestones. We can look at that as potentially large carbon sequestration. 

Reservoirs contain a lot of bacteria, microbes in coal. Coal seams potentially 

are great places to store CO2 partly because some of the microbes will actually 

use the hydrogen as in the electron donor and then reduce the CO2 into methane. 

And we add hydrogen to the C and the O's and it produces methane and oxygen and 

water. And then if you can get that reaction to work in commercial and 

industrial settings in the subsurface, then you can actually use CO2 in the 

subsurface, in the coal seams, the same way that we are increasingly using CO2 

in algal farms. Algal biofuels which most people are strongly in favor of. 

Environmentally algal biofuels are probably very good and what you do of course, 

algae have to eat something, they eat CO2. Now if you can get the microbes in 

this subsurface, in the coal seams, to do the same thing basically converting 

that CO2 into methane and regenerate the methane, you can have a sustained 

production of methane which can be trapped and captured and used as it leaves a 

much cleaner fuel than coal and oils for a long time while you are storing CO2 

in the process. I think it is a very encouraging future technology. 

And that will then also be a significant part of the research that we are 

attracted, that we are here proposing. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are potential risks associated with GS. The 

purpose of the Class VI requirements is to minimize and mitigate potential/identified risks 

through proper site characterization, well construction, operation, monitoring, post-injection site 

care, and site closure and to ensure protection of USDWs. The Agency clarifies that, under 

SDWA authority, the requirements do not explicitly protect against CO2 leakage to the surface. 

However, the GS rule requires that CO2 injected for GS remain confined in the injection zone. 

Leakage outside of the injection zone/to the surface would be a permit violation. 

In response to the comment suggesting "harnessing biological activity"—such as underground 

microbes—to consume CO2, the Agency clarifies that the GS rule does not preclude or endorse 

the use of specific technologies (e.g., microbes) for GS provided they are used in conjunction 

with appropriately sited, constructed, operated, and monitored injection wells to ensure 

protection of USDWs. 

3

196
Letter ID: 0533 Comment ID: 21480 Letter Lines: 114 to 146 

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs 

Comment Code: 1960 1.4.4.5 Consultations with NGOs, e.g., environmental and citizens 

groups 

Comment: But according to your point number seven in the handout for today's meeting, 

where you talk about EPA has an upstanding history of working with academic 

community and the national labs to answer basic science questions and I am 

delighted to see that and I know that in fact. I have been dealing with EPA for 

a long time too and I am very pleased that in fact, the labs that you are 

mentioning are mostly the same ones that we believe are the leadership precision 

in this research. You do mention the Lawrence lab. You mention the Pacific 

Northwest labs you are working through, but not formally in this particular 

proposal and you have mentioned little more, but of course [indecipherable] 

strength in the carbon sequestration [indecipherable]. 

Then you mention the regional carbon sequestration partnerships in Colorado is 

member of the southwest partnership headed up by Brian McPherson. Started out in 

New Mexico [indecipherable]. Brian is now at the University of Utah and close 

friend of all of ours. So I have a very close interaction with that partnership 

and also the Big Sky partnership in Montana, in the Great Plains. Now where our 

research already is different and will continue to differ from the partnership 

is that we are not trying to focus on kind of a regional assessment on what 

particular methodology works where which is very much part of the partnership 

and of course, we need that. But instead we want to sit back and look at a much 

more fundamental geomechanical, geomicrobiological and geochemical reactions in 

the subsurface in any kind of rock and we will limit [indecipherable] submitted 

if it gets funded. Get samples and data from these three partnerships that I 

mentioned, so that the research will be tied to the specific environments in the 

Rocky Mountains very likely to store CO2. 

So I think that is -- oh I mentioned the Sleipner project which of course is 

well known. Because Sleipner I attached some CO2 emissions back in 1995 and 

1996. I have mailed it and advantageous for [indecipherable] business 

perspective start sequestering CO2 and I learned a great deal in the process 

about it, so becoming a leader provider on the carbon sequestration expertise 

and technology. The and I have been working with Stockholm for a long time as 

you can tell from my accent, I did not grow up in Louisiana, some people think. 

Individual Response: While developing the GS regulation, EPA evaluated relevant GS 

research, including projects conducted by the seven regional carbon sequestration partnerships 

funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and coordinated through the National Energy 

Technology Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects, including Sleipner. A paper 

summarizing EPA's research on international GS projects and legislation is in the rulemaking 

docket. Additionally, EPA's Office of Water continues to fund research at the Lawrence 

4

197
Berkeley National Laboratory examining the effects of CO2 interaction on ground water aquifers 

and any potential mobilization of trace elements that may occur. EPA is communicating with 

other research organizations and academic institutions including, among others, Princeton 

University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Montana State University, where specific 

research on geologic sequestration, injection well materials, and CO2 monitoring techniques is in 

progress. EPA is also working with DOE, USGS, and others to identify tools and training 

techniques that will provide GS permitting assistance and technical expertise as appropriate. 

Additionally, EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is undertaking multiple 

research efforts on GS. Topics of research include bolstering different default thermodynamic 

databases to include more comprehensive information on aqueous complexes and solid-phases 

that contain carbonate/bicarbonate and toxic elements for which EPA has a listed MCL 

(maximum concentration level) for safe drinking water. 

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

finalization of the GS regulation, the Agency will, every six years, 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. 

EPA agrees that research into GS is important and confirms that, as the commenter notes, the 

final GS rule was informed by research at LBNL, Pacific Northwest laboratories, the RCSPs, and 

international GS research. EPA continues to fund research on GS. As part of its adaptive 

rulemaking approach, EPA will continue to review available research on fluid movement. The 

Agency 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. 

Letter ID: 0533 Comment ID: 21481 Letter Lines: 148 to 153 

Comment Code: 1940 1.4.4.3 Consultations with Industry; experience with other wells 

Comment: And so I am working very closely with the Norwegian company and other friends 

back in Norway including being a board member on their carbon sequestration 

company called Gas and Nova so again as part of the research we are about to 

undertake, we make sure that all the learnings that are coming out 

[indecipherable] also are fully available to all the members of our research 

community. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. While developing the GS regulation, 

EPA has evaluated relevant GS research, including projects conducted by the seven Regional 

Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) funded by DOE and coordinated through the 

National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and several international projects. A paper 

summarizing EPA's research on international GS projects and legislation is in the rulemaking 

docket. 

5

198
Letter ID: 0534 

Commenter: George Peridas 

Organization: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21450 Letter Lines: 27 to 34 

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

Comment: So I'd like to start with a note and say that this is not an attempt to 

legitimize or to further perpetuate the use of coal. We believe that there are 

much better, cheaper, and cleaner ways to meet our energy needs. Nonetheless, 

there is a very good reason why we do need to have CCS in the mitigation 

portfolio as well and this is because of the world's vast coal resources, the 

projected business as usual use of this resource and the pace at which we see 

climate change evolving. We believe that coal, mainly in China is and climatic 

changes are on a collision course and we really need to do something about it. 

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. Regulating the use of coal or any energy form is 

outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. More information on EPA's Endangerment and 

Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act 

can be found at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html. 

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21451 Letter Lines: 36 to 49 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: We believe that the problem of economics and problem with policy can put CCS in 

context and give it the role that it needs. Nonetheless, we do not believe that 

we can do away with this if we are going to meet emission reduction targets in 

time, so this is what we think is an absolutely necessary part of the mitigation 

portfolio. We would like to see things happen otherwise; I think technically it 

is feasible. The way that some of the developing economies are growing these 

days and the way the political situation in the U.S. is heading, means that we 

wanted to use CCS as well. 

Having spent a good few years studying this and we took great care in being 

diligent, as an environmental group the idea of injecting large volumes of CO2 

underground that is not the most appealing at first. Nonetheless, the more we 

studied this, the more convinced we become that if regulated and performed well, 

it can be very safe and effective. And I stress the words, can be. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including 

1

199
energy conservation, efficiency improvements, and the use of alternative fuels and renewable 

energy sources, that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. 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 believes that large scale GS can be done safely. The GS regulation builds upon the longstanding protective framework of the UIC program, which has been regulating the injection of 

billions of gallons of liquids for decades. The GS regulation enhances this existing framework 

with requirements for GS wells that are tailored to the unique nature of large scale GS of CO2. 

These additional protective requirements include more extensive geologic testing, detailed 

computational modeling of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations, detailed requirements for 

monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and extended post-injection 

monitoring and site care. 

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21452 Letter Lines: 51 to 80 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: I do not agree with the assertion that CCS is unproven, untried or untested. I 

think there was a good body of experience in related context that gives us 

reason to believe that CCS is safe and effective. EOR as one of those examples, 

I do not claim that EOR is tantamount to CCS. There are key differences. 

Nonetheless, there are fields that inject very large volumes of CO2 annually and 

in the U.S. and elsewhere. Some of these injections are well above the amount of 

CO2 that would be injected annually by a large qualified power plant. 

We do not have the monitoring provisions in place that we would have with a 

standard sequestration project. Nonetheless, there are studies that are almost 

completed that show, and these are going to be published I think within the next 

few weeks or few months by the University of Texas, that show that there is 

indeed no real contamination issue at some of the major UI projects and fields. 

Even though the objective is not to keep the CO2 down for hundreds of millions 

of years or thousands of years, nonetheless we have injected very large volumes 

of CO2 and the regulatory experience in Class II has shown that we have not come 

across any major contamination issues. 

The other I think major and striking example of CCS which is often overlooked is 

nature itself. CO2, methane and even H2S, hydrogen sulfide are occurring 

naturally in the subsurface. The fields that the industry has actually mined 

contained fairly pure CO2. These large volume fields, they have been there and 

they are testament that CO2 can be stored by nature in the subsurface for a 

very, very long time and very effectively. 

Oil fields and gas fields and also the deep saline formations also show nature's 

ability to retain those fluids, so I would urge a close study and consideration 

of what nature has done already. Just putting a label on a new technique and 

2

200
calling it sequestration does not necessarily mean that it has not been done 

before. 

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 large 

scale GS can be done safely. The GS regulation builds upon the long-standing protective 

framework of the UIC program, which has been regulating the injection of billions of gallons of 

liquids for decades. The GS regulation enhances this existing framework with requirements for 

GS wells that are tailored to the unique nature of large scale GS of CO2. These additional 

protective requirements include more extensive geologic testing, detailed computational 

modeling of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations, detailed requirements for monitoring and 

tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and extended post-injection monitoring and site care. 

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. 

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21453 Letter Lines: 82 to 86 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: I believe the time is right to be writing a sound regulatory framework on CCS. 

We need to be getting on with reducing emissions from qualified power plants and 

other industrial facilities as soon as we can and I would like to thank and 

commend EPA for putting together what is I think a very well thought out rule in 

a very limited amount of time. 

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: 0534 Comment ID: 21454 Letter Lines: 88 to 96 

Comment Code: 2400 1.8 Comments on EPA's adaptive rulemaking process 

Comment: As I pointed out, we do have a number of technical comments, which of course, if 

you take them you will make the rule perfect, so we urge you to do that. 

We do believe that some revisions are necessary and I would go briefly through 

some technical points, but the final word on the timing here, there is a trade 

3

201
off in my mind between how the rule is written and the need for language to be 

revised in the future. I think some are claiming that the large scale 

injections, some of which might be performed by DOE, will be the catalyst or the 

trigger for major revisions to the rule. I do not think that is necessary. I 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that an adaptive approach to the UIC GS rulemaking is 

appropriate. The Agency plans to use such an approach to ensure that USDWs are protected from 

endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment. EPA believes that an 

adaptive approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and 

future demand for Class VI permits while recognizing the need to: continue to gather data from 

pilot projects and other research as it becomes available; and to enhance understanding of the 

technical and administrative aspects of GS deployment, operation, and technology developments. 

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. 

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21455 Letter Lines: 96 to 98 

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

Comment: trigger for major revisions to the rule. I do not think that is necessary. I 

mean, it really does depend on how the rule is phrased and to what extent it is 

flexible and performance based and I think if I weigh in that direction. 

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. 

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21456 Letter Lines: 100 to 108 

Comment Code: 1380 1.1.3.6 Deployment of GS 

Comment: And secondly, I do have to doubt the capability of these DOE funded projects to 

provide the ultimate or deciding vote if you like on how to regulate and how to 

craft the regulatory language. I think there is, there will be some lessons that 

will be learned from those. There will be new data available. There will be some 

research that will take place, but ultimately I think that this program is too 

little, too late and I also do not think that it is a prerequisite for drafting 

4

202
good rules. There might be some need for revision, but the best way to get that 

experience and to that knowledge is to move ahead with a handful or two of large 

scale injections and that will be the best possible learning experience. 

Individual Response: The final rule is based on the most recent GS-related data, information, 

and scientific research available. In addition to laboratory studies and modeling research that 

provide relevant information on GS, the Agency is also collecting and analyzing GS project data 

and permit information from a variety of sources. Most notably, EPA has evaluated permits and 

reviewed operational data and information associated with the seven regional carbon 

sequestration partnerships funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and coordinated through the 

National Energy Technology Laboratory. EPA believes that this data forms a solid basis for 

finalizing the Class VI GS requirements, and there is no reason to wait until all phases of the 

DOE demonstration tests are complete. Nevertheless, EPA anticipates that future experimental 

and full-scale projects will continue to inform the technology, and is therefore using an adaptive 

rulemaking approach. 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. 

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21457 Letter Lines: 110 to 119 

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

USDW 

Comment Code: 4410 2.4.4.3.1 Comments in favor of allowing injection above/between 

USDWs in certain circumstances 

Comment: Now on the technical issues, the ones I would like to mention briefly without 

going into detail; I will defer to the comments about, is the definition of the 

area of review. The definition and treatment of a fault in the subsurface, I 

think I will echo some previous comments on whether to inject above or below the 

lowest USDW. The definition of a USDW might change. The TDS level in the future 

and that is crucial to policy decisions, but we will have to think very 

carefully of, but I think there are good examples of safe CO2 injection that are 

above the lowest USDW. I am willing to make sure that the emphasis is on having 

the adequate confinement systems and confining layers that protect USDW's 

whether they are above or below. 

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that there is increasing demand for water resources and 

that technology improvements may make high TDS aquifers viable drinking water sources. EPA 

believes these potential resources should be considered when injection depth waivers are sought. 

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

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

consider whether alternative injection sites are available; community needs, demands, and supply 

from drinking water resources; planned needs, potential and/or future use of USDWs and nonUSDWs in the area; and a plan for securing alternative resources or treating USDW formation 

waters in the event of contamination related to the Class VI injection activity. 

5

203
EPA is not changing the USDW definition; changing the definition of a USDW is outside the 

scope of the GS rulemaking. The GS rule focuses on ensuring protection of USDWs, as required 

under the SDWA, by establishing regulations to ensure the safe injection of CO2 for long-term 

storage. 

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: 0534 Comment ID: 21458 Letter Lines: 121 to 130 

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) 

Comment: The closure standards I agree with Scott, I do not think that fifty years is 

arbitrary. I do not think that it is the magic number or that it will be 

appropriate for every single site. Nonetheless, I think it is a good benchmark, 

but we do need to have other flexibility to revise this upwards or downwards as 

project data comes in. 

I think what needs a little bit of refinement is the phrase at the discretion of 

the administrator. I think that should be some more concrete criteria as to when 

the administrator should reserve the rights to require certain techniques to be 

used on other requirements in the rule. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the Director should have discretion to shorten or 

lengthen the post-injection site care monitoring period, and has retained this provision in the 

final GS rule at 146.93(b)(2). The GS rule 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 post-injection 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, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an 

alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensures non-endangerment of USDWs 

pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c). 

Because of the variety of site-specific circumstances at GS sites, EPA believes that individual 

UIC Directors, in consultation with operators, will be in the best position to determine whether 

additional post-injection site care monitoring is needed (or whether the timeframe may be 

shortened), based on the circumstances of a particular project. EPA expects this decision to be 

made based on relevant site data and in consultation with all potentially impacted parties. 

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 

6

204
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 is developing guidance to assist owners or operators in evaluating well plugging, postinjection site care, and site closure requirements of §146.92 and §146.93. Additionally, the 

guidance will assist Directors in evaluating proposed well plugging plans and post-injection site 

care and site closure plans under §146.92 and §146.93. The guidance describes recommended 

approaches for how an owner or operator could plug injection and monitoring wells; perform 

post-injection monitoring; demonstrate the appropriateness of an alternative post-injection site 

care time frame; demonstrate non endangerment; and perform site closure activities. The 

guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulate GS injection. The Agency 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. 

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21459 Letter Lines: 132 to 138 

Comment Code: 2166 1.6.3.2 Comments opposing injection into unmineable coal seams 

Comment Code: 2200 1.6.4 Other formation types 

Comment: I do believe that discretion in some media is, if you like, good to go. And 

likewise, I do not believe that sequestration of the media is ready and in that 

range, in that category, I would include basalts, coal seems, organic shales and 

limestone. I think this should still continue any injections and those should 

continue to be regulated under Class V and I do not think we are ready to move 

to a wide scale endorsement of CO2 injection as a sequestration technique in 

those. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that site-suitability for GS is dependent on a number 

of factors and that many formation types may be suitable for GS. The final GS rule does not 

preclude injection into any non-USDW formation type provided owners or operators can 

demonstrate that GS can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

The Agency acknowledges that GS into basalts, coal seams, shales, and limestone formations 

will likely have limited application, or that owners or operators seeking Class VI permits for 

injection into these formations may not be able to meet the final GS requirements or demonstrate 

protection of USDWs. 

The purpose of the GS rule is to ensure protection of USDWs, and the rule includes requirements 

to ensure that the geologic formations are adequate to receive and confine injected CO2, at 

§146.83. The siting, well construction, operational, and other requirements in the GS rule are 

designed to ensure that injected CO2 remains within the target formation. 

7

205
EPA acknowledges that there may be risks associated with GS, particularly regarding GS into 

basalts, which have been the subject of limited experimental projects in the past. EPA anticipates 

that in the short-term, GS into basalts, coal seams, salt domes, organic shales, limestone 

formations will continue to be experimental in nature (i.e., if they are to test GS technologies and 

collect data), and will likely be permitted as Class V experimental technology wells and be 

subject to UIC Program Guidance #83. EPA will continue to review data on early GS projects, 

including those in such formations, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of 

information and documentation are required and being collected. 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. 

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21460 Letter Lines: 140 to 152 

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: And the final technical point which might be somewhat outside the jurisdiction 

of the EPA, refer to this rulemaking is distinction between enhanced oil 

recovery and sequestration. This rule deals exclusively with deep saline 

formations and we believe that business as usual enhanced oil recovery should 

continue to be regulated as it always has under Class II. Nonetheless, if there 

are any changes, any significant changes in the over-riding conditions in oil 

fields where they inject CO2 which might well be the case if people see an 

economic incentive, to sequester larger amounts of CO2 in those oil fields. Then 

I believe that then, we will need to take a closer look at how these wells 

should be regulated and whether there is a need to regulate them under Class VI 

or to grandfather them with other appointments into Class VI and again the 

criteria, it should be whether we incur any significant changes in the risk 

profile of those injection as a result of trying to get more CO2 in there. 

Individual Response: EPA 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. EPA also agrees that the nature and risks of CO2 injection for 

long term storage is different from Class II CO2 injection for ER, and that tailored requirements 

for GS wells are appropriate and necessary to protect USDWs from endangerment. For this 

reason, the Agency tailored UIC requirements for Class VI wells that address the general risks 

deep injection may pose to USDWs and specifically address the unique nature of CO2 GS (i.e., 

very large volumes, very long time-periods, and reservoir pressure conditions). 

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. 

8

206
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: 0534 Comment ID: 21461 Letter Lines: 154 to 156 

Comment Code: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation 

Comment: I think this concludes my technical points. I think there are many good elements 

in this rule. The proposal of the new injection class itself is a very good one. 

The requirements for extensive monitoring is another example. This architectural 

Individual Response: EPA 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 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. 

EPA agrees that the testing and monitoring requirements are an important element of the GS 

rulemaking. 

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21462 Letter Lines: 156 to 159 

Comment Code: 3700 2.2.5 Comments on the requirement for an AoR and corrective action 

plan 

Comment Code: 4600 2.6 Proposed Plume and Pressure Front Monitoring Requirements (40 

CFR 146.90) 

Comment: The requirements for extensive monitoring is another example. This architectural 

design nature of having to continue to update the proposed plans, operational 

parameters, closure plans, etcetera as modeling data comes in and that is 

monitoring comes in. I think it is a very sound one which should be maintained 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter's support of the AoR and corrective 

action plan, and retains the requirement in the final regulation §146.84(b). EPA believes that the 

iterative process by which monitoring and operational data are used to validate the original AoR 

calculation, along with the combined knowledge and ongoing dialogue between the owner or 

operator and the Director on the local geologic conditions will be critical in developing and 

implementing plans that protect USDWs from endangerment. 

EPA agrees that monitoring data should be used to review model assumptions, verify 

computational model projections, and, when necessary, provide input for model refinements. As 

9

207
data are collected at an injection site, model parameters can be adjusted to match observations 

(i.e., for model calibration or), which in turn improves the predictive capability of the model. As 

a GS project proceeds, both monitoring and modeling will evolve, with monitoring results 

supporting effective AoR reevaluations and leading to improved model predictions. 

EPA believes that developing and following testing and monitoring plans is an important part of 

assuring that a GS project is operating properly and is crucial for the early detection of potential 

endangerment to USDWs. EPA also believes that periodic updates to the plan are appropriate. 

EPA clarifies that the final GS regulation includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at 

least every 5 years, and it specifies at §146.90(j) that the operator revise the testing and 

monitoring plan to incorporate the results of the most recent AoR reevaluation and recent 

operational and monitoring data. 

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21463 Letter Lines: 160 to 163 

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

Comment: and I do also agree with the performance based closure standard rather than the 

mere passage of a number of years which could be ten, it could be fifty. I 

really do think that we need to look at what happens in each project rather than 

saying if you have been through a number of years, then it is fine. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees 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 GS rule 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 post-injection 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, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC 

timeframe may be appropriate if it ensures non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to 

requirements at §146.93(c). 

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

for post-injection site care will be necessary in most cases. The default 50 year post-injection site 

care timeframe represents a reasonable and protective monitoring period based on a review of 

research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public 

comments. 

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. 

10

208
Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21464 Letter Lines: 165 to 170 

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs 

Comment: I would like to mention since there is talk of contamination of groundwater that 

we need to be careful to distinguish risks from hazards. A hazard is something 

that can potentially go wrong. A risk involves the probability of it. What we 

really need to do is take a good look at which of these hazards are linked to 

what probabilities and to what extent they amount in. I do believe that in the 

case of sequestration, we can effectively manage a lot of those risks. 

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

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

adverse impacts. However, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large volumes 

of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and potential 

impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expects the tailored permitting, siting, 

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

prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs. 

EPA believes that building upon the existing UIC requirements (e.g., Class I and Class II well 

requirements) to develop the Class VI GS regulations provides a protective foundation for 

ensuring protection of USDWs based on successful field experience, and lessons learned about 

CO2 injection in other applications. 

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21465 Letter Lines: 172 to 190 

Comment Code: 1380 1.1.3.6 Deployment of GS 

Comment Code: 2400 1.8 Comments on EPA's adaptive rulemaking process 

Comment: Climate change will not wait and I think it will have a profound effect on 

drinking water results itself and I really do believe that USDWG will suffer if 

we do nothing about climate change. And I think sequestration as I said can be 

effective. 

I would like to end with a note on scale and timing. I do not believe that we 

are ready to proceed with wide scale deployment of sequestration all around the 

country. It is something we saw a hundred permit application as soon as rules 

promulgated and I do think this is premature. We are not ready to move in that 

direction. Nonetheless I think by the nature of the beast and the current 

economics of CCS, we will not see that happen. What we are talking about here is 

an initial wave and an initial set of projects that would be permitted and then 

studied intensely. And I think those will inform how we think about 

sequestration, whether we indeed need or do not need any revisions to the 

regulations and also how we manage projects. I think ultimately if CCS is to 

deliver on its promise to reduce greenhouse gasses, then yes we will need to 

11

209
deploy this at a wide scale. But this is not something that will happen over 

five years. Some we will scale up to overnight. There will be ample time, study 

and reassessments. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that there is a potential that GS may be deployed at a fast 

pace (e.g., if climate change legislation provides an incentive for sequestering CO2 or if other 

climate policies or regulations limit CO2 emissions), and that it is necessary to prepare for such 

an event. EPA's adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS will allow regulatory 

development to proceed in time to meet the current and future demand for Class VI permits 

while recognizing the need to continue to gather data from pilot projects and other research as it 

becomes available and enhance understanding of the technical and administrative aspects of GS 

deployment, operation, and technology developments. 

Letter ID: 0534 Comment ID: 21466 Letter Lines: 192 to 198 

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

Comment: And I would like to close with one final comment. Even if we do write the 

perfect rule text via its effective implementation really does rest on capacity 

building and funding, not just the federal agency level, but at the state agency 

level. I think now is the time to be thinking about it and to put requirements 

in place and sufficient funding in place, for states and for federal and 

regional offices to gear up and be up to date with these rules and capable of 

administering them effectively. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there may be technical and administrative 

challenges including resource concerns, and will work closely with the states to assist them in 

resolving funding issues or acquiring the resources, personnel, and training needed to address the 

unique technical challenges associated with GS. 

EPA will also incorporate Class VI wells into the UIC Program's grant allocation process. The 

States/Tribes/Territories must also demonstrate that they have adequate resources to implement 

the program through matching resources against those allocated by the UIC Program's grant 

allocation formula. Currently, primacy programs are required to meet a minimum of 25 percent 

matching requirement. 

12

210
Letter ID: 0535 

Commenter: Paul Pike 

Organization: Ameren Corporation on behalf of Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) 

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21432 Letter Lines: 30 to 40 

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking 

Comment: Clearly the rulemaking reflects the important undertaking it will have 

significant, very practical and cost implications for the entire power industry. 

While the challenges and uncertainties associated with the development of large 

scale commercial deployment of carbon capture and storage are significant, the 

utility industry certainly would be at the forefront of these controls. Given 

the direct impact this program will have on the electric industry, we appreciate 

EPA's goal of establishing certainty and transparency to the requirements of 

Class VI carbon dioxide injection. It is also crucial however for the 

regulations to reflect the challenges inherent in crafting controls for 

commercial CO2 injection and storage activities when such large scale commercial 

operations are in the planning stage. 

Individual Response: Comments related to challenges industry will face in crafting control 

technology for CO2 injection that are not related to the endangerment of USDWs are outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

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: 0535 Comment ID: 21433 Letter Lines: 42 to 49 

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

Comment: The fundamental challenge confronting EPA in this rulemaking is to establish a 

cost effective and environmentally sound regulatory program to cover a range of 

operations for which the technology will not be commercially deployed for a 

number of years. To meet this challenge and to establish a workable regulatory 

framework over the coming decades for the long term storage of carbon dioxide, 

EPA must craft regulations with flexibility so that it may be fine tuned as 

industry and regulations alike gain experience with large scale carbon dioxide 

sequestration. 

1

211
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. 

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: 0535 Comment ID: 21434 Letter Lines: 51 to 63 

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

Comment: Because information related to carbon sequestration is sure to develop, Ameren 

urges EPA to avoid blanket probations or arbitrary absolutes in the final rule. 

We agree that the standard underlying protective rule requirements for carbon 

dioxide sequestration is the protection of underground sources of drinking 

water. However, because it is difficult to know at this point what future 

technologies will be developed for injection and long term storage of carbon 

dioxide in the manner that is protective of these drinking water sources. But 

because there is, there should be a significant demand for the capacity to store 

this CO2, EPA should not prematurely preclude injection in certain specific 

types of sites or through certain methods. The final rule should leave the door 

open for a range of injection options, sites and methods, some of which are 

unrecognized or even unknowable at this point in time provided that the ltimate 

objective of protecting the underground sources of drinking water is achieved. 

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 

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 

2

212
types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if 

modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary. 

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21435 Letter Lines: 65 to 81 

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment) 

Comment: Of particular importance is also potential for liability under CERCLA including 

the natural resources damages cases stemming from injection and sequestration of 

carbon dioxide. As EPA can surely appreciate the potential for these opening 

liabilities will act as a serious deterrent for would-be owners and operators of 

these injection wells. Simply put, EPA must mitigate the threat of potential 

CERCLA liability to the extent possible in the rulemaking. 

One step that the Agency can take with respect to CERCLA is to ensure that the 

Class VI permits have the broadest possible reach or meaning protective of 

drinking waters. To maximize this protection offered by the federally permitted 

release exemption, this would mean including the scope of the permit for carbon 

dioxide injection, all other CERCLA hazardous constituents likely to be 

contained in the CO2 stream including those generated along with the carbon 

capture and transport and in the injection zone. 

Similarly the scope of the authorized permit zone should be as broad as possible 

while remaining protective of drinking water. 

Individual Response: 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). 

Therefore, Class VI requirements and permits will need to be carefully structured to ensure that 

they do not 'authorize' inappropriate releases, and would need to prevent potential releases from 

the well which are outside the scope of the Class VI permit. 

Furthermore, EPA is promulgating the GS rule under the authority of the SDWA. To the extent 

the commenter is seeking interpretations of CERCLA and its related provisions, such as the 

definition of a federally permitted release, such interpretations are beyond the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

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" 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. 

3

213
The UIC program Director has authority under SDWA §1423 to address potential compliance 

issues (e.g., potential releases that may endanger USDWs) resulting from injection violations in 

the unlikely event that a remedial response is necessary. Although EPA anticipates that the need 

for emergency or remedial actions at GS sites will be rare, the GS rule requires, at §146.94, that 

emergency and remedial response plans be developed and updated to address such events and 

that owners or operators demonstrate that financial resources are set aside to implement the plans 

if necessary, per §146.85. 

Regarding long term liability, 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. 

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. 

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21436 Letter Lines: 83 to 92 

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

Comment: With respect to RCRA, it is premature to conclude that captured injected carbon 

dioxide is discarded and therefore possibly a solid waste under RCRA. Carbon 

dioxide is a commodity used in a variety of processes currently and we do not 

know exactly what methods or mechanisms will be created as a result to deal with 

4

214
CO2. EPA should create an applicable exemption from RCRA under the well 

established contingent management concept given that the UIC will ensure that 

they injected material is not mismanaged. Such an exclusion will be legally 

justified, consistent with past promulgation of excluded rules and it would make 

sound policy since by removing a potentially significant regulatory barrier to 

the commercial development of carbon dioxide sequestration operations. 

Individual Response: 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. 

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21437 Letter Lines: 94 to 96 

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

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment) 

Comment: The bottom line is that the potential for interaction with CERCLA or liability 

in RCRA must be mitigated to avoid significant delays in an overall chilling 

effect on this process. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that promoting the use of GS is outside the scope of the GS 

rule. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to ensure that, where deployed, GS is conducted 

in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21438 Letter Lines: 98 to 105 

Comment Code: 1540 1.2.3.2 Climate change legislation 

Comment Code: 1930 1.4.4.2 Consultations with State, Tribal, and local Associations (e.g., 

GWPC, IOGCC) 

Comment: USWAG recognizes that while there are some measures Agency can take in the 

regulatory context to address these concerns, those measures may be limited. In 

the end USWAG also believes that the Agency should consider whether legislative 

solutions will be necessary and if so, we strongly support that they take such 

action. Because state regulators have worked extensively with permitting the 

existing injection wells, we believe that we should work with those agencies to 

5

215
continue and to have implementation of the Class VI rules by the states would be 

crucial to the UIC program. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that states should implement the Class VI rule. EPA believes 

that allowing states to obtain Class VI primacy may encourage them 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 are outside UIC authority to 

provide a more comprehensive CCS management approach. EPA acknowledges that some states 

and tribes are developing statutory frameworks, regulations, technical guidance, and strategies 

for addressing broader issues related to CCS and GS, and encourages states to seek primacy for 

Class VI wells to further these efforts. 

EPA agrees that GS is a key climate change mitigation technology that is part of a portfolio of 

options that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. EPA clarifies that the scope of this GS 

regulation is limited to underground injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule 

are designed to ensure protect 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: 0535 Comment ID: 21439 Letter Lines: 107 to 110 

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

Comment: Because of wildly varied characteristics and limitations of sites and projects, 

it is important to incorporate performance based standards into the final rule 

waiting for site specific approach to requirements for site review, reevaluation 

and post injection site care and closure. 

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

6

216
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. 

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21440 Letter Lines: 112 to 116 

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Responsibility and Long-Term Care 

Requirements 

Comment: With respect to EPA's suggestion that future guidance documents be issued to 

clarify financial responsibility, we stress that such guidance must be issued in 

keeping with OMB's good guidance practices bulletin. In addition, it is 

essential that the self insurance instruments remain available to owners and 

operators as a method of financial assurance for Class VI carbon projects. 

Individual Response: EPA will retain the use of self-insurance as an instrument to demonstrate 

financial responsibility for Class VI wells. EPA is developing guidance that describes the types 

of financial instruments, including self insurance, which owners or operators can use to meet 

financial responsibility requirements for GS wells. The financial responsibility guidance will 

include considerations for Directors regarding how to evaluate the appropriateness of a specific 

financial responsibility instrument for a specific project. EPA notes that directors may disallow 

certain instruments. The guidance will be available on EPA's website at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

EPA acknowledges that states may not be authorized under state law to allow for self insurance 

or other financial instruments. Therefore, states may prohibit the use of any financial instruments 

included in the rule, including self insurance, for Class VI wells. See the final rule and preamble 

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

EPA plans to take OMB's Good Guidance Manual into consideration as financial responsibility 

guidance is developed. OMB's Good Guidance Manual establishes policies and procedures for 

the development, issuance, and use of significant guidance documents by Executive Branch 

departments and agencies. 

Letter ID: 0535 Comment ID: 21441 Letter Lines: 118 to 122 

Comment Code: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for permit applications (seeking 

comment) 

Comment: A final rule must not make Class VI permit application process overly burdensome 

or unrealistic by requiring detailed information that may not be available at 

7

217
8

the time of the initial application. Instead the final rule should allow for 

submission of updated information regarding Class VI well and its area of review 

as that information becomes available. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that the unique characteristics of CO2 injection (e.g., its 

relative buoyancy, the large volume that may be injected, or the potential for chemical 

interaction with the subsurface) warrant the additional information required to be submitted by 

GS operators under §146.82. EPA disagrees that Directors should be able to waive some of the 

application requirements. To protect USDWs from endangerment, Directors must have all the 

data they need to make well-informed decisions on establishing permit conditions and granting 

permits. 

In response to concerns that some data will not be available until the well has been drilled, EPA 

acknowledges that not all of the information listed at §146.82 of the proposed regulation will be 

available at the time the owner or operator develops the permit application. Based on comments 

and evaluation of the proposed requirements, EPA revised this subpart so that the final regulation 

specifies separate requirements for information to be submitted for approval with the permit 

application before well construction, as required at §146.82(a), and information to be submitted 

after the well is constructed yet before injection is authorized, as required at §146.82(c). Please 

see the final rule and the discussion of permitting and geologic site characterization in the 

preamble for additional information. 

218
Letter ID: 0536 

Commenter: Olon Plunk 

Organization: Xcel Energy 

Letter ID: 0536 Comment ID: 21374 Letter Lines: 48 to 52 

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking 

Comment: I am here this morning to speak in support of the important work EPA is 

undertaking to establish regulations governing the underground sequestration of 

carbon dioxide. In so doing, I would like to share with you a few of the lessons 

we have learned as we have studied the feasibility of developing an IGCC project 

with carbon capture. 

Individual Response: Comments related to the feasibility of developing IGCC projects not 

related to preventing endangerment of USDWs are outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

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: 0536 Comment ID: 21375 Letter Lines: 54 to 67 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

Comment: First we have learned that carbon sequestration is currently one of the most 

important means by which power companies can reduce carbon dioxide emissions 

while still producing reliable and affordable energy from coal. 

International studies as well as studies here in this country attest to the 

importance of geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide in any strategy to 

reducing increasing carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. 

Second, working with respected geo-technical and reservoir consultants to DOE 

sequestration partnerships and a world renowned national lab, we learned that 

geologic storage of CO2 is not only feasible, but actually happening 

successfully in a number of places around the world. We also discovered there 

are viable and even favorable sites to sequester large quantities of CO2 right 

here in Colorado. 

1

219
Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including 

energy conservation, efficiency improvements, and the use of alternative fuels and renewable 

energy sources, that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions. However, the use of and 

investment in these technologies is outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. 

EPA agrees that large scale GS can be done safely. The GS regulation builds upon the longstanding protective framework of the UIC program, which has been regulating the injection of 

billions of gallons of liquids for decades. The GS regulation enhances this existing framework 

with requirements for GS wells that are tailored to the unique nature of large scale GS of CO2. 

These additional protective requirements include more extensive geologic testing, detailed 

computational modeling of the AoR and periodic re-evaluations, detailed requirements for 

monitoring and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and extended post-injection 

monitoring and site care. For additional information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, please 

see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket. 

Letter ID: 0536 Comment ID: 21376 Letter Lines: 69 to 95 

Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking 

Comment: Finally and most relevant to today's discussion we learned that permanent 

storage of CO2 can be done safely and without harm to the environment as long as 

we apply the right knowledge base, detailed site specific information, technical 

expertise and sound management practices. This is where EPA's proposed 

regulations for geologic storage of CO2 come into the picture. Because as we 

went forward with our investigations over the last years, we also came to 

understand something that caused us as much concern in terms of our IGCC 

project. We came to understand that government regulation and oversight of 

underground sequestration were areas of significant uncertainty. Nobody knew 

exactly who had authority over what and what requirements might apply to a clean 

coal power plant project that included geologic sequestration. We realized that 

this regulatory uncertainty in time created major uncertainties for our project 

with regard to getting necessary environmental and other approvals in a timely 

fashion. With regard to obtaining insurance and financial assurances needed to 

manage project risk and liability and with regard to establishing confidence and 

community acceptance of the project. 

In short we came to understand the regulatory situation created an environment 

of uncertainty in which an IGCC project involving an investment of over a 

billion dollars could not responsibly proceed. This is why I am here this 

morning to speak in favor of what EPA is doing to address a critical element in 

our national response to climate change and why I think the real world 

experience Excel Energy has gained in Colorado would be of value in this 

rulemaking process. The company will join other electric utilities in submitting 

detailed written comments we hope will lay groundwork for a program that will be 

protective, but practical and provide the certainty needed to make carbon 

sequestration a viable near term climate mitigation option for the industry. 

2

220
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. 

EPA agrees that the implementation of the GS rule in a manner that ensures protection of 

USDWs from endangerment is important to establishing a foundation for further advances in the 

field of CO2 GS. EPA acknowledges the need for regulatory certainty: the final GS requirements 

provide a level of certainty by setting forth unique requirements for GS. These requirements 

include: the tailored AoR delineation process at §146.84, the types of monitoring appropriate to 

GS projects at §146.90), and the post-injection site care process at §146.93). For additional 

information on these requirements, please also see the discussion of EPA’s Final Regulatory 

Approach in the preamble to the final GS rule. 

To protect USDWs from endangerment and meet the potentially fast pace of GS deployment, 

EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulating CO2 injection for GS. 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. An adaptive 

approach will allow regulatory development to proceed in time to meet the current and future 

demands for Class VI permits, while EPA continues to gather data from pilot projects and other 

research as it becomes available. 

Letter ID: 0536 Comment ID: 21377 Letter Lines: 97 to 104 

Comment Code: 3100 2.1 Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements (40 CFR 146.83) 

Comment Code: 4710 2.7.1 Proposed submissions required for permit applications (seeking 

comment) 

Comment: In the meantime, I would like to offer some general observations. Having been 

through this effort to locate and prove up the acceptability of a CO2 

sequestration site for a large commercial scale project, Excel believes the 

topics EPA would require permit applicant to address in its proposed rules are 

appropriate and important. For example, we believe the best technical expertise 

should be brought to bear in the first studying and then submitting 

documentation concerning site and formation geology, hydro-geology, faults, 

fractures, injectivity, existing wells and so on. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees on the importance of the 

required permit information set in §146.82. EPA believes that the extensive requirements for 

geologic site characterization at §146.82 are appropriate to ensure that permitting authorities 

3

221
have the necessary information to evaluate whether a specific site will allow safe injection of 

CO2. 

Letter ID: 0536 Comment ID: 21378 Letter Lines: 106 to 117 

Comment Code: 3100 2.1 Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements (40 CFR 146.83) 

Comment Code: 3800 2.3 Proposed Injection Well Construction Requirements (40 CFR 

146.86) 

Comment Code: 4000 2.4 Proposed Injection Well Operating Requirements (40 CFR 146.88) 

Comment Code: 5000 2.8 Proposed Well Plugging and Post-Injection Site Care Requirements 

Comment: We believe there must be suitable CO2 injection plans backed by seismic surveys, 

multi dimensional modeling simulations and formation testing. 

We recognize the overriding importance of well design and construction that 

assures well integrity. We believe there must be a sound operations management 

program including appropriate monitoring and corrective actions that are 

prepared and implemented by experts in the field. 

We recognize both the local and national interest in providing effective post 

injection site care and closure and demonstrating adequate financial 

responsibility for these activities. While agreeing with supporting all of these 

important program elements, I would like to add a few words of caution. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. The GS requirements are designed to 

ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment by requiring that injection wells are permitted, 

sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and plugged in a manner that does not endanger 

USDWs. Appropriately designed and constructed wells are necessary to prevent endangerment to 

USDWs and maintain integrity of the well throughout the lifetime of a GS project. This is the 

foundation of the requirements for construction and pre-operational testing of Class VI wells at 

§§146.86 and 146.87. 

EPA is developing guidance on site characterization for GS projects to assist owners or operators 

and Directors in evaluating permit requirements and applications under §146.82. The guidance 

provides recommendations characterizing the regional geology and hydrogeology of a proposed 

GS site as well as performing the necessary geochemical, geomechanical, and geophysical 

analyses of the injection and confining zone. EPA expects that this guidance will assist permit 

writers in evaluating this information. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

EPA is developing guidance on site characterization for GS projects to assist owners or operators 

and Directors in evaluating permit requirements and applications under §146.82. The guidance 

provides recommendations characterizing the regional geology and hydrogeology of a proposed 

GS site as well as performing the necessary geochemical, geomechanical, and geophysical 

analyses of the injection and confining zone. EPA expects that this guidance will assist permit 

writers in evaluating this information. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

4

222
Letter ID: 0536 Comment ID: 21379 Letter Lines: 119 to 149 

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

Comment: If we as a nation want CO2 sequestration to become a viable and near term option 

for dealing with carbon emissions, we cannot make obtaining approval for 

sequestration projects so difficult, time consuming or expensive that it 

recreates the very barrier that the lack of clear regulatory requirements 

presented in the first place. We cannot implement an effective regulatory 

program for sequestering CO2 if the rules are based on the erroneous premise 

that CO2 represents an extreme hazard. It is important in these rules that we 

send the right message to the public about the nature of the CO2 gas we are 

dealing with. 

It is likewise critical in these new rules that we strike the right balance 

between addressing realistic risks associated with storing CO2 versus creating a 

regime that effectively hinders rather than facilitates a key climate mitigation 

strategy. 

We know that more and larger sequestration demonstration projects should be 

funded and undertaken. We agree that careful monitoring of well integrity, plume 

migration and the like is necessary. On the other hand, we already have decades 

of experience in the underground injection of CO2 and other much more hazardous 

materials. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent doing measurements and 

monitoring studies at large sequestration projects like Weyburn and Sleipner and 

DOE is in the process of spending many millions more on projects sponsored by 

the various regional sequestration partnerships. 

Other countries are doing their own sequestration demonstrations and related 

research. The real goal is to strike a reasonable balance between how much is 

required and would have to be spent in the way of well and ground water 

monitoring, plume tracking and all the rest versus the level of risk presented 

by a given project. Considering what we have already learned about the 

characteristics of CO2 geologic storage and the effecticy of various monitoring 

and management practices. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the GS regulation overstates the risk of CO2 injection. 

EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not 

properly managed, could endanger drinking water sources and have other adverse impacts. 

However, with proper site selection, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large 

volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and 

potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expects the tailored permitting, siting, 

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

prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs. 

5

223
EPA also disagrees that the tailored requirements will create a negative public perception of GS. 

The Agency believes that a demonstration to the public that GS projects are meeting the GS 

rule's tailored requirements would likely improve confidence in the project and help address 

public questions and concerns. 

EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote CCS; rather, the purpose of the rule is 

to ensure that, where deployed, GS performed in a manner that protects USDWs from 

endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0536 Comment ID: 21380 Letter Lines: 151 to 154 

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking 

Comment: I want to close by reiterating Excel Energy's strong support for the expeditious 

adoption of affective rules that will facilitate geologic carbon sequestration 

and give our company, our industry and our nation a powerful tool in reducing 

CO2 emissions. And thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

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. 

6

224
Letter ID: 0537 

Commenter: Talib Syed 

 

Letter ID: 0537 Comment ID: 21470 Letter Lines: 23 to 34 

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

CFR 146.84) 

Comment: I just want to give a few minor, just highlight maybe two or three points that 

in my opinion are important. The first thing is I think we have to pay a little 

bit of attention to just transposing the area of review concept that they used 

to with the UIC program to the CO2 geologic sequestration program. And the 

reason is, it is not in my opinion, the same concept that we had when we were 

disposing of water, etcetera. So we have got buoyancy affects to regard to take 

into consideration and that may be a bigger impact n what the zone of 

endangering influence is. And I believe that has not been taken into 

consideration at all and just transposing the zone of endangering influence as 

we are used to with the water etcetera in the UIC program, without incorporating 

buoyancy affects, that is an issue that needs to be very carefully taken into 

consideration. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that the buoyancy of CO2 must be accounted for in 

delineating the AoR for GS projects. Buoyancy is one of the characteristics of CO2 injected for 

GS that served as a catalyst for the development of tailored UIC requirements for GS. The 

Agency clarifies that employing multiphase computational modeling to determine the AoR as 

required at 146.84(c) will result in a more accurate prediction of the fate of CO2 and changes in 

formation pressure. Computational models used to delineate the AoR must consider the buoyant 

nature and specific properties of separate phases of the injected CO2 and native fluids within the 

injection zone. 

Letter ID: 0537 Comment ID: 21471 Letter Lines: 36 to 45 

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

Comment: That leads me to mechanical integrity. The integrity, the mechanical integrity 

is going to be a critical component. I believe right around the well hole in the 

casing and the type of cements that you use and the potential for flow on the 

backside due to back flow etcetera becomes critical. So I am not ruling out, you 

know, transitioning or using EOR type wells for geosequestration, but you have 

got to be careful on looking at those wells and just not saying, okay, I have 

got these wells, they are for EOR purposes and I am just going to straight away 

transition them for geosequestration. If you've got a custom designed well, that 

is the way I would go, but I would not rule out using Class II EOR wells, but 

pay a lot of close attention to it. 

1

225
Individual Response: EPA agrees that a cautious approach to grandfathering is appropriate, 

particularly given that the converted well will be used for a substantially different process, which 

involves increased reservoir pressures associated with large volumes of stored CO2 and the 

corrosivity of CO2 in the presence of water. The final GS rule provides for the construction of 

these wells to be grandfathered (per 146.81(c)). EPA has included a requirement in the final GS 

rule that owners or operators seeking to convert existing wells for long term storage must 

demonstrate to the Director that the grandfathered wells were engineered and constructed meet 

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

§146.86(b) and §146.87(a). 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: 0537 Comment ID: 21472 Letter Lines: 47 to 72 

Comment Code: 3824 2.3.1.2 Cementing of long-string casing (seeking comment) 

Comment: The requirement that you cement a continuous column of cement for the long 

string casing again, could be a potential problem. For instance, if you got mud 

in the bore hole, say you know, a ten pounds per gallon mud and you are 

displacing cement of fourteen pounds per gallon, then you may unintentionally 

fracture some deep formations behind the well hole and what you have done is you 

have damaged the integrity of the well hole and your primary objective in every 

instance is to make sure that the integrity of the well is the most critical 

component. 

Many times what happens is that we are looking at it from an environmental 

perspective, we will look at all environmental considerations, but safety, 

safety becomes you know, a critical component that would trump environmental 

considerations. That does not mean that environmental considerations have to be 

set aside. Look at that too, but safety will always trump environmental 

considerations, so if you've got unintended fracturing of the formations of big 

formations, what have you done? In effect, you have lowered the integrity which 

was your primary objective to begin with because you want to make sure that you 

have got the integrity of the well hole. So you know, so in some cases yeah go 

ahead and do it, but do not mandate it in that okay in every instance, you have 

to have a continuous column of cement. So that ties in with the integrity 

because always keep in mind, what is -- how can I maintain the integrity of my 

well hole throughout the life of the project? Because in EOR applications you 

know, you are talking about maybe ten million, fifty million, hundred million 

cubic feet per day of injection, but here you are talking about an exponential 

manifold increase for geosequestration purposes. You are talking about gigatons 

etcetera. 

Individual Response: EPA believes that current cementing technology can address deep well 

2

226
cement columns or low-pressure bottom-of-hole formations. The oil and gas industry has 

experience drilling and cementing wells in very deep formations and in formations with low 

pressures. Less dense, lighter weight cement slurries that include nitrogen foam or lightweight 

microspheres (Sabins 2002; Kulakofsky et al. 2005) are used to prevent breakdown of the low 

pressure formation and loss of circulation. Another way to approach low formation pressure 

conditions is with reverse cementing (pumping the cement into the annulus and returning it 

through the casing). This method uses gravity to place the cement and bypass lost circulation 

zones. Reverse cementing can be combined with other methods such as foam cement. Ten 

successful reverse-cemented wells have been completed in a variety of onshore/offshore 

environments (Chase 2008). 

EPA believes that the construction requirements at §146.86 offer flexibility to the owner or 

operator to propose well construction procedures that are appropriate to the site-specific 

conditions of the project. Section 146.86(b)(3) requires that the long-string casing extend to the 

injection zone and be cemented by circulating cement to the surface in one or more stages. It 

does not, however, specify how cementing should be accomplished, and gives flexibility to the 

owner or operator to propose alternate methods to provide a sufficient amount of cement to meet 

the standard that USDWs are protected from endangerment, subject to the approval of the 

Director. EPA notes that there are many potential ways to meet the requirement, such as the use 

of staged cementing. 

See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS 

rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the construction of 

Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. 

Letter ID: 0537 Comment ID: 21473 Letter Lines: 74 to 77 

Comment Code: 3840 2.3.2 Horizontal well drilling techniques (seeking comment) 

Comment: The next point I would like to make is we have not considered horizontal wells. 

In the rules that were, the proposed rules I have not seen anything on, as far 

as horizontal wells. Are horizontal wells going to be used for completion of 

geosequestration wells and how does that play into the matrix? 

Individual Response: In this final rule, EPA allows the use of horizontal wells at GS projects. In 

the proposed rule, EPA sought comment on the appropriateness of horizontal drilling techniques 

for Class VI wells, and commenters representing energy companies, electric utilities, the oil and 

gas industry, CCS associations, states, and the public, unanimously supported the concept and 

provided many reasons why horizontal wells could be beneficial at GS sites. Based on an 

evaluation of these comments and additional research by EPA, the Agency has concluded that 

horizontal wells that are properly constructed, logged, and tested for mechanical integrity (i.e., to 

meet the requirements of the GS rule) can ensure the protection of USDWs from endangerment. 

3

227
Letter ID: 0537 Comment ID: 21474 Letter Lines: 79 to 89 

Comment Code: 4344 2.4.4.2.2 Comments opposed to setting a minimum injection depth 

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

Comment: Another item that I would like to bring to you know, to be considered is the 

depth of the lower most USDW. Yes in an ideal world, you want to have your 

injection zone below your lower most USDW, but what happens if you have USDW say 

at 20,000 feet? Nobody is using that USDW for practical purposes. You are not 

going to go and drill a water well 20,000 feet deep in order to supply a 

community, but at the same time it meets the criteria of less than 10,000 TDS. 

So there should be some flexibility on a case by case basis. Either if it is 

economically not feasible or it is technologically not feasible just as we have 

an aquifer exemption process or you know, for the Class II program. But I do 

prefer as a starting point that you use a zone that is you know, deeper than 

your lower most USDW, but not in every instance as mandatory requirement. 

Individual Response: EPA is not changing the USDW definition; changing the definition of a 

USDW is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. The GS rule focuses on ensuring protection of 

USDWs, as required under the SDWA, by establishing regulations to ensure the safe injection of 

CO2 for long-term storage. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

event of contamination related to the Class VI injection activity. 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: 0537 Comment ID: 21475 Letter Lines: 91 to 102 

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs 

Comment: One other concern that I have is of you know, again the safety of underground 

water sources. So the design of the well and the operation because when, when 

you are dealing with CO2, it is very important that you be aware of the phase 

behavior of CO2. We are all aware that CO2 could be in a liquid phase, in a 

supercritical gaseous phase, it could be a supercritical gas or a solid, 

etcetera and that is why the critical temperature, critical pressure comes in. 

So a requirement that you always operate at a certain depth where you are above 

the critical temperature, you are above the critical pressure becomes important 

4

228
because otherwise you are going to have unintended consequences. Particularly 

what you have got to watch out for is a catastrophic release. Small releases, 

okay you can manage it, but if you have got a catastrophic release, then 

everything you know, comes to naught. 

Individual Response: EPA recognizes that all phases of CO2 must be considered in determining 

the suitability of GS projects. Under §146.84, the owner or operator must delineate the area of 

review for Class VI wells using computational modeling that accounts for the physical and 

chemical properties of all phases of the injected CO2 stream. Modeling must be based on 

available site characterization, monitoring, and operational data. The definition of the AoR in the 

proposed rule accounted for the varying physical and chemical properties of the CO2 including 

free-phase and water-dissolved CO2. 

GS takes place thousands of feet below the Earth’s surface within porous spaces in deep rock 

formations. CO2 is injected for GS through technically engineered wells with multiple barriers 

designed to isolate the injectate in the well and protect formations outside the well materials. The 

injected CO2 is stored in geologic formations underneath confining layers of rock that act as 

natural barriers to leakage. It is unlikely that CO2 will escape from a GS site that is properly 

sited, operated, monitored, and closed. During the site selection process under §146.83, operators 

of Class VI wells identify and evaluate the appropriateness of a site for GS of CO2. The 

evaluation includes the identification of surface and subsurface features such as deep stratified 

lakes and other naturally occurring pockets of CO2. Furthermore, during GS operation, injection 

pressures and formation conditions are monitored to avoid overpressuring the storage formation. 

Letter ID: 0537 Comment ID: 21476 Letter Lines: 104 to 119 

Comment Code: 3862 2.3.3.1 Use of corrosion-resistant construction materials (seeking 

comment) 

Comment Code: 3864 2.3.3.2 Use of corrosion-resistant cements (seeking comment) 

Comment: So that is about it. I think you are headed in the right direction, but we've 

got to be careful on, you know, we are going to learn as we go along. We have 

got a lot of experience that EOR, 70% of the current CO2 injections are the 

Permian Basin in west Texas. Okay. We started CO2 flooding in west Texas in you 

know, in the `50's so we have got a lot of information on how to design the 

wells, what the problems are, but for geosequestration where you are just, you 

know, storing it in deep seated aquifers, you have got to be careful with the 

wells. You have got to be careful about you know, the reaction of the tubulars, 

the reaction on the cement. Again for EOR, if you got a cement like, let us say 

a problematic cement, that is not going to be effective in preventing flow. It 

has to be modified and there are now new cements that are coming in for 

specifically designed for CO2 purposes. So these types of cements may be 

effective again, but again we have got to watch out for each case and not just a 

sealed okay if it is there because KBR and Halliburton and all the other service 

companies are coming up with new cement specifically designed for making sure 

that in every instance you have got that area covered. Okay? 

5

229
6

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the requirement at §146.86(b)(5) is that cement and 

cement additives must be compatible with the CO2 stream and formation fluids and of sufficient 

quality and quantity to maintain integrity over the design life of the GS project. EPA believes 

that the use of acid-resistant cements is one of several protective measures for meeting that Class 

VI well construction requirement, along with the requirements for surface casing and long-string 

casing and well tubulars that are compatible with the CO2 and formation fluids. See the 

discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS rule for 

additional information. 

EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the 

purpose of enhanced recovery, and that this practice has led to the development of many 

corrosion mitigation measures that would be appropriate for the design of Class VI wells. The 

rule does not specify materials to be used; rather, it provides owners or operators with the 

flexibility to choose, as long as the materials used in Class VI wells are compatible with fluids 

with which they may come into contact and meet or exceed standards developed for such 

materials by API or ASTM International, or comparable standards approved by the Director, as 

provided at §146.86(b)(1). 

The Agency plans to, every six years, 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. 

230