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.Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390-0182

Last Name: Brannon

First Name: Ginny

Title:

Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

City:

State: CO

Zip Code:

Phone Number:

Fax Number:

Country Code:

Email Address:

Current Category Code: 250

Comment:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule setting forth

federal requirements under the Safe Dr inking Water Act for the underground

injection of carbon dioxide.

Geologic sequestration holds promise as a key component in the promotion of

cleaner coal technologies. As a coal producing state, we are especially interested

in technologies that will secure the industr y’s future in the face of the challenges

associated with reducing greenhouse ga s emissions, thereby mitigating the

impacts from global warming.

Our commitment to greenhouse gas reductions is reflected in Colorado’s Climate

Action Plan which calls for reducing gr eenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 2005

levels by 2020. We cannot fully reali ze this goal without cleaner coal

technologies. But emerging solutions, such as geologic sequestration, must be

technologically and environmentally sound and supported by a viable and efficient

regulatory framework.

The SDWA provides that States may apply to EPA for primary enforcement

responsibility to administer the underg round injection control program. These

states, referred to as Primacy States , must meet the minimum federal

requirements for UIC programs, includi ng construction, operating, monitoring,

testing, reporting, and clos ure requirements for well owners or operators.

Additionally, the SDWA allows states to a pply for such primacy in part, such as

for well Classes I, III, IV, and V under S ection 1422, or for Class II wells only under

Section 1425. Colorado falls in this latter camp, with primacy for Class II wells

only.

The proposed rule calls for another class of wells, Class VI, for the injection of

carbon dioxide. It is our cont ention that states should be able to seek primacy for

Class VI wells as a ‘stand alone’ class, just as they do for Class II wells now.Because Class II wells are for oil and ga s injection, Class II wells and the

proposed Class VI wells are similar in pur pose and particularly suited as ‘stand

alone’ classes of wells.

Also, in addition to our own staff, Colora do is home to a premier university and

scientific community, such that we have the expertise in the event we were to

assume primacy for Class VI wells.

Finally, geologic sequestration is only one component in a broader carbon capture

and sequestration context. Colorado agrees with EPA that allowing states to

acquire primacy for Class VI wells may encourage them to assume the

responsibility of implementation and provide for a more comprehensive approach

to managing CCS projects.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.Letter ID: 0182

Commenter: Ginny Brannon

Organization: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Letter ID: 0182 Comment ID: 23752 Letter Lines: 20 to 31

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: Geologic sequestration holds promise as a key component in the promotion of

cleaner coal technologies. As a coal producing state, we are especially interested

in technologies that will secure the industr y’s future in the face of the challenges

associated with reducing greenhouse ga s emissions, thereby mitigating the

impacts from global warming.

Our commitment to greenhouse gas reductions is reflected in Colorado’s Climate

Action Plan which calls for reducing gr eenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 2005

levels by 2020. We cannot fully reali ze this goal without cleaner coal

technologies. But emerging solutions, such as geologic sequestration, must be

technologically and environmentally sound and supported by a viable and efficient

regulatory framework.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including

energy conservation, efficiency improvements, a nd the use of alternative fuels and renewable

energy sources, that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions.

Please see the remainder of EPA’s responses to th is comment for further details. For additional

information on EPA’s final regulatory approach, pl ease see the final rule and preamble as well as

the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0182 Comment ID: 23753 Letter Lines: 33 to 59

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

Comment Code: 5610 2.11.1 Allowing partial primacy for Class VI wells (seeking comment)

Comment: The SDWA provides that States may apply to EPA for primary enforcement

responsibility to administer the underg round injection control program. These

states, referred to as Primacy States , must meet the minimum federal

requirements for UIC programs, includi ng construction, operating, monitoring,

testing, reporting, and clos ure requirements for well owners or operators.

Additionally, the SDWA allows states to a pply for such primacy in part, such as

for well Classes I, III, IV, and V under S ection 1422, or for Class II wells only under

Section 1425. Colorado falls in this latter camp, with primacy for Class II wells

only.

12 The proposed rule calls for another class of wells, Class VI, for the injection of

carbon dioxide. It is our cont ention that states should be able to seek primacy for

Class VI wells as a ‘stand alone’ class, just as they do for Class II wells now.

Because Class II wells are for oil and ga s injection, Class II wells and the

proposed Class VI wells are similar in pur pose and particularly suited as ‘stand

alone’ classes of wells.

Also, in addition to our own staff, Colora do is home to a premier university and

scientific community, such that we have the expertise in the event we were to

assume primacy for Class VI wells.

Finally, geologic sequestration is only one component in a broader carbon capture

and sequestration context. Colorado agrees with EPA that allowing states to

acquire primacy for Class VI wells may encourage them to assume the

responsibility of implementation and provide for a more comprehensive approach

to managing CCS projects.

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters that states should be allowed to obtain

primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes, and will allow independent

primacy for Class VI wells under §145.1(i) of th e final GS rule. Given the potential for CCS

(encompassing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a

national priority to address clim ate change, EPA believes that provi ding states the flexibility to

obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well cla sses can help foster effective

management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage

states to take responsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more

comprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integrat ion of GS activities

under SDWA into a broader framework for mana ging CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve

ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface

access) for which states can call upon other authorit ies that exist at the state level (but outside

UIC authority) to provide a more comp rehensive CCS management approach.

The Agency believes that it is important for stat es to use their unique e fficiencies to promote

adoption of this burgeoning and important tec hnology, while assuring that USDWs are protected

from endangerment through the UIC regulatory framework. EPA believe s that, due to the

importance of implementing an effective, comprehensive, and seamless CCS program, States

should be provided the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI only.

EPA agrees that having skilled personnel in vari ous technical areas releva nt to GS of CO2 is

critically important for effec tive implementation of the Cla ss VI regulation. EPA acknowledges

that such expertise may be present among staff in state UIC programs or through university

systems, such as in state unive rsities or the scientific community. EPA believes such expertise

will benefit implementation of the Class VI program nation-wide.