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.Letter ID: 0184 Commenter: Adam P. Haynes Organization: Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO)

Letter ID: 0184 Comment ID: 22784 Letter Lines: 41 to 53 ; 104 to 109

Comment Code: 1450 1.2.2.1 Oppose the GS rulemaking

Comment: TIPRO is concerned about the overall stru cture of the carbon capture and storage (CCS) regulation within the EPA. While TIPR O applauds the initial effort of this rule making, especially the effort not to categorize carbon dioxide (CO2) as a waste product, we urge caution on proceed ing to a final rule. TIPRO believes a comprehensive effort by the EPA is wa rranted, including input by all offices with oversight for the co ntrol of CO2. However, this action should not be undertaken until Congress has passed speci fic legislation that addresses the control and capture of CO2, To proceed ot herwise will likely lead to a patchwork of regulations and laws that will ultimately lead to c onfusion in the regulated community and in the different offices of the EPA. The capture and storage of CO2 will be a complicated effort, at best , and a regulatory nightmare at worst. The regulated industry must have comprehe nsive regulations governing CCS, not a patchwork of individual regulations from separate offices within the EPA.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule for the UIC program for the capture and storage of CO2 , TIPRO does not support proceeding to a final rulemaking with this effort. Rather, TIPRO urges the EPA to begin a holistic review of CO2 regulations once Congressional action on CO2 is final. Until then, action by separate offices within the EPA will lead to confusion and a patchwork of regulations that are c onfusing to the regulated community.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the intent of the GS rule is not to address climate change. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulati on is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA is aware that broader climate change legislation is under consideration by Congress. The Agency is monitoring the progress of this legislation, and if any Congressi onal action were to require EPA to regulate GS in the broader context, the Agency would a ddress this requirement accordingly, including working with the appropriate stak eholders and federal agencies.

EPA believes that there is a poten tial that GS may be deployed at a fast pace (e.g., if climate change legislation provides an incentive for se questering CO2 or if other climate policies or regulations limit CO2 emissions), and that it is necessary to prep are 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 a nd administrative aspect s of GS deployment, operation, and technology developments.

1EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broade r context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In develo ping 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 Stat es Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to eval uate 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 Comprehe nsive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Resear ch 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 entitle d "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal

Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0184 Comment ID: 22785 Letter Lines: 55 to 64

Comment Code: 1480 1.2.2.2.2 CO2 is not a pollutant

Comment: Regarding this rulemaking effort, TIPRO suggests the following comments for

consideration. First, CO2 is a valuable commodity that has been used by the exploration and production sect or for more than 30 years. It is not a waste product. While we applaud the initial e fforts not to label CO2 as a waste, tracking the regulatory re quirements for Class I we lls so closely while considering the development of the new Class VI wells is concerning. Without

further clarification, CO2 re gulations could develop more in line with waste

classifications associated with RCRA and CERCLA. That would signal a failure of sound CCS practices that have developed w ith proper regulatory oversight at the state level for the last 30 years.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not address the status of CO2 as either a pollutant or a commodity. In addition, whether or not a fluid could be sold on the market as a commodity does not override EPA's authority under the SDWA to protect USDWs from endangerment.

Under the SDWA, the injection of any "fluid" is subject to the requirements of the UIC program. "Fluid" is defined under 40 CFR 144.3 as any mate rial or substance which flows or moves, whether in a semisolid, liquid, slud ge, gas or other form or state, and it includes liquids, gases, and semisolids (i.e., slurries) in jected into the subsurface.

Under §146.82(a)(7), owners or operators of GS wells must characterize their CO2 stream as part of their permit application. If the injectate is de termined to meet the definition of a hazardous

waste under RCRA, and as defined in 40 CFR Part 261, the stringent UIC Class I hazardous waste requirements for injection of hazardous waste apply. Thus, injection of corrosive CO2 into Class VI wells is prohibited. In addition, owners or operators must peri odically monitor their injectate throughout injecti on operations under §146.90(a).

2EPA 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.

Letter ID: 0184 Comment ID: 22786 Letter Lines: 66 to 90

Comment Code: 2046 1.5.2.3 Continuing to classify CO2 in jection for EOR/EGR as Class II/ dividing line between Class II and Class VI (seeking comment)

Comment: Related to that point, enhanced oil and gas recovery (EOR & EGR) must be a component of any successful carbon capture and storage (CCS) regulatory system. While the proposed rule does not preclude enhanced recovery of hydrocarbons, the lack of attention to this process is troubling. As mentioned, the exploration and production sector has been successfu lly using geologic storage of CO2 for more than 30 years. The EPA should promot e EOR and EGR as a proven mechanism for CCS and allow for it through the use of properly permitted Class II wells located throughout the country. Rather than developing a new category of injection wells as the new Class VI wells are contemplated in the rules, EPA

should allow Class II wells to continue to be the standard for CCS projects going forward. If there is a need to di fferentiate between commercial storage projects and enhanced recovery projects - and TIPRO does not believe such a need

exists - then the EPA needs to create two separate categories for Class II wells. One category can be used in non- hydrocarbon injection zones when storage is for commercial purposes only. The othe r category of Class II wells can be used by the exploration and production sect or during EOR and EGR projects. Of course, the rule changes also need to address the transition of well bores in between the two categories. Once an enhan ced recovery process is complete, the existing formation presents a beneficial target formation for the commercial storage of CO2, The transition from one cat egory of Class II well to the other should not involve any downhol e modifications or retrof its. Rather, the process of transitioning between classifications should be contingent on the applicant completing a mechanical integrity test that demonstrates protection of the USDW and other applicable surface controls nece ssary to ensure storage and capture

rates.

Individual Response: EPA believes that injection of CO2 for the primary purpose of enhancing oil and gas recovery should remain under the Cl ass II Program. EPA disa grees that the risks posed by long term storage of CO2 for GS can be addressed under existing UIC requirements in order to protect USDWs from endangerment, such as those for Class II wells. EPA believes that there are significant differences between how projects are operate d, as well as the risks posed by these different injection activities. The new tail ored approach of the GS rule was designed to address the general risks deep injection may pose to USDWs and was tailored specifically to address the risks posed by long term storage ofCO2 (i.e., very large volumes, very long timeperiods, and reservoir pressure conditions).

The final Class VI regulations re quire that any owner or operato r injecting CO2 for the primary

3purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI pe rmit with some special consideration for the fact that they are transitioning from a well not or iginally designed to meet Class VI requirements. The Director has the authority to determine at wh at point a Class VI permit is required for those projects that are transitioning from the primar y purpose of EOR to long term storage of CO2. The final regulation provides a set of technical factors for the Direct or to evaluate in making this determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that this approach provides su fficient protection of

USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditi onal Class II operations while allowing for site-specific flexibility.

EPA is developing guidance on transitioning perm its from Class II to Class VI. The guidance will assist Directors in determining whether an injection project should be transitioned from Class II where the primary purpose is oil and gas production to Class VI where the primary purpose is long-term storage of large volumes of CO2. The guidance describes recommended methods the Director may use to evaluate change s in risk to USDWs from projects, and how the Director may determine whether a project should be regulated within th e Class II or Class VI UIC program. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequest ration.cfm. For more information, please

see the discussion on transition of Class II well s in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0184 Comment ID: 22787 Letter Lines: 92 to 102

Comment Code: 2143 1.6.2.1 Comments in favor of inject ion into depleted reservoirs

Comment Code: 3100 2.1 Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements (40 CFR 146.83)

Comment: An additional point of concern in the ru les is the limited view of applicable storage sites. While brine aquifers ma y indeed be good candidates for geologic storage, the same is true of oil and gas reservoirs, both productive and nonproductive. The EPA should de velop a site rating system that allows for the geologic storage of CO2 in stable subsur face formations. This type of rating system will ensure that sites which are best suited to handle large CO2 storage projects are utilized and any CCS regulat ory system will have early successes. Of course, the most likely sites to scor e well in any ranking system would be formations containing or having contai ned hydrocarbon reserves and properly permitted Class II wells existing in th ese formations should be acceptable

conduits for CCS.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that a rating system is appropriate. Instead, the GS rule focuses on evaluating the suitability of a site based on site-speci fic geological and operational data. EPA believes that a detailed geological si te characterization (re quired under §146.82) is essential to evaluating the presence and adequacy of the various geologic features necessary to receive and confine injected CO2 for GS. The requirements for geol ogic site characterization are based on a long standing UIC regulatory framew ork developed to addr ess specific risks to USDWs posed by injection. The Class VI GS re quirements are tailored so that they are appropriate for the unique nature of injecting la rge volumes of CO2 into a variety of geological formations for long-term storage.

45 EPA agrees that depleted oil and gas fields ar e promising formations for GS, provided the Class VI siting, well construction and operation, monito ring and testing, and po st-injection site care and site closure requirements are met. EPA adds that injection of carbon dioxide for the purposes of enhanced oil recovery is classified as Class II injection, not Class VI, and will require a Class II permit. Wells for which the primary purpose is long term sequestration are considered Class

VI wells.

EPA adds that the GS rule does not include crit eria for rating particular sites for GS. EPA is developing guidance on site charac terization for GS projects to a ssist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating permit requirement s and applications under §146.82. The guidance provides recommendations to owne rs or operators regarding char acterizing the regional geology and hydrogeology of a proposed GS site as we ll as performing the n ecessary geochemical, geomechanical, and geophysical analyses of the injection and confining zone. The guidance can

be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.