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.
TESTIMONY OF EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE

Karl R. Moor, Southern Company

EPA’s UIC Proposed Regulations for Geologic Storage of CO2 – Public Hearing

September 30, 2008

Chicago, Illinois

Introduction

Good (morning/afternoon). My name is Karl R. Moor, and I am Vice President and Associate 

General Counsel of Southern Company, one of the largest producers of electricity in the country, 

serving nearly 4.4 million customers in the southeastern United States. I am pleased to say that 

Southern Company already has begun to assess geologic storage opportunities in the Southeast 

and will begin injecting carbon dioxide into a deep saline-filled geologic formation at our Plant 

Daniel in Mississippi next week. This demonstration project at Plant Daniel is the product of the 

collaborative efforts of the Department of Energy, Electric Power Research Institute and the 

Southern States Energy Board, and is under the auspices of the Southeast Carbon Sequestration 

Regional Partnership. Southern Company supports carbon capture and storage as a critical tool 

in addressing greenhouse gases and is proud of our efforts to bring this important technology

toward commercial viability.

I am here today representing the Edison Electric Institute. EEI is the national trade association 

of U.S. shareholder-owned electric companies. EEI’s members serve 95 percent of the ultimate 

customers in the shareholder-owned segment of the industry and represent about 70 percent of 
2

the U.S. electric power industry. I am the chairman of EEI’s Carbon Capture and Storage Work 

Group, which is comprised of member companies who are committed to exploring CCS as an 

option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

I would like to thank the Environmental Protection Agency for this opportunity to discuss its

proposed Underground Injection Control regulations for geologic storage of carbon dioxide. EEI 

and its members participated in EPA’s public workshops on carbon storage in December 2007 

and February 2008. Here, as at the workshops, EEI appreciates the Agency’s willingness to 

consider the expertise and experience our membership can provide with regard to the regulation 

of carbon dioxide injection and geologic storage. We are committed to continuing dialog with 

all stakeholders to ensure that the final rule protects underground sources of drinking water while 

creating a clear and flexible regulatory scheme that encourages further development and 

deployment of carbon capture and storage. 

First, I’d like the put the importance of carbon capture and storage in context. Electricity

generation produces 34 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and 40 percent of carbon dioxide 

emissions in the United States. The Energy Information Administration projects net electric 

demand will increase 30 percent by 2030, even after taking into account energy-efficiency

improvements. New and replacement power plant capacity to meet this increased demand is 

projected to total 150,000 megaWatts. Coal is one of the primary sources of baseload generation 

in the United States and will continue to be an important fuel for generating electricity through

2030 because it is comparatively affordable and abundant in this country. Given this backdrop, 

the potential environmental benefits of carbon capture and storage – in terms of avoided carbon 
3

dioxide emissions – are substantial. Consequently, EEI and its members see carbon capture and 

storage as a critical element in the full portfolio of options needed not only to reduce carbon 

dioxide emissions, but also to ensure continued affordable and reliable electric service to 

customers throughout the United States.

Our assessment of the proposed regulations has been extensive and is ongoing. We are here 

today to learn as well as to educate. EEI’s members, like Southern Company and American 

Electric Power and others, are gaining experience with pilot and demonstration projects

involving site characterization, permitting, monitoring and verification, and understanding 

storage capacity and integrity. Our testimony today is informed by what we have already learned 

from these projects. Our goal at these hearings – and throughout this process – is to use this 

experience to help EPA ensure that the final rules for geologic storage of carbon dioxide are part 

of a clear and flexible regulatory regime that will facilitate the development of, and investment 

in, carbon capture and storage technology and projects. 

As EPA noted in the Preamble to the proposed regulations, its goal is to create a regulatory

framework that “supports the development of a key climate change mitigation technology.” 

EPA’s regulations for geologic storage of carbon dioxide are an important first step in moving 

carbon capture and storage closer to reality. EEI and its members applaud EPA for taking this 

step, and encourage EPA to keep this important goal in mind as it moves to finalize the 

regulations. 
4

EEI and its members intend to submit detailed written comments on the proposed regulations, 

but today I would like to highlight several initial areas for EPA consideration.

Key Messages

We have two key messages for EPA today: 

· First, the regulations can and should promote the development and deployment of carbon 

capture and storage while protecting underground sources of drinking water without 

unduly stigmatizing carbon dioxide injection and storage. Carbon dioxide has been 

injected for years for enhanced oil recovery and enhanced gas recovery without incident.

· Second, the regulations should be sufficiently flexible to take into consideration sitespecific characteristics and performance-based measures, and should be sufficiently 

adaptable to incorporate lessons learned from ongoing pilot and demonstration projects.

Let me elaborate on each of these points:

· EEI urges EPA to work to ensure the regulations do not stigmatize carbon geologic 

storage, which would create public confusion and hamper development of a critical 

carbon reduction technology.

As I noted, EPA has recognized that it has two goals for the proposed rules for geologic storage 

of carbon dioxide: the protection of underground sources of drinking water and the promotion of 

carbon capture and storage. EEI urges EPA to keep both of these goals in mind and to work to 

ensure that the regulatory regime that is ultimately adopted is designed to facilitate – not delay or 

discourage – the successful commercial-scale development of carbon capture and storage. The 
5

potential emissions benefits of commercial-scale carbon storage are too large and too important 

to ignore in the context of these regulations.

While our written comments will discuss some of the specific ways that the proposed regulations 

can support the development of appropriately sited storage projects, I would also like to bring to 

your attention today the importance of creating an accurate public perception of the risks and 

rewards of carbon geologic storage. 

In its laudable efforts to protect sources of drinking water – an important goal, as we all agree –

EPA has inadvertently stigmatized carbon dioxide injection and storage. In reviewing the 

proposal, EEI and its members became very concerned that the proposed regulations repeatedly 

mischaracterized the possible risks posed by carbon dioxide injection and storage. 

Indeed, while carbon dioxide is not a hazardous waste and is, in fact, found in the ambient air in 

abundance, the proposed rules for CO2 storage are, in many ways, stricter than those for 

underground injection of hazardous wastes under Class I of the UIC program. Many of the 

construction, mechanical integrity, monitoring and financial assurance provisions for Class VI

wells are more comprehensive and more strict than those for Class I wells. 

However, carbon dioxide is not a hazardous waste and does not warrant treatment akin to or 

more stringent than given to hazardous wastes. The increased regulatory burden placed on Class 

VI wells by the proposed regulation is of concern to EEI and its members, who are potential 
6

owners and operators of CCS projects. We are also concerned that by imposing such stringent 

measures EPA would be unduly stigmatizing carbon geologic storage. 

Our industry knows first-hand the importance of accurate public perceptions when it comes to 

the siting and permitting of needed infrastructure expansions or improvements. In the preamble

to its proposal, EPA finds that the public should participate in the permitting process for carbon 

dioxide storage projects. Today we ask EPA to ensure that the public fully understands that it is 

very unlikely carbon geologic storage projects will harm underground sources of drinking water 

or human health, so that its participation in the permitting process is appropriately informed. 

EPA can help create accurate public perceptions about carbon capture and storage by retooling 

the proposed regulations to tie requirements to actual risks more closely. In addition, EPA 

should remove elements that serve only to fan the flames of fear without offering increased 

protection to underground sources of drinking water.

For example, requiring a secondary containment field would create the wrong impression about 

the safety of carbon capture and storage, and should not be part of the final rule. Such a 

requirement is unprecedented in the UIC program, even for storage of hazardous wastes in Class 

I wells. Secondary containment fields are also unprecedented internationally: Countries where 

carbon capture and storage projects are currently underway — including Norway, Canada, 

Australia and Algeria — do not require additional containment zones, and in fact, those countries 

regulate CCS using existing petroleum laws. Singling out carbon capture and storage for this

heightened and substantially more rigorous requirement would suggest to the public that EPA 

thinks geologic storage of carbon dioxide is more dangerous than the underground injection of 
7

other substances. Since EPA is the agency charged with protecting the environment, the public 

could be easily swayed by EPA’s apparent apprehension of carbon capture and storage as 

currently embodied in the proposed regulations. In order to create a regulatory scheme that 

fosters carbon capture and storage development and deployment, EPA should reconsider how it 

has characterized carbon dioxide injection – both explicitly and implicitly – in its final 

regulations.

Moreover, EPA should consider the effect of these regulations on securing critical financial 

backing for CCS projects. Misperceptions about risk will also influence financial institutions. 

The recent turmoil in the financial markets highlights how challenging financing of new 

technologies may become. In a credit-constrained world, investors will be wary of putting their 

limited funds behind carbon capture and storage projects if they believe they are likely to 

endanger sources of drinking water or human health. As with public acceptance, EPA can shape

carbon capture and storage as a tool for reducing carbon emissions by the messages that it sends 

the financial world with its regulations. 

Similarly, EPA should not require the use of tracers or soil flux to monitor for possible carbon 

dioxide leaks. Not only are tracers relatively untested when it comes to their ability to monitor 

such leaks – and, in fact, the best tracer for monitoring carbon dioxide leaks would be CO2 itself 

– but they also will not transmit information sufficiently early to provide any sort of real 

protection to underground sources of drinking water. Soil flux monitoring is problematic 

because it can result in false positives based on natural variability in the earth flux rate. What 

these requirements would do, however, is signal to the public that carbon capture and storage is 
8

unsafe because it might be leaking CO2, despite the fact that this is very unlikely to happen. The 

United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that the amount of 

carbon dioxide retained in appropriately sited storage sites is very likely to exceed 99 percent 

over 100 years. 

EEI and its members urge EPA encouragement of carbon capture and storage to be reflected in 

the final regulations, and recommend that the final regulations serve this purpose by

appropriately characterizing carbon dioxide and its risks. The final regulations should be 

carefully crafted, therefore, to avoid creating a public stigma around this critical GHG emissions 

control technology.

Our second message for EPA today addresses the importance of regulatory flexibility.

· Regulatory flexibility is essential for carbon capture and storage projects. EEI 

cautions against overly prescriptive, one-size fits all regulations because they add 

costs without ensuring greater protection to underground sources of drinking water. 

Because no two geologic formations are the same, no two CCS projects will be the same. The 

geologic framework in the selected injection formation — including, but not limited to,

geometry, depth, composition, confining strata, and the number and location of existing wells in 

the Area of Review — will all affect how and whether a project moves forward. EPA already 

recognizes that each storage project will be unique: Under the proposed regulations, a potential 

owner or operator of a project will be required to present detailed information in its permit 

application that is specific to the geologic formation chosen for storage and the surrounding area, 
9

both above and below the surface. Based on the site-specific information presented, the UIC 

program director will decide whether to issue a permit.

Consistent with EPA’s approach to permitting, the portions of the proposed regulations that 

address inherently site-specific issues should allow for site-specific determinations. Tying 

regulatory requirements to site-specific characteristics not only will ensure that properly sited 

projects are able to secure the approvals and financing needed to move forward, but also will 

prevent the imposition of unnecessary and expensive requirements that could render some 

proposed projects uneconomic and hinder the commercial deployment of this critical technology. 

EEI urges EPA to defer to site-specific characteristic wherever possible in the regulations.

For example, the proposed regulations contemplate a 50-year post-injection site care period, but 

the UIC program director can require continued monitoring if he or she deems it necessary to 

protect underground sources of drinking water. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA states 

that it is willing to consider other time frames for the post-injection site care period, but instead 

of a default, the Agency should let the characteristics of each site determine the appropriate 

length of time for post-injection site care. If the director has the discretion to vary the length of 

the monitoring period based on site-specific characteristics, establishing a lengthy default period 

would place an unnecessary burden on those owners and operators who can show that their 

projects pose no threat to underground sources of drinking water in less than 50 years. In fact, 

EEI and its members believe that appropriately sited CCS projects will be able to make such a 

demonstration in substantially less than 50 years, perhaps only 10 years since data suggest that 
10

the risk profile of carbon dioxide injection tails off markedly after a decade. Consequently, a 

lengthy default period would penalize those owners and operators who have taken steps to ensure 

proper site characterization. Surely, EPA would rather reward – and, therefore, encourage –

appropriate siting: Properly managed site characterization and operations are the best way to 

ensure the highest level of protection for underground sources of drinking water.

Similarly, financial assurance requirements should not be set as defaults, but instead should be 

flexible enough to take into account the particular risks associated with a given project. All 

projects are not created equal, and therefore, not all risks are the same. Projects with decreased 

risks should be able to take advantage of proper siting to reduce not only their regulatory

burdens, but also their costs of capital and financial assurance.

EEI and its members also encourage EPA to consider performance-based requirements over 

prescriptive rules. Again, these are better regulatory options for CCS projects because they

ensure that a project is subject to only those requirements that have been shown to be necessary. 

Moreover, in many cases they will better protect underground sources of drinking water than 

default prescriptions.

For example, the Agency has proposed a 10-year default period for operators to reevaluate 

periodically the proper scope of the Area of Review. If such a review were required when 

triggered by appropriate circumstances, the Area of Review would be reviewed only when 

necessary, but as often as necessary. In this way, allowing site-specific performance 

characteristics to guide regulatory requirements means that those projects that pose the greater 
11

risk for potential harm to sources of drinking water reevaluate their Areas of Review as often as 

needed, and those projects that do not pose such risks are not burdened by unnecessary 

reevaluations. At a minimum, a default period for reevaluations of the proper scope of the Area 

of Review should be determined by site-specific characteristics at the time of permitting. 

Prescriptive regulations and defaults often have unintended negative consequences. For 

example, consider EPA’s proposal to grandfather only construction requirements for wells that 

currently are permitted as Class V experimental storage wells. This limited grandfathering, if 

part of the final rule, would render many experimental storage projects as stranded investments 

and would limit the number of formations available for future storage. A better approach would 

be to allow Class V permit holders to make their case to EPA, based on the specific 

characteristics of their site, that the formation can provide long-term storage for carbon dioxide 

without endangering underground sources of drinking water. In this way, regulatory flexibility

can serve to protect water sources without unduly limiting the number and type of formations 

available for carbon dioxide storage.

Similarly, the regulations should be sufficiently flexible to allow operators of geologic storage 

facilities, as well as operators of enhanced oil recovery or enhanced gas recovery projects

converting their operations to geologic carbon storage facilities, to site these projects above 

underground sources of drinking water, if they can show there is unlikely to be harm to USDW. 

The proposed regulations make this nearly impossible since they would restrict injection for 

long-term storage to formations that are below the lowermost underground source of drinking 

water. Enhanced oil recovery and enhanced gas recovery facilities have been injecting carbon 
12

dioxide into formations above underground sources of drinking water for more than 30 years 

without migration or leakage incidents. Rather than reject these types of projects as potential 

geologic carbon storage sites by rule, EPA should permit the owners and operators of these kinds 

of projects to make their case based on the specific characteristics of each site.

Flexible, site-specific regulations ask a great deal of the regulator, in this case the UIC program 

director. Despite these challenges, EEI urges EPA to consider these types of regulations because 

they present a win-win situation: a higher level of environmental protection while fostering a 

regulatory regime that encourages investment in CCS projects. We also acknowledge that these 

benefits cannot be realized unless the UIC program director is given good guidance on how best 

to exercise his or her discretion. EPA should provide that guidance in either the final regulations

or supplemental guidance, in order to ensure that the director’s decisions have a sound regulatory

basis.

As I noted, Southern has begun evaluating geologic storage sites including our demonstration 

injection project in Mississippi. The purpose of this project, which is part of the Southeast 

Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership, is to learn more about the siting of geologic storage. 

Carbon capture and storage is not yet a commercial-scale technology, and projects like ours are 

crucial for expanding our technical expertise. To this end, EEI asks EPA to ensure that the final 

regulations can consider and, as appropriate, incorporate data developed through this and other 

carbon capture and storage demonstration projects.
13

EEI and I appreciate the opportunity to provide additional input to this rulemaking process. EEI 

and its members are confident that we can work with EPA and other stakeholders to create a 

clear and flexible regulatory scheme that achieves two important goals: the protection of 

underground sources of drinking water and the promotion of carbon capture and storage

technology and projects.
Letter ID: 0109 

Commenter: Karl R. Moor 

Organization: Southern Company, on behalf of Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 21991 Letter Lines: 51 to 88 

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

Comment: First, I’d like the put the importance of carbon capture and storage in context. 

Electricity generation produces 34 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and 40 

percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. The Energy 

Information Administration projects net electric demand will increase 30 percent 

by 2030, even after taking into account energy- efficiency improvements. New 

and replacement power plant capacity to meet this increased demand is projected 

to total 150,000 megaWatts. Coal is one of the primary sources of baseload 

generation in the United States and will continue to be an important fuel for 

generating electricity through 2030 because it is comparatively affordable and 

abundant in this country. Given this backdrop, the potential environmental 

benefits of carbon capture and storage - in terms of avoided carbon dioxide 

emissions - are substantial. Consequently, EEI and its members see carbon 

capture and storage as a critical element in the full portfolio of options 

needed not only to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but also to ensure continued 

affordable and reliable electric service to customers throughout the United 

States. 

Our assessment of the proposed regulations has been extensive and is ongoing. 

We are here today to learn as well as to educate. EEI’s members, like Southern 

Company and American Electric Power and others, are gaining experience with 

pilot and demonstration projects involving site characterization, permitting, 

monitoring and verification, and understanding storage capacity and integrity. 

Our testimony today is informed by what we have already learned from these 

projects. Our goal at these hearings - and throughout this process - is to use 

this experience to help EPA ensure that the final rules for geologic storage of 

carbon dioxide are part of a clear and flexible regulatory regime that will 

facilitate the development of, and investment in, carbon capture and storage 

technology and projects. 

As EPA noted in the Preamble to the proposed regulations, its goal is to create 

a regulatory framework that "supports the development of a key climate change 

mitigation technology." EPA’s regulations for geologic storage of carbon 

dioxide are an important first step in moving carbon capture and storage closer 

to reality. EEI and its members applaud EPA for taking this step, and encourage 

EPA to keep this important goal in mind as it moves to finalize the regulations. 

EEI and its members intend to submit detailed written comments on the proposed 

regulations, but today I would like to highlight several initial areas for EPA 

1
consideration. 

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 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: 0109 Comment ID: 21992 Letter Lines: 90 to 98 

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general 

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

Comment: Key Messages 

We have two key messages for EPA today: 

First, the regulations can and should promote the development and deployment of 

carbon capture and storage while protecting underground sources of drinking 

water without unduly stigmatizing carbon dioxide injection and storage. Carbon 

dioxide has been injected for years for enhanced oil recovery and enhanced gas 

recovery without incident. 

Individual Response: EPA does not believe that the GS regulation stigmatizes CO2 injection. 

However, EPA believes 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. 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, 

2
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 regulation provides a foundation for protecting 

USDWs based on success, field experience, and lessons learned about CO2 injection in other 

applications. Class I well owners or operators have experience with site characterization, well 

construction, and monitoring procedures and technologies that are applicable to Class VI wells. 

Class II ER well operators have experience with managing the unique properties of CO2. To 

successfully flood a hydrocarbon field with CO2 during an ER operation, the behavior of 

injected CO2 must be well understood. 

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 21993 Letter Lines: 100 to 103 

Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performance-based standards) 

Comment: Second, the regulations should be sufficiently flexible to take into 

consideration site-specific characteristics and performance-based measures, and 

should be sufficiently adaptable to incorporate lessons learned from ongoing 

pilot and demonstration projects. 

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. 

Regarding the comment that flexibility would allow the incorporation of information gained 

from pilot, demonstration, and early commercial projects, 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 types of information and appropriate 

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

appropriate or necessary. 

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 21994 Letter Lines: 107 to 157 

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

Comment: EEI urges EPA to work to ensure the regulations do not stigmatize carbon 

geologic storage, which would create public confusion and hamper development of 

a critical carbon reduction technology. 

3
As I noted, EPA has recognized that it has two goals for the proposed rules for 

geologic storage of carbon dioxide: the protection of underground sources of 

drinking water and the promotion of carbon capture and storage. EEI urges EPA 

to keep both of these goals in mind and to work to ensure that the regulatory 

regime that is ultimately adopted is designed to facilitate - not delay or 

discourage - the successful commercial-scale development of carbon capture and 

storage. The potential emissions benefits of commercial-scale carbon storage 

are too large and too important to ignore in the context of these regulations. 

While our written comments will discuss some of the specific ways that the 

proposed regulations can support the development of appropriately sited storage 

projects, I would also like to bring to your attention today the importance of 

creating an accurate public perception of the risks and rewards of carbon 

geologic storage. 

In its laudable efforts to protect sources of drinking water - an important 

goal, as we all agree - EPA has inadvertently stigmatized carbon dioxide 

injection and storage. In reviewing the proposal, EEI and its members became 

very concerned that the proposed regulations repeatedly mischaracterized the 

possible risks posed by carbon dioxide injection and storage. 

Indeed, while carbon dioxide is not a hazardous waste and is, in fact, found in 

the ambient air in abundance, the proposed rules for CO2 storage are, in many 

ways, stricter than those for underground injection of hazardous wastes under 

Class I of the UIC program. Many of the construction, mechanical integrity, 

monitoring and financial assurance provisions for Class VI wells are more 

comprehensive and more strict than those for Class I wells. 

However, carbon dioxide is not a hazardous waste and does not warrant treatment 

akin to or more stringent than given to hazardous wastes. The increased 

regulatory burden placed on Class VI wells by the proposed regulation is of 

concern to EEI and its members, who are potential owners and operators of CCS 

projects. We are also concerned that by imposing such stringent measures EPA 

would be unduly stigmatizing carbon geologic storage. 

Our industry knows first-hand the importance of accurate public perceptions when 

it comes to the siting and permitting of needed infrastructure expansions or 

improvements. In the preamble to its proposal, EPA finds that the public should 

participate in the permitting process for carbon dioxide storage projects. 

Today we ask EPA to ensure that the public fully understands that it is very 

unlikely carbon geologic storage projects will harm underground sources of 

drinking water or human health, so that its participation in the permitting 

process is appropriately informed. EPA can help create accurate public 

perceptions about carbon capture and storage by retooling the proposed 

regulations to tie requirements to actual risks more closely. In addition, EPA 

4
should remove elements that serve only to fan the flames of fear without 

offering increased protection to underground sources of drinking water. 

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the GS regulation overstates or mischaracterizes 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, 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 acknowledges the comment about flexibility, and 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 agrees that informing the public on all aspects of GS projects is important. The Agency 

believes that a demonstration to the public that extensive data have been collected and evaluated 

would likely improve confidence in the project and help address public questions and concerns. 

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 21995 Letter Lines: 159 to 176 

Comment Code: 3120 2.1.2 Need to identify additional confining and containment zones 

(seeking comment) 

Comment: For example, requiring a secondary containment field would create the wrong 

impression about the safety of carbon capture and storage, and should not be 

part of the final rule. Such a requirement is unprecedented in the UIC program, 

even for storage of hazardous wastes in Class I wells. Secondary containment 

fields are also unprecedented internationally: Countries where carbon capture 

and storage projects are currently underway - including Norway, Canada, 

Australia and Algeria - do not require additional containment zones, and in 

fact, those countries regulate CCS using existing petroleum laws. Singling out 

carbon capture and storage for this heightened and substantially more rigorous 

requirement would suggest to the public that EPA thinks geologic storage of 

carbon dioxide is more dangerous than the underground injection of other 

substances. Since EPA is the agency charged with protecting the environment, 

the public could be easily swayed by EPA’s apparent apprehension of carbon 

capture and storage as currently embodied in the proposed regulations. In order 

to create a regulatory scheme that fosters carbon capture and storage 

5
development and deployment, EPA should reconsider how it has characterized 

carbon dioxide injection - both explicitly and implicitly - in its final 

regulations. 

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. While other countries may not require such 

additional protection, EPA believes that providing the Director this additional discretion is an 

important element of assuring that GS activities will not endanger USDWs. 

To the comment that the geologic siting requirements could create a negative public perception, 

EPA believes that a demonstration to the public that extensive data have been collected and 

evaluated would likely improve confidence in the project and help address public questions and 

concerns. 

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 21996 Letter Lines: 178 to 187 

Comment Code: 6000 3. Cost of the Proposed Rule 

Comment: Moreover, EPA should consider the effect of these regulations on securing 

critical financial backing for CCS projects. Misperceptions about risk will 

also influence financial institutions. The recent turmoil in the financial 

markets highlights how challenging financing of new technologies may become. In 

a credit-constrained world, investors will be wary of putting their limited 

funds behind carbon capture and storage projects if they believe they are likely 

to endanger sources of drinking water or human health. As with public 

acceptance, EPA can shape carbon capture and storage as a tool for reducing 

carbon emissions by the messages that it sends the financial world with its 

regulations. 

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that promoting or incentivizing GS is outside the scope of 

the GS rulemaking. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to ensure that GS is conducted in 

a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. The GS rule contains tailored requirements 

to ensure that GS wells are appropriately permitted, sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and 

closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 

6
EPA disagrees that the requirements in the GS rule overstate the risk associated with GS. The 

requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, 

including the volumes of CO2 being anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant and viscous 

nature of the injectate, and its corrosivity in the presence of water. 

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22000 Letter Lines: 189 to 201 

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: Similarly, EPA should not require the use of tracers or soil flux to monitor for 

possible carbon dioxide leaks. Not only are tracers relatively untested when it 

comes to their ability to monitor such leaks - and, in fact, the best tracer for 

monitoring carbon dioxide leaks would be CO2 itself - but they also will not 

transmit information sufficiently early to provide any sort of real protection 

to underground sources of drinking water. Soil flux monitoring is problematic 

because it can result in false positives based on natural variability in the 

earth flux rate. What these requirements would do, however, is signal to the 

public that carbon capture and storage is unsafe because it might be leaking 

CO2, despite the fact that this is very unlikely to happen. The United Nations’ 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that the amount of carbon 

dioxide retained in appropriately sited storage sites is very likely to exceed 

99 percent over 100 years. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that air and soil gas monitoring are subject to 

variability 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. For example, if a 

leak to the surface is suspected, surface monitoring could provide vital information on its 

location and magnitude to assist owners and operators in identifying what USDWs may have 

been impacted by a leak. EPA clarifies that the various air and soil gas monitoring methods (e.g., 

chambers, eddy covariance, hyperspectral imaging) all have different capabilities that may prove 

useful in specific GS projects (Miles et al., 2005; Pickles and Cover, 2005; IPCC, 2005; Menzies 

et al., 2001). The occurrence of false positives will be reduced by comparing monitoring data to 

baseline data collected prior to injection or from a nearby area away from the GS project. 

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 clarifies that the 

decision to use surface monitoring and the selection of monitoring methods will be site-specific 

(e.g., may be influenced by geology, injection depth, and operational conditions) and must be 

based on potential risks to USDWs within the AoR. 

7
EPA agrees that the use of tracers should not be required at all GS sites, but should be available 

as an option. For this reason, EPA does not require the use of tracers at all GS sites; however, 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 agrees that 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. If tracers 

are determined to be necessary at a GS site, this may be an appropriate option. 

EPA disagrees that the use of tracers, if needed, would signal to the public that GS is unsafe. 

EPA believes that tracers can be useful tools for monitoring, plume tracking, and verification at 

GS sites and may help improve public confidence in certain projects. EPA believes that 

providing the public with important information about the project, including how tracers would 

be an integral part of the site monitoring plan, will be a key part of improving public acceptance 

of specific projects and GS technology in general. 

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22001 Letter Lines: 203 to 207 

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

Comment: EEI and its members urge EPA encouragement of carbon capture and storage to be 

reflected in the final regulations, and recommend that the final regulations 

serve this purpose by appropriately characterizing carbon dioxide and its risks. 

The final regulations should be carefully crafted, therefore, to avoid creating 

a public stigma around this critical GHG emissions control technology. 

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, 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. 

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22002 Letter Lines: 209 to 236 

Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performance-based standards) 

Comment: Our second message for EPA today addresses the importance of regulatory 

flexibility. 

Regulatory flexibility is essential for carbon capture and storage projects. EEI 

cautions against overly prescriptive, one-size fits all regulations because they 

8
add costs without ensuring greater protection to underground sources of drinking 

water. 

Because no two geologic formations are the same, no two CCS projects will be the 

same. The geologic framework in the selected injection formation - including, 

but not limited to, geometry, depth, composition, confining strata, and the 

number and location of existing wells in the Area of Review - will all affect 

how and whether a project moves forward. EPA already recognizes that each 

storage project will be unique: Under the proposed regulations, a potential 

owner or operator of a project will be required to present detailed information 

in its permit application that is specific to the geologic formation chosen for 

storage and the surrounding area, both above and below the surface. Based on 

the site-specific information presented, the UIC program director will decide 

whether to issue a permit. 

Consistent with EPA’s approach to permitting, the portions of the proposed 

regulations that address inherently site-specific issues should allow for sitespecific determinations. Tying regulatory requirements to site-specific 

characteristics not only will ensure that properly sited projects are able to 

secure the approvals and financing needed to move forward, but also will prevent 

the imposition of unnecessary and expensive requirements that could render some 

proposed projects uneconomic and hinder the commercial deployment of this 

critical technology. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that permitting decisions for GS wells should be based on 

site-specific factors. The GS rule requires owners or operators to submit, and Directors to 

consider, extensive site-specific data, specified at §146.82, to demonstrate that a site is suitable 

for GS. Additionally, many of the permit requirements for GS wells are established through 

individualized site-specific plans for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, and 

injection well plugging and post-injection site care and site closure. EPA adds that the final GS 

rule includes a balance of specific criteria to be met by the owner or operator and areas of 

Directorial discretion and considerations for how that discretion would be exercised. The Agency 

believes this balance allows for GS projects to be designed and permitted to address the unique, 

site-specific aspects of each project, while providing consistency in permitting across the U.S. 

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: 0109 Comment ID: 22003 Letter Lines: 238 to 260 

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: EEI urges EPA to defer to site-specific characteristic wherever possible in the 

regulations. 

9
For example, the proposed regulations contemplate a 50-year post- injection site 

care period, but the UIC program director can require continued monitoring if he 

or she deems it necessary to protect underground sources of drinking water. In 

the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA states that it is willing to consider 

other time frames for the post-injection site care period, but instead of a 

default, the Agency should let the characteristics of each site determine the 

appropriate length of time for post-injection site care. If the director has 

the discretion to vary the length of the monitoring period based on sitespecific characteristics, establishing a lengthy default period would place an 

unnecessary burden on those owners and operators who can show that their 

projects pose no threat to underground sources of drinking water in less than 50 

years. In fact, EEI and its members believe that appropriately sited CCS 

projects will be able to make such a demonstration in substantially less than 50 

years, perhaps only 10 years since data suggest that the risk profile of carbon 

dioxide injection tails off markedly after a decade. Consequently, a lengthy 

default period would penalize those owners and operators who have taken steps to 

ensure proper site characterization. Surely, EPA would rather reward - and, 

therefore, encourage - appropriate siting: Properly managed site 

characterization and operations are the best way to ensure the highest level of 

protection for underground sources of drinking water. 

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 final 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 PISC period based on site-specific data, pursuant to requirements 

at §146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator 

to demonstrate, based on substantial data during the permitting process, that an alternative PISC 

timeframe may be appropriate if it ensures non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to 

requirements at §146.93(c). 

Because of the variety of site-specific circumstances at GS sites, EPA believes that Directors, in 

consultation with operators, will be in the best position to determine whether additional postinjection 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 

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
EPA agrees that proper site characterization is a critical component of ensuring that USDWs are 

protected. However, EPA disagrees that this is a substitute for post-injection site care. EPA 

believes that extensive post-injection monitoring is necessary to protect USDWs from 

endangerment. 

EPA adds that the purpose of the GS rule is not to incentivize the use of GS; rather, the purpose 

of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects 

USDWs from endangerment. 

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22004 Letter Lines: 262 to 267 

Comment Code: 5430 2.9.1 Comments on proposed financial responsibility requirements (40 

CFR 146.85) 

Comment: Similarly, financial assurance requirements should not be set as defaults, but 

instead should be flexible enough to take into account the particular risks 

associated with a given project. All projects are not created equal, and 

therefore, not all risks are the same. Projects with decreased risks should be 

able to take advantage of proper siting to reduce not only their regulatory 

burdens, but also their costs of capital and financial assurance. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that it is appropriate to allow a flexible approach for financial 

responsibility. Under the final GS rule owners or operators may choose from a variety of 

financial instruments to demonstrate meeting their financial responsibility obligations, provided 

the Director determines that the owner or operator's proposed financial responsibility 

demonstration is adequate to pay for each activity for which financial responsibility must be 

demonstrated, including corrective action on wells in the AoR, injection well plugging, PISC and 

site closure, and emergency and remedial response. 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 

and it allowed under their respective state law. The guidance will be available on EPA's website 

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

The cost of securing financial responsibility instruments will be based on whether or not a third 

party financial institution is used and the agreement between the financial institution and the 

owner or operator. EPA expects that some third party providers, such as insurers, will take risk 

into account when determining the cost of coverage. However, cost is expected to depend 

heavily on the estimated cost of covered activities as well as certain site-specific factors. In order 

to assist owners or operators and financial institutions in achieving accurate cost estimates, EPA 

plans to include a discussion of how to estimate costs, including how to adjust cost estimates for 

inflation, in its guidance on meeting financial responsibility requirements for Class VI wells. 

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22005 Letter Lines: 269 to 274 

11
Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performance-based standards) 

Comment: EEI and its members also encourage EPA to consider performance-based 

requirements over prescriptive rules. Again, these are better regulatory 

options for CCS projects because they ensure that a project is subject to only 

those requirements that have been shown to be necessary. Moreover, in many 

cases they will better protect underground sources of drinking water than 

default prescriptions. 

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: 0109 Comment ID: 22006 Letter Lines: 276 to 286 

Comment Code: 3530 2.2.3.1 AoR reevaluation frequency (seeking comment) 

Comment: For example, the Agency has proposed a 10-year default period for operators to 

reevaluate periodically the proper scope of the Area of Review. If such a 

review were required when triggered by appropriate circumstances, the Area of 

Review would be reviewed only when necessary, but as often as necessary. In 

this way, allowing site- specific performance characteristics to guide 

regulatory requirements means that those projects that pose the greater risk for 

potential harm to sources of drinking water reevaluate their Areas of Review as 

often as needed, and those projects that do not pose such risks are not burdened 

by unnecessary reevaluations. At a minimum, a default period for reevaluations 

of the proper scope of the Area of Review should be determined by site-specific 

characteristics at the time of permitting. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that site-specific factors should be considered in the 

reevaluation schedule, and notes that the AoR and corrective action plan must specify the sitespecific monitoring and operational conditions that warrant reevaluation, as specified in 

§146.84(b)(2)(ii). In addition, the Director has discretion to require more frequent AoR 

reevaluation if he or she has reason to believe, based on site-specific information, that a five-year 

reevaluation schedule is not sufficiently protective of USDWs. 

However, EPA believes that setting a minimum reevaluation frequency is appropriate. In the 

final rule, 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 emerging nature of GS technology, risk-based targeting of monitoring activities, 

12
and the unique nature of CO2 GS. 

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22007 Letter Lines: 288 to 299 

Comment Code: 2066 1.5.3.3 Grandfathering construction of Class V wells (seeking comment) 

Comment: Prescriptive regulations and defaults often have unintended negative 

consequences. For example, consider EPA’s proposal to grandfather only 

construction requirements for wells that currently are permitted as Class V 

experimental storage wells. This limited grandfathering, if part of the final 

rule, would render many experimental storage projects as stranded investments 

and would limit the number of formations available for future storage. A better 

approach would be to allow Class V permit holders to make their case to EPA, 

based on the specific characteristics of their site, that the formation can 

provide long-term storage for carbon dioxide without endangering underground 

sources of drinking water. In this way, regulatory flexibility can serve to 

protect water sources without unduly limiting the number and type of formations 

available for carbon dioxide storage. 

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). 

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22008 Letter Lines: 301 to 313 

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: Similarly, the regulations should be sufficiently flexible to allow operators of 

geologic storage facilities, as well as operators of enhanced oil recovery or 

enhanced gas recovery projects converting their operations to geologic carbon 

storage facilities, to site these projects above underground sources of drinking 

water, if they can show there is unlikely to be harm to USDW. The proposed 

regulations make this nearly impossible since they would restrict injection for 

long-term storage to formations that are below the lowermost underground source 

of drinking water. Enhanced oil recovery and enhanced gas recovery facilities 

have been injecting carbon dioxide into formations above underground sources of 

drinking water for more than 30 years without migration or leakage incidents. 

Rather than reject these types of projects as potential geologic carbon storage 

13
sites by rule, EPA should permit the owners and operators of these kinds of 

projects to make their case based on the specific characteristics of each site. 

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. The 

final rule also establishes limited circumstances under which expansions of the areal extent of 

aquifer exemptions may be granted for owners or operators of Class II EOR/EGR wells 

transitioning to Class VI injection for GS. 

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 and 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. 

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. 

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22009 Letter Lines: 315 to 323 

Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (performance-based standards) 

Comment Code: 2400 1.8 Comments on EPA's adaptive rulemaking process 

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

Comment: Flexible, site-specific regulations ask a great deal of the regulator, in this 

case the UIC program director. Despite these challenges, EEI urges EPA to 

consider these types of regulations because they present a win-win situation: a 

higher level of environmental protection while fostering a regulatory regime 

that encourages investment in CCS projects. We also acknowledge that these 

14
benefits cannot be realized unless the UIC program director is given good 

guidance on how best to exercise his or her discretion. EPA should provide that 

guidance in either the final regulations or supplemental guidance, in order to 

ensure that the director’s decisions have a sound regulatory basis. 

Individual Response: EPA agrees that flexibility is important to accommodate the varied 

conditions that may be encountered at GS sites. EPA notes that the final rule does allow owners 

or operators flexibility. Many of the permit requirements will be established through site-specific 

plans developed by the owner or operator and approved by the Director, and EPA anticipates that 

owners or operators will consult with the Director as they develop, implement, and update these 

plans. In addition, the final rule affords the Director flexibility to approve alternatives to the 

requirements in some cases. For example, the Director may in certain situations modify the 

length of the post-injection site care period or approve an alternative post-injection site care 

timeframe as part of the permitting process under §146.93, allow the use of alternate methods for 

mechanical integrity testing, and waive the requirement that wells be designed to inject below 

the lowermost USDW. Additionally, the regulations provide flexibility for selecting appropriate 

sites and target formations at §146.82, well construction specifics at §146.86, and testing and 

monitoring regimes at §146.90, provided the owner or operator can demonstrate that the 

injection and storage will not endanger USDWs and that minimum requirements for the site are 

met. 

EPA agrees with commenters on the importance of allowing Directors discretion given the 

variety of geologic settings in which GS will be applied. EPA recognizes that State, Tribal, and 

DI UIC Program Directors are in the best position to evaluate the unique issues related to well 

depth, geology, and hydrogeology that are posed by a Class VI well. Some degree of flexibility 

is needed for Class VI wells because each decision made will be site-specific and conditions will 

differ from state to state. The GS rule balances the need for these site-specific decisions with the 

need for minimum Federal requirements to ensure national consistency while ensuring the 

protection of USDWs. To ensure the final rule is applied consistently, EPA is developing 

guidance materials and plans to conduct on-line and in-person training for States, Tribes, and 

Territories that describe the process of applying for and receiving primary enforcement 

responsibility (primacy) for GS Class VI wells under Section 1422 of SDWA, as well as the 

technical and administrative issues related to developing GS regulations that are the equivalent 

of minimum Federal criteria and requirements. The guidance will be available at 

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

As part of its adaptive approach, if EPA finds that there is not sufficient consistency in the 

permits so that USDWs are not being sufficiently protected from endangerment, it will consider 

changes to the permit requirements in the future. 

Letter ID: 0109 Comment ID: 22010 Letter Lines: 325 to 337 

Comment Code: 1852 1.4.2.1 DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships 

Comment: As I noted, Southern has begun evaluating geologic storage sites including our 

demonstration injection project in Mississippi. The purpose of this project, 

15
16

which is part of the Southeast Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership, is to 

learn more about the siting of geologic storage. Carbon capture and storage is 

not yet a commercial-scale technology, and projects like ours are crucial for 

expanding our technical expertise. To this end, EEI asks EPA to ensure that the 

final regulations can consider and, as appropriate, incorporate data developed 

through this and other carbon capture and storage demonstration projects. EEI 

and I appreciate the opportunity to provide additional input to this rulemaking 

process. EEI and its members are confident that we can work with EPA and other 

stakeholders to create a clear and flexible regulatory scheme that achieves two 

important goals: the protection of underground sources of drinking water and 

the promotion of carbon capture and storage technology and projects. 

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the value of the DOE pilot projects and resultant data 

and information generated by such projects. EPA has evaluated permits and reviewed operational 

data and information associated with the seven RCSPs funded by the U.S. Department of Energy 

and coordinated through the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). In addition to the 

information cited in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data 

Availability and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency 

described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites: the Escatawpa, Mississippi 

project; the Aneth Field project in Paradox Basin, Southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, 

New Mexico. 

EPA agrees that flexibility to address new research is important. Even after finalizing the rule, 

the Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects, including research 

by the DOE Partnerships, 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.