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.
melinda.s.winkler@exx

onmobil.com 

12/24/2008 10:18 AM 

To OW-Docket@EPA 

cc assem.akram@epa.com 

bcc

Subject ExxonMobil Comment on Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW2008-0390 

 

SENT ON BEHALF OF K.J. MILLER 

(See attached file: ExxonMobil Comments Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390.pdf) 

K. J. (Ken) Miller 

Upstream Safety, Health and Environment Manager 

ExxonMobil Production Company 

Safety, Health and Environment 

P. O. Box 2180, Houston, TX 77252-2180 

800 Bell, Suite 4291 (CORP-EMB-4291A), Houston, TX 77002-7426 

(713) 656-9704; fax (713) 656-6594 

E-mail: ken.j.miller@exxonmobil.com 

NOBODY GETS HURT! Protect tomorrow. Today. Security is everybody's 

business.
liuonMobil Produe,lon CompO"J PO B<m ,.'to

I .I'

December 19. 2008

Water Docket

Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code 2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW

Washington, DC 20460

Docket 10 Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-Q390

Kon~. Millo.

'M_ 1iO...._~

EJf<.onMobii

Productioll

To Whom It May Concern:

ExxonMobil Prooudion Company (a DiviSIOn of ElOOJfl Mob~ Corporation) appreciates

the opportumty to SUbmIt comments on the EnVIronmental Protection Agency's (EPA)

proposed roles for GeologIC Storage of Carbon Dioxide (GS) under the safe Drinking

Water Act (SDWA) UndergrOUnd Inje<;1lOn Control Program. Exxon Mobil Corporabon is

a fully integrated oil and gas company with workl-wide operations. EKxon Mobil

Corporation has SlQmficant experience In operations directly related 10 geologic storage

such as carbon dlO)ode (CO~) based enhanced oil recovery (EOR), separation of CO~

from natural gas streams. acid gas injection, geologic imaging and modeling, injection

well integrity management. as well as an industry leading research and development

program which Includes carbon management technologies,

ExxonMobil would like to compliment the EPA on the open and transparent process

lhey have followed in developing lhese draft rules.

ExxonMobil has participated elCtensively in the preparation of the comments submitlecl

by the American Petroleum Institute (API) on this proposed rule and endorses their

comments. We share the concerns raised by the API in their comments. SpecifIC

concerns are with use of the Class I UIC (IndustnallHazardous Waste) program as the

basiS for the proposed 1\I1es, the proposed prohibition of injCCIlOO above the lowermost

underground source of drinking water. and the proposed 50 year post closure

monrtoling period. In each of these cases, the EPA has oot fuly leveraged on industry's

successful experience WIth the Class II EOR program and instead, by building on the

Class I program. is proposing requirements that are overly restrictive and could have a

significant chilling effect on Ihe commercial scale implementatIOn 01 GS. IllS our

position Ihat ExxonMobirs and industry's experience with C02 based EOR provides a

sound baSIS from which to form an environmentally sound regulatOf)' frameworK for GS.
Environmental Protec!JOn Agency Page 2 December 19, 2008

As EPA correctly notes 10 the preamble of this rule, several key areas remain 10 be

addressed that are beyond the EPA's authority under the SOWA before commercial

scale carbon capture and storage will occur. Examples of these areas indude

management of long lerm respoosibihty for storage sites, monetization of CO2 in a way

lhat does not adversely affect economic development and prospenty, publIC education

and awareness, and development of balanced property rights alld access principles.

In conclusion, EltltonMobil is committed to working with the EPA individually and

through the API and other groups to develop scientifically sound. performance based

regUlations for the geologic storage of C02. Each of the areas of concern we have

identified are more fUlly addressed in API's comments.

Sincerely,

/'fi {iv'13='</ .h

KJM:msw
Letter ID: 0257 

Commenter: Ken Miller 

Organization: ExxonMobil Production Company 

Letter ID: 0257 Comment ID: 22369 Letter Lines: 76 to 88 

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

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

Comment: ExxonMobil has participated extensively in the preparation of the comments 

submitted by the American Petroleum Institute (API) on this proposed rule and 

endorses their comments. We share the concerns raised by the API in their 

comments. Specific concerns are with use of the Class I UIC (Industrial/Hazardous 

Waste) program as the basis for the proposed rules, the proposed prohibition of 

injection above the lowermost underground source of drinking water, and the 

proposed 50 year post closure monitoring period. In each of these cases, the EPA 

has not fully leveraged on industry's successful experience with the Class II EOR 

program and instead, by building on the Class I program, is proposing 

requirements that are overly restrictive and could have a significant chilling 

effect on the commercial scale implementation of GS. It is our position Ihat 

ExxonMobil's and industry's experience with CO2 based EOR provides a sound basis 

from which to form an environmentally sound regulatory framework for GS. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the GS regulation is overly restrictive. 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. 

While EPA recognizes that industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for ER, EPA 

believes that injection for the primary purpose of long term storage is sufficiently different from 

Class II ER operations and warrants tailored requirements. 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 also 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. 

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. 

1
Letter ID: 0257 Comment ID: 22370 Letter Lines: 90 to 96 

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

ownership 

Comment: As EPA correctly notes in the preamble of this rule, several key areas remain to 

be addressed that are beyond the EPA's authority under the SDWA before 

commercial scale carbon capture and storage will occur. Examples of these areas 

indude management of long lerm responsibihty for storage sites, monetization of 

CO2 in a way that does not adversely affect economic development and prospenty, 

public education and awareness, and development of balanced property rights and 

access principles. 

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. Establishing a price for carbon and property rights 

issues are outside of the scope of the GS rule. 

EPA recognizes the importance of providing clear, flexible, scalable, and appropriate 

regulations. EPA believes that the GS regulation will provide certainty to industry and the public 

by providing consistency in requirements across the U.S. and transparency about what 

requirements apply to owners or operators. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

approving site closure. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2
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 to financial responsibility for Class VI wells. 

Letter ID: 0257 Comment ID: 22371 Letter Lines: 98 to 101 

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments 

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking 

Comment: In conclusion, ExxonMobil is committed to working with the EPA individually 

and through the API and other groups to develop scientifically sound, 

performance based regulations for the geologic storage of C02. Each of the areas 

of concern we have identified are more fully addressed in API's comments. 

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

responses to this comment and API’s comment for further details. For additional information on 

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

docket. 

Letter ID: 0257 Comment ID: 24729 Letter Lines: 59 to 74 

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments 

Comment: To Whom It May Concern: 

ExxonMobil Production Company (a Division of ExxonMobil Corporation) appreciates 

the opportunity to submit comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 

proposed rules for Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide (GS) under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Underground Injection Control Program. Exxon Mobil 

Corporation is a fully integrated oil and gas company with world-wide operations. 

Exxon Mobil Corporation has significant experience in operations directly related 

to geologic storage such as carbon dioxide (CO2) based enhanced oil recovery 

(EOR), separation of CO2 from natural gas streams, acid gas injection, geologic 

imaging and modeling, injection well integrity management, as well as an 

industry leading research and development program which includes carbon 

management technologies. 

ExxonMobil would like to compliment the EPA on the open and transparent process 

3
4

they have followed in developing these draft rules. 

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.