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.288 Nor t h 146 0 West • Salt L a ke City

, UT

M a iling Addr ess: P. O. Box 144870 • Salt L a ke City

, UT 84114- 487 0

T e lephone ( 801) 538- 614 6 • Fax ( 8 0 1 ) 538- 601 6 • T. D.D. ( 801) 536- 441 4

www.de q.utah. gov

Pri n te d on 10 0% recy cle d pa per 

### State of Ut ah

JON M

. H UNTS M AN, JR.

Governor

GARY H E RBER T

Lieutenant Govern o r 

### Departm e nt of Wat er Q u alit y Bo ard Joe Piccolo, Chair Paula Doughty

, Vice- Chair 

### Environmental Quality

Willia m J. Sinclair Acting Executive Director

DIVI SION OF WATER QUA LI TY

Walte r L

. Baker, P

. E.

Director David F. Echols

Merritt K

. Frey

Darrel l H. M e nsel

Leland J. My e r s

Jay Ivan Olsen

Gr egor y L

. Rowley

Steven P. Si m p son Willia m J. Sinclair

Dan i el C. Sn a rr Phil Wright

Walte r L

. Baker,

Executive Secreta r y

Decem ber 24, 2008

Water Docket

Environm ental Protection Agency

Mailcode: 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC 20460

RE: EPA Docket Num b er: EPA-HQ-OW -2008-0390

Dear Sir or Madam :

The Utah Division of Water Quality is p l eased to subm it the attach ed comments on the EPA' s Proposed Rule for Federal Requirem e nts Unde r the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS) W e lls.

If you have any questions or comm ents regardi ng the attached docum ent, please feel free to contact Candace Cady b y phone at (801) 538-92 60 or by email at ccady @ utah.gov.

Sincerely,

Walter L. Baker, P.E.

Directo r

W B :LAL:RH:CC:

cc:

F:\wp\UIC\CARB ON CAP T URE & SEQU ESTRA T I O N\EPA\CCG SRules\Utah D W Q Co mm e n ts.doc

File: E P A Cor r espondence288 North 1460 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 Telephone (801) 538-6146 • Fax (801) 538-6016 • T.D.D. (801) 536-4414

www.deq.utah.gov

Printed on 100% recycled paper 

### State of Utah

JON M. HUNTSMAN, JR.

Governor

GARY HERBERT

Lieutenant Governor 

### Departm e nt of Wat er Q u alit y Bo ard Joe Piccolo, Chair Paula Doughty

, Vice- Chair 

### Environmental Quality

William J. Sinclair Acting Executive Director

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY Walter L. Baker, P.E.

Director David F. Echols Merritt K. Frey

Darrell H. Mensel

Leland J. Myers

Jay Ivan Olsen Gregory L. Rowley Steven P. Simpson

William J. Sinclair

Daniel C. Snarr Phil Wright Walter L. Baker,

Executive Secretar y

Comments on the Federal Requirements Under th e Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic Sequestration (GS) Wells; Proposed Rule

Published in the Federal Register on July 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 144)

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390

Prepared by Candace C. Cady, PG Utah 1422 UIC Program

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality

Introduction

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on the proposed rule for carbon dioxide geologic sequestration wells. We commend EPA’s efforts in engaging international, national, state, and local experts from a br oad spectrum of relevant fields to inform the development of the proposed rule. Finalizing the rule for carbon dioxide geologic sequestration wells will make significant progress in removing one of the identified (GAO, September 2008) barriers to implementing large-scale commercial carbon capture and geologic sequestration (CCGS) projects, namely the legal and regulatory uncertainties asso ciated with CCGS, particularly with regards to injection and storage of CO2.

General Comments

While CCGS is only one technology in a portfolio of many that will need to be implemented to achieve carbon emissions stabilization, it is most amenable to mitigating the emissions from large stationary CO2 sources, particul arly carbon-based fossil fuel pow er plants which account for nearly 80% of the cumulative to tal CO2 emissions from large st ationary sources (IPCC, 2005). Furthermore, CCGS has been identified as the critical enabling tec hnology for reducing CO2 emissions significantly while allowing the use of carbon-based fossil fuels, especially coal, to meet the world's energy demands (The Future of Coal, 2007). Meeting carbon emissions stabilization goals will be more easily achieve d if mitigative measures are implemented sooner rather than later. Therefore, while the en abling CCGS legal and regul atory framework must provide for the protection of ground water and other natural resources , it must not contain elements that would hinder the timely depl oyment of commercial scale CCGS projects.

Carbon sequestration is a unique type of injection undertaken for a unique and critical purpose. It is not hydrocarbon storage nor is it industrial hazardous waste dispos al. A hybrid approach should be taken in the development of rules that will facilitate the expediti ous deployment of CCGSPage 2

technology on a large and commercial scale. Th e development of rules for Class VI CO2 injection wells should logically begin with the existing rules for Class II enhanced oil recovery (EOR) wells using CO2 thereby building on the e xperience of 30+ years during which these type of CO2 wells have been in operation. From th is starting point, CCGS rules can be tailored to account for the unique features of geologically seque stered CO2; namely la rge volumes, reactivity of CO2 in the presence of water, buoyancy, mobility, and extremely long time period of sequestration. Beginning with existing rules for Class I industrial wells as a reference for the proposed rule (page 43503 of the fe deral register notice) sends the message that injection of CO2 for geologic sequestration is akin to industrial waste disposal rather than management of the major greenhouse gas it is.

Carbon capture and geologic sequestration encompasse s more than the injection of captured CO2. The development of the entire enabling legal and regulatory framework, in which legal and regulatory barriers have been identified and reso lved, to implement CCGS on a commercial scale will require multi-media, multi-agency, and mu lti-statute consideration, including possible amendments of existing statutes. In addition to removing barriers to implementation, this legal and regulatory framework will need to be flexible and adaptable to facilitate the incorporation of new information and experiences gained from the numerous pilot CO2 sequestration projects currently in their infancy. Whereas CO2 pipelin e technology and legal and regulatory framework have reached a status of relative maturity due primarily to the use of CO2 in enhanced oil recovery for the past 30+ years, CO2 capture tec hnology as applied to coal-f ired power plants is just beginning to develop. Statutes and regula tions governing the injec tion and storage of CO2 should be adaptive to the constrai nts of the other elements of an entire CCGS project (and vice versa) as they are identified.

Specific Comments on Topics

In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA aske d for comments on approximately 50 topics. Following are our comments on some of those topics.

A PPROPRIATENESS OF C LASS VI C LASSIFICATION FOR GS W ELLS

We support the creation of a new class of injection well for carbon dioxide geologic sequestration wells. This action acknowledges th e unique nature of and purpose for this new well class and facilitates the development of en abling regulations for th e rapid deployment of CCGS projects. We do not, however, support th e limitation of carbon sequestration below the lowermost underground source of drinking water (USDW). The determination for siting a CCGS project should be based on assessment of s ite specific conditions including the presence of an adequate upper and lower confining zone to protect USDW both above and below the injection zone.

"G RANDFATHERING " OF E XISTING CO2 I NJECTION W ELLS

We support EPA's intent to allow "grandfathering" of the construction requirements for existing Class I, II or V wells that are converted to Class VI wells. However, conversion to a Class VI well should only be allowed after an assessment of the geochemical interaction between the CO2, previous injectate, injection zo ne matrix and fluid indicates there will be no deleterious effects due to the commingling of different injection streams that mightPage 3

compromise the CCGS project or endanger USDW s. This is especially relevant when converting Class I and Class V wells to Class VI wells.

P ROHIBITIONS

– C OAL S EAMS , B ASALTS , S ALT D OMES , S HALES , O THER F ORMATIONS , We do not support the categorical prohibition of CO2 geologic sequestration in coal seams, basalts, salt domes, shales or any other formati on. EPA states in the preamble to the proposed rule that "[t]hese formations are limited in geographic and geologic di stribution throughout the U.S., and their technological or economic viability as GS [geol ogic sequestration] sites have not been demonstrated." For this very reason, these formations should not be eliminated as possible sequestration reservoirs. Ongoing demonstration projects conducted under the Department of Energy may yet demonstrate their viability.

D EFINING CO2 S TREAM TO E XCLUDE H AZARDOUS W ASTE /S UBSTANCE UNDER RCRA/CERCLA

We consider potential liability under RCRA a nd/or CERCLA a major deterrent to developing and deploying CCGS projects and one that must be addressed. Towards removing this as a barrier to CCGS, we strongly encourage EPA to address the issues surrounding the composition of the injected CO2 stream. These issues include: provid ing a clear description of the analytical methods for characterizing the CO2 stream, pr oviding a clear de scription of the limitation on the CO2 stream composition so as to avoid inclusion under RCRA or CERCLA, and investigating thoroughly the possi bility of RCRA and CERCLA exemption for CCGS while still providing protection to USDWs and other natural resources. Since capture and separation technology is still being develo ped for large stationary CO2 sources, it is important to have a clearly defi ned target for design objectives.

A LLOWING FOR D IRECTOR D ISCRETION IN R EQUIRING A DDITIONAL C ONTAINMENT Z ONES

We support EPA's intention to provide Director 's discretion in requiring additional confining and containment zones that could further impe de vertical fluid movement and allow for pressure dissipation. This acknowledges the importance and merit of implementing a riskbased, site-specific approach in characterizing a site for CCGS projects. This allows for flexibility in setting permit requirements fo r the protection of USDWs and other natural resources thereby increasing the number of sites that could pot entially be used for CCGS.

C OMPUTATIONAL M ODELING

We support the use of multiphase models in pr edicting the movement of the CO2 plume and injection zone fluids given the mu ltiphase nature of the injectate particularly in the early stage of the CCGS project. However, we also empha sis the importance of the use of geochemical modeling in addressing the reac tivity of CO2 in th e presence of water and other reactive components in the matrix and fluids of the injection and confining zones.

P ROPRIETARY M ODELING

We do not support the use of proprietary mode ls for modeling CCGS projects. There should be complete transparency in all aspects of CC GS allowing for peer review of the models and assumptions associated with them. This pro cess would be hindered by the use of proprietary models. Furthermore, there are numerous pow erful modeling codes available in the publicPage 4

domain that have already been used in pred icting fluid movement and geochemical reaction

for CCGS.

R E -E VALUATION OF THE A REA OF R EVIEW

Given that there is not extensive experience in tracking the movement of large volumes of injected CO2 and associated formation fluids, we support EPA's intent to require periodic reevaluation of the Area of Review. We feel strongly that mon itoring results should inform the Director in determining an appr opriate frequency for re-evaluati on and that this should be an iterative process resulting in th e continuing refinement of the site-specific predictive model.

A LLOWING FOR D IRECTOR D ISCRETION IN P HASED A PPROACH TO C ORRECTIVE A CTION

We support EPA's intention to allow Director's discretion in allowing a phased approach to corrective action for wells that penetrate the inje ction zone within the Area of Review. As stated above, this allows for a risk-based, site -specific approach in setting permit requirements for the protection of USDWs and other natura l resources thereby increasing the number of sites that could potentia lly be used for CCGS.

W ELL D RILLING T ECHNIQUES

Given the success of horizontal drilling techniqu es in facilitating ge ologic sequestration of CO2 in the In Salah project in Algeria, we strongly support allo wing innovative drilling techniques in CCGS projects thereby allowing th e development of these projects in geologic settings that otherwise might not be amenable to CCGS such as in formations with limited permeability.

R EQUIREMENT OF I NJECTION B ELOW THE L OWERMOST USDW

We do not support EPA's proposed categorical requirement of injection CO2 below the

lowermost USDW. We feel this would restrict the areas in which CCG S could be deployed. If site-specific hydrogeologic conditions, well co nstruction, and operating parameters can be shown to provide protection fo r all USDWs and othe r natural resources above and below the injection zone, the CCGS pr oject should be allowed.

E LECTRONIC R EPORTING

We agree with EPA that electronic reporting will reduce reporting burde n and will facilitate tracking of CCGS projects. However, the "e lectronic format acceptable to the Director"

should not constitute a financial or resource burde n to the owner / operator or to the regulating agency required to report to EPA on UIC program activity. Until that time when the regulating agency has developed a data flow to the National UIC Database, we strongly urge EPA to develop an online service for submitting CCGS information such as is currently in place for submitting Program Activity Measures (PAMs) and UIC inventory.

L IABILITY

Currently, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, liability remains with the owner/operator indefinitely. We believe this represents a significant barrier to the implementation of CCGSPage 5

projects so long as there are pe rceived long-term risks after cl osure. Alternative scenarios have been proposed (IOGCC Sept 5, 2007; de Figueiredo, 2007) that would significantly reduce this barrier by establishing a CO2 seque stration fund capitalized by a CO2 storage tax or fee paid by the owner/opera tor on a per-ton-of-CO2-injected basis. This fund would be used by the long-term liability management entity to conduct on-going monitoring, to plug and abandon orphaned CO2 storage wells, to pay out compensation for damages, and to remediate a CO2 storage facility.

We encourage the EPA to enable an alternate li ability scheme to the one offered currently by the Safe Drinking Water Act in which liability remains with the owner/operator indefinitely. This may require an amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

P RIMACY OF C LASS VI W ELLS

We encourage EPA to allow primacy approval fo r Class VI wells independent of the other classes of injection wells. This would allow the state agency that is best positioned for implementing the Class VI program to apply for primacy for the program or to apply for an amendment to an existing primacy application. Th is would facilitate th e rapid deployment of commercial-scale CCGS projects.

P ERMIT D URATION

Permit duration may be less than the duration of the project in primacy states with the option for permit renewal. This offers the operator and regulator the opportunity to amend the permit as new information relevant to the project becomes available. The Utah DWQ also will require the inclusion of a re-ope ner clause in the permit to al low revision of the permit to accommodate extenuating circumstances and new information relevant to the permit.

References Cited

Federal Actions Will Greatly A ffect the Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option, Report to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, House of Representatives, U. S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), September, 2008.

IPCC, 2005: IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O.Davidson, H.C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 442 pp.

The Future of Coal: Options for a Carbon-Cons trained World, An Interdisciplinary MIT Study,

2007

IOGCC. 2007. Storage of Carbon Dioxide in Geol ogic Structures; A Legal and Regulatory Guide for States and Provinces. Prepared by the Inte rstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. September
25, 2007.Page 6

The Liability of Carbon Dioxide Storage, Ma rk Anthony de Figueiredo, MIT Ph.D Thesis, February 2007.Letter ID: 0253

Commenter: Walter L. Baker Organization: Utah Divi sion of Water Quality

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22336 Letter Lines: 58 to 68

Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking

Comment: Introduction

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comm ents on the proposed rule for carbon dioxide geologic sequestrati on wells. We commend EPA’ s efforts in engaging international, national, state, and local experts from a broad spectrum of relevant fields to inform the developmen t of the proposed rule. Finalizing the rule for carbon dioxide geologic sequestr ation wells will make significant progress in removing one of the identifie d (GAO, September 2008) barriers to implementing large-scale commercial car bon capture and geologic sequestration (CCGS) projects, namely the legal and re gulatory uncertainties associated with CCGS, particularly with regards to injection and storage of CO2.

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 fram ework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulati on 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 potenti al presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

EPA agrees that the implementation of the GS rule in a manner that ensures protection of USDWs from endangerment is impo rtant to establishing a foundation for further advances in the field of CO2 GS, and acknowledges the need for regulatory certainty. The final GS requirements provide a level of certainty by setting forth unique requirement s for GS. These requirements

include: the tailored AoR delin eation process (per §146.84), the types of monitoring appropriate to GS projects (per §146.90), and the post- injection site care pr ocess (per §146.93). EPA agrees that input of and participation by a wide spectrum of stakeholders is a vital component of successful rulemaking. The Agen cy appreciates the degree of cooperation, participation, and active dialogue between the EP A and stakeholders and will continue to work with stakeholders and experts as it implements the GS rule.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22337 Letter Lines: 70 to 84

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments

Comment: General Comments

1While CCGS is only one technology in a portfolio of many that will need to be implemented to achieve carbon emissions st abilization, it is most amenable to mitigating the emissions from large stati onary CO2 sources, particularly carbonbased fossil fuel power plants which account for nearly 80% of the cumulative total CO2 emissions from large stationa ry sources (IPCC, 2005). Furthermore,

CCGS has been identified as the criti cal enabling technology for reducing CO2 emissions significantly while allowing th e use of carbon-based fossil fuels, especially coal, to meet the world's energy demands (The Future of Coal, 2007). Meeting carbon emissions stabilization goals will be more easily achieved if mitigative measures are implemented sooner rather than later. Therefore, while the enabling CCGS legal and regulatory fram ework must provide for the protection of ground water and other natu ral resources, it must not contain elements that would hinder the timely deployment of commercial scale CCGS projects.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. EPA ag rees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal, that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions; however these technol ogies are outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. EPA clarifies that the GS regulation does not promote or encourage the use of GS; rather it is designed to ensure consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provide requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. EPA clarifies that mitigating climate change is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment for further de tails. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22338 Letter Lines: 86 to 101

Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking

Comment: Carbon sequestration is a unique type of injection undertaken for a unique and critical purpose. It is not hydrocarbon st orage nor is it industrial hazardous waste disposal. A hybrid approach should be taken in the development of rules

that will facilitate the ex peditious deployment of CCGS technology on a large and commercial scale. The development of rules for Class VI CO2 injection wells should logically begin with the existi ng rules for Class II enhanced oil recovery (EOR) wells using CO2 thereby building on the experi ence of 30+ years during which these type of CO 2 wells have been in opera tion. From this starting point, CCGS rules can be tailored to account for the unique features of geologically sequestered CO2; namely larg e volumes, reactivit y of CO2 in the presence of water, buoyancy, mobility, and extremely long time period of sequestration. Beginning with existing rule s for Class I industrial wells as a reference for the proposed rule (page 43503 of the federal register notice) sends the message that injection of CO2 for geologic sequestration is akin to industrial waste disposal rather than ma nagement of the major greenhouse gas it

is.

2Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not promote or encourage the use of GS; rather it ensures consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and pr ovide requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. EP A adds that the GS regulation builds upon the long-standing prot ective framework of the UIC Program, which has been regulating the injection of billions of gallons of fluids for decades, including wells used for enhanced oil recovery. It includes requirements that address the unique technical criteria for permitting GS wells that are tailored the exis ting UIC regulatory framework to address the unique nature of CO2 injection for GS.

Please see the remainder of EPA' s responses to this comment le tter for further details. For

additional information on EPA's fi nal regulatory approach, includi ng the discussion of how this rulemaking affect existing injection wells under the UIC Program, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22339 Letter Lines: 103 to 117

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

Comment: Carbon capture and geologic sequestration enco mpasses more than the injection of captured CO2. The development of the en tire enabling legal and regulatory framework, in which legal and regulatory barriers have been identified and resolved, to implement CCGS on a commerc ial scale will require multi-media, multi-agency, and multi-statute considera tion, including possible amendments of existing statutes. In addition to removing barriers to implementation, this legal and regulatory framework will need to be flexible and adaptable to facilitate the incorporation of new inform ation and experiences gained from the numerous pilot CO2 sequestration projects currently in their infancy. Whereas CO2 pipeline technology and legal and regulatory framewor k have reached a status of relative maturity due primarily to th e use of CO2 in enha nced oil recovery for the past 30+ years, CO2 capture tec hnology as applied to coal-fired power plants is just beginning to develop. St atutes and regulati ons governing the injection and storage of CO2 should be adap tive to the constraints of the other elements of an entire CCGS project (and vice versa) as they are identified.

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 flex ible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, testing and monitoring the site, performing corrective actio n, and post-injection site care . EPA believes that the plans— which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and periodical ly updated throughout the life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operato r and the Director that will encourage use of the most appropriate t echnologies for a particular project.

EPA adds that it is using an adaptive approach to regulati ng GS under the UIC Program. Even

3after finalization of the GS regula tion, EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review project data on GS research projects to determine wh ether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

EPA clarifies that the Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs fr om endangerment. Encouraging investment in CCS projects and facilitating deployment are outside the scope of the GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22340 Letter Lines: 118 to 122

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments

Comment: Specific Comments on Topics

In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA asked for comments on approximately 50 topics. Following are our comment s on some of those topics.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. Pleas e see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment for further deta ils. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22341 Letter Lines: 124 to 129

Comment Code: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: APPROPRIATENESS OF CLASS VI CLASSIFICATION FOR GS WELLS

We support the creation of a new class of injection well for carbon dioxide geologic sequestration wells. This action acknowledges the unique nature of and purpose for this new well class and faci litates the development of enabling regulations for the rapid deployment of CCGS projects. We do not, however,

Individual Response: EPA agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells are necessary to address the unique nature of in jecting large volumes of CO2 a nd to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. The GS rule c ontains tailored requirements for the permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corre ctive action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, well plu gging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS wells that directly addre ss issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for GS.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22342 Letter Lines: 129 to 134

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

4USDW

Comment: regulations for the rapid deployment of CCGS projects. We do not, however, support the limitation of carbon sequestration below the lowermost underground source of drinking water (USDW). The de termination for siting a CCGS project should be based on assessment of site sp ecific conditions including the presence of an adequate upper and lower confining zone to protect USDW both above and below the injection zone.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are lim ited circumstances where injection above the lowermost USDW can be performe d 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 owne rs or operators can seek a waiv er of the Class VI injection depth requirements for inject ion into non-USDW formations above and/or between USDWs. Additionally, the final GS rule doe s not categorically preclude or prohibit injection into any type

of formation.

It establishes: 1) requirements specifying informa tion that owners or operators must submit, and Directors must consider, in consultation with PW SS Directors; 2) procedures for public notice of a waiver application and for Director-Regiona l Administrator communicat ion; 3) the waiver issuance process; and, 4) additiona l requirements that apply to owne rs or operators of Class VI wells granted a waiver of the in jection depth requirements to en sure USDW protection above and below the injection zone.

EPA believes that these requirements will ensure USDW protection while providing flexibility to UIC program Directors and owne rs or operators who undertak e CO2 injection for GS. The Agency believes this approach: 1) responds to co ncerns about local and re gional geologic storage capacity limitations imposed by th e proposed injection depth require ments; 2) allows for a more site-specific assessment of injection depth for GS projects; 3) accommodates injection into different formation types; 4) a llows 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 aqui fer exemptions for GS. Finally, EPA’s approach to addressing injection depth va riability through a waiver process responds to concerns about future drinking wa ter resource availability and the need to ensure that high quality water remains available in sufficient qua ntities to supply drinking water needs. For additional information on the waiver approach, pleas e see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to comments on the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22343 Letter Lines: 136 to 145

Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment)

Comment: "GRANDFATHERING" OF EXIS TING CO2 INJECTION WELLS

We support EPA's intent to allow "g randfathering" of the construction requirements for existing Class I, II or V wells that are converted to Class VI

5wells. However, conversion to a Class VI well should only be allowed after an assessment of the geochemical interaction between the CO2, previous injectate, injection zone matrix and fluid indicate s there will be no de leterious effects due to the commingling of different injec tion streams that might compromise the CCGS project or endanger USDWs. This is especially relevant when converting

Class I and Class V wells to Class VI wells.

Individual Response: EPA agrees and expects that any deci sion to convert a well for long term storage of CO2 will be made in the context of al l available information about the site and history of injection. EPA agrees that many Class I, Cl ass II, and Class V expe rimental technology wells are designed and constructed to withstand exposure to CO2. The final GS rule provides for the construction of these wells to be grandfathe red per §146.81(c), provided th e owner or operator

can demonstrate to the Director that the wells were engineered and constructed to meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensu re protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a).

Following re-permitting of the well as Class VI, the project must be subject to the siting, operational, MIT, monitoring, reporting, plugging, a nd post-injection site ca re and site closure requirements in the final GS rule. This would mo st likely include an eval uation of the properties of the rock in the injection zone and fluid composition in the contex t of the proposed CO2 injection, as the commenter suggest s. See the discussion of EPA's final regulatory approach in the preamble to the GS rule for additional detail on these requirements.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22344 Letter Lines: 147 to 156

Comment Code: 2160 1.6.3 Unmineable coal seams

Comment Code: 2200 1.6.4 Other formation types

Comment: PROHIBITIONS - COAL SEAMS, BASALTS, SALT DOMES, SHALES, OTHER FORMATIONS,

We do not support the categorical prohibi tion of CO2 geologic sequestration in coal seams, basalts, salt do mes, shales or any other formation. EPA states in the preamble to the proposed rule that "[t]hese formations are limited in geographic and geologic distributio n throughout the U.S., and their technological or economic viability as GS [geologic sequestration] sites have not been demonstrated." For this very reason, these formations should not be eliminated as possible sequestration rese rvoirs. Ongoing demonstration projects conducted under the Department of Energy may yet demonstrate their viability.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not categorically prec lude injection of CO2 into any non-USDW formation types. The purpose of the GS rule is to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment, and the rule requires that owners or operators demonstrate that wells are sited in suitable systems with geologic formations to receive and confine injected CO2, required at §146.83 of the GS rule. The Cla ss VI siting, well cons truction and operation, monitoring and testing, and post-inj ection site care and site closur e requirements are designed to

6ensure that injected CO2 remains within the target formation. If an owner or operator can

demonstrate to the Director's satisfaction that GS in coal seams, basalts, salt domes, or shales can be accomplished in a manner that protects USDWs a nd meets all of the requirements of the GS rule, the project may be permitted as a Class VI well.

EPA acknowledges that there may be risks associat ed with GS, particularly regarding GS into formations such as coal seams, basalts, salt dom es, or shales, which have been the subject of limited experimental projects in the past. For this reason, the Agency is using an adaptive approach to regulate GS injecti on. EPA will collect and review proj ect data on early GS projects, including those that inject into various formation types, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and documentati on are being collected. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determin e 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: 0253 Comment ID: 22345 Letter Lines: 158 to 171

Comment Code: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste i ssues (seeking comment)

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment)

Comment: DEFINING CO2 STREAM TO EXCLUD E HAZARDOUS WA STE/SUBSTANCE

UNDER RCRA/CERCLA

We consider potential liability under RCR A and/or CERCLA a major deterrent to developing and deploying CCGS projects and on e that must be addressed. Towards removing this as a barrier to CCGS, we strongly encourage EPA to address the issues surrounding the composition of the injected CO2 stream. These issues include: providing a clear descriptio n of the analytical methods for characterizing the CO2 stream, providing a clear description of the limitation on the CO2 stream composition so as to a void inclusion under RCRA or CERCLA, and investigating thoroughly the possibility of RCRA and CERCLA exemption for CCGS while still providing protection to USDW s and other natural resources. Since capture and separation technology is still being developed for large stationary CO2 sources, it is important to have a clearly defined target for design objectives.

Individual Response: The final GS rule retains the defini tion of a CO2 stream as proposed. The GS regulation applies to injecti on of CO2 for the purpose of GS, regardless of the source of the CO2. It is beyond the scope of the GS rule and the UIC Program’s authority to require or set standards for upstream generators of CO2 or purification facilities . For purposes of GS, the UIC program’s authority under the SDWA is limited to ensuring that GS projects are sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs.

With respect to the commenter’s concern about RCRA, EPA has decided to initiate a separate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine the issue of RCRA applicability to CO2 streams

7being geologically sequestered, including the po ssible option of a conditional exemption from the RCRA requirements for CO2 GS in Class VI wells. EPA will consider these comments as part of its development of that proposal. The Agen cy will consider issues particular to RCRA in the context of that separate rulemaking, and recommends that the commenter read that proposed rule when it is published. The Agency notes that commenters who wish to submit comments on the RCRA proposal will need to do so during the co mment period for that rule. Finally, EPA also notes that the final GS rule, which adds new regulations for Class VI wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is not making any changes to the RCRA regulations.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22346 Letter Lines: 173 to 181

Comment Code: 3120 2.1.2 Need to identify additional confining and containment zones (seeking comment)

Comment: ALLOWING FOR DIRECTOR DIS CRETION IN REQUIRING ADDITIONAL

CONTAINMENT ZONES

We support EPA's intention to provide Director's discretion in requiring additional confining and containment zones that could further impede vertical fluid movement and allow for pressure dissipation. This acknowledges the importance and merit of implementing a risk-based, site-specific approach in characterizing a site for CCGS projects. Th is allows for flexibility in setting permit requirements for the protection of USDWs and other na tural resources thereby increasing the number of sites that could potentially be used for CCGS.

Individual Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that, in some situations, the presence of additional confining and containment zones above the primary (i.e., lowermost) confining zone can improve USDW protection from endangerment. The final regulation re tains the requirement at §146.83(b) which affords the Director discretion to require owners or op erators to identify and

characterize additional zones. EPA believes that providing the Director discretion will allow consideration of a range of s ites for GS, based on site-specifi c conditions and ensure USDW protection. EPA believes that requi ring appropriate site characteri zation by the owner or operator (under §146.82) and providing an appropriate degree of flexibility to the Director to evaluate site-specific geologic data will afford the greatest protection of USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22347 Letter Lines: 183 to 190

Comment Code: 3310 2.2.1.1 Comments in favor of requiring computational models to delineate the AoR (seeking comment)

Comment: COMPUTATIONAL MODELING

We support the use of multiphase models in predicting the movement of the CO2 plume and injection zone fluids given th e multiphase nature of the injectate particularly in the early stage of the CCGS project. However, we also emphasis

8the importance of the use of geochemical modeling in addressing the reactivity of CO2 in the presence of water and othe r reactive components inthe matrix and fluids of the injection and confining zones.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s s upport and agrees that predicting the complex multiphase, buoyant flow of the CO 2, co-injectates, and compounds that may be mobilized due to injection requires the sophistica tion of computational models, as required at §146.84(c)(1). Models can predict CO2 fate and tr ansport, as well as changes in formation pressure, in three dimensions, as a function of ti me in order to delineate the subsurface storage site and the AoR. Models can account for site-specific and predicted operating conditions as well as geologic heterogeneities a nd potential migration through fau lts, fractures, and artificial penetrations.

EPA disagrees that geochemical modeling (i.e., reactive transport modeling) will be necessary

for delineation of the AoR in all cases. EPA clar ifies that the GS regulation requires that AoR modeling consider the chemical a nd physical properties of the inje cted stream and native fluids, but does not specifically require reactive trans port modeling (146.84(c)(1)). As discussed in the preamble to the proposed GS regulation, EPA expects that AoR modeling will account for multiphase fluid flow processes, including de nsity-driven flow (e.g., buoyancy). EPA believes that the purpose of AoR modeli ng is to predict the regions wh erein fluid pressures increase and/or to which CO2 may be transported. Based on a review of the tec hnical literature, EPA believes that, in many cases, reactive transpor t modeling will not be necessary to determine whether USDWs would be endangered. Any areas of geochemical disturbance would be within the modeled AoR as defined at 146.84(c). EPA adds that the Director ha s discretion to require additional modeling, including geochemical modeli ng, if he or she determines this to be necessary. EPA adds that the purpose of mode ling is to target areas where geochemical monitoring should be performed.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22348 Letter Lines: 192 to 199

Comment Code: 3350 2.2.1.5 Use of proprietary models for GS sites (seeking comment)

Comment: PROPRIETARY MODELING

We do not support the use of proprietary models for modeling CCGS projects. There should be complete transparency in all aspects of CCGS allowing for peer review of the models and assumptions asso ciated with them. This process would be hindered by the use of proprietary m odels. Furthermore, there are numerous powerful modeling codes available in the public domain that have already been used in predicting fluid movement and geochemical reaction for CCGS.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the use of proprietary models should be disallowed. EPA acknowledges the commenter’s concerns about the need to evaluate the inputs and assumptions used in these models, and EPA intends to allow the use of proprietary models in meeting the requirements for the GS regulation. EP A clarifies, however, th at GS well operators

9using proprietary models are required to disclo se, to the Director's satisfaction, the code assumptions, relevant equations, and scientific basis. Information including model assumptions and equations are used by the Dir ector to inform his/her decision to issue the permit and ensure that the requirements are met and the GS well will not endanger USDWs. EPA adds that its Confidential Business Information requirements (144.5) will apply to th e use of proprietary

models.

EPA clarifies, however, that GS well operators using proprietary models are required to disclose, to the Director's satisfaction, the code assumpti ons, relevant equations, and scientific basis. Information including model assumptions and eq uations are used by the Director to inform his/her decision to issue the permit and ensure that the requirements are met and the GS well will not endanger USDWs.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22349 Letter Lines: 201 to 208

Comment Code: 3530 2.2.3.1 AoR reevaluation fre quency (seeking comment)

Comment: RE-EVALUATION OF THE AREA OF REVIEW

Given that there is not extensive experi ence in tracking the m ovement of large volumes of injected CO2 and associated formation fluids, we support EPA's intent to require periodic re -evaluation of the Area of Revi ew. We feel strongly that monitoring results should inform the Dir ector in determining an appropriate frequency for re-evaluation and that th is should be an iterative process resulting in the continuing refinement of the site-specific predictive model.

Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters that reevaluations of the AoR every ten years may not be sufficient, and has changed the minimum frequency for the AoR reevaluation from 10 years to 5 years, as specified in §146.84( e). EPA believes that this revised frequency

addresses commenters' concerns th at more frequent reevaluations are necessary to address the

inherent uncertainties in mode ling CO2 movement, the emerging nature of GS technology, riskbased targeting of monito ring activities, and the uni que nature of CO2 GS.

EPA agrees that site-specific in formation, including monitoring data , is an important factor in determining when AoR reevaluations are appropriate , and adds that the final rule also requires owners or operators to identify in the AoR and corrective action plan site -specific triggers for reevaluation before five years. EPA anticipates that anomalous monitoring data would be one such trigger.

EPA recognizes that there are many unknowns about how GS projects will unfold including: the practicalities of permitting, operating, monitoring, and closing a GS project. To address this, the Agency is using an adaptive approach to regula ting GS. The Agency plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to dete rmine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determine if

10modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22350 Letter Lines: 210 to 217

Comment Code: 3630 2.2.4.1 Comments in favor of allowing phased corrective action

Comment: ALLOWING FOR DIRECTOR DISCRETION IN PHASED APPROACH TO

CORRECTIVE ACTION

We support EPA's intention to allow Direct or's discretion in allowing a phased approach to corrective action for wells that penetrate the injection zone within the Area of Review. As stated above, th is allows for a risk-based, sitespecific approach in setting permit require ments for the protection of USDWs and

other natural resources th ereby increasing the number of sites that could potentially be used for CCGS.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s s upport of phased corrective action and agrees that phased corrective action may provide many benefits to a project including, but not limited to, spreading the burden of cost, avoi ding delays in project start-up, allowing for use of future, improved corrective act ion techniques and addressing unanticipated changes in the movement of the CO2 plume or pressure front . EPA believes that the phased corrective action approach is appropriate for GS projects, and retained it at §146.84(b)(2)(iv) in the final GS regulation.

EPA recognizes that a phased approach to co rrective action may not be appropriate in all situations, and that the Direct or is in the best position to make decisions about the appropriateness of phased correc tive action based on his or her knowledge of the local geologic and site conditions. For this reason, the GS rule affords the Director discretion in determining whether phased corrective action is appropriate at a given GS site.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22351 Letter Lines: 219 to 225

Comment Code: 3840 2.3.2 Horizontal well drilling techniques (seeking comment)

Comment: WELL DRILLING TECHNIQUES

Given the success of horizontal drilling techniques in faci litating geologic sequestration of CO2 in the In Salah pr oject in Algeria, we strongly support allowing innovative drilling techniques in CCGS projects thereby allowing the development of these projects in geologic settings that otherwise might not be

amenable to CCGS such as in form ations with limited permeability.

Individual Response: In this final rule, EPA allows the use of horizontal wells at GS projects. In

11the proposed rule, EPA sought comment on the appr opriateness of horizonta l drilling techniques for Class VI wells, and commenters representing energy companies, el ectric utilities, the oil and gas industry, CCS associations, states, and the public, unanimously suppo rted the concept and provided many reasons why horizonta l wells could be beneficial at GS sites. Based on an evaluation of these comments and additional research by EPA, the Agency has concluded that horizontal wells that are properly constructed, logged, and tested for mechanical integrity (i.e., to meet the requirements of the GS rule) can ensu re the protection of USDW s from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22352 Letter Lines: 227 to 234

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

USDW

Comment: REQUIREMENT OF INJECTION B ELOW THE LOWERMOST USDW

We do not support EPA's proposed categorical requirement of injection CO2 below

the lowermost USDW. We feel this would re strict the areas in which CCGS could be deployed. If site- spec ific hydrogeologic conditions , well construction, and operating parameters can be shown to provi de protection for all USDWs and other

natural resources abov e and below the injection zone, the CCGS project should be

allowed.

Individual Response: As described above, EPA acknowledges that there are limited circumstances where injection above the lowerm ost 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 pr ocess by which owners or operato rs can seek a waiver of the Class VI injection depth requirements for inje ction into non-USDW form ations above and/or

between USDWs.

EPA believes that proper siting, monitoring, and c ontainment capacity are cr itical elements of Class VI injection for GS. However, the Agency also believes that in jection into non-USDW formations above and between USDWs presents unique challenges related to movement of CO2 in the subsurface, which requires a unique approach to ensure that USDWs are protected. Therefore, the Agency believes that additional requirements are appropriate and necessary for wells that would inject into non- USDWs above and be tween USDWs.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22353 Letter Lines: 236 to 245

Comment Code: 4700 2.7 Proposed Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (40 CFR 146.91)

Comment Code: 4740 2.7.4 Electronic reporting (seeking comment)

Comment: ELECTRONIC REPORTING

We agree with EPA that electronic re porting will reduce reporting burden and

12will facilitate tracking of CCGS projects. However, the "electronic format acceptable to the Director" should not cons titute a financial or resource burden to the owner / operator or to the regula ting agency required to report to EPA on UIC program activity. Until that time when the regulating agency has developed

a data flow to the National UIC Database , we strongly urge EPA to develop an online service for submitting CCGS informati on such as is currently in place for submitting Program Activity Measures (PAMs) and UIC inventory.

Individual Response: EPA believes that electronic formatting is the most appropriate format for submitting Class VI project information to the Director, and based on comments received on the proposed rule, the majority of Class VI well owners or operators will have the capability to report electronically, and re quires this at §146.91(e).

Acknowledging that some States may have to develop electronic data systems to receive

electronic information from the owner or operator, and that many States which already have electronic data systems will have to make ch anges to accommodate a new class of UIC well (Class VI), EPA believes that it is prudent to provide assi stance by develo ping a central framework for the electronic system that will be used by States to gather and track owner or operator data. This will enable owners or opera tors to submit data without having to wait for a State to develop a system. It will also provide for standardized submissions across the country

and enable States to focus State resources on re viewing and approving permit applications rather than building or upgrading separate, inde pendent databases for GS information.

EPA is developing guidance for states that describes the recordkeeping, reporting, and additional data management needs associated with GS act ivities and provides recommended guidelines on the types of data to be collected for tracki ng GS projects, reporti ng to EPA for compliance tracking, and transfer of data to EPA's GS data system. The recordkeeping and reporting guidance will be available on EPA's web site, at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22354 Letter Lines: 247 to 263

Comment Code: 5460 2.9.2 Comments on transfer of lia bility for long-term care

Comment: LIABILITY

Currently, under the Safe Drinking Wate r Act, liability remains with the owner/operator indefinitely. We believe th is represents a significant barrier to the implementation of CCGS projects so long as there are perceived long-term

risks after closure. Altern ative scenarios have been proposed (IOGCC Sept 5, 2007; de Figueiredo, 2007) that would significantly reduce this barrier by establishing a CO2 sequestra tion fund capitalized by a CO2 storage tax or fee paid by the owner/operator on a per-ton-of -CO2-injected basis. This fund would be used by the long-term liability ma nagement entity to conduct on-going monitoring, to plug and abandon orphaned CO2 storage wells, to pay out compensation for damages, and to re mediate a CO2 storage facility.

13We encourage the EPA to enable an alternate liability scheme to the one offered currently by the Safe Drinking Water Act in which liability remains with the owner/operator indefinitely. This may requi re an amendment to the Safe Drinking

Water Act.

Individual Response: EPA is working to create a nationally consistent financial responsibility regime within its authority to ensure that fi nancial resources are available to protect USDWs throughout the life of the GS project. However, the authority under the SDWA does not extend to release owners or operators from long-term responsibility for the potential economic costs of impacts unrelated to USDWs. EPA does not have aut hority to transfer liabili ty from one entity to another. In the UIC program, liability under SDWA §1423 remains with the owner or operator for all well classes until all regulatory require ments have been met. EPA understands that Congress is considering legislation th at may address the liability issue.

Under SDWA, EPA has the general authority to set financial responsibility requirements for injection well owners or operators to ensure th at adequate resources are available to protect USDWs throughout the life of the GS project. However, this au thority does not extend to allowing the Agency to create a financial instru ment with EPA as the trustee, due to the

restrictions of the Miscellane ous Receipts Act (MRA). The MRA requires that EPA deposit the

funds it receives for the use of the Government into the Treasury, therefore funds would not necessarily be available for GS financial responsibility.

Additionally, EPA does not have authority under SDWA to establis h a trust fund for purposes of financial responsibility for Class VI projects. The Agency clarifie s that the trust funds that are addressed as financial responsibility instruments on the GS rule are set up by individual owners or operators and are different from a national-le vel trust described by th e commenters that would cover large numbers of GS projects.

EPA clarifies that the GS regula tion does not promote or encourage the use of GS; rather it is designed to ensure consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and pr ovide requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions.

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22355 Letter Lines: 265 to 271

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

Comment: PRIMACY OF CLASS VI WELLS

We encourage EPA to allow primacy approval for Class VI wells independent of the other classes of injection wells. This would allow the state agency that is best positioned for implementing the Class VI program to apply for primacy for the program or to apply for an amendment to an existing primacy application.

This would facilitate the rapid deployment of commer cial- scale CCGS projects.

14Individual 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. In the past, EPA has not accepted UIC primacy applications for individua l well classes under Section 1422 of SDWA. In other words, if a State wanted primacy for Cla ss I wells, the State would also need to accept responsibility for Class III, IV, and V wells. This policy has been in place since the initiation of the UIC Program in the early 1980s and was in tended to encourage states to take full responsibility for UIC programs, avoid duplication of efforts, a nd provide for administrative

efficiencies.

However, given the potential for CCS (encom passing capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration) to be an important part of a na tional priority to address climate change, EPA believes that providing states the flexibility to obtain primacy for Class VI wells independently of other well classes can help foster effective management of CCS. EPA believes that allowing independent Class VI primacy may encourage states to take res ponsibility for implementation of Class VI regulations and provide for a more co mprehensive approach to managing CCS projects by promoting the integration of GS activities under SDWA in to a broader framework for managing CCS. Furthermore, GS operations involve ancillary activities (e.g., pipeline operations, pore space ownership, land use rights, and surface access) for which states can call upon other authorities that exist at the state leve l (but outside UIC author ity) to provide a more comprehensive 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 also believes that allowing states to apply only for Class VI primacy will shorten the primacy approval process for states. EPA's willingness to accept independent primacy applications for Class VI wells represents a shift in its longstandi ng policy of discouraging "partial primacy." It is very important to note that this shift in policy allowing for Class VI primacy does not apply to any other well Cl ass under Section 1422. EPA will continue to discourage applications for pa rtial primacy for all other well types under Section 1422.

EPA clarifies that states should be able to obtain primacy for Cla ss VI wells independent of other well classes provided they devel op regulations that are at leas t as stringent as the minimum Federal requirements (e.g., permitting, inspec tion, operation, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements) provided in the final GS rule. EPA believes that existing programs can adapt their expertise to the new requirements for Class VI wells and will be able to develop a primacy application for Class VI wells under section 1422 of SDWA and en sure that their GS programs integrate into national climate change priori ties and protect USDWs from endangerment.

EPA recognizes that some states have already begun legislative e fforts that are wider in scope

than the Federal GS rule and believes that allo wing Class VI primacy (i ndependent of other well

15classes) may encourage states to take responsibility for implemen tation of a more comprehensive approach to managing CCS proj ects (e.g., capture, transportation, and geologic sequestration).

Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22356 Letter Lines: 273 to 280

Comment Code: 5700 2.12 Comments on the proposed durati on of Class VI permits (seeking comment)

Comment: PERMIT DURATION

Permit duration may be less than the durati on of the project in primacy states with the option for permit renewal. This offers the operator and regulator the opportunity to amend the permit as new in formation relevant to the project becomes available. The Utah DWQ also will require the inclusion of a re-opener clause in the permit to allow revision of the permit to acco mmodate extenuating circumstances and new information relevant to the permit.

Individual Response: The final rule maintains the lifetime permit provision and clarifies that the permit extends through the post-inje ction site care period (144.36(a)). It also adds a requirement that the Director review each Class VI permit at least once every 5 years to determine whether it should be modified, revoked and reissued, termin ated or a minor modification made as provided in §§144.39, 144.40, or 144.41. The Director’s review will be informed by the owners’ or operators’ iterative reevaluation of the project. Specifically, the fi nal rule includes a requirement

that the AoR be reevaluated at l east every five years, and also requires owners or operators to review and update the AoR and co rrective action plan, the testi ng and monitoring plan, and the emergency and remedial response plan throughou t the life of the proj ect (146.84(e), 146.90(j), and 146.94(d)). Owners or operators must review each plan and identify necessary amendments

or demonstrate to the Director that no amendm ent is needed. In no case can reviews occur less often than once every five years. The iterative pr ocess and subsequent plan reevaluations ensure

that time and resources are committed to the most critical aspects of the permit in preventing endangerment to USDWs. EPA believes that the iterative process of developing and executing the various plans required of GS well operators in the final rule (e.g., for AoR and corrective action, testing and monitoring, in jection well plugging, post-inject ion site care, and emergency and remedial response) is tailor ed to the unique aspects of—and is more appropriate for–GS than establishing a finite permit dur ation (e.g., ten years as sugge sted by some commenters).

EPA emphasizes that the Director has the author ity to revise the permit if project operations change or if the Director belie ves based on monitoring or operati onal data that the project may endanger USDWs. EPA has also added text to 144.39(a)(5) that permit m odifications would be required if the Director determines that a modification is necessary based on an AoR reevaluation, amendments to any of the project pl ans, or a review of the testing and monitoring results. The Director may also choose to re quire minor permit modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, depending on the extent of the plan amendm ent. All permit modifications, except minor modifications under 40 CFR 144.41, require an oppor tunity for public comment on the portion of the permit that is being reopened pursuant to requirements under 40 CFR 124.

16Letter ID: 0253 Comment ID: 22357 Letter Lines: 282 to 300

Comment Code: 1000 1. General and Administrative Comments

Comment: References Cited Federal Actions Will Gr eatly Affect the Viability of Carbon Capture and Storage As a Key Mitigation Option, Report to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independen ce and Global Warming, House of Representatives, U.S. Government Acc ountability Office (GAO), September, 2008.

IPCC, 2005: IPCC Special Report on Carbon Di oxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O.Davidson, H.C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 442 pp.

The Future of Coal: Options for a Carbon- Constrained World, An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, 2007

IOGCC. 2007. Storage of Carbon Dioxide in Geologic Structures; A Legal and Regulatory Guide for States and Provinces . Prepared by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. September 25, 2007.

The Liability of Carbon Dioxide Storage, Mark Anthony de Figueiredo, MIT Ph.D Thesis, February 2007.

Individual Response: PA acknowledges the comment. Pleas e see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment for further deta ils. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

17