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: 0162

Commenter: Sandi Tabor Organization: Lignite Energy Council (LEC)

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21293 Letter Lines: 64 to 68

Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general

Comment: The LEC's, along with our major members', participation in PCOR signals the importance of CCS technology and the need fo r the development of clear, flexible and appropriately tailored regulations th at will facilitate the development of and spur investment in CCS technology. To achieve this goal several general principles should be considered by EPA as it refines the proposed regulations.

Individual Response: EPA recognizes the importance of provi ding clear, flexible, scalable, and appropriate regulations. EPA belie ves that the GS regulation will provide certainty to industry and the public by providing consistency in requir ements across the U.S. and transparency about what requirements apply to owners or operators. EPA clarifies that the intent of the Class VI regulation is not to promote or encourage the use of GS, but, in stead to ensure protection of

USDWs where GS technol ogies are deployed.

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: 0162 Comment ID: 21294 Letter Lines: 69 to 76

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

Comment: First, EPA's regulations must reflect a balanced appro ach between the need to protect underground drinking wa ter supplies and the need to avoid regulations that ultimately discourage CCS. While th e proposed rule attempts to provide flexibility in the form of director di scretion, in several areas the proposed rule establishes default provisions that w ould apply to all GS sites. EPA must be careful to recognize that each st orage site will present unique characteristics. Rather than imposing default provisions on all sites, EPA should utilize performance-based sta ndards in the regulatory program.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that permitting decisions for GS wells should be based on site-specific factors. The GS ru le requires owners or operators to submit, and Directors to consider, extensive site-specific data, specified at §146.82, to demons trate that a site is suitable for GS. Additionally, many of the permit require ments for GS wells are established through individualized site-specific pl ans for AoR and corrective actio n, testing and monitoring, and injection well plugging and post-injection site care and site closure. EPA adds that the final GS rule includes a balance of speci fic criteria to be met by the owner or operator and areas of

1Directorial discretion and consider ations for how that discretion would be exercised. The Agency believes this balance allows for GS projects to be designed and permitted to address the unique, site-specific aspects of each project, while prov iding consistency in permitting across the U.S.

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

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21295 Letter Lines: 78 to 83

Comment Code: 1480 1.2.2.2.2 CO2 is not a pollutant

Comment: Second, EPA must be careful to avoid la beling C02 as a waste, pollutant or contaminant. Regulations should requ ire storage operators to properly characterize the C02 they in tend to store and protocol s for storage should be

based on that characterization. Broad sw eeping characterizations of CO2 as

hazardous waste, however, should be avoided due to the potentia l deterrent such

characterizations will have on entities attempting to develop CCS projects.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that owners or operators should characterize the injectate. Among the information owners or operators are re quired to submit with their permit applications (at §146.82 (a)(7)) is an analysis of the chemical and physical characteristics of the CO2 stream and information on the compatibility of the CO2 st ream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and the confining zone(s). The Director will evaluate this information when setting permit conditions. If the injectate is determined to meet the definition

of a hazardous waste under RCRA, and as define d in 40 CFR Part 261, the stringent UIC Class I hazardous waste requirements for injection of hazardous waste apply. In addition, owners or operators must periodically monitor their in jectate throughout inject ion operations under §146.90(a).

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21296 Letter Lines: 85 to 90

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

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Respons ibility and Long-Term Care Requirements

Comment: Third, EPA must develop financial assurance and risk management regulations that clarify the long-term obligations and risk associated with a GS project. One way to meet the EPA's dual goal of protecting the environment while facilitating the development of CCS is to focus regulat ions on proper site characterization. Proper site selection and characterization will help minimize potential future

risks and lessen the need for default provisions that appl y to all sites.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that proper site characte rization is important to minimizing

risks associated with GS, but also believes th at assuring financial responsibility for corrective

2action on Class VI wells in the AoR, injecti on well plugging, PISC and site closure, and emergency and remedial response at GS sites is an important component of ensuring that USDWs are protected. The goal of the financia l responsibility requirements at §146.85 are to

ensure that financial resources are available to prevent endangerment of USDWs from improper plugging, remediation, and management of wells in the event that the owner or operator experiences financial difficulties. See the final ru le and preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach to financial responsibility.

EPA expects that the cost of financial responsibility will depend heavily on the estimated cost of covered activities as well as certain site-specifi c factors and their projec t phases. Under the final rule, the cost estimate must be performed for each phase of the GS project separately and must be based on the costs to the owner or operator of hiring a third party to perform the required activities. Additionally, during the active life of the GS project, the owner or operator must adjust the cost estimate for inflation within 60 days prior to the a nniversary date of the establishment of the financial instrument(s) to demonstrate financial responsibility. In order to assist owners or operators and financial institu tions in achieving accurate cost estimates, EPA plans to include a guidance that includes discussi on of how best to estimate costs, including how to adjust cost estimates for inflation, in its guidance on meeting financial responsibility requirements for GS wells.

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21297 Letter Lines: 116 to 120

Comment Code: 2020 1.5.1 Support Class VI designation

Comment: 1.Establishment of the new Class VI injection well/Class II permit for EOR continued/Grandfathering the constructi on requirements of existing Class I and II wells -The LEC supports the establishm ent of a new injection well class for those wells not associated with EOR provi ded that EPA recognizes the need for flexibility within the regulation of the ne w class. We agree that where there is

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that tailored requirements for Class VI wells are necessary to address the unique nature of injecting large volumes of CO2 and to ensure that USDWs are protected from e ndangerment. The Class VI requirements are appropriate because of the unique nature and ri sks of CO2 injection for long-term storage (e.g., large injection volumes, long proj ect duration, and reservoir pressure conditions). The GS rule contains tailored requirements for the perm itting, geologic site ch aracterization, AoR and

corrective action, well construc tion, operation, mechanical integr ity testing, monitoring, well plugging, post-injection site care, an d site closure of GS wells that directly address issues unique to the nature of large-scale CO2 injection for GS.

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

3determination, 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. For more information, please see the discussion on transition of Class II wells in the preamble to the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21298 Letter Lines: 120 to 122

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: flexibility within the regulation of the ne w class. We agree that where there is an EOR component in a projec t, the project should conti nue to be permitted and regulated under the Class II program. For that matter, we al so support granting

Individual Response: EPA agrees that injection of CO2 for the primary purpose of enhancing oil and gas recovery should remain under the Cla ss II Program. EPA also recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience inj ecting CO2 for the purpose of EOR, and that sites used for EOR may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS sites. However, EPA believes that injection for the primary purpose of l ong term storage is sufficiently different from Class II EOR operations and warrants tailored re quirements. For example, the volume of CO2 anticipated to be injected in Class VI wells is significantly greater th an for Class II wells. Reservoir pressure conditions wi ll also be different, with Cla ss VI injection operations involving large volumes of CO2 and likely having higher pressures within th eir storage formations than Class II EOR projects.

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21299 Letter Lines: 122 to 124

Comment Code: 2064 1.5.3.2 Grandfathering construction of Class II wells (seeking comment)

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

Comment: regulated under the Class II program. For that matter, we al so support granting state UIC directors the authority to grandfather the construction requirements for Class II and V wells when they are c onverted to full scale Class VI wells.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that many Class II a nd Class V experimental technology wells are designed and constructed to withsta nd exposure to CO2. The final GS rule provides that the construction of these wells be gra ndfathered per §146.81(c), provided the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Director that the wells were engineered and constructed to meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure prot ection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a). EPA clarifies that only the construction requirements are grandfathered and that all other Class VI requirements (reporting, monitoring, mechnical integrity testing, etc.) must be met fo llowing a determination under §146.81(c).

4Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21300 Letter Lines: 126 to 138

Comment Code: 2163 1.6.3.1 Comments in favor of injection into unmineable coal seams

Comment: 2.Target Geologic Formations for GS of CO2 •• Unmineable coal seams -EPA

should not arbitrarily preclude inj ection of C02 into certain formations; rather EPA should conduct a site-specifi c review of the appropriate ness of the geology to determine suitability for GS. More specifically, the storage of C02 in unmineable (as opposed to mined out) coal seams is an area of very active research in our region. PCOR is currently conducting a pilo t test of this concept in Burke County, North Dakota. Other DOE Partnerships are conducting similar (non-lignite) coal seam sequestra tion field tests. PC OR conservatively

estimates more than 10 billion tons of potential storage in regional coal seams that if utilized could result in the incremental produc tion of more than 17 Tef of coal bed methane, which would provide positive economic feedback to a CCS project. We urge EPA to develop regulati ons in this area in consultation with the DOE Partnerships and based on the outcome of their research.

Individual Response: The final GS rule does not precl ude injection into any non-USDW formation type, including coal seams, provided ow ners or operators can demonstrate that GS can be performed in a manner that protects US DWs from endangerment. EPA recognizes that research on the feasibility of various types of geologic formations is underway, and it continues to track the progress of this research. For ex ample, while developing the GS regulation, EPA evaluated projects conducted by the seven regional carbon seque stration partnerships funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and coordi nated through the Nati onal Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), as well as several interna tional projects. In addition, DOE's RCSPs are conducting numerous pilot projects that inject CO2 into a variety of formation types, including

saline, basalt, coal seams, and oil and gas reservoirs.

EPA acknowledges that there may be risks associated with GS into certain formation types. For this reason, the Agency is using an adaptive appr oach to regulate GS injection. EPA will collect and review project data on early GS projects, including those that inject into various formation types, to determine whether the appropriate am ount and types of information and documentation are being collected. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount a nd types of information and appropriate documentation are being collected, and to determ ine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

EPA further clarifies that the GS rule is not intended to promote a preference for GS in any particular formation type, to addr ess use of resources, or to reduce costs associated with GS into

various formations. The focus of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that prot ects USDWs from endangerment.

Additionally, EPA coordinated with Federal, including DOE, and non- Federal entities on GS

and CCS to determine how best to tailor exis ting injection requirements to CO2 for GS.

5Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21301 Letter Lines: 140 to 145

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

USDW

Comment: In the final analysis, the state UIC dir ectors should have the discretion to allow injection into coal seams, oil a nd gas formations, and other formations

located above the lowermost USDW, where si te-specific characteristics indicate that those formations are good candidate s. Proper site char acterization and engineering are more important in determ ining a suitable site than a blanket prohibition.

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 injecti on into non-USDW formations above and/or between USDWs. The final GS rule does not categorica lly preclude or prohibi t injection into any type of formation.

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. For additional information on the waiver approach and aquifer exemptions for Class VI wells, please see the final rule and preamble, as well as EP A's responses to comments on the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment.

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21302 Letter Lines: 147 to 172

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

Comment: 3. Categorization of Injected C02 C onsidered a Hazardous Waste under RCRA -

Under the proposal EPA states that it cannot make a categorical determination as to whether injected C02 is hazardous under RCRA. It sugge sts the burden should be on the operators to characterize their C02 stream as part of the permit application to determine if the injectate is considered hazardous as defined in 40 CFR Part 261. RCRA regulates the production, manageme nt and disposal of wastes and RCRA's potential application in the case of C02 injectate is dependent upon the existence of a solid wast e. If the material is a solid waste, the law requires further analysis to dete rmine if it is also a hazardous waste.

Injected CO2 should be considered a pr oduct or a commodity and not a solid waste. Leaving the question to be resolved when operators characterize their C02 streams with the potential that RCRA liability may attach will be a deterrent to C02 storage projects. The LEC urges the EPA to make a determination under its RCRA authority that CCS activities meeti ng Class VI permit requirements do not

6equate to DISCARDING the C02. By so doi ng, Class VI CO2 inje ction operations would not be considered waste management activities and would not be subject to

RCRA.

As further justification for this position, simply consider the success of existing acid gas injection operations into depleted oil and gas reservoirs conducted under the existing UIC regulations . Low level impurities, such as H2S or mercaptans should not tr igger a classification under RCRA. The proposed rule has adequate protection for drinking water aquifers a nd addresses corrective action, financial assurance requiremen ts, and long-term monitoring after closure. These requirements negate the need for any RCRA regulation.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule itself does not change the status of CO2 as

a solid waste or hazardous waste under RCRA.

EPA received many comments regarding the applicab ility of the RCRA regulations and statute to CO2 streams that are geologically sequestered under the final Cl ass VI UIC well requirements. As a result, EPA has decided to initiate a sepa rate proposed rulemaking specifically to examine the issue of RCRA applicability to CO2 stream s being geologically sequestered, including the possible option of a conditional exemption from the RCRA requirements for CO2 GS in Class VI wells. EPA will consider these comments as pa rt of its development of that proposal. The Agency will consider issues particular to RCRA in the context of that separate rulemaking, and recommends that the commenter read that propose d 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 comment 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.

The GS rule requires the owner or operator to su bmit data about the site, including an analysis of the chemical and physical characteristics of th e CO2 stream, as required at §146.82(a)(7)(iv), and information on the compatibility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and the confining zones and the materials used to construct the well, per §146.82(c)(3). This information can help the Director determine the pote ntial for geochemical reactions between the injectate (CO2) and the host geologic formations, whic h could result in the plugging of pore spaces or the disso lution of formation minerals.

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21303 Letter Lines: 174 to 186

Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment)

Comment: 4. Categorization of injected C02 as a hazardous substance under CERCLA EPA seeks comment on whether Class VI permittees could be exempted from CERCLA under its "federally permitted release" prov ision. First, liability under CERCLA depends on whether there has been a dispos al of hazardous substances. While CO2

is not a CERCLA hazardous substance, EP A suggests in the preamble that the makeup of a particular injected C02 st ream may trigger a CERCLA analysis.

7However, the preamble also states that CERCLA's federally permitted releases provision exempts releases in complian ce with a UIC permit under SDWA from CERCLA liability. This exemption in and of itself should put the issue to rest. We urge the EPA to fully address the l ongterm liability for stored C02 under UIC Class VI Well permit. EPA should avoi d creating unnecessary hurdles for the successful deployment of CCS by preempting th e applicability of CERCLA to Class

VI activities.

Individual Response: The Agency thanks the commenter for their detailed comments regarding the scope and possible impacts of CERCLA liability on CCS activities, and in particular comments related to the CERCLA exemption for federally-permitted releases. EPA notes that the GS rule is not promulgated under CERCLA, therefore the applicability of th at statute will not

be determined under the SDWA or the terms of the GS rule, but rather according to the CERCLA statute itself and any implem enting regulations that may apply.

CERCLA exempts from liability, under CERCLA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, certain “federally permitted releases” as defined in CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601(10). Therefore, Class VI requirements and permits will need to be carefully structured to ensure that they do not “authorize” inappropriate releases , and would need to prevent pot ential releases from the well which are outside the scope of the Class VI permit.

The UIC program Director has authority under SDWA §1423 to address potential compliance issues (e.g., potential releases that may endanger USDWs) resulting from injection violations in the unlikely event that a remedi al response is necessary. Although EPA anticipates that the need for emergency or remedial actions at GS sites wi ll be rare, the GS rule requires, at §146.94, that emergency and remedial response plans be deve loped and updated to address such events and that owners or operators demonstr ate that financial resources are set aside to implement the plans if necessary, per §146.85.

Regarding long term liability, once an owner or operator has met all regu latory requirements

under Part 146 for Class VI wells and the Dire ctor has approved site closure pursuant to requirements at §146.93, the owner or operato r will generally no longer be subject to enforcement for regulatory noncompliance. Furtherm ore, their financial instrument as required under §146.85 will be released if it was not used. However, even if a site closure is approved under §146.93, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance (including violation of 40 CFR 144.12) in ce rtain circumstances. For example, an owner or operator may be held liable for regulatory noncompliance even afte r site closure was approved if the Director relied on erroneous information (e.g., erroneous modeling data) provid ed by the owner or operator when approving site closure.

Separate from EPA’s authority to enforce regul atory compliance, an owner or operator may be subject to a §1431 response orde r even after proper site cl osure is approved under §146.93. Under §1431 the Administrator may require an ow ner or operator to take necessary response

measures if he or she receives information that a contaminant is present or is likely to enter a public water system or an USDW, which may pres ent an imminent and s ubstantial endangerment to the health of persons, and the appropriate Stat e and local authorities ha ve not acted to protect

8the health of such persons. Th e action may include issuing admi nistrative orders or commencing a civil action for appropriate relief against the ow ner or operator of a Class VI well. If the owner or operator fails to comply with the order, they may be subject to a civil penalty for each day in

which such violation occurs or failure to comply continues.

Furthermore, after site closure an owner or ope rator may remain liable under tort and other

remedies, or under other federal statutes includi ng, but not limited to, Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§7401-7671; CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §9601-9675; and RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6901-6992. EPA does not have authority to transfer SD WA or other legal liability for Class VI wells to the State or federal government or a third-party fund. See the final rule preamble for further discussion of EPA's final approach.

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21304 Letter Lines: 188 to 194

Comment Code: 5240 2.8.2.2 Post injection timeframe (seeking comment)

Comment Code: 5260 2.8.2.3 Adjusting the post-injecti on timeframe (seeking comment)

Comment: 5. Combination of Fixed Timeframe and Pe rformance Standard -EPA is seeking comments on the imposition of a 50-year post-in jection site care (PISC) standard

as a default timeframe with state UIC di rectors having discretion to adjust the default time period. We urge EPA to remove all reference to default PISC periods and instead require directors to base post-injection site care on site and project specific characteristics. By so doing the goal of supporting the

commercialization of CCS tec hnology is better served.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that there will be circumst ances where it can be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs. For this reason, the final GS regulation o ffers owners or operators flexibility regarding

the duration of the PISC timefra me by: (1) allowing the Direct or discretion to shorten or lengthen the PISC timeframe during the PISC pe riod based on site-specific data, pursuant to requirements at §146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, based on substantial data during the permitting process, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropria te if it ensures non- endangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c). EPA believes that a default post-injection site car e timeframe of 50 years, with flexibility to adjust the timeframe for a limited number of GS projects during the permitting process where

substantial data exists to demonstrate that an alternative timeframe would be protective of USDWs, or based on data collected during the PISC period, is appropriate to address the range of sites where GS is anticipated to occur, to ac commodate site-specific circumstances and various geologic conditions, and addre sses commenters’ concerns, wh ile ensuring USDW protection. Both approaches will utilize si te-specific data, and be based on pressure monitoring and USDW impacts. EPA believes however, that to ensure USDW protection from enda ngerment, a default timeframe for post-injection site care is necessary in mo st cases. A 50 year post-injection site care timeframe represents a reasonabl e and protective monitoring period for most GS projects based on a review of research studies, industry repo rts, and existing environmental programs, and

9evaluation of public comments.

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21305 Letter Lines: 196 to 202

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Respons ibility and Long-Term Care Requirements

Comment: 6. Financial Assurance -The proposed rules require permittees to demonstrate at the time of project permitting financial assurance for a number of activities throughout the PISC period. The requirements for PISC of GS of C02 exceed the rules in place for existing wells injec ting hazardous wastes. There is nothing

to indicate that stored CO2 warrants a financial assuranc e program more stringent than that required for the Cl ass I hazardous waste injection well

program.

Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the requirements on financial responsibility are overly stringent. The goal of financial resp onsibility is to ensure that fi nancial resources are available to prevent and remediate the endangerment of US DWs from improper plugging, remediation, and management of wells in the event that the owne r or operator experiences financial difficulties. EPA disagrees that the requirements for GS wells are more stringent th an Class I hazardous waste wells; rather, the financial responsibility requirements for GS wells are tailored to the unique nature of the l ong term GS of CO2.

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21306 Letter Lines: 204 to 209

Comment Code: 5400 2.9 Proposed Financial Respons ibility and Long-Term Care Requirements

Comment: In order to develop more meaningful pa rameters for the Class VI financial assurance program, EPA should take note of the work of the DOE regional partnerships. For instance, as mentione d earlier in these comments, the PCOR partnership is conducting field validation tests and long-term demonstration testing of GS. Information derived from these studies will help EPA develop more practical financial assu rance requirements.

Individual Response: EPA continues to collaborate with DOE and others to obtain information about pilot projects and other research as soon as it becomes available. EPA believes that the GS rule provides an adaptive and flexible approach that will be best for purposes of site specific

circumstances.

EPA has specified acceptable financial responsibility instruments and requirements in the final regulation. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance (available on EPA's website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequest ration.cfm) that describes the types of

10financial instruments that owners or operato rs can use to meet financial responsibility requirements for GS wells.

Letter ID: 0162 Comment ID: 21307 Letter Lines: 211 to 218

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

Comment: 7. State Class VI Well primacy -Presentl y, North Dakota has primacy for the UIC program. The state is in the process of developing the statutory framework for regulating the long-term GS of CO2. If passed by the 2009 ND Legislative Assembly, regulations for GS will be pr omulgated in 2009. As such, North Dakota will have a program in place that can be modified as needed to implement a future EPA program. We encourage EPA to a llow state primacy to regulate Class VI UIC wells regardless of whether or not the state has primacy for other UIC

programs.

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., pipeli ne 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 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

11requirements) 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 classes) 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: 0162 Comment ID: 21308 Letter Lines: 236 to 256

Comment Code: 1852 1.4.2.1 DOE Regional Carbon Seque stration Partnerships

Comment: 2 Plains CO2 Reduction (PCOR) Partnershi p is a mUltiyear collaboration of over

80 U.S. and Canadian stakehoiders that is laying the groundwo rk for practical and enVironmentally sound carbon dioxide (C02) sequestration projects in the heartland of North America, inclUding all or part of nine U.S. states and four Canadian provinces within the centrai interior of North America. [On line Available] http://www.undeerc.org/ pcor/default.asp, Sept. 12,2008

3 Id. From the fall of 2005 to the fall of 2009, the PCOR Partnership will be developing and carrying out four field validation projects in the PCOR Partnership region. These four field validation projects are designed to

demonstrate the effectiveness of C02 se questration in different settings and

under different conditions. The PCOR Partne rship field validation projects are among three dozen field validation projects that will occur in North America as part of Phase II of the U.S. Department of Energy Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership Program. In the fail of 2007, the Partnership began developing two commercial- scale, long-term field dem onstration projects for geologic C02 sequestration. The PCOR Partnership co mmercial-scale sequestration field

demonstrations are scheduled to run un til 2017 and are among the several largescale geologic demonstration projects that will occur in North America as part of Phase ill of the U.S. Department of Energy. The region is al so the site of the Weyburn geoiogic sequestra tion project since 2002.

Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the value of the DOE pilot projects a nd resultant data and information generated by such projects. EPA has evaluated permits and reviewed operational

data and information associated with the seve n RCSPs funded by the U.S. Department of Energy and coordinated through the National Energy Te chnology Laboratory (NETL). In addition to the information cited in the preamble to the pr oposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment on A ugust 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency

described the results of research at three DOE partnership sites: the Escatawpa, Mississippi project; the Aneth Field project in Paradox Basin, Southeast Ut ah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico. The Agency will continue to track GS project developments and evaluate new and ongoing research and information to ensure USDW protection.

1213 Even after finalizing the rule, th e Agency plans to collect and re view data every six years on GS projects, including data generated by the partnerships, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and appropria te documentation are being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requir ements are appropriate or necessary.