This comment letter response contains two parts:

(1) The original submittal from the commenter. (2) A data base printout of EPA’s response to each point raised by the commenter.

Notes about the response letters:

• The response letters were generated by a data base used to track the content of all public

comment submittals and ensure that the Agency responds to each. Each comment letter

was assigned a Letter ID that corresponds to the last four digits of the docket number of the

original comment (as posted on www.regulations.gov).

• Each response letter includes: comment text; an EPA

‐ assigned comment code; and an

individual response. These are described and explained below.

• The data base contains Comment text from the letters submitted by commenters.

Many hard copy letters were scanned into electronic format for inclusion in the data

base. As a result, there may be some typographical errors attributable to optical

character recognition issues. However, all original submittals were reviewed in the

process of drafting responses to ensure that the comment content was understood and

appropriately addressed.

• The content of each comment letter was divided into topic areas and assigned a unique

Comment ID. Additionally, one or more Comment Codes (i.e., unique topic area ID) was assigned to each discrete point raised by a commenter. This information was added to

the data base. To inform final rulemaking decisions, all comments and information

received on a given topic were reviewed by technical experts in each rule area (e.g., on

construction requirements).

• Following decisions on the final rule requirements, Individual responses were drafted

by topic area to ensure completeness and consistency of the responses with the final

rule and other responses to similar comments. Each discrete point made by a

commenter was given a unique response.

• Upon completion of comment responses, all information was entered into the data base.

Each letter response is a compilation of each comment and its individual response, compiled in the order of the original comment letter. As a result of this process, there is

repetition in the response text. The Agency believes this approach ensures completeness

and attention to each comment letter that was submitted.

• All comments in a topic area were reviewed, evaluated, and responded to concurrently.

Responses on each topic area are compiled and are also available in the rulemaking docket.United States Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

MC 2843 Washington, DC 20460

November 24, 2008

Re: Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0390)

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on th e proposed Federal Requirements for the Underground Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Ge ologic Sequestration Wells proposed July 25, 2008.

WORC is a network of grassroots organizati ons from seven states – Dakota Resource Council (North Dakota), Dakota Rural Action (DRA), Idaho Rural Council, Northern Plains Resource Council (Montana), Powder River Basin Resource Council (Wyoming) and Western Colorado Congress. Together , WORC and its member groups have 10,000 members, many of whom are family farmer s and ranchers, townspeople, and rural residents concerned about their communities and environment. In the 30 years since

WORC was founded, we have worked on a variet y of issues including coal and energy development, hard rock mi ning, air and water quality.

On behalf of our members, WORC urges EPA to establish as its highest priority the safety and effectiveness of the Carbon Di oxide Geologic Sequestration Wells program. We are very concerned that EPA is movi ng forward with a regulatory program for a technology that has yet to be demonstrated to be technologically and commercially viable on a large scale. It is possible that the first generation of geologic sequestration sites will experience a variety of problems, as demons trated by the FutureGen project, in which unanticipated technological challenges and budget overruns caused the Department of Energy to abandon the project.

Taking into account the potential challenges of this technolo gy that is not yet proven at scale, especially the unique ch allenges that the western US faces, we propose instead of going forward with large-scale implementati on of technology that is yet unproven and untested, that EPA focus intently on the resear ch and design aspect at a limited number of pilot sites to ensure that carbon capture and storage of CO2 is appropriate.

If EPA does go forward with its regulations , we urge you to use extreme caution and establish requirements that are as stringent as necessary, even though those requirements are likely to be more expensive th an other parts of the UIC program.Our primary concerns are as follows: 1) pr otecting water supplies from contamination 2) ensuring that geologic sequestrati on projects are safely sited, 3) protecting the interests of

landowners.

1) Water: As you are aware, drinking wate r supplies are at potential risk of contamination from CO2 and any other h azardous materials that are injected during geologic sequestration. All areas wh ere geologic sequestration will occur at important to the local people and economies as agricu ltural land, wildlife

habitat, residential land, or for countless other reasons – all of which rely on clean water supplies. Thus, we urge EPA to take all steps necessary to protect this irreplaceable resource at all sites wh ere geologic sequestration occurs.

Water: One alternative under consideration is a provision for Director's

discretion to allow injection above or between USDWs in specific

geologic settings where the depth of the USDWs may preclude GS,

make GS technically challenging, or significantly limit CO 2 storage capacity. Such approval by the Director would allow

injection between USDWs (and thereby allowing injection above the

lowermost USDW) in circumstances in which it may be demonstrated

that USDWs would not be endangered. An example where such

injection may be appropriate presents itself in areas such as the

Williston and Powder River Basins in Wyoming, North Dakota, and

South Dakota, where receiving formations (formations with large

CO 2 storage capacity) for GS have been identified above the

lowermost USDW and where there may be thousands of feet of rock

strata between the injection zone and the overlying and

underlying USDWs. In these cases, injection above or between

USDWs may be appropriate, however, the Agency currently lacks

data to demonstrate that such practices are or are not protective

of USDWs.

EPA is aware that the proposed requirement of injecting CO 2 below the

lowermost USDW may preclude injection into certain targeted geologic

formations, which may be storage sites currently under consideration

for GS. These formations may include unmineable coal seams (those not

being used for Class II enhanced coal bed methane production), zones in

between or above USDWs, and other formations also under consideration.

In areas of the country with very deep USDWs, the need to construct GS

wells beneath them may render GS technically impractical. As a result,

the Agency is considering and requesting comment on alternative

approaches that would allow injection between and/or above the

lowermost USDW, and thus potentially allow for more areas to be

available for GS while preventing USDW endangerment.

USDWs are potentially affected by CO2 stor age underground, particularly if there is leakage to the surface or cross-contaminati on through seepage of CO2 into an aquifer. Drinking water supplies cannot be easily cl eaned up or replaced once contaminated. Geologic sequestration should occur only in places wher e injections would not compromise the safety of the Undergr ound Sources of Drinking Water. Becausepreventing contamination and protecting wate r is of paramount importance, we oppose allowing any injections between and/or a bove the lowermost Unde rground Sources of Drinking Water. If EPA plans to grant such discretion, we urge you to develop detailed criteria in the regulations as to under what conditions such discretion could be exercised and release it for public comment ahead of time.

2) Siting: Geologic sequestration will require a lot of wells, roads, support facilities and other development. We expect that there will be many proposals for geologic sequestration in areas that are already s ubject to heavy energy development. It may seem appropriate to concentrate devel opment in areas, but we submit that the opposite may be true. Areas already impact ed by oil, gas and coal development will have underground fractures and fissure s that could make safe implementation of geologic sequestration a challenge.

3) Landowners: Land ownership may change thro ugh the course of a CCS facility’s

life. At some sites, the surface owner of a plot of land will not own the pore space underneath. Wyoming is the only state we are aware of that has clarified ownership rules, and clearly states that the surface owner ow ns the pore space for carbon storage, but Wyoming law allows ownership of the surface and pore space to be severed. Thus, it is likely that mu ltiple property rights will be involved in any geologic sequestration site, particul arly where geologic sequestration is proposed at sites where oil, gas a nd coal are already being developed.

One of the aspects of having split estate s is that the surface owner, who suffers most if a site is not appr opriately closed and reclaime d, may not be the party who is doing the actual closure and reclama tion work. In our e xperience, surface

owners often have little ability to ensure that ap propriate siting, operating, monitoring, closure and reclamation controls are in place. These landowners must rely on the regulatory agency to protect their interests.

Financial assurance:

a. EPA is assessing whether a financial ratings threshold for all

companies using a self-guarantee, similar to those used by other

Federal agencies, is appropriate. The Agency also is considering

what constitutes an appropriate financial rating threshold, and

whether a financial rating greater than BBB or Baa (i.e., the

current rating threshold established under the UIC regulations)

is appropriate for GS wells.

We do not think a financial ratings threshol d for all companies using a self-guarantee

similar to those of other Fede ral agencies is appropriate, a nd urge EPA to require bonds. Wyoming and North Dakota are the only states that allow self-bonding for coal, and that standard is fairly high. Requiring bonds doesn’t stop development, and helps ensure that funds will be available for cleanup if the co mpany fails to do the job for any reason.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.Sincerely,

Randy Joseph, WORC Board ChairLetter ID: 0240 Commenter: Randy Joseph Organization: Western Organi zation of Resource Councils

Letter ID: 0240 Comment ID: 23217 Letter Lines: 40 to 64

Comment Code: 1260 1.1.1.5 More certainty/stringency is needed

Comment: On behalf of our members, WORC urges EP A to establish as its highest priority the safety and effectiveness of the Ca rbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration Wells program. We are very concerned that EPA is moving forward with a regulatory program for a technology that has yet to be demonstrated to be technologically and commercially viable on a large scal e. It is possible that the first generation of geologic sequestration s ites will experience a variety of problems, as demonstrated by the Future Gen project, in which unanticipated technological challenges and budget overruns caused the Department of Energy to abandon the project.

Taking into account the potential challenges of this technology that is not yet proven at scale, especially the unique ch allenges that the western US faces, we propose instead of going forward with larg e-scale implementation of technology that is yet unproven and untested, that EP A focus intently on the research and design aspect at a limited number of pilo t sites to ensure that carbon capture and storage of CO2 is appropriate.

If EPA does go forward with its regulati ons, we urge you to use extreme caution and establish requirements that are as st ringent as necessary, even though those requirements are likely to be more e xpensive than other parts of the UIC

program.

Our primary concerns are as follows: 1) protecting water supplies from contamination 2) ensuring that geologic se questration projects are safely sited, 3) protecting the interests of landowners.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that the intent of the GS rule is not to set or control the pace at which GS is deployed. Rather, the purpose of the GS regulation is to ensure that GS, where deployed, is conducted in a manne r that protects USDWs from endangerment. The Class VI GS requirements are one way in which the Agency can achieve this goal. EPA does not intend to limit the scale of initial GS projects; each pr oject will be evaluated based on site-specific information about the ability of the geologic form ations to safely receiv e and confine injected CO2. However, the Agency agrees that a protective initial approach is ap propriate and additional safeguards are necessary, given the uncertainty asso ciated with the long-term effects of CO2 GS. EPA plans, every six years, to collect and review data on GS projects to determine whether the appropriate amount and types of information a nd appropriate documentation are being collected,

and to determine if modifications to the re quirements are appropr iate or necessary.

1Letter ID: 0240 Comment ID: 23218 Letter Lines: 66 to 72

Comment Code: 1610 1.3.1 Risks to USDWs

Comment: 1) Water: As you are aware, drinking water supplies are at potential risk of contamination from CO2 and any other h azardous materials that are injected during geologic sequestration. All areas wh ere geologic sequestr ation will occur at important to the local people and economies as agricultu ral land, wildlife habitat, residential land, or for countless other reas ons - all of which rely on clean water supplies. Thus, we urge EPA to take all steps nece ssary to protect this irreplaceable resource at all site s where geologic sequestration occurs.

Individual Response: The Agency agrees that drinking wa ter is an important resource to protect. The primary goal of the UIC Program under the SDWA is to protect USDWs from endangerment. Consistent with SDWA §1422, the UIC program provides that no injection shall

be authorized if it results in the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into USDWs, if the presence of that contaminant may cause a vi olation of any primary drinking water regulation or may adversely affect the health of persons as specified in §144.12.

The GS rule, as part of the UIC program regulations, continues the Program’s mandate under the SDWA of ensuring the protecti on of USDWs from endangermen t. EPA 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: 0240 Comment ID: 23219 Letter Lines: 74 to 112

Comment Code: 4420 2.4.4.3.2 Comments opposing injection above/between USDWs in all

cases

Comment: Water: One alternative under consider ation is a provision for Director's discretion to allow inject ion above or between USDWs in specific geologic settings where the depth of the USDWs may preclude GS, make GS technically challenging, or significantly limit CO2 st orage capacity. Such approval by the Director would allow injection between USDWs (and thereby allowing injection above the lowermost USDW) in circumstances in which it may be demonstrated that USDWs would not be endangered. An exam ple where such injection may be appropriate presents itself in areas such as the Williston and Powder River Basins in Wyoming, North Dakota, and Sout h Dakota, where receiving formations (formations with large CO2 storage capacity ) for GS have been identified above the lowermost USDW and where there may be thousands of feet of rock strata between the injection zone and the over lying and underlying USDWs. In these cases, injection above or between USDWs ma y be appropriate, however, the Agency currently lacks data to demonstrate th at such practices are or are not protective of USDWs.

2EPA is aware that the proposed requirement of injecting CO2 below the lowermost USDW may preclude injection into certain targeted geol ogic formations, which may be storage sites currently under consider ation for GS. These formations may include unmineable coal seams (those not be ing used for Class II enhanced coal bed methane production), zones in between or above USDWs, and other formations

also under consideration. In areas of the c ountry with very deep USDWs, the need to construct GS wells beneath them may render GS technically impractical. As a result, the Agency is considering an d requesting comment on alternative approaches that would allow injection be tween and/or above the lowermost USDW, and thus potentially allow for more areas to be available for GS while preventing USDW endangerment.

USDWs are potentially affected by CO2 stor age underground, particularly if there is leakage to the surface or cross-contam ination through seepage of CO2 into an aquifer. Drinking water supplies cannot be easily cleaned up or replaced once contaminated. Geologic sequestration should occur only in places where injections would not compromise the sa fety of the Underg round Sources of Drinking Water. Because preventing contam ination and protecting water is of paramount importance, we oppose allowing any injections between and/or above the lowermost Underground Sources of Drinking Water. If EPA plans to grant such discretion, we urge you to develop detailed criteria in the regulations as to

under what conditions such discretion coul d be exercised and release it for public comment ahead of time.

Individual Response: EPA agrees that protecting USDWs from endangerment must be a top priority. The Agency believes that there are limited circumstances where injection above the lowermost USDW can be performed in a manner that protects USDWs, as long as appropriate protections are in place. The final GS rule at §146.95 establishes a process by which owners or operators can seek a waiver of the Class VI in jection depth requirement s for injection into nonUSDW formations above and/or between USDWs. The waiver approach requires the submission of extensive, site-specific information (in conj unction 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. It establishes: 1) requirements specifying information that owners or operators must subm it, and Directors must consider, in consultation with PWSS Directors; 2) procedur es for public notice of a waiver application a nd for DirectorRegional Administrator communicat ion; 3) the waiver issuance process; and, 4) additional requirements that apply to owners or operators of Class VI wells granted a waiver of the injection depth requirements to ensure USDW protection above and below the injection zone.

The final rule also establishes limited circumst ances under which expansions of the areal extent of aquifer exemptions may be granted for ow ners or operators of Class II EOR/EGR wells transitioning to Class VI injec tion for GS. Additionally, the rule does not categorically preclude or prohibit inject ion into any type of formation.

EPA believes that the requirements at §146.95 w ill ensure USDW protection while providing flexibility to UIC Program Dir ectors and owners or operators who undertake CO2 injection for GS. The Agency believes this approach: 1) responds to concerns a bout local and regional

3geologic storage capacity limitations imposed by the proposed injection depth requirements; 2) allows for a more site-specific assessment of injection depth for GS projects; 3) accommodates injection into different formation types; 4) allo ws 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 aquifer exemptions for GS. Finally, EPA’s approach to addressing injecti on depth variability thr ough a waiver process responds to concerns about future drinking water resource availability and the need to ensure that high quality water remains available in sufficien t quantities to supply dr inking water needs. For additional information on the waiver approach, pleas e see the final rule and preamble, as well as EPA's responses to comments on the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment.

Letter ID: 0240 Comment ID: 23220 Letter Lines: 114 to 120

Comment Code: 3110 2.1.1 Proposed siting requirements (i.e., injection/confining zones, trapping mechanism)

Comment: 2) Siting: Geologic sequestration will require a lot of wells, roads, support facilities and other developm ent. We expect that ther e will be many proposals for geologic sequestration in areas that are already subject to heavy energy development. It may seem appropriate to co ncentrate development in areas, but we submit that the opposite may be true. Areas already impacted by oil, gas and coal development will have underground fract ures and fissures that could make safe implementation of geologic sequestration a challenge.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that it is not the intent of the GS rule to identify or set requirements for which areas may be or should be used for GS. Rather, the purpose of the rule is to ensure that where deployed, GS is conduc ted in a manner that protects USDWs from endangerment.

Letter ID: 0240 Comment ID: 23221 Letter Lines: 122 to 137

Comment Code: 1310 1.1.2.4 Comments on other "out of scope" issues, e.g., pore space ownership

Comment: 3) Landowners: Land ownership may change through the course of a CCS facility’s life. At some sites, the surface owner of a plot of land will not own the pore space underneath. Wyoming is the only state we are aware of that has clarified ownership rules, and clearly states that the surface owner owns the pore space for carbon storage, but Wyoming law allo ws ownership of the surface and pore space to be severed. Thus, it is likely that multiple property rights will be involved in any geologic sequestration site, particularly where geologic sequestration is proposed at sites where oil, gas and coal are already being developed.

One of the aspects of having split esta tes is that the surface owner, who

4suffers most if a site is not appropriate ly closed and reclaimed, may not be the party who is doing the actual closure and reclamation work. In our experience, surface owners often have little ability to ensure that appropriate siting, operating, monitoring, closure and reclama tion controls are in place. These landowners must rely on th e regulatory agency to pr otect their interests.

Individual Response: EPA clarifies that pore space ownership and surface and subsurface property and mineral rights are outside of the scope of the Class VI GS rulemaking, which focuses on ensuring consistency in permitting underground injection of CO2 at GS operations across the United States and provides requireme nts to prevent endangerment of USDWs in anticipation of the eventual use of GS to reduce CO2 emissions. EP A clarifies that these issues are under the purview of states a nd any of these issues, as they relate to GS, will need to be addressed though stat e regulations.

Letter ID: 0240 Comment ID: 23222 Letter Lines: 139 to 151

Comment Code: 5434 2.9.1.2 Need for additional instruments (seeking comment)

Comment: Financial assurance: a. EPA is assessi ng whether a financial ratings threshold for all companies using a se lf-guarantee, similar to t hose used by other Federal agencies, is appropriate. The Agency also is considering what constitutes an appropriate financial rating threshold, and whether a financial rating greater than BBB or Baa (i.e., the current rati ng threshold established under the UIC regulations) is approp riate for GS wells.

We do not think a financial ratings thre shold for all companies using a selfguarantee similar to those of other Federa l agencies is appropriate, and urge EPA to require bonds. Wyoming and North Da kota are the only states that allow self-bonding for coal, and that standard is fairly high. Requiring bonds doesn’t stop development, and helps ensure that funds will be available for cleanup if the company fails to do the job for any reason.

Individual Response: EPA will retain self-insurance as an option for financial responsibility for

Class VI wells. EPA believes that if properly used, the financial te st can be an appropriate option for some owners or operators. EPA recognizes that it is important for sel f-insurers to be creditworthy, otherwise USDWs may not be adequately protected. Owner or operators who choose to

self-insure and use the financial test must be ab le to demonstrate profit ability, with a margin sufficient to cover contingencie s and unknown obligations, and stab ility. If the owner or operator meets corporate financial test criteria, this is an indication that the owner or operator can guarantee its ability to satisfy fi nancial obligations based solely on the strength of the company’s

financial condition. If an owner or operator is not able to meet the corporate financial test criteria, it may arrange a corpor ate guarantee by demonstrating that its corporate parent meets the financial requirements on its behalf.

5