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 lett er 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 exp lained 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 charact er 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 rulema king 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 decis ions 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 lett er 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 complet eness 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.Public Comments and EPA Responses to Comments Provided at Chicago, IL Hearing on the Proposed Rule
EPA held a public hearing on the proposed rule on September 30, 2008 in Chicago, IL. Eleven (11) people commented at the Chicago hearing, including:

• Bill Herz; Fertilizer Institute
• Karl R. Moor; Southern Company
• Brad Kallio
• Michele Schoepper; American Petroleum Institute
• Mark Singer; Green America Project, LLC
• Lee Sprague; Sierra Club
• Matt Toner; Hydrogen Energy International
• Brian Williams; BP Alternative Energy
• Iain Wright; BP Alternative Energy
• Becki Clayborn; Sierra Club
• Scott Anderson; Environmental Defense Fund Their comments are included in the hearing transcript in the first part of this file. The second part of this file contains EPA’s responses to the comments. Use the bookmarks in the PDF to locate a specific comment or response.MR. HERTZ: Thank you. My name is Bill Hertz, and I'm Vice President of Scientific Programs for The Fertilizer Institute. TFI represents the nation's fertilizer industry, producers, manufacturers, retailers, trading firms, and equipmentmanufacturers, which comprises membership are served by a fulltime Washington, D.C. staff in various legislative, educational, and technical areas, as well as with information and public relations programs. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 TFI wishes to thank the U.S. EPA for publishing the proposed requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act for underground injection of carbon dioxide for the purpose of geologic sequestration, and for holding the public hearing on this subject, and in general for conducting this rule-making in a very open and transparent manner. Although the rule is geared specifically toward well operators there are several components that may affect potential upstream industrial clients, and are of great interest to TFI members. In fact, EPA must carefully consider the applicability of this rule and ensure that it covers large industrial manufacturers such as nitrogen fertilizer producers. Within the chemical process of producing nitrogen fertilizer, CO2 is generated as a by-product. This CO2 in many cases is sold into various product streams. All members arekeenly interested in the enhanced oil recovery aspect of this. And in fact, the CO2 stream that we produce is among the cleanest that is out there, and is virtually impurity free in many cases. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 So in general, TFI is supportive of the proposed rules but would request additional regulatory clarity and/or guidance for potential upstream industrial clients. Now, specific, aspects of the rule that TFI supports: we support the establishment of a new class of well, Class VI, for geologic sequestration and maintaining injection of carbon dioxide for the purposes of enhanced oil recovery under the Class II program. We also support provisions allowing Class I, II, and V to be re-permitted as Class VI wells. We support proposed language that would grandfather construction requirements for Class I or II wells seeking re-permitting as a Class VI Well. We agree that other abandoned mines, including potentially potash mines are potential CO2 storage options and would be willing to assist the EPA in exploring this matter further. Now, items that, that need additional regulatory clarity include the liability aspects. TFI understands the EPA's concern with the potential for impurities in the CO2 stream and the risks that contaminants, such as hydrogen sulfide and sulfuric and nitrous oxide in the CO2 stream could migrate into aUSDW. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 TFI also agrees that because the types of impurities and their concentrations in the stream are likely to vary by facility, plant operating conditions, and pollution removal technologies, EPA can not make a categorical determination as to whether the injected CO2 is hazardous under RCRA. TFI would request greater guidance for potential upstream industrial clients in CO2 disposal wells. And among the RCRA related questions we would like to discuss before regulations are promulgated include the implications of considering the long-term storage of CO2 as discard, as the EPA suggests, by stating that CO2 streams need to be non-hazardous, the consequences of CO2 storage prior to injection, and the potential implications for solid waste storage regulation, and potential state regulatory obligations on the injection of solid waste. Monitoring and/or reporting requirements for upstream industrial clients that could provide RCRA liability relief. We would also raise the CERCLA issue and the CERCLA liability issue. We agree with the EPA's interpretation in the proposed rule that the release of CO2 constitutes a federally permitted release as defined in CERCLA 42 USC 9601. However, we remain concerned about potentialCERCLA liability for upstream industrial clients, especially for comingled injectate streams, and for injectate stream constituents that could react with ground water to produce listed hazardous substances. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 TFI would request EPA include regulatory language governing monitoring, reporting requirements for upstream industrial clients that would provide CERCLA liability relief for exclusion in the promulgated rule. We would request that EPA include regulatory language providing liability protection or exclusion in the, and a potential liability in the event of leaks, well failure, or the release of reaction products. We agree with previous comments that in terms of paying or otherwise tagging CO2 leakage down the road could be a major disincentive for capital investment on these types of projects. Because the expectation that a ton of CO2 could be 10 times or 40 times the current cost would, would really, again, be a disincentive for companies to move forward with this. We would request, finally, clarification for upstream industrial clients as to the appropriate requirements for analyzing the CO2 stream at a frequency sufficient to yield representative data of its chemical and physical characteristics as cited in the Federal Register Notice. As well as appropriate requirements for upstream industrial clients in terms ofmonitoring and record-keeping. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 15 To conclude, the EPA Science Advisory Board on Integrated Nitrogen has estimated that fertilizer is responsible for almost 50 percent of the world food production. There is over a billion people that are living essentially on a dollar a day or less globally. And this rule, if done correctly, has the potential to lower farmers' input cost and, and positively impact food security. We would like to thank EPA for advancing this important tool for future carbon sequestration, and urge EPA to work closely with the nitrogen fertilizer industry and TFI on the issues that we have raised. And we would like to meet at a future convenient date to discuss these issues further. Thank
you.MR. MOOR: Good morning. My name is Karl Moor, I'm Vice President and Associate General Counsel of the Southern Company, one of the largest producers of electricity in the country, serving nearly 4.4 million customers in the Southeastern United States. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 I'm pleased to say that Southern Company has already begun to assess geological storage opportunities in the southeast, and will begin injecting carbon dioxide into deep saline filled geological formation at our Plant Daniel Mississippi site next week. The demonstration project at Plant Daniel is the product of a collaborative effort between the Department of Energy, the Electric Power Research Institute and the Southern States Energy Board, and is under the auspices of the Southeastern Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership, which is a mouthful. Southern Company supports, obviously, carbon capture and storage as a critical tool in addressing green house gas, and is proud of our own efforts to facilitate the development of that technology. I'm here today, however, representing the Edison Electric Institute. I'm also joined by Mr. Bill Fang of the Edison Electric Legal Staff. EEI serves 95 percent of the customers in theshareholder segment of the industry and represents 70 percent of the total customers for electric in the United States. I am the Chairman of EEI's Carbon Capture Storage Workgroup, which is comprised of a number of companies who are committed to exploring CCS as an option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 And I'd like to thank the EPA for the opportunity to discuss the rule-making. I'd also like to the congratulate the EPA on the process, there's been much good comment in our industry and other industries. You're familiar with the way and the approach the EPA has taken for this regulation, you know, for this process with the thoroughness and professionalism. And I would first like to put the importance of CCS in a context. Electricity generation produces 34 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions and 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. So this technology is critical to address that share of CO2 emissions in the United States. As EPA noted in the preamble in its proposed regulations, the goal is to create a regulatory framework that supports, and I'm quoting the development of the key climate change mitigation technology. EPA's regulations for geological storage of carbon dioxide are an important first step in moving the country forward and for securing the reality being expressed in the preamble.EEI and its member companies not only applaud you for the process, we also think that the, the goals that we are, have articulated in the technology are the right goals. And we are supportive in that regard as well. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 But we do have several key messages which, which may seem critical at some level, but we mean them as a source of constructive review of the regulations and hopefully a way of improving them. The key, the two key points that we would leave you with today are this, first, these regulations can and should promote the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage while protecting underground sources of drinking water without, and this is key, without unduly stigmatizing carbon dioxide injection storage. Carbon dioxide has been injected for years in enhanced oil recovery, and that's been done largely without incident. And second, we believe that the regulation shouldbe sufficiently flexible to take into consideration the sitespecific characteristics and performance based measures. It should be sufficiently adaptable to incorporate lessons learned from ongoing pilot and demonstration projects like that at our Plant Daniel.To elaborate on these points I would say that EEI urges the agency to ensure that the regulations do not stigmatize storage, which, and the reason for that is we, it's a very fine line between appropriate regulatory guidance and sending this to the public that says that this technology is inherently dangerous, and that storage projects themselves are, make bad neighbors. As I've noted, EPA has stated these two goals themselves, that it simultaneously wants to protect drinking water and promote CCS. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 That in keeping, keeping these two goals from working against each other we believe that the emphasis should be placed in the regulations and all that follows, that CO2 is not a hazardous waste, a hazardous waste, and it's found in the ambient air. And as a result CO2, taking a regulatory approach to CO2, that in many ways is stricter than the underground injection of hazardous waste is, is in some small sense regulatory overkill. Many of the construction, mechanical integrity, monitoring, and financial responsibility provisions for Class VI Wells are more comprehensive in this proposal than they are for Class I Wells. The increased regulatory burden that this will place on the industry and upon those who want to undertake CCS projects would be substantial. Our industry knows firsthand, unfortunately, what,why it is so important that the public have an accurate perception of the risks and the rewards behind technologies, particular in their early stages of development. And in the preamble to this proposal EPA finds that the public should participate in the permitting process, in fact, have taken some innovative approaches to encouraging greater public participation. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 And we ask today that EPA help communicate to the public that it'd be very unlikely, and I would stress that, very unlikely that carbon geological storage would harm underground sources of water, or for that matter affect human health adversely. EPA can, I think, help do that by retooling the proposed regulations and to tie the requirements to the actual risks more closely. In addition, the EPA should remove the elements that serve only to fan the claims of public misperception, but having increased the protection of underground sources of ground water. For example, requiring a secondary containment field for this is, would create the wrong impression about the safety of carbon capture and storage, and it should not be a part of the final rule. Such a requirement is unprecedented in the UIC program.Even for the storage of Class I sources secondary containment fields are also unprecedented internationally. Countries where carbon capture and storage projects are currently underway, besides the United States, including Norway, Canada, Australia, and Algeria did not require secondary containment zones. And in those, in most of these instances the countries are in fact using the existing petroleum walls without the benefit of an additional regulatory program. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Singling out, as the regulations do, carbon capture and storage would just heighten the substantial level of scrutiny. It sends a message that carbon dioxide is more dangerous than the underground injection of other substances. And since EPA is the agency in charge with protecting the environment, the public could easily be swayed by EPA's apparent apprehension of carbon capture that's currently, that is currently embodied in the regulations. In order to create a regulatory scheme that fosters carbon capture and storage the development and employment, the EPA should also consider how it has characterized carbon capture injection, both explicitly and implicitly in the regulation. Moreover, EPA should consider the effect of these regulations on securing critical financial support for CCSprojects. Misperceptions about the risks can skew opportunities for financing. No one needs to be reminded today that the recent turmoil in the financial markets makes very challenging the financing of new technologies. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 In a credit constrained world the heightened risk and overplaying risk and the conflicts that this regulation can impede the development of a critically important technology for reducing CO2 emissions. Similarly, on a smaller scale we think as a specific example the EPA should not require the use of tracers or soil flux to monitor for possible carbon dioxide leaks. Not only are tracers relatively untested when it comes to their ability to monitor such leaks, they are also, they also will not transmit sufficiently early to provide any sort of real protection to underground sources of water. I'm told that soil flux monitoring is also problematic because it can result in false positives based on natural variability in flux. What these requirements do is, by way of example, is signal to the public that carbon capture and storage is unsafe because it could lead to a leak in CO2, despite the fact that this is very unlikely to happen. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that theamount of carbon dioxide retained in the appropriately sited storage site was very likely to exceed 99 percent of over one hundred years. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Our second message to the EPA today addresses the regulatory flexibility. We believe that the agency should be cautious in overly prescriptive regulation, one size fits all approaches to siting. No two geological formations are the same, no two CCS projects will be the same. And the geological formations in which CO2 is injected will be defined by a number of characteristics. We believe the many instances and the regulation has chosen to tie with the regulated entities to a -- whether it be -- of responsible, duration of responsibility award, financial assurance responsibility. In all of these instances where EPA has said that there is one defining characteristic, it will tie the regulated entity's hands to an existing set, a new set of regulatory prescriptions with the EPA has not done good service to the industry or to the development of GS technology? 18
19 20 With that we conclude and thank you for the time.MR. KALLIO: Good morning, or good afternoon, I'm not sure what it is at this point, close enough. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Everybody's kind of heard of Murphy's Law, I tend to live by it being a -- various things that I repair in my world. But typically, anytime you do anything like this where you're putting yourself into a potential to, let's say something does go wrong, there is a crack or a movement, or something that happens geologically that stresses it, where does this gooey carbon dioxide go? And in my world it finds its way. And you get it in the water, I don't know, what is it, 20 percent of the world's fresh water is in Michigan and around the, the lakes around here. That concerns me because it's a time bomb just waiting to go off. Instead, maybe a hundred years, so far they've got it where it looks like it might be all right. But, okay, that would be my grandkids that have to deal with the problem. In my opinion, the best way to resolve is to attack it from a broad standpoint of changing the way you burn it, changing the way you do that type of process. I don't know how far they've gotten in the past five years, technology has changed so drastically in likely the way we attack different problems, with chemicals, with types of things that they can inject into the carbon to get different results, where you couldactually isolate the carbon dioxide molecule, that kind of thing. But people have been working on that. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 Anyway, I'd like to see a little more money and focus put towards that rather than putting this crap in the ground. It's just, to me it's a bad idea, and it's not really a problem, and it gets us by for a while, sure. But in the long run our kids are going to pay for it. Thank you.MR. KALLIO: My name is Brad Kallio. I have a little research company in Grand Rapids, Michigan. We try our best to solve different types of problems with energy and what have you. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 And the easiest way to say it would be, wind generation is something that's going be used for years and years and years. -- uses the old, big windmill. They don't move real fast, they don't chop a lot up, we don't have birds hitting them and getting cut in half, which they do have in -- they're moving very slow. But what we do with wind, especially in these areas here, is that when you got a whole amount of wind, has anybody ever wound a cuckoo clock, pull the little chains up and the weight goes up, and it keeps the little pendulum going? Same principle, only instead of lifting a little metal weight you're lifting, like what he wants to do, his whole house. But any mass is a lot of weight if you lift it up. And as soon as it gets to a certain height it clicks over to another gear system. And then the wind keeps blowing, picks up another one, and another one, and another one. You can do a whole sequence of these along the shoreline or anything like that. Now, you're not storing your energy in batteries,you're storing your energy in gravity. And when you don't have wind you can also use solar to generate motors to do the same thing. It's just like a windmill kind of thinking, you pull it up and you store it. It goes into a fly wheel at the other end, with a generator on the other end of it now you've get a turbine generator just like you have in a coal mining plant with no emissions. You can build these anywhere. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 17 And this is only one way of doing it. There's dozens of other ways, any difference in potential from one to the other you can harness and turn it into, drive into a system like that, and now you're not polluting at all. So I believe in keeping it simple, the Romans did this kind of stuff that moves water from one point to another, it's old technology but we can apply it to what we have today. I mean, that's more efficient than ever having to burn coal or oil or any of this stuff. That's what I had to say.MS. SCHOEPPER: Good morning, my name is Michele Schoepper, and I'm with the American Petroleum Institute, I am Senior Counsel. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the proposed rule. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 API represents nearly 400 companies involved in the, in all aspects the oil and natural gas industry, including exploration and production, refining, marketing, transportation, as well as the service companies that support our industry. First, I'd like to provide some context for our comments. Oil and natural gas and coal provide approximately 85 percent of the world's energy. The power plants, vehicles, homes, businesses and factories that use these fuels produce more than 25 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. While no single technology is sufficient to mitigate these emissions, capturing CO2 and storing it deep underground in formations could play an important role. As an industry we have over 35 years of experience safely transporting and injecting CO2 for enhanced oil recovery, EOR, while constantly evolving new technology, operating experience, and regulatory requirements that had been developed EOR our extensive, mature, and generally appropriate for CCS. In the U.S. alone the oil and gas industry operates over 13,000 CO2 EOR Wells, over 3,500 miles of highpressure CO2 pipelines, and has injected over 600 million tons of CO2 for EOR alone. All while maintaining an excellent health environment and safety record. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Industry also has extensive experience in large scale separation and re-injection of natural gas streams. The largest operation of this kind is on the north slope of Alaska where 47 TCF and natural gas consisting of about 12 percent carbon dioxide has been cumulatively re-injected over the past 30 plus years. The CO2 fraction corresponds to approximately 420 million metric tons of CO2. Regarding EPA's proposed rule, API is very supportive of the fact that EPA has recognized the integrity of the existing regulatory framework for CO2 based enhanced oil recovery, of the amount of flexibility in most parts of the proposed rule, and of the use of performance based approaches. Specific examples include the proposed confining zone requirements and the proposed ground water monitoring requirements, although there are several aspects of the proposed rule that should be reconsidered for further inclusion. The first being the restriction of injections to formations below the lowermost underground source of drinking water. This requirement is not necessary for the protection of the USDWs and would remove a vast number of viable formationsfrom consideration. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Industry has shown that it can operate CO2 injection wells in the EOR context without endangering with USDWs that are located below the injection zone. An excellent example is the Salt Creek EOR Project in Wyoming, which has a USDW below the injection zone. Moreover, under the proposed rule there are other measures that would provide real assurance of formation integrity and require operators to demonstrate that their project will not endanger USDWs, making the injection below the lowermost USDW restriction unnecessary. EPA should also reconsider its proposed 50-year default period post injection site care. EPA offers no rationale for this arbitrarily selected period of 50 years. Establishing a fixed and unusually long time period may create a significant barrier for operators considering entry into CCS operations. Criteria for determining the period for proposed injection site care should be performance based and a function of the site-specific characteristics of a project, such as the project's size, the geologic factors, and the relative risks of the project. Clear guidelines also need to be established regarding when operators have met the performance standards thatdetermine site closure. Specifically, the standard that the project no longer poses an endangerment to USDWs needs to be defined using reasonable site-specific criteria. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Next, EPA should also reconsider its proposed well construction and operation requirements, which are much more prescriptive and rigorous than necessary, and do not reflect industry's 35 plus years of success in rejecting CO2 under the Class II UIC program. The Class II EOR Wells constructed for these projects and operating practices have an excellent record of mechanical integrity testing to protect the USDW. Some of the proposed requirements such as cementing a long stream casing to the surface are not only unnecessarily burdensome, but might also interfere with operations and could introduce unintended risks. Additionally, by unnecessarily creating a regulatory gap between Class II Wells and operations and Class VI Wells and operations the EPA is creating a potential economic or operational barrier to transitioning from EOR operations to storage operations. Thereby further reducing the number of target formations where CO2 could be stored. In conclusion, API shares the same goal as EPA, to develop rules that facilitate the safe, secure, long-term storage of CO2. API is concerned though that by being overlyprescriptive in designing the new well class the proposed rule hinder the deployment of CCS and could have the unanticipated consequence of hindering innovations that could improve both well security and performance. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 CCS is one of the essential technologies that could help to ensure that we can continue to produce the clean energy society demands. The points I've cited in my oral comments are examples that illustrate our areas of concern. API will be submitting more detailed written comments. Thank you very much.MR. SINGER: Good morning. My name is Mark Singer, I am founder of Green America Project, LLC, which is an environmentally activist, an environmentally activist, socially responsible business. I'm an attorney trained as an economist, and pertinent here I have formally specialized in oil and gas law, and I'm a lifelong environmentalist. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 My perspective is this, I believe geologic sequestration is essential and urgently needed, especially because coal is a major contributor to global climate change both in the United States and all around the world. And if coal is to be used it must be used on the basis of sequestration of 100 percent of the CO2. This isn't about me, and it isn't about you, it's about global climate change. That's why we're here, that's why anybody's contemplating geological sequestration. Just this week in the current issue of Science Magazine, Peter Cox and Chris Jones report research that gives more bad news. New data shows that, this is the, the current issue, new data shows that climates sensitivity of the carbon cycle is now constrained at the high end of the range of values consistent with contemporary records. Previous studies gave a broad range of possible values from relatively minor to alarming. Cox and Jones nowconstrain it to the high end. If you read the article, it's written in a very dry, emotionless tone. But in a personal communication Peter Cox my question, which was, you know, is this good news or bad news, it is bad news for the world, but its bad news that we have to hear. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 This hearing is EPA's critical crucial role in the technical and legal framework for geologic sequestration. And this brings me to my first point, which is jurisdiction. Basing EPA jurisdiction only on the Safe Drinking Water Act and not on the Clean Air Act is a critical mistake. The central issue in geologic sequestration is whether CO2 sequestration will be permanent. But the Safe Drinking Water Act jurisdiction does not allow EPA to assert its full legal authority to ensure that sequestration will be permanent. We all sat through the presentations this morning, and probably read the publication in the Federal Register. Every time the EPA discusses this they hammer away that this is just under the Safe Drinking Water Act and that's it. This is a mistake. In the Federal Register they say that protecting underground sources of drinking water, USDWs, may be permanent, this sequestration may be permanent. May, that sounds like a, like permanence would be a happy accident rather than the primaryobjective. If geologic sequestration starts leaking it will be a major anthropocentric, anthropogenic source of greenhouse gas. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Molly Bayer had a slide just now which talks about the special characteristics of CO2. Significantly it did not even mention that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It makes no sense not, for the EPA not to exercise jurisdiction under the Clean Air
Act. The science is clear, our planet is being degraded. This is an act of violence against future generations that will damn us to all posterity. The EPA must exercise Clean Air Act jurisdiction in this ruling. I'd like to comment on the grandfathering issue in the proposal. The EPA proposes to give the director discretion to grandfather construction requirements for Class I, II, and V wells seeking to convert to geologic sequestration as Class VI. This makes no sense as well. The construction requirements are there for a reason. The question must be whether the existing wells satisfy the structural criteria, that is the, the requirements for integrity of a Class VI well. So rather than grandfather, the rule should be that existing wells must show that they satisfy the functional requirements of Class VI construction. There's a lot of discussion about modeling as akey to how they're going to analyze whether this is sufficient, and trying to predict injectate behavior based on modeling, getting data and then analyzing and trying to adapt. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 The proposal does not sufficiently address transparency. Importantly, as this data comes in it should be made available to the public so that scientific and technical experts can analyze that. Now, it's obvious that bad things can happen if this goes wrong. CO2 can interact chemically with lime right at the injection site even without it, you know, moving around, even without it escaping through the well initially. This could create carbonic acid, reacting CO2 with water. This could dissolve limestone or other susceptible rock and underground, underground karst region could be created. This could cause a collapsed area due to reduced subjacent support. The EPA was handling, was, I'm sorry. The EPA participated in the National Carbon Sequestration Atlas. And according to the National Atlas, there's a section there on engineering aspects of karsts. According to the National Atlas, karst lithology already poses problems in many areas of the United States. Now, in the EPA's Federal Register publication they call carbonic acid a weak acid. This is a, this is a, whenwe say, weak acid, it's a technical term, it has to do with the acid's intrinsic reactivity as compared to other types of acids. But it does not take into the account the issue of concentration of the carbonic acid. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 The carbonic, the weathering that we see in underground caves is the result of atmospheric CO2 dissolving in water and then that attacks the rock and carves out all these wonderful caves and such, and also causes many areas where subsidence occurs because the subjacent support has been undermined. But the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is way below one percent, and here we're talking about 100 percent CO2 and putting that down by the water source. So even though it's in a technical sense a weak acid its concentration will be much higher. This concentrated carbonic acid would chemically attack susceptible rock, much more fiercely than naturally occurring processes, you'd have karsts on steroids. Geologic sequestration operations must have capstone formations separating the injection site not just from the surface but also from soluble rock such as limestone. Now, there's a couple places in the, in the Federal Register where they, where they discussed this. But none of them discussed the effect of CO2 on the rock, they just talkabout, for example, plugging pore spaces. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 17 Now, there are some, a couple other things. While the EPA is very careful about saying that this does not cover Clean Air Act there are other things that they should admit that it does not cover. The EPA's permitting process cannot affect landowners' property rights. And the proposed rule should point this out explicitly. For example, there's an ADM sequestration test in the middle of Decatur, Illinois, it's in a sandstone formation. But if that were in limestone it would undermine the City of Decatur I think they'd be pretty upset that it was asserted that the EPA permit prevented them from recovering against ADM. So in summary, the eyes of posterity are focused on us right here today, what we do here is critically important. Geologic sequestration is essential, it is urgently needed, but it must be done right. Thank you.MR. SPRAGUE: -- my name is Lee Sprague, I am Sierra Club staff member, and I'm also a tribal member from these areas that are under consideration for the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. I have some additional comments I'd like to read into the record. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 It is clear that industry and people believe that CO2 sequestration is possible even though there are no long-term studies available -- for the storage over long periods of time. I believe that attempts to limit public information and public awareness of the UIC technologies and the state of the monitoring activities -- out of consideration for them for unduly raised concerns or disingenuous. The public, if it is safe, then -- is safe, full public disclosure is essential for confidence. Public notices to residents in the areas of review and residents adjacent to areas of review should include notifications of the initial wells and subsequent well injections for the lifetime of the emission source or the capacity of the AoR. Simply allowing the permit on a one-time basis is not adequate. The public has the right to know of the future plans, the right-of-ways, and the injection points that will be used over the entirety of the process. Public hearings should be required and not be leftto the discretion of the director. This makes an uneven application of the law, and it should be a mandatory requirement for all applications. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 The public should be notified early on in the process, during site evaluation and site selection processes. Again, public information and knowledge is essential to public confidence. Failure to disclose these elements while the process is undergoing will raise more concerns at the end of the day. Any application for UIC permits for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide should be required to estimate the number of injection sites from AoR, area of review. This is legal and clear at this point over the lifetime of emission of the power plant how many injection wells will be needed. In some states it depends on the geological substrata of, to what that capacity may be. Well, to come into a community and just place one well for one permit and then all of a sudden more permits are being issued based on initial site review, there are a lot of issues that are raised with that eminent domain, right-of-way. The industry wants to put a straight line pipeline to its next injection well site, but that's going to cost public access, public right-of-way, private property that needs to be fully disclosed and mapped out prior, before utilization of that fieldfor all of its injection well sites and capacities. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 This is critical because local communities have long range local zoning ordinances and planning process that will extend throughout the lifetime of a, of a well or an area to be used for well site. And so these kinds, this kind of notification and long-term notification of potential well types is essentially to local communities to adequately plan and provide health and safety for the welfare of their residents. Property owners should be required to disclose UIC sites on or adjacent properties that are being sold in the AoR. Covenants for the land regarding UIC sites should be required. Public disclosure of UIC sites nearby, near, on, or adjacent to properties should be disclosed to sellers. If it's a safe process, again, this is part of the public notification. Mapping a potential AoR well site leakage it should be disclosed and noticed as part of any public hearing process. For example, low- lying areas next to a well site should be mapped out to where the first one hundred thousand tons of CO2 could escape via well heads. Where does that settle at? It's heavier than air, it'll accumulate in low-lying areas, and I believe that the public, the public needs to be notified, and a worse case scenario, mapping out low-lying areas of the CO2. And again, this should be part of the public disclosure for anytransfer of land, or selling of land in that community? 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 And as an example, I would say that a map that would be adequate for public health and welfare of a local community, if there was a leak at the wellheads, where the first hundred thousand tons of CO2, where would it funnel at, where would that be rolled or displace oxygen at, and map out those low-lying areas. And then a concentric circle where the second one hundred thousand tons of CO2 that escape from a well, where would that settle in and apply, and map out where it will go. Because those people in those areas potentially could be impacted. And it's just not people, we're talking of other resources. I think that a metric that is easily discernible to the public needs to be created and utilized in this process. In other words, once you have a well closure safe, or you can, during the monitoring process, that I want to know as a public citizen, what if a one inch penetration of a cap stone occurs during the injection process or during the closure process. How much CO2 per day, per annum can I expect? I would like to say not annum, but per day, per week, by month, can I expect from a one inch penetration of a cap stone in geologically sequestered area review. How, and I want to know, well, what about a twoinch penetration? How much CO2 is likely to escape? What about a three inch penetration? 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 This is a metric that the public likely needs to understand the potential. There could be an accidental penetration of the cap stone. There are existing wells that I know, I'm personally aware of in Madison County, Michigan where I have resided and where my tribe is located, where there are simply pools of mud. And we already have sulfide gases that are turning, up to 40,000 parts per million, way above any standard by the EPA. But these are controlled by simply putting them in the mud. These are potential escape routes for CO2, again, they needed to be mapped out as the proposals indicate. But, you know, I want to know what the failure, or the opening up of one of these penetrations means by communicating in terms of the rate of CO2 emissions that are becoming stagnant. And again, the mapping out of where the CO2 will accumulate in low lying areas. The public should be made aware of and have an opportunity to participate in any of the emergency or contingency planning based on catastrophic leaks of a well site. If this happens there needs to be clear steps taken, and coordination of the local community to outline a contingency plan or notification.And while I agree there should be no standardized real-time monitoring of CO2, but local communities, however, and the EPA is clear that states can have additional requirements above the federal requirements for public and health and safety welfare. But I think you also need to be very explicit in telling the local planning authorities that issue the special use permits, or the permit, that they are allowed to take safeguards above the federal level, above the state level, that are more protective of human health and welfare in that specific location. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 The EPA, and regulations, do not take into account the entirety of the problems that local communities will face on a case by case basis. So, while you notice the states have an opportunity to have stricter regulations than the EPA, I think that you also need to notice, and the public notices to the local communities that local planning authorities also have the right to impose strict standards above and beyond EPA or state standards. Oftentimes, we also acknowledge local communities sometimes just defer to EPA or state standard, which can probably be standard. And sometimes this is not adequate to protect the very specific circumstances of a local community, where economic activities may take place in low lying areas for these kind of concerns. It could have impact on long range planningcommunities, and physically alter the environment in ways that may not be fully known at this point in time. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 I don't think that any grandfathering of existing class, existing classes of wells should be allowed to, under the UIC for CO2 sequestration. They should be required to fulfill all of the requirements, including some of the public participation and review requirements that I've outlined initially. And I am still collecting more information, and I will provide that. While it's clear that the current regulatory environment Clean Water Act, it is clear that the carbon sequestration process is a constituent element of the coal system, from the emission, and transportation, and to, to the source. And I understand the authority is simply to protect drinking water at this point. However, the lead agency must be identified to regulate the entirety of the coal system process for the emission and transportation and storage of the monitoring, and contingency planning for UIC well failures. The gaps within the regulatory framework is troublesome, and in my opinion is likely to be the topic of future hearings if not addressed at this point. One minute?As a tribal member and the individual rights of Necedah territory I got the following initial comments. As to what, the tribes reserve the right to protect, to prohibit UIC well sites that are on or adjacent to reservation boundaries, trust land, and ceded territories, or Indian countries that can have a material impact on the reserved rights of tribes and tribal members. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 19 But a detailed government to government consultation process would clearly outline the tribes specifically to ensure a uniform process for the proposed UIC site or in areas of review adjacent to Indian country, and that the EPA must ensure that tribes have adequate financial resources and technical assistance for determining the suitability of UIC wells on or adjacent to Indian country as part of its trust responsibility to tribes, and take into consideration human health and reserve rights for access and utilization of lands that are held by international law or treaty with the United States. Thank you very much.MR. SPRAUGE: The additional comment I'd like to make seriously around, again around local participation for the
processes. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Oftentimes, proposals for electro- generation need to, or incorporate the low cost, the low cost of electricity. And I think it is critical that the full cost of carbon sequestration, along with all of the, the elements that are comprised be storage transportation monitoring, and bonding, that the full cost of carbon sequestration you include in the economic analysis when computing the cost of electricity. The local communities have a measurement to measure alternative renewables -- kinetic. They have a full way to analyze a complete cost of geo-sequestration associated with coal fire power facilities with other forms of electric generated unit. I think that without this uniform analysis or way to cost out what the, how much it's going to actually cost over time for carbon sequestration, that -- out proper tools to make intelligent decisions as to whether the, the best or lowest price cost electricity when making determinations. Thank you very much. My name is Lee Sprague, I work with Sierra Club, Clean Energy Campaign Manager in Michigan, I'm a member of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians -- I'm saying, hello, my nameis Mitigabwa, which means hickory or and I'd have to look at the, in my language it means wood that bends but doesn't break, so -- 1
2 3MR. TONER: Good morning. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here tonight. My name is Matt Toner and I work for Hydrogen Energy International where I'm the Carbon Storage Manager for North and South America. I have over 28 years of oil and gas industry experience, including management of CO2, EOR operations in West Texas. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Hydrogen Energy is a joint venture between BP and Rio Tinto, and our corporate objective is to develop low carbon hydrogen power. Currently we have two projects undergoing regulatory review in Bakersfield, California and the United Arab Emirates, as well as several other projects in various stages of evaluation. To date we are the only company in the world to have secured a fully permitted industrial scale facility of this type. As such, we are deeply appreciative of EPA's efforts to create a regulatory process to facilitate the capture and storage of CO2 while protecting U.S. drinking waters and the health and safety of the public at large. EPA has recognized this valuable role that oil and gas reservoirs can play in the geological storage of CO2. And Hydrogen Energy would like to encourage that EPA go significantly further in facilitating the use of these reservoirs. When CO2 is injected for enhanced oil and gas recovery it could at the sametime be sequestered for long-term storage at the option of the operator. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 EPA should recognize this concurrent dual purpose, enhanced oil and gas recovery, and designed storage, and allow for this dual purpose under existing Class II UIC rules. Furthermore, EPA regulations should facilitate grandfathering from dual purpose production and storage, the storage only sites, when enhanced oil or gas operations are completed. In the course of the typical enhanced oil recovery operation, even when there is no intent to sequester 30 to 50 percent of the injected CO2 remains in the reservoir after production operations cease. The remainder is either miscibly dissolved within the produced oil or recycled for use in other reservoirs, it's not emitted to the atmosphere. But today 90 percent of the CO2 used in enhanced recovery operations is produced from naturally occurring accumulations. Rather than using these naturally occurring accumulations society can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by substituting anthropogenic sources. In addition, injection can continue, upon the completion of production operations, to fully utilize all existing pore space, what we call EOR plus storage. Oil and gas reservoirs have proven capable of containing water buoyant fluids and gases for millions of years.These reservoirs are well-studied, and they offer the best opportunity to kick start large scale geologic storage of CO2 while building on 100 years of oil field operating experience. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 EPA recognition of anthropogenic EOR plus storage as a valid method of geologic sequestration subject, of course, to appropriate measurement, monitoring, and site closure, would provide much needed near term economic incentive to carbon capture and storage efforts while longer term cap and trade or taxation schemes can be developed. The existing Class II regulations governing injection of CO2 in oil and gas reservoirs have proven successful at protecting underground sources of drinking waters. These regulations should allow for the dual purpose of sequestration if anthropogenic CO2 is used. Hydrogen Energy also recommends that EPA expand grandfathering to facilitate transition from production and storage to storage only sites, which will incentive the use of these reservoirs for long-term CO2 storage. The proposed grandfathering of Class II Wells should go beyond just the construction requirements to include, at a minimum, operating and mechanical integrity requirements for existing, operationally compliant Class II EOR CO2 Injection Wells. The Class VI requirements would require technically unnecessary changes toequipment and monitoring procedures. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Some authors have identified risks with using oil and gas reservoirs for CO2 sequestration due to the presence of inactive wells. Proper plugging and abandonment of inactive wells is a prudent method which can ensure this risk is effectively managed. In addition, the oil and gas industry has developed techniques to quickly isolate, effectively repair, and remediate these issues and their unlikely occurrence. In closing, Hydrogen Energy would like to applaud EPA for their effort to create an effective regulatory framework for the injection and sequestration of carbon dioxide while protecting underground sources of drinking water. However, we believe that EPA should go significantly further than the proposed regulation by recognizing the potential for concurrent CO2 injection for enhanced oil and gas recovery and design storage in allowing for this dual purpose. Furthermore, EPA should facilitate grandfathering from dual purpose production and storage to storage only sites when enhanced oil or gas recovery operations are completed. Incentivizing the use of CO2 for enhanced oil and gas recovery would significantly reduce CO2 emissions. Currently, over 2 billion cubic feet of naturally occurring CO2 is used for enhanced oil recovery in the U.S. every day, andvolumes are growing. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 21 Incentivizing anthropogenic CO2 would also increase U.S. energy security by facilitating additional EOR activity, and thereby reducing the need for foreign oil. Enhanced oil recovery has the potential to add 40 to 80 billion barrels of oil based on Department of Energy estimates. This volume is two to four times the current U.S. total crude

reserves. Incentivizing the use of the anthropogenic CO2would also effectively utilize proven well-studied and welltested geologic storage containers. It will likely cost tens of millions of dollars and take several years of study to permit one commercial scale saline storage reservoir. Effectively utilizing gas, oil and gas for fields could also utilize over 100 years of oil field operating experience while building new confidence for future saving and storage options. Finally, this would also help kickstart the financially challenged carbon capture industry by improving economics and accelerating the uptake of this essential technology. Thank you very much.MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Brian Williams and I work for BP's Alternative Energy Division of Houston. There I am the Global CO2 Storage Manager in our Carbon Capture and Storage Technology Organization. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 I work in a team that is currently developing the technological capabilities needed to deliver the ability for geological storage for EPA and its customers. One of the particular areas where we are developing technologies and where we are planning specific research and field analysis relates to well construction and operational expectations. These are the areas where I'd like to direct my comments today. First, with regard to the recognition of the criticality of wells, our view that EPA has correctly recognized that wells are a fundamental component of geological storage systems to successfully ensure the containment of stored CO2. As such, we agree that having appropriate well design, construction, and operating expectations are critical to delivery of secure storage for CO2. Oil and gas operators have decades of experience either past and existing operations in construction and operating DOR and actual recovery and EGR, that's gas recovery wells in a safe and secure way.For existing EOR projects and wells Class II requirements have proven to be sufficient at ensuring the necessary protection of USDWs, and therefore, analysis of the experiences and performances of these Class II Wells, these Class II CO2 Wells should inform the specifications for a new Class VI Well. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 I would like to comment on certain of the incremental expectations in the draft rule including the preamble to it around the design, construction, operation of Class VI Wells that we are potentially excessive. But first, with regard to well construction, and specifically around the points of corrosion resistant materials and cement. Based on industry experience and field studies, corrosion resistant materials should not be mandated for all projects, and the requirement, if there is any, should be made on a site-specific basis. Early field studies, in particular by the CO2 capture project, indicate that it is the appropriate placement of cement and not the type of cement that delivers isolation and prevents casing corrosion. The choice of casing and cement materials should be selected based on planned well operating life, i.e. decades, and not on the ultimate duration of the storage program itself. The potential for longer term exposure of casing during storage,which might occur after injection has stopped, is mitigated by plugging the static well with corrosion resistant material. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Then on the point of cements across long string casing. The EPA does not agree with the requirement for a long string from the injection interval to the surface, nor with cementing across the entire distance. Allowance should be made for a liner to be set across the injection interval and the previous string set above that zone. The cement should cover the uppermost caprock in the area of review by a margin by about 500 feet, not to the surface. The ultimate decision for each project should rest with the director since each is unique and geological intervals and injection zone, and of the position relative to the USDW. Any expectations of cement at the injection interval should permit the use of external casing packers in conjunction with the cementing requirements. With regards to well operations for the next phase, comments about no CO2 injection above the lowermost USDW. The EPA does not subscribe to a blanket constraint that would limit injections only to reservoirs below the USDW. More appropriate given the EPA's general performance based approach, which we applaud, would be to place containment requirements on the acceptable reservoirs. As longas CO2 can be injected and stored securely with minimal chance of breaching containment, either via the well bore or via geological features, proximity to USDW, whether shallow or deeper, should
not matter. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Secondly, a minimum injection depth versus a requirement to inject below the lowermost USDW, we could disagree that the universal mandate for establishing minimum depth for CO2 injection as there should be site-specific ones again based on the containment and capacity parameters of the storage site itself. And finally, the standard requirement for down hole shut-in devices. BP disagrees with the rules to include down hole shut-in devices as a standard requirement for injection wells. Overpressure protection is best achieved by ensuring compatibility of a casing, tubing, material strength design with the surface injection compression system. Down hole shut-in devices may be appropriate, however, for site-specific situations of unique potential impact, of impact, for example, Offshore or near airports, but they should not be mandated for all injection sites. So, in conclusion, wells are indeed a fundamental component of a geologic storage system, having appropriate design, construction, and operating expectations for these wellsis necessary to ensure delivery of a secure storage CO2. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 Site-specific performance based guidelines, as per the well-related example that I note previously, do serve to, do serve the purpose of requiring application of appropriate technological solutions to protect USDWs. Again, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak today.MR. WRIGHT: I'll bravely stand here between you and your coffee break. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Iain Wright, I work for BP, and I manage the Industrial Scale Co2 Geo-Sequestration Project in In Salah in Algeria. BP appreciates the EPA's efforts to create a regulatory framework for industrial scale geo-sequestration in the U.S. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Now in In Salah, BP and its partners Sonatrach and Statoil have, for the last four years, been sequestering around a million tons a year of CO2 in a deep saline formation which is down-dip of a producing gas field. CO2 storage at In Salah is permitted under Algerian hydrocarbon regulations. And we have learned a numberof lessons that could be beneficial to the development of geosequestration regulations in the U.S. My comments will address three issues, well design, monitoring, and the time frame for site closure. So first, the well design. At In Salah a million tons a year of CO2 is being sequestered in the formation that's 6,000 feet deep, it's 60 feet thick, and it has a permeability of only 10 milidarcies very similar to many deep saline formations right here in the U.S. Midwest. To do this we need only three wells, but they have to be very long horizontal sections in the storage formation. Infact, they are about as long as they are deep. So we recommend that EPA's regulations permit geo-sequestration using horizontal wells. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 At In Salah a few miles up from the three CO2 injectors we have four wells that produce natural gas from exactly the same geological formation. The design of the CO2 injectors is identical to the design of natural gas producers, except that the gas producers have stainless steel tubing, whereas, the CO2 injectors have conventional mild steel or L80 tubing. This is because the gas producers are actually in a more corrosive environment than the CO2 injectors. So just to emphasize that point, the CO2 sequestration wells permit the, in In Salah, are constructed to a lower specification than the natural gas wells in the same formation. So we recommend that the design and construction of geo-sequestration wells should be site-specific and fit for the purpose of preventing endangerment to USDWs. Moving on to my second point, monitoring. Monitoring is very important, because a common mis-perception that if you want secure storage you need to do lots of monitoring. Well, the U.N. says that a proportion of CO2 obtained by appropriately selected and managed sites is likely toexceed 99 percent over a thousand years. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 So the key to secure storage is the appropriate selection and management of the site. If that's done properly the site will be very secure and the need for monitoring can be appropriately reduced. Monitoring is kind of like the speedometer on your car. It does contribute to your safety, but more important is the design of the car, the road, and how you drive the car. Having said that, at In Salah we are doing a big research project into monitoring. And so the program is much more extensive than it would be appropriate for a commercial project. We're trying out new technologies, such as satellite imagery, micro-seismic, so we can see how they perform against conventional oil fuel monitoring technology, such as tracers and conventional seismic. But as you can probably hear from my accent I'm a Scotsman, and Scotsmen don't like to waste money. So every technology that we use at In Salah has been carefully chosen to represent great value for money. Before we started the injection at In Salah we did a site-specific assessment of the risk of leakage, and then we tailored the monitoring program to address all of those risks. So mandating any specific monitoring technologywould waste a lot of money and resources without contributing to the protection of USDWs. So we would caution against the universal mandate for any specific monitoring technology. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Many of you will have heard of the other two monitored industrial scale CO2 injection projects in the world at Sleipner and Weyburn. If you compare the monitoring activities of these sites you'll see that something which works in one location may not work at all in another location. So we encourage the EPA to use risk-based performance criteria to determine the site-specific monitoring programs. So moving to my third and final point concerns the appropriate time frame for site closure. There is no rational basis to mandate the universal 50-year minimum time frame for post-injection site care. Such a mandate would kill off commercial investment in geo-sequestration projects. Worse than that, it would preferentially kill off all the best sites. It is with proven seals and the lowest risk of leakage – oil and gas fields. As the EPA proposal states the actual time for CO2 -plume stabilization will be very site-specific. Well selected and managed sequestration sites, such as an oil or gas field that has met its performance objectives, including plume stabilization, would be much more secure and could be closedrelatively quickly, say a couple of years. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 However, as the EPA's cited examples show, CO2 injection in a poorly confined saline formation could be run for a while, such that the closure period and have to wait on residual and solubility trapping. Hence, a closure period of several years would be more appropriate. We recommend that EPA does not mandate any fixedtime frame for site closure. Much better would be a sitespecific assessment that is risk and performance based. Thank you.MS. CLAYBORN: Thank you very much. I'd like to thank EPA for having this hearing today, and you believe that public process is a very important part of any rule-making. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 My name is Becki Clayborn, I'm a Regional Representative with the Sierra Club. We are the largest and oldest national environmental organization in the United States. We have approximately 1.3 million members and supporters in the
U.S. Obviously, we work to protect local water, local air, and public lands. But in 2006, the Sierra Club did something new and different, they decided that global warming was so important that they had to move on from just protecting public local waters, local air quality, and public land to actually tackle the global warming issue and work on clean energy and creating a cleaner energy future. One of the ways that we're doing that is by challenging coal fire power plants from being built in this day and age. We see this carbon sequestration, excuse me, I have a cold. We see this carbon sequestration as not a silver bullet to the carbon problem in our atmosphere. Global warming has to be attacked on several different layers, clean energy should be first, energy efficiency should be first, using less, having renewable energies, wind andsolar, and reducing the need for fossil fuels to be burned. We believe that is actually the way to keep carbon out of the atmosphere and not just figuring out how to put it in the ground and hoping it'll stay there. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 We have a joke within the Sierra Club that nature's version of carbon sequestration is called coal. We need to keep it in the ground, then you don't have to figure out how to put it back in the ground. I see one major flaw with this permitting process. And again, I'd like to thank, I want to make a point again of thanking everybody who works on this permitting process, because I believe that they're doing their jobs very well. However, this is only geological sequestration that's being addressed, it's not the entire life cycle of carbon capture and sequestration. It doesn't talk about the capture and transport of CO2, and it doesn't talk about leakage, and it doesn't regulate anything on air issues. The entire purpose of this rule as stated on the handout that's available back there, why is the proposed G.S. Rule needed? The capture and injection of CO2 produced by human activities for long-term storage is one of a portfolio of options that can reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, and helps mitigate climate change.The entire purpose of this rule is to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere, yet we're only allowed to talk about it in terms of how it affects drinking water. This does not make sense. This permit needs to be more comprehensive, it needs to take into consideration not just how it's going to affect drinking water, but how, how we're going to handle it if it does go back into the atmosphere. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 When we're challenging a coal fired power plant we talk to the utilities, and we talk to many utilities about how to mitigate and reduce their CO2 emissions. Many, many, many of them have come to us and said, we're planning on it, we're going to sequester, we're going to put it in the ground. But it doesn't mean anything unless it's in a permit, if it's not written down, if it's not in a legally binding document it doesn't mean anything. This permit process doesn't mean anything in terms of global warming emissions reductions if we can't write it down and put it in the permit. The fact that this has been a piecemeal process is typical in many of the processes we've seen in EPA, whether it's a coal mine, a coal fired power plant, there seems to be this spiraling effect of, let's talk about water over here, let's talk about air over here, let's talk about land use over here. When many of these projects, especially a projectof this magnitude, when we're talking about relying on this technology to reduce the global warming emissions in our, in our atmosphere we have a huge goal ahead of us. 80 percent reduction by 2050 is what the scientists are telling us we need to do. If we're going to reach that we need to make sure that we're going to do this well, and it needs to be comprehensive, does not need to be a piecemeal permitting process. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 So we respectfully urge the U.S. EPA to not look at this in a piecemeal way, but to really look at it in a holistic way. How are we going to keep this out of the atmosphere? How are we going to make sure that companies, the applicants that are getting into this project know that they have to keep it in the ground? How do we mitigate if it doesn't stay in the ground? Obviously, we brought up some of our concerns on a local level for the Sierra Club, what happens in the local areas if it does contaminate wells, if it does leak out of an old well that's not been properly capped? One of the other concerns that I have is we've seen states that have proposed legislation to pass the liability for any problems in such a, in such projects, to pass the liability on to the state government, which therefore means the taxpayers.The taxpayers should not be responsible for the liability of these projects. And the companies need to take responsibility, either in the form of a long-term bond, or a trust, which the government can then help maintain. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12 The Sierra Club will be submitting comments, written comments to the EPA addressing more specifics about this type of permit. But in closing, we want to urge the EPA to look at this in a more holistic manner and not piecemeal this into just a drinking water issue. The entire purpose of this permit, according to U.S. EPA is to keep CO2 emissions out of the atmosphere. Thank you.MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. I am Scott Anderson, with the Environmental Defense Fund, I appreciate being here today. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 I'd like to start out by agreeing with a couple of comments made previously. First, agree with the Sierra Club, that CCS is not a silver bullet, we believe it's a critical technology in the fight against climate change, but it's not a silver bullet by any means. I also want to agree with the American Petroleum Institute and Iain Wright, that the standard for site closure in the proposed rule needs to be improved. We agree that the standards should be site-specific and performance based. We disagree, however, with API and differ with BP that, that the 50-year default period is being used in an arbitrary way. It's only being used as a default, one that can be shortened or lengthened depending on the circumstances of the particular case. The problem that we see with the proposed closure standard, and the reason that we agree that it needs to be improved, is really two-fold, which is about, frankly, as many folds as we'd like to come up with since it's a two-fold standard. The proposal, the bottom line says that you caneither extend the 50-year period or decrease it upon a demonstration based on monitoring and other site-specific data, that the carbon dioxide plume and pressure front have stabilized. And, the second con, and that no additional monitoring is needed to assure that the geologic sequestration project does not pose an endangerment to USDWs. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 But the problem with the first part is that performance standard is that, as studies included in this docket, support documents that show there are circumstances where it could take centuries, or even in excess of a thousand years for the CO2 plume to completely stabilize. That part of the standard is not very realistic. The second part of the standard, showing that, that no additional monitoring needed, is needed is really just a restatement of the question. The question that we all need answered, regulators, the public, industry, is what does it take in order to decide whether additional monitoring is necessary. So that's why we agree with API and BP that this standard does need to work, and that what we need is a performance standard that really tells us when we can be sure that no additional monitoring is needed and it's time to -- that performance standards should be site-specific, which is really to say that it should depend on the circumstances and not the,something that's triggered by the simple passage time whether it's 50 years, or 150 years, or five years. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 And the remaining time, I wanted to now shift from that sort of slap on the wrist to some compliments. We have that, we think EPA deserves for the work on this rule. Despite having to begin on kind of a negative note I want to stress that we think that adequate, effective sequestration regulations are definitely in sight, and there is much more about this rule that we like than we don't like. And we see the necessary changes in the rule as being in the nature of technical assessments rather than fixing fundamental flaws. I want to especially note some strengths of the rule that relate to brine displacement. Protecting USDWs from displaced formation fluids, is just as important as protecting USDWs from injected CO2. And EPA clearly realizes this, and we're pleased. I want to read these sections into the record or not, make a, maybe if I can do it quickly enough. We are pleased with Section 146.83, requires a confining zone that confines both CO2 and displaced formation fluids. We're pleased that the definition of zone of elevated pressures, Section 146.81 focuses both on the pressure that would drive CO2 through a confining zone, and also on thepressures that would drive fluid to a confining zone. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 We're pleased that 146.84 requires modeling both of the CO2 plume and of the extent of formation fluid and
movement. And we're pleased that 146.90 requires periodic monitoring both the ground water quality and geo-chemical changes above the confining zone. That is really critical to making sure that there's no leaking of fluids or CO2 through the confining

zone. And we are, of course, pleased that 146.94 requires remedial response and USDWs are endangered. So a lot of careful thought has gone in this ruling and we recognize that. I would like to close with a few more suggested improvements. Again, we offer these with the idea that for the most part they are technical adjustments. First, although we're not necessarily in favor of doing it by excluding all formations beneath the lowest USDW, we are pleased that the agency has expressed some concern about coal, basalts, salt domes, and shales as formations that are suitable at this time for commercial sequestration. We think that the agency should directly exclude those kind of formations from this rule, this rule was writtenand risks were analyzed with the brine formations and petroleum reservoirs in mind. And these other sorts of formations we believe are worthy of research, it should be kept under the classified status for now. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 We also think that further steps are needed in order to assure that monitoring includes all aspects of projects. But right now the rule in several places does require monitoring to be used to drive adjustments in the project, but we feel strongly that we need to go further, and we also think that this was contemplated by the IPCC when they said that in a properly selected and managed site that 99 percent of this to be expected to be retained over a thousand years. Monitoring needs to be used in a reiterative process to improve site characterization, the definition, and the adjustment as necessary of the AoR. Adjustment in the risk analysis, adjustment in models, needs to be used to inform and create new input into the models. It needs to help determine, and revise, and improve the monitoring program itself. It needs to inform financial assurance requirements. And it needs to inform closure requirements. In short, monitoring is essential to an adaptive well-managed sequestration site. And then the rule that makes a good start at requiring that and needs to finish the job.We believe that, that there should be a provision that prohibits interference among projects. Eventually, if sequestration becomes a big enough industry we would foresee a need for basic scale of regional management. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 Between now and then we think it's important to nip problems in the bud, and we suggest that a new project not be allowed to interfere with an existing project in terms of the pressure fronts overlapping or other types of interference unless a finding is made that such a overlap doesn't degrade the effectiveness of either project. So then a rule like that would force people to space projects in a way that is proper. We, three more things, we think the rule needs to assure that AoRs are calculated as intended and updated as necessary, we think a 10-year minimum is too short. And we think that there's just an unintentional flaw in the definition of area of review, it doesn't seem to specifically require the consideration of the pressure front and would refer you to the second sentence of the definition of geologic sequestration project for the kind of language we think needs to be imported into the AoR definition. One minute and two more comments. We think injection pressure limits need to expressly require the consideration of geo-mechanical information, not just the 90percent of fracture pressure. A rule that is expressed in terms of percentage of fracture pressure ignores things like induced seismicity and the re-opening of faults. We think -- sophisticated -- pressure than a requirement. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7 8 And my final point I've actually already made, which is that we suggest that you need to improve the standards for authorizing and site closure. Thank you.Letter ID: 0500 Commenter: Bill Hertz Organization: Fertil izer Institute Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21206 Letter Lines: 30 to 34 Comment Code: 1380 1.1.3.6 Deployment of GS Comment: Although the rule is geared specifically toward well ope rators there are several components that may affect potential ups tream industrial clie nts, and are of great interest to TFI members. In f act, EPA must carefu lly consider the applicability of this ru le and ensure that it covers large industrial manufacturers such as nitr ogen fertilizer producers. Individual Response: The purpose of the Class VI GS regulat ion is 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. The UIC program’s author ity under SDWA is focused on ensuring that GS projects are sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and closed in a manner that is protective of USDWs. EPA clarifies that th e Class VI GS regulation applies to all injection of CO2 for the purpose of GS, regardless of the source of the CO2. Requiring or setting standards for upstream generators of CO2 is outside the sc ope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. In a separate rulemaking under authority of th e Clean Air Act, EPA is amending the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program at 40 CFR Part 98 to ad d reporting requirements for CO2 injection and geologic sequestration. The greenhouse gas report ing requirements build on the requirements outlined in the Class VI GS rule with the a dditional goals of verifying the amount of CO2 sequestered and collecting data on any CO2 emi ssions to the surface fr om GS facilities.

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21207 Letter Lines: 36 to 40 Comment Code: 1614 1.3.1.2 Impurities in captured CO 2; purity standards for CO2 Comment: Within the chemical process of producing nitrogen fertilizer, CO2 is generated as a by-product. This CO2 in many cases is sold into various product streams. All members are keenly interested in the enhanced oil recovery aspect of this. And in fact, the CO2 stream that we pr oduce is among the cleanest that is out there, and is virtually im purity free in many cases. Individual Response: PA recognizes that many CO2 streams may be relatively pure, and research indicates that the estimated amounts of impurities in a CO2 stream are likely to be low. However, these estimates are based on limited in formation, and uncertainties remain about the expected concentrations of impurities from the va rious types of CO2 streams. The concentrations of minor and trace elements in CO2 streams for GS projects are likely to vary by facility, coal composition, plant operating conditions, and pollution removal technologies. Since the GS rule,

1at §146.81(d), prohibits CO2 streams that meet the definition of a hazardous waste under 40 CFR Part 261, owners or operators will need to charact erize their CO2 stream as part of their permit application process to determine whether the in jectate is a RCRA hazardous waste. If the CO2 stream is determined to be a hazardous waste, injection may only occur in a Class I hazardous waste injection well. The GS rule also requires the owner or operator to submit data about the site , including an analysis of the chemical and physical characteristics of the 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 confini ng zones and the materials used to construct the well, per §146.82(c)(3). This info rmation can help the Director determine the potential for geochemical reactions between the injectate (CO2) and the host geologic formations, which could result in the plugging of pore spaces or the dissolution of formation minerals. EPA clarifies that the GS rule does not apply to capture technologies.

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21208 Letter Lines: 42 to 49 Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking Comment: So in general, TFI is supportive of the proposed rules but would request additional regulatory clarity and/or guidance for pote ntial upstream industrial clients. Now, specific, aspects of the rule that TFI supports: we support the establishment of a new class of well, Cl ass VI, for geologic sequestration and maintaining injection of carbon dioxide for the purposes of enhanced oil recovery under the Class II program. Individual Response: As described above, EPA agrees that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the deployment of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA is developing a series of guidance docum ents to support the GS rulemaking. These are available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21209 Letter Lines: 51 to 56 Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment) Comment: We also support provisions allowing Class I, II, and V to be re-permitted as Class VI wells. We support proposed language that would grandf ather construction requirements for Class I or II wells seek ing re-permitting as a Class VI Well. We agree that other abandoned mines, in cluding potentially potash mines are

2potential CO2 storage options and would be willing to assist the EPA in exploring this matter further. Individual Response: EPA agrees that many Class I, Cl ass II, and Class V experimental technology wells are designed and constructed to withstand exposure to CO2. The final GS rule provides for the construction of these wells to be grandfathered per §146.81(c), provided the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Director that the wells were en gineered and constructed to meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a). 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).

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21210 Letter Lines: 58 to 76 Comment Code: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste i ssues (seeking comment) Comment: Now, items that, that need additional re gulatory clarity include the liability aspects. TFI understands the EPA's concer n with the potential for impurities in the CO2 stream and the risks that contaminants, such as hydrogen sulfide and sulfuric and nitrous oxide in the CO2 stream could migrate into a USDW. TFI also agrees that because the types of impurities and their concentrations in the stream are likely to vary by faci lity, plant operating conditions, and pollution removal technologies, EPA can not make a categorical determination as to whether the injected CO2 is hazardous under RCRA. TFI woul d request greater guidance for potential upstream industria l clients in CO2 disposal wells. And among the RCRA related questions we woul d like to discuss before regulations are promulgated include the implications of considering the long-term storage of CO2 as discard, as the EPA suggests, by stat ing that CO2 streams need to be nonhazardous, the consequences of CO2 storage prior to injection, and the potential implications for solid waste storage regul ation, and potential state regulatory obligations on the injection of solid waste. Monitoring and/or reporting requirements for upstream industrial clie nts that could provide RCRA liability relief. Individual Response: The Agency appreciates the concerns regarding the need for clarity when it comes to RCRA liability in GS. As a result of this comment and numerous others, EPA has decided to initiate a separate proposed rulemaki ng specifically to examine the issue of RCRA applicability to CO2 streams be ing geologically sequestered, in cluding the possible option of a conditional exemption from the RCRA requirement s for CO2 GS in Class VI wells. EPA will consider these comments as part of its devel opment of that proposal. The Agency will consider issues particular to RCRA in the context of th at 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 comment period for that rule. Finally, EPA also notes that the fi nal GS rule, which adds new regulations for Class
3VI wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act (S DWA), is not making any changes to the RCRA regulations.

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21211 Letter Lines: 78 to 92 Comment Code: 1640 1.3.4 CERCLA issues (seeking comment) Comment: We would also raise the CERCLA issue and the CERCLA liability issue. We agree with the EPA's interpretation in the pr oposed rule that the release of CO2 constitutes a federally permitted releas e as defined in CERCLA 42 USC 9601. However, we remain concerned about pot ential CERCLA liability for upstream industrial clients, especially for comingled injectate streams, and for injectate stream constituents that c ould react with ground water to produce listed hazardous substances. TFI would request EPA include regula tory language govern ing monitoring, reporting requirements for upstream industria l clients that woul d provide CERCLA liability relief for exclusion in the pr omulgated rule. We would request that EPA include regulatory language providing liability protection or exclusion in the, and a potential liability in the ev ent of leaks, well failure, or the release of reaction products. Individual Response: CO2 itself is not listed as a hazardous substance under CERCLA; however, the CO2 stream may contain a listed hazardous substance (such as mercury) or may mobilize substances in the subsurface that could react with ground water to produce listed hazardous substances (such as sulf uric acid). Whether such subs tances may result in CERCLA liability from a sequestration f acility depends entirely on the composition of the specific CO2 stream and the environmental media in which it is stored (e.g., soil or ground water). CERCLA exempts from liability, under CERCLA section 107, 42 U.S.C. 9607, certain “federally permitted releases” (FPR) as defined in CERCLA, 42 U.S. C. 9601(10). Class VI permits will need to be carefully structured to ensure that they prevent potential 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

4under §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 the 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. EPA adds that 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 purific ation facilities.

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21212 Letter Lines: 94 to 105 Comment Code: 1630 1.3.3 RCRA/hazardous waste i ssues (seeking comment) Comment: We agree with previous comments that in terms of paying or otherwise tagging CO2 leakage down the road could be a major disincentive for capital investment on these types of projects. Because the exp ectation that a ton of CO2 could be 10 times or 40 times the current cost would, would really, again, be a disincentive for companies to move forward with this. We would request, finally, clarification for upstream industrial clients as to the appropriate requirements for analyz ing the CO2 stream at a frequency sufficient to yield representative da ta of its chemical and physical characteristics as cited in the Federal Re gister Notice. As well as appropriate requirements for upstream industrial client s in terms of mon itoring and recordkeeping. Individual Response: EPA clarifies that promoting the use of GS is outside the scope of the GS

5rule. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to ensure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangermen t. EPA adds that the GS rule does not apply to generators of CO2.

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21213 Letter Lines: 107 to 111 Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking Comment: To conclude, the EPA Science Advisory Boar d on Integrated Nitrogen has estimated that fertilizer is responsible for almost 50 percent of the world food production. There is over a billion peopl e that are living essentially on a dollar a day or less globally. And this rule, if done correctly, has the potential to lower farmers' input cost and, and positively impact food security. Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the impact of GS on food security is outside the scope of the GS rule.

Letter ID: 0500 Comment ID: 21214 Letter Lines: 113 to 116 Comment Code: 1940 1.4.4.3 Consultations with Industry; experience with other wells Comment: We would like to thank EPA for advancing this important tool for future carbon sequestration, and urge EPA to work cl osely with the nitrogen fertilizer industry and TFI on the issues that we have raised. And we would like to meet at a future convenient date to discus s these issues further. Thank you. Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and agrees that input from stakeholders is a vital component of successful rulemaking, as discussed above.

6Letter ID: 0501 Commenter: Karl R. Moor Organization: Sout hern Company Letter ID: 0501 Comment ID: 21157 Letter Lines: 44 to 73 Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking Comment: And I'd like to thank the EPA for the oppor tunity to discuss the rule-making. I'd also like to the congra tulate the EPA on the process, there's been much good comment in our industry and other industrie s. You're familiar with the way and the approach the EPA has taken for this regulation, you know, for this process with the thoroughness and professionalism. And I would first like to put the importan ce of CCS in a context. Electricity generation produces 34 percent of the gree nhouse gas emissions and 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States . So this technology is critical to address that share of CO2 emi ssions in the United States. As EPA noted in the preamble in its pr oposed regulations, the goal is to create a regulatory framework that supports, and I'm quoting the development of the key climate change mitigation technology. EPA's regulations for geological storage of carbon dioxide are an important first step in moving the country forward and for securing the reality being expressed in the preamble. EEI and its member companies not only appl aud you for the process, we also think that the, the goals that we are, have articulated in the technology are the right goals. And we are supportiv e in that regard as well. But we do have several key messages whic h, which may seem critical at some level, but we mean them as a source of constructive review of the regulations and hopefully a way of improving them. The key, the two key points that we would leave you with today are this, first, these regulations can and should promote the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage while protecting underground sources of drinking water without, and this is key, with out unduly stigmatizing carbon dioxide injection storage. Individual Response: EPA agrees that the implementation of the GS rule in a manner that ensures protection of USDWs from endangerment is important to establishing a foundation for further advances in the field of CO2 GS. EPA be lieves the rule does not “stigmatize” injection of carbon dioxide. Rather, the requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to address the unique nature of full-scale CO2 GS, including the vol umes of CO2 being anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant nature of th e injectate, its mobili ty within subsurface geologic formations,

1and its corrosivity in the presence of water. EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote GS. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protect s USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0501 Comment ID: 21158 Letter Lines: 75 to 119 Comment Code: 1680 1.3.8 Don't overstate ris k, don't stigmatize CO2 Comment: Carbon dioxide has been injected for years in enhanced oil recovery, and that's been done largely without incident. And second, we believe that the regulation should be sufficiently flexible to take into consideration th e site-specific characterist ics and performance based measures. It should be sufficiently adap table to incorporate lessons learned from ongoing pilot and demonstration projec ts like that at our Plant Daniel. To elaborate on these points I would say that EEI urges the agency to ensure that the regulations do not stigmatize st orage, which, and the reason for that is we, it's a very fine line between a ppropriate regulatory guidance and sending this to the public that says that this technology is inheren tly dangerous, and that storage projects themse lves are, make bad neighbors. As I've noted, EPA has stated these two goals themselves, that it simultaneously wants to protect drinking water and promote CCS. That in keeping, keeping these two goals from working against each other we believe that the emphasis should be placed in the regulations and all that follows, that CO2 is not a hazardous waste, a hazardous waste, and it's found in the ambient air. And as a result CO2, taki ng a regulatory approach to CO2, that in many ways is stricter than the und erground injection of hazardous waste is, is in some small sense regulatory overkill. Many of the construction, mechanical integrity, m onitoring, and financial responsibility provisions for Class VI We lls are more comprehensive in this proposal than they are for Class I Wells . The increased regulatory burden that this will place on the industry and u pon those who want to undertake CCS projects would be substantial. Our industry knows firsthand, unfortunately, what, why it is so important that the public have an accurate perception of the risks and the rewards behind technologies, particular in their early stages of development. And in the preamble to this proposal EPA finds that the public should participate in the permitting process, in fact, have taken some innovative approaches to encouraging greater public participation. And we ask today that EPA help communi cate to the public that it'd be very unlikely, and I would stress that, very unlikely that carbon ge ological storage

2would harm underground sources of water, or for that matter affect human health adversely. EPA can, I think, help do that by retooli ng the proposed regulations and to tie the requirements to the actual risks mo re closely. In addition, the EPA should remove the elements that serve only to fan the claims of public misperception, but having increased the protection of underground sources of ground water. Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the GS regulation overstates the risk of CO2 injection. EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water sources and ha ve other adverse impacts. However, with proper site sele ction, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy, potential co rrosivity in the presence of water, and potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EPA expect s the tailored permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care re quirements in the GS rule to prevent leakage from injection fo rmations and protect USDWs. While EPA recognizes that industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for ER, EPA believes that injection for the primary purpose of l ong term storage is sufficiently different from Class II ER operations and warra nts tailored requirements. Fo r 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 ER projects. EPA has taken a regulatory approach that promot es USDW protection, incorporates flexibility or the discretion of the permitting authority when appropriate, seeks to limit burden on owners or operators and permitting agencies, and provides a foundation for national consistency in permitting of GS projects. For example, under th e final rule, many Class VI permit requirements must be established through site -specific plans (e.g., AoR and corre ctive action plan, testing and monitoring plan, etc.) developed by the owne r or operator and appr oved by the Director. Consequently EPA expects that owners or opera tors will consult with the Director as they develop, implement, and update these plans. Ad ditionally, the Director has the discretion to approve alternatives to the requirements in some cases. For example, the Director may in certain situations modify the length of the post-injecti on site care period or appr ove an alternative postinjection site care timeframe as part of th e permitting process under §146.93, allow the use of alternate methods for mechanical integrity testing (if approved by EPA) under §146.89, and waive the requirement that wells be designed to inject below the lowermost USDW under §146.95. EPA also disagrees that the tailored requirements will create a negative public perception of GS. The Agency believes that a demonstration to th e public that GS project s are meeting the GS rule's tailored requirements would likely improve confidence in the project and help address public questions and concerns.

3Letter ID: 0501 Comment ID: 21159 Letter Lines: 121 to 154 Comment Code: 3120 2.1.2 Need to identify additional confining and containment zones (seeking comment) Comment: For example, requiring a secondary containm ent field for this is, would create the wrong impression about the safety of carbon capture and storage, and it should not be a part of the final rule. Such a requirement is unprecedented in the UIC program. Even for the storage of Class I sources secondary containment fields are also unprecedented internationally. Countries where carbon capture and storage projects are currently un derway, besides the United States, including Norway, Canada, Australia, and Algeria did not require secondary containment zones. And in those, in most of these instances the countries are in fact using the existing petroleum walls without the be nefit of an additional regulatory program. Singling out, as the regulations do, ca rbon capture and stor age would just heighten the substantial level of scru tiny. It sends a message that carbon dioxide is more dangerous than the underground injecti on of other substances. And since EPA is the agency in charge with protecting the environment, the public could easily be swayed by EPA's apparent apprehension of carbon capture that's currently, that is current ly embodied in the regulations. In order to create a regulatory scheme that fosters carbon capture and storage the development and employment, the EP A should also consider how it has characterized carbon capture injection, bot h explicitly and implicitly in the regulation. Moreover, EPA should consider the effect of these regulations on securing critical financial support for CCS project s. Misperceptions about the risks can skew opportunities for financing. No one needs to be reminded today that the recent turmoil in the financial markets ma kes very challenging the financing of new technologies. In a credit constrained worl d the heightened risk and overplaying risk and the conflicts that this regulation can impe de the development of a critically important technology for reducing CO2 emissions. Individual Response: EPA believes that the Class VI requir ements, including the level of site characterization required under §§146.82 and 146.83, appropria tely address the unique challenges posed by large-scale GS including large injection vol umes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, th e potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations. EPA retains the requirement to identify additional containment/confining zones, if required by the Director, as proposed (e.g.,

4§146.83(b)). EPA acknowledges that such additio nal zones may not be needed in all circumstances, and clarifies that this requirement is at the Director's discretion, based on his or her understanding of a particular site. The Agency believes that in some geologic settings, the presence and identification of additional confining and containment zones above the primary (i.e., lowermost) confining zone can improve US DW protection. These formations could further impede vertical fluid movement, allow for pressu re dissipation, and provi de additional sites for monitoring, mitigation, and remediat ion, while also affording the greatest protection of USDWs from endangerment. While other countries ma y not require such a dditional protection, EPA believes that providing the Director this additional discretion is an important element of assuring that GS activities will not endanger USDWs. To the comment that the geologic siting requirements could create a negative public percep tion, EPA believes that a demonstration to the public that extensive data have been collected and evaluated would likely improve confidence in the project and help address publ ic questions and concerns.

Letter ID: 0501 Comment ID: 21160 Letter Lines: 156 to 160 Comment Code: 4490 2.4.5 Use of tracers and potential im pact on human health or ecosystems (seeking comment) Comment: Similarly, on a smaller scale we think as a specific example the EPA should not require the use of tracers or soil flux to monitor for possible carbon dioxide leaks. Not only are tracers relatively untested when it comes to their ability to monitor such leaks, they are also, th ey also will not transmit sufficiently early to provide any sort of real protection to under ground sources of water. Individual Response: EPA believes that, in some circumst ances, tracers can be an important component of a multifaceted approach to mon itoring GS projects. However, the Agency recognizes that tracers may not be appropriate in all GS project s. For this reason, EPA does not require the use of tracers at all GS sites; however, the Director ha s discretion to require their use if he/she determines that the use of tracers could improve mon itoring of the site and enhance USDW protection from endangerment. EPA continues to follow new and ongoing research on the safety and efficacy of tracers. For example, studies at the Frio Brine Pilot Experi ment site (Dayton, TX) used various types of tracers, including perfluorocar bon tracers (PFTs), sulfur hexa fluoride, and the noble gases krypton, neon, and xenon. These studies (e.g., Phel ps and Cole, 2008; Hovorka et al., 2004; McCallum et al., 2005) found that tracers can pr ovide useful CO2 monitoring information at injection wells at depth and at near-surface locations. At Frio, tracers enabled quantification of CO2 plume behavior and provide d a technique for model validity testing (McCallum et al., 2005). EPA will continue to track re search related to tracer use. EPA has been following new and ongoing research on the safety and efficacy of tracers, including their efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The Agency plans to, every six years, 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.

5Letter ID: 0501 Comment ID: 21161 Letter Lines: 162 to 170 Comment Code: 4670 2.6.7 Surface air monitoring and/or soil gas monitoring (seeking comment) Comment: I'm told that soil flux monitoring is also problematic because it can result in false positives based on natu ral variability in flux. What these requirements do is, by way of ex ample, is signal to the public that carbon capture and storage is unsafe because it could lead to a leak in CO2, despite the fact that this is very unlikely to happen. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found that the amount of carbon dioxide retained in the a ppropriately sited storage site was very likely to exceed 99 percent of over one hundred years. Individual Response: EPA believes that monitoring at a GS site is of critical importance to ensuring protection of USDWs from endangerm ent. Appropriately selected monitoring technologies, including surface air and soil-gas m onitoring will also serve to increase public confidence in the safety of GS and to assure the public that GS projects are being appropriately operated and monitored. The information gained through such monitoring will also enable permitting authorities to take appropriate steps to address any indication that USDWs may be endangered. EPA clarifies that surfac e air and soil gas monitoring are not required at all GS sites. However, the GS rule at §146.90(h) gives th e Director discretion to require surface air and/or soil gas monitoring as a means of iden tifying leaks that may pose a risk to USDWs and informing emergency notification of a Class VI owner or operator and UIC Director in the event of a USDW endangerment, pursuant to requirements at §146.91(c).

Letter ID: 0501 Comment ID: 21162 Letter Lines: 172 to 184 Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (p erformance-based standards) Comment: Our second message to the EPA today addr esses the regulatory flexibility. We believe that the agency should be cautious in overly prescriptive regulation, one size fits all approaches to siting. No two geological formations are the same, no two CCS projects will be the same . And the geological formations in which CO2 is injected will be defined by a number of characteristics. We believe the many instances and the regulation has chosen to tie with the regulated entities to a -- whether it be -- of re sponsible, duration of responsibility award, financial assura nce responsibility. In all of these instances where EPA ha s said that there is one defining characteristic, it will tie the regulated en tity's hands to an existing set, a new set of regulatory prescriptions with the EPA has not done good service to
67 the industry or to the devel opment of GS technology? 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.Letter ID: 0502 Commenter: Brad Kallio

Letter ID: 0502 Comment ID: 21231 Letter Lines: 20 to 31 Comment Code: 1670 1.3.7 Other/miscellaneous risks Comment: Everybody's kind of heard of Murphy's La w, I tend to live by it being a -- various things that I repair in my wo rld. But typically, anytime you do anything like this where you're putting yourself into a potential to, let's say something does go wrong, there is a crack or a move ment, or something that happens geologically that stresses it, where does this gooey carbon dioxide go? And in my world it finds its way. And you get it in the water, I don't know, what is it, 20 percent of the world's fresh water is in Michigan and around th e, the lakes around here. That concerns me because it's a time bomb just waiting to go off. Instead, maybe a hundred years, so far they've got it where it looks like it might be all right. But, okay, that would be my grandkids that have to deal with the problem. Individual Response: EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water s ources and have other adverse impacts. However, with proper site sele ction, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large volumes of CO2 injected, its bu oyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EP A expects the tailored permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule to prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs. EPA acknowledges the importance of protecting drinking water supplies and adds that all of the requirements in the GS rule are for the purposes of protecting undergrou nd sources of drinking water from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0502 Comment ID: 21232 Letter Lines: 33 to 44 Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space ownership Comment: In my opinion, the best way to resolve is to attack it from a broad standpoint of changing the way you burn it, changing th e way you do that type of process. I don't know how far they've gotten in the pa st five years, technology has changed so drastically in likely the way we attack different problems, with chemicals, with types of things that they can in ject into the carbon to get different results, where you could actually isolate the carbon dioxide molecule, that kind of thing. But people have been working on that.

1Anyway, I'd like to see a little more mone y and focus put towards that rather than putting this crap in the ground. It's just, to me it's a bad idea, and it's not really a problem, and it gets us by for a while, sure. But in the long run our kids are going to pay for it. Thank you. Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the UIC program’s authority under SDWA is focused on ensuring protection of USDWs from endangermen t. The capture of CO2 is outside of the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. EPA does not believe that a proper ly managed GS site is danger ous. The Class VI 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 liquids for decades. The Class VI GS regulation enhances this existing framework with requirements for Class VI wells that are tailored to the unique nature of large scale GS of CO2. These additional protective requirements include more extensive geologic test ing, detailed computational modeli ng of the AoR and periodic reevaluations, detailed requirements for monitori ng and tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and extended post-injecti on monitoring and site care.

Letter ID: 0502 Comment ID: 21233 Letter Lines: 46 to 80 Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space ownership Comment: MR. KALLIO: My name is Brad Kallio. I have a little research company in Grand Rapids, Michigan. We try our best to so lve different types of problems with energy and what have you. And the easiest way to say it would be, wind generation is something that's going be used for years and years and years. -- uses the old, big windmill. They don't move real fast, they don't chop a lot up, we don't have birds hitting them and getting cut in half, which they do have in -- they're moving very slow. But what we do with wind, especially in th ese areas here, is that when you got a whole amount of wind, has anybody ever wound a cuckoo clock, pull the little chains up and the weight goes up, and it k eeps the little pendulum going? Same principle, only instead of lifting a little metal weight you're lifting, like what he wants to do, his whole house. But any mass is a lot of weight if you lift it up. And as soon as it gets to a certain height it clicks over to anothe r gear system. And then the wind keeps blowing, picks up another one, and anothe r one, and another one. You can do a whole sequence of these along the sh oreline or anything like that. Now, you're not storing your energy in batteries, you're storing your energy in gravity. And when you don't have wind you can also use solar to generate motors

23 to do the same thing. It's just like a windmill kind of th inking, you pull it up and you store it. It goes into a fly wheel at the other end, with a generator on the other end of it now you've get a turb ine generator just like you have in a coal mining plant with no emissions. You can build these anywhere. And this is only one way of doing it. There's dozens of other ways, any difference in potential from one to the other you can harness and turn it into, drive into a system like that, and now you're not polluting at all. So I believe in keeping it simple, the Ro mans did this kind of stuff that moves water from one point to another, it's old technology but we can apply it to what we have today. I mean, that's more effici ent than ever having to burn coal or oil or any of this stuff. That's what I had to say. Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including energy conservation, efficiency improvements, a nd the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, that could be deployed to re duce CO2 emissions. However, the use of and investment in these technologies is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. The Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that , where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a ma nner that protects USDWs from endangerment.Letter ID: 0503 Commenter: Michele Schoepper Organization: American Petroleum Institute Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21170 Letter Lines: 25 to 30 Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general Comment: First, I'd like to provide some context for our comments. Oil and natural gas and coal provide approximately 85 percent of the world's energy. The power plants, vehicles, homes, businesses and f actories that use these fuels produce more than 25 billion tons of carbon di oxide emissions annually. While no single technology is sufficient to mitigate these emissions, capturing CO2 and storing it deep underground in formations could play an important role. 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: 0503 Comment ID: 21171 Letter Lines: 32 to 47 Comment Code: 1940 1.4.4.3 Consultations with Industry; experience with other wells Comment: As an industry we have over 35 years of experience safely transporting and injecting CO2 for enhanced oil recover y, EOR, while constantly evolving new technology, operating experience, and regul atory requirements that had been developed EOR our extensive, mature, and generally appropriate for CCS. In the U.S. alone the oil and gas indu stry operates over 13,000 CO2 EOR Wells, over 3,500 miles of high pressure CO2 pi pelines, and has in jected over 600 million tons of CO2 for EOR alone. All wh ile maintaining an excellent health environment and safety record. Industry also has extensive experience in large scale separation and reinjection of natural gas streams. The la rgest operation of th is kind is on the north slope of Alaska where 47 TCF a nd natural gas consisting of about 12 percent carbon dioxide has been cumulative ly re-injected over th e past 30 plus years. The CO2 fraction corresponds to a pproximately 420 million metric tons of CO2. Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and r ecognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 fo r the purpose of ER, and that sites used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS sites. Some of the research that informs the final GS rule was conducted at ER si tes. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving formation.

1Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21172 Letter Lines: 49 to 56 Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking Comment: Regarding EPA's proposed rule, API is very supportive of the fact that EPA has recognized the integrity of the existi ng regulatory framework for CO2 based enhanced oil recovery, of the amount of flexibility in most parts of the proposed rule, and of the use of performance based approaches. Specific examples include the proposed c onfining zone requirements and the proposed ground water monitoring require ments, although there are several aspects of the proposed rule that should be reconsidered for further inclusion. Individual Response: EPA believes that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) under the existing UIC Program is necessary to enable the deployment 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 SD WA, provides a strong fr amework for regulating injection of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues associated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potenti al presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21173 Letter Lines: 58 to 71 Comment Code: 4324 2.4.4.1.2 Comments opposed to requiring injection below the lowermost USDW Comment: The first being the restriction of injecti ons to formations below the lowermost underground source of drinking water. This requirement is not necessary for the protection of the USDWs and would remove a vast number of viable formations from consideration. Industry has shown that it can operate CO 2 injection wells in the EOR context without endangering with USDWs that are located below the in jection zone. An excellent example is the Salt Creek EOR Pr oject in Wyoming, which has a USDW below the injection zone. Moreover, under the proposed rule there are other measures th at would provide real assurance of formation integrity and require operato rs to demonstrate that their project will not endange r USDWs, making the injection below the lowermost USDW restriction unnecessary. 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

2establishes 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 a bove and/or between USDWs. 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. While the Agency acknowledges the experience gained by the oil and gas industry and other injection activities, EPA identified unique cha llenges posed by large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations that warrant the tailored approach in the GS rule. Furthermore, the Agency believes that wells that inject into non-USDW formations above and be tween USDWs presents additional challenges that warrant a dditional requirements.

Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21174 Letter Lines: 73 to 81 Comment Code: 5240 2.8.2.2 Post injection timeframe (seeking comment) Comment: EPA should also reconsider its proposed 50-year default period post injection site care. EPA offers no rationale for th is arbitrarily selected period of 50 years. Establishing a fixed and unusua lly long time period may create a significant barrier for operators cons idering entry into CCS operations. Criteria for determining the period for pr oposed injection site care should be performance based and a function of the site-specific characteristics of a project, such as the project's size, the geologic factors, and the relative risks of the project. Individual Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. In determining the post-injection site care-timeframe for the proposed regulation, EP A reviewed industry reports, existing environmental programs, and initial GS research studies. EPA provided a synthesis of pertinent results from GS modeling studies in the preambl e to the proposed regula tion. Further explanation of this analysis was included in an EPA-prep ared background document that is available in the federal docket, titled "Computa tional Modeling of Underground In jection of Carbon Dioxide for Determination of Area-of-Review and Potentia l Risk to Underground Sources of Drinking
3Water." Based on review of these studies, m odeling results indicate that the CO2 plume stabilization may occur on the timeframe of 10- 100 years after the cessa tion of injection. EPA believes that a 50-year default post-injection si te care timeframe is a reasonable midpoint for most GS projects and available data, includi ng data submitted by commenters, do not support a different default timeframe, and has reta ined this in the final regulation. To address concerns that, in some situations, it ca n be demonstrated in less than 50 years that the plume and pressure front no longer pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs, the GS rule offers owners or operators flexibility regarding the du ration of the PISC timeframe by: (1) allowing the Director discretion to shorten or lengthen the PISC timeframe during the post-injection period based on site-specific data, pursuant to requiremen ts at §146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC timef rame may be appropriate if it ensures non-endangerment of USDWs pur suant to requireme nts at §146.93(c). EPA believes however, that to ensure USDW protection from enda ngerment, a default timeframe for post-injection site care will be necessary in most cases. The default 50 year post-injection site care timeframe represents a reasonable and prot ective monitoring period based on a review of research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public comments. 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.

Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21175 Letter Lines: 83 to 86 Comment Code: 5300 2.8.3 Site closure activities (40 CFR 146.93) Comment: Clear guidelines also need to be establis hed regarding when operators have met the performance standards that determ ine site closure. Specifically, the standard that the project no longer poses an endangerment to USDWs needs to be defined using reasonable s ite- specific criteria. Individual Response: EPA is developing guidance to assist owners or operators in evaluating well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure requirements of 146.92 and 146.93. Additionally, the guidance will a ssist Directors in evaluating proposed well plugging plans and post-injection site car e and site closure plans under 146.92 and 146.93. The guidance describes recommended approaches for how an owner or operator could plug injection and monitoring wells; demonstrate the appropriateness of an alternative post-injection site care time frame; perform post-injection monitoring; demonstrate non endangerment; and perform site closure

4activities. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21176 Letter Lines: 88 to 91 Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (p erformance-based standards) Comment: Next, EPA should also rec onsider its proposed well co nstruction and operation requirements, which are much more prescr iptive and rigorous than necessary, and do not reflect industry's 35 plus years of success in reject ing CO2 under the Class II UIC program. Individual Response: EPA disagrees that the Class VI requirements are overly stringent; instead, the GS requirements are tailored to the unique nature of GS, including the large volumes of CO2 injected, its buoyancy and potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and impurities in the CO2 stream. EPA believes these tailored requi rements are more appropriate than Class I or Class II requirements. Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this 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. The Agency believes that the Class VI requirement s balance site-specific flexibility with USDW protection. Rather than setting performance or technology-based st andards for GS projects, EPA is adopting a flexible approach, where operators of GS projects would develop and implement site-specific plans for delineating the AoR, tes ting and monitoring the s ite, performing corrective action, and post-injection site car e. EPA believes that the plans— which would be reviewed and approved by the Director and pe riodically updated throughout the life of the project—promote an ongoing dialogue between the operator and the Dire ctor that will encourage use of the most appropriate technologies for a particular project.

Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21177 Letter Lines: 93 to 97 Comment Code: 3824 2.3.1.2 Cementing of long-string casing (seeking comment) Comment: The Class II EOR Wells constructed for these projects and operating practices have an excellent record of mechanical integrity testing to protect the USDW. Some of the proposed requirements such as cementing a long stream casing to the surface are not only unnecessarily burdenso me, but might also interfere with operations and could intr oduce unintended risks. Individual Response: EPA does not believe that the cem enting requirements at §146.86 would prevent monitoring, operation and remediation of Class VI wells. Cementing of deep wells has been performed successfully in the past by owners or operators of Class I hazardous and Class I municipal waste disposal wells. Some of these wells, which must meet the same cementing and casing requirements as Class VI wells, are up to 12,000 feet deep and have been successfully cemented in a manner that maintains integrity an d allows for all required well testing, operation,

5and remediation (EPA, 2001). EPA recognizes that the GS rule includes require ments (e.g., cementing the entire length of the long-string casing) that ar e not standard practice in the oil and natural gas industry, but believes that there are significant opera tional differences between ER a nd GS. For example, the volume of CO2 anticipated to be injected in Class VI wells is significantly greater than for Class II wells. Reservoir pressure conditions wi ll be different, with Class VI injection operations involving large volumes of CO2 and likely having higher pressures within th eir storage formations than Class II ER projects. In addition, CO2 in the presence of water may be corrosive to well materials. For these reasons, EPA believes that GS is sufficiently different from Class II ER operations to warrant the tail ored construction requirements for Class VI wells at §146.86. See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS rule for additional information. Additionally, EP A is developing guidance on the construction of Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21178 Letter Lines: 99 to 103 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: Additionally, by unnecessarily creating a re gulatory gap between Class II Wells and operations and Class VI Wells and opera tions the EPA is creating a potential economic or operational barrier to trans itioning from EOR operat ions to storage operations. Thereby further reducing the num ber of target formations where CO2 could be stored. Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the purpose of the GS rule is to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment and not to promote or incentivize GS depl oyment. However, the Agency believes that establishing a regulator y framework for the future development and deployment of CCS technology may pr ovide the regulatory and jurisd ictional certainty needed to foster development and deployment of CCS while ensuring USDW protection. 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 determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that this approach provides su fficient protection of USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditi onal Class II operations while allowing for site-specific flexibility. EPA is developing guidance on transitioning perm its from Class II to Class VI. The guidance will assist Directors in determining whether an injection project should be transitioned from
6Class II where the primary purpose is oil and gas production to Class VI where the primary purpose is long-term storage of large volumes of CO2. The guidance describes recommended methods the Director may use to evaluate change s in risk to USDWs from projects, and how the Director may determine whether a project should be regulated within th e Class II or Class VI UIC program. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequest ration.cfm. For more information, please see the discussion on transition of Clas II well s in thepreamble to the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0503 Comment ID: 21179 Letter Lines: 105 to 109 Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (p erformance-based standards) Comment: In conclusion, API shares the same goal as EPA, to develop ru les that facilitate the safe, secure, long-term storage of CO2. API is concerned though that by being overly prescriptive in designing the new well class the proposed rule hinder the deployment of CCS and could ha ve the unanticipated consequence of hindering innovations that could improve both well security and performance. 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 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: 0503 Comment ID: 21180 Letter Lines: 111 to 112 Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general Comment: CCS is one of the essential technologies th at could help to ensure that we can continue to produce the clean energy society demands. 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.

7Letter ID: 0504 Commenter: Mark Singer Organization: Green America Project, LLC Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21241 Letter Lines: 23 to 27 Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general Comment: My perspective is this, I believe ge ologic sequestration is essential and urgently needed, especially because coal is a major contributor to global climate change both in the United States and all around the world. And if coal is to be used it must be used on the basis of sequestration of 100 percent of the CO2. Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including energy conservation, efficiency improvements, a nd the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, that could be deployed to re duce CO2 emissions. However, the use of and investment in these technologies is outside th e scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. The Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a manner th at protects USDWs from endangerment. For additional information on EPA’s fi nal regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21242 Letter Lines: 29 to 43 Comment Code: 1280 1.1.2.1 General comments on climate change/ global warming Comment: This isn't about me, and it isn't about you, it's about global climate change. That's why we're here, that's w hy anybody's contemplating geological sequestration. Just this week in the current issue of Science Magazine, Peter Cox and Chris Jones report research that gives more ba d news. New data shows that, this is the, the current issue, new data shows th at climates sensitivity of the carbon cycle is now constrained at the high end of the range of values consistent with contemporary records. Previous studies gave a broa d range of possible values fr om relatively minor to alarming. Cox and Jones now constrain it to the high end. If you read the article, it's written in a very dry, emotionless tone. But in a personal communication Peter Cox my question, which was, you know, is this good news or bad news, it is bad news for the world, but its bad news that we have to hear. Individual Response: EPA clarifies that climate change mitigation is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking. Rather, the purpose of the Class VI GS rule is to ensure consistency in

1permitting 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.

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21243 Letter Lines: 45 to 58 Comment Code: 1520 1.2.3 Other authorities (e.g., CAA, MPRSA, London Convention) Comment: This hearing is EPA's critical crucial role in the technical and legal framework for geologic sequestration. And this bri ngs me to my first point, which is jurisdiction. Basing EPA jurisdiction only on the Safe Dr inking Water Act and not on the Clean Air Act is a critical mistake. The centr al issue in geologic sequestration is whether CO2 sequestration will be permanen t. But the Safe Drinking Water Act jurisdiction does not allow EPA to assert its full legal authority to ensure that sequestration will be permanent. We all sat through the presentations th is morning, and probably read the publication in the Federal Register. Ever y time the EPA discusses this they hammer away that this is just under the Safe Drinking Water Act and that's it. This is a mistake. Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CCS, but clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broade r context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In develo ping the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United Stat es Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to eval uate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehe nsive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Resear ch and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitle d "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule. In a separate rulemaking under authority of th e Clean Air Act, EPA is amending the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program at 40 CFR Part 98 to add reporti ng requirements for facilities that conduct GS (subpart RR) a nd all other facilities that in ject CO2 underground (subpart UU).

2For additional information, see the section of the final GS rule preamble entitled, "How Does Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Relate to This Rulemaking?” and the GHG Reporting Program rulemaking and docket.

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21244 Letter Lines: 60 to 64 Comment Code: 1616 1.3.1.3 Fluid movement Comment: In the Federal Register they say that protecting underground s ources of drinking water, USDWs, may be permanent, this se questration may be permanent. May, that sounds like a, like permanence would be a ha ppy accident rather than the primary objective. If geologic sequestration st arts leaking it will be a major anthropocentric, anthropogenic source of greenhouse gas. Individual Response: EPA recognizes that injecting large volumes of CO2 for GS poses unique challenges that, if not properly managed, could endanger drinking water s ources and have other adverse impacts. However, with proper site sele ction, the final, tailored, Class VI requirements address the large volumes of CO2 injected, its bu oyancy, potential corrosivity in the presence of water, and potential impurities in the CO2 stream. In addition, EP A expects the tailored permitting, siting, construction, operation, monitoring, and post-injection site care requirements in the GS rule to prevent leakage from injection formations and protect USDWs.

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21245 Letter Lines: 66 to 73 Comment Code: 1520 1.2.3 Other authorities (e.g., CAA, MPRSA, London Convention) Comment: Molly Bayer had a slide just now which talks about the special characteristics of CO2. Significantly it did not even mention that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It makes no sense not, for the EPA not to exer cise jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act. The science is clear, our plan et is being degraded. This is an act of violence against future generations that will damn us to all posterity. The EPA must exercise Clean Air Act jurisdiction in this ruling. Individual Response: As described above, EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CCS, but clarifies that the scope of the GS re gulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations fo r all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere.

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21246 Letter Lines: 75 to 84 Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment)

3Comment: I'd like to comment on the grandfathe ring issue in the proposal. The EPA proposes to give the director disc retion to grandfather construction requirements for Class I, II, and V we lls seeking to convert to geologic sequestration as Class VI. This makes no sense as well. The construction requirements are there for a reason. The question must be whether the existing wells satisfy the stru ctural criteria, that is the, the requirements for integrity of a Class VI we ll. So rather than grandfather, the rule should be that existing wells must show that they satisfy the functional requirements of Class VI construction. Individual Response: EPA agrees that a cautious approach to grandfathering is appropriate, particularly given that the convert ed well will be used for a substa ntially different process, which involves increased reservoir pre ssures associated with large volumes of stored CO2 and the corrosivity of CO2 in the presence of water. Th e final GS rule provides for the construction of these wells to be grandfathered (per 146.81(c)). EPA has included a requirement in the final GS rule that owners or operators seeking to c onvert existing wells for long term storage must demonstrate to the Director that the grandfathe red wells were engineered and constructed 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). EPA adds that conversion of the well will be at the Director's discretion following an evaluation of all other site-specific information about the well and the project, e.g., modeling, monitoring, and other data. EPA believes that this addres ses the suggestion that the wells satisfy the functional requirements of Class VI construction.

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21247 Letter Lines: 86 to 92 Comment Code: 3350 2.2.1.5 Use of proprietary models for GS sites (seeking comment) Comment: There's a lot of discussion about modeling as a key to how they're going to analyze whether this is sufficient, and trying to predict injectate behavior based on modeling, getting data and then analyzing and trying to adapt. The proposal does not sufficiently address transparency. Importantly, as this data comes in it should be made available to the public so th at scientific and technical experts can analyze that. Individual Response: In response to the comment that the proposal does not sufficiently address transparency, GS well operators are required to di sclose, to the Director's satisfaction, the code assumptions, relevant equations, and scientific basis. EPA adds that its Confidential Business Information requirements at 40 CFR 144.5 will apply to the use of proprietary models. Information including model assumptions and eq uations are used by the Director to inform

4his/her decision to issue the permit and ensure that the requirements are met and the GS well will not endanger USDWs.

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21248 Letter Lines: 94 to 123 Comment Code: 1612 1.3.1.1 Leaching and mobilization of cont aminants; reactions in injection zone Comment: Now, it's obvious that bad things ca n happen if this goes wrong. CO2 can interact chemically with lime right at th e injection site even without it, you know, moving around, even without it escapi ng through the well in itially. This could create carbonic acid, r eacting CO2 with water. This could dissolve limestone or other susceptible rock and underground, underground karst region could be created. This coul d cause a collapsed area due to reduced subjacent support. The EPA was handling, was, I'm sorry. The EPA participated in the National Carbon Sequestration Atlas. And accordi ng to the National A tlas, there's a section there on engineering aspects of karsts. Accordi ng to the National Atlas, karst lithology already poses problems in many areas of the United States. Now, in the EPA's Federal Register pub lication they call carbo nic acid a weak acid. This is a, this is a, when we say, weak acid, it's a technical term, it has to do with the acid's intrinsic reac tivity as compared to other types of acids. But it does not take into the account the issue of con centration of the carbonic acid. The carbonic, the weathering that we see in underground caves is the result of atmospheric CO2 dissolving in water and th en that attacks the rock and carves out all these wonderful caves and suc h, and also causes many areas where subsidence occurs because the subjacent support has been undermined. But the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphe re is way below one percent, and here we're talking about 100 percent CO2 and put ting that down by the water source. So even though it's in a technical sense a weak acid its concentration will be much higher. This concentrated carbonic ac id would chemically attack susceptible rock, much more fiercely than naturally occurring processes, you'd have karsts on steroids. Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that there are pote ntial risks associated with GS, including the potential that CO2 injection for GS may result in leaching of subsurface materials that could mobilize contaminants or compromise pore space, and therefore injectivity, which may result in USDW endangerment. The purpose of the Class VI requirements is to minimize and mitigate potential/identified risks through pr oper site characterization, well construction, operation, monitoring, post-injection site care, and site closure. To ensure USDW protection and mitigate risks, the GS regulation requires the owne r or operator of a Class VI well to submit data

5about the site (during the site characterization process), includ ing information on the porosity, permeability, mineralogy, and geochemistry of the injection and confining zones, along with information on the compatibility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and confining zones as specified in §146.82. This da ta can help identify potential geochemical reactions th at may occur between the inject ed CO2 and the host geologic formation. Identification of poten tial reactions prior to injection would addr ess concerns that formation of carbonic acid could dissolve poten tial limestone creati ng karst features. During injection operations, opera tors must extensivel y monitor ground water quality to provide early detection of any unacceptable movement of fluids or impurities in the subsurface as specified in §146.90. Operators must develop and follow an emergency and remedial response plan to address any adverse effects associated with the GS operation, including contamination as specified in §146.94, and provide financial responsib ility to address contamination as specified in §146.85.

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21249 Letter Lines: 125 to 131 Comment Code: 3110 2.1.1 Proposed siting requirements (i.e., injection/confining zones, trapping mechanism) Comment: Geologic sequestration operations must have capstone fo rmations separating the injection site not just from the surface but also from soluble rock such as limestone. Now, there's a couple places in the, in the Federal Register where they, where they discussed this. But none of them di scussed the effect of CO2 on the rock, they just talk about, for example, plugging pore spaces. Individual Response: EPA clarifies that §146.83(a) requires th at any GS project must have at least one confining zone (i.e., impermeable layer) between the injection zone and the lowermost USDW. The owner or operator and the permit writer must take into account the possibility of permeable and/or soluble geology in the subsurface. The requirement focuses on isolation from the USDW in order to meet the UIC program matic requirement to protect USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes that plugging of pore spaces is one as pect of the interactions between CO2 and the rock that need to be addressed. Additionally, the GS regulation requires the owner or operator to submit data about the site, including informa tion on the porosity, permeability, mineralogy, and geochemistry of the targeted injection and confining zones. Operators must also present information on the compatibility of the CO2 stream with fluids in the injection zone and minerals in both the injection and the confining zone(s), as determined through the formation testing program and on the compatibility of the CO2 w ith the materials used to construct the well (§146.82(c)(3)). The data can help the Director determine the potential for geochemical reactions between the injectate (CO2) and the host geologic formations, wh ich could result in the plugging of pore spaces or the dissol ution of formation minerals.

6Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21250 Letter Lines: 133 to 142 Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space ownership Comment: Now, there are some, a couple other things . While the EPA is very careful about saying that this does not c over Clean Air Act there are other things that they should admit that it does not cover. The EPA's permitting process cannot affect landowners' property rights. And the pr oposed rule should point this out explicitly. For example, there's an ADM sequestra tion test in the middle of Decatur, Illinois, it's in a sandstone formation. Bu t if that were in limestone it would undermine the City of Decatur I think th ey'd be pretty upset that it was asserted that the EPA permit prevented them from recovering against ADM. Individual Response: EPA clarifies that pore space ownership and surface and subsurface property and mineral rights are ou tside of the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking; these are under the purview of states and any of these issu es, as they relate to GS, will need to be addressed though state regulations. The Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that, where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. In a separate rulemaking under authority of th e Clean Air Act, EPA is amending the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program at 40 CFR Part 98 to ad d reporting requirements for CO2 injection and geologic sequestration. The greenhouse gas report ing requirements build on the requirements outlined in the Class VI GS rule with the a dditional goals of verifying the amount of CO2 sequestered and collecting data on any CO2 emi ssions to the surface fr om GS facilities.

Letter ID: 0504 Comment ID: 21251 Letter Lines: 144 to 146 Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking Comment: So in summary, the eyes of posterity are focused on us right here today, what we do here is critically important. Geologic sequestration is essential, it is urgently needed, but it mu st be done right. Thank you. 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.

78Letter ID: 0505 Commenter: Lee Sprague Organization: Sierra Club Letter ID: 0505 Comment ID: 21234 Letter Lines: 22 to 24 Comment Code: 1320 1.1.3 General comments about GS Comment: It is clear that industry and people believe that CO2 sequestration is possible even though there are no long-term studi es available -- for the storage over long periods of time. Individual Response: The UIC Program’s authority under the SDWA focuses on ensuring that GS projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, monitored, and closed in a manner that is protective of USDWs. Ensuring storage capacity is outside the sc ope of the UIC GS rulemaking. EPA clarifies that other federal agencies (e .g., DOE and the U.S. Geological Survey) have conducted research on available storage capacity and determinations of the feasibility of capturing and storing CO2 at the scales needed to address climate change. These agencies, along with private entities, have identified large ar eas for potential sequestrati on in capacity studies. For example, in 2008, USGS initiated developmen t of a methodology for estimating the capacity to store CO2 in geologic formations of the US. In 2010, USGS finalizedand published a riskbased methodology for GS capacity estimation. "A Probabilistic Assessment Methodology for the Evaluation of Geologic Carbon Di oxide Storage" is available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1127/.

Letter ID: 0505 Comment ID: 21235 Letter Lines: 26 to 123 Comment Code: 5500 2.1 Comments on Involving the Public in Permitting Decisions Comment: I believe that attempts to limit public information and public awareness of the UIC technologies and the state of th e monitoring activities -- out of consideration for them fo r unduly raised concerns or disingenuous. The public, if it is safe, then -- is safe, full public disclosure is essential for confidence. Public notices to residents in the areas of review a nd residents adjacent to areas of review should include notifications of the init ial wells and subsequent well injections for the lifetime of the emission source or the capacity of the AoR. Simply allowing the permit on a one-time basis is not adequate. The public has the right to know of the future plan s, the right-of-ways, and the injection points that will be used over th e entirety of the process. Public hearings should be required and notbe left to the discretion of the director. This makes an uneven applicat ion of the law, and it should be a

1mandatory requirement for all applications. The public should be notified early on in the process, duri ng site ev aluation and site selection processes. Again, public information and knowledge is essential to public confidence. Failure to disclose these elements while the process is undergoing will raise more concerns at the end of the day. Any application for UIC permits for ge ologic sequestration of carbon dioxide should be required to estimate the number of injection sites from AoR, area of review. This is legal and clear at this point over the lifetim e of emission of the power plant how many injection wells wi ll be needed. In some states it depends on the geological substrata of , to what that capacity may be. Well, to come into a community and just place one well for one permit and then all of a sudden more permits are being issued based on initial site review, there are a lot of issues that are raised with that eminent domain, right-ofway. The industry wants to put a straight line pipeline to its next injection well site, but that's going to cost pub lic access, public right-of-way, private property that needs to be fully disclo sed and mapped out prior, before utilization of that field for all of its injection well sites and capacities. This is critical because local comm unities have long range local zoning ordinances and planning process that w ill extend throughout the lifetime of a, of a well or an area to be used for well site. And so these kinds, this kind of notification and long-term no tification of potential we ll types is essentially to local communities to adequately plan and provide health and safety for the welfare of their residents. Property owners should be required to disclose UIC sites on or adjacent properties that are being so ld in the AoR. Covenants for the land regarding UIC sites should be required. Public disclosu re of UIC sites nearby, near, on, or adjacent to properties should be disclosed to sellers. If it's a safe process, again, this is part of the public no tification. Mapping a potential AoR well site leakage it should be disclosed and noticed as part of any public hearing process. For ex ample, low- lying areas next to a well site should be mapped out to where the first one hundred thousand tons of CO2 could escape via well heads. Where does th at settle at? It's heavier than air, it'll accumulate in low-lying areas, and I believe that the public, the public needs to be notified, and a worse case s cenario, mapping out low-lying areas of the CO2. And again, this should be part of the public disclosure for any transfer of land, or selling of land in that community? And as an example, I would say that a ma p that would be adequate for public health and welfare of a local community, if there was a leak at the wellheads, where the first hundred thousand tons of CO2, where would it funnel at, where

2would that be rolled or displace oxygen at, and map out those low-lying areas. And then a concentric circle where the second one hundred thousand tons of CO2 that escape from a well, where would that settle in and apply, and map out where it will go. Because those people in those areas potentially could be impacted. And it's just not people, we're talking of other resources. I think that a metric that is easily di scernible to the public needs to be created and utilized in th is process. In other words, once you have a well closure safe, or you can, duri ng the monitoring process, th at I want to know as a public citizen, what if a one inch pene tration of a cap st one occurs during the injection process or during the closur e process. How much CO2 per day, per annum can I expect? I would like to say not annum, but per day, per week, by month, can I expect from a one inch penetr ation of a cap stone in geologically sequestered area review. How, and I want to know, well, what about a two inch penetration? How much CO2 is likely to escape? What about a three inch penetration? This is a metric that the public likely needs to understand th e potential. There could be an accidental penetration of th e cap stone. There are existing wells that I know, I'm personally aware of in Madison County, Michigan where I have resided and where my tribe is located, wh ere there are simply pools of mud. And we already have sulfide gases that are turning, up to 40,000 parts per million, way above any standard by the EPA. But these are controlled by simply putting them in the mud. These are potential escap e routes for CO2, ag ain, they needed to be mapped out as th e proposals indicate. But, you know, I want to know what the failure, or the opening up of one of these penetrations means by communicating in terms of the rate of CO2 emissions that are becoming stagnant. And again, the mapping out of where the CO2 will accumulate in low lying areas. The public should be made aware of and have an opportunity to pa rticipate in any of the emergency or contingency planni ng based on catastrophi c leaks of a well site. If this happens there needs to be clear steps taken, a nd coordination of the local community to outline a co ntingency plan or notification. Individual Response: EPA encourages GS well owners or operators and permitting agencies to begin involving the public by pr oviding information as early in the GS project development process as possible. Involving the public in the permitting process is an important aspect of both UIC Program requirements and EPA's overall missi on. The public will also have the opportunity to submit written comments and, in many cases, a ttend hearings on proposed GS projects during formal public comment periods. Although permit application information will not be made available to the public as it is submitted to th e Director, permitting authorities must follow the public participation requirements for UIC perm its specified in 40 CFR Part 124, which require

3that owners or operators publish a public notice that includes info rmation about where interested parties can obtain copies of th e draft permit and application. Furthermore, the Agency recognizes that the ini tial phases of site evalua tion and site selection may begin in advance of permit application s ubmission. The public may become aware of these activities and begin to have questions or conc erns about the pending project. For this reason, outreach and education—which are outside of, but complementary to, the public notification process—can help clarify project details and a void public misperceptions about the nature and safety of GS projects. This may also benefit the owner or operator by improving local acceptance of the project. In response to the comment that public notice shou ld be required for ever y well, EPA notes that the final rule requires a permit application, and th erefore public notice, for every Class VI well. Area permits are not an op tion for Class VI wells. EPA disagrees that public hearings should be ma ndatory for all GS permits, in order to account for the possibility that, if the public does not e xpress an interest in a hearing, holding one would not be useful. 40 CFR 124.12 provides the Director with the discretion to hold public hearings if there is a significant degree of interest in a draf t permit. EPA expects that public hearings will be requested and held for many GS projects, due to the expected level of public interest in GS projects. EPA notes that the final rule requires the owner or operator, upon site closure, to add a notation to the deed for the facility property noting that geologic sequestra tion took place. See §146.93(g). It does not require any notificati on to adjacent property owners, however. EPA notes that the owners or operators must de velop an emergency and remedial response plan for responding to USDW endangerment under §146.94. However, EPA does not have authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to require ow ners or operators to develop plans for carbon dioxide that leaks to the surface outside the pr otection of USDWs from endangerment. EPA also does not have authority to address eminent domain and rights-of-way, which may vary from state to state.

Letter ID: 0505 Comment ID: 21236 Letter Lines: 125 to 147 Comment Code: 1530 1.2.3.1 State regulatory effort s on GS (seeking comment) Comment: And while I agree there should be no sta ndardized real-time monitoring of CO2, but local communities, however, and the EPA is clear that states can have additional requirements above the federal re quirements for public and health and safety welfare. But I think you also need to be very explicit in telling the local planning authorities that issue th e special use permits, or the permit, that they are allowed to take safeguard s above the federal level, above the state level, that are more protective of human health and welfare in that specific location. The EPA, and regulations, do not take into account the entirety of the problems

4that local communities w ill face on a case by case basis. So, while you notice the states have an opportunity to have stricter regulations than the EPA, I think that you also need to notice, and the public notices to the local communities that local planning authorities also have the right to impose strict standards above and beyond EPA or state standards. Oftentimes, we also acknowledge local communities sometimes just defer to EPA or state standard, which can probably be st andard. And sometimes this is not adequate to protect the very specific ci rcumstances of a local community, where economic activities may take place in low lying areas for these kind of concerns. It could have impact on lo ng range planning communities, and physically alter the environment in ways that may not be fully known at this point in time. Individual Response: EPA clarifies that Section 1422 of the SDWA provides that states, territories, and federally recognized tribes may apply to EPA for primary enforcement responsibility to administer the UIC program. States and tribes must meet EPA's minimum federal requirements for UIC programs by establishing permitting, geologic site characterization, AoR and corrective action, well construction, operation, mechanical integrity testing, monitoring, financial responsibility, injection we ll plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure of GS well owners or operators. EPA adds that states may adopt mo re stringent standards for Class VI wells than the Federal requirements and may act independently to manage development activities within th eir jurisdiction. EPA encourages local governments to become informed about and involved in all aspects of the public process associated with GS wells, but does not have the authority to authorize UI C program primacy for local governments.

Letter ID: 0505 Comment ID: 21237 Letter Lines: 149 to 153 Comment Code: 2060 1.5.3 Comments on grandfathering of existing wells (seeking comment) Comment: I don't think that any grandfathering of existing class, existing classes of wells should be allowed t o, under the UIC for CO2 seque stration. They should be required to fulfill all of the requireme nts, including some of the public participation and review requirements th at I've outlined initially. And I am still collecting more information, and I will provide that. Individual Response: EPA disagrees that grandfathering of construction requirements should not be allowed in the final GS rule. Howeve r, EPA agrees that a cautious approach to grandfathering is appropriate, particularly gi ven that the converted well will be used for a substantially different process, which involves increased reservoir pressures associated with large volumes of stored CO2 and the corrosivity of CO2 in the presence of water. The final GS rule provides for the construction of these wells to be grandfathered (per 146.81(c)). EPA has included a requirement in the final GS rule that owners or operators seeking to convert existing wells for long term storage must demonstrate to the Director that the grandfathered wells were engineered and constructed meet the require ments at §146.86(a) and en sure protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirem ents at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a).

5EPA adds that, following re-permitting as Class VI wells, these projects would be subject to the operational, MIT, monitoring, reporting, plugging, a nd post-injection site ca re and site closure requirements in the final GS rule. Furthermore, all grandfathered wells that are converted to Class VI will be subject to the same public no tice and comment procedures as a new Class VI well. See the discussion of EPA's fina l regulatory approach in the preamble to the GS rule for additional detail on these requirements.

Letter ID: 0505 Comment ID: 21238 Letter Lines: 155 to 165 Comment Code: 1520 1.2.3 Other authorities (e.g., CAA, MPRSA, London Convention) Comment: While it's clear that the current regulato ry environment Clean Water Act, it is clear that the carbon sequestration process is a constituent element of the coal system, from the emission, and transpor tation, and to, to th e source. And I understand the authority is simply to pr otect drinking water at this point. However, the lead agency must be identif ied to regulate the en tirety of the coal system process for the emission and transportation and storage of the monitoring, and contingency planning for UIC well failures. The gaps within the regulatory framework is troublesome, and in my opinion is likely to be the topic of future hearin gs if not addressed at this point. Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that the issue of GS falls within the broader context of CCS, but clarifies that the scope of the GS regulation is limited to injection of CO2, and that all requirements in the GS rule are designed for the purpose of protecting USDWs from endangerment. The SDWA does not provide the UIC Program with the authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS, such as releases to the atmosphere. EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broade r context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In develo ping the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Department of Energy; United Stat es Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Management). The Agency continues to eval uate areas of potential applicability of other Federal environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehe nsive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; and the Marine Protection, Resear ch and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS and CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redundancy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please see the discussion entitle d "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule.

6Regarding the need for a CCS agency to coordi nate across agencies, EPA is coordinating with and will continue to facilitate communication among federal and state agencies during the implementation phase of the GS regulation.

Letter ID: 0505 Comment ID: 21239 Letter Lines: 169 to 182 Comment Code: 1520 1.2.3 Other authorities (e.g., CAA, MPRSA, London Convention) Comment: As a tribal member and the individual rights of Necedah territory I got the following initial comments. As to what, th e tribes reserve the right to protect, to prohibit UIC well sites that are on or adjacent to rese rvation boundaries, trust land, and ceded territori es, or Indian countries th at can have a material impact on the reserved rights of tribes and tribal members. But a detailed government to government consultation process would clearly outline the tribes spec ifically to ensure a uniform process for the proposed UIC site or in areas of review adjacent to Indian country, and that the EPA must ensure that tribes have adequate fina ncial resources and technical assistance for determining the suitability of UIC wells on or adjacent to I ndian country as part of its trust responsibility to trib es, and take into consideration human health and reserve rights for access and u tilization of lands that are held by international law or treaty with the United States. Thank you very much. Individual Response: The final GS rule, at §146.82(a)(2), requires the owner or operator to identify all State, Tribal, and Territorial boundari es within the AoR. Based on this information, the Director must provide written notification to all States, Tribes, and Territories to inform them of the permit application §146.82(b) and ensure that they are involved in any necessary processes (e.g., development of the emergency and reme dial response plan (146.94)). The Agency encourages transparency in the permitting process and anticipates that State-State/State-Tribal communication on GS permitting will facilitate information sharing and encourage safe, protective projects. Because some GS projects will require coordina tion across State and Tribal jurisdictions and plans, the Agency will work with the appropr iate entities to facili tate communication among States and Tribes interested in obtaining Pr imacy during the implementation phase of the GS regulation. Such communication may involve othe r organizations such as the Sierra Club, NDWAC, associations, and other experts. Howe ver, the responsibility for addressing such subjects ultimately rests with the States and Tribes with primacy. In addition, as part of the UIC permit review process in 40 CFR 124, the UIC program Director is required to notify certain stak eholders of any public hearings a nd the availability of the draft permit. The existing public notice regulations require the Director to notify any unit of local government having jurisdiction over the area wher e the facility is proposed to be located (124.10(c)(x)(A)). EPA has also added a requiremen t at 124.10(c)(1)(xi) that state and local oil and gas regulatory agencies and state agencies regulating mineral explor ation and recovery, the PWSS program director, and all agen cies that oversee injection wells in the state must be notified

7as part of the public notice process for a Class VI permit. “State” agencies include tribes. Thus, where a tribe has primacy for UIC, it must notify th e relevant tribal agencies or federal agencies that have primacy for the programs of concer n. If a tribe does not have primacy, the EPA regional office with oversight must notify the appropriate tribal a nd federal agencies.

Letter ID: 0505 Comment ID: 21240 Letter Lines: 184 to 200 Comment Code: 6100 3.1 Comments on the cost estimates Comment: MR. SPRAUGE: The additional comment I'd like to make seriously around, again around local participation for the processes. Oftentimes, proposals for electro- genera tion need to, or incorporate the low cost, the low cost of electricity. And I th ink it is critical that the full cost of carbon sequestration, along with all of the, the elemen ts that are comprised be storage transportation monitoring, and bonding, that the full cost of carbon sequestration you include in the economic an alysis when computing the cost of electricity. The local communities have a measurement to measure alternative renewables -- kinetic. They have a full wa y to analyze a complete cost of geosequestration associated with coal fire power facilities with other forms of electric generated unit. I think that without this uniform analysis or way to cost out what the, how much it's going to actually cost over time for carbon sequestration, that -- out proper tools to make intelligent decisions as to whether the, the best or lowest price cost electricity when making de terminations. Thank you very much. Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the GS rule a ddresses sequestration only, i.e., not capture or transportation. Any impacts on the cost of electricity are likely to be influenced by all aspects of CCS, including capture, transport, and sequestration. EPA adds that it does not establish or attempt to influence electric costs –they are set by factors the Agency does not control. Sequestration costs are expected to be a small component of total CCS project costs; EPA estimates that the GS rule requirements amount to approximately 2 percent of the total CCS project costs. EPA acknowledges that the Class VI requirement s have associated costs beyond baseline (Class I industrial wells) costs. The Agen cy clarifies that the purpose of the GS regulation, promulgated under authority of the SDWA, is to ensure th at, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

8Letter ID: 0506 Commenter: Matt Toner Organization: Hydrogen Energy International Letter ID: 0506 Comment ID: 21185 Letter Lines: 35 to 58 Comment Code: 2064 1.5.3.2 Grandfathering construction of Class II wells (seeking comment) Comment: EPA has recognized this valuable role that oil and gas reservoi rs can play in the geological storage of CO2. And Hydroge n Energy would like to encourage that EPA go significantly further in facilitati ng the use of these reservoirs. When CO2 is injected for enhanced oil and gas recovery it could at the same time be sequestered for long-term storage at the option of the operator. EPA should recognize this concurrent dua l purpose, enhanced oil and gas recovery, and designed storage, and allo w for this dual purpose under existing Class II UIC rules. Furthermore, EPA regulations should facilitate grandfathering from dual purpose production an d storage, the stor age only sites, when enhanced oil or gas operations are completed. In the course of the typical enhanced o il recovery operation, even when there is no intent to sequester 30 to 50 percent of the injected CO2 remains in the reservoir after production operations cease. The remainder is either miscibly dissolved within the produced oil or recy cled for use in other reservoirs, it's not emitted to the atmosphere. But today 90 percent of the CO2 used in e nhanced recovery oper ations is produced from naturally occurring accumulations. Rather than using these naturally occurring accumulations society can mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by substituting anthropogenic sources. In addition, injection can continue, upon the completion of production operations, to fully utilize all existing pore space, what we call EOR plus storage. Individual Response: EPA believes that injection of CO2 for the primary purpose of enhancing oil and gas recovery should remain under the Cl ass II Program. However, the Agency disagrees that wells injecting CO2 for the primary purpose of long term storage sh ould be regulated under Class II requirements. EPA recogni zes that the oil and gas indust ry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of EOR, and that s ites used for EOR may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS sites. EPA also recogn izes that a by-product of EOR activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving formation. The Agency believes that the nature and risks of CO2 injection for the primary purpose of long term storage poses different risks than injection for the primary purpose of ER, and therefore has developed new Class VI regulations to address these unique risks. For example, the volume of CO2 anticipated to be injected for long term storage is significantly greater than for EOR

1operations. Reservoir pressure c onditions will also be differe nt, with Class VI injection operations involving large volumes of CO2 and likely having higher pressures within their storage formations than Class II EOR projects.

Letter ID: 0506 Comment ID: 21186 Letter Lines: 60 to 65 Comment Code: 2143 1.6.2.1 Comments in favor of inject ion into depleted reservoirs Comment: Oil and gas reservoirs have proven capa ble of containing wa ter buoyant fluids and gases for millions of years. These reservoirs are well-studied, and they offer the best opportunity to kick start large scale geologic storage of CO2 while building on 100 years of oil field operating experience. Individual Response: EPA agrees that depleted oil and gas fields are promising formations for GS, provided the Class VI siting, AoR and corr ective action, well construction and operation, monitoring and testing, and post-inj ection site care and site clos ure requirements are met. The final GS rule does not preclude injection into oil and gas fields provided ow ners or operators can demonstrate that GS can be performed in a mann er that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0506 Comment ID: 21187 Letter Lines: 67 to 71 Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking Comment: EPA recognition of anthropogenic EOR plus storage as a valid method of geologic sequestration subject, of course, to a ppropriate measurement, monitoring, and site closure, would provide much needed near term economic incentive to carbon capture and storage efforts while longer term cap and trade or taxation schemes can be developed. Individual Response: EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER, and that site s used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS sites. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving formation. EPA clarifies that injection of CO2 for the pur poses of enhanced oil and gas recovery will continue to be permitted under the Class II program until the Director determines under §144.19 that the primary purpose of CO2 in jection project is long term st orage wherein a Class VI permit is required. The requirements for Class VI wells are tailored to a ddress the unique nature of fullscale CO2 GS, including the volumes of CO2 be ing anticipated for long-term storage, the buoyant nature of the injectate, its mobility within subsurf ace geologic formations, and its corrosivity in the presence of water. EPA adds that the intent of the GS rule is not to promote or

2incentivize GS. Rather, the purpose of the GS regul ation is to assure that, where deployed, GS is conducted in a manner that protect s USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0506 Comment ID: 21188 Letter Lines: 73 to 92 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 Code: 2064 1.5.3.2 Grandfathering construction of Class II wells (seeking comment) Comment: The existing Class II regulations governi ng injection of CO2 in oil and gas reservoirs have proven succe ssful at protecting underg round sources of drinking waters. These regulations should allow fo r the dual purpose of sequestration if anthropogenic CO2 is used. Hydrogen Energy also recommends that EP A expand grandfathering to facilitate transition from production and storage to storage only sites, which will incentive the use of these reservoirs for long-term CO 2 storage. The proposed grandfathering of Class II Wells should go beyond just th e construction requirements to include, at a minimum, operating and mechanical integrity requirements for existing, operationally compliant Class II EOR CO2 Injection Wells. The Class VI requirements would require technically unnecessary changes to equipment and monitoring procedures. Some authors have identified risks with using oil and gas reservoirs for CO2 sequestration due to the presence of inactive wells. Proper plugging and abandonment of inactive wells is a prudent method which can ensure this risk is effectively managed. In addition, the oil and gas industry has developed techniques to quickly isolate, effectiv ely repair, and remediate these issues and their unlikely occurrence. Individual Response: The final Class VI regulations re quire that any owner or operator injecting CO2 for the primary purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI permit with some special consideration for the fact that they are transitioning from a well not originally designed to meet Class VI requirements. The Di rector has the authority to dete rmine at what point a Class VI permit is required for those projects that are transitioning from the primary purpose of EOR to long term storage of CO2. The fina l regulation provides a set of tec hnical factors for the Director to evaluate in making this determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that th is approach provides sufficient protection of USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditional Class II operations while allowing for site-specific flexibility. For more information, please see the discussion on transi tion of Class II wells in the preamble to the final GS rule. EPA agrees that many Class I, Class II, and Cl ass V experimental tec hnology wells are designed and constructed to withstand exposure to CO2. The final GS rule allows the construction of these wells to be grandfathered per §146.81(c), provided the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Director that the wells were engineered and constructed to meet the requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a).
3EPA disagrees that other requirements (e.g., MITs, siting, monitoring, operational, and AoR requirements) should also be grandfathered because they Class II requirements are not tailored to address the unique risks posed by long term CO2 storage to USDWs. Following re-permitting of the project as GS, many of the unique factors of GS sites (e.g ., increased reservoir pressures associated with large volumes of stored CO2 a nd the corrosivity of CO2 in the presence of water) will result in an increased risk profile, warra nting the specific requirements in the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0506 Comment ID: 21189 Letter Lines: 94 to 125 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: In closing, Hydrogen Energy would like to a pplaud EPA for their effort to create an effective regulatory framework for th e injection and seque stration of carbon dioxide while protecting unde rground sources of drinking water. However, we believe that EPA should go si gnificantly further than the proposed regulation by recognizing the potential for concurrent CO 2 injection for enhanced oil and gas recovery and design storage in allowing for this dual purpose. Furthermore, EPA should facilitate gra ndfathering from dual purpose production and storage to storage only sites when e nhanced oil or gas recovery operations are completed. Incentivizing the use of CO2 for enha nced oil and gas recovery would significantly reduce CO2 emissions. Currently, over 2 billion cubic feet of naturally occurring CO2 is used for enhanced oil recovery in the U.S. every day, and volumes are growing. Incentivizing anthropogenic CO2 would al so increase U.S. energy security by facilitating additional EOR activity, and thereby reducing the need for foreign oil. Enhanced oil recovery has the pote ntial to add 40 to 80 billion barrels of oil based on Department of Energy estimates . This volume is two to four times the current U.S. total crude reserves. Incentivizing the use of the anthropoge nic CO2 would also effectively utilize proven well-studied and well-tested geologi c storage containers. It will likely cost tens of millions of dollars and take several years of study to permit one commercial scale saline storage reservoir. Effectively utilizing gas, oil and gas for fields could also utilize ove r 100 years of oil field operating experience while building new confidence fo r future saving and storage options. Finally, this would also help kickst art the financially challenged carbon capture industry by improving economics and accelerating the uptake of this essential technology. Thank you very much.

45 Individual Response: The final Class VI regulations re quire that any owner or operator injecting CO2 for the primary purpose of long term storage obtain a Class VI permit with some special consideration for the fact that they are transitioning from a well not originally designed to meet Class VI requirements. The Di rector has the authority to dete rmine at what point a Class VI permit is required for those projects that are transitioning from the primary purpose of EOR to long term storage of CO2. The fina l regulation provides a set of tec hnical factors for the Director to evaluate in making this determination, at §144.19. EPA believes that th is approach provides sufficient protection of USDWs when there is an increased risk to USDWs as compared to traditional Class II operations while allowing for site-specific flexibility. For more information, please see the discussion on transi tion of Class II wells in the preamble to the final GS rule. As described above, the final GS rule allows the construction of Class II wells to be grandfathered per §146.81(c), provid ed the owner or operator can demonstrate to the Director that the wells were engineered and constructed to meet th e requirements at §146.86(a) and ensure protection of USDWs, in lieu of requirements at §146.86(b) and §146.87(a). Following re-permitting as Class VI wells, these projects would be subject to the operational, MIT, monitoring, reporting, plugging, and post- injection site care and site closure requirements in the final GS rule. See the discussion of EPA's final regulatory approach in the preamble to the GS rule for additional detail on these requirements. EPA clarifies that the purpose of the GS rule is not to incentivize the use of GS or address energy security. The purpose of the GS rule is to ensure that, where GS is deployed, it is conducted in a manner that does not endanger USDWs. However, the Agency believes that establishing a regulatory framework for the fu ture development and deploy ment of CCS technology may provide the regulatory and jurisd ictional certainty needed to fo ster development and deployment of CCS while ensuring USDW protection.Letter ID: 0507 Commenter: Brian Williams Organization: BP A lternative Energy Letter ID: 0507 Comment ID: 21163 Letter Lines: 30 to 43 Comment Code: 1940 1.4.4.3 Consultations with Industry; experience with other wells Comment: First, with regard to the recognition of the criticality of wells, our view that EPA has correctly recognized that we lls are a fundamental component of geological storage systems to successfully ensure the containment of stored CO2. As such, we agree that having appr opriate well design, construction, and operating expectations are critical to delivery of secure storage for CO2. Oil and gas operators have decades of experience either past and existing operations in construction and operating DOR and actual recovery and EGR, that's gas recovery wells in a safe and secure way. For existing EOR projects and wells Class II requirements have proven to be sufficient at ensuring the necessary pr otection of USDWs, and therefore, analysis of the experiences and performa nces of these Class II Wells, these Class II CO2 Wells should inform the sp ecifications for a new Class VI Well. Individual Response: EPA recognizes that the oil and gas industry has decades of experience injecting CO2 for the purpose of ER, and that site s used for ER may be suitable for GS and may be among the first GS sites. EPA also recognizes that a by-product of ER activities is that a certain percentage of the CO2 is trapped in the receiving formation. EPA believes that GS is sufficiently distinct from Class II ER operations to warrant the tailored requirements in the GS regulation. For example, th e volume of CO2 anticipated to be injected in Class VI wells is significantly greater than for Cl ass II wells. Reservoir pr essure conditions will be different, with Class VI injection operations involving la rge volumes of CO2 and likely having higher pressures within th eir storage formations than Cl ass II ER projects. Therefore, Class VI GS reservoir pressures will increase more in comparison to Class II ER during the injection phase of the GS project. EPA continues to research and collect data on CO2 storage and containment. EPA is tracking operations at the DOE GS pilot projects and will review data on all aspects of those operations from well construction and injection to long-term plume fate and transport and monitoring of containment as the data become available. In ad dition to the information cited in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA published a Notice of Da ta Availability and Request for Comment on August 31, 2009 (74 FR 44802), in which the Agency de scribed the results of research at three DOE partnership sites: the Escatawpa, Mississi ppi project; the Aneth Fi eld project in Paradox Basin, Southeast Utah; and the Pump Canyon Site, New Mexico.

1EPA is using an adaptive approach to regulati ng GS. The Agency plans to collect and review data every six years on GS projects to determ ine whether the appropria te amount and types of information and appropriate documentation ar e being collected, and to determine if modifications to the requirements are appropriate or necessary.

Letter ID: 0507 Comment ID: 21164 Letter Lines: 49 to 61 Comment Code: 3862 2.3.3.1 Use of corrosion-resistant construction materials (seeking comment) Comment Code: 3864 2.3.3.2 Use of corrosion-resistant cements (seeking comment) Comment: But first, with regard to well constr uction, and specifically around the points of corrosion resistant materials and cem ent. Based on industry experience and field studies, corrosion resistant materi als should not be mandated for allprojects, and the requirement, if there is any, should be made on a sitespecific basis. Early field studies, in particular by the CO2 capture project, indicate that it is the appropriate plac ement of cement and not the type of cement that delivers isolation a nd prevents casing corrosion. The choice of casing and cement materials should be selected based on planned well operating life, i.e. decades, and not on the ultimate duration of the storage program itself. The potential fo r longer term exposure of casing during storage, which might occur after injecti on has stopped, is mitigated by plugging the static well with corro sion resistant material. Individual Response: The rule does not specify cements to be used; rather, it provides owners or operators with the fl exibility to choose, as long as the cements are compatible with the CO2 stream and formation fluids and of sufficient qua lity and quantity to maintain integrity over the design life of the GS project, as specified at §146.86(b)(5). EPA recognizes that each GS project will be unique and, for this reason, the rule provides flexibility regarding the selecti on and use of cements for Class VI wells that are appropriate to the site-specific conditions of the project. With the permit application, the owner or operator must submit well construction procedures, as spec ified at §146.82 (a)(12), that demonstrate that the well as constructed will prev ent unacceptable fluid movement; allow the use of appropriate testing devices and workover tools; and allo w continuous monitoring of the annulus space between the injection tubing and long-string casing, as specified at §146.86(a). The Director will evaluate the procedures in the context of geological and proposed operating data a bout the site. EPA disagrees that the casing, cement or other materials should only be designed for the period of the injection process, rather than the life of the sequestration proj ect. GS projects are anticipated to have long life span s in comparison to other types of deep injection wells. Not only must Class VI wells be able to function safely and properly over the lifespan of th e GS project, but they must be constructed such that US DWs remain protected after well plugging. The requirements at §146.86 will ensure that the well can maintain integrity throughout the proposed

2life span of the project, including after the in jection well is plugged and through post-injection site care period and beyond. While the risk profile of a GS site will decrease following cessation of injection, EPA believes that Class VI wells must be desi gned to protect USDW from endangerment for the life of the project. Furthermore, rigorous casing and cementing help ensure that the Class VI well will not se rve as a conduit for movement of fluids associated with future injection operations. See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS rule for additional information. Additionally, EP A is developing guidance on the construction of Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0507 Comment ID: 21165 Letter Lines: 63 to 75 Comment Code: 3824 2.3.1.2 Cementing of long-string casing (seeking comment) Comment: Then on the point of cements across l ong string casing. The EPA does not agree with the requirement for a long string from the injection interval to the surface, nor with cementing acr oss the entire distance. A llowance should be made for a liner to be set across the injection interval and the previous string set above that zone. The cement should cover the uppermost caprock in the area of review by a margin by about 500 feet, not to the surface. The ultimate decision for each project should rest with the direct or since each is unique and geological intervals and injection zone, and of the posit ion relative to the USDW. Any expectations of cement at the injection interval should pe rmit the use of external casing packers in conjunction with the cementing requirements. Individual Response: The final GS rule at §146.86(b)(3) re quires that the long-string casing extend to the injection zone and be cemented by ci rculating cement to the surface in one or more stages. It does not, however, specify how cementing would be accomplished, and gives flexibility to the owner or ope rator to propose alternate methods to provide a sufficient amount of cement to meet the standard that USDWs ar e protected from endangerment, subject to the approval of the Director. EPA adds that, unde r §146.86(b)(4), the Dire ctor may approve an alternative method of cementing in cases where the cement cannot be recirculated to the surface, provided the owner or operator can demonstrate by using logs th at the cement does not allow fluid movement behind the wellbore. The construction requirements at §146.86 offer flex ibility to the owner or operator to propose well construction procedures that are appropriate to the site-speci fic conditions of the project. With their permit applications, operators must submit well construction pr ocedures, as specified at §146.82(a)(12), that demonstrate that the well as constructed will prevent unacceptable fluid movement; allow the use of appropriate tes ting devices and workove r tools; and allow continuous monitoring of the annul us space between the injection tubing and long-string casing,
3as specified at §146.86(a). The Dire ctor will evaluate the propos ed well construction procedures in the context of other data about the site. EPA has evaluated the cementing requirements for other well classes and believes that flexibility can be afforded while ensuring that USDWs are protected. See the discussion of Class VI well construction requirements in the preamble to the final GS rule for additional information. Additionally, EPA is developing guidance on the construction of Class VI wells. This guidance will be available on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0507 Comment ID: 21166 Letter Lines: 77 to 85 Comment Code: 4324 2.4.4.1.2 Comments opposed to requiring injection below the lowermost USDW Comment: With regards to well operations for the next phase, comments about no CO2 injection above the lowermost USDW. The EPA does not subscribe to a blanket constraint that would lim it injections only to rese rvoirs below the USDW. More appropriate given the EPA's general performance based approach, which we applaud, would be to place containm ent requirements on the acceptable reservoirs. As long as CO2 can be inject ed and stored securely with minimal chance of breaching containment, either via the well bore or via geological features, proximity to USDW, whether sh allow or deeper, should not matter. 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. For additional information on the waiver approa ch, please see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to comments on the No tice of Data Availability and Request for Comment.

Letter ID: 0507 Comment ID: 21167 Letter Lines: 87 to 90 Comment Code: 4344 2.4.4.2.2 Comments opposed to setting a minimum injection depth Comment: Secondly, a minimum injection depth versus a requirement to inject below the lowermost USDW, we could disagree that the universal mandate for establishing minimum depth for CO2 injection as ther e should be site-specific ones again based on the containment and capacity para meters of the storage site itself.

4Individual Response: EPA agrees that it is not appropriate to set a mi nimum injection depth for GS projects and the Agency believes that a determ ination of site-suitabili ty for GS (i.e., that subsurface formations will receiv e and confine injected CO2) s hould be made on a site-specific basis. The GS rule, at §146.82, requires the owne r or operator to provide extensive site- and project-specific information to the Director to demonstrate that the site meets the minimum site criteria at §146.83, that the CO2 will be contai ned within the injection formation, and that USDWs will be protected from endangerment. EPA acknowledges that there are limited circum stances where injectio n above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protec ts USDWs, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The final GS rule at §146.95 establis hes a process by which owners or operators can seek a waiver of the Class VI injection de pth requirements for in jection into non-USDW formations above and/or between USDWs. The waiver approach requires the submission of extensive, site-specific information (in conjunc tion with the permit appl ication submission) to demonstrate that injection of CO2 into a non-US DW that is above or between USDWs can be done in a manner that is protective of USDWs. The requirements are designed to ensure that the owner or operator, the Director, and the Regional Administrator cons ider, on a site specific basis, the implications, benefits, and challenges associat ed with GS and ensuring water availability and USDW protection. For additional information on the waiver approach, please see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to comments on the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment.

Letter ID: 0507 Comment ID: 21168 Letter Lines: 92 to 99 Comment Code: 4200 2.4.2 Down-hole shut-off valves in GS wells (seeking comment) Comment: And finally, the standard requirement for down hole shut-in devices. BP disagrees with the rules to include down hole shut-in devices as a standard requirement for injection wells. Overpre ssure protection is best achieved by ensuring compatibility of a casing, tubing, material strength design with the surface injection compression system. Down hole shut-in devices may be appropriate, however, for site-specific s ituations of unique potential impact, of impact, for example, Offshore or n ear airports, but they should not be mandated for all injection sites. Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that proper design of the well, including appropriate materials and emplacement of casing and tubing, is essential to proper operation of the well. Such design, however, does not eliminate the possi bility of failure, e.g., due to overpressurization as suggested by the commenter. EP A believes that a multiple-barrier approach, which includes appropriate well design as required at §146.86, suitable injection pressure limits as required at §146.88(a), and automatic shut-off sy stems, as required at §146.88(e), is necessary to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerm ent from the risks asso ciated with CO2 GS. After evaluating the risk s and benefits of down-hole shut-off systems and considering additional research, EPA will not require automatic down-ho le shut-off devices for onshore Class VI wells

5since it is not necessary in all cases to ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment. Instead, the final rule, at §146.88(e)(2), re quires that owners or operato rs of onshore Class VI wells install automatic surface shut-off devices. The ru le affords Director's discretion to mandate automatic down-hole shut-off devices in onshore situ ations that may warrant their use. However, the Agency believes that offshore Class VI we lls present unique construction and operational conditions, including isolation from shorelines and the need to c onstruct wells th rough the water column and the subsurface, which may delay res ponse time in the event of well difficulties. The rule requires, at §146.88(e)(3), that owners or oper ators of offshore wells w ithin State territorial waters install automatic down-hole shut-off system s. EPA believes that these requirements at §146.88(e) ensure that proper precautions are take n to prevent subsurface fluid movement and ensure protection of USDWs.

Letter ID: 0507 Comment ID: 21169 Letter Lines: 101 to 108 Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (p erformance-based standards) Comment: So, in conclusion, wells are indeed a fundamental component of a geologic storage system, having appropriate design, construction, and operating expectations for these wells is necessary to ensure delivery of a secure storage CO2. Site-specific performance based guidelines, as per the well-related example that I note previously, do serve to, do serve th e purpose of requiring application of appropriate technological solu tions to protect USDWs. 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.

6Letter ID: 0508 Commenter: Iain Wright Organization: BP A lternative Energy Letter ID: 0508 Comment ID: 21181 Letter Lines: 31 to 39 Comment Code: 3840 2.3.2 Horizontal well drilling techniques (seeking comment) Comment: So first, the well design. At In Salah a million tons a year of CO2 is being sequestered in the formation that's 6,000 feet deep, it's 60 feet thick, and it has a permeability of only 10 milidarcies very similar to many deep saline formations right here in the U.S. Midwest. To do this we need only three wells, but they have to be very long horizontal sections in the storage formation. In fact , they are about as long as they are deep. So we recommend that EPA's regul ations permit geo-sequestration using horizontal wells. Individual Response: In this final rule, EPA allows the use of horizontal wells at GS projects. In the proposed rule, EPA sought comment on the appr opriateness of horizontal 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: 0508 Comment ID: 21182 Letter Lines: 41 to 54 Comment Code: 3860 2.3.3 Well component degradation Comment Code: 3862 2.3.3.1 Use of corrosion-resistant construction materials (seeking comment) Comment: At In Salah a few miles up from the three CO2 injectors we have four wells that produce natural gas from exactly the same geological formation. The design of the CO2 injectors is identical to the de sign of natural gas producers, except that the gas producers have stainless steel tubing, wh ereas, the CO2 injectors have conventional mild steel or L80 t ubing. This is because the gas producers are actually in a more corrosive e nvironment than the CO2 injectors. So just to emphasize that point, the CO2 sequestration wells permit the, in In Salah, are constructed to a lower specifi cation than the natural gas wells in the same formation. So we recommend that the design and cons truction of geo-seque stration wells

1should be site-specific and fit for the purpose of preventing endangerment to USDWs. Individual Response: EPA recognizes that each GS project will be unique and, for this reason, the rule provides flexibility re garding appropriate materials for Class VI wells. The rule does not specify materials to be used; rather, it provides owne rs or operators with the flexibility to choose, as long as the materials used in Class VI wells are compatible w ith fluids with which they may come into contact and meet or exceed standard s developed for such materials by API or ASTM International, or comparable standards approved by the Director, as pr ovided at §146.86(b)(1). The Director will evaluate the owner or operator's proposed cons truction procedures, including materials to be used, in the context of informa tion about the well, the CO2 stream, and the site, as specified in §146.86(b)(1). EPA is aware of GS efforts at In Sa lah and clarifies that the wells in question were not constructed in accordance w ith US regulations, so the comparison is not necessarily analogous. A paper summarizing EP A's review of In Salah and other large international GS projects is in the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0508 Comment ID: 21183 Letter Lines: 56 to 91 Comment Code: 4600 2.6 Proposed Plume and Pressure Front Monitoring Requirements (40 CFR 146.90) Comment: Moving on to my second point, monitoring. Mo nitoring is very important, because a common mis-perception that if you want secu re storage you need to do lots of monitoring. Well, the U.N. says that a proportion of CO2 obtained by appropriately selected and managed sites is likely to exceed 99 percent over a thousand years. So the key to secure storage is the appr opriate selection and management of the site. If that's done properly the site w ill be very secure and the need for monitoring can be appropriately reduced. Monitoring is kind of like the speedome ter on your car. It does contribute to your safety, but more important is the design of the car, the road, and how you drive the car. Having said that, at In Sa lah we are doing a big research project into monitoring. And so the program is mu ch more extensive than it would be appropriate for a co mmercial project. We're trying out new technologies, such as satellite imagery, micro-seismic, so we can see how they perform against c onventional oil fuel monitoring technology, such as tracers and c onventional seismic. But as you can probably hear from my accen t I'm a Scotsman, and Scotsmen don't like to waste money. So every technology that we use at In Salah has been carefully chosen to represent great value for money. Before we started the injection at In Salah we did a site-specifi c assessment of the risk of leakage, and then we tailored the monitoring progr am to address all of those risks.

2So mandating any specific monitoring technol ogy would waste a lot of money and resources without contributing to the prot ection of USDWs. So we would caution against the universal mandate for any specific monitoring technology. Many of you will have heard of the other two monitored industrial scale CO2 injection projects in the world at Sl eipner and Weyburn. If you compare the monitoring activities of these sites you' ll see that something which works in one location may not work at all in anothe r location. So we encourage the EPA to use risk-based performance criteria to determine the site-specific monitoring programs. Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters and believ es that flexibility is important in developing and implementing a monitoring plan that is appropriately tailored for a specific GS site. The purpose of the requirement at §146.90 to develop site-specific testing and monitoring plans is to ensure that the monitoring performe d at a site is appropria te for site operational conditions and the geologic setting. EPA believes th at this is the best approach for addressing potential risks at GS sites. These flexible provisions in the monitoring requirements for Class VI wells enable the owner or operator to tailor monitoring programs to the specific needs of each project in consultation with the Director. The final regulation provides for flexibility in: 1) methodologies used to co llect these data, 2) the spatial resolution at which the data should be co llected, and 3) how often the data should be collected. The number and placement of monitoring wells will be based on site-specific information such as the calculated AoR, inject ion rate and volume, site geology, baseline data, and the presence of artificial penetrations within the AoR. In some instances, there may be a limited number of options for complying with EPA's minimum requirements. For example, monitoring for geochemical changes will require use of monitoring wells and collection of groundwater samples for chemical analysis. Many options currently exis t for complying with other requirements, such as tracking the positio n of the plume and pressure front within the injection zone. Flexibility is also provided re garding how to monitor for the sp ecific data required by the final rule. The testing and monitoring plan is develope d by the owner or operato r in consultation with the Director and is designed to ensure that a detailed, Director-approved document describing how monitoring will be conducted during the lifetime of the project exists. EPA is developing guidance on testing and monitoring to assist owners or operators and Directors in evaluating requirements under §146.90, including proposed monitoring plans. The guidance describes available technologies and reco mmended approaches for implem enting a testing and monitoring plan, including pre-operational geophysical logging and testin g of injection wells, MITs, injection well testing during ope ration, groundwater quali ty monitoring, tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front, and soil gas and surface ai r monitoring which may be required by the UIC Director for specific GS projects. The guidance can be found on EPA’s website at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwat er/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm. In addition, in January 2009, DOE published a best practices manual entitled "Monitoring, Verificat ion, and Accounting of

3CO2 Stored in Deep Geologic Formations" (DOE/NETL-311/081508); this manual is included in the docket for the final GS rule.

Letter ID: 0508 Comment ID: 21184 Letter Lines: 93 to 113 Comment Code: 5240 2.8.2.2 Post injection timeframe (seeking comment) Comment: So moving to my third and final point c oncerns the appropriate time frame for site closure. There is no rational basis to mandate the universal 50-year minimum time frame for post-injection site care. Such a mandate would kill off commercial investment in geo-sequestration projects. Worse than that, it would preferentially kill off all the best site s. It is with proven seals and the lowest risk of leakage - oil and gas fields. As the EPA proposal states the actual tim e for CO2 -plume stabilization will be very site-specific. Well selected and ma naged sequestration site s, such as an oil or gas field that has met its pe rformance objectives, including plume stabilization, would be much more secure and could be closed relatively quickly, say a couple of years. However, as the EPA's cited examples s how, CO2 injection in a poorly confined saline formation could be run for a while, such that the closur e period and have to wait on residual and solubility trappi ng. Hence, a closure period of several years would be more appropriate. We recommend that EPA does not mandate a ny fixed time frame for site closure. Much better would be a site-specific a ssessment that is risk and performance based. Thank you. Individual Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. In determining the post-injection site care-timeframe for the proposed regulation, EP A reviewed industry reports, existing environmental programs, and initial GS research studies. EPA provided a synthesis of pertinent results from GS modeling studies in the preambl e to the proposed regula tion. Further explanation of this analysis was included in an EPA-prep ared background document that is available in the federal docket, titled "Computa tional Modeling of Underground In jection of Carbon Dioxide for Determination of Area-of-Review and Potentia l Risk to Underground Sources of Drinking Water." Based on review of these studies, m odeling results indicate that the CO2 plume stabilization may occur on the timeframe of 10- 100 years after the cessa tion of injection. EPA believes that a 50-year default post-injection si te care timeframe is a reasonable midpoint for most GS projects and available data, includi ng data submitted by commenters, do not support a different default timeframe, and has reta ined this in the final regulation. However, EPA recognizes that there may be site s where the 50 year post injection site care timeframe may be either not appropriate or more burdensome than necessary based on sitespecific conditions. For this reason, the GS rule o ffers owners or operators flexibility regarding the duration of the PISC timefra me by: (1) allowing the Direct or discretion to shorten or

45 lengthen the PISC timeframe during the post-in jection period based on site-specific data, pursuant to requirements at §146.93(b) ; or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensu res non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c). EPA believes however, that to ensure USDW protection from enda ngerment, a default timeframe for post-injection site care will be necessary in most cases. The default 50 year post-injection site care timeframe represents a reasonable and prot ective monitoring period based on a review of research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public comments. 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.Letter ID: 0509 Commenter: Becki Clayborn Organization: Sierra Club Letter ID: 0509 Comment ID: 21200 Letter Lines: 32 to 35 Comment Code: 1350 1.1.3.3 Comments on the need for GS technology Comment: One of the ways that we're doing that is by challenging coal fi re power plants from being built in this day and age. We see this carbon sequestration, excuse me, I have a cold. We see this carbon se questration as not a silver bullet to the carbon problem in our atmosphere. Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the regul ation of coal power plan ts is outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. Rather, the purpose of th e UIC GS regulation is to ensure that GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. 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: 0509 Comment ID: 21201 Letter Lines: 37 to 41 Comment Code: 1380 1.1.3.6 Deployment of GS Comment: Global warming has to be attacked on se veral different layers, clean energy should be first, energy efficiency should be first, using less , having renewable energies, wind and solar, and reducing the need for fossil fuels to be burned. We believe that is actually the way to k eep carbon out of the atmosphere and not just figuring out how to put it in the ground and hoping it'll stay there. Individual Response: EPA agrees that GS is one technology in a portfolio of options, including energy conservation, efficiency improvements, a nd the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, that could be deployed to re duce CO2 emissions. However, the use of and investment in these technologies is outside the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking. The Class VI GS requirements are designed to ensure that , where GS is deployed, projects are permitted, sited, constructed, operated, and closed in a ma nner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0509 Comment ID: 21202 Letter Lines: 43 to 88 Comment Code: 1350 1.1.3.3 Comments on the need for GS technology Comment: We have a joke within the Sierra Club that nature's version of carbon sequestration is called coal. We need to keep it in the ground, then you don't have to figure out how to put it back in the ground.

1I see one major flaw with this permitting process. And again, I'd like to thank, I want to make a point again of than king everybody who works on this permitting process, because I believe that th ey're doing their jobs very well. However, this is only geological seques tration that's being addressed, it's not the entire life cycle of ca rbon capture and sequestration. It doesn't talk about the capture and transport of CO2, and it doesn't talk about leakage, and it doesn't regulate anything on air issues. The entire purpose of this rule as stated on the handout that's available back there, why is the proposed G.S. Rule n eeded? The capture and injection of CO2 produced by human activities for long-ter m storage is one of a portfolio of options that can reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, and helps mitigate climate change. The entire purpose of this rule is to k eep CO2 out of the atmosphere, yet we're only allowed to talk about it in terms of how it affects drinking water. This does not make sense. This permit needs to be more comprehensive, it needs to take into consideration not just how it' s going to affect drinking water, but how, how we're going to handle it if itdoes go back into the atmosphere. When we're challenging a coal fired power plant we talk to the utilities, and we talk to many utilities about how to mitigate and reduce their CO2 emissions. Many, many, many of them have come to us and said, we're planning on it, we're going to sequester, we're going to put it in the ground. But it doesn't mean anything unless it's in a permit, if it's not written down, if it's not in a legally binding document it doesn't mean anything. This permit process doesn't mean anything in terms of global warming emissions reductions if we can't write it down and put it in the permit. The fact that this has been a piecemeal process is typical in many of the processes we've seen in EPA, whether it's a coal mine, a coal fired power plant, there seems to be this spiraling effect of, let's talk about water over here, let's talk about air over here, let' s talk about land use over here. When many of these projects, especially a project of th is magnitude, when we're talking about relying on this technology to reduce the gl obal warming emissions in our, in our atmosphere we have a huge goal ahead of us. 80 percent reduction by 2050 is what the scientists are telling us we need to do. If we're going to reach that we need to make sure that we're going to do this well, and it needs to be comprehensive, does not need to be a piecemeal permitting process. Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the regulat ion of coal plants or th e use of coal is outside the scope of the UIC GS rulemaking. Rather, the purpose of the UIC GS regulation is to ensure that GS is conducted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

2EPA clarifies that climate change and CO2 emissi ons reductions are outsi de the scope of this rulemaking. The purpose of the Class VI GS rule is to ensure that where GS technologies are deployed, GS is performed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. The requirements apply to owners or operators of in jection wells used to inject CO2 for long-term storage. For additional information on EPA’s final regula tory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

Letter ID: 0509 Comment ID: 21203 Letter Lines: 90 to 98 Comment Code: 1600 1.3 Risk Associated with CO2 GS Comment: So we respectfully urge the U.S. EPA to not look at this in a piecemeal way, but to really look at it in a holistic way. Ho w are we going to keep this out of the atmosphere? How are we going to make sure that companies, the applicants that are getting into this project know that th ey have to keep it in the ground? How do we mitigate if it doesn't stay in the ground? Obviously, we brought up some of our conc erns on a local level for the Sierra Club, what happens in the local areas if it does contaminate wells, if it does leak out of an old well that's not been properly capped? Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and acknowledges that regulatory clar ity is essential for enabling GS to move forward in a manner that protects human health and th e environment. The Agency is working to identify areas related to GS that could be addressed under other statutes to ensure th at GS is conducted in a manner that is protective of human health and the e nvironment. Additionally, the Agency is and will continue to coordinate intern ally and with other Federal agencies involved in GS and CCS, including the Minerals Management Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the United States Geological Survey, to promote consiste ncy in existing and futu re GS initiatives. EPA acknowledges that there are pote ntial risks associated with GS including the potential that CO2 injection for GS could cause fluid moveme nt, which can endanger USDWs. The purpose of the Class VI requirements is to minimize and mitigate potential/identified risks through proper site characterization, well constr uction, operation, monitoring, post- injection site care, and site closure. Suitable GS sites must have confining zones that are free of transmissive faults or fractures and are of sufficient areal extent and integrity to contain the injected CO2 stream and displaced formation fluids. The formations must allow injection at proposed maximum pressures and volumes without initiating or propagating fractures in the conf ining zone(s), as required at §146.83(a)(2). The GS rule requires owners or operators to su bmit extensive data about a proposed GS site to identify (and eliminate) sites with a potential for unacceptable fluid movement. Information to be submitted and evaluated at §146.82 includes data on the porosity, permeability, and other
3information regarding the suit ability of the confining zone ; the location of any known or suspected faults; subsurface geochemistry; and th e location of, depth of, and other information regarding any perforatio ns that may extend into the confining zone. EPA believes that this information, in conjunction with AoR modeli ng required at §146.84, will help identify the potential for brine migration as a result of pressu re displacement. Based on this information, the Director and the owner or operator can identify ways to mitigate this risk pr ior to injection, or, if necessary, the Director can deny the permit appl ication. During injecti on operations, operators must extensively monitor ground water quality and pressure changes to provide early detection of any unacceptable movement of fluids or impur ities in the subsurface as specified in §146.90. EPA clarifies that owners or operators must al so develop and follow an emergency and remedial response plan to address movement of the inje ction or formation fluids that may cause an endangerment to a USDW during construction, operat ion, and post-injection si te care periods as specified in §146.94 and maintain financial responsi bility to address contamination as specified in §146.85. EPA adds that mitigation of CO2 emissions is outside the scope of the GS rulemaking.

Letter ID: 0509 Comment ID: 21204 Letter Lines: 100 to 107 Comment Code: 5460 2.9.2 Comments on transfer of lia bility for long-term care Comment: One of the other concerns that I have is we've seen states that have proposed legislation to pass the liability for any pr oblems in such a, in such projects, to pass the liability on to the state gov ernment, which therefore means the taxpayers. The taxpayers should not be responsible fo r the liability of th ese projects. And the companies need to take responsibility, either in the form of a long-term bond, or a trust, which the government can then help maintain. Individual Response: Under the final GS rule, once an owne r or operator has met all regulatory requirements under Part 146 for Class VI wells and the Director has approved site closure pursuant to requirements at §146.93, the owner or opera tor 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

4public 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 the 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 SDWA 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: 0509 Comment ID: 21205 Letter Lines: 109 to 113 Comment Code: 1200 1.1 General comments about the rulemaking Comment: The Sierra Club will be submitting comments, written comments to the EPA addressing more specifics about this type of permit. But in closing, we want to urge the EPA to look at this in a more holistic manner and not piecemeal this into just a drinking water issue. The entire purpose of this permit, according to U.S. EPA is to keep CO2 emissions out of the atmosphere. Thank you. Individual Response: EPA acknowledges that GS falls within the broader context of CCS and the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that USDWs are protected from endangerment. In developing the final GS rule, the Office of Water coordinated with other Agency program offices and across federal agencies (e.g., with the Depart ment of Energy; United States Geological Survey; Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, formerly the Minerals Management Service; Bureau of Land Ma nagement). The Agency continues to evaluate areas of potential applicability of other Federa l environmental statutes including, but not limited to: the Clean Air Act; the Resource Conserva tion and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabili ty Act; and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act to various aspects of GS a nd CCS. The Agency will continue to coordinate on GS and CCS related issues to minimize redunda ncy and maximize efficiencies for owners or operators. For additional information, please s ee the discussion entitled "How Does This Rulemaking Relate to Other Federal Authorities and GS and CCS Activities?" in the preamble to the final GS rule. Please see the remainder of EPA's responses to this comment and to Sierra Club's written comment for further details. For additional information on EPA's final regulatory approach, please see the final rule and preamble as well as the rulemaking docket.

5Letter ID: 0510 Commenter: Scott Anderson Organization: Environmental Defense Fund Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21215 Letter Lines: 19 to 22 Comment Code: 1330 1.1.3.1 Support use of GS in general Comment: I'd like to start out by ag reeing with a couple of co mments made previously. First, agree with th e Sierra Club, that CCS is not a silver bullet, we believe it's a critical technology in the fight ag ainst climate change, but it's not a silver bullet by any means. 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: 0510 Comment ID: 21216 Letter Lines: 24 to 26 Comment Code: 1250 1.1.1.4 Flexibility is needed (p erformance-based standards) Comment: I also want to agree with the American Pe troleum Institute and Iain Wright, that the standard for site closure in the pr oposed rule needs to be improved. We agree that the standards should be site-specific and performance based. 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.

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21217 Letter Lines: 28 to 60 Comment Code: 5240 2.8.2.2 Post injection timeframe (seeking comment) Comment: We disagree, however, with API and differ w ith BP that, that the 50-year default period is being used in an arbitrary wa y. It's only being used as a default, one that can be shortened or lengthened depending on the circumstances of the particular case. The problem that we see with the proposed closure standard, and the reason that

1we agree that it needs to be improved, is really two-fold, which is about, frankly, as many folds as we'd like to come up with since it's a two-fold standard. The proposal, the bottom line says that you can either extend the 50-year period or decrease it upon a demons tration based on monitoring and other site-specific data, that the carbon dioxide plume and pr essure front have stabilized. And, the second con, and that no additional monito ring is needed to assure that the geologic sequestration proj ect does not pose an endangerment to USDWs. But the problem with the first part is th at performance standard is that, as studies included in this docket, suppo rt documents that show there are circumstances where it could take centuries, or even in excess of a thousand years for the CO2 plume to completely stab ilize. That part of the standard is not very realistic. The second part of the standard, showi ng that, that no addi tional monitoring needed, is needed is really just a re statement of the que stion. The question that we all need answered, regulators, the public, industry, is what does it take in order to decide whether additional monitoring is necessary. So that's why we agree with API and BP that this standard does need to work, and that what we need is a performance standard that really tells us when we can be sure that no additional monitoring is needed and it's time to -- that performance standards should be site-specific, which is really to say that it should depend on the circumstances and not the, something that's triggered by the simple passage time whether it's 50 years, or 150 years, or five years. 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 GS ru le offers owners or operators flexibility regard ing the duration of the PISC timeframe by: (1) allowing the Direct or discretion to shorten or lengthen the PISC timeframe during the post-injecti on period based on site-specific da ta, pursuant to requirements at §146.93(b); or (2) affording the Director discretion to allow a Class VI well owner or operator to demonstrate, during the permitting process based on substantial data, that an alternative PISC timeframe may be appropriate if it ensu res non-endangerment of USDWs pursuant to requirements at §146.93(c). EPA believes however, that to ensure USDW protection from enda ngerment, a default timeframe for post-injection site care will be necessary in most cases. The default 50 year post-injection site care timeframe represents a reasonable and prot ective monitoring period based on a review of research studies, industry reports, and existing environmental programs, and evaluation of public comments. 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

2substantial 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 agrees that a determination of when the post- injection site care timeframe ends will be sitespecific. EPA is developing guidance to assist owners or operators in evaluating well plugging, post-injection site care, and site closure requirements of 146.92 and 146.93. Additionally, the guidance will assist Directors in evaluating propo sed well plugging plans a nd post-injection site care and site closure plans under 146.92 a nd 146.93. The guidance describes recommended approaches for how an owner or operator coul d plug injection and m onitoring wells; perform post-injection monitoring; demonstrate the appropriateness of an alternative post-injection site care time frame; demonstrate non endangerment; and perform site closure activities. The guidance will be available at h ttp://water.epa.gov/type /groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21218 Letter Lines: 62 to 70 Comment Code: 1410 1.2.1 Comments in support of EPA/rulemaking Comment: And the remaining time, I wanted to now shift from that sort of slap on the wrist to some compliments. We have that , we think EPA deserves for the work on this rule. Despite having to begin on kind of a nega tive note I want to stress that we think that adequate, effective sequestra tion regulations are definitely in sight, and there is much more about this rule that we like than we don't like. And we see the necessary changes in the rule as being in the nature of technical assessments rather than fixing fundamental flaws. Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment and belie ves that the creation of a new injection well class (VI) unde r the existing UIC Program is necessa ry to enable the use of GS as a climate change mitigation technology in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA agrees that the UIC Program, under the authority of the SDWA, provides a strong framework for regulating injecti on of CO2 for GS and adds that the GS regulation tailors the UIC requirements to address the unique issues as sociated with large-scale GS including large injection volumes, the relative buoyancy of CO2, its corrosivity in the presence of water, the potential presence of impurities in captured CO2, and its mobility within subsurface geologic formations.

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21219 Letter Lines: 72 to 79 Comment Code: 3100 2.1 Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements (40 CFR 146.83)

3Comment: I want to especially note some strengths of the rule that relate to brine displacement. Protecting USDWs from disp laced formation fluids, is just as important as protecting USDW s from injected CO2. And EP A clearly realizes this, and we're pleased. I want to read these sections into the r ecord or not, make a, maybe if I can do it quickly enough. We are pl eased with Section 146.83, requires a confining zone that confines both CO2 a nd displaced formation fluids. Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment. EPA's goal is developing standards for GS wells in order to ensure th e protection of USDWs from endangerment. The final rule requires that any GS project must have at least one confining zone (i.e ., impermeable layer) between the injection zone and the lowe rmost USDW (§146.83(a)).

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21220 Letter Lines: 81 to 83 Comment Code: 1220 1.1.1.1 Terminology and definitions Comment: We're pleased that the definition of zone of elevated pressures, Section 146.81 focuses both on the pressure that would drive CO2 through a c onfining zone, and also on the pressures that would dr ive fluid to a confining zone. Individual Response: The Agency acknowledges the comment. The final definition of pressure front at §146.81(d) is unchanged, and reads as follows : “[T]he zone of elevated pressure that is created by the injection of carbon dioxide into the subsurface. Fo r the purposes of this subpart, the pressure front of a carbon dioxide plume refers to a zone where there is a pressure differential sufficient to cause the movement of injected fluids or formation fluids into a USDW.” Based on its evaluation of all public comments and input on the proposed rule and the NODA and Request for Comment, EPA has made many revisions to the Cla ss VI GS rule. Please see the final rule and preamble for additional information.

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21221 Letter Lines: 85 to 86 Comment Code: 3200 2.2 Proposed Area of Review and Corrective Action Requirements (40 CFR 146.84) Comment: We're pleased that 146.84 requires modeling both of the CO2 pl ume and of the extent of formation fluid and movement. Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment; the final rule retains this provision.

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21222 Letter Lines: 88 to 91

4Comment Code: 4660 2.6.6 Geochemical monitoring Comment: And we're pleased that 146.90 requires peri odic monitoring both the ground water quality and geo-chemical changes above the confining zone. That is really critical to making sure that there's no leaking of fluids or CO2 through the confining zone. Individual Response: EPA acknowledges the comment; the fina l rule retains this approach. EPA believes that the ground water geochemi cal monitoring outlined in §146.90(d) will maximize protection of USDWs from endangerment at GS sites. Direct geochemical sampling is an important part of a monitoring program. EPA agrees that direct monitoring for ground water quality above the confining zone is important, and the GS ru le requires this at §146.90(d). Monitoring in additional formations, e.g., the inje ction zone, may also be necessary, and if the Director believes such monitoring is warranted he/she has the au thority to require that it be included in the testing and monitoring plan.

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21223 Letter Lines: 93 to 94 Comment Code: 5800 2.13 Comments on emergency and re medial response (40 CFR 146.94) Comment: And we are, of course, pleased that 1 46.94 requires remedial response and USDWs are endangered. Individual Response: EPA agrees that an emergency and reme dial response plan is an important part of assuring protection of USDWs from endangerment at GS sites. The requirements for an emergency and remedial response plan at 146.94(a) are designed to ensure that owners or operators, as part of their permit applications , comprehensively plan what actions would be necessary in the unlikely event of an emergency. Th e plan will ensure that operators know what entities and individuals must be notified and what actions must be taken to expeditiously mitigate any emergency situations.

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21224 Letter Lines: 96 to 96 Comment Code: 1420 1.2.1.1 Support the GS rulemaking Comment: So a lot of careful thought has gone in this ruling and we recognize that. 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.

5Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21225 Letter Lines: 98 to 110 Comment Code: 2166 1.6.3.2 Comments opposing injection into unmineable coal seams Comment: I would like to close with a few more suggested imp rovements. Again, we offer these with the idea that for the most pa rt they are technical adjustments. First, although we're not necessarily in favor of doing it by excluding all formations beneath the lowest USDW, we ar e pleased that the agency has expressed some concern about coal, basalts, salt dome s, and shales as formations that are suitable at this time for commercial sequestration. We think that the agency should directly exclude those kind of formations from this rule, this rule was written and risks were analyzed with the brine formations and petroleum reservoirs in mind. And these other sorts of formations we believe are worthy of re search, it should be kept under the classified status for now. Individual Response: The final GS rule does not precl ude injection into any non-USDW formation type provided owners or operators can demonstrate th at GS can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs from endangermen t as required under today’s rulemaking. EPA acknowledges that there may be risks associated with GS into coal, basalts, salt domes, and shales, which have been the subject of limite d experimental projects in the past. EPA will continue to review data on early GS projects, including those in such formations, to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information and documentation are required and being collected. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review da ta 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.

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21226 Letter Lines: 112 to 128 Comment Code: 4610 2.6.1 Testing and monitoring plan requirement (seeking comment) Comment: We also think that further steps are need ed in order to assure that monitoring includes all aspects of proj ects. But right now the rule in several places does require monitoring to be used to drive ad justments in the project, but we feel strongly that we need to go further, and we also think that this was contemplated by the IPCC when they said th at in a properly sele cted and managed site that 99 percent of this to be expe cted to be retained over a thousand years. Monitoring needs to be used in a re iterative process to improve site characterization, the definition, and the ad justment as necessary of the AoR. Adjustment in the risk analysis, adjustme nt in models, needs to be used to
6inform and create new input into the mode ls. It needs to help determine, and revise, and improve the monitoring program itself. It needs to inform financial assurance requirements. And it needs to in form closure requirements. In short, monitoring is essential to an adaptive well-managed sequestration site. And then the rule that makes a good start at requiring that and needs to finish the job. Individual Response: EPA agrees with commenters on the im portance of monitoring at GS sites and emphasizes that monitoring of injection activ ities will be an important component of every GS project. Monitoring associated with injecti on wells and the movement of the CO2 plume is necessary to verify that the injectate is confin ed in the target formations and does not endanger USDWs. EPA agrees with commenters that developing an d following testing and monitoring plans is an important part of assuring that a GS project is operating properly and is crucial for the early detection of potential endangerment to USDWs. EPA also agrees that periodic updates to the plan are appropriate. EPA clarifies that the fina l GS regulation includes a requirement that the AoR be reevaluated at least ever y 5 years, and it specifies at § 146.90(j) that the operator revise the testing and monitoring plan to incorporate the results of the most recent AoR reevaluation and recent operational and monitoring data. EPA agrees that monitoring data should be used to review model assumptions, verify computational model projections, and, when nece ssary, provide input for model refinements. As data are collected at an injection site, model pa rameters can be adjusted to match observations (i.e., for model calibration or), which in turn impr oves the predictive capabil ity of the model. As a GS project proceeds, both monitoring and modeling will evolve, with monitoring results supporting effective AoR reevaluations and leading to improved model predictions. EPA agrees that monitoring is a key elemen t of ensuring that US DWs are protected from endangerment. Tracking the plume and the posit ion of the pressure front during injection operations and the post-injection si te care period will provide important data for determining that the injectate is confined within the target formation, as well as for evaluating any risks within the AoR and ensuring protection of USDWs from endangerment. EPA also agrees with the commenter that data collected during site char acterization (such as ba seline geochemistry, preinjection reservoir pressure, etc.) are appropriate to ensure that baseline information is available to form the basis for comparison during GS ope ration and post-injection. For example, the baseline geochemical information will allow the owner or operator and permitting authority to evaluate monitoring data and identify any change s in subsurface geochemistry that may indicate fluid movement.

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21227 Letter Lines: 130 to 139 Comment Code: 3100 2.1 Proposed Geologic Siting Requirements (40 CFR 146.83) Comment: We believe that, that there should be a provision that prohibits interference among projects. Eventually, if sequestra tion becomes a big enough industry we

7would foresee a need for basic scale of regional management. Between now and then we think it's importa nt to nip problems in the bud, and we suggest that a new project not be allowed to interfere with an existing project in terms of the pressure fronts overla pping or other types of interference unless a finding is made that such a overlap doesn't degrade the effectiveness of either project. So then a rule lik e that would force people to space projects in a way that is proper. Individual Response: EPA believes that the extensive requirements for geologic site characterization (at §146.82), AoR evaluation (§1 46.84), and testing of the well during drilling (§146.87) are appropriate to ensure that permitting authorities have the necessary information to evaluate whether a specific site will allow safe injection of CO2. EPA adds that submittal and review of monitoring data (as required at §146.90) and the AoR reevaluation process (§146.84(e)) will provide an opportunity for an ongoing review of the site and a dialogue between the Director and the owne r or operator to ensure that th e project is being operated in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment. EPA believes that any natural gas storage operations would be found in si te characterization as would any faults or fractures.

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21228 Letter Lines: 141 to 149 Comment Code: 3200 2.2 Proposed Area of Review and Corrective Action Requirements (40 CFR 146.84) Comment: We, three more things, we think the ru le needs to assure that AoRs are calculated as intended and updated as nece ssary, we think a 10-year minimum is too short. And we think that there's just an uninte ntional flaw in the definition of area of review, it doesn't seem to specifically require the consideration of the pressure front and would refer you to the second sentence of the definition of geologic sequestration project for the kind of language we think needs to be imported into the AoR definition. Individual Response: EPA agrees that the AoR definition should account for the impact of the CO2 plume on USDWs. The Agen cy has carefully considered all comments on the AoR definition at 146.84(a) and modifi ed it to read as follows: Th e region surrounding the geologic sequestration project where USDWs may be e ndangered by the injecti on activity. The area of review is delineated using computational mode ling that accounts for the physical and chemical properties of all phases of the injected CO2 stream and is based on available site characterization, monitoring, and operational data . The computational models used for this purpose are required to predict the fate of inject ed CO2 and changes in formation pressure. EPA believes that the requirements at 146.84(c)(1) to delineate the AoR using computational modeling are appropriate and encompass the signif icant processes that could affect the location of the CO2 plume and associated pressure front.

8EPA agrees with commenters that reevaluations of the AoR every ten years may not be sufficient to appropriately model plume and pressure front movement, establish co nditions for corrective action, and ensure protection of USDWs from endangerment. For these reasons, the Agency changed the minimum frequency for the AoR re evaluation at 146.84(e) fro m 10 years to 5 years in the final GS rule. EPA believes that this re vised frequency addresse s commenters' concerns about the inherent un certainties in modeling CO2 moveme nt, the emerging nature of GS technology, risk-based targeting of monitoring activities, and th e unique nature of CO2 GS.

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21229 Letter Lines: 151 to 155 Comment Code: 4110 2.4.1.1 Injection pressure limitations Comment: One minute and two more comments. We thi nk injection pressure limits need to expressly require the consid eration of geo-mechanical information, not just the 90 percent of fracture pressure. A rule that is expressed in terms of percentage of fracture pressure ignores things like induced seismicity and the re-opening of faults. We think -- sophis ticated -- pressure than a requirement. Individual Response: EPA notes that because determination of the injection pressure limit is based on the fracture pressure of the injection zo ne, the limit is site-sp ecific and not arbitrary. EPA emphasizes that injection pressure limits ar e important to protect against fracturing of the confining zone, and that the requ irement at §146.88(a) that the pressure in th e injection zone not exceed 90 percent of the fracture pressure provides a margin of safety in the well operation and protects USDWs from endangerment. If the Dire ctor determines, based on a review of the information collected as part of site characterization, th at a lower injection pr essure limitation is appropriate, the Director has the authority to set a lower limit in the operating permit than the limit established in the rule. EPA notes that during the site characterization pr ocess, owners or operators must submit data about the geology of the site, as specified at §146.82(a), includ ing data on known or suspected faults and fractures and geomechanical informati on on fractures, stress, du ctility, rock strength, and in situ fluid pressures w ithin the confining zone. The Di rector will use these data to determine appropriate limits on injection. In response to the concern about reopening of faults at lower pressures than 90 percent of fracture pressure, EPA believes that the requireme nt for the owner or operator to submit data on known or suspected faults and fractures and inform ation on the seismic history of the site will inform the determination of an appropriate pressu re limitation in the permit. Any sites with the potential for reopening or reactivation of faults or unacceptable seismic risk that could otherwise interfere with containment will not be permitted as GS sites. EPA is developing guidance on site characterization for GS projects to assist owners or operators in meeting the requirements of §146.82 and to assist directors in evaluating permit applications. The guidance will describe recommended approach es for characterizing the regional geology and hydrogeology of a proposed site and performing the necessary geochemical, geomechanical, and
9geophysical analyses of the injection and confin ing zone. EPA is also developing guidance for primacy agencies that will include recommended a pproaches for evaluating owner or operatorsubmitted data in setting permit conditions. The gu idance will be available on EPA's web site, at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater /uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

Letter ID: 0510 Comment ID: 21230 Letter Lines: 157 to 160 Comment Code: 5300 2.8.3 Site closure activities (40 CFR 146.93) Comment: And my final point I've actua lly already made, which is that we suggest that you need to improve the standards for authorizing and site closure. Thank you. Individual Response: As described above, EPA disagrees that the rule should set specific criteria. EPA believes that many site-specific f actors will influence the determination of when the CO2 plume and pressure front no longer pose a ri sk of endangerment to US DWs. It is for this reason that EPA believes that individual UIC Direct ors, in consultation with operators, will be in the best position to determine whether additional post-injection site care is needed. EPA expects this decision to be made based on relevant site data and in consultati on with all potentially impacted parties. EPA is developing guidance to assist owners or operators in evaluating well plugging, postinjection site care, and site closure requirements of 146.92 and 146.93. Additionally, the guidance will assist Directors in evaluating propo sed well plugging plans a nd post-injection site care and site closure plans under 146.92 a nd 146.93. The guidance describes recommended approaches for how an owner or operator could plug injection and monito ring wells; demonstrate the appropriateness of an alternative post-inject ion site care time frame; perform post-injection monitoring; demonstrate non endangerment; and pe rform site closure act ivities. The guidance will be available at http://water.epa.gov/t ype/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm.

10